SEISMIC RESPONSE OF FRICTION PILES IN TWO LAYERED SOILS Varanasi.V.S.H.

Rama Rao Principal Engineer- Civil and Structural Petrofac Enineering Services India Limited DLF SEZ Chennai-89 Ph: 00914439273964 Mob:919566002306 e-mail:ved_ram@yahoo.com

The present paper outlines a qualitative description of response of ideal free-head and fixed-head friction piles and friction pile with a lumped mass above pile cap, in two layered soils using rigorous two-dimensional explicit finite difference code FLAC. The objective of the study was to refine the approach adopted by previous authors which was either through closed form solutions or through finite element methods mainly in frequency domain in which time history cannot be captured. The study of response in time domain helps to understand the effects of transient loading like earthquake loading, which is composed of many harmonic loadings with different frequencies acting for different intervals of time during a seismic event .In this paper the response of piles to harmonic (sinusoidal) loading with frequencies close to the natural frequency of the soil and transient earthquake type loading is studied. The influence of various parameters viz. properties of the soil, frequency of the loading and amplitude of loading is studied. The problem is analyzed entirely in time-domain. The results are presented as variation of peak bending strain along the length of the pile which will help the practitioners to understand the extent of damage that can occur for a particular intensity of the seismic event and to identify the potential parameters that can trigger the failure of the pile foundation. The important observations of the study are: 1) pile was subjected to peak bending strains at depths of pile where the influence of inertial loading from the super structure was negligible and 2) the pile bending strain was found to be maximum at areas near to the interface of soil layers especially when the stiffness ratio of the soil layers is high. Key Words: Friction piles, Free-head, Fixed-head, Two-layered soils, Seismic response, Peak bending strain

SEISMIC RESPONSE OF FRICTION PILES IN TWO LAYERED SOILS 1. INTRODUCTION The analysis of response of pile foundation to seismic loading is still a challenge in the field of foundation engineering. Very few investigations pertaining to seismic response of piles were carried out either theoretically or experimentally. As the experimental techniques are very costly, they cannot serve as economical tools for practicing engineers who need to perceive their behavior under seismic loading for properly designing safe foundation systems for the structures. Many researchers developed several analytical and numerical tools to analyze the above problem. The tools can be broadly categorized based on the methodology used as lumped mass models, beam models and finite-element models. In majority of the numerical and analytical studies carried out, the solutions are pertaining to response in the frequency domain where time history of the response is not captured. The transient loading like earthquake loading which is composed of many harmonic loadings with different frequencies acting for different intervals of time will cause varying response with time. Hence, study of variation of response with time to a harmonic loading with constant frequency will help to understand how the harmonic components of the earthquake loading can affect the pile foundation with time. Also, in all the analytical and numerical models the soil is modeled as linearly hysteretic solid and hence the yielding of soil, which can have considerable effect on the response of pile, was neglected. In the present paper an attempt was done to study the time history of the response of ideal free-head and fixed-head friction piles and friction pile with a lumped mass above pile cap, in a two layered soil system for various harmonic loadings and transient

loading using rigorous two-dimensional explicit finite difference code FLAC. In this study an improvised soil model called Mohr-Coulomb model with non-associated flow rule, which can simulate the plastic behavior of the soils is used.The influence of various parameters viz. properties of the soil, frequency of the loading and amplitude of loading is studied. The results are presented as variation of peak bending strain along the length of the pile which can help the practitioners to a) understand the extent of damage that can occur for a particular intensity of the seismic event and b) to identify the potential parameters that can trigger the failure of the pile foundation during seismic event. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW There were many papers published on the subject especially on pile subjected to dynamic loading in homogeneous soils. However, very few studies were conducted on the behavior of pile subjected to dynamic loading in layered soils. Kavvadas and Gazetas (1993) published a very useful study pertaining to kinematic deformations of free-head piles, which triggered structural damage during strong earthquakes, in layered soils. They developed dimensionless parametric graphs for pile bending moments pertaining to two layered soil profile. The results are derived using then existing rigorous dynamic finite element code, and by implementing beam-on dynamicWinkler foundation model developed specifically for obtaining the kinematic response of piles in layered soils. A similar useful work was done by Nikolaou et al., (2001). They studied the kinematic response of piles, in homogeneous and layered soils, to seismic loading. Analytical model formulated specially for layered soils, under the framework of beam-on-dynamic-Winkler-foundation model (BWDF), in frequency-

domain, was used for the study. They carried out extensive parametric study by varying various parameters like stiffness contrast of soil layers, pile-soil stiffness contrast, frequency of excitation, amplitude of excitation, etc. Apart from the above studies many theoretical and experimental studies pertaining to seismic response of piles in homogeneous soils were done. However none of the above studies focused on variation of pile response with time and also none of them focused on soil model other than the linearly hysteretic soil model, which can simulate the plastic behavior of the soil. The reason being, use of finite element technique requires more complex formulations to simulate plastic behavior and there is a chance of numerical instability during the process of solving the equations which might lead to erroneous results. Hence, most of the authors were comfortable with simple solutions. Also, an integrated study covering free-head, fixed-head and pile with lumped mass above pile cap using a common technique was not done by any author for the case of layered soils. Hence, the present study is an attempt done to analyze different pile scenarios like free-head, fixed head and pile with lumped mass attached above, using a more refined, reliable and commercially available finite difference approach.

3. FAST LAGRANGIAN ANALYSIS OF CONTINUA (FLAC) Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) is a two-dimensional explicit finite difference program for engineering mechanics computation. It was originally developed for geotechnical and mining engineers. Several builtin constitutive models are available that permit the simulation of highly non-linear, irreversible response representative of geologic, or similar materials. This program simulates the behavior of

structures built of/on rocks, soils or other materials that may undergo plastic flow when their yield limits are reached. FLAC has the following special features, some of which are particularly suitable for geotechnical problems. a) Interface elements to simulate distinct planes along which slip and/or separation can occur. b) Plane strain, plane stress and axi-symmetric geometry models. c) Groundwater and consolidation (fully coupled) models. d) Structural element models to simulate structural support of beam, pile or cable elements (e.g., tunnel liners or rock bolts) e) Optional dynamic analysis capability. f) Optional visco-elastic (creep) models g) Optional thermal (and thermal coupling to mechanical stress and pore pressure) modeling capability. h) Extensive facility for generating plots of virtually any problem variable.

It also contains the powerful built-in programming language FISH. With this, one can write their own functions to extend FLACs usefulness and even implement his own constitutive models if so desired. Materials are represented by elements, or zones, which form a grid that is adjusted by the user to fit the shape of the object to be modeled. Each element behaves according to a prescribed linear or non-linear stress/strain law in response to the applied forces or boundary restrains. The material can yield and flow and the grid can deform and move with the material that is

represented (in large-strain mode). FLAC employs infinite difference technique, so that plastic collapse and flow are modeled very accurately. 4. PROBLEM FORMULATION The problem, though three-dimensional, is formulated as plane strain problem with appropriate linear scaling of pile properties as described by Donovan et al., 1984. The problem analyzed and a typical FLAC model(s) are shown in the Figures 1 and 2. The soil is modeled as elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb material with non-associated flow rule (i.e. friction angle not equal to dilation angle). Pile is modeled as linearly elastic circular solid that permits slip and separation from the soil grid. Since the pile is a plane stress element in FLAC, the elastic modulus of pile material is divided by (1- 2), where is the Poissons ratio of the pile material, to account for plane strain conditions. The harmonic (sinusoidal) loading is applied as horizontal acceleration at the bedrock level or at the bottom of the FLAC model as shown in the Figures 1 and 2. The harmonic
3 Mass 1 2

FGL
E1 , 1, V1, 1,
1

h1 L

Layer 1

E2 , 2, V2, 2,

h2 h3

Layer 2

Bed rock

Figure 1: Problem analyzed

1 Free-head pile; 2 Fixed-head pile; 3 Pile with lumped mass

Figure 2: Typical FLAC Model

sinusoidal loading is applied in the form of horizontal acceleration and the transient earthquake loading is applied as East-West (horizontal) acceleration record of a pseudo earthquake data. The bottom of the FLAC grid is modeled as rigid boundary to simulate bedrock and lateral sides are modeled as free-field boundaries (Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer, 1969) to simulate infinite soil mass. In all geotechnical engineering problems, before any excavation or construction is started, there is an in-situ state of stress in the ground. By setting initial conditions in the FLAC grid, an attempt is made to reproduce this in-situ state, because it can influence the subsequent behavior of the problem. In a uniform layer of soil or rock with free surface, the vertical stresses are usually equal to g z, where g is acceleration due to gravity, is the mass density of the soil material and z is depth below the surface. However the in-situ horizontal stresses are difficult to estimate and these are usually estimated in practice by the empirical relation with friction angle of the soil. The soil domain is initially equilibrated to gravity stresses. An elastic model is used during this stage. This constitutes the initial state for soil mass. Next, pile element is introduced into the soil. The stresses that accumulate in soil due to pile driving are neglected in the present study. The harmonic sinusoidal loading is applied continuously till the bending strains (moments) in the pile attain a steady state peak value. 4.1 DAMPING The damping in numerical simulation should reproduce in magnitude and form the energy losses in the natural system when subjected to dynamic loading. In soil and rock, the damping is mainly hysteretic i.e. frequency independent (see Gemant and Jackson, 1937). It is difficult to produce this type of damping numerically because of at least two

problems (see Cundall, 1976). First, many simple hysteretic functions do not damp all components equally when several waveforms are superimposed. Second, hysteretic functions lead to path dependence, which makes results difficult to interpret. However, if a constitutive model that contains an adequate representation of the hysteresis that occurs in a real material, then no additional damping is required. In the time domain programs, Rayleigh damping is used to provide damping that is approximately frequency-independent over restricted range of frequencies. Although Rayleigh damping embodies two viscous elements (in which the absorbed energy is dependent on frequency), the frequency-dependent effects are arranged to cancel out at the frequencies of interest. Therefore the soil damping is modeled using Rayleigh damping 4.2 DETERMINATION OF NATURAL FREQUENCY OF SOIL-PILE SYSTEM The natural frequency of the soil deposits and soil-pile-superstructure system is determined by using the procedures described below:

The natural frequency of the homogeneous and layered soils is approximately given by the equations 4.1 and 4.2

fn =

(2n - 1)VS 4H VS = (G / ) (2n - 1)VSl 4H

1.1 (Dowrick) 1.2

fn =
l s

V = (VSi H i ) / H i VSi = (Gi / i )

where, fn = natural frequency of soil deposit in Hertz VS = shear wave velocity in soil layer VS i = shear wave velocity in i th soil layer G= shear modulus of the soil layer Gi = shear modulus of i th soil layer = mass density of the soil layer i = mass density of i th soil layer H = thickness of the soil layer Hi = thickness of i th soil layer n = mode of vibration (1,2,3..n)

Alternatively, the natural frequency of the soil system can be determined by an undamped free vibration run of FLAC code. The run is carried out for the same boundary conditions as given in the problem to be analyzed. Brief procedure to carryout the free vibration run is given below:

The FLAC grid (representing soil) is subjected to an harmonic loading of arbitrary amplitude and frequency, at bottom of the grid or bedrock, for a very small amount of time (say 0.1sec) and then the soil system is allowed to vibrate for a long time (say 20 sec) in the absence of external loading. This constitutes a free-vibration. The time history of response, in terms of displacement or acceleration or velocity at any point in

soil is recorded. The response will also be harmonic with certain time period. This time period is nothing but the natural period of the soil system; and the inverse of the natural time period is the natural frequency.

The values of natural frequencies of soil obtained by such free vibration runs of FLAC code closely agree with those given by equations 4.1 and 4.2. But these runs can be used to determine only the fundamental natural frequency of the soil i.e. frequency pertaining to first mode of vibration.

For the combined system of soilpile or soil-pile-superstructure also, the equations 4.1 and 4.2 hold good as the introduction of pile into an semi infinite soil mass will not alter much the natural frequency of the whole system.

The author found using FLAC that the natural frequency of the soil and combined soilpile system is nearly equal to the natural frequency of the soil system alone. This observation is quite obvious as the introduction of pile element will not alter the stiffness of the soil-pile system considerably. Hence, in the present study, the natural frequency of the soil and ideal pile system is taken as approximately the natural frequency of the soil system alone. The FLAC results pertaining to the above study are not presented here as they are out of context of this study.

5. VALIDATION OF THE NUMERICAL CODE Before the actual analysis, it is necessary to verify that the numerical code developed using FLAC can simulate the behavior of piles in soils subjected to seismic or harmonic loading. For these problems, numerical and analytical solutions are available for comparisons. In the validation programme, analytical solutions, regarding seismic behaviour of ideal free-head and fixed-head piles in homogeneous soils, proposed by Nikolaou et al. (2001), are used for comparison. The input data used by Nikolaou is chosen as input for the numerical code, developed using FLAC. The input used by Nikolaou et al., (2001) was in the form of ratios as given below. In this case soil is modeled as linearly hysteretic solid and pile is modeled as elastic circular solid.
EP V L h h = 1000 ; 2 = 1; = 20 ; 3 = 1 ; 1 = 2 ; 1 = 1 ; 1 = 2 = 10 %; 1 = 2 = 0.4 ES V1 D L L 2

2.0 where, EP = modulus of elasticity of pile material; L = length of the pile; D = diameter of pile; ES = modulus of elasticity of soil material; V1 & V2 = shear wave velocities in soil layers 1 and 2; 1 &
2

= mass densities of soils 1 and 2; 1 & 2 = hysteretic damping in soil

layers 1 and 2; 1 & 2 = Poissons ratios of soils 1 and 2; h 3 = distance from bed rock to the bottom of the pile, and h1= thickness of the soil layer 1. For homogeneous soils since there is only one layer, the values of ratios of shear wave velocities; unit weights of soil layers; hysteretic damping and Poissons ratio are equal to unity. Since the input cannot be given in the form of ratios for the numerical code used, geometrical and material properties of soil and pile, and dimensions of the grid are so chosen that the above ratios be maintained. The input data for the numerical code is given below: Soil properties Modulus of elasticity (ES) = 49000 kPa Shear modulus (GS) = 17500 kPa Bulk modulus (KS) = 81666.66 kPa Unit weight of soil (
S

Loading (sinusoidal) Amplitude =0.2 g Frequency = 0.625 Hz g = 9.81 m/sec2

) = 1750 kg/m3

Poissons ratio ( S) = 0.4 Natural frequency of the soil (fn) = 0.625 Hz Rayleigh damping ( ) = 10 % Pile properties Modulus of elasticity (Ep)= 49000000 kPa Unit weight of pile ( P) = 2500 kg/m3

Length (L) = 20 m Diameter (D) =1 m Perimeter (p) = 3.14 m Moment of inertia (IP) = 0.04908 m4 Poissons ratio ( C) =0.2 Z= depth from top of finished ground leveL The results proposed by Nikolaou et al., 2001and the results obtained using FLAC and are shown in the Figures 3 and 4

Free-head pile Fixed-head pile

z/D

10

15

20 0 5 10
-4

15

20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 3: Variation of steady state peak bending strain along the pile in homogeneous soils (Nikolaou et al., 2001)

Free-head pile Fixed-head pile

5

z/D

10

15

20 0 5 10
-4

15

20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 4: Variation of steady state peak bending strain along the pile in homogeneous soils (FLAC Model)

It can be seen from the above figure that the maximum bending strain predicted by the analytical model proposed by Nikolaou et al is same as the maximum bending strain predicted by FLAC model. However, FLAC simulation shows that the pattern of variation of peak bending strain is not a continuous single function as predicted that by Nikolaou et al but a multiple function which is constant over certain range of z/D. This indicates that in those regions soil has undergone plastic deformation of constant magnitude up to particular thickness along the soil which is a representative to the behavior observed in the dynamic centrifuge tests conducted by Wilson (1998).

6. PARAMETRIC STUDY The following parameters given in Tables 1 2 3 and 4 are used for studying the behavior of pile in layered soil. The values of the parameters are chosen randomly but close to the values of realistic soils. The reason for the random selection is to focus more on the behavioral aspects of pile qualitatively. However, the results produced for these parameters are also quantitatively more rational as the soil is modeled using a refined Mohr-Coulomb model with non associated flow rule which can capture the plastic strains in the soil more accurately.

K (kPa) Soil 1 2 3 4 5 E (kPa) 15120 168480 83000 15120 168480 G (kPa) 5400 64800 31439 5400 64800 25200 140400 76852 25200 140400

(kN/m3) 15 20 19 15 20

(deg) 28 40 38 28 40

fn (Hz)

(%) 5 5 5 5 5

0.4 0.3 0.32 0.4 0.3

0.375 1.125 0.804 0.375 1.125

Table 1.0: Soil properties Length (L) in m 30 Diameter (D) in m 1.2 Moment of inertia ( I ) in m4 0.1018 Slenderness ratio (L/D) 25

Pile 1

E (kPa) 1.5 x 107

Table 2.0: Pile Properties

Component Pile Column 1

E (kPa) 1.5 x 107 1.5 x 107

Length (L) in m 30 16

Diameter (D) in m 1.2 2.8

Moment of inertia ( I ) in m4 0.1018 3.017

Slenderness ratio (L/D) 25 5.7

Column 2

1.5 x 107

16

1.12

0.07724

14.3

Table 3.0: Pile and Column properties for pile with superstructure

Loading 1 2 3

Type Harmonic Transient Transient

Peak amplitude (m/sec2) (a) 0.1g (b) 0.2g 0.15g 0.83g Table 4.0: Loading

Frequency range/ Predominant frequencies ( Hz) 0.2 - 10 0.5 10 (Pseudo earthquake) 0.4 5 (Kobe earthquake)

For the present study the superstructure considered is a structure like water tank of mass 200 tones with 16 meters height from pile cap. These numbers of mass and height are randomly chosen. The entire mass of the tank is modeled as lumped mass at a height 16m from top of the pile cap and is supported by a column whose stiffness is calculated from the natural frequency of the superstructure, which in turn is calculated using an approximate equation given below fn = 1/ Tn 3.0

Tn (secs) = 0.061 H0.75 (Dowrick) where, H is the height of building in meters. Tn is the natural period of the superstructure considered. For the present case, H=16m

Therefore, Tn= 0.488secs and fn = 2.049 Hz Using the equation

fn =

1 k /m 2
4.0

the stiffness(k) of the column supporting lumped mass is calculated. m is the lumped mass in kg . From equation 3.0, we get k = 33149246 N/m Where, k = 3EI/L3; L is the length or height of the column supporting lumped mass; E is the elastic modulus of the column material; I is the moment of inertia of column section. For the present case, L=16m E= 1.5x 107 kPa.

With this data, the moment of inertia of the column supporting superstructure is calculated as I= 3.017 m4 Another case in which the 200tones mass is supported on a solid concrete column of much lesser moment of inertia (0.07724 m4 ) than above case is also studied to check how much catastrophic can be such situation with regard to pile foundations The following cases are studied

Soil 1 or 2

Soil 1 Soil 5 5 Soil

Soil 1

Soil 3 or 5

Case 1

Case 2

Figure 5(a): Free and Fixed head piles in two layered soils with layers of equal thickness and different values of shear modulus G

2000 kN

Soil 4

Soil 4 Soil

4 5

Soil 5

Soil 5 Soil

Soil 5

Case 3

Case 4

Figure 5(b): Free and Fixed head piles and pile with a lumped mass in two layered soils with layers of equal thickness and different values of shear modulus G

The following are the stiffness contrasts (V2/V1) and natural frequencies (fn) for the above mentioned cases:

Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Stiffness contrast (V2/V1) 1.8 2.5 3.0 3.0

Natural frequency(fn) 0.61 & 0.875 0.78 0.75 0.33& 1.67

Table 5: stiffness contrast and natural frequencies used for various cases mentioned

0 0

10

15

20 0

EP/E1=306 EP/E1=750

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 6 (a): Variation of steady-state peak bending strain along free-head pile in case1 with different relative rigidity of pile (EP/E1) subjected to loading 1a with frequencies 0.875 Hz and 0.61Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15

20 0

EP/E1=306 EP/E1=750

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 6 (b): Variation of steady state peak bending strain along fixed-head pile in case1 with different relative rigidity of pile (EP/E1) subjected to loading 1a with frequencies 0.875 Hz and 0.61 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15

20 0

V2/V1=1.8 V2/V1=2.5

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 7 (a): Variation of steady-state peak bending strain along free-head pile in cases 1 and 2 subjected to loading 1a with frequencies 0.875 Hz and 0.78 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15
V2/V1=1.8 V2/V1=2.5

20 0

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 7 (b): Variation of steady-state peak bending strain along fixed-head pile in cases 1 and 2 subjected to loading 1a with frequencies 0.875 Hz and 0.78 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15

20 0

Free-head pile Fixed-head pile

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 8 (a): Variation of steady-state peak bending strain along free and fixed-head pile in case 2 subjected to loading 1a with frequency 0.78 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15

20 0

Free-head pile Fixed-head pile

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 8 (b): Variation of steady-state peak bending strain along free and fixed-head pile in case 2 subjected to loading 1a with frequency 0.78 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15

20 0
V2/V1=1.8 V2/V1=2.5 V2/V1=3.0

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 9 (a): Variation of steady-state peak bending strains along free-head pile in cases 1, 2 and 3 subjected to loading 1a with frequencies 0.875 Hz, 0.78 Hz and 0.75 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

15

20 0

V1/V2=1.8 V1/V2=2.5 V1/V2=3.0

10

10

z/D

15

15

20

20

25 0 5 10
-4

25 15 20

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 9 (b): Variation of steady-state peak bending strains along fixed-head pile in cases 1, 2 and 3 subjected to loading 1a with frequencies 0.875 Hz, 0.78 Hz and 0.75 Hz at bedrock.

0 0

10

20

30

40

50 0

10

10

20
Loading 1a-frequency 2.049 Hz Loading 1a-frequency 0.75 Hz Loading 1a-frequency 1.67 Hz Loading 3

20

z
30

30

40

40

10

20

30
-4

40

50

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 10 (a): Variation of steady-state peak bending strains along pile and column 1 supporting lumped mass 200 tones in case 4 subjected to harmonic loading 1a with different frequencies and earthquake loading 3 at bedrock.

0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 0

10

10

20

20 Loading 1a-frequency 2.049 Hz Loading 1a-frequency 0.75 Hz Loading 3 Loading 1a-frequency 0.36 Hz

z
30

30

40

40

20

40

60

80

100

120
-4

140

160

180

200

Pile bending strain 10

Figure 10 (c): Variation of steady-state peak bending strains along pile and column 2 supporting lumped mass 200 tones in case 4 subjected to harmonic loading 1a with different frequencies and earthquake loading 3 at bedrock

Pile bending strain

Pile bending strain

Pile bending strain

Time (sec) (sec) Time Figure 11 (a) Typical time history of bending strain , at the interface of soil layers, in fixed-head pile Time (sec) subjected to harmonic loading ( FLAC output)

7. CONCLUSIONS A more accurate numerical study using commercially available software was successfully done. The study used a more refined soil model which captures the plastic behavior of soil. Hence, the pile response estimated using such model of soil can be more realistic quantitatively and can be an economical way to quickly arrive at the extent of damage happened to the pile foundations after the seismic event. This approach helps the engineers to assess the future performance of the super structure founded on piles, in case it survives the seismic event without much visible damage. The major observations of the study are listed below. a) The bending strain in the pile, at the interface of soil layers, increases considerably even for a small increase in the stiffness contrast of the soil layers. b) For piles with same material properties and slenderness ratio but with different lengths; and located in the same two layered soil, the bending strain in the pile at the interface of the soil layers is almost same and is of the order of 10-3, when subjected to same loading. c) Pile located in a two layered soil, with dense soil above and loose soil below, is much safer, against bending, than pile located in two layered soil with lose soil above and dense soil below, during a seismic event. d) The bending strain in the pile is very high at a loading frequency equal to the fundamental natural frequency of the soil (i.e. frequency pertaining to the first mode of vibration) than at other natural frequencies (i.e. frequencies pertaining to 2 nd 3rd ------ nth modes of vibration). Also, the bending strain is very less at loading

frequencies other than those, which are not near or equal to the natural frequencies of the soil. e) The seismic analysis of ideal free and fixed-head piles is very useful to separate the kinematic response component from the total response (inertial response plus kinematic response) of the pile.

8. REFERENCES Cundall, P.A. (1976) . Explicit Finite Difference Methods in Geomechanics in Numerical Methods in Engineering (Proceedings of the EF Conference on Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Blacksburg, Virginia, June, 1976), Vol. 1, 132-150

Cundall, P.A., H.Hansteen, S.Lacasse & P.B.Selnes (1980) NESSI-Soil-Structure Interaction Program for Dynamic and Static Problems Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Report 51508-9, December, 1980.

Gemant , A. & W.Jackson (1937). The Measurement of Internal Friction in Some Solid Dielectric Material. The London, Edinburgh, Philosophical Magazine & Journal of Science, 22, 960-983.

Dorby, R. & ORourke, M.J. (1983). Discussion on Seismic response of End-bearing Piles by Flores-Berrones, R. & Whitman, R. V. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division ASCE p. 109

Dowrick, D.J. (1988). Earthquake Resistant Design. John Wiley & Sons (SEA) PTE Ltd. Singapore.

Gemant , A. & W.Jackson (1937). The Measurement of Internal Friction in Some Solid Dielectric Material. The London, Edinburgh, Philosophical Magazine & Journal of Science, 22, 960-983.

Kaynia, A.M. & Mahzooni, S. (1996). Forces in Pile Foundations under Seismic Loading. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 122, No. 1, 46-53.

Kuhlemeyer, R.L., & Lysmer, J. (1969). Finite Dynamic Model for Infinite Media. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 95, No. 4, 859-877.

Markis , N. & Gazetas, G. (1992). Dynamic Pile-Soil-Pile interaction. Part 2: Lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 21, No 2, 145162. Kavvadas, M. & Gazetas, G. (1993) Kinematic Seismic Response and Bending of Free-head piles in Layered Soil Geotechnique 43, No. 2, 207-222.

Meymand, P.J. (1998). Shaking Table Scale Model Tests on Non-linear Soil-PileSuperstructure Interaction in soft-clay. Ph.D thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California Berkeley

Nikolaou, S., Mylonakis, G., Gazetas, G. & Tazoh T. (2001). Kinematic Pile Bending During Earthquakes : analysis and field measurements. Geotechnique 51, No. 5, 425440 Tabesh, A. & Poulos.H.G., (2001). Pseudostatic Approach for Seismic Analysis of Single Piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE 127, No. 9, 757-765.