533
0.0 I 0
0.003
0
0
2
3
FREQUeNCY <HZ)
Figure 732 Displacement response versus frequency for prototype and model piles
(Scott et al., 1982).
The dry density of soil in these tests was 103pcf (1.65 T/m3). Two sets of tests were
carried out on the centrifuge: one with the silty sand from the test site prepared
dry, the other with the soil saturated. The model pile was instrumented with 10
pairs of strain gauges mounted on the inside of the tube at opposite ends of a
diameter.
The model was placed by pushing it into the soil at 1 g a s usual. This may raise
a question regarding the similitude of the stress fields around the model and
prototype piles. However, in the case of dynamic tests, the frequency and duration
of the dynamic shaking tends to eliminate the detailed structure of stress in the
vicinity of the pile over the depth range that contributes most of the soils
resistance to pile deflections. This is in contrast to the differences that exist in
400
0.0 I !
500
r
r
m
0
0.0 I O
z
4
d'w
200
d 7
X
2
(nil)
0.00s
IO0
Is
E
IO
3
t
z
W
a
W
45
Figure733 Moment and displacement versus depth for prototype and model piles
(Scott et a]., 1982).
534
535
static pile tests and may be important. The pile was excited by a miniature
compressed airdriven shaking device. The speed of rotation could be varied up
to 500 Hz (30,000rpm).
A model test was conducted by running the shaking machine through a range
of frequencies while the pile motions were observed on one of the strain gauge
pair outputs. When the first mode frequency had been determined in this way, a
series of tests was run at frequencies around the resonant frequency.
The signals were recorded by converting the analog to digital output. For each
individual frequency sampling it was only necessary to record about 0.2 sec of test
data. Depending on the frequency, this would consist of 10 to 20 cycles of the
model pile.
The centrifuge test most nearly similar to prototype test P9 in terms of test
conditions was M22 (Table 7.8). All the results on the model have been reported
in terms of prototype dimensions. The modal frequency,fat, and peak amplitude
of displacement at ground surface were fairly close for model and prototype tests
(Table 7.8 and Figure 7.32). The test differences might be due to the different
heights of the line of action of the dynamic force above ground surface, which was
8.8ft for the model and 5ft for the prototype. But for this difference, the model
and prototype responses may be considered quite close (Scott et al., 1982). In
addition, the damping ratios of Table7.8, expressed as a percentage of the
critically damped value, are very similar in model and prototype and are quite
low compared to what might be expected for a system involving a yielding soil.
These centrifugemodel tests on piles may be regarded as a good starting point.
TABLE 7.8 Comparison of Prototype and Model
Performance
Test number
Soil
Shaking level
First mode frequency
Fni,Hz
Peak displacement, A,, in.
Damping, % critical
Shaker force, Ib
at 1Hz
Maximum moment,
10 Ibin.
Maximum moment depth, ft
Height of force
above ground, h
Uniform Winkler
k, psi
M22
Wet
Medium
P9
Wet
Medium
1.65
0.34
4.2
2.01
0.24
4
369
20.1
5
8.8
940
367
4.8
I
5
645
P
L.E.D.
16.51
Soil surface
Accelerometer
No. 1
No. :
i
i
4
/ No
Location of
strain gauges
No. 3
No. 6
No. 5
Axial strain gauge
No. 7
Pile tip
Rase of centrifuge
bucket
Scale:
0
20mm
Lcl
Figure 7.34 Single pile showing instrumentation layout (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
536
537
All the answers to the response of piles under dynamic condition have not been
obtained. However, these tests showed that the centrifuge model testing holds
promise in understanding the dynamic pile behavior. A more comprehensive
series ofcentrifuge model tests have been reported by Finn and Gohl(l987)which
will now be described.
7.7.2 Studies of Model Piles and Pile Groups
The tests by Finn and Gohl(l987) represent very carefully conducted tests on
piles in the centrifuge and provide a data base against which currently available
analytical models used to predict the lateral response of piles to earthquake
loading could be checked. Several tests on single piles and pile groups were
performed but data on a singlepile and twopile groups embedded in dry sand
under lateral loading were presented. The single pile was subjected to both
sinusoidal and random earthquake motion while the pile groups were subjected
to sinusoidal wave motion only.
The excitation levels for the pile groups were kept low enough to ensure
approximately linear elastic response so that the accuracy of elastic solutions
could be checked. The distribution of shear moduli in the foundation layer were
measured while the centrifuge was in flight using piezoceramic bender elements to
measure the distribution of shear wave velocities from which the shear moduli
were computed. This has been achieved in centrifuge tests for the first time and
should make predictions and checking of data against analytical methods more
reasonable and accurate (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
In these tests, the acceleration varied from 55 g at the surface of the model to
68g at the base. An average centrifuge scale factor, n equal to 60 was used in
converting model test quantities to prototype scale.
The model pile in the single tests was stainless steel tubing 0.375in.
(9.52 mm) outside diameter having a 0.010 in. (0.25 mm) wall thickness
(Figure 7.34). Eight pairs offoil type strain gauges were mounted on the outside of
the pile to measure bending strains. The E l of the instrumented pile was
determined to be 13.98Nm2.
A mass was screwed to a clamp attached to the head of the pile to simulate the
influence of superstructure inertia forces acting on the pile during excitation
Table 7.9. The center of gravity of the pile head mass was calculated to be
16.5mm above the base of the pile head clamp. The pile head mass was
instrumented using a noncontact photovoltaic displacement transducer. The
locations of the accelerometer and lightemitting diode (LED)used by the
displacement sensor are shown in Figure 7.34. Pile head displacements were
measured with respect to the moving base of the soil container. Pile tests were
carried out in both loose and dense sands at void ratios of 0.83 and 0.57,
respectively. Instrumented piles were pushed into the soil by hand in loose sand.
In dense sands, a low level vibration of the sand foundation was used to assist
penetration.
Tests on twopile groups were conducted at various spacings to evaluate
538
TABLE 7.9 Summary of Model Pile end Pile Head MessesSingle Pile
Dimensions
Item
(mm)
Diameter = 43.7
Pile head mass
Height = 23.1
Height = 9.5
Pile head insert
Diameter = 9.3
Pile head clamp
Area = 19.0 x 19.0
Height = 5.08
Diameter = 9.6 (nominal)
Conical pile tip
Height = 10.9
Length = 209.5
Weight of steel tube,
Diameter = 9.52
including strain gauges,
glue, and lead wires from
base of pile head mass to
tip of pile
Weight of steel tube
Length = 209.5
Diameter = 9.52
Weight
(N)
2.356
0.0 16
0.044
0.014
0.1 14
0.109
539
L.E.D.
