Simple and practical analysis of effect of soil liquefaction on response of

structure-pile system
Kotaro Kojima, Kohei Fujita & Izuru Takewaki
Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Eng., Kyoto University, Japan

ABSTRACT: The time-history response of a structure-pile system during soil liquefaction is highly compli-
cated and several analytical methods have been proposed through the comparison with the experimental
works. However the analytical methods with higher accuracy often require large computational loads and
are not necessarily preferred in the actual design practice. On the other hand, while the response spectrum
method is not accurate compared to the aforementioned methods, it can provide useful design guidelines in
the preliminary stage for structure-pile systems under soil liquefaction with acceptable accuracy. In this pa-
per, a response spectrum method for a structure-pile-soil system is used where the effect of soil liquefaction is
taken into account by introducing the so-called p-multiplier method. It is shown that, while in the case of
inner partial liquefaction with a non-liquefied layer at the top, the demand on the pile moment is large due to
the inertial effect of that non-liquefied layer at the top, in the case of overall liquefaction near the ground sur-
face, the demand is smaller than the case of inner partial liquefaction.

1 INTRODUCTION 1975)) have been used in practice. In the static

Since the 1964 Niigata earthquake (Idriss and Bou-
langer 2008), soil liquefaction is one of the major
subjects in the field of earthquake geotechnical en-
gineering. The 2011 Tohoku (Japan) earthquake also
caused a devastating damage to buildings and hous-
es due to soil liquefaction (AIJ 2012). While pile
foundations are effective for settlement of buildings
during and after liquefaction, its resistance in lateral-
ly spreading ground during soil liquefaction is not
necessarily clear. Actually during the 1995 Hy-
ogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake, many reports on
damaged piles were provided (AIJ 1995, Japanese
Geotechnical Society 1996, Takewaki 1998).
In the evaluation of pile bending moments, both
the effect of the forced displacement of a free-field
ground and the effect of the inertial force from a su-
perstructure have to be considered in an appropriate
manner (for example Gazetas & Dobry 1984,
Kavvadas & Gazetas 1993, Miyamoto et al. 1996,
Mylonakis et al. 1997, Murono & Nishimura 2000,
Tokimatsu et al. 2005, Kishida & Takewaki 2010,
Ashford et al. 2011). However these two effects
have different characteristics and it seems difficult
to include these in a simple way keeping a reasona-
ble accuracy. This is because the analysis of the
overall system is usually required in evaluating the
latter effect. Conventionally two methods (static
method and finite element method (Lysmer et al.
method, a seismic deformation mode of the surface
ground is assumed for evaluating the kinematic ef-
fect which is input to the soil-pile system and an as-
sumed inertial force is applied to the soil-pile system
for evaluating the inertial effect. However the stat-
ic method has a difficulty in its accuracy and the fi-
nite element method has some problems, e.g. huge
computational resources, complicated input data
preparation.
The time-history response of a structure-pile sys-
tem during soil liquefaction is highly complicated
and several analytical methods have been proposed
through the accuracy verification based on the com-
parison with the experimental works. However the
analytical methods with higher accuracy often re-
quire large computational loads and are not neces-
sarily preferred in the actual design practice. On
the other hand, although the response spectrum
method is not accurate compared to the aforemen-
tioned methods, it may be able to provide useful de-
sign guidelines in the preliminary stage for struc-
ture-pile systems under soil liquefaction with
acceptable accuracy.
In this paper, the ground motion is defined at the
engineering bedrock (see Figure 1) and a single-
input response spectrum method with well-designed
free-field-pile interaction is proposed (Figure 1(a)).
The previously proposed response spectrum method
(Kishida & Takewaki 2010, Nakamura et al. 1996,
Takewaki 2004, Kojima et al. 2013) in terms of GL- 0
sand SPT value=2 Ground A
complex modal quantities for a structure-pile-soil 5
sand SPT value=3
system is used where the effect of soil liquefaction is 10
clay SPT value=4
taken into account by introducing the so-called p- 15

