You are on page 1of 16

308

FOUNDATIONS FOR DYNAMIC LOADS VIJAY K. PURI


Professor Civil Engineering SIU Carbondale IL 62901 puri@engr.siu.edu

SHAMSHER PRAKASH
Professor Emeritus Civil Engineering Missouri S&T, Rolla MO 65409 praskash@mst.edu

ABSTRACT Design of foundations in earthquake prone areas needs special considerations. Shallow foundations may experience a reduction in bearing capacity and increase in settlement and tilt due to seismic loading. The reduction in bearing capacity depends on the nature and type of soil and ground acceleration parameters. In the case of piles, the soil-pile behavior under earthquake loading is generally non-linear. The nonlinearity must be accounted for by defining soil- pile stiffness in terms of strain dependent soil modulus. A comparison of observed and predicted pile behavior under dynamic loads has attracted the attention of several investigators. The lateral dynamic pile response of single piles predicted by analytical models often yields higher natural frequencies and lower resonant amplitudes compared to those determined from field tests in horizontal vibrations only. This has been found to be due to overestimated shear modulus and radiation damping of the soil. The authors made an investigation to determine a simple method to improve the theoretical predictions of piles embedded in fine soils. Based upon this investigation shear strain dependent reduction factors are proposed for determining the shear modulus and damping for pile response calculations. INTRODUCTION Structures subjected to earthquakes may be supported on shallow foundations or on piles. The foundation must be safe both for the usual static loads as well for the dynamic loads imposed by the earthquakes and therefore the design of either type of foundation needs special considerations compared to the static case. Shallow foundations in seismic areas are commonly designed by the equivalent static approach. The observations during 1985 Michoacan-Guerero earthquake (Pecker, 1996) and the Kocaeli 1999 earthquake have shown that initial static pressure and load eccentricity have a pronounced effect on seismic behavior of foundations. The soil strength may undergo degradation under seismic loading depending on the type of soil. Pore pressure buildup and drainage conditions may result in decrease in strength and an increase in settlement. Most foundation failures due to earthquake occur due to increased settlement. However, failures due to reduction in bearing capacity have also been observed during Niigata earthquake (1964) in Japan and Izmit earthquake (1999) in Turkey (Day, 2002). Prasad et al (2004) made an experimental investigation of the seismic bearing capacity of sand. A practical method to account for reduction in bearing capacity
1

due to earthquake loading was presented by Richard et al, (1993). The settlement and tilt of the foundation must also be considered. Gazetas and Anastasopoulos (2008) have studied the interaction effects of two adjacent buildings, founded on shallow footings. For analysis and design of piles and pile groups under seismic loads a simple approach to account for nonlinear soil-pile interaction using strain dependent soil modulus to define soil-pile stiffness and radiation damping can be used and is discussed in the paper. Some studies are available comparing the predicted and observed response of piles also. In some of these studies the soil pile stiffness and damping were arbitrarily modified to match the observed and predicted response of the soil pile system. A study was conducted under the supervision of the authors in which the data reported in literature was reanalyzed and reduction factors have been proposed for the stiffness and radiation damping obtained by using the commonly approach of Novak and El-Sharnouby (1983). Using the proposed reduction factors the reported test data of Gle (1981) was reanalyzed. The predicted values of natural frequency and amplitude of vibration at various frequencies showed an excellent geotechnical comparison with the observed data. The case of shallow foundations is discussed first followed by several aspects of pile behavior under dynamic loads. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS The problem of static bearing capacity of shallow foundations has been extensively studied in the past (Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhoff (1951), Vesic (1973) and many others. Basavanna et al. (1974) obtained analytical solutions for the bearing capacity under transient loading conditions. The design of foundations subjected to seismic loading has generally been performed by using psedo-static approach (Prakash; 1981). The foundations are considered as eccentrically loaded and the ultimate bearing capacity is accordingly estimated. Prakash and Saran (1971) proposed a method to determine the settlement and tilt of a foundation subjected to vertical load and moment. The response of a footing to dynamic loads is affected by the (1) nature and magnitude of dynamic loads, (2) number of pulses and (3) the strain rate response of soil. To account for the effect of dynamic nature of the load, the bearing capacity factors are determined by using dynamic angle of internal friction which is taken as 2-degrees less than its static value (Das, 1992). Building codes such as International Building Code (2006) generally permit an increase of 33 % in allowable bearing capacity when earthquake loads in addition to static loads are used in design of the foundation. This recommendation is based on the assumption that the allowable bearing pressure has adequate factor of safety for the static loads and a lower factor of safety may be accepted for earthquake loads. This recommendation may be reasonable for dense granular soils, stiff to very stiff clays or hard bedrocks but is not applicable for friable rock, loose soils susceptible to liquefaction or pore water pressure increase, sensitive clays or clays likely to undergo plastic flow (Day, 2006). Richards et al (1993) observed seismic settlements of foundations on partially saturated dense or compacted soils. These settlements were not associated with liquefaction or densification and could be easily explained in terms of seismic bearing
2

