Shadlou, M. & Bhattacharya, S. Géotechnique [http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.P.

107]

Dynamic stiffness of pile in a layered elastic continuum

M . S H A D L O U  a n d S . B H AT TAC H A RYA †

A set of formulas for the dynamic stiffness of a pile (spring and dashpot coefficients) to use in inertial
interaction analysis is proposed, utilising elastodynamic solutions. The method is based on solving a
Lagrangian system of coupled equations for the pile and the soil motions for a range of vibration
frequencies and also by considering the vertical, radial and angular stresses on the pile–soil interface.
The solution extensively uses Bessel functions of the second kind and results are compared with
finite-element models and field pile load tests. A dimensionless frequency related to the well-known
active length of pile is proposed to separate inertial and kinematic interactions. A formula is also
proposed for estimation of the active length of a pile in a two-layered soil. A specific depth is
introduced beyond which soil layering does not have any appreciable effects on dynamic stiffness. It
is commonly (rather arbitrarily) assumed that the first natural frequency of soil strata differentiates
radiation (geometric) damping from hysteretic (material) damping for both types of interactions of the
pile–soil system. In contrast, this paper proposes a new formulation based on relative pile–soil
stiffness and frequency of the pile head loading to differentiate these two classes of damping
behaviour. The application of the formulation is shown through an example.

KEYWORDS: dynamics; piles; soil/structure interaction; stiffness

INTRODUCTION 3D effects in the interaction phenomenon. The main motiva-

One of the important parameters for dynamic analysis of a
soil–pile system using the beam-on-dynamic Winkler foun-
dation (BDWF) method is the dynamic stiffness of soil–pile
elements. To obtain the bending moment in a pile affected
by inertial or kinematic loading, and to analyse the behav-
iour of a superstructure supported on a pile embedded in a
layered soil, the accuracy of estimation of the pile–soil
stiffness is very important (e.g. see Mylonakis et al. (1997)
for linear soil–pile interaction effects and Liyanapathirana &
Poulos (2010) for liquefied ground).
The popular plane strain assumption developed by Novak
(1974) and Gazetas & Dobry (1984a) is based on the
translational vibration of a cylindrical rigid disc, embedded
in a solid continuum. Owing to the nature of the formula-
tion, the dynamic stiffness of each layer is represented by a
unique value related to soil and pile properties, and the
effects of shear distortion between each layer are ignored.
Kavvadas & Gazetas (1993) proposed a spring coefficient
for one- and two-layer soils considering kinematic inter-
action obtained from back analysis of the pile bending
moment from the finite-element model. Damping coefficients
are usually represented by hysteretic or radiation coeffi-
cients. The radiation damping formulation (see Table 1)
proposed by Gazetas & Dobry (1984a, 1984b) is the main
assumption in many research investigations (e.g. see Mylo-
nakis et al. (1997), Liyanapathirana & Poulos (2010) and
Dezzi et al. (2010)). In the current research, this parameter
will be evaluated for three-dimensional (3D) soil–pile dy-
namic interactions, and a new formulation will be proposed
for one- and two-layer soils. The plane strain dynamic
stiffness proposed in the current research can be distin-
guished from other research because of the consideration of
tion behind the study is to develop a robust, but also
numerically efficient framework for computation of dynamic
Winkler coefficients of pile–soil elements.
BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW OF DYNAMIC STIFFNESS
OF PILES
Because the analysis of pile behaviour using the modulus
of subgrade reaction approach requires knowledge of its
variation along the pile, Biot (1937), Vesic (1961), Davisson
& Gill (1963) and Bowles (1997) proposed a constant
subgrade modulus for each layer of soil. Broms (1964)
presented a model for subgrade reaction varying with depth.
Based on the one-dimensional (1D) wave propagation ideali-
sation (Lysmer & Richart, 1966; Berger et al., 1977),
Gazetas & Dobry (1984b) developed a simple model for
radiation damping coefficient comparable with the plane
strain case of a single pile embedded in different strata
(Novak, 1974; Nogami & Novak, 1977; Dobry et al., 1982;
Dobry & Gazetas, 1988; Makris & Gazetas, 1992). Yoshida
& Yoshinaka (1972), Roesset (1980), Kavvadas & Gazetas
(1993), Mylonakis (2001) and Sica et al. (2011) proposed
other types of dynamic stiffness characterised by a function
of elastic modulus of each layer. Kagawa & Kraft (1980)
developed plane strain dynamic stiffness valid for one-layer
soil and validated the spring coefficient proposed by Yoshida
& Yoshinaka (1972), and the radiation damping model
proposed by Berger et al. (1977). Tokimatsu & Nomura
(1991) and Cubrinovski & Ishihara (2004) proposed a reduc-
tion factor depending on pore-water pressure generation for
considering dynamic resistance from liquefiable strata. A
summary of the aforementioned research findings is shown
in Table 1.

Manuscript received 1 July 2013; revised manuscript accepted 23

January 2014.
Discussion on this paper is welcomed by the editor.
 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
† Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Surrey, UK.
ELASTODYNAMIC FORMULATION
Theory and assumptions
A single pile of length Lp and diameter Dp modelled by
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory and surrounded by an
n-layered, isotropic, linear elastic soil is considered for the

1
2 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
Table 1. Some recommendations for Winkler-type spring and dashpot coefficients of cylindrical piles

Research study Spring stiffness, kx Damping coefficient, C x

 0:108  1:108
: Es 1
Biot (1937) 1 315 Es –
Ep 1  2
 
0:836 Es 1=12
Vesic (1961) Es –
1  2 Ep
Lysmer & Richart (1966) – 2rs Dp (V s þ V p )
Davisson (1970) and Prakash & Sharma (1990) 67S u –
 
1:67 Es 1=12
Yoshida & Yoshinaka (1972) Es –
1   Ep
2

Roesset (1980) 1:2Es –

8 "   # 
>
> V La 5=4  3=4 1=4
>
s < 2rs Dp V s 1 þ V s
>
4
a0
Gazetas & Dobry (1984b) 1 , 1:2Es 2k x þ
ø >  3=4
>
>
>  1=4
: 4rs Dp V s a0
4
Dobry & O’Rourke (1983) 3Gs –
 1=8  1=8
3 Es Lp
Kavvadas & Gazetas (1993) Es –
1  2 Ep Dp
 1=8
Es
Mylonakis (2001) 6 Es –
Ep

 Undrained shear strength of the cohesive soils. Note also that E is Young’s modulus of soil; E is equivalent elastic modulus of pile;  is
s p s
hysteretic damping of soil material; Dp is pile diameter; V La is the so-called Lysmer analogue wave velocity;  is Poisson ratio of soil.

problem, see Fig. 1(a) for details. Hamilton’s principle for a and W is the work done by external loading. In order to
conservative system states that the integral of the difference solve this equation, it is assumed that the displacement of an
between kinetic and potential energies yields to a zero individual point can be described by the following displace-
variation. According to the Lagrangian theorem, the Lagran- ment vector obtained from the separation of variables in
gian function (L) is given by equation (1). cylindrical coordinates
8 9 8 9
u º  cos(Ł)eiøt >
L ¼ T  UT þ W (1) >
< r> = > < (z) (r) =
u(z,t,r,Ł) ¼ uŁ ¼ º(z) j(r) sin(Ł)eiøt (2)
where T is kinetic energy and U T is total potential energy, >
: > ; > : >
;
which also contains the strain energy stored in the system, uz 0

M(ω,t)
P ⫽ Po eiωt P ⫽ Po eiωt
N

P(ω,t) Layer 1
2r0 kx

Layer 1 H1 Layer 2
Layer 2 H2 Cx
⫽
...