Depth (m)
multiplier method (Ashford et al. 2011). This re- 20 clay SPT value=2

sponse spectrum method is based on the result for 25

SPT value=22
sand
superstructures (Igusa et al. 1984, Yang et al. 1990). 30

The p-multiplier method introduces a reduced coef- 35

clay SPT value=3
SPT value
ficient for the p-y relation. Two liquefaction mod- 40
clay Engineering Bedrock =44
0 100 200 300 400 500
els are investigated. It is shown that, in the case of shear wave velocity (m/s)

inner partial liquefaction with a non-liquefied layer Figure 4. Soil profile of ground model A and SPT values
at the top, the demand on the pile moment is large

0
due to the inertial effect of that non-liquefied layer

stiffness reduction ratio G/G

1.2 0.4

at the top and, in the case of overall liquefaction 0.35

damping ratio
1 stiffness
of clay damping ratio 0.3
near the ground surface, the demand is smaller than 0.8 of sand
0.25
stiffness
the case of inner partial liquefaction. The reliabil- 0.6 of sand 0.2
damping ratio
ity and accuracy of the single-input response spec- 0.4 of clay
0.15
0.1
trum method with the help of the p-multiplier meth- 0.2
0.05

od are investigated through the comparison with the 0

10
-6
10
-5
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2 -1
10
0

result by the time-history response analysis includ- shear strain

ing the multi-input from the free-field ground and Figure 5. Dependence of shear moduli and damping ratios on
the nonlinear restoring-force characteristics around the strain level
the pile.
2 RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD IN TERMS
distributed
springs OF COMPLEX MODAL QUANTITIES
S1 = k x1 + i cx 1
free-field finite
ground element
linear
free-field Consider two models (model 1 and model 2) as
disp. ground
z1 shown in Figure 2. Model 1 shows an inner partial
VS1 cubic VS1
liquefaction model with a non-liquefied layer at the

disp. u g1 ( z1 , t ) u p1 ( z1 , t )

E p , I p , mp
top and model 2 indicates an overall liquefaction
VS 2 E p , I p , mp
VS 2 model near the ground surface.

engineering bedrock
The mean value of the maximum bending mo-
engineering bedrock
E F ment and shear force at the pile head may be evalu-
2E
(a) (b) ated by
Figure 1. Two approaches to using acceleration response spec-
{Z s(i ) ss(ij ) Z s( j ) + 2Z s(i ) sc(ij ) Zc( j ) + Zc(i ) cc(ij ) Zc( j ) }
n n
tra at engineering bedrock surface, (a) FEM, (b) Winkler-type M max =
spring). i =1 j =1

{Ys(i ) ss(ij )Ys( j ) + 2Ys(i ) sc(ij )Yc( j ) + Yc(i ) cc(ij )Yc( j ) }

n n
Model 1 Model 2
Qmax =
i =1 j =1

liquefaction liquefaction
where
Liquefiable

() ()
Z s( ) = EI S Ds Re[ ( ) (i ) ] , Z c( ) = EI S Dc Re[ ( ) (i ) ]
soil

i i i i i i

() ()
Ys( ) = EI S Ds Re[ ( ) (i ) ] , Yc( ) = EI S Dc Re[ ( ) (i ) ]
i i i i i i
Figure 2. Two cases of liquefaction and analytical model