Pile cap
+
Bending strain <No.
gauges
No. 3
No. 1
%=%R?m
2.;.T
No. 3
Soil surface
No. 5 t
No. 4
No. 5
I.
No. 6
No. 7 t
/Pile
Pile No. 1 \
Pile tip
No. 2
Base of centrifuge
Scale:
0
20mm
!==4
Figure 735 Pile group showing instrumentation layout (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
TABLE 7.10 Summary of Pile and Pile Cap Dimensions and WeightsPile
Tests
Item
Pile cap mass
Pile cap
Pile head inserts (2)
Pile head clamps (2)
Piles Nos. 1 and 2,
including strain gauges,
glue and lead wires from
base of pile head mass to
tip of pile
Dimensions
(mm)
108.0 x 47.8 x 14.9 (L x W x H)
101.6 x 37.8 x 9.7 (L x W x H)
Height = 9.5
Diameter = 9.3
Area = 19.0 x 19.0
Height = 5.08
Length = 209.5
Diameter = 9.52
Group
Weight
(N)
4.123
0.728
0.016ea.
0.044ea.
0.114ea.
.. ..
Before test 12
0 After test 12
S Before test 16
II Before test 17
H Beforetest 18
\*
2E
u
a i
In
.
4 
5 1 3
6
0
A Before test 11
X
'4.
\m
an:
\#.
\.\,
'7
Theory
(Hardin and Black,
1968)
2E
$ 
'\
2 4
4$ 0
5 1 
?A
't
Bd
(a)
6
(b)
F i g u r e 7 3 Shear wave velocities during centrifuge flight (a) Loose sand, (b) dense
sand (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
540
541
Test
Soil Type
zc,.
12
Loose (avg.
Void ratio
after
consolidation
= 0.78)
Very dense
(avg. void
ratio = 0.57)
1.95
1.89
41
Base Motion
Type
~~~
Peak Base
Accel.
(g)
Peak Pile
Head Accel.
Earthquake
(30sec
duration)
0.15
0.18
Sine wave
(20 cycles)
0.04b
0.041
while in test 41, twenty cycles of a sine wave base motion with a peak steady state
acceleration of 0.04 g was applied (Table 7.1 1).
The acceleration input at the base of the model and accelerations recorded in
the free field at the surface of the soil layer and at the pile head are shown
in Figure 7.37a, b, and c. Pile head displacements are shown in Figure 7.38a and
b. The time histories of pile bending moment at various points along the pile are
shown in Figure 7.39a, b, and c for strain gauge stations, 1, 4, and 7 (see
Figure 7.34). The bending moment distribution along the pile at a time when
maximum pile head deflection occurs ( t = 12.0sec) is shown in Figure 7.40.
From the data in Figures 7.38 to 7.40, the following observations may be
made:
1. In Figure 7.37, the maximum input base acceleration was 0.15 g. The peak
freefield acceleration was 0.26 g, and the peak pile head acceleration was
0.18g. Thus, both the pile head and freefield peak accelerations were
magnified relative to the input base acceleration.
2. The predominant period of the pile head response was longer than that of
the freefield ground surface response. Therefore, strong interaction takes
place between them.
3. A comparison of Figures 7.38a and 7.39a, b, and c shows that pile
displacements at the top of the pile head mass in the direction of shaking
(X direction) and bending moments along the pile have the same general
frequency content as the pile head accelerations.
4. In Figure 7.40, the bending moments increase to a maximum near strain
gauge 4 and then decrease to approximately zero at greater depths. This
variation is typical of a long pile in the sense that the lower parts of the pile
 0.4 0
10
15
20
25
30
Time, sec
(a)
0.4
Figure 737 Acceleration time historiessingle pile test no. 12 (a) Input base motion,
(b) free field acceleration, (c) lateral pile head acceleration (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
542
100 I
801..
 100 0
543
,
5
15
10
20
25
30
20
25
30
Time, sec
(a)
a0
60
40
3
%
20
0
20
i
i 40
 60
 80
 100
10
15
Time, sec
(b)
Figure738 Pile head displacement time historiessingle pile test no. 12 (a)
Displacement in the direction of load (Xdirection),(b) displacement in the direction
perpendicular to load (Ydirection). (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
do not iduence the pile head response to the inertia forces applied at the
pile head (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
5. The spatial variation of bending moments along the pile (Figure 7.40)
shows that all points along the pile experience the same sign of bending
moment at any instant in time. Thus, all points are vibrating in phase,
suggesting that the freeheaded pile is vibrating in its first mode.
400
9
3
545
1 1
12
11
10
&
: k'b
9
Grounc urface
lnteroolated
8
7
6
5
4
17 Experimental
400
200
Bending moment, kNm
200
Figure 7.40 Bending moment versus depth at peak pile head displacement (Finn and
Gohl, 1987).
Test 41 was conducted in dense sand in order to provide data on single pile
response required for the analysis of pile group tests in dense sand under
excitation levels low enough to allow the assumption of linear elastic response.
Therefore, the peak input base acceleration of pile test 41 was only 0.04g.
The response of the single pile in test 41 was analyzed using a Winkler
foundation model with a lateral stiffness k proportional to the square root of the
depth (i.e., k = az1l2).
The value of a was determined as 20,000kN/mS/Zby analyzing the soil
property data in Figure 7.36. The displacements at ground surface were
computed by integrating twice the measured moment distribution in the pile. As a
check on the validity of the Winkler model assumed above, the moment
distribution in the pile was computed and compared with the measured
distribution. The comparison is shown in Figure 7.41, which appears satisfactory.
Pile Group Response Twopile groups were tested at various spacings at low
levels of excitation using an approximately harmonic base motion (Figure 7.42).
Bending moment distributions in piles with a centertocenter spacing equal to
13
12
11
10
Y
q

Ground surface
Interpolated
'
K\.
98
Theory1
\\
'\h
7
\\
6
cp
54
I
I
32
0 Experimental
1
oL*
'
'
'
" "
'
'
, dI b' '
25
50
'
'
"
'
'
50
25
0.10
0.05
00
2
'U
0
0.00
(u
 0.05
 0.10
'[Y
v v v v v v v v v v v v v vv Y"
r
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
546
547
13 t
Ground surface
8u
.
6
5:
4
1
I
I
Interpol,  Pile 1
\I
3
1
I
I
I
I
I/
I '
Interpol. Pile 2
"
"
"
'
25
50
two pile diameters for the tenth load cycle at a time when pile cap deflection is a
maximum during the cycle are shown in Figure 7.43.