L r
Layer j Hj

Layer n Hn Layer n

Layer n ⫹ 1
Half-space
Fictitious
pile

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Statement of the problem: (a) theoretical model; (b) inertial interaction and Winkler coefficients
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 3
where º(z,t) , (r) , j(r) are horizontal pile displacement at the strain tensor in cylindrical coordinates and after some
depth z and time t, horizontal soil displacement factor manipulations, the following equation is obtained for the
(longitudinal displacement) in radial direction located at a strain energy function stored in soil elements
radius r from the pile axis, and horizontal soil displacement
factor in circumferential direction located at a radius r ð1
1 ð"  2
 @
from the pile axis, respectively. ø is the frequency of U T;1 ¼ (ºs þ 2Gs ) º2
interest. Equation (2) is similar to the form presented by 2 @r
0 r0
Basu et al. (2009) if dynamic terms (eiøt ) are omitted. In
this study, it is assumed that vertical displacement of the
soil is neglected. Ł is the angle between the radius of an @ º 2
þ 2ºs ( þ j)
individual element and the loading direction. In order to @r r
link the pile motion to a specific element, the following
boundary conditions are applied to each individual infinite- º 2

simal layer þ (ºs þ 3Gs ) 2 ( þ j)2 (8)

8 8 r
< (r) ¼ 1 < (r) ¼ 0  2  
r ¼ r0 ) and r ! 1 ) (3)  2 @j  2 @j  þ j
: j ¼ 1 :j ¼ 0 þ Gs º  2Gs º
(r) (r) @r @r r
0 < Ł , 2 (4)  2 #
 @º
The above equations imply that the pile and soil displace- þ Gs (j þ  ) r dr dz
2 2
@z
ments possess equal value around the pile in radial and
circumferential directions, and that the soil displacements ð rð0
1  2
 @º
vanish at infinity. U T;2 ¼ Gs (j2 þ 2 )r dr dz
2 @z
Lp 0

Kinetic energy of the system. The translational kinetic energy

of the system can be divided into pile and soil separately and ð rð0
1  2

j(0<r<r0 ) ¼1,(0<r<r0 ) ¼1
 @º
is expressed as follows !¼ Gs 2r dr dz (9)
8 2 @z
> Lp 0
<Lðp
1 2
T¼ p º_ dz ð
1  2
2>: r2 @º
0 ¼ 0 
Gs dz
9 2 @z
Lp
ð 2ð 1
1 ð >
=
2
þ º_ (2r cos2 (Ł) þ j2r sin2 (Ł))rs r dr dŁ dz
>
0 0 r0
; where Gs ¼ Gs (1 þ 2is ) and ºs ¼ ºs (1 þ 2is ) are complex
Lame’s constants (Roesset & Angelides, 1980) of the soil
(5)
layer. s ¼ 0:5 tan( ) is material damping and is loss
angle. Equation (9) expresses the strain energy for the
fictitious pile.
Potential energy of the system. The potential energy of the The third term of the potential energy of the system is
system is composed of three separate terms: (a) the flexural the work done by the external pile-head loading. It is
strain energy stored in the pile; (b) the strain energy stored in assumed that the pile is subjected to horizontal force,
any individual soil element; and (c) the work done by the bending moment and axial load on the pile head (compres-
external pile-head loading. The strain energy of the pile is sion force is positive) and the work done can be expressed
given by as follows
Lðp  2 2
1 dº  ð  2
1
UT ¼ EP I P dz (6) dº 1 dº
2 dz2 W ¼ Pºjz¼0 M  þ N dz (10)
0
dz z¼0 2 dz
0

where EP I P is the flexural rigidity of the pile.

Using the theory of elasticity, the strain energy of a solid
element can be expressed by the strain energy density func- P is the translational horizontal load, M is the bending
tion stored in soil around the pile and a fictitious pile moment acting at the pile head and the third term is the
(extension of the original pile) extension in cylindrical work done by axial force (N) applied at the pile head.
coordinates (Fig. 1(a)) It may be noted that equation (10) considers the
axial–lateral interaction effects of axial load. Owing to
ð 2
1 ð1 ð ð 2
1 ð ðr0 the generalised nature of equation (10), it is possible to
1 1
UT ¼ Tij  ij r dr dŁ dz þ Tij  ij r dr dŁ dz solve the soil–pile system for all kinds of pile head
2 2
0 0 r0 Lp 0 0 loading.
¼ U T;1 þ U T;2
(7)
Equation of motion for the system. The Lagrangian form of
where  ij is the i, j component of stress tensor and ij is the action expressed in equation (1) can be obtained by
i, j component of strain tensor of the soil element. Owing to substituting equations (5), (8), (9) and (10)
4 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
ðð Lðp half-space, the pile motion is solved by considering the optimi-
1 2 sation problem owing to the free boundary condition case. So,
S¼ L dz r dr ¼ p º_ dz
2 for the aforementioned equations, Euler–Lagrange equations
0
and transversality conditions must be satisfied simultaneously
ð1
1 ð Lðp  2 by assigning A(z) ¼ B(z) ¼ C (z) ¼ D(r) ¼ E(r) ¼ 0 in the follow-
 2 1 d2 º ing equation, abbreviated from equations (13), (14) and (15)
þ º_ ( þ j )rs r dr dz 
2 2
EP I P dz
2 2 dz2 8 Ð
0 r0 0
> ( A(z)
(z) ) þ B(z)
(z) þ C (z)
9(z) ¼ 0
8 <
< ð ð
> 11  2 D(r) (r) ¼ 0 (16)
@ >
 [(ºs þ 2Gs ) º2 :
E(r) (r) ¼ 0
>
:2 @r
0 r0

@ º2 º2 Since the pile is under a steady-state vibration

þ 2ºs ( þ j) þ (ºs þ 3Gs ) 2 ( þ j)2
@r r r
 2   º(z,t) ¼ º(z) eiøt (17)
 2 @j  2 @j  þ j
þ Gs º  2Gs º
@r @r r
 2 ) Substituting equation (11) into equation (13) and using
 @º equation (17)
þ Gs (j2 þ 2 )]r dr dz
@z
Lðp
2 3 n h i o
2 ð
1  2
r0 @º Ep I P º+
(z) þ ˆº0
(z) þ   (p þ )ø º
(z¼0,Lp ) dz
2
64 2 Gs dz7 5 þ Pºjz¼0
@z 0
Lp
ð
1
 
 ð  2
1 þ ˆº (0z) þ (  ø2 )º
(z¼Lp ,1) dz
dº 1 dº
M  þ N dz Lp
dz z¼0 2 dz
0   z¼Lp   z¼1
(11) þ ˆº9(z) þ Ep I P º-
(z)
(z¼0,Lp ) jz¼0 þ ˆº9(z)
(z¼Lp ,1) jz¼Lp

  z¼L
In the above equation, the superimposed dot ( _ ) and þ Ep I P º0(z)
9(z¼0,Lp ) jz¼0 p þ P
(z) jz¼0  M
9(z) jz¼0 ¼ 0
superimposed dash ( 9 ) represent the derivation with respect (18)
to time (temporal) and z (spatial) aspects respectively and
the equation can be simplified by a short, compact form as
described in equation (12).
ðð where
S¼ _ º9z , º0z , , j, 9r , j9r )dz r dr
L(z, r, º, º, (12) (
ð
1  2  
  d  d  dj
Because the above Lagrangian comprises three kinds of ¼ r(ºs þ 2Gs ) þ 2( þ j) ºs  Gs
functions (º(z,t) , (r) , j(r) ), the Euler–Lagrange equation of dr dr dr
r0
the action S could be separated by equations (13), (14) and
(15) as  2 )
8 " 9 1   2  dj
ð <1
1 ð      # =
þ (ºs þ 3Gs )( þ j) þ rGs
r dr
dr
@L @ @L @ @L @ 2 @L
  þ 2
(z) dz 8 " #
: @º @z @º9z @t @ º_ @z @º0z ; > Ð
1
r0 0 > 
> N   rGs ( þ j )dr
2 2
0 < z , Lp
  z¼1  z¼1 >
>
>
< r0
@L @ @L  @L 
dr þ
(z)   þ
9 ˆ¼
@º z0 z¼0
( z)
@º9z @z @º0z > " #
z¼0 >
> Ð
1
  >  
: N   r rGs ( þ j )dr þ r0 Gs
>
>
2 2 2
Lp < z , 1
þ P
(z) z¼0  M
9(z) z¼0 ¼ 0 0

(13) 8 1
8 9 > Ð
ð
ð >1
1   >  >
>  rrs (2 þ j2 )dr 0 < z , Lp
< @L @ @L = @L r¼1 >
>
< r0
 (r) dr dz þ (r) ¼0
>
:r @ @r @9r >
; @9r r¼r0 ¼
>
> Ð
1
0 0 >
>
:  rrs ( þ j )dr þ r0 rs
> 2 2 2
Lp < z , 1
(14) r0
8 9
1 ð
ð >1<   >
=  (19)
@L @ @L @L r¼1
 (r) dr dz þ (r) ¼0
>
:r @j @r @j9r >
; @j9r r¼r0
0 0 One can then write the corresponding equation for the
(15) pile embedded in n-layered soil overlying the half-space, as
shown in Appendix 1. To extend the formulation to soil
Because the soil motion is restricted by fixed boundary motion, the following system of differential equations needs
conditions and the pile motion is a free boundary condition at to be solved
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 5
8    
1ð     > 1d d dj S 1  S 3 (S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j)
1d d dj S 1  S 3 >
> S1 r þ 
S1 r þ >
>
r dr dr dr r >
> r dr dr dr r r2
>
>
r0 <  (S þ S ø2 ) ¼ 0
4 5
    
