ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Bendingbuckling interaction as a failure mechanism of piles in liqueable soils

Suresh R. Dash a, Subhamoy Bhattacharya b,, Anthony Blakeborough a
a b

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, UK Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, UK

a r t i c l e in f o
Article history: Received 4 August 2009 Accepted 14 August 2009 Keywords: Pile Liquefaction Bending Buckling p2y curve

a b s t r a c t
This paper investigates the importance of bendingbuckling interaction in seismic design of piles in liqueable soils using numerical techniques. A pseudo-static analysis has been performed using a well documented case history, where the pilesoil interaction is modelled as a beam on nonlinear winkler foundation (BNWF). Six possible analytical methods, three force based and three displacement based, are performed in which the pile is subjected to both lateral and axial load. Three out of six analysis cases did not predict the failure of the piles when analysed only for bending (i.e., lateral loads only). The buckling analysis showed that the pile was also safe against pure buckling during full liquefaction. Further, two out of those three cases which did not predict failure in bending were reanalysed for bendingbuckling interaction (i.e., lateral and axial loads acting simultaneously). These combined analyses showed a more realistic behaviour of pile response and did predict the pile failure. Hence, it can be concluded that if a pile is designed for bending and buckling criteria separately and safe for these individual design criteria, it may fail due to their combined effect. Crown Copyright & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The collapse of piled structures in liqueable soils is observed after many strong earthquakes, despite the fact that a large factor of safety is employed in their design [1]. Pile foundations in liqueable soils subjected to seismic shaking may fail due to (a) excessive settlement, (b) shear or (c) bending. These mechanisms are well understood and the codes of practice use them to set design guidelines. Of these mechanisms, bending due to liquefaction induced lateral spreading of the ground is often regarded as the root cause of many pile foundation failures during earthquakes, see for example Hamada [2,3], Ishihara [4], Tokimatsu et al. [5], Goh and ORourke [6], Abdoun and Dobry [7], Finn and Fujita [8]. Recently, buckling instability has been cited as another possible mechanisms of pile failure in liqueable soils ([914, 2729] etc.). Bhattacharya [9] collated 14 case histories of pile earthquake performance and classied them according to their Euler buckling load when the soil was fully liqueed. In most of the cases where the axial load in the pile was 50% or more of the buckling load, the foundation suffered signicant damage. These

failure also hint that the lateral load during an earthquake combined with high axial load is the probable cause of pile failure. Though the two major limit states of collapse of pile, bending (due to lateral inertia or lateral soil pressure) and buckling (due to axial load), have been studied in detail separately, little has been reported on their interactions. This paper thus investigates the bendingbuckling interaction of a pile foundation in a seismically liqueable soil deposits using a case study.

2. Bendingbuckling interaction Designing pile foundations for bending and buckling criteria requires different approaches; the former is based on strength and the later is on stiffness. Bending failure depends on the bending strength (moment at rst yield, My , and plastic moment capacity, Mp ) of the pile, whereas, buckling represents a sudden instability of the pile when the axial load reaches the critical value Pcr . In reality, piles are subjected to both axial and lateral loads during an earthquake and hence act like beam-column members. The presence of axial load in piles causes lateral unstiffening of them. As the axial load approaches the critical value, the loss of lateral stiffness can cause the beam to deect many times more than it would deect without the axial load. The ensuing large deection of the beam may then induce plasticity in the beam resulting in an early failure. Keeping the design procedure in mind, this interaction of lateral and axial load on piles can be

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 117 3317330; fax: +44 117 9287783.

E-mail addresses: suresh.dash@eng.ox.ac.uk (S.R. Dash), subhamoy.bhattacharya@gmail.com, S.Bhattacharya@bristol.ac.uk (S. Bhattacharya), tony.blakeborough@eng.ox.ac.uk (A. Blakeborough).

