Prof Bhattacharya

Pile Design in Liquefiable Soils Theory & Code Deficiencies
Subhamoy Bhattacharya1, Pradeep Kumar Dammala2 , Piyush Mohanty3

2Research
3Scientist,
Scholar, IIT Guwahati & Visiting Scholar, University of Surrey

CSIR-CBRI, & Research Scholar, University of Surrey
COPYWRITED
Presented by
1Prof Subhamoy Bhattacharya
Chair in Geomechanics, University of Surrey (UK)
Director: SAGE (Surrey Advanced Geotechnical Engineering) Laboratory
Adjunct Professor, Zhejiang University (China)
Wednesday, 14 December 2016
Failure of Piles in Liquefied Soils
COPYWRITED
Tubul bridge in 2010 Chile (Maule)

earthquake
Fire House, Kobe Port,

1995 Kobe Earthquake
Kandla Port Tower,
2001 Bhuj Earthquake
In this lecture, we will explore why these pile-supported

structures collapse in the way they do
What are common in these structures?

They are heavily loaded vertically (bridges/ high rise buildings)
Supported by piles
BUILDING/ BRIDGE
PILES
COPYWRITED
GROUND LEVEL
SOIL LAYER 1
SOIL LAYER 2
SOIL LAYER 3
Loading on a pile foundation during seismic

liquefaction
Pgravity Vinertial
Pgravity Vinertial
Pgravity
H inertial
H inertial
Pgravity Vinertial
H inertial
COPYWRITED
Loose
sand
Liquefied
sand
Liquefied
sand
Stage I
Stage II
Stage III
Stage IV
Before
earthquake on
level ground
Shaking starts.
Soil yet to liquefy
Soil liquefies.
Vertical inertial
forces act with
gravity. Piles may
starts to buckle or
settle
On sloping ground
Soil liquefies. Lateral
spreading may combine with
behaviour in stage III
Bhattacharya et al. (2004) - Geotechnique
During Liquefaction
Different stages of loading during liquefaction process
Skin friction diminishes
(Axial capacity reduces)
Bearing & settlement failure?
Additional Forces induced
Inertial loading
Kinematic loading
COPYWRITED
DYNAMIC CONSIDERATION
Time taken to reach full
Liquefaction and the increase
In time period of the system
Lombardi & Bhattacharya (2014) Earthquake Engineering and

Structural Dynamics
COPYWRITED
Time period increase example: SHOWA BRIDGE
Bhattacharya et al. (2014) Soil Dynamics &

Earthquake Engg
(a) Showa Bridge pile configuration

for period estimation
(b) Variation of period with liquefied

soil layer thickness
6.5
Dead Weight,
M =74T
Deck Level
6.0
COPYWRITED
5.5
Air
6m
5.0
3m
Period
(s)
4.5
Water
4.0
3.5
Liquefied
soil layer
Variable
thickness, L
3.0
2.5
Depth of fixity, F d = 4D
2.0
0
Liquefied soil layer thickness (m)
Non-liquefied
stiff soil
10
Failure Mechanism/s in Liquefiable Soils

What we need to design the piles for?
Bending failure [Lateral load acting on the pile due to inertia
and/or lateral spreading] needs a bending moment calculation.
Buckling failure [In liquefiable region, the pile is laterally
unsupported] Euler type calculation & embedment depth below

liquefiable soils
COPYWRITED
Combined action of bending and buckling (this needs P-delta

analysis)
Dynamic failure [Note the time taken to liquefaction and change

in period of the structure]
Bending
Failure
COPYWRITED
Bending Failure
Pile is considered as laterally loaded beam

the loads are from
Inertia loads from superstructure
COPYWRITED
Drag loads from lateral spreading
FLOWING SOIL
WaterTable
Depth of
liquefaction
Non-liquefied
stabilised crust
Liquefied
layer
Current understanding of pile failure
Methods for bending analysis