> 1d
> dj d S 1  S 3 (S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j)
(S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j) (20) >
> S r  
  (S 4 þ S 5 ø ) (r) dr
2 >
> 3
r 2 >
> r dr dr dr r r2
>
:
   (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 )j ¼ 0
d (23)
þ (r) S 1 r þ S 2 ( þ j)jr¼1
r¼r0 ¼ 0
dr
1ð     Owing to the displacement vector (equation (2)), the
1d dj d S 1  S 3 following dilatational and rotational strains have been devel-
S3 r  oped as
r dr dr dr r
r0 8
>
> 1 d(rU r ) 1 dU Ł 1 d(r) j
 < ¼ þ ¼ þ
(S 1 þ S 3 )( þ j) (21) r dr r dŁ r dr r
  (S 4 þ S 5 ø 2
)j (r) dr (24)
r2 >
>
:w ¼ 1 d(rU Ł ) 1 dU r 1 d(rj) 
   ¼ þ
r dr r dŁ r dr r
dj r¼1
þ (r) S 3 r þ S 2 ( þ j)jr¼r0 ¼ 0
dr Substituting equation (24) into equation (23) results in
8  
>
> d S 3 dw
where > S1
<   (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 ) ¼ 0
dr r dŁ
  (25)
ð
1 >
> S 1 d dw
>
: þ S3  (S 4 þ S 5 ø )j ¼ 0
2
S 1 ¼  (ºs þ 2Gs )º2 dz r dŁ dr
0
The above equation can be represented by introducing the
following potential functions
ð
1
8 8
S2 ¼  ºs º2 dz >
> d 1 d >
> d 
< Ur ¼ þ < ¼ þ
dr r dŁ dr r
0 ) (26)
>
>
: UŁ ¼ 1 d d >
>
:  d
 j¼ 
ð
1 r dŁ dr r dr
S3 ¼  Gs º2 dz (22)
Finally, combining equations (25) and (26) gives
0
(
S 1 =2   (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 ) ¼ 0
ð
1  2 (27)
dº S 3 =2   (S 4 þ S 5 ø2 ) ¼ 0
S4 ¼  Gs dz
dz
0 where =2 is Laplacian in polar coordinates. Equation (27)
can be solved by Bessel functions as follows
ð
1

S5 ¼  rs º2 dz  ¼ ½A1 I 1 (qr) þ B1 K 1 (qr)

(28)
0  ¼ ½A2 I 1 (sr) þ B2 K 1 (sr)
where
8
Solution of the system equations. The formulation presented >
> S 4 þ ø2 S 5
>
< ¼ q2
in the previous section demonstrates that soil and pile S1
motions are coupled because of their coefficients. To solve (29)
>
> S 4 þ ø2 S 5
the above coupled system, the first trial for soil motion’s >
: ¼ s2
coefficients (S1 to S5 ) needs to be estimated, then the soil and S3
pile motions can be evaluated, and finally through iterations where I j ([]) and K j ([]) are modified Bessel functions of the
S1 to S5 can be obtained. Minimising the difference between first and second kind respectively of the order j. Because the
assumed and obtained S1 to S5 , it is possible to obtain the modified Bessel function of the first kind is exponentially
updated constant parameters, accurate soil motion and pile growing function, it is assumed that A1 and A2 will be zero
motion for any individual frequency. Each layer of soil is to provide the infinity boundary conditions represented in
characterised by a system of coupled differential equations equation (3). Finally,  and j can be rewritten as follows
(equations (20 and (21)). On the other hand, a pile segment in
each layer will require the solution for a differential equation 1
 ¼  ½B1 K 1 (qr)  B2 K 1 (sr)  B1 qK 0 (qr)
(or partial differential equation in time-domain analysis). So r
there is one system of differential equations and n + 1 partial (30)
1
differential equations for the soil and pile motions, respec- j ¼ B2 sK 0 (sr)  ½B1 K 1 (qr)  B2 K 1 (sr)
tively. r
The boundary condition introduced in equation (3) must
be satisfied, so the constant parameters B1 and B2 will be
Soil motion and dynamic stiffness. The system of differential calculated. Differentiation of equation (30) with respect to
equations describing the soil motion is as follows radius yields equation (31).
6 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
d 1
¼ ½B1 qK 0 (qr)  B2 sK 0 (sr) w⫽
dr r 10
m
2 m
40
þ 2 ½B1 K 1 (qr)  B2 K 1 (sr) þ B1 q2 K 1 (qr) L⫽
r
(31)
dj 1
¼ ½B1 qK 0 (qr)  B2 sK 0 (sr)
dr r
2
þ ½B1 K 1 (qr)  B2 K 1 (sr)  B2 s2 K 1 (sr)
r2

The horizontal resistance of the soil layer (equation (32))

and the plane-strain dynamic stiffness of the soil–pile
system (equation (33)) can be written as

H ⫽ 20 m
2ð

p(z) ¼ r0  r(r0 ) cos(Ł)  rŁ(r0 ) sin(Ł) dŁ (32)

0

And,
"   #
p(z) d dj
K (z) ¼ ¼ r0 (ºs(z) þ 2Gs(z) )  Gs(z) 
º(z) dr r¼r0 dr r¼r0
(33)
The above system of equations can conveniently be solved
by conventional mathematical tools. Fig. 2. Comparisons with 3D finite-element model (in this figure,
pile diameter has been scaled by two times the real value)

Validation
Validation by comparing with finite-element model. Finite-
element analyses have been carried out to evaluate the research is shown in Table 3, which clearly shows the
validity of the proposed method. The open system for efficiency of the present formulation.
earthquake engineering simulation (Opensees) based 3D
finite-element code for pile foundations in elastic media
(Mazzoni et al., 2006) has been used to analyse the validity
Validation by comparing with experimental pushover loa-
of the developed solution. Fig. 2 depicts the 3D finite-
ding. McClelland & Focht (1958) performed a static push-
element model. Soil is modelled as a linear elastic material
over test together with external bending moment on a pile in
and a free head pile is subjected to dynamic pushover lateral
normally consolidated clay. Details of soil and pile properties
load. Pile displacement and bending moment have been used
have been back-calculated by Randolph (1981) (see also Basu
as benchmarks for the proposed solution. Table 2 shows the
et al. (2009)). This pile was loaded by a lateral force
detail of the soil and pile properties. This sample shows
P ¼ 300 kN, bending moment M ¼ 265 kN m and zero
the result of a single pile embedded in elastic half-space. The
axial loading. Randolph (1981) analysed this example with a
boundaries of the soil model in the finite-element model were
finite-element model assuming a linear variation of soil shear
extended to a horizontal distance of 50Dp from the centre of
modulus with depth (circa 0.8z MN/m3 ) and Poisson ratio of
pile to avoid spurious wave reflection into the system. (Seed
0.3. The same assumptions for soil and pile properties are
& Lysmer (1978) proposed 25 Dp for this limitation.) Fig. 3
considered in this research. Fig. 7 compares the results
illustrates the pile displacement for static and dynamic
obtained from field measurement, finite-element model and
pushover tests where the dynamic test was carried out for a
the current analysis. A very close match is evident.
vibration frequency of 21.06 Hz (as high-frequency vibra-
tion). Fig. 4 demonstrates pile bending moment for the tests.
It is observed that the proposed method provides an
acceptable match with the 3D finite-element model. Figs 5 APPLICATION OF THE FORMULATION
and 6 on the other hand, plot the normalised soil Inertial interaction
displacement ( and j) as defined in equation (2) against When a pile is vibrating loaded at its top, it imparts
normalised radial distance from the pile centre at t ¼ 0 and energy to the system. Part of the energy is then transferred
t ¼ 0:285 s, which correspond to static and dynamic loading, to the soil and it eventually decays spatially with depth (Fig.
respectively. These figures represent the validity of the model 1), as well as radially. Depending on the soil properties near
with respect to reduction of soil displacement at distances the pile top, large bending moments are generated at and
from the pile centre. The comparison of the computation time below the pile head. The parameters that are required in the
between the 3D finite-element model and the presented analysis are

Table 2. Detail of parameters used in the finite-element model

L: m Dp : m Ep : MPa rp : kg/m3 n Es : MPa rs : kg/m3 ıs s : % Pile head condition

10 0.4 68780 1495.3 1 22.446 2010 0.25 10 Free head, P ¼ 140 kN

 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 7
0 0

2 2

4
4
Depth: m

Depth: m
6
6

8
8

10
⫺0·001 0·001 0·003 0·005
10
Displacement: m ⫺20·0 20·0 60·0
(a)
Bending moment: kN m
(a)
0