0267-7261/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.08.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239 33

P
M = Maximum bending moment in pile MP = Plastic moment capacity of pile

M/Mp 1
soil
Non-liquefied crust

Pcr P = Pcr/2 P=0

soil
P = Axial load in pile Pcr = Critical buckling load of pile

y
Liquefied soil layer

P y

Pcr

P = Pcr/2 P=0

Pattern of soil flow

Non-liquefied stable soil layer

soil

Fig. 1. Schematic showing the effect of bendingbuckling interaction on the response of pile foundation.

referred to as bendingbuckling interaction. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the effect of bendingbuckling interaction on the response of a pile foundation, where a axially loaded pile is subjected to lateral spreading. The gure shows the pile head deection at three levels of axial loading such as: (a) no axial load P 0, (b) axial load at 50% of buckling load P Pcr =2 and (c) axial load close to buckling load PCPcr . As the axial load increases, the pile head deection and the bending moment in pile also increase. When the axial load is close to the buckling load, the bending moment amplication factor becomes very high, which leads the bending moment in pile to reach its plastic moment capacity, Mp , at a lower value of lateral load. The sudden rise in pile head deection demonstrates the failure point of the pile where bending moment reaches Mp and pile continues to deect without any additional loading. The similar pattern of bending buckling interaction is also possible when axially loaded piles in level ground are subjected to inertia loading. When both inertia and lateral spreading act together and contribute to the lateral loading of the pile, the pile may deect a greater amount for the same axial load. Another example of interaction between two mechanisms (lateral spreading loads on the pile and settlement of the pile) can be found in Dash et al. [15].

3. Numerical investigation of bendingbuckling interaction A well documented case history, the Showa bridge pile failure in 1964 Niigata earthquake, is taken here for exploring the importance of bendingbuckling interaction for piles in liqueable soils. This example is well suited for the present study because the pile was subjected to lateral loads from the lateral spreading of the liqueed soil at the riverbed and the axial load is high enough to affect the bendingbuckling interaction signicantly. Fig. 2(a) shows a schematic drawing of the collapsed Showa bridge after 1964 Niigata earthquake. Pile P4 was extracted after the earthquake for investigation. The soil data near the pile as well as the structural details of the pile used in the numerical study are detailed in Figs. 2(b) and (c). 3.1. Structural modelling of the bridge pile The Showa bridge pile is modelled as a beam on nonlinear winkler foundation (BNWF) using the nite element program SAP

2000 (CSI [17]). The 25 m long pile passed through a four-layer system of air, water and liqueed and non-liqueed soil (Fig. 3). The pile was restrained over the lower 6 m and subjected to a combination of lateral and axial loads. The pile is modelled using beam-column elements and the soilpile interaction is modelled by lateral soil springs. The stiffness and strength of the lateral springs are appropriately reduced when modelling liqueed soil. The lateral loading on pile can be modelled in either of the following two ways: (a) by applying the limiting pressure due to spreading soil (force based loading) or (b) applying the soil displacement at the free eld ends of the lateral springs (displacement based loading). Details of these two types of loadings will be discussed in the following sections of this paper. The deck sections over the pile P4 of the Showa bridge, the one under consideration, were constructured in a way that one end of the girder was xed and the other end was free to slide longitudinally off the piers (Fig. 2). Once the liquefaction starts, the pile head undergoes large displacement and the resistance offered from the bridge deck is limited so the head of the pile is effectively free. Present numerical model assumes this and also considers that the pile is stable at the base under vertical settlement, which is modelled as a roller support restraining the vertical displacement at the base of the pile. These assumptions may not fully represent the eld condition, however, changes in the boundary conditions at the pile tip do not have a signicant effect on the bendingbuckling interaction because of the large lateral restraint offered by the non-liqueed soil.

3.2. Soil model The length of the pile in the liqueable soil zone is about 10 m (Fig. 2(b)) and the underlying denser non-liqueed sand layer (6 m thick) is assumed to provide restraint during lateral spreading. Nonlinear lateral soil springs, commonly known as p2y springs, are modelled according to the API guidelines (API [18]) for sandy soil. The in situ relative density Dr of the soil is calculated using Eq. (1) proposed by Meyerhof [19]. v u u N 1 Dr 21u 0 ; t sv 0:7 98

ARTICLE IN PRESS
34 S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

G11

G1, G11 = 13.75m G2...G10 = 27.64m AL P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 AR