In this figure, at peak displacement (inline loading), the bending moment
changes sign indicating the restraint of the pile cap against rotation. The moment
distributions in the two piles are sufficiently different to suggest significant
interaction (Finn and Gohl, 1987).
The steadystate peak pile cap displacement is plotted against the pile spacing
ratio, s/b, for ratios between 2 and 6 for inline shaking in Figure 7.44. This
figure suggests that the pile cap displacements at the same level of excitation
depend very strongly on pile spacing for inline shaking. This indicates strong
interaction between piles in the group. Computed value of displacements for
single pile are also shown in Figure 7.44. The results suggest that interaction
548
0
0
effectsat spacings beyond about 6 pile diameters are insignificant (Finn and Gohl,
1987).
The tests of Finn and Gohl had been conducted with maximum spacing(s) of
six times the diameter of the pile. Their data in Figure 7.44, however, suggests
that probably the experimental curve will become asymptotic to the value of
the single pile displacement if the s/b ratio approaches 8, as previously shown
by Prakash (1962) in his model tests in piles in sand.
The tests data reported above had a unique feature. In these centrifuge tests,
the insitu distribution of shear moduli in the soil was measured during flight
using piezoceramic bender elements. This gives data to check the measurements
of the pile behavior with the predicted response.
Sufliciently more data are needed to check the validity of various analytical
formulations with the measured response both in case of single pile and pile
groups. A comprehensivemodel study on single piles and pile groups is underway
at the University of Missouri, Rolla (Sreerama, 1990). It appears that data are
being collected by various investigators, and in the not too distant future, better
comparisons of the predicted and measured responses will be available.
EXAMPLES
549
7.8 EXAMPLES
Example 7.1 A fourpile group carries 75 tons (t) vertical load per pile. EI of the
pile is 1.2 x 1OO lbin2,diameter of the piles is 12 in., and length of the piles is 45 ft.
The soil is noncohesive with 4 = 30 7, = 110pcf and nh = 501b/in3. If this pile
group is subjected to ground motion similar to that of EL Centro 1940NScomponent, determine (assuming appropriate group action):
,z,
L,
T
= =
45 x 12
= 8.6286
62.58
= 0.64 for
FiL1
80
60tsec2
100 32.2 x 12in.
M, =75 x x =
Using Equation (7.13).
a,,= F S L l +
/z,
550
= 0.64 x
32.2 x 12 x 12.5
62.58
= 8.0352 rad/sec
f"l
2n
2xn
Tnl ==f.1
2x
1
= 0.7820 sec
0 ~ 1
1.27885
From Figure 7.17, in which combined earthquake response spectra for ELcentro
May 1940 N.S.has been plotted, assuming 5% damping spectral displacement
S d = 1.2 in. = maximum displacement
Maximum bending moment
M g= B,, x nh x T 3 X
sd
(7.14b)
Using Table 7.4, the maximum value of the coefficient B,, for a pile top free
to rotate Z,,, = 5 to 15, B,, = 0.315.
12.5
M , = 0.315 x x (62.58)3 x 1.2 = 579.00in t = 48.25 tft
2000
Because the pile head is free to rotate:
:.
y, = A,*=.Q T 3
A,B (constant)
For soils with modulus increasing linearly with depth (from Table 6.3)
A, = 2.435
Sd
12
(constant B ) in the above equation is = = 0.4928
A, 2.435
y , = 0.4928 x A,
551
EXAMPLES
TABLE 7.12~1 Computation of y, and p , Along the Pile Length for a Pile that is Free
to Rotate (Example 7.1)
Yx
kx=
Px =
kxY,x,
(ft)
(x/T)
2
0
1
2
3
4
0
0.19
0.38
0.58
0.77
2.435
2.096
1.827
1.526
1.257
1.2
1.0329
0.9003
0.7520
0.6194
0
150
300
450
600
0
155
270
338
372
5
7.5
10.0
12.5
0.96
1.44
1.92
2.40
1.012
0.51 1
0.184
0.055
0.4987
0.25 18
0.0906
0.027 1
750
1125
1500
1875
374
283
136
51
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
2.88
3.36
3.83
4.31
0.049
0.066
0.054
0.037
0.024 1
0.0325
0.0266
0.0182
2250
2625
3000
 54
 85
 80
3375
25.0
30.0
4.19
5.75
0.018
0.009
0.0089
0.0044
3750
4500
 61
 33
 20
0.4928AY
(in.)
(lb/in.*)
(lb/in.)
nh
0 ~ 1=
x 62.58
0.99 x
= 12.43 rad/sec
fnl
==
On' 1.9782 Hz
2x
2x
Tnl=
0"
1
= 0.51 sec.
From Figure 7.17 for a period T,, , = 0.51 and damping of 574, spectral displacement s, = 0.67in. Maximum bending moment M B= B,, x nh x T 3 x s,, from
equation (7.14b).
For a restrained pile with Z,,, 5 to 15:
552
12.5
2000
AtZ=O
yQ=Sd=0.67in.
By= 1.623
sd
= (2.435  0.93(1.623))B
= C,B
0.67
= 0.7238
Cy 2.435  0.93(1.623)
B = sd=
TABLE 7.12b Computation of y, and pz Along the Pile Length for a Pile Fixed Against
Rotation (Example 7.1)
(ft)
(x/V
A,
8,
C,=A,0.938,
y,=C,x
k,=nhxx
px=kXyx
0.7238
(lb/h2)
(lb/in.)
0
150
0.19
0.38
0.58
0.77
2.435
2.096
1.827
1.526
1.257
1.623
1.309
1.031
0.776
0.571
0.9256
0.8786
0.8682
0.8043
0.7260
0.6700
0.6359
0.6284
0.5822
0.5255
300
450
600
0.96
1.44
1.92
2.40
1.012
0.511
0.184
0.055
0.398
0.095
0.062
0.078
0.6419
0.4227
0.2417
0.1275
0.4646
0.3060
0.1749
0.0923
750
1125
1500
1875
0
95
188
262
315
348
344
262
173
17.5
20.0
22.5
2.88
3.36
3.83
4.31
0.049
0.066
0.054
0.037
0.087
0.067
0.038
0.019
0.0319
0.0037
0.0187
0.0193
0.0231
0.0027
0.0135
0.0140
2250
2625
3000
3375
52
7
41
47
25.0
30.0
4.79
5.75
0.018
0.009
0.006
0.0124
0.009
0.0090
0.0065
3750
4500
34
0
1
2
3
4
5
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
O.OO0
 29
EXAMPLES
553
Y x = B(C,)X
See Table 7.12b, for computation of soil reaction along the pile.
( e ) Partial fixity
Fixity conditions of the actual piles in the group must be estimated and the
solution obtained for that fixity value by linear interpolation. In this case, let
us assume 50 percent fixity. Compute displacement for 50 percent fixity.
The displacement under dynamic condition is S d = (1.2 + 0.67)/2 = 0.935 in.
S d = maximum displacement for 50 percent fixity = 0.935 in.
Computation of the maximum bending moment for 50 percent fixity is:
0  0.90
B,, = =  0.45
2
Me =
0.45 x 12.5
x (62.58)3 x 0.935 =  644.48 tonin.
2000
Soil reaction p:
y, = ( A ,  0.465 B,)(constant B )
At 2 = 0
B (constant) =
0.935
= 0.5554
2.435  0.463( 1.623)
Ef
= 1.2 x
10101bin.2
554
(ft)
(XlV
Cy=AyA,
BY
0.465B,
5
y,=
0.554CY
6
k,=n,,x
p=kyy,
(Ib/h3)
7
0
150
300
450
(lb/in.)
8
0
124
225
292
0
1
2
3
0
0.19
0.38
0.58
2.435
2.096
1.827
1.526
1.623
1.309
1.031
0.776
1.6835
1.4900
1.3506
1.1667
0.9350
0.8275
0.7501
0.6480
4
5
7.5
10.0
12.5
0.77
0.96
1.44
1.92
2.40
1.257
1.012
0.511
0.184
0.055
0.571
0.398
0.095
0.062
0.078
0.9926
0.8277
0.4670
0.2127
0.091 1
0.5513
0.4597
0.2594
0.1181
0.0506
750
1125
1500
1875
331
345
292
177
95
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
2.88
3.36
3.83
4.31
0.049
0.066
0.054
0.037
0.087
0.067
0.038
0.019
0.9987
0.0350
0.0304
0.0282
0.0048
0.0194
0.0202
0.0157
2250
2625
3000
3375
11
51
61
 53
25.0
30.0
4.79
5.75
0.018
0.006
0.0152
0.0085
0.0050
3750
4500
 32
 22
0.009
O.Oo0
0,009
600
(a) Estimate the stiffness and damping values of the single pile and pile group in
vertical vibrations for pile spacing of 3.3ft center to center for the following
groups: 2 x 2, pile cap thickness 3 ft, 3 x 3, pile cap thickness 4ft, 4 x 4, pile cap
thickness 5 ft.
The pile cap projection may be assumed 6 in. beyond the pile edge.
Show also if the selection of a particular reference pile will affect your result for
4 x 4 group. Neglect contribution of stiffness and damping due to base reaction
of the pile cap. The load per pile is 55t. Compute natural frequency and
amplitudes of motions for the 4 x 4 group if vertical unbalanced load per pile
is P(z)= (2 sin 2nf) tons and f = 3 H,.
(b) For a 4 x 4 group, estimate the damping and stiffness in rocking and
horizontal vibrations for the single as well as the pile group including
contribution of pile cap from side reactions. Assume reduced soil properties
around the pile cap by an appropriate factor.
SOLUTION
(a) Vertical vibrations: Single pile
EXAMPLES
555
ysa, = 1 10 pcf
Pile, y p = 15Opcf, E , = 2.5 x lo5tsf
(7.48)
= fw2
VS
E,&=
E /?
= 483.92ft/sec
2.5 x 105
4oo = 625
_I 60120>100
ro
0.5
For
5=625
f,, =0.041
(0.04Lk0.029) 125
= 0.038
Gs
and
f,, = 0.068 
(0'0685i0'048)
125 = 0.063
556
k; =
2.5 x 105
0.5
X
12
and
c,1
2.5 x 1 0 5
483.92
IIX 12
X
2 x 2 Pile Group
To consider group effect,assume that any pile in the group is a reference pile (see
Figure 7.45a). With ro = 6 in., the values of S/2ro are calculated for other piles.
For adjacent piles:
3.3
S/2ro = = 3.3
1
JmTm 4.67
1
60
L/2r, =  = 60 let v = 0.5
1
For piles 2 and 3, a,,, interpolate for S/2ro = 3.3 and L/2ro =60 (From
Figure 7.29).
Interpolating
L/2ro = 25
L/r, = 100
a,, = 0.54
a,, = 0.65
for
L/2r, = 60
a,, = 0.54
(0.65  )
,5
0.54
x 35 = 0.59
EXAMPLES
557
(7.67)
(7.68)
=
4 x 2.13
= 3.15 tsec/in.
2.7
~
Determination of spring stiffness and damping due to side friction of pile cap k/,
Assume pile cap is embedded 2.5 ft. (Figure 7.45b).
S, = 2.7
Assume G, of backfilled soil as 400 tsf.
k/, = 400 x 2.5 x 2.7 = 2780 t/ft = 225 t/in. (From equation 7.69).
Cap size = s + 2r0 + 1
= 3.3
+ 1 + 1 = 5.3ft
r,(cap)=
5.3 x 5.3
= 2.99ft
c/, = hr0*$2*&,
S2= 6.70
.*. c/, = 2.5 x 2.99 x 6.70
Jy
Cap thickness = 4 ft
Step 1: Select the center pile (no. 5) as the reference pile (Figure 7.454.
558
5.3 ft
I
Pile
cap
Backfill
1
h = 2.5'
?
3.3'
el
3.3'
1
3.3
3~
I
8.6 ft
a
I11
Pile cap
fd)
Figure 7.45 Pile groups. (a) Plan (fourpilegroup), (b) section (fourpile group), (c) plan
(ninepile group), (d) section ninepile group, (e) plan 16 piles group, (f) section (16 pile
group) (Example 7.2).
EXAMPLES
Calculations of aA
For adjacent piles 2, 4, 6, and 8:
S/2ro = 3.3
559
560
S
 4.67, aA for diagonal piles = 0.52
2r0
UA
=1
9 x2.13
5.44
 3.52 tsec/in.
Step 3: Determine spring stiffness and damping due to side friction on pile cap,
kf,.
Assume pile cap is embedded 3.5 ft in the ground (Figure 7.45d)
kf, = G;hSl
(7.69)
Sl = 2.7
kf, = 400 x 3.5 x 2.7 = 3780 t/ft = 315 t/in.
Dimensions of cap = 2 x 3.3 + 1 + 1 = 8.6ft.
Equivalent radius for pile cap:
= 4.85 ft.
cf, = hroS,
&
g2 = 6.7
c/, = 3.5 x 4.85 x 6.7 x
110
400 x 2000 x = 188095 Ibsecfft.
32.2
561
EXAMPLES
+ 7.84
c$ = 11.36tsec/in.