capacity reduction. They have proposed a simplified approach to estimate the dynamic bearing capacity que and seismic settlement SEq of a strip footing

Figure 1. Failure surface in soil for seismic bearing capacity (After Richards et al, 1993; See also Prakash and Puri, 2008) Figure 1 shows the assumed failure surfaces. The seismic bearing capacity (quE) is given by Eq. 1: quE = cNcE + qNqE + BNE (1) where, = Unit weight of soil Df = Depth of the foundation and q= Df NcE, NqE, and NE = Seismic bearing capacity factors which are functions of and tan = kh / (1-kv) kh and kv are the horizontal and vertical coefficients of acceleration due to earthquake. For static case, kh = kv, = 0 and Eq. (1) becomes qu = cNc + qNq + BN (2) in which Nc, Nq and N are the static bearing capacity factors. Figure 2 shows plots of NE/N, NqE/Nq and NcE/Nc with tan and .

tan = kh/ (1-kv) tan = kh/ (1-kv), tan = kh/ (1-kv), Figure 2. Variation of N qE /Nq , NE /N and NcE/Nc with and tan (After Richard et al 1993; See also Prakash and Puri, 2008) SEISMIC SETTLEMENT OF FOUNDATION Bearing capacity-related seismic settlement takes place when the ratio kh/(1 - kv) reaches a critical value (kh/1 kv)*. If kv = 0, then (kh/1 - kv)* becomes equal to kh*. Figure 3 shows the variation of kh* (for kv = c = 0; granular soil) with the static factor
3

of safety (FS) applied to the ultimate bearing capacity [Eq, (2)], for = 10, 20, 30, and 40 and Df/B of 0, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0.

* Figure 3. Critical acceleration k h (After Richards et al, 1993; See also Prakash and Puri, 2008)

The settlement (SEq) of a strip foundation due to an earthquake can be estimated as


S E q ( m ) = 0 .1 7 4 V 2 k h* A 4 Ag ta n A E

(3)

where V = peak velocity for the design earthquake (m/sec),A = acceleration coefficient for the design earthquake, g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/sec2). tan AE depends on and kh*, (Richards et al, (1993). In Figure 4, variation of tan AE with kh* for of 15 - 40 is shown. Suppose a typical strip foundation is supported on a sandy soil with B = 2 m, and Df = 0.5 m, and = 18 KN/m3, = 34, and c = 0. The value of kh = 0.3 and kv = 0 and the velocity V induced by the design earthquake is 0.4 m/sec. The static ultimate bearing capacity for this footing for vertical load will be 1,000 KN/m2 (Eq. 2). The reduced ultimate bearing capacity for vertical load is calculated as 290 KN/m2 (Eq 1). If the footing is designed using a FS = 3 on the static ultimate bearing capacity (i.e., for an allowable soil pressure of 333 kN/m2), the additional settlement due to earthquake will be 20.5 mm (Eq 3, Richards et al, 1993). This settlement reduces to 7.0 mm if FS of 4 is used. Besides ensuring that the footing soil system does not experience a bearing capacity failure or undergo excessive settlement, the foundations should be tied together using interconnecting beams. Seismic bearing capacity factors for a strip footing resting on cohesionless soil were determined by Dormieux and Pecker (1995) using the upper bound theorem of yield.
4