1.
Subgrade reaction
approach
Stiffness of soil defined
by mathematical
formulation
Preferable for small strain
analysis
(Reese & Matlock, 1965;
Poulos 1971)
2.
Continuum
approach
3.
Pile & soil are

modelled in continuum
Preferable for complex
analysis
Expensive
(Wu & Fin 1997)
Spring approach
Beams on Nonlinear
Winkler Foundation
(BNWF)
(Hetenyi 1946;
Matlock 1970; Reese
et al. 1974)
COPYWRITED
Codal Suggestions - Bending

JRA(1996, 2002)
Only code suggesting guidelines for pile
design in Lateral Spreading Soil
Pressure distribution was formulated by
back analysing Kobe earthquake case studies

(1995)
COPYWRITED
IS 2911 (2010)
In the zone of soil susceptible to liquefaction

the lateral resistance of the soil shall not be
considered
JRA, 2002
30% of overburden pressure
Codal Suggestions (contd.)

EUROCODE 8 (2003)
Liquefiable zone should be neglected for lateral resistance
Suggests the location of plastic hinge
2d from pile cap
COPYWRITED
2d near any interface between two soil layers with
markedly different shear stiffness
Codal Suggestions (contd.)
COPYWRITED
NEHRP 2000 (FEMA) USA
Bending mechanism (inertia and lateral spreading)
Road Bridge Seismic design Rules (JTGTB02-01-2008)-China
Pile should penetrate deep into the dense and stable layer below the liquefied layer/s.
(No specifications for any kinds of failure)
Can bending explain observations of

pile failures?
COPYWRITED
Failure in sloping ground and level ground

Sloping ground
Level ground
COPYWRITED
REFERENCE:
Criticism of theory based on lateral spreading:
See Bhattacharya and Bolton (2004)
Showa Bridge
GA-1
G1-2
COPYWRITED
G2-3
G3-4
G4-5
G7-8
G5-6
G6-7
G8-9
G9-10
G10-11 G11-A
Collapse of Showa Bridge during 1964 Niigata earthquake
COPYWRITED
Schematic diagram of the failure of Showa bridge, Takata et al (1965)
Factor of Safety based on Japanese Road Association (2002) code: 1.84

Reference: Bhattacharya et al (2005) in Soils and Foundation
Buckling
Failure
COPYWRITED
Structurally piles are columns or beam?

Structural nature of pile
Long and slender
(L/D = 25 to 100)
COPYWRITED
93m
Piles of Jamuna Bridge (117m)

Structural nature of pile

Once the surrounding soil liquefies, a pile is laterally unsupported.
May undergo buckling if the axial load is excessive.
15 m
0.35m dia
(L/D) = 43
COPYWRITED
No lateral
support
Before liquefaction
After liquefaction
Failed piles of
building(1964 Niigata Eq)
Bending versus Buckling

CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
(Bending)
Bending of the pile due to the lateral loads
Buckling
Buckling of the pile due to the axial

load
COPYWRITED
FLOWING SOIL
Buckling calculation
Critical load (Pcr) (Eulers buckling equation)
Slenderness ratio :Leff/rmin
Pcr
2 EI
Leff
r min
I
A
COPYWRITED
In API (2000) & Eurocode 8 (1997), buckling is only to
be considered when
I. Driving in soft soil
II. Lateral load is excessive
(But not in case of liquefied soil)
Different boundary conditions of pile
Non-liquefied
crust
Non-liquefied
crust
Normalised pile length in

liquefiable zone or likely
unsupported zone
Non-liquefied
crust
Liquefiable
soil (L0)
Liquefiable
soil (L0)
Pcr
COPYWRITED
Dense
Dense
Dense
Case 2
Case 1
Liquefiable
soil (L0)
Case 3
Liquefiable
soil (L0)
Liquefiable
soil (L0)
Dense
Dense
Dense
Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
2 EI
Leff
Back Analysis of 15 case histories
NORMALSIED PILE DIAMETER
5 from Niigata (1964), 1 from Chubu (1983), 1 from New Zealand, 8

from Kobe (1995) 4 bridges, 1 hospital, 2 Oil tanks, 1 hotel and 7
buildings
SAFE AGAINST
BUCKLING
0.7
0.6
Go od performance
Po o r perfo rmance
L/rmin = 50
COPYWRITED
(r min)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
40
Effective length (Leff)
NORMALISED PILE LENGTH
Bhattacharya et al (2004) Geotechnique
60
Plotting for concrete piles from the case histories