4 x 4 Pile Group
Cap thickness = 5 ft
Step 1: Select pile 1 (Figure 7.45e) as reference pile and calculate aA for pile
group.
~~
Pile No.
1
28
From 2 x 2 group
3.3
3,9
6.6
4,16
9.9
12,14
11.898
5,15
10.436
6,lO
7.38
13
Interpolation
SPr,
a*
1
Reference Pile
0.55  0.4
[0*4+
75
351
0.46  0.3
[0*3+
75
351
[0.285+( 0.45 750.285 )35]
[ + (0*4557;
[ +(
[ +(
0.29
14
0*29)35]
0.59
0.47
0.375
0.362
0.367
0.38
0.53750*38)35]
0.450
028
Oe4 ;:28)35]
I
:
0.336
4.667
From 2 x 2 group
0.52
11
9.334
[ +(
0.405
0.33
0.49;0433)35]
562
k, = c k i p a A=
16 x 1244
7.489
= 2657 t/in.
Group Damping
= 4.55 tsec/in.
S/2r,
Reference
QA
1
0.59
0.52
0.45
0.47
0.405
3.3
4.667
7.38
6.6
9.334
The combined stiffness and damping were calculated as above and are listed
below for pile group:
Ref. Pile
1
7
kE
2657 t/in.
4.55 tsec/in.
3.97 tsec/in.
2317 t/in.
Step 3: Determine spring stiffness and damping due to side friction on pile
cap, k;.
Assume that pile cap is embedded 4.5ft in the ground k/,(Figure 7.450:
= G,h*S1
EXAMPLES
where
SI= 2.7
563
(7.69)
(11.9
x 11.9
a
l*
= 6.72ft
Damping:
(7.70)
e/, = h.r,s2&
= 4.5 x 6.12 x 6.7 x 1653.15 = 334643 lbsec/ft
c/, = 13.94tsec/in.
where
Step 4:
s2= 6.7
Total stiffness = kt + k/,
Total k, = 2657 + 405 = 3062 t/in.
or
k,
Total damping:
= 23 17
c, = 4.55
or
It will be seen that appropriate selection of a reference pile affects the computed
stiffness by about 10 to 15 percent and damping by about 20 percent. Novak
(1974) does not provide guidelines for selection of the reference pile.
Step 5: Determination of natural frequency and amplitude of vertical vibration.
For the 4 x 4 pile group with pile cap thickness 5 ft:
1. Dimensions of pile cap. 11.9 x 11.9 x 5.0 in feet.
2. Assume pile cap is made of the same material as piles,
yp = 150pcf
3. Unbalanced forces:
P , = 2 x 16t
f = 3 cycleslsec
w = 2af = 18.84rad/sec
564
4. Total massassumed
With the stiffness,damping, and masses established, the response ofthe pile group
may now be determined from principles of mechanical vibration (Prakash and
Puri, 1988) as below:
Natural frequency:
where
o,B,= natural frequency of pile group in vertical vibrations
k$ = total stiffness of pile group and cap
me= effective vibrating mass
/'
= 37.27 rad/sec
(ZO)rnex
pz
J ( k  m o 2 ) 2+ ( c o ) ~
32 x 2000
J(2722 x 2000 x 12  47025(18.84)2)2+ (17.91 x 2000 x 12 x 18.84)2
= 0.00129 ft
= 0.0156 in.
EXAMPLES
565
:.
1
lo5tsf = 2.5 x 2000 x lo5 x Ib/in.
144
= 34722221b/in.
1 = 3456 ina4
v, =
/y
300 x 2000 x 32.2= 419 ft/sec
E 2.5 x 105
= 833
G,
300
L=
Sliding
Interpolation of stiffness and damping
Parameters of horizontal response for piles with l / R > 25 for homogenous soil
profile from Table 7.5.
=
E,
1o00,
Gs
fxi = 0.0261
= 500,
fxl
= 0.0436
= 833,
fxl
= 0.0261
 0.0261)333
+ (0.0436500
= 0.0378
Ep=
lo(),
G,
fx2
= 0.0641
= 500,
f x z = 0.1054
= 833,
fx2
= 0.0641
566
= 1050t/in
(7.52)
= 3.0362 tsec/in.
Rocking
E
For v = 0 . 4 , =~833.
~ Find f+l and fb2 from Table 7.5 as above.
Gs
2= 10oO,
Gs
(fol) = 0.3860
= 500,
(f,,)= 0.4547
= 833,
(f,,)= 0.3860 +
(0.4547 0.3860)
333
500
5
= 10oO
Gs
(f,,) = 0.2677
= 500
(j,,)= 0.3034
= 833.33
(f,,) 0.2677 +
(0.3034 0.2677)
333
500
(f,,)= 0.2915
Rotational stiffness and geometric damping constants for single pile:
 2.5 x
= 4.318 x
144x6
lo5in. t/rad
567
EXAMPLES
(7.54)
=
= 347.835 tsecfrad.
K, =
( E h c
1.2 x 1O'O
2G(1 D ) , , , ~ , L2~ x 300 x 2000(1 + 0.4) x (604 x 144)
= 3.827 x lo6
:. Pile is flexible pile. Hence, use dotted lines on Figure 7.31. For the 4 x 4 pile
group, calculate S/2r0 using pile 7 as reference pile (Figure 7.45e)
1.o
0.47
0.33
0.08
0.12
0
0
3.3
4.6667
7.38
6.6
9.334
7
2,6,8,10
1,3,9,11
4,12,14,16
5,15
13
Figure 7.31 is for L/2r0 = 25 and v = 0.5. In the above solution, it is assumed that
although v = 0.5, the plot may be used for v = 0.4 as well.
:.
k:==
Cki
ZaL
Xci
cB*==
Ea,
1050
1 6 ~ 4.76

 3529t/in,
16 x 3.0362
= 10.21 tsec/in.
4.76
k i = G,hSX1
(7.73)
568
sxl= 4.1Table
7.6
4= h r , J r n * S , ,
(7.74)
2000
32.2
= 17.0875tsec/in.
S,,
= 10.6Table
7.6
Total stiffiness:
k, = 3529.00
+ 369
= 3898.00t/in.
Total damping:
c, = 10.21
+ 17.0875 = 27.297tsec/in.
It will be seen that the pile cap contributes about 10 percent to the stiffness, while
its contribution to damping is more than the damping due to piles alone.