Figure 4. Variation of tan AE with kh* and (After Richards et al 1993; See also Prakash and Puri, 2008) Using the classical Prandtl like mechanism, it was established that the reduction in bearing capacity was mainly caused by load inclination (Dormieux and Pecker;1995).Choudhury and Subba Rao (2005) determined seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow strip footing using the limit equilibrium approach and pseudostatic method of analysis. The reduction in bearing capacity under the combined effect of vertical and horizontal forces was explained by using smaller failure surface compared to case when only static vertical loads are applied. It is thus seen that presently (2009), the pseudo-static approach is being used to determine bearing capacity and settlement and tilt of the foundations subjected to seismic loads in non-liquefying soils. Dynamic nature of the load and other factors which affect the dynamic response are not being accounted for. Also, no guidelines are available design of footings in liquefying soil. PILES FOUNDATIONS Piles may often be the preferred choice of foundations in seismic areas. The seismic loading induces large displacements or strains in the soil. The shear modulus of the soil degrades and damping (material) increases with increasing strain. The stiffness of piles should be determined for these strain effects. The elastic solutions for determining response of piles subjected to dynamic loads have been presented by several investigators in the past in several modes of vibrations, (Novak, 1974; Novak and El-Sharnouby, 1983; Novak and Howell, 1977; Poulos, 1971; Prakash and Puri,1988; and Prakash and Sharma, 1991). Displacement dependent spring and damping factors for piles for vertical, horizontal and rotational vibrations have been presented by Munaf and Prakash (2002), Munaf et al. (2003) and Prakash and Puri (2008). The stiffness of the pile group is estimated from that of the single piles by
5

using group interaction factors. The contribution of the pile cap, if any, is also included. The response of the single pile or pile groups may then be determined using principles of structural dynamics. The design of pile foundations subjected to earthquakes requires a reliable method of calculating the effects of earthquake shaking and post-liquefaction displacements on pile foundations. Keys to good design include reliable estimates of environmental loads, realistic assessments of pile head fixity, and a mathematical model which can adequately account for all significant factors that affect the response of the pile-soil-structure system to ground shaking and/or lateral spreading in a given situation. The equivalent spring stiffness and damping of the soil-pile system are a function of Youngs modulus of pile material (Ep), shear modulus of soil (Gs), and geometry of the piles in the group. Shear modulus and hence spring and damping factors are strain or displacement dependent. There are six independent spring factors for a piles-cap system; ie; kx , ky , kz , in translation in x, y and z directions, respectively and k, k, k rotational-springs about x, y and z directions respectively. There are two rotational cross-coupled springs; i.e.; kx and ky which include 2-components of displacement; i.e., translation and rotation about the appropriate axis. Also there are corresponding eight damping factors; i.e., cx , cy, cz , c , c, c , and. cx and cy . To develop displacement dependent relationships for the spring and damping factors, appropriate relationships between strain and displacement are needed. Also, modulus degradation with strain needs be built into these relationships. Stiffness and damping in all the modes; i.e., vertical, horizontal, rocking and torsion and cross coupling in both the x and y direction have been evaluated (Munaf and Prakash, 2002). The sign convention is explained in Fig. 5.

Figure 5: Sign Convention

For the case of earthquake loads, the response of piles under horizontal loads are important and are discussed here. Sliding and Rocking Stiffness and Damping Factors Because, the pile is assumed to be cylindrical with a radius ro, its stiffness and damping factors in any horizontal direction are the same. However, in the pile group, the number of piles in the x and y directions may be different. Therefore the stiffness and damping factors of a pile group are dependent on the number of piles and their spacing in each direction, (Figure 6).