2
Present research
4
Finite-element model
Depth: m

4
Depth: m

6 Present research

6
Finite-element model
8

10
⫺0·001 0·001 0·003 0·005
Displacement: m
(b)
10
⫺20·0 20·0 60·0
Fig. 3. Pile displacement in respect of different types of pile head
Bending moment: kN m
vibration: (a) static pushover test; (b) dynamic pushover test with
(b)
vibration frequency 21.06 Hz
Fig. 4. Pile bending moment in respect of different types of pile
(a) loading (vibration frequency, magnitude and type of head vibration: (a) static pushover test; (b) dynamic pushover test
with vibration frequency 21.06 Hz
loading)
(b) soil properties
(c) length of pile affected by pile-head loading.
hysteretic and radiation regions. Meanwhile, the previous
A formulation should link all of the above parameters and model of dynamic stiffness can be calculated from the
propose robust spring and damping coefficients for inertial presented form by a transfer matrix. Since k x and cx are
interaction, as shown by equation (34). frequency dependent, two normalised coefficients (S x1 and
( ) 0 1( ) S x2 ) are suggested to make the regression analysis straight-
kx 3 @ 1 2s a0 A S x1 forward; these are presented by design charts. a0 ¼ ørp =V s
¼ Gs 2 s r p (34)
cx 2 S x2 is a dimensionless frequency.
ø Vs Two values of frequency are considered for normalising
purposes and to present the results: (a) zero frequency,
Equation (34) has some advantage over the conventional which represents static stiffness, S x1(ø¼0) , and (b) high-
dynamic stiffness model (k x þ iøC x ) in the sense that effects frequency point, which may be characterised by full radia-
of material damping (s ) are subtracted from dashpot and tion damping as S x2(ø!1) : It may also be noted that these
spring coefficients to better evaluate those parameters in the normalising parameters consider material properties to
8 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
1·0 1·0

Current research Current research

0·8

0·8 Finite-element model Finite-element model

0·6

0·6 0·4
φ(r)
φ
0·2

0·4
0

0·2 ⫺0·2

⫺0·4
0 20 40 60 80
0 r/r0
0 20 40 60 80 (a)
r/r0
(a)
0·4
0
0·2

⫺0·2 0

Current research ⫺0·2

⫺0·4 ϕ(r)
Finite-element model
⫺0·4 Current research
ϕ

Finite-element model
⫺0·6 ⫺0·6

⫺0·8
⫺1·0
0 20 40 60
r/r0
(b)
Fig. 5. Bi-normalised longitudinal displacement of soil in static
pushover loading at: (a) longitudinal plane crossing pile centre at
ground level (ö); (b) transverse plane crossing pile centre at
j)
ground level (j
reduce design charts. Two kinds of loading (quasi-static and
dynamic) are considered by defining two margins in zero
and high frequencies. Hence three important parameters will
be investigated hereafter, namely: (a) static spring coefficient
(S x1(ø¼0) ), (b) radiational dimensionless frequency (a0r ) for
transferring quasi-static loading to dynamic loading and (c)
radiation damping at high-frequency vibration (S x2(ø!1) ).
⫺0·8
⫺1·0
0 20 40 60 80
r/r0
(b)
80
Fig. 6. Bi-normalised longitudinal displacement of soil in
dynamic pushover loading (t 0.285 s) at: (a) longitudinal plane
crossing pile centre at ground level (ö); (b) transverse plane
j)
crossing pile centre at ground level (j
Strictly speaking, inertial and kinematic interactions
simultaneously affect the pile behaviour in seismic zones.
Applying the superposition method, it is possible to separate
kinematic and inertial interaction and solve each problem
individually (Makris & Gazetas, 1992; Mylonakis et al.,
1997). Although this assumption is strictly valid for a linear
system, it can also be applied to a moderately non-linear
system as an engineering approximation. Kinematic inter-
action is applied through the soil motion during the earth-
quake, and inertial interaction is applied by D’Alembert

Table 3. Timing complexity of two models

Model The configuration of the platform Average time consumption

Finite-element (no. of elements: 6930) CPU: Intel core 2 duo RAM: 4 GB 46 min
Present research CPU: Intel core 2 duo RAM: 4 GB 21 s
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 9
Pile displacement: mm
influenced by frequency, represented by radiation dimension-
⫺5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 less frequency (which is dependent on Ep =Es ).
The definition of radiation dimensionless frequency (a0r )
in terms of active length of pile (Lac ), is given by
rp
5 Lac ¼ (36)
2a0r
Figure 8 plots the regression analysis to present the
10 Experimental results radiation dimensionless frequency as a function of Ep =Es :
Depth: m

Randolph (1981), finite-element model Substituting a0r into Lac results in

Current research  0:23
Ep
15 Lac ¼ 2:78 Dp (37)
Es

Several empirical or numerical formulations have been

20
25
Fig. 7. Comparison of measured displacements in experiment
with current study
forces at the pile-head mass and superstructure. According
to these two distinct interactions, the natural period of the
soil stratum and the fundamental period of the soil–pile–
superstructure system are two critical points where detrimen-
tal forces and bending moments on pile or pile-cap are most
likely to occur.
proposed for the homogeneous and the inhomogeneous layer
(e.g. see Randolph, 1981; Gazetas & Dobry, 1984a; Davies
& Budhu, 1986; Gazetas, 1991; Fleming et al., 1992; Syn-
gros, 2004) to estimate the active length of pile. A compari-
son between the proposed formulation and the previous
research is provided in Fig. 9. The proposed formulation is
similar to Gazetas & Dobry (1984a) and Syngros (2004).
Although active length of pile embedded in homogeneous
and inhomogeneous strata is well investigated, effects of soil
layering on active length of pile is poorly understood and a
formulation does not exist in the literature. The current
section focuses on this aspect.
The top layer mostly influences the pile behaviour and
hence the active pile length. The following equation has
0·16

Spring and dashpot coefficients

Radiation dimensionless frequency. There is an accepted a0r ⫽ 0·28 (Ep/Es)⫺0·23
0·12
definition for active pile length (Lac ), beyond which the pile
is assumed to behave as an infinitely long pile, and can be
estimated by pushover static loading. In this section, an
attempt has been made to obtain the active length for a0r 0·08
dynamic pushover loading, and relate this to radiation
dimensionless frequency. Blaney et al. (1976) introduced
the fundamental (shear) frequency of the stratum,
0·04
ø1 ¼ V s =2Lp , to demonstrate the starting point of the
radiation damping for a pile clamped at bed-rock. This
assumption is widely used in practice. Dobry et al. (1976),
Velez et al. (1983) and Gazetas & Dobry (1984a) proposed 0
an alternative starting point for radiation damping as follows 10 100 1000 10 000
Ep/Es
 :
V s Lp 0 5
ø1 ¼ 1:2 (35) Fig. 8. Dimensionless frequency of the starting point for radiation
Lp Dp damping as a function of (EP /ES ). Note that EP is not the Young’s
modulus of the pile but the equivalent modulus
It can be shown that the margin between first and second
phases (quasi-static and dynamic) of pile vibration can be
30
characterised by Ep =Es , as the soil and pile properties will Gazetas & Dobry (1984)
influence the starting point of radiation damping. It is also Davies & Budhu (1986)
25
observed that the drop of spring coefficient may also be Gazetas (1991)
represented by a dimensionless frequency in the plane strain
20 Fleming et al. (1992)
model developed by Nogami & Novak (1977) and Gazetas
Syngros (2004)
& Dobry (1984a). Furthermore, Poisson ratio and material
Lac/Dp

damping of the soil media do not have any considerable 15 Present research
effects on radiation dimensionless frequency, a0r : This point
(radiation frequency relevant to a0r ) depicts the drop of 10
spring coefficient and a margin for changing material damp-
ing to geometric damping so it can be presented as a 5
function of maximum active length. This parameter can also
separate two conventional viewpoints on the soil–pile inter- 0
10 100 1000 10 000
action problem, called the kinematic and inertial inter- Ep/Es
actions. It means that kinematic interaction will be
influenced by fundamental shear frequency of the stratum Fig. 9. Comparison between present and previous research stud-
(which is independent of Ep =Es ), but inertial interaction is ies on active length of pile embedded in one layer of soil media
10 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
1·7
been proposed for the active length of pile in a two-layer Ep/Es ⫽1000
soil
Ep/Es ⫽10 000
 0:23 1·5
Ep
Lac ¼ 2:78Dp  (38)
Es1
1·3

where

[δ1]ω⫽0
  1·1
H 1 Es2
¼ f

unloading/reloading
, (39)

Saturated soft clay

granular materials
Lac1 Es1

Loose sand and

Cement-treated
0·9

Soils under
In the above equations, Es1 represents the Young’s mod-

silty sand
ulus of the top layer of the stratum. Lac1 is the active length 0·7
of pile calculated using equation (37), which represents the
expected active length of pile if the full stratum is covered
by a top layer. Fig. 10 presents the modification factor (). It 0·5
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
shows that when the bottom layer is stiffened, the active νs
length decreases. (a)
Once Lac is obtained, it is possible to back-calculate the
radiation dimensionless a0r using equation (36). νs ⫽ 0·45, L/D ⫽ 40
3·5
Proposed spring
Static stiffness (Sx1( ø¼0) ) coefficient – inertial
It can be shown that the dynamic stiffness is a function of 3·0
Mylonakis (2001) –
the vibration frequency, H 1 =L, Es2 =Es1 and Ep =Es1 for fixed- kinematic
head piles under lateral dynamic loading. Static Winkler
modulus (k x ) is proposed (equation (40)) to overcome the 2·5
[δ1]ω⫽0

fitting problems
k x ¼ 1:5Gs S x1(ø¼0) ¼ 1(ø¼0) Es (40) 2·0
where 1 represents a coefficient considering static pushover
loading for a pile embedded in a one-layer soil profile
overlying a half-space, and Es is the elastic modulus of the 1·5
top layer.  ¼ (=1 ) is a correction factor to take into
account soil layering. For long, flexible piles, 1 can be Gazetas & Dobry (1984)
obtained by way of the following equation, which is formu- 1·0
100 1000 10 000
lated by regression analysis Ep/Es
 0:1 (b)
Ep
1(ø¼0) ¼ 3 1
: f (s ) (41)
Es1 Fig. 11. Static spring coefficient for long flexible piles:
(a) variations plotted against Poisson ratio of soil; (b) relationship
where f (s ) is a function of the Poisson ratio of soil. Figs between pile–soil stiffness ratio and spring coefficient, and its
11(a) and 11(b) show the relations between 1 and its comparison with transient analysis
variables, such as pile–soil stiffness ratio (Ep =Es ) and soil
Poisson ratio. If the effect of Poisson ratio is neglected,
f (s ) ¼ 1: Fig. 11(b) also shows the difference between static For two-layered soils, there is another factor, , which is
Winkler coefficient for inertial and kinematic interactions for a function of H 1 =Lac1 and Es2 =Es1 , and can be obtained
soils having Poisson ratio of 0.45. from Fig. 12. As can be observed, there is a critical depth
that either amplifies or reduces the spring coefficient, de-
1·2
Es2/Es1
pending on the location of the interface. It may also be
noted that the effects of layering on static spring coefficient
1·0 of the soil–pile system may be neglected for H 1 . 0:7Lac1 ,
1
hence the proposed equation (equation (40)) is valid for
pushover loading of long and flexible piles where H 1 is less
0·8
than 0:7Lac1 : For instance, this range of top layer thickness
2 is around 8Dp for Ep =Es1 ¼ 1000: It is shown that, for most
χ 0·6 field applications, the top layer dictates the pile behaviour
where its thickness is greater than 0:7Lac1 :
5
0·4
10 Radiation damping coefficient
0·2
Figure 13 plots the solution for S x2(a0 ¼1) for a wide range
∞ of Poisson ratio of soil (s ) and damping (s ). It is assumed
(rather arbitrarily) that radiation damping corresponds to
0 a0 ¼ 1, but it is proposed in this paper that radiation
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 damping should be limited by a finite value. The damping
H1/Lac1
coefficient suggested can be obtained from equation (42),
Fig. 10. The modification factor of active length of pile for the obtained through non-linear regression analysis of the results
case of a two-layer stratum presented in Fig. 13.
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 11
1·8 0:911s
0·5 Vc ¼ : Vs (43)
3 2  5s
1·6 0·75
2
The above two equations provide a new form of radiation
damping when compared to the previous research (a sum-
Es2/Es1 4
1·4 mary of the other damping formulations is given in Appen-
6 dix 2).
8 Figure 14 shows a non-dimensional plot of the variation
μ 1·2
of the Sx2 parameter for a range of non-dimensional frequen-
10
cies. Damping coefficient (S x2 ) for a range of a0 < a0r is
1·0
suggested as S x2 ffi 7s for one-layer soil strata and
S x2 ffi 2:5s for two-layered soil. It is worth noting that
S x2 ffi 0 represents the case of a clamped pile-tip
0·8 (Lp < Lac1 ). This estimation shows that, for dimensionless
frequencies (a0 ) less than the radiation dimensionless fre-
quency (a0r ) of the soil–pile system, the damping coefficient
0·6 is also contributed by hysteresis material damping. This
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
H1/Lac1 form of damping coefficient provides a conservative form
rather than the actual one because (a) S x2(a0 ¼a0r ) is greater
Fig. 12. Effects of layering on static spring coefficients than 2:5s and (b) S x2(a0 ¼0) at zero dimensionless frequency
goes to infinity. In the figure, a0n is conveniently introduced
3·0 δs ⫽ 2%
to show the transition from mixed hysteretic-radiation phase
to full radiation phase.
Original data Following a regression analysis on single- and multi-layer
Fitted equation soil data for the range of dimensionless frequencies greater
than a0n , radiation damping is given by following the equa-
2·5 tion for case 1 (single layer)
1=5
Sx2(a0⫽¥)

S x2 ¼ a0 S x2(a0 ¼1) (44)

and for case 2 (two layers), the corresponding formulation is

2·0
S x2 ¼ S x2(a0 ¼1) (45)
a0n is proposed to be roughly equal to or greater than 3a0r :

1·5 DESIGN CHARTS

0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
νs
Dynamic Winkler coefficients of one- and two-layer soil
(a) strata for various Ep =Es have been normalised and are
2·5 represented in Figs 15 and 16. Hysteretic damping has
considerable effects on spring coefficient (S x1 ). This effect
has been incorporated in Figs 15 and 16 by normalising
2·3 coefficient Æs , given by equation (46)
νs ⫽ 0·45
Æs ¼ (Æ9s  1)a0 þ 1 (46)
2·1
where Æ9s can be obtained from Fig. 17. It may be noted that
for static loading ø ¼ 0, and subsequently Æs ¼ 1 implies
Sx2(a0⫽¥)

1·9
Sx2
Mixed Radiation
νs ⫽ 0·005 phase phase
1·7 Sx2(a0⫽∞)

1·5 Hysteretic One-layer soil

phase

1·3 1
0·01 0·1
δs
(b)
Multi-layered soil
Fig. 13. Radiation damping coefficient: (a) as a function of soil 7δs
Poisson ratio; (b) as a function of soil material damping
Sx2(a0⫽∞)
 
Vc : :
S x2(a0 ¼1) :
¼ 1 76 1 þ (1:186e0 777s  0:186e5 713s ) 2·5δs a0
Vs
Sx2(a0⫽∞)
(42) 1 a0n ∞ a0r
⬵3
a0r

where Fig. 14. Proposed damping coefficient

12 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
δs ⫽ 2%
1·5 δs ⫽ 2%
1·2

1·1
1·0

Sx2 /Sx2(a0⫽∞)
Sx1 /αsSx1(ω⫽0)

1·0

Ep/Es ⫽ 100
0·5
Ep/Es ⫽ 500
0·9
Ep/Es ⫽ 1000

Ep/Es ⫽ 10 000

0·8 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
a0 /a0r a0 /a0r
(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Dynamic stiffness of one-layer soil strata over half-space

1·2 1·5
Reference (Es2/Es1) ⫽ 1

1·1 0·2

Es2/Es1 ⫽ 2,
0·3
H1/Lac1 ⫽
1·0 1·0
0·4
Sx2/Sx2(a0⫽∞)
Sx1/αsSx1(ω⫽0)

0·6
0·9

0·8 0·5

0·7

0·6 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
a0 /a0r a0 /a0r
(a) (b)

1·2 1·5
Reference (Es2/Es1) ⫽ 1

0·2
1·1
Es2/Es1 ⫽ 5,
0·3
H1/Lac1 ⫽
1·0 1·0
0·4
Sx2/Sx2(a0⫽∞)
Sx1/αsSx1(ω⫽0)

0·6
0·9

0·8 0·5

0·7

0·6 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
a0 /a0r a0 /a0r
(c) (d)

Fig. 16. Dynamic stiffness of two-layer soil media over half-space: (a), (b) normalised spring coefficients; (c), (d) normalised damping
coefficients (Ep /Es1 1000, äs 2%)
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 13
1·8
have a constant shape and it is difficult to show a unique
relation. Depending on the pile diameter and the shear wave
νs ⫽ 0·45
velocity of the top layer of soil, a0r will separate the phases
of interest for dynamic stiffness.
1·6

Example: period lengthening of structures supported on pile

foundations
A concrete pile (0.6 m dia. and 20 m long) supporting a
α⬘s

1·4
bridge pier is embedded in a two-layer homogeneous over-
νs ⫽ 0·005
consolidated soil stratum overlying the half space. It is
necessary to estimate the amplification of deck displacement
considering the flexibility of the foundations. Using the
1·2
formulation derived in the third and fourth sections of this
paper on the ‘Elastodynamic formulation’ and its applica-
tion, the dynamic behaviour of the soil–pile–superstructure
system is predicted for the problem shown in Fig. 18
1·0 (Ep =Es1 ¼ 1000, Es2 =Es1 ¼ 2). For the first layer, the shear
0·01 0·1 wave velocity is on the order of 70 m/s. T 1 is the first
δs
natural period of a fixed-base supported bridge, which is 2 s.
Fig. 17. Effects of hysteretic damping of soil on spring coefficient
Details of the calculations are shown in Appendix 3 and the
of soil–pile system results are summarised here.

Active length of the pile and comment on radiation

damping. The active length of the pile for the two-layered
no effect of hysteretic damping on the spring Winkler coef- soil has been estimated through equations (37) and (38), and
ficient. Fig. 17 plots the results for two extreme Poisson found to be 5.4 m. Radiational dimensionless frequency (a0r )
ratios and linear interpolation is proposed for intermediate has been estimated to be 0.0873. The range where hysteretic
points. Also linear interpolation can be carried out for behaviour is expected is given by
Ep =Es not included in Fig. 15. Obtaining S x1 and S x2 for
two-layer soil strata requires more calculations. Since these 2rp
0 < a0 ¼ < 0:0873
coefficients vary with H 1 =Lac1 , Ep =Es1 and Es2 =Es1 , and Fig. TV s
16 is valid for a special case Ep =Es1 ¼ 1000, two parameters which corresponds to the range of periods as
are defined by  ¼ H 1 =Lac1 and ¼ Ep =Es1 to simplify the
interpolation, and Figs 15 and 16 may be used. The follow- 0:307 s < T , 1
ing equation is recommended for interpolation
For a free-field earthquake motion having predominant
S ,1000 S period less than 0.3 s (frequency greater than 3 Hz), the
S , ¼ (47)
S 1000 energy of motion is expected to be dissipated by radiation
where damping. It may also be noted that by reducing the pile
diameter (making the pile more flexible), the share of energy
S ,1000 ¼ ½ f ¼ H 1 , ¼ Ep ¼1000 (48) dissipated by the radiation phase will increase.
Lac1 Es1

S 1000 ¼ ½ f ¼1, ¼ Ep ¼1000 (49)

Es1
Static spring coefficients for first and second layer.
S ¼ ½ f ¼1, ¼ Ep (50)
Es1
k x1 ¼ 1:633Es1 ¼ 40:825 MPa
in which f ¼ S x1 =Æs S x1(ø¼0) if obtaining the spring coeffi- k x2 ¼ 1:633Es2 ¼ 81:65 MPa
cient is the aim of the calculation, and f ¼ S x2 =S x2(Æ0 ¼1) if
the damping coefficient is being sought.

T1,st ⫽ 2 s
DISCUSSION
Normalised spring coefficients have the same shape for δst ⫽ 5%
Hst ⫽ 10 m
a0 < a0r , as shown in Figs 15 and 16, and this unique form
EstIst ⫽ 2EpIp
is independent of layering effects of soil. Hence the afore- Es1 ⫽ 25 MPa
mentioned region of normalised dimensionless frequency can H1 ⫽ 2·5 m Layer 1 νs1 ⫽ 0·4
be categorised as a quasi-static stiffness or quasi-static be-
haviour of the pile, and dynamics does not have any consid- ρs1 ⫽ 1800 kg/m3
erable effects on this phase. This inference further reinforces δs1 ⫽ 5%
Dp ⫽ 0·6 m
the initial assumption made in this research about the
separation between two phases of dynamic stiffness: (a) Es2 ⫽ 50 MPa
Lp ⫽ 20 m Layer 2
phase I, which has quasi-static properties and is called the νs2 ⫽ 0·4
hysteretic part, and (b) phase II, which introduces the Ep ⫽ 25 GPa
ρs2 ⫽ 1800 kg/m3
dynamic properties and is termed the radiation part. Phase I
is the result of inelastic response of the soil and phase II is ρp ⫽ 2500 kg/m3 δs2 ⫽ 5%
the result of waves emanating from the soil–pile interface to
infinity. In contrast to phase 1, the dynamic part does not Fig. 18. Bridge–pier system supported on pile foundation
14 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
Once the dynamic stiffness of the soil–pile system has Ep elastic modulus of equivalent pile
been obtained (see Appendix 3) and the BDWF model EP I P flexural rigidity of pile
solved, it is possible to obtain the dynamic response. Fig. 19 Es elastic modulus of soil overlying half space
shows the amplification of the deck displacement through an Es1 elastic modulus of top layer of soil in two-layer soil
inertial interaction phenomenon. It is shown that the period Es2 elastic modulus of second layer of soil in two-layer
media
of the bridge pier considering the interaction phenomena is eiøt dynamic steady state term
around 40% greater than the period of the fixed-base system. Gs shear modulus of soil
This methodology can also be applied for other kinds of G s complex Lame’s constant of soil layer
dynamic interactions, such as traffic loading, wind loading H1 depth of top layer of soil
or any vibration on superstructures (offshore wind turbines). IP pile moment of inertia
I j ([]), K j ([]) modified Bessel functions of the first and second kind,
respectively, of the order j
CONCLUSION K (z) dynamic plane strain stiffness of pile
kx spring coefficient
Inertial interaction of soil and pile has been shown to be Lp , L pile length
important for layered strata and it was found that the pile Lac active length of pile
behaviour is mostly influenced by the soil properties of the Lac1 active length of pile relevant to top layer of soil in
top layer. Spring and damping coefficients of soil–pile multi-layered soil
elements have been proposed for carrying out beam-on- M bending moment acting at pile head
dynamic Winkler foundation (BDWF) type analysis using P translational horizontal load
normalising factors obtained through rigorous elastodynamic p(z) traction force per unit length affected on pile
solutions. The proposed formulation for a static spring coef- q specific distance in radial-longitudinal direction away
ficient considers wide ranges of Poisson ratio and soil–pile from pile centre
r radius from pile axis
stiffness ratio. The well-known concept of ‘active length of
rp , r0 pile radius
pile’ is proposed for layered soil. It has been shown that Su undrained shear strength of the cohesive soils
inertial interaction alters the spring coefficients for the cases S x1 dynamic spring coefficient in this study
where the top-layer thickness of the soil is less than 70% of S x2 damping coefficient new formulation in this study
the active length. A new radiation damping coefficient based S x2(a0 ¼1) radiation damping coefficient
on a proposed wave velocity has been suggested. s specific distance in radial-transverse direction away
from pile centre
T kinetic energy
UT total potential energy
NOTATION Vc wave velocity represented for radiation damping
A1 , A2 arbitrary constants
V La Lysmer analogue wave velocity
a0 dimensionless frequency
Vp P-wave velocity of soil
a0n dimensionless frequency relevant to transition from
Vs shear wave velocity of soil
mixed-material geometric damping to fully geometric
W work done by external loading
damping
Æs normalising coefficient
a0r radiation dimensionless frequency
 frequency-independent coefficient for static spring
B1 , B2 arbitrary constants
s hysteretic damping of soil material
Cx damping coefficient
ij i, j component of strain tensor of soil element
Dp pile diameter
loss angle

(z) small variation of pile displacement
20
Ł angle between radius of individual element and
Soil–pile–superstructure interaction loading direction
18 Fixed-base system
ºs complex Lame’s constant of soil layer
º(z,t) horizontal pile displacement at depth z and time t
16
 non-dimensional factor to take into account layering
into spring coefficient
p mass per unit length of the pile
14
s ,  Poisson ratio
Amplification factor

rs soil density
12
 ij i, j component of stress tensor of soil element
 non-dimensional factor to take into account layering
10
into active length formulation of pile
(r) small variation of soil displacement in radial-
8
longitudinal direction
 scalar function of Helmholtz equation
6
j(r) horizontal soil displacement factor in circumferential
direction located at a radius r from pile axis
4
(r) horizontal soil displacement factor (longitudinal
displacement) in radial direction at radius r from pile
2 axis
ø rotational frequency of vibration (rad/s)
0 ø1 fundamental shear frequency of the stratum (rad/s)
0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6 1·8
T/T1  vector function of Helmholtz equation
(r) small variation of soil displacement in radial-
Fig. 19. Amplification factor of bridge deck considering SSI transverse direction
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM 15
APPENDIX 1. PILE MOTION FOR A PILE EMBEDDED ºi jz¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i ¼ ºiþ1 jz¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i (57)
IN n LAYERED SOIL OVER HALF SPACE  
dºi  dºiþ1 
This appendix provides the necessary details for the solution of ¼ (58)
dz z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i dz z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i
the equations presented in the third section of the paper on
 