Sectional details of the pile t = 16mm

Axial Capacity (kN) Py = 9405

t
t = 9mm

Pu = 14630

Py = 5355

D = 0.609 m Stress

Pu = 8330

Bending Capacity (kNm) My = 1354 (a) = 1320 (b) = 1286 (c) Mp = 2675 (a) = 2442 (b) = 2415 (c) My = 790 (a) = 735 (b) = 680 (c) Mp = 1567 (a) = 1414 (b) = 1385 (c)

u y u Compression y

Stress-strain pattern of pipe material Tension y y u u Strain y = 0.00157 u = 0.089 y = 315 MPa u = 490 MPa

Note: Py = Yield capacity of pile in axial compression or tension Pu = Ultimate capacity of pile in axial compression or tension My = Yield moment capacity of pile Mp = Plastic moment capacity of pile a : for P = 0kN, b: for P = 370kN, c: for P = 740kN
Fig. 2. (a) Collapsed conguration of the Showa bridge after 1964 Niigata Earthquake. (b) Details of the pile P4, that is pulled out after the earthquake (Fukuoka [16]). (c) Table showing the structural details of the pile.

where N is the standard penetration test value of the soil (see 0 Fig. 2(b)) and sv is the effective overburden pressure in kPa at the depth under consideration At full liquefaction, the effective stress at the base of the liqueed soil layer is zero, and hence acts like a free surface. The submerged unit weight of the soil is taken to be 10 kN=m3 . The estimated spring parameters for the bottom 6 m of non-liqueed soil layer are presented in Table 1. The p2y spring for top 10 m liqueed soil was calculated by multiplying the maximum lateral resistance pu by a reduction factor, the p-multiplier a (Fig. 4). The mobilizing soil displacement of p2y spring yu is assumed to be unaffected during liquefaction. The following section describes about the p-multiplier for p2y springs in liqueed soil in detail.

the pile (Fig. 3(b)). The Japanese Roads Association (JRA [20]) code, a modern code of practice, species the limiting lateral pressure F1 and F2 (see Fig. 3(b)) to be 30% of the total overburden pressure. We can note that the effective stress in liqueed soil is zero which may limit the strength and correspondingly ow pressure to be nearly zero, the JRA [20] code does not take this into account. Nevertheless, following the JRA [20], assuming the bulk unit weight of soil and water as 10 and 20 kN=m3 , the force on pile at the top and bottom of the liqueed soil layer (F1 and F2) are calculated as 30% of the total overburden pressure, such as: F1 0:3 10 kN=m3 3 m 0:609 m 5:5 kN=m.
F2 0:3 20 kN=m3 10 m 10 kN=m3 3 m0:609 m

42 kN=m.

3.3. Pile loading The present study ignores the inertia effects on the pile, so the ow of top 10 m liqueed soil is the only external source of lateral force on the pile. The following sections will discuss the loading on the piles based on both the limiting force approach and the ground displacement approach and compare the approaches. Force based approach. The lateral pressure on piles from the ow of liqueed soils can be modelled as a limiting pressure on

He et al. [21] reported an experimental study which showed that the average lateral pressure from liqueed soil on a pile may vary from 20 to 40 kPa (i.e., F 1 and F 2 may range between 20 and 40 kPa). The force based analysis for the present study thus considers three cases of lateral loading: 1. JRA type loading (F1 5:5 kN=m and F2 42 kN=m), 2. He et al. [21] lower bound loading F1 F2 20 kPa and 3. He et al. [21] upper bound F1 F2 40 kPa.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239 35

Axial Load A 6m
Air

Axial Load A

soil
Water

3m

Limiting pressure from spreading soil F1

Ground deformation

soil

10m
Liquefied soil

F2 6m

E
Non-liquefied soil

Fig. 3. Pile subjected to lateral load from soil ow and axial load: (a) eld condition, (b) force based model and (c) displacement based model.

Table 1 Lateral soil spring properties of bottom 6 m soil surrounding the pile. Depth from GL (m) 11 12 13 14 15 16 N 18 33 33 34 34 34 pu (kN/m) 24.40 100.1 225.1 399.4 623.1 896.1 yu (m) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

displacements. Fig. 5 clearly demonstrates the inconsistency in the magnitude of lateral forces that may lead to very different results while analysing the piles by different methods suggested in design guidelines and by researchers. 3.4. Analysis type The analysis of the present numerical model requires the following three conditions to be satised, such as: 1. The axial load is present throughout the lateral loading phase, and the P-delta effect is considered. 2. The load due to lateral spreading is gradual and proportional to the amount of soil ow. 3. The analysis is pseudo-static, which is justied because the bridge failed after the earthquake shaking had ceased. A nonlinear static analysis was performed by using SAP (CSI [17]). The loading pattern used in the analysis is shown in Fig. 6. The pile is rst subjected to the full axial load Pmax , and then the lateral pile load (either limiting pressure from soil ow Fmax or ground displacement Dmax is applied linearly, keeping the axial load constant. The analysis includes P-delta and large displacement effects.

Note: pu : maximum lateral resistance of soil, yu : maximum lateral mobilizing displacement of soil (see Fig. 8), N: SPT blow count.

Displacement based approach. The lateral soil ow can also be modelled as nite displacements applied at the free ends of the p2y springs (Fig. 3(c)). The p2y springs of the liqueed soil are modelled by reducing the strength and stiffness of the springs using a reduction factor, the p-multiplier. Though many p-multiplier values are suggested there is no consensus over which value to use. Fig. 4 shows some suggested p-multiplier values based on N1 60 of the soils. This study uses a representative N1 60 value of 10 for the liqueable soil (Fig. 2(b)) and for this N1 60 value the reduction factors according to AIJ [22], Brandenberg [23] and RTRI 1 1 1 [24] are 10, 50 and 1000, respectively. The pattern of ground displacement with depth is assumed to be triangular. Other patterns such as a rectangular or a parabolic prole may give higher forces for the same ground displacement at surface but these are not considered here. Force based approach versus displacement based approach. The actual lateral soilpile interaction during the ow of liqueed soil is complex; however, the above two methods simplify it by modelling the force from lateral movement of soil. Comparing the two methods, the force based analysis is simpler and can be done by hand calculation, but does not model the interaction of the soil and the pile. The displacement based analysis is more representative of the process but is best performed by a nite element program. The maximum lateral spreading forces the pile carries in these analyses are compared in Fig. 5. The maximum load for the displacement based analysis is taken as the ultimate load (pu , as in Fig. 4) that the p2y spring will apply to the pile under large soil

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Bending analysis The BNWF model of the Showa bridge pile (Fig. 3) is analysed for six possible cases of lateral loading, three forced based and three displacement based. For comparison, the rst set of analysis is carried out without considering the axial load on pile. From the force based analysis, Figs. 7(a) and (b) plot the normalized pile head displacement y=D and normalized maximum bending moment M=Mp in the pile against the amount of applied lateral force, where D and Mp are the diameter and plastic moment capacity of the pile respectively. Similar results from displacement based analyses are presented in Figs. 7(c) and (d),

ARTICLE IN PRESS
36 S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239

10 m < Z < 20 m

0.90 0.80

p pu Liquefied soil pu - yu

Non-Liquefied soil

AIJ (2001)

P multiplier ()

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

- pu yu - pu

p-y spring (API, 2000)

RTRI (1999)
0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Corrected SPT Blow Count (N1)60

Fig. 4. Reduction factor for p2y springs of liqueed soil.

Lateral force (kN/m)

50
0
(a) JRA (2002): Trapezoidal loading (b) He et al. (2006): Upper bound uniform loading (c) He et al. (2006): Lower bound uniform loading (d) AIJ (2001): 10% of pu before liquefaction (e) Brandenberg (2007): 2% of pu before liquefaction (For N=10) (f) RTRI (1999): 0.1% of pu before liquefaction

250

200

150

100

0 m < Z < 10 m Brandenberg 2005

1.00

50

5
Water

10

c b

Liquefied soil

15

20
NonLiquefied soil

25

(m)
Fig. 5. Lateral force on pile due to the ow of liqueed soil; force based approach versus displacement based approach.

where the normalized pile head deection and normalized maximum bending moment are plotted against the normalized ground displacement at the top of the liqueed soil layer Dsoil =D. To compare the results, the failure criterion of the pile is taken to be the condition when the displacement of pile head is large 41D or the maximum bending moment in pile is close to the plastic moment capacity MCMp . The results showed that two of the force based analysis cases and one displacement based analysis case predict failure of the pile when subjected to only bending (i.e., without considering the effect of axial load). When the lateral load on the pile increases beyond yield, the pile deects at a much faster rate, which is expected since the stiffness of the pile material reduces signicantly after yield (Fig. 2(c)). The upper bound lateral loading, suggested by He et al. [21], predicts failure of the bridge pile at about 72% of loading (Figs. 7(a) and (b)), i.e., it fails at a uniform pressure of 23.2 kPa. The JRA

loading also predicts failure at about 50% of its full load. In contrast, the lower bound value of He et al. [21] (i.e., F 20 kPa) does not predict failure. The JRA loading gives an intermediate estimate of pile response in the proposed range of lateral loading by He et al. [21]. Similar pile responses are also observed in one of the displacement based analysis cases (Figs. 7(c) and (d)). The displacement loading following AIJ code predicts failure, where the ultimate lateral soil resistance pu of liqueed soil is 10% of its non-liqueed value. However, the Brandenberg [23] loading and RTRI [24] loading do not predict pile failure.

4.2. Buckling analysis The Showa bridge pile (P4) of the present analysis carried an estimated dead load of 740 kN [1]. The length of the pile in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239 37

liqueable soil zone was about 10 m (Fig. 2). A buckling calculation requires the effective length of the pile L0 , which is the combination of the length above ground level plus a length that accounts for bending in the soil, the depth of xity. This is the standard procedure suggested by many codes of practice for evaluating the effective pile length while calculating the bending moment in pile due to horizontal loads. Calculation as per the Indian Standard IS-2911 [25] gives the depth of xity of about 5D

Axial Load 1 P/Pmax

for the service condition of pile before earthquake where D is the diameter of pile. At full liquefaction during the earthquake, considering negligible lateral support from liqueed soil, the depth of xity is about 4D, since the soil below the liqueed soil layer is relatively stiff. Hence, the unsupported length of pile, which is about 12 m (i.e., 9 m 5 0:609 m) before liquefaction becomes 21.4 m (i.e., 19 m 4 0:609 m) at full liquefaction. Of this 21.4 m of unsupported pile length, the upper 13 m is a 16 mm tube and the lower 8.4 m is a 9 mm tube. It is also clear from the deected shape of the pile after earthquake (Fig. 2(b)) that the pile had a xed-free boundary condition. The elastic buckling load (Euler buckling load), Pcr , of a pile made from two different sections is considered by Timoshenko and Gere [26], Section 2.14, which gives k1 tank1 l1 tank2 l2 ; k2 2

where k1 and k2 are the buckling parameters as dened below: s Pcr ; 3 k1 EI1 s Pcr : EI2

1
/ max

Lateral Load

or F/Fmax

k2

B
Fig. 6. Loading function used in the numerical study.

On substituting l1 13 m, l2 8:5 m, EI1 275 MN=m2 and EI2 160 MN=m2 and solving Eqs. (2)(4) by iteration, the buckling load Pcr is estimated to be 985 kN. Thus, the factor of safety against Euler buckling is Pcr =P 985 kN=740 kN 1:33.

Maximum bending moment in pile (M/Mp)

5
Pile head deflection (y/D)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

My

4 3 2

1 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of applied lateral force JRA Loading

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of applied lateral force

He et al. Lower bound

He et al. Upper bound

Maximum bending moment in pile (M/Mp)

5
Pile head deflection (y/D)

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

My

4 3 2 1
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Ground displacement ( soil/D) AIJ Loading Brandenberg Loading

Ground displacement ( soil/D) RTRI Loading

Fig. 7. (a) Normalized pile head deection with increase in lateral loading (force based). (b) Normalized maximum bending moment in pile with increase in lateral loading (force based). (c) Normalized pile head deection with increase in ground displacement (displacement based). (d) Normalized maximum bending moment in pile with increase in ground displacement (displacement based).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
38 S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239

5
Pile head deflection (y/D)

Maximum bending moment in pile (M/Mp)

0.8
0.6
My

3
2

0.4
0.2 0 0 20 40 60 80
P = 740 kN

1
0 0 20 40
P = 0 kN

60

80

100

100

% of applied lateral force P = 370 kN

% of applied lateral force

Maximum bending moment in pile (M/Mp)

1
0.8 0.6 0.4

Pile head deflection (y/D)

3
2 1 0

My

0.2
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0.5

1.5

2.5

Ground displacement ( soil/D) P = 0 kN P = 370 kN

Ground displacement ( soil/D) P = 740 kN

Fig. 8. For P 0, 370 and 740 kN: (a) normalized pile head displacement w.r.t % of applied force (force based), (b) normalized maximum bending moment in pile w.r.t % of applied force (force based), (c) normalized pile head displacement with increase in ground displacement (displacement based) and (d) normalized maximum bending moment in pile with increase in ground displacement (displacement based).

Hence, if the buckling criterion is taken alone, the factor of safety is more than one, which suggests that the pile is safe. The dynamic amplication of the axial load during earthquake may reduce the factor of safety against buckling; however, this is not considered here as the inertia effects are ignored in the analysis.

4.3. Bendingbuckling analysis In the bending only analysis, three out of six analyses did not predict pile failure; one force based approach and two displacement based approaches. In addition, the buckling analysis also did not predict a failure of the pile. One analysis which did not predict failure from each loading approach was taken to investigate further the bendingbuckling interaction. The He et al. [21] lower bound loading (force based) and the Brandenberg [23] loading (displacement based) are selected. The procedure described in the previous section was repeated for these two cases by incorporating two levels of axial load, 370 and 740 kN, corresponding to half and the full amount of the weight of superstructure estimated by Bhattacharya et al. [1]. Figs. 8(a) and (b) plots the normalized pile head displacement against normalized maximum bending moment in pile with respect to the amount of lateral load. Similar results for displacement based analysis are plotted in Figs. 8(c) and (d) against normalized ground displacement. The He et al. [21] lower bound value (force based), which did not predict failure when no axial load was applied, does predict failure when the axial load are incorporated in the analysis. The pile fails at 60% of the lateral load

when an axial load of 370 kN is applied. This reduces further to 11% of the lateral load when the full axial load of 740 kN is applied. For the Brandenberg [23] type loading case (displacement based), with no axial load, the lateral ground displacement imposes a maximum pile head displacement of about 0.5 m. At peak ground displacement Dsoil of about 0.6 m (1D), the whole 10 m liqueed soil column fully mobilizes and applies a constant pressure equals to the limiting pressure. Hence, beyond 0.6 m of maximum ground displacement, the deformation and bending moment in the pile remains constant for increasing ground displacement. When the axial load is included in the analysis, the pile head suddenly becomes unstable (represented by the sharp increase in slope of the curve as seen in the Fig. 8(c)) at a lower ground displacement. For an axial load of 370 kN, the pile does not yield. However, when the full dead load (740 kN) is applied the analysis predicts failure. The analysis also showed that for the same lateral loading, the deection and bending moment in the pile increases with an increase in axial load. 4.4. Remarks on results Three cases of loading in the present analyses showed that the pile is safe while subjected to lateral spreading force alone, and the buckling analysis has shown that the factor of safety of the pile against Euler buckling is about 1.33. This indicates that, if the pile is designed for bending and buckling criteria in isolation, it could be considered safe. However, the pile can be seen to fail when the combined effect of lateral and axial load (i.e., bending buckling interaction) is taken into account along with lateral

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.R. Dash et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 3239 39

spreading. Hence, designers must consider the bendingbuckling interaction during seismic design of pile foundations in liqueable soils. Although, this exercise shows the signicance of bending buckling interaction for piles in liqueable soil, the actual cause of the Showa bridge failure may be due to a combination of various effects which is beyond the scope of this study.

[6]

[7] [8]

5. Conclusion
[9]

The following conclusions can be drawn from the present study:

[10]

 The current understanding of the pile failure in liqueable soils

considers either bending or buckling as a possible cause of failure. However, in reality, the two mechanisms interact. Hence, pile foundations designed with these mechanisms separately might be unconservative when the mechanisms interact. The design value of lateral load on piles due to the ow of liqueed soil varies widely according to various design guidelines used. Further research is required to arrive at more precise quantication of this lateral loading. The analyses showed that three out of six models of lateral spreading analysis did not predict failure when analysed using the conventional bending analysis method. The pile is also considered safe against Euler buckling with a safety factor of 1.33. Analyses, however, that do not show failure under bending alone can predict failure when bendingbuckling interaction is taken into account. It is hence important for the designers to take into account the bendingbuckling interaction during seismic design of piles in liqueable soils.

[11]

[12] [13] [14]

[15]

[16] [17] [18] [19]

[20] [21]

References
[1] Bhattacharya S, Bolton MD, Madabhushi SPG. A reconsideration of the safety of the piled bridge foundations in liqueable soils. Soils and Foundations 2005;45(4):1326. [2] Hamada M. Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines: 1964 Niigata earthquake. Case studies of liquefaction and lifelines performance during past earthquake. Technical Report NCEER-92-0001, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY; 1992. p. 3-1. [3] Hamada M. Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines: 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake. Case studies of liquefaction and lifelines performance during past earthquake. Technical Report NCEER-92-0001, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY; 1992. p. 4-1. [4] Ishihara K. Terzaghi oration: geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe earthquake. In: Proceedings of 14th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 4, Hamburg, 1997. p. 204773. [5] Tokimatsu K, Hiroshi OO, Satake K, Shamoto Y, Asaka Y. Effects of lateral ground movements on failure patterns of piles in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

[28]

[29]

earthquake. In: Proceedings of a speciality conference, geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics III. ASCE geotechnical special publication, 1998. p. 117586. Goh S, ORourke TD. Limit state model for soilpile interaction during lateral spread. In: Proceedings of the seventh USJapan workshop on earthquake resistant design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures against soil liquefaction, Seattle, 1999. p. 23760. Abdoun T, Dobry R. Evaluation of pile foundation response to lateral spreading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2002;22(912):10518. Finn WDL, Fujita N. Piles in liqueable soils: seismic analysis and design issues. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2002;22(912):73142. Bhattacharya S. Pile instability during earthquake liquefaction. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK; 2003. Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG, Bolton MD. An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liqueable deposits during earthquakes. Geotechnique 2004;54(3):20313. Knappett JA, Madabhushi SPG. Modelling of liquefaction-induced instability in pile groups. In: Boulanger RW, Tokimatsu K, editors. Seismic performance and simulation of pile foundations in liqueed and laterally spreading ground (geotechnical special publication (GSP) no. 145). Reston, VA, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005. p. 22567. Kimura Y, Tokimatsu K. Buckling stress of steel pile with vertical load in liqueed soil. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering 2005; 738. Shanker K, Basudhar PK, Patra NR. Buckling of piles under liqueed soil conditions. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2007;25(3):30313. Bhattacharya S, Blakeborough A, Dash SR. Learning from collapse of piles in liqueable soils. Civil Engineering, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers 2008;161(Special Issue 2):5460. Dash SR, Govindaraju L, Bhattacharya S. A case study of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Ofce tower supported on a mat-pile foundation in liqueed soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009;29(2):33346. Fukuoka M. Damage to civil engineering structures. Soils and Foundations 1966;6(2):4552. CSI. Sap 2000: V11.0integrated software for structural analysis and design. Berkeley, CA, USA: Computer and Structures Inc. (CSI); August 2004. API. 2A (WSD). Recommended practice for planning, designing, and constructing xed offshore platformsworking stress design. Version 21st, 2000. Meyerhof GG. Discussion on soil properties and their measurement. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Discussion 2, vol. III, 1957. JRA. Specications for highway bridges, part V. Seismic design, 1996. He L, Elgamal A, Abdoun T, Abe A, Dobry R, Meneses J, et al. Lateral load on piles due to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading during one-g shake table experiments. In: 100th anniversary earthquake conference, USA, April 2006. AIJ. Recommendations for design of building foundations. Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001 (in Japanese). Brandenberg SJ. Behavior of pile foundations in liqueed and laterally spreading ground. PhD thesis, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA; 2005. RTRI. Design standard for railway facilities-seismic design. Railway Technical Research Institute, 1999 (in Japanese). IS-2911. Part-1/sec-1: criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standard; 1979. Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of elastic stability. New York, USA: McGraw Hill Book Company; 1961. Bhattacharya S, Dash SR, Adhikari S. On the mechanics of failure of pilesupported structures in liqueable deposits during earthquakes. Journal of Current Science 2008;94(5). Bhattacharya S, Adhikari S, Alexander NA. A simplied method for unied buckling and dynamic analysis of pile supported structures in seismically liqueable soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009;29:122035. Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi SPG. A critical review of the methods for pile design in seismically liqueable soils. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2008;6:40746.