Sliding (kx, cx) EpI p K x = 3 f x1 r0 EpI p C x = 2 f x2 r0 Vs Rocking (k, c) and (k, c ) EpI p K = K = 2 f 1 ro EpI p C = C = 2 f 2 ro Vs Cross-coupling (kx, cx ) and (ky, cy)

(4a) (4b)

(5a) (5b)

EpI p (6a) K x = K y = 2 f x 1 r0 EpI p (6b) C x = C y = f x 2 roVs Where; Ip = moment of inertia of single pile about x or y axis ro = pile radius Ep = modulus of elasticity of pile material Vs = shear wave velocity of soil along the floating pile fx1, fx2, fx1, fx 2, fx1, fx2 are Novaks coefficient obtained from Table 1 for homogeneous and parabolic soil profiles, with appropriate interpolation for between 0.25 and 0.4.

Group interaction factor For group effect in lateral directions (Poulos, 1971), obtained a solution for L for each pile in the horizontal x-direction, considering departure angle (degrees). Ls are a function of L, ro and flexibility KR as defined in figure 7 and departure angle . This procedure will also apply for horizontal y- direction. The group interaction factor (L) is the summation of L for all the piles. Note that the group interactionfactor in x-direction and y-direction may be different depending on number and spacing of piles in each direction. Group Stiffness and Damping Figure 6 shows schematically the plan and cross sections of an arbitrary pile group. This figure will be used to explain the procedure for obtaining the stiffness and damping for a group of pile for all modes of vibration.
7

Figure 6: Plan and Cross Section of Pile Group

Figure 7: Graphical solution of L (Poulus, 1971)

Sliding and Rocking and Cross Coupled Group Stiffness and Damping Factors Translation along X-axis

k xg =

c xg

kx Lx c x = Lx
8

(7a) (7b)

Table 1. Stiffness and Damping Parameters of Horizontal Response for Pile with L/Ro>25 for Homogeneous Soil Profile and L/Ro>30 for Parabolic Soil Profile ( Novak and El-Sharnouby, 1983)

Translation along Y Axis (kyg, cyg)

k yg = c yg

ky LA c y = Ly

(8a) (8b)

Rocking About Y- Axis (kg, cg) 1 k g = k + k z x r2 + k x z c2 2z c k x

Lx
1

] ]

(9a) (9b)

c g =

Lx

[c

+ c z x r2 + c x z c2 2z c c x

Rocking About X- Axis (kg, cg) 1 k g = k + k z y r2 + k y z c2 2z c k y

Ly

(10a)

c g =

Cross-Coupling: Translation along X Axis and Rotation about Y Axis. (kxg, cxg) 1 k xg = (11a) (k x k x z c )

Ly
Lx
1

[c

+ c z y r2 + c x z c2 2z c c y

(10b)

c xg =

Cross-Coupling: Translation along Y-Axis and Rotation about X Axis. (kyg, cyg) 1 k yg = (12a) (k y k y z c )

Lx

(c x c x z c )

(11b)

Ly
1

c yg =

Ly

(c y c y z c )

(12b)