In the above equations, EI is the bending stiffness

acceleration response spectrum(m/s )
2

10
damping ratio=0.05 of the pile and ( i ) is the curvature component at
8 the pile head in the i-th complex eigenmode. (i )
is the derivative of the curvature component with re-
6 spect to the pile axial coordinate at the pile head in
(i ) (i )
safety limit the i-th complex eigenmode. S Ds and S Dc are
level input
4 the sine and cosine spectra, respectively, (assumed
S A = 5.12 / T
here to be equal to the displacement response spec-
trum) and ( i ) is the i-th complex participation fac-
2 damage limit
level input
S A = 1.024/T
0
0.16 0.64 tor. This method has been developed in the refer-
0 0.5 1 1.5
natural period(s)
2 2.5 3 ences (Kishida & Takewaki 2010, Nakamura et al.
1996, Takewaki 2004, Kojima et al. 2013) based on
Figure 3. Acceleration response spectrum
the accomplishments for superstructures (Igusa et al.
1984, Yang et al. 1990). The accuracy and reliabil-
ity of this method have been confirmed in the refer-
ences (Tassoulas & Kausel 1983, Kausel 2000).
The design earthquake ground motion defined in
the Japanese seismic-resistant design code (2000) is
employed. The acceleration response spectrum is
shown in Figure 3 (Safety-limit level).
3 GROUND MODEL
A surface ground model, referred to as ground
model A (rather soft ground) is considered which in-
cludes a liquefiable sand layer. However, the soil
is treated in this section as the non-liquefaction
model. The soil profile is shown in Figure 4. The
SPT values in the soil layers for ground model A are
also shown for reference. The mass density of sur-
face soil layers is assumed to be 1.8 103 ( kg / m3 )
and Poissons ratio is 0.45. The ground model A
consists of six soil layers on the engineering bedrock
(the mass density is assumed to be 2.0 103
(kg / m3 ) ). In this ground model, each soil layer
has been divided into sub-layers of thickness of
1(m). As a result, the ground model A consists of
38 sub-layers (engineering bedrock is one layer).
To evaluate the strain-dependent nonlinearity of
the ground, an equivalent linearization method
(Takewaki 2004, Schnabel et al. 1972, Ching & Gla-
Lysmers analogue velocity (= Vs here), the Win-
kler-type stiffness of the interaction spring (strain-
dependent equivalent one), the fundamental natural
circular frequency of the superstructure. The radia-
tion damping ratio is zero in 1 G and is linear
in G 1 2G . The final damping ratio at each
soil layer is evaluated at the fundamental natural
frequency of the superstructure as a frequency-
independent one. These data are used in the com-
putation of the kinematic effect, the inertial effect
and the total response. From Figures 6(a), (b), it
can be seen that the present response spectrum
method has a reasonable accuracy compared with
the SHAKE program.
The accuracy of the response spectrum method
has been demonstrated (Kishida and Takewaki
2010). A Winkler-type continuum model has been
used as another model. Another comparison has
been made with an actual record and the present
method has been proven to be accurate enough when
taking into account the strain-amplitude nonlinearity
of soil deposit (Takewaki 2005).
It will be shown in the next section that, by the
use of the response spectrum method, the distribu-
tions of bending moments in piles in the analysis of
the kinematic and inertial interactions can be ob-
tained efficiently.
0 0

ser 2001) has been used. The strain-dependent 5 5

nonlinear relations are shown in Figure 5 for clay 10 10 Ground A

safety limit level/
and sand which are taken from the Japanese seismic- 15 depth (m) 15
depth (m)

damping ratio
Ground A (spectrum method)
resistant design code (June 2000). The effective 20
safety limit level/
20 safety limit level/
damping ratio
strain equal to 0.65 (the maximum strain) is as- 25 stiffness ratio
(spectrum method)
25 (SHAKE)
safety limit level/
sumed and several iterations are conducted for con- 30
stiffness ratio
30
(SHAKE)
vergence. The derived stiffness reduction ratios 35 35

and equivalent damping ratios by the response spec- 40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
G/G0
trum method (Kishida & Takewaki 2010, Takewaki damping ratio
Figure 6. Convergent shear modulus ratio to the initial one and
2004) and the SHAKE program (Schnabel et al. damping ratio (safety limit level): response spectrum method
1972) for safety-limit level motion are shown in and SHAKE for one simulated motion (Takewaki 2004)
Figures 6(a), (b), respectively. The fundamental
natural period TG (= 2 / G ) of the ground model Table 1. p-multipliers to account for liquefaction
(Ashford et al. 2011)
A is 1.6(s). In case of using the SHAKE program,
ground-motion time histories are necessary and ten SPT Value p-multiplier
simulated ground motions have been used (Kishida <8 0.0 to 0.1
& Takewaki 2010, Takewaki 2004). 8-16 0.05 to 0.2
The damping ratios derived here are substituted 16-24 0.1 to 0.3
into the term of the hysteretic damping and the >24 0.2 to 0.5
following radiation damping is added to those ones
(Gazetas & Dobry 1984, Kavvadas & Gazetas
1993). 4 BUILDING MODEL ON GROUND MODEL
INCLUDING A LIQUEFIABLE SOIL LAYER
5

1
2k d V Vc 4 1d 4
cx = x 1 s s +
V V
1 + (1 2G ) A two-story building model is considered. The
G k x
s s floor mass of the building for a single pile is

40 103(kg) and the corresponding foundation mass
In this equation, cx , d , s , Vs , Vc , k x , 1 are is 120 103(kg). A cast-in-place reinforced con-
the damping coefficient of the interaction dashpot, crete pile is used and its pile diameter is 1.5(m).
the pile diameter, the soil mass density, the soil The Youngs modulus of concrete is 2.1 1010
shear velocity (strain-dependent equivalent one), the (N/m2) and the concrete mass density is 2.4 103
(kg/m3). The fundamental natural period TB of
the model with a fixed base is 0.3(s).
A coefficient 1/9 in the p-multiplier method has
been employed based on the work (Table 1: Ashford
et al. 2011). The coefficient has been multiplied on
the equivalent shear modulus of the liquefiable soil
(see Figure 6). The coefficient 1/9 is a little bit out
of recommendation (recommendation is 0.0-0.10),
but it seems reasonable judging from the complicat-
ed phenomena during soil liquefaction.
Figure 7 shows the pile bending moments after
liquefaction for models 1 and 2. Two reduced co-
efficients (1/9 and 1/100) in the p-multiplier method
have been employed (Ashford et al. 2011) and the
case of 1/9 is shown in Figure 7. It has been demon-
strated that the combination of the response spec-
trum method with the p-multiplier method for evalu-
ating the deterioration of soil resistance in liquefied
layers is a simple and effective method. It has also
been shown that, in the case of inner partial liquefac-
tion with a non-liquefied layer at the top, the de-
mand on the pile moment is large due to the inertial
effect of that non-liquefied layer at the top and, in
the case of overall liquefaction near the ground sur-
face, the demand is smaller than the case of inner
partial liquefaction. This may result from the effect
of action of the liquefied soil layer near the ground
surface on the pile. The softer ground stiffness
near the ground surface seems to weaken the action
on the pile by reducing the dynamic effect of the
liquefied soil in Liquefaction model 2.
Figure 8 presents the pile bending moments for
the non-liquefaction model. It can be found that
both liquefaction models exhibit larger bending
moments than the non-liquefaction model.
0 0
5 5
10
15
depth (m)
Response
Spectrum
Method
20
Nonlinear
Time-history
25
Response
Analysis
30
2-story (Ground A)
35
7 7
0 1 10 2 10
bending moment (Nm)
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Pile bending moment after liquefaction (left: model
1, right: model 2; reduced coefficient=1/9)
0
5
10
15
depth (m)
20
25
30
35
40
0 1 107
bending moment (Nm)
Figure 8. Pile bending moment (non-liquefaction, response
spectrum method)
5 COMPARISON WITH TIME-HISTORY RE-
SPONSE ANALYSIS
Since it seems important to investigate the accuracy
and reliability of the present response spectrum
method, a time-history response analysis has been
conducted and compared using the multi-input mod-
el (see Figure 1(b)) where the interaction spring is
modeled by the Hardin-Drnevich model (Hardin &
Drnevich 1972) and the Masing hysteretic rule.
The coefficient 1/9 has been multiplied on the shear
modulus of the liquefiable soil (from GL-4(m) to
GL-10(m)). In the multi-input model, the input
ground motions at many depth levels have been gen-
erated by using SHAKE program in consideration of
this coefficient and the interaction spring has been
modeled by taking this coefficient into account.
Figure 7(a) shows the comparison of the pile
bending moments between the present response
spectrum method and a multi-input model including
nonlinear horizontal interaction springs placed at
every pile node (every 1m) (Liquefaction model 1,
the coefficient of the p-multiplier method=1/9). It
can be observed that, while the present response
spectrum method provides somewhat different re-
sponse distributions of pile stresses due to the en-
semble-mean characteristic of the response spectrum
method, the overall properties can be predicted with-
in an acceptable accuracy. Especially the bending
moment at the pile top exhibits a good correspond-
ence.
In Figures 7 and 8, the pile was assumed to
behave elastically. In order to make the pile
response more realistic, the elastic-plastic behavior
of the pile is considered. The concrete strength is
21MPa and the stiffness-degrading trilinear model is
used.
kinematic
10 total
inertial
15
depth (m)
Response Spectrum Method
20
25
30
35
2-story (Ground A)
7
40 7 7 7
3 10 0 1 10 2 10 3 10
bending moment (Nm)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. (a) Force-deformation relation of the interaction
kinematic spring at the ground surface level, (b) Bending moment-
total
inertial rotation relation at the pile head
Figure 9(a) shows the force-deformation relation
of the interaction spring at the ground surface level
and Figure 9(b) presents the bending moment-
2-story (Ground A) rotation relation of the pile at the pile head.
2 107

(a)
(b)
Figure 10. Time-histories of the force and deformation of the
interaction spring at the ground surface level
Figures 10(a) and (b) illustrate the time-histories
of the force and deformation of the interaction
spring at the ground surface level .
(a)
(b)
Figure 11. Time-histories of the bending moment and rotation
at the pile head
Figure 11(a) and (b) show the time-histories of
the bending moment and rotation at the pile head.
Figure 12. Maximum displacements of pile and soil (Soil:
Nonliquefaction)
Figures 12(a) and (b) show the maximum
displacements of the pile and soil for the elastic pile
response and elastic-plastic pile response when the
soil is not liquefied.
Figure 13. Maximum displacements of pile and soil (Soil:
Liquefaction)
Figures 13(a) and (b) present the maximum
displacements of the pile and soil for the elastic pile
response and elastic-plastic pile response when the
soil is liquefied. It can be observed that the pile
displacement is influenced greatly by the inclusion
of the plasticity in the pile.
Figure 14. Time-histories of the pile-head displacement and the
free-field ground surface displacement
Figure 14 shows the time-histories of the pile-
head displacement and the free-field ground surface
displacement. A residual deformation can be
observed in the pile.
Figure 15. Bending moment-rotation relation at GL-10m
Figure 15 illustrates the bending moment-rotation
relation at GL-10m. It can be observed that the
pile rotation demand at GL-10m is not large
comapared to that at the pile head (Figure 9(b)).
This is because the pile head rotation is fixed.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions may be summarized as follows:
(1) A response spectrum method in terms of com-
plex modal quantities is a useful method for
evaluating the overall seismic responses of a
building-pile-soil model including a liquefiable
soil layer to a ground motion defined at the en-
gineering bedrock surface.
(2) The combination of the response spectrum meth-
od with the p-multiplier method for evaluating
the deterioration of soil resistance in liquefied
layers leads to a simple and effective method.
The reliability and accuracy of the p-multiplier
method have been investigated through the com-
parison with experimental results in the previous
research. The reliability and accuracy of the
single-input response spectrum method used in
the present paper with the help of the p-
multiplier method have been verified through the
comparison with the result by the time-history
response analysis including the multi-input from
the free-field ground and the nonlinear restoring-
force characteristics around the pile.
(3) While in the case of inner partial liquefaction
with a non-liquefied layer at the top, the demand
on the pile moment is large due to the inertial ef-
fect of that non-liquefied layer at the top, in the
case of overall liquefaction near the ground sur-
face, the demand is smaller than the case of inner
partial liquefaction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of the present work is supported by the Grant-
in-Aid for Scientific Research of Japan Society for
the Promotion of Science (No.24246095,
No.25630233). This support is greatly appreciated.
REFERENCES
AIJ (ed) 2012. Preliminary reconnaissance report of the 2011
Tohoku-Chiho Taiheiyo-Oki earthquake, Springer.
Ashford, S, Boulanger, R & Brandenberg, S. 2011. Recom-
mended design practice for pile foundations in laterally
spreading ground, PEER Report, No.PEER 2011/04.
Ching J-Y, & Glaser SD. 2001. 1D time-domain solution for
seismic ground motion prediction. J. Geotechnical Geoenvi-
ronmental Engineering, ASCE 127(1): 36-47.
Gazetas G. & Dobry R. 1984. Horizontal response of piles in
layered soils, J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE 110(1): 20-40.
Hardin, B.O. & Drnevich, V.P. 1972. Shear modulus and
damping in soils: Design equations and curves. J. Soil
Mech. Found. Div. ASCE; 98(SM7): 667-692.
Idriss, IM & Boulanger RW. 2008. Soil liquefaction during
earthquakes, EERI.
Igusa T, Der Kiureghian A & Sackman J 1984. Modal decom-
position method for stationary response of non-classically
damped systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 12(1): 121-136.
Japanese Geotechnical Society 1996. Special Issue of Soils and
Foundations.
Kausel E. 2000. The thin-layer method in seismology and
earthquake engineering, in Wave Motion in Earthquake En-
gineering, WIT Press, 193-213.
Kavvadas M & Gazetas G. 1993. Kinematic seismic response
and bending of free-head piles in layered soil. Geotechnique
43(2): 20722.
Kishida, A. & Takewaki, I. 2010. Response spectrum method
for kinematic soil-pile interaction analysis, Adv. in Struct.
Eng., 13(1), 181-197.
Kojima, K, Fujita, K. & Takewaki, I. 2014. Unified analysis of
kinematic and inertial earthquake pile responses via single-
input response spectrum method, Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, 63: 36-55.
Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai C-F & Seed HB. 1975. FLUSH: A
computer program for rapproximate3-D analysis of soil-
structure interaction problems, Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center Report/No. EERC 75-30, Univ. of California,
Berkeley.
Miyamoto Y, Fukuoka A, Adachi N & Sako Y. 1996. Pile re-
sponse induced by inertial and kinematic interaction in liq-
uefied soil deposit, J. Structural Construction Engineering,
AIJ, 482: 53-62 (in Japanese).
Murono Y. & Nishimura A. 2000. Evaluation of seismic force
of pile foundation induced by inertial and kinematic interac-
tion, Proc. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Paper No.1496.
Mylonakis G., Nikolaou A. & Gazetas G. 1997. Soil-pile-
bridge seismic interaction: Kinematic and inertial effects.
Part I; Soft soil, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 26: 337-359.
Nakamura T, Takewaki I & Asaoka Y. 1996. Sequential stiff-
ness design for seismic drift ranges of a shear building-pile-
soil system, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dy-
namics 25(12): 405-420.
Newmark NM & Hall WJ. 1982. Earthquake Spectra and De-
sign, Earthquake Eng. Research Institute, Berkeley, CA.
Schnabel PB, Lysmer J & Seed HB. 1972. SHAKE: A com-
puter program for earthquake response analysis of horizon-
tally layered sites, A computer program distributed by NI-
SEE/ Computer Applications, Berkeley.
Takewaki I. 1998. Remarkable response amplification of build-
ing frames due to resonance with the surface ground, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 17(4): 211-218.
Takewaki, I. 2004. Response spectrum method for nonlinear
surface ground analysis, Adv. in Struct. Eng., 7(6), 503-514
Takewaki I. 2005. Frequency domain analysis of earthquake
input energy to structure-pile systems, Engineering Struc-
tures 27(4): 549-563.
Tassoulas JL & Kausel E. 1983. Elements for the numerical
analysis of wave motion in layered strata. Int. J. Numerical
Methods in Eng. 19(7): 10051032.
Tokimatsu K., Suzuki H. & Sato M. 2005. Effects of inertial
and kinematic interaction on seismic behavior of pile with
embedded foundation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake En-
gineering 25: 753-762.
Yang JN, Sarkani S & Long FX. 1990. Response spectrum ap-
proach for seismic analysis of nonclassically damped struc-
tures, Engineering Structures 12: 173-184.