Short Column, can fail
only by crushing
21
cr
Euler's Theo ritical curve

for M 25 co ncrete
Go od perfo rmance
Poor perfo rmance
Yield stress line
16
(MPa)
Rankine's formula
COPYWRITED
cr
10
Pcr
E
2
A L
eff
rmin
0
0
50
100
Low shear capacity, Hollow

RCC pile
150
200
(Leff/rmin)
250
300
350
Verification of Buckling instability

Centrifuge test and 1-g test
COPYWRITED
Bhattacharya (2003)
Chong Suck et al (2006)
Knappett and Madabhushi (2005)

Case Study on Buckling failure

FOS against buckling =0.81
(Bhattacharya, 2006)
COPYWRITED
Fire House, Kobe Port,

1995 Kobe Earthquake
Foundation Details
Combined
Bending & Buckling
interaction
analysis
COPYWRITED
Numerical modelling technique
COPYWRITED
See Dash, Bhattacharya and Blakeborough (2009)
Note the effect of axial load on instability
COPYWRITED
y
Bhattacharya et al (2008)
Bending and Buckling
Bending failure; M>Mp

Buckling failure: P>Pcr
Bending and buckling
failure: M<Mp ; P<Pcr
When P is close to Pcr
+ >
COPYWRITED
Axial load and moment
acting on a pile in liquefied soil
Effect of bendingbuckling interaction on the response of pile foundation
Shape of p-y curves for liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils

Note the shape of p-y curves for Liquefied soils
Axial Load
Load (p)
LateralLoad
Lateralsoil
Springs
t-z
Liquefiable
layer
p-y
t-z
Displacement (y)
Bottom of
liquefiable
layer
COPYWRITED
p-y
Load (p)
t-z
Non-liquefiable
layer
p-y
q-z
Displacement (y)
Lombardi, D., S. R. Dash, S. Bhattacharya, et al (2017) "Construction of simplified design py curves for liquefied soils." Geotechnique (2017) available online and OPEN ACCESS.
Codal provision for liquefied Soils

P-multiplier approach
JRA (2002), RTRI (1999), Brandenderg (2005)
Defined w.r.t. N1(60)
Empirically determined
Over-predicts the initial stiffness of liquefied
Doesnt model strain hardening
COPYWRITED
Note the importance of shape of p-y curves

A: Small amplitude vibration
B: Large differential ground movement
V
H
A
pu
pu
yu
yu
COPYWRITED
pu
pu
yu
yu
pu
Load
Lateral soil
spring
pu
K
yu
Displacement
Model (a)
yu
Model (b)
700
Pile resistance, p (kN/m)
600
Non-liquefiable p-y curve (h=12 m)
500
Liquefiable p-y curve (h=12 m)
400
COPYWRITED
300
200
100

0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Soil-pile displacement, y (m)
0.08
0.09
0.1
Dynamics
[Transient]
COPYWRITED
How does liquefaction effect dynamics?
COPYWRITED
Before liquefaction
Depth of fixity (Df1)
Significant change in natural period due to
Increase in depth of liquefaction (Df1<Df2)

Loss of lateral support to the piles
Increased flexibility
Increase in damping of the system
After liquefaction
Depth of fixity(Df2)
How does liquefaction effect dynamics?
Inertial forces reduce as a result of

elongation of natural period.
As the frequency of the structure decreases,

it may get tune with the predominant
frequency of the earthquake -RESONANCE
COPYWRITED
Lombardi & Bhattacharya, 2014
Damping also increases, sometimes reaches

a value of 20%
Spectral displacement increases leading to

increased Bending moment demand
Significant bending moment due to P-

effect.
Experimental Validation
Shake table tests (Lombardi & Bhattacharya 2016)
Two single piles
Two group piles
Monitored behaviour during
Transient (0.2<ru<0.4)
Full liquefaction
COPYWRITED
Input motion
Lombardi & Bhattacharya (2014) in

Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics
Photograph of Experimental Apparatus
Experimental Validation
BNWF model (p-y) with
Proposed liquefied springs
P-multiplier approach
Compared with shake table results
Inferences from strength (BM) criterion
COPYWRITED
Magnitude of BM underestimated
In both the numerical models
Location of max BM is predicted
Using proposed p-y springs
Comparison of bending moment during transient phase
(Lombardi & Bhattacharya 2016) in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Amplification of Bending Moment in Transient phase
COPYWRITED
M maxtransient
1
M preliq
M max transient
2
M postliq
COPYWRITED
M maxtransient
1
M preliq
M max transient
2
M postliq
COPYWRITED
M maxtransient
1
M preliq
M max transient
2
M postliq
Dynamic failure (contd.)

The fundamental vibration period of a building is most often estimated using
empirical formulae, which only considers the dimensions, type and material of the
superstructure.
Eurocode 8, IS 1893-Part 1(2002): = 3/4 (H is the height of the building in m,
Ct = 0.085 for moment-resistant space steel frames,
0.075 for moment-resistant space concrete frames
COPYWRITED
Loss of lateral support in liquefied soil
Showa Bridge collapse:

1964 Niigata Earthquake
COPYWRITED
Showa Bridge
GA-1
G1-2
COPYWRITED
G2-3
G3-4
G4-5
G7-8
G5-6
G6-7
G8-9
G9-10
G10-11 G11-A
Middle of the bridge fails
COPYWRITED
Rokko Bridge, 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
Differential settlement at the midspan of

the bridge, Juan Pablo II, Chile, 2010
Earthquake
Miaoziping bridge, China, 2008 Earthquake
Some more examples
COPYWRITED
Shangli Bridge, 1976 Tangshan Earthquake, China
Panshan Bridge, 1975 Haicheng Earthquake, China
Increase in Natural Period

GA-1
P1
G1-2
G2-3
P2
G3-4
P3
G4-5
P4
P5
G8-9
G7-8
G5-6
G10-11 G11-A
G9-10
G6-7
P6
P7
P8
P9
P
10
P
11
COPYWRITED
Schematic diagram of the collapse of the bridge along with

the deflections of the pile caps (Iwasaki 1986)
Soil liquefaction profile (in grey), Hamada and O'Rourke (1992)

Pile Foundation
Dimension
What is so special about the middle of the bridge?
COPYWRITED
COPYWRITED
Increase in Natural Period
IS 1893-Part 1(2002)
Tpre
Pier No (in sec)
Eurocode 8- Part 2
COPYWRITED
Simplified Stiffness =
Natural Period =
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
1.60
2.31
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.78
2.95
3.11
2.17
1.60
Tpost
(in sec)
2.91
3.77
4.50
5.08
5.48
5.88
4.13
3.08
3.25
2.14
1.57
P- effect
Pier
No
COPYWRITED
Sa-post/Sa-pre=0.10
Sa-post/Sa-pre=0.20
Sa-post/Sa-pre=0.30
Sa-post/Sa-pre=0.40
Sa-post/Sa-pre=0.50
Sa-post/Sa-pre=0.60
6
5
Sd-post/Sd-pre
%age
increase in
Sd
23.15
46.66
115.3
153.8
190.7
207.6
56.25
37.5
34.07
37.61
7.142
4
3
2
1
0
1
1.5
Tpost/Tpre
2.5
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
Remarks*
Not Collapsed
Not Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Collapsed
Not Collapsed
Not Collapsed
Not Collapsed
Not Collapsed
Not Collapsed
A Case Study of
Dynamics
Change
COPYWRITED
Saraighat Bridge, Assam
Saraighat Bridge, Assam
Location Guwahati, Assam (North-eastern city in India)

Over Brahmaputra river
Constructed during late 1950s (1958 to 1962) - No Indian seismic code used
Liquefaction phenomenon was staged in 1964 after Nigata & Alaska
Earthquakes
Well/Caisson foundation
Length of the entire bridge = 1.292 Km
COPYWRITED
Saraighat Bridge Seismicity of the region
Classified as ZONE V (IS 1893-2002)

Experienced two great earthquakes (Mw>8.0) and 20 large earthquakes
(7.0<Mw>8.0) since 1897
PGA according to GSHAP = 0.24 to 0.48g
COPYWRITED
Indian Meteorological Department, accessed on 25th July 2015
Saraighat Bridge Seismicity of the region
Seismic Boundaries: Many active seismic faults surrounding Guwahati

Seismologists warn of a greater seismic event in the near future in this
region (Kayal et al. 2006)
COPYWRITED
Saraighat Bridge Structural Details
Length of the Bridge = 1.292 km
Each span length = 122.2m
Mass of each span = 2100 ton
COPYWRITED
Schematic view of Saraighat Bridge
Saraighat Bridge Foundation Details
Well/Caisson Foundation with Double D cross section

Maximum depth of Foundation (at central pier) = 55m
Depth of embedment = 40m (considering average scouring depth)
9.75m
Loose to moderately
dense silty sand mixed
with pebbles
COPYWRITED
Navg = 25, = 300, =16

kN/m3
16.3m
25 m
Pier Cap
Piers
6m
Dense to very dense

clayey silty sand
Navg = 36, = 330,
=18 kN/m3
6m
Well cap
5m
10m
Hard & stiff clayey silt with

rock type formation
14m
Well Foundation
N > 100, C = 110 kPa,

=20 kN/m3
Soil Profile at centre of the bridge (Courtesy: GAMMON LTD)
Saraighat Bridge Analysis

Bridge central pier is considered (as it is most prone to liquefaction)
Soil-Well-Pier (SWP) modelled by 1 Dimensional Spring Dashpot

Distributed shaft springs (rotational & translational) Novak et al. (1978)
Base translational springs Veletsos & Wei (1971)
Liquefiable strata springs are ignored for model after liquefaction
COPYWRITED
Loss of
lateral support
Saraighat Bridge Dynamics Change

Modal analysis performed
Natural time period estimated from numerical model
Before liquefaction (springs along the depth)
After liquefaction (no springs in liquefiable zone) (different depths of liquefaction considered)
Time period before liquefaction = 1.121.15 agreeable with measured values

by Debnath et al. 2010
Liquefaction doesnt have significant effect on natural time period of well
foundations
10
COPYWRITED
140
Showa
Saraighat
% Change in Time Period
Time Period, sec
120
Saraighat
100
Showa
Showa
Saraighat
80
SlopeShowa>>>SlopeSaraighat
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
Depth of Liq, m
20
25
10
Depth of Liq, m
15
20
25
Conclusions / Recommendations
Design against bending failure cannot alone avert the failure of pile foundations
Should be designed for all the possible failure mechanisms (especially in

liquefiable zones)
Bending
Buckling
COPYWRITED
Combined bending & buckling
Dynamics (Natural time period & fundamental frequency)
Present codal provisions need a revisit considering above mechanisms

Old & important structures (built before liquefaction knowledge) should be
requalified for any effects of liquefaction on their performance

Note the shape of p-y curves for liquefied soil
Thank you
IGC, DFI & organizers
COPYWRITED
References (Linked online)

Lombardi, D., S. R. Dash, S. Bhattacharya, E. Ibraim, D. Muir Wood, and C. A. Taylor. Construction of simplified
design py curves for liquefied soils. Geotechnique (2017).
Lombardi, D., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). Evaluation of seismic performance of pilesupported models in
liquefiable soils. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics.
Lombardi, D., & Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Modal analysis of pilesupported structures during seismic
liquefaction. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 43(1), 119-138.
Bhattacharya S (2003) Pile instability during earthquake liquefaction. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG. A critical review of methods for pile design in seismically liquefiable soils.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2008; 6(3):407446: DOI:10.1007/s10518-008-9068-3
Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG, Bolton MD (2004) An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable
deposits during earthquakes. Geotechnique 54(3):203213.
Bhattacharya S, Bolton MD, Madabhushi SPG (2005) A reconsideration of the safety of the piled bridge
foundations in liquefiable soils. Soils and Foundations 45(4):1326.
S. Bhattacharya, K. Tokimatsu, K. Goda, R. Sarkar, M. Shadlou, M. Rouholamin, (2014), Collapse of Showa Bridge
during 1964 Niigata earthquake: A quantitative reappraisal on the failure mechanisms, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 65, Pages 5571.
Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S, Alexander NA. Simplified method for unified buckling and dynamic analysis of pile
supported structures in seismically liquefiable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009; 29:1220
1235. DOI:10.1016/jsoildyn.2009.01.006.
Dash SR, Bhattacharya S, Blakeborough A. Bending-buckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in
liquefiable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2010; 30:3239.
Bhattacharya, S., (2006), Safety assessment of existing pile foundations in liquefiable soils. ISETJ2006.
Bhattacharya, S., Goda, K., (2013), Probabilistic buckling analysis of axially loaded piles in liquefiable soils. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng, 45:1324.
Bhattacharya, S., Blakeborough, A., & Dash, S. (2008, November). Learning from collapse of piles in liquefiable
soils. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering (Vol. 161, No. 6, pp. 54-60). Thomas
Telford Ltd.
COPYWRITED

Dash, S. R., Govindaraju, L., & Bhattacharya, S. (2009). A case study of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs
Office tower supported on a matpile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil
dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(2), 333346.
Hamada, M. and O'Rourke, T.D. (editors) (1992). Case Studies of Liquefaction and Lifeline Performance during
Past Earthquakes, Volume 1, Japanese Case Studies, Technical Report NCEER- 92-0001, State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, U.S.A.
Reese, L. C., Cox, W. R., Koop, F. D.. Analysis of laterally loaded piles in sand. Offshore Technology in Civil
Engineering Hall of Fame Papers from the Early Years, 1974, 95-105.
Matlock, H.. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. Offshore Technology in Civil
Engineerings Hall of Fame Papers from the Early Years, 1970, 77-94.
Brandenberg SJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Chang D. Static pushover analyses of pile groups in liquefied and
laterally spreading ground in centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2007;
133(9):10551066.
Brandenberg SJ. Behavior of pile foundations in liquefied and laterally spreading ground. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Univ. of California at Davis, Davis, Calif. 2005.
Brandenberg SJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Chang D. Behavior of pile foundations in laterally spreading ground
during centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2005; 131(11):13781391.
Knappett JA, Madabhushi SPG (2005) Modelling of liquefaction-induced instability in pile groups. In: Boulanger
RW, Tokimatsu K (eds) ASCE geotechnical special publication no 145 on seismic performance and simulation of
pile foundations in liquefied and laterally spreading ground, pp 255267
Hetenyi, M. 1946. Beams on elastic foundation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Reese, L.C. & H. Matlock 1956. Nondimensional solutions for laterally loaded piles with soil modulus assumed
proportional to depth. Proceedings of the VIII Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
41 pp. University of Texas, Austin.
Poulos, H.G. 1971. Behavior of laterally loaded piles: Il-pile groups. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE 97(SM5): 733-751.
COPYWRITED
Wu, G., and Finn, W.D.L. 1997. Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the
time domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(1): 4452. doi:10.1139/cgj- 34-1-44.
JRA. Japanese Road Association: specification for highway bridges, Part V: seismic design, 1996.
JRA. Japan Road Association 2002: specifications for highway bridges, Part V: seismic design, Japan, 2002.
EN 19985. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 5: Foundations, Retaining Structures and
Geotechnical Aspects (English). Comit Europen de Normalisation (CEN), Brussels, 2004.
American Petroleum Institute (API). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms. Working Stress Design, API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP2A-WSD), (21st edn), Dallas,
2000.
IS-1893. Part 1: Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Bureau of Indian Standard: New Delhi, 2000.
RTRI (1999). Design standard for railway facilities-seismic design. Railway Technical Research Institute. in
Japanese.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Commentary (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
USA, 369) for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, 2000.
Takata T, Tada Y, Toshida I, Kuribayashi E. Damage to bridges in Niigata earthquake. Report No. 125-5, Public Works
Research Institute; 1965 (in Japanese).
Iwasaki T. Soil liquefaction studies in Japan. State-of-the-art, Technical Memor- andum No. 2239. Tsukuba, Japan:
Public Works Research Institute; 1986.
Kayal, J. R., Sergei S. Arefiev, Baruah, S., Hazarika, D.,Gogoi, N., Kumar, A., Chowdhury, S. N. and Kalita, S. (2006).
Shillong plateau earthquakes in northeast India region: complex tectonic model. Current Science, 91:1, 109-114
Novak, M., Aboul-Ella, F., & Nogami, T. (1978). Dynamic soil reactions for plane strain case. Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, 104(4), 953-959.
Veletsos, A. S., & Wei, Y. T. (1971). Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations
Div.
Debnath, N., Dutta, A., & Deb, S. K. (2012). Placement of sensors in operational modal analysis for truss
bridges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 31, 196-216.
COPYWRITED

Prof Bhattacharya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prof Bhattacharya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pile Design in Liquefiable Soils Theory & Code Deficiencies

Subhamoy Bhattacharya1, Pradeep Kumar Dammala2 , Piyush Mohanty3

Scholar, IIT Guwahati & Visiting Scholar, University of Surrey

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Failure of Piles in Liquefied Soils

Tubul bridge in 2010 Chile (Maule)

Fire House, Kobe Port,

In this lecture, we will explore why these pile-supported

What are common in these structures?

Loading on a pile foundation during seismic

Bhattacharya et al. (2004) - Geotechnique

Lombardi & Bhattacharya (2014) Earthquake Engineering and

Time period increase example: SHOWA BRIDGE

Bhattacharya et al. (2014) Soil Dynamics &

(a) Showa Bridge pile configuration

(b) Variation of period with liquefied

Liquefied soil layer thickness (m)

Failure Mechanism/s in Liquefiable Soils

Buckling failure [In liquefiable region, the pile is laterally

unsupported] Euler type calculation & embedment depth below

Combined action of bending and buckling (this needs P-delta

Dynamic failure [Note the time taken to liquefaction and change

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Pile is considered as laterally loaded beam

Drag loads from lateral spreading

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Current understanding of pile failure

Methods for bending analysis

Pile & soil are

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Codal Suggestions - Bending

back analysing Kobe earthquake case studies

In the zone of soil susceptible to liquefaction

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

30% of overburden pressure

Codal Suggestions (contd.)

2d near any interface between two soil layers with

markedly different shear stiffness

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Codal Suggestions (contd.)

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Can bending explain observations of

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Failure in sloping ground and level ground

Collapse of Showa Bridge during 1964 Niigata earthquake

Factor of Safety based on Japanese Road Association (2002) code: 1.84

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Structurally piles are columns or beam?

Piles of Jamuna Bridge (117m)

Structural nature of pile

Bending versus Buckling

Buckling of the pile due to the axial

Different boundary conditions of pile

Normalised pile length in

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Back Analysis of 15 case histories

NORMALSIED PILE DIAMETER

5 from Niigata (1964), 1 from Chubu (1983), 1 from New Zealand, 8

Effective length (Leff)

NORMALISED PILE LENGTH

Bhattacharya et al (2004) Geotechnique