COMPARISION OF COMPUTED AND PREDICTED PILE RESPONSE

The present methods for design of pile foundations subjected to dynamic loads are generally based on the models developed by Novak (1974) and Novak and El_Sharnouby (1984) and also presented by Prakash and Puri (1988) and Prakash and Sharma (1990). Several researchers have attempted to make a comparison of the observed and predicted pile response. Small scale pile tests, centrifuge and full scale pile tests have been used for this purpose (Gle, 1981; Novak and ElSharnouby, 1984; Woods, 1984; and Poulos, 2007). Woods (1984) reported results of 55 horizontal vibration tests on 11 end bearing piles 15 - 48 m long. The outer diameter of piles was 35.56 cm and the wall thickness varied from 0.47 cm to 0.94 cm. Typical amplitude frequency plot for one of the piles in soft clay is shown in Fig. 8. It may be seen from this plot that the observed natural frequency decreases with an increase in the value of (increase in means an increase in dynamic force at the same frequency of vibrations) indicating non-linear behavior. Woods (1984) also compared the observed and computed response of the piles. The stiffness and damping values were obtained using computer program PILAY which uses continuum model accommodating soil layers and assumes homogeneous soil in the layer with elastic behavior. A typical comparison of the pile response so computed with the observed response is shown in Fig. 9. It may be observed from Fig.9 that the calculated and computed responses do not match. Efforts were made to obtain a match between observed and predicted response by using reduced values of stiffness obtained from PILAY, which did not help much. A better match could, however, be obtained when a considerably softened or weakened zone was assumed surrounding the piles (program PILAY 2) simulating disturbance to soil during pile installation. A loss of contact of the soil with the pile for a short length close to the ground surface also improved the predicted response.

10

Fig. 8. Response curves; a decrease in resonant frequency with increasing amplitudes. (Woods, 1984)

Fig 9. Typical response curves predicted by PILAY superimposed on measured pile response. (Woods, 1984)

Novak and El-Sharnouby (1984) performed tests on 102 model pile groups using steel pipe piles. A typical comparison of the theoretical and experimental horizontal response is shown in Fig.10. Plot a shows the theoretical group response without interaction effects. Response shown in plot b was obtained by applying static interaction factors to stiffness only. Plot c was obtained with arbitrary interaction factor of 2.85 applied to stiffness only. Plotd was obtained by using an arbitrary interaction factor of 2.85 on stiffness and 1.8 on damping respectively. Plot e shows the experimental data. The plot which shows an excellent match with experimental data was obtained by arbitrarily increasing the damping factor by 45%.

Fig. 10. Experiment horizontal response curves and theoretical curves calculated with static interaction factors. (Novak and El-Sharnouby, 1984)

The comparison of theoretical response obtained by using dynamic interaction factors of Kaynia and Kausel (1982) is shown in plot a in Fig.11. Plot b in Fig. 11 shows the calculated data based on dynamic analysis of Wass and Hartmann(1981).
11

Fig. 11. Experimental horizontal response curve and theoretical curves. (a) Calculated with Kaynia and Kausel dynamic interaction factors (b) Calculated with Wass and Hartmann impedances (c ) Experimental (Novak and El-Sharnouby, 1984).

The experimental data of Novak and EL-Sharnouby (1984) is shown by plot c. Novak and El-Sharnouby, (1984) also compared the observed response for vertical and torsional vibrations with the predicted response. Jadi (1999) and Prakash and Jadi (2001) reanalyzed the reported pile test data of Gle (1981) for the lateral dynamic tests on single piles and proposed reduction factors for the stiffness and radiation damping obtained by using the approach of Novak and El-Sharnouby (1983). The suggested equations for the reduction factors are: G = -353500 2 0.00775 + 0.3244 (16) 2 c = 217600 1905.56 + 0.6 (17) where, G and c are the reduction factors for shear modulus and damping and is shear strain at computed peak amplitude without correction factors. Typical comparison of the computed pile response using the modified values of stiffness and damping values and the observed response is shown in figures 12-20. Fig 12 shows prediction and performance of Gles pile in Fig 9. Fig 13, 14 and 15 are for the cases where prediction and performance matched well. However in Fig1618, the prediction and performance does not match well. Fig 19 and 20 shows prediction and performance from other sites.
COMMENTS ON PREDICTIONS

Novak and El Sharnouby (1984) have attempted to match the observed and the predicted response by adjusting, arbitrarily, the group stiffness and damping values. No guidelines were developed to modify these values. Woods (1984) used PILAY program with modified stiffness to match prediction and performance. Jadi (1999) developed rational correction factors to both stiffness and damping to match the computed and predicted responses. She was successful in her efforts. Her
12