‘Elastodynamic formulation’. ˆi º9i þ Ep I P º- i

z¼H þH þH þþH
1 2 3 i
Euler–Lagrange equations and transversality conditions are as (59)
 
follows ¼ ˆiþ1 º9iþ1 þ Ep I P º-iþ1 z¼H þH þH þþH
1 2 3 i
ð1
H
n h i o  
Ep I P º i0 z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i ¼ Ep I P º i0þ1 z¼H 1 þH 2 þH 3 þþH i (60)
1(z) þ ˆ1 º01(z) þ 1  (p þ 1 )ø º1
(z1 ) dz
Ep I P º+ 2

0 Equations (57) and (58) provide additional boundary conditions

H 1ð
þH 2
for the continuous displacement and rotation of the pile element at
n h i o interfaces.
þ 2(z) þ ˆ2 º 02(z) þ 2  (p þ 2 )ø º2
(z2 ) dz
Ep I P º+ 2
At pile tip
H1
ˆn º9n(Lp ) þ Ep I P º-
n(Lp ) ¼ ˆnþ1 º9nþ1(Lp ) (61)
Lðp 
n Ep I P º n0z¼Lp ¼ 0 (62)
þ  þ Ep I P º+
n(z) þ ˆn º 0n(z)
H 1 þH 2 þþH n1 Equation (61) should be adopted for boundary condition at infinite
h i o depth of the soil stratum. Hence the motion of half-space (fictitious
þ n  (p þ n )ø2 ºn
(zn ) dz pile) has been calculated by
ˆnþ1 º0nþ1 þ (nþ1  ø2 nþ1 )ºnþ1 ¼ 0 (63)
ð
1
 
þ ˆnþ1 º0nþ1(z) þ (nþ1  nþ1 ø2 )ºnþ1
(znþ1 ) dz Considering its solution and its condition at infinite depth, the
Lp
boundary condition at the bottom of the fictitious pile is represented
by
  hpffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
þ (P  ˆ1 º91(z)  Ep I P º 1-(z) )
(z1 ) z¼0 þ (Ep I P º 01(z)  M)
9(z1 ) z¼0
ˆn º9n(Lp ) þ Ep I P º-
n(Lp ) þ (nþ1  ø2 nþ1 )ˆnþ1 ºn(Lp ) ¼ 0
    
þ ˆ1 º91(z) þ Ep I P º 1-(z)
(z1 )  ˆ2 º92(z) þ Ep I P º- 
2(z)
(z2 ) z¼H
1
(64)
    

þ Ep I P º 02(z)
9(z2 )  Ep I P º01(z)
9(z1 ) z¼H
1
    
þ ˆ2 º92(z) þ Ep I P º 2-(z)
(z2 )  ˆ3 º93(z) þ Ep I P º- 
3(z)
(z3 ) z¼H þH APPENDIX 2. DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON OF
1 2
     RADIATION DAMPING AT HIGH DIMENSIONLESS
þ Ep I P º 03(z)
9(z3 )  Ep I P º02(z)
9(z2 ) z¼H þH þ    FREQUENCY
1 2
  Proposed formulation
þ ˆn1 º9n1(z) þ Ep I P º n-1(z)
(zn1 )  
2s rp
   cx ¼ 1:5Gs S x1 þ S x2 ¼ 2:35Dp rs V s S x2
 ˆn º9n(z) þ Ep I P º n-(z)
(zn ) z¼H þH þþH ø Vs
1 2

n1
 
    Vc

þ Ep I P º 0n(z)
9(zn )  Ep I P º0n1(z)
9(zn1 ) z¼H þH þþH 1=5
¼ 4:1Dp rs V s a0 1þ
: :
(1:186e0 777s  0:186e5 713s )
1 2 n1 Vs
    
þ ˆn º9n(z) þ Ep I P º n-(z)
 ˆnþ1 º9nþ1(z)
 (65)
(zn ) (znþ1 ) z¼Lp
   So it can be rewritten as
þ ˆnþ1 º9nþ1(z)
(znþ1 )  ¼0
z¼1  
cx 1=5 Vc : :
(51) ¼ 4:1a0 1þ (1:186e0 777s  0:186e5 713s )
Dp rs V s Vs
The above equation describes the differential equations of the pile
(66)
motion for each layer and their boundary conditions. As shown, the
typical form of the above differential equation of pile motion Gazetas & Dobry (1984b) suggested a simple form following
surrounded by layer ‘i’ is as follows "   #
h i cx 1=4 V La 5=4
Ep I P º+ i(z) þ i  (p þ i )ø ºi(z) ¼ 0
i(z) þ ˆi º0
2
(52) :
¼ 1 4a0 1þ (67)
Dp rs V s Vs
This form of ordinary fourth-order differential equation can be
solved numerically. Since the pile and soil are linear elastic where V La is the Lysmer analogue wave velocity
materials, the frequency domain provides an efficient solution and 3:4
is given by V La ¼ Vs (68)
(1  ıs )
1i zi 2i zi 3i zi 4i zi
ºi(z,ø) ¼ Ai e þ Bi e þ Ci e þ Di e (53)
where
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi APPENDIX 3. APPLICATION EXAMPLE: STEPS FOR
u
uˆi  ˆ2  4Ep I P i  ø2 ( þ i ) ANALYSING SOIL–PILE INTERACTION IN BDWF
t i p
(1,4)i ¼ (54) MODELS AND FURTHER DETAILS OF THE WORKED
2Ep I P OUT EXAMPLE
To extend the above solution to pile motion, the following Step 1: Estimation of the active length of pile considering
boundary conditions should be considered. layering
At pile head (z ¼ 0) Using equation (37), the active length of pile relevant to the first
layer (Lac1 ) is calculated by
ˆ1 º91(z¼0) þ Ep I P º 1-(z¼0) ¼ P(t) ¼ P0 e iøt
(55)  0:23
Ep :
and Lac1 ¼ 2:78Dp ¼ 2:78 3 0:6 3 (1000)0 23 ¼ 8:17 m
Es1
Ep I P º 10(z¼0) ¼ M (t) ¼ M 0 eiøt (56)
For H 1 =Lac1 ffi 0:3, the active length of pile will be modified by
At interface of layers equation (38) to consider layered strata
16 SHADLOU AND BHATTACHARYA
 0:23 2 3
Ep :
( ) 1 2s a0 ( )
Lac ¼ 2:78Dp  ¼ 2:78 3 0:6 3 0:66 3 (1000)0 23 ¼ 5:4 m k x1 3Es1 6 7 S x1
Es1 ¼ 4 2s rp 5
C x1 4(1 þ s ) S x2
ø Vs
2 3
( ) 1 2s a0 ( )
Step 2: Estimation of radiation-dimensionless frequency to k x2 3Es2 6 7 S x1
separate hysteretic and radiation damping ¼ 4 2s rp 5
C x2 4(1 þ s ) S x2
Using equation (36), radiation dimensionless frequency can be ø Vs
estimated as follows
The dynamic stiffness can now be represented by a fourth-order
rp  3 0:3 ordinary differential equation as a BDWF model (following equa-
a0r ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:0873
2Lac 2 3 5:4 tions as shown in Fig. 1(b)), or modelled in some commercial
So the range of where hysteretic behaviour (i.e. dissipated energy) software (such as SAP2000 (2004), see for example Dash et al.
of the soil–pile system is expected is given by (2010)) and run for different vibration frequencies.
1 þ (k x1 þ iøC x1  mp ø )y1 ¼ 0
2
2rp Ep I p y+
0 < a0 ¼ < 0:0873
2 þ (k x2 þ iøC x2  mp ø )y2 ¼ 0
TV s Ep I p y+ 2

which corresponds to the range of periods as
0:307 s < T , 1
As the fixed-base period of the superstructure is greater than the
threshold period (0:307 s), a quasi-static pile vibration is expected.
Step 3: Obtaining static spring coefficient (kx )
Following equation (40), equation (41), and Fig. 12, the static
spring coefficient will be calculated for the first and second layer as
a general form, which maintains the consistency condition as follows
k x ¼ 1(ø¼0) Es
where
 0:1
Ep : Géotechnique 59, No. 2, 127–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
1(ø¼0) ¼ 3:1 ¼ 1:1 3 3:1 3 (1000)0 1 ¼ 1:633
Es1
So the static spring coefficients for first and second layers will be
k x1 ¼ 1:633Es1 ¼ 40:825 MPa
k x2 ¼ 1:633Es2 ¼ 81:65 MPa
Step 4: Obtaining dynamic spring coefficients (Sx1 )
Following equation (40), the static component S x1(ø¼0) will be
k x1 k x2 1:633 3 2(1 þ s )
S x1(ø¼0) ¼ : ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:97
1 5Gs1 1:5Gs2 1:5
For the ranges of a0 < a0r , equation (49) can be written as
Æs ¼ (Æ9s  1)a0 þ 1 ¼ (1:07  1)a0 þ 1 ! 1 < Æs < 1:006
which is negligible. Dynamic spring coefficients can be obtained
from Fig. 16(a), noting that S x1(ø¼0) ¼ 0:97, and therefore
S x1
0:8 < < 1 ! 0:776 < S x1 < 0:97
Æs S x1(ø¼0)
Step 5: Obtaining damping coefficient (Sx2 )
As discussed in Step 2, the pile behaviour is in pseudo-static
phase, therefore the effects of radiation on the dissipated energy of
the system are negligible (depending on the natural period of
vibration). According to Fig. 14, the damping coefficient is constant
for the required range of dimensionless frequency and is given by
S x2 ¼ 2:5s ¼ 2:5 3 0:05 ¼ 0:125
where s is the material damping of soil.
In this example, the radiation damping coefficient is not
applicable. However, it may be required for some cases, for
example, machine foundations or a pile supported in liquefied
ground.
Step 6: Total dynamic stiffness (kx þ iøcx ) and soil–pile
interaction model
Following equation (34), the dynamic stiffness for the top layer
and bottom layer can be easily obtained by
These ordinary differential equations can be solved by initial and
boundary conditions on the pile head, and at the interface of two
layers, respectively (Kavvadas & Gazetas, 1993).
Step 7: Estimation of deck response
It is assumed that the bridge pier and deck is like a lumped-mass
cantilever–beam supported on a pile foundation. Est I st (the rigidity
of the pier bridge) is assumed to be 2 times that of the pile.
REFERENCES
Basu, D., Salgado, R. & Prezzi, M. (2009). A continuum-based
model for analysis of laterally loaded piles in layered soil.
geot.2007.00011.
Berger, E., Mahin, S. & Pyke, R. (1977). Simplified method for
evaluating soil–pile structure interaction effects. Proceedings of
9th offshore technology conference, Houston, TX, pp. 589–598.
Biot, M. A. (1937). Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic
foundation. J. Appl. Mech., ASME 4, No. 1, A1–A7.
Blaney, G. W., Kausel, E. & Roesset, J. M. (1976). Dynamic
stiffness of piles. In Numerical methods in geomechanics (ed.
C. S. V. Desai), pp. 1001–1012. Blacksburg, VA, USA: ASCE.
Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation analysis and design. Singapore:
McGraw-Hill.
Broms, B. (1964). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soil.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 90, No. 2, 123–156.
Cubrinovski, M. & Ishihara, K. (2004). Simplified method for
analysis of piles undergoing lateral spreading in liquefied soils.
Soils Found. 44, No. 5, 119–133.
Dash, S., Bhattacharya, S. & Blakeborough, A. (2010). Bending–
buckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in liquefi-
able soils. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng 30, No. 1–2, 32–39.
Davies, T. G. & Budhu, M. (1986). Nonlinear analysis of laterally
loaded piles in heavily overconsolidated clays. Géotechnique 36,
No. 4, 527–538, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.4.527.
Davisson, M. & Gill, H. (1963). Laterally loaded piles in layered
soil system. ASCE J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 89, No. 3, 63–94.
Davisson, M. T. (1970). Lateral load capacity of piles. In Highway
Research Record, pp. 104–112. Washington, DC, USA:
Research Board, National Academy of Science.
Dezzi, F., Carbonari, S. & Leoni, G. (2010). Kinematic bending
moments in pile foundations. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng
30, No. 3, 119–132.
Dobry, R. & Gazetas, G. (1988). Simple method for dynamic
stiffness and damping of floating pile groups. Géotechnique 38,
No. 4, 557–574, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1988.38.4.557.
Dobry, R. & O’Rourke, M. J. (1983). Discussion on seismic
response of end-bearing pile by Flores-Berrones, R. and Whit-
man, R. V. J. Geotech. Engng Div., ASCE 109, No. 5, 778–
781.
Dobry, R., Oweis, I. & Urzua, A. (1976). Simplified procedure for
estimating the fundamental period of a soil profile. Bull. Seis-
mol. Soc. Am. 66, No. 4, 2193–1321.
Dobry, R., Vicente, E., O’Rourke, M. & Roesset, J. (1982).
Horizontal stiffness and damping of single piles. J. Geotech.
Engng Div. 108, No. 3, 439–459.
 DYNAMIC STIFFNESS OF PILE IN A LAYERED ELASTIC CONTINUUM
Fleming, W. G., Weltman, A. J., Randolph, M. F. & Elson, W. K.
(1992). Piling engineering, 2nd edn. Glasgow, UK: Surrey
University Press.
Gazetas, G. (1991). Foundation vibration. In Foundation engineer-
ing handbook (ed. H. Y. Fang), pp. 553–593. New York, NY,
USA: Van Nostrand Reinholds.
Gazetas, G. & Dobry, R. (1984a). Horizontal response of piles in
layered soils. J. Geotech. Engng, ASCE 110, No. 1, 20–40.
Gazetas, G. & Dobry, R. (1984b). Simplified radiation damping
model for piles and footings. J. Engng Mech. 110, No. 6, 937–
956.
Kagawa, T. & Kraft, L. (1980). Lateral load–deflection relationships
of pile subjected to dynamic loadings. Soils Found. 20, No. 4,
19–36.
Kavvadas, M. & Gazetas, G. (1993). Kinematic seismic response
and bending of free-head piles in layered soil. Géotechnique 43,
No. 2, 207–222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/geot.1993.43.2.207.
Liyanapathirana, D. & Poulos, H. (2010). Analysis of pile behavior
in liquefying sloping ground. Comput. Geotech. 37, No. 1, 115–
124.
Lysmer, J. & Richart, F. E. (1966). Dynamic response of footing to
vertcal loading. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 92, No. SM1,
65–91.
Makris, N. & Gazetas, G. (1992). Dynamic pile–soil–pile inter-
action. Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Engng
Struct. Dynamics 21, No. 2, 145–162.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F. & Fenves, G. (2006). Open system for
earthquake engineering simulation user manual. See http://
opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual/ (accessed
17/03/2014).
McClelland, B. & Focht, J. A. (1958). Soil modulus for laterally
loaded piles. Trans. ASCE 123, 1049–1063.
Mylonakis, G. (2001). Simplified model for seismic pile bending at
soil layer interfaces. Soils Found. 41, No. 4, 47–58.
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, A. & Gazetas, G. (1997). Soil–pile–
bridge interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft
soil. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynamics 26, No. 3, 337–359.
Nogami, T. & Novak, M. (1977). Resistance of soil to horizontally
17
vibrating piles. Int. J. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynamics 5,
No. 3, 249–261.
Novak, M. (1974). Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can.
Geotech. J. 11, No. 4, 574–591.
Prakash, S. & Sharma, H. D. (1990). Pile foundations in engineer-
ing practice. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.
Randolph, M. F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral
loading. Géotechnique 31, No. 2, 247–259, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/geot.1981.31.2.247.
Roesset, J. M. (1980). The use of simple models in soil–structure
interaction. In Civil engineering and nuclear power, paper 10-3.
New York, NY, USA: ASCE.
Roesset, J. M. & Angelides, D. (1980). Dynamic stiffness of piles.
In Numerical methods in offshore piling, pp. 75–81. London,
UK: Institution of Civil Engineers.
SAP2000 (2004). Integrated software for structural analysis and
design. Berkeley, CA, USA: Computer and Structures Inc.
(CSI).
Seed, H. B. & Lysmer, J. (1978). Soil structure interaction analyses
by finite elements – state of the art. Nucl. Engng and Design
46, No. 2, 349–365.
Sica, S., Mylonakis, G. & Simonelli, A. (2011). Transient kinematic
pile bending in two-layer soil. Soil Dynam. Earthquake Engng
31, No. 7, 891–905.
Syngros, C. (2004). Seismic response of piles and pile-supported
bridges piers evaluated through case histories. PhD thesis, The
City College and the Graduate Center, City University of New
York, New York, NY, USA.
Tokimatsu, K. & Nomura, S. (1991). Effects of ground deformation
on pile stresses during soil liquefaction. J. Struct. Construction
Engng, AIJ 426, 107–113 (in Japanese).
Velez, A., Gazetas, G. & Krishnan, R. (1983). Lateral dynamic
response of constrained head piles. J. Geotech. Engng 109, No.
9, 1063–1081.
Vesic, A. (1961). Bending of beam resting on isotropic elastic solid.
J. Engng Mech. Div. 87, No. 2, 35–53.
Yoshida, I. & Yoshinaka, R. (1972). A method to estimate modulus of
horizontal subgrade reaction for pile. Soils Found. 12, No. 3, 497.