Crosscoupling constants
(7.55)
(7.56)
loo0
f x 6 1 = 0.0714
G,
= 500
f x e 1 = 0.0991
= 833
f,,1
= 0.0991
+ (0.0714)(0.0991)333
500
= 0.0806
569
EXAMPLES
.*. k;,
= loo0
= 500
fx,2
= 833
fx92 =
fx,2
= 0.1052
= 0.1425
0.1425
+ (0.1052)(0.1425)333
500
0.1176
1.2 x 1OO
x (0.0806) = 26.8667 x lo6Ib/in.
6,
=  13433.33 t
1.2 x 1oO
( 0.1 176)
+ = 6 x 419 x 12
=  23.3879 tsec/in
+ k s : + kfz:  2~~k:,+]
(7.77)
2 x 431,800
(5 x 12)*
2
= 73.94 x
c$ = Z[cf
IO6 ton/in
(7.78)
2 ~ 3 4 7 . 8 3 5 + 2 ~ 3 . 0 3 6( 52;12y
 4 x x;
12(  23.3879)
From Table 7.6, frequency independent constants for embebdd pile cap with
side resistance.
(7.79)
570
x4.1
= 129,455t/ft = 10788t/in.
(7.80)
\i {
= 0.67 x 6.74
32.2
1.8 +
[$o
(g)
067 2.]
6.7
10.6)
lo6 + 10788
ks = 74.02 x
Total c = 164.949 x
lo6 t/in.
lo3+ 131 1
@.= 166.26 x
lo3tsec/in.
Total sliding and rocking stiffness and damping have been worked with
foregoing computations. Response of a systems can then be determined from
theory of mechanical vibrations (Prakash and Puri 1988).
571
Frequency, Hz
weight vibrator (Lazan oscillator) to the head of the pile, whose response was
monitored by two velocity transducers. At the conclusion of the first steadystate
test, the eccentricity of the Lazan oscillation was increased to increase the
oscillating force and the test was repeated. To cover the range of lateral
displacements covered by most machine foundations, four or five increasing
eccentricities were used. It was observed that the frequency of maximum response
decreased as the force level increased, indicating nonlinear response. A PILAY
computer program was used by Woods (1984) to determine stiffness anddamping
of the pile (Novak and AboulElla 1977). PILAY is a continuum model accommodating a multilayered soil based on the elastic soil. layer approach of
Baranov (1967). However, PILAY assumed that the soil surrounding the pile in a
given layer is the same at all distances from the pile.
A dynamic response curve with this solution is shown in Figure 7.46b along
with the field data. The correlation between predicted and measured
response is very poor. In all tests, computed response based on stiffness and
damping from PILAY and measured response showed that the amplitudes of
motion were greater than predicted and the frequency of maximum response was
lower than predicted.
In an attempt to match the measured response with the computed response the
following two approaches were adopted.
1. For predicting the response, only a fraction of the rocking and translation
572
L . . . I . . . . I. . . . 1 . . . . I . . . . I
10
15
20
25
. . . . I. . . . . . . .
30
35
40
L.1..
.I
45
50
55
Frequency, Hz
stiffness computed by PILAY was used. It was found that even with a wide
variation in rocking stiffness, the observed amplitudes in the frequency
range just above the horizontal translation peak was still higher than the
predicted amplitude. The observed increase is more likely due to change in
soil parameters caused by pile driving.
A better representation of the disturbed soil zone had been obtained by
replacing the original soil with sand fill around the pile up to four feet depth.
2. Because of the poor correlation achieved in the initial attempt, a second
correlation with the analytical procedurePILAY 2was attempted.
PILAY 2 permits an inclusion of a softened or weakened zone
surrounding the pile, simulating the disturbance to the soil caused by pile
installation.
A good match of the measured and predicted response could be obtained by a
considerably reduced soil moduls in the softened zone (onetenth to twotenths
of the original value) and the extent of the softened zone (onehalf to one times the
pile radius). A loss of contact of the soil with pile for a short length close to the
ground surface also improved the predicted response. No tests on pile groups
were performed at any of these sites.
7.9.2
ElSharnouby and Novak (1984) performed dynamic tests on a 102 steel pipe
piles group. The piles were 42.5in. (106cm) long with outside and inside
573
diameters of 1.068 in. (26.7 mm) and 0.837in. (20.93 mm), respectively. The slenderness ratio (l/ro)of piles was greater than 40 and the pile spacing was about 3
diameters. The pile group was placed in a hole in the ground, which was backfilled
with a specially prepared soil mixture. The pile cap was 2.4 in. (6 cm) above the
ground level. The pile group was excited by a Lazan oscillator at frequencies
of 6 to 60 Hz in the vertical and horizontal directions and in the torsional mode.
Free vibration tests and static tests were also performed. The measured response
curves were very linear for small amplitudes and indicated relatively small nonlinearity at amplitudes of 0.008 in. (0.2 mm). The test results of Gle (1981) and
Woods (1984) show definitely nonlinear behavior of in situ piles.
Novak and ElSharnouby (1984) analyzed the data as above by the following
methods:
1. Using static interaction factors by Poulos (1971, 1975, 1979) and Poulos
and Davis (1980)
2. Concept of equivalent piers
3. Using dynamic interaction factors by Kaynia and Kausel (1982)
4. Direct dynamic analysis of Waas and Hartmann (1981)
7.9.3 Horizontal Response
Horizontal, rocking, cross stiffness, and damping constants, k,, k,, k,, c,, c,
and c, were calculated for a single pile using the computer program PILAY 2. A
group interaction factor, cat, of the group of 102 piles based on Poulos charts
(1975, 1979) was estimated approximately as 13. This interaction factor was
applied only to the horizontal stiffness k. The theoretical horizontal component
of coupled response to horizontal excitation, based on the static interaction
factor, is shown together with the experimental one in Figure 7.47. Four
theoretical response curves have been plotted against the experimental one.
Curve a represents the group response without any interaction effect, while curve
b was calculated using the static interaction factor for stiffness only. It can be
seen that a much lower value of the interaction factor is needed for the stiffness if
the resonant frequency is to be matched. Therefore, an interaction factor of 2.85
was introduced for stiffness of yield curve c. The best agreement between the
theoretical and experimental curves was achieved by increasing the damping
constant by 45 percent (curve d). Yet some discrepancy between the theoretical
and experimental response curves occurs at frequencies other than the resonant
frequency.This indicates the limits of the applicability of static interaction factors
(Novak and ElSharnouby, 1984).
The experimental curves approach unity as frequency increases, which
suggests that no correction with regard to the apparent mass appears necessary in
the case of horizontal response. An apparent mass was determined and
introduced in computations for matching the predicted response with the
measured response in vertical vibrations. The correction factors have been
574
10
8
.2
{ 6
Mc
v)
.2
9 4
E
a
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.47 Experimental horizontal response curves and theoretical curves calculated
with static interaction factors. (a) No interaction, (b) static interaction factors applied
to stiffness only (c) interaction factor of 2.85 applied to stiffness only; (d) with 2.85 and
 1.40 interaction factors for stiffness and damping respectively; and (e) experimental
data (Novak and ElSharnouby, 1984).
575
"
10
20
40
30
50
60
Freauency, Hz
Figure 7.48 Experimental horizontal response curve and theoretical curve based on
equivalent pier concept (a) Considering soil layers under pier, (b) taking average of soil
layer properties under pier tip as half space, and (e) experimental data (Novak and
ElSharnouby, 1984).
576
4
2n :
Symbol
NM
.ma
l l , , , , l , , l l l l l a
'
10
20
40
30
.....
I . . . , . . . . # I . . ,
50
60
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.49 Experimental horizontal response curve and theoretical curve based on
equivalent pier concept considering 40 percent only of its damping constant (Novak
and ElSharnouby, 1984).
5
4
4J
Symbol
g 3
NM
,2898
v)
$ 2
!i
0
Frequency, Hz
Figure 7.50 Experimental horizontal response curve and theoretical curves (a)
Calculated with Kaynia and Kausel dynamic interaction factors, (b) calculated with Waas
and Hartmann impedences, (e) experimental (Novak and ElSharnouby, 1984).
577
The degree of saturation of the sand was between 99.5 percent and 99.9
per cent. Cyclic loading was applied in undrained conditions to induce liquefaction and subsequent cyclic mobility. Basic parameters measured in each test
included (1) pore pressure, (2) vertical pile displacement, (3) horizontal base
displacement, and (4) applied load.
Altogether, 35 successful tests were performed in the program. Besides pile
diameter and static safety factor, basic variables considered were (1) relative
density, (2) effective confining stress level, (3) stress history, and (4) length of pile
inserted.
578
2.0
I
I
1.5
eq
1  in dia pile
0, =50%
ob = 20 psi
II
'g 1.0
1
1
E,
I
P
3%
s'
.I
Iv
Q)
'2
0.5
*/
0.1
50
9'
"/t.v
"/
J
1
60
70
0
.',
40
I
,"I 
80
90
100
Figure 7.51 Settlement of lin (25mm) diameter pile, D,= 50 percent; nb = 2Opsi
(140kPa) (DeAlba, 1983a).
579
2oo/
1.5
rq
1  in dia pile
0, = 68%
ab = 20 psi
g 1.0 L.
tl
A!
0.5
0.1 
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0;
= 20psi
(140kPa)(DeAlba, 1983a).
the control pile in the fourpile group are plotted. The figure shows that
essentially no settlement was observed, within the range of safety factors studied,
until Aula; rose beyond a threshold level. Pile settlement then developed
relatively slowly until As/B reached about 0.05 to 0.1, and increased rapidly
thereafter as residual pore pressure built up, with pile movement generally
exceeding one diameter before liquefaction was reached.
Failure pore pressure ratio under dynamic loading was defined as that value of
Aula; for which a As/B value of 0.1 was observed. This definition is consistent
with the definition of failure settlement accepted for static loads (DeAlba, 1983a).
Figure 7.54 from the single pile study, shows that the failure Aula; have
unique values at different relative densities if the static safety factors are the
same.
Figure 7.55 shows As/B versus Aula; for a single pile in a deep deposit at a
580
1.5
Symbol
SF
1.50
1.65
2.20
3.00
rp
6 1.0
'Q
$4
w
E
0.5
0.1
10
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 7.53
relative density of 50 percent. DeAlba (1983b) recommends that this figure may
also represent earthquakeinduced pore pressure at failure conditions for a pile
group, failure being defined as an additional settlement of 0.1 diameters under
dynamic loading. The individual piles in the group are expected to exhibit the
settlement behavior shown in dimensionless form in Figure 7.55 (DeAlba, 1983b).
The model test data in the preceding paragraphs need verification with actual
pile behavior from piles subjected to earthquakes. In the meantime, considerable
engineering judgement may. be needed to apply these results to an actual
problem.
7.1 1 OVERVIEW
Piles are used extensively for supporting building foundations, in seismic zones
for machine foundations and for offshore structures. The nature of pile response
and pile interactions are quite different in all three cases. Earthquake loading for
piles under buildings may cause large deformations and soil nonlinearity. On the
OVERVIEW
581
/Y+
/
/$
F

I
I
/
/
Or= 50%
Dr=68%
Figure 7.54 Failure conditions for single pile. Tests at D, = 50 and 68 percent (DeAlba,
1983b).
contrary, machines may cause only small amplitudes of vibrations, and soils may
behave as elastic materials. In offshore structures, the piles are especially long and
slender with considerable freestanding lengths.
In earthquake loading, only lateral vibrations may be important while in
machine foundations, the piles may be subjected to vertical oscillations,
horizontal translation and rocking, and torsion.
Solutions based on beam on elastic foundation for static loads has been
extended for dynamic loading by Chandrasekaran (1 974) Penzien (1970) and a
design procedure has been proposed based on spectral response technique. For
pilesupported machine foundations, simple solutions for single piles in all the
modes of vibrations have been included in this chapter. Also, group action on the
behavior of the total system as compared to that of the single pile has been
582
2.0
I
Dr= 50%
1.5
1
1
1
I
SF = 1.6
5
G
p
CI
?I
lo
I
d
1.0
I
I
I
I
I
I/
0.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
E
3
8%
2.2
/I:
I
I
dI
!
i
0.1
/
/*
40
50
60
70
80
90
K)
evaluated, and a complete analysis has been included. However, there are certain
definite gaps in the present (1990) understanding of single pile and pile group
action under dynamic loads.
Nogami (1983) and Nogami and Liang (1983) have also obtained solutions for
pile groups and have shown that the concept of the Winkler soil model could be
applicable to pile groups for the frequency range higher than the fundamental
natural frequency of the soil deposit. It was further found that:
1. A dynamic group effect can be strongly frequency dependent and depends
on the ratio between the pile spacing and the wavelength propagating in the
soil, due to the phase shifts between the directly induced pile motion and the
OVERVIEW
583
584
REFERENCES
585
REFERENCES
Agarwal, H. P. Effect of Vibrations on Skin Friction of Piles, Master of Engineering
Dissertation, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India. 1967.
Aubry, D. and Postel, M., Dynamic Response of a Large Number of Piles by
Homogenization Proceedings Second International Conference on Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, aboard the Queen Elizabeth I I , New YorkSouthampton,
June 1985, pp. 4105 to 4119.
Barkan, D. D., Dynamics ofBases and Foundations McGrawHill Book Co. New York
1962.
586
Gazetas, G. and Dobry, R., Horizontal Response of Piles in Layered Soils, J. Geot.
Eng. Diu., ASCE, Vol. 110, No. GTI, January, 1984, pp. 2040.
Gazetas, G. and Roesset, J. M., Vertical Vibrations of Machine Foundations, J. Geot.
Eng. Dn., ASCE, Vol. 105, No. GT12, 1979, pp. 14351454.
Ghumman, M. S., Effect of Vertical Vibrations on the Penetration Resistance of Piles,
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India 1985.
Gle, D. R., T h e Dynamic Lateral Response of Deep Foundations, Ph.D. Dissertation,
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1981.
Hassini, S., and Woods, R. D., Dynamic Experiments with Model Pile Foundations,
Proc. 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Vol. 11, pp. 11351 138, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 1989.
Hayashi, S. C., A New Method of Evaluating Seismic Stability of Steel Structures,
Proceedings F f l h World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, Vol. 2,
1973, pp. 26022605.
Housner, G. W., Design Spectrum, in R. L. Wiegel (ed.), Earthquake Engineering
PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970.
Kaynia, A.M. and Kausel, F., Dynamic Behavior of Pile Groups, Proceedings,
Second International Conference on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin,
TX, 1982, pp. 509532.
Madhav, M. R. and Rao, N. S. V. K., Model for Machine Pile Foundation Soil System,
J . Soil Mech. and Found. Diu., ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SMI,1971, pp. 295299.
Maxwell, A. A., Fry, Z. B., and Poplin, J. K., Vibratory Loading of Pile Foundations,
ASTM, Special Technical Publication No. 444, 1969, pp. 338361.
Nogami, T., Dynamic Group Effect in Axial Responses of Grouped Piles, J . Geotech.
Eng., ASCE, Vol. 109, No. GT2, 1983, pp. 220223.
Nogami, T. and Liang, H., Behavior of Pile Groups Subjected to Dynamic Loads,
Proceedings 4th Canadian Conference on Earthquake. Engineering, 1983, pp. 414420.
Novak, M., Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of Piles, Can Geotech. J., Vol. 11, No. 4,
1974, pp. 574598.
Novak, M., Vertical Vibration of Floating Piles, J. Eng. Mech. Diu., ASCE, Vol. 103,
No. EMI, 1977a, pp. 153168.
Novak, M., Foundations and Soil Structure Interaction, Theme Report, Topic 4,
Proceedings VI World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, New Delhi,
1977b, pp. 14211448.
Novak, M. and AboulElla, E., PILAYA Computer Program for Calculation of
Stiffness and Damping of Piles in Layered Media, Report No. SACDA
7730, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, 1977.
Novak, M. and Beredugo, Y.O., Vertical Vibration of Embedded Footings, J . Soil
Mech. Found. Diu., ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM12, 1972, pp. 12911310.
Novak, M. and ElSharnouby, B., StilTness and Damping Constants of Single Piles,
J . Geotech. Eng. Diu., ASCE, July, Vol. 109, No. 7, 1983, pp. 961974.
Novak, M. and ElSharnouby, B., Evaluation of Dynamic Experiments on Pile Group,
J. Geotech. Eng. Diu., ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 6, 1984, pp. 738756.
Novak, M. and Grigg, R. F., Dynamic Experiments with Small Pile Foundation, Can.
Geot. J., Vol. 13, No. 4, 1976, pp. 372395.
REFERENCES
587
Novak, M. and Howell, J. F., Torsional Vibrations of Pile Foundations, J . Geot. Eng.
Diu., ASCE Vol. 103, No. GT4, 1977, 271285.
Novak, M. and Sach, K., Torsional and Coupled Vibrations of Embedded Footings,
Int. J . Earthquake Eng. Structural Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1973, pp. 1133.
Penzien, J., SoilPile Foundation Interaction, in R. L. Wiegel (ed.), Earthquake
Engineering, PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1970.
Poulos, H. G., Analysisof the Settlement of the Pile Groups, Geotechnique, Vol. XVIII,
NO. 4, 1968, pp. 449471.
Poulos, H. G., Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles. 11Pile Groups, J. Soil Mech.
and Found Diu., ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM5,1971, pp. 733751.
Poulos, H. G., Lateral Load Deflection Prediction for Pile Groups, J. Geotechn. Eng.
Diu., ASCE, Vol, No. GT1, 1975, pp. 1934.
Poulos, H. G., Groups Factors for PileDeflection Estimation, J. Geotech. Eng. Diu.,
ASCE, Vol. 105, NO. GT12, 1979, pp. 14891509.
Poulos, H. G. and Davis, E. H., Pile Foundation Analysis and Design, Wiley, New York,
1980.
Prakash, S., Behavior of Pile Groups Subjected to Lateral Loads, Ph.D. Thesis
University of Illinois, Urbana, 1962.
Prakash, S., Soil Dynamics, McGrawHill Book Co., New York, 1981.
Prakash, Sally Buckling Loads of Fully Embedded Piles, M.S. Thesis, University of
MissouriRolla, 1985.
Prakash, Sally, Buckling Loads of Fully Embedded Piles, Int. J. Comp. Geotech., Vol. 4
(1987) pp. 6183.
Prakash, S. and Agarwal, H. P., Effect of Vibrations on Skin Friction of Piles Proceedings
Fourth Asian Regional Conference on Soil Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, Vol. 1,
1971.
Prakash, S. and Agarwal. S. L., Effect of Pile Embedment on Natural Frequency of
Foundations, Proceedings South East Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand, 1967, pp. 333336.
Prakash, S. and Chandrasekaran,V., Pile Foundations Under Lateral Dynamic Loads,
Proceedings Eighth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 2, 1973, pp. 199203.
Prakash, S. and Chandrasekaran, V., Free Vibration Characteristics of Piles, Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, Vol. 2, 1977, pp. 333336.
Prakash, S. and Chandrasekaran, V., Analysis of Piles in Clay Against Earthquakes,
Preprint no. 80109, ASCE Convention and Exposition, Portland, OR, April 1418.
1980.
Prakash, S. and Gupta, L. P., A Study of Natural Frequency of Pile Groups,
Proceedings Second South East Asian Regional Conference on Soil Engineering,
Singapore, Vol. 1, 1970, pp. 401410.
Prakash, S. and Puri, V. K., Foundationfor Machines, Analysis and Design, Wiley, New
York, 1988.
Prakash, S., Ranjan, G., and Saran, S . Analysis and Design of Foundations and Retaining
Structures, Sarita Prakashan Meerut, UP, India. 1979.
588