Fig.12 Measured and predicted response of pile of Fig. 11 (Prakash and Jadi 1991)

Fig. 13 Measured and predicted lateral Dynamic Response of pile GP 13-7 (=2.5) (Prakash and Jadi, 2001)

Fig. 14 Measured Vs arbitrarily reduced Fig. 15 Measured vs. predicted lateral Dynamic Response of pile K 16-7 (=5) Dynamic Response with proposed (Prakash and Jadi, 2001) reduction factors for pile K 16-7, (=5) (Prakash and Jadi, 2001)

Fig.16 Measured and predicted lateral Fig.17 Measured and predicted lateral Dynamic Response of piles K16-7 Dynamic Response of pile GP 13- 7 (=5)(Prakash and Jadi 2001) (=2.5) (Prakash and Jadi, 2001)
13

Fig.18 Measured and predicted lateral Fig.19 Measured and predicted lateral Dynamic Response of pile LF 16 Dynamic Response of pile I-WES vibrator G = 0.31, c= 0.5 (=10)(Prakash and Jadi 2001) (Prakash and Jadi, 2001)

Fig.20 Measured vs. Reduced predicted lateral Dynamic Response of the 2.4 Pile tested by Novak and Grigg, 1976, G = 0.44, c= 0.34, (Prakash and Jadi, 2001)

approach, however is more scientific and more efforts needs to be devoted to develop relationships for correction factors for different modes of vibration.
CONCLUSIONS

Considerable attention has been paid to the design of foundations for earthquake loads, both for shallow foundations and piles. Efforts have been made to understand the behavior of the foundations under seismic loading. However the shallow foundations are mostly designed using the equivalent static approach. For the case of pile foundations, many efforts have been made for comparing the predicted and observed response of single piles and pile groups under dynamic loading and arbitrary modifications to stiffness and damping were made. Jadis (1999) method of modifying shear modulus and damping appears reasonable.
14

However this has been tested against a limited data base. More analyses are needed to make this tool easily usable in practice.
REFERENCES Basavanna, B.M., Joshi, V.H. and Prakash, S. (1974). Dynamic bearing Capacity Of Soils under Transient Loading. Bull. Indian Soc. Earthquake Tech., Vol.2, No. 3, pp.67-84. Choudhury, D. and Subba Rao, K.S. (2005). Seismic Bearing capacity of Shallow strip Foundations, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, Vol.23, No. 4, pp. 403-418. Das, B.M.(1992). Principles of Soil Dynamics, PWS Kent. Day, R. W. (2002). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill Dormieux , L. and Pecker, A. (1995). Seismic Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Chesionless Soils, J. Geot. Engg. Dn. ASCE, Vol. 121,No 3, pp. 300-303. Gazetas, D. and Anastasopoulos, I., (2008). Case Histories of Foundations on top of a Rupturing Normal Fault during the Kocaeli 1999 Earthquake, Sixth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Symposium in Honor of Professor James K. Mitchell, CD Rom, Aug. 11-19, Arlington, Virginia. Gle, D. R., (1981). The Dynamic Lateral Response of Deep Foundations, PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Jadi, H. (1999). Prediction of lateral Dynamic Response of single Piles Embedded in Clay. MS Thesis, UMR, Rolla. Kaynia, A.M., and Kausel, F., (1982). Dynamic behavior of Pile Groups. Proc. Second International Conference on numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, TX, pp. 509-532. Meyerhoff, G.G. (1951). The Ultimate Bearing capacity of Foundations. Geotechnique,Vol.2, pp. 301-332. Munaf, Y. and Prakash, S. [2002],Displacement Dependent Spring and Damping Factors of Soil Pile Systems, Proc. 12th ECEE, London Paper No. 763. Munaf. Y, S. Prakash and T. Fennessey [2003] Geotechnical Seismic Evaluation of Two Bridges in SE Missouri Proc PEEC, Christchurch NZ Paper No-5, CDROM Novak, M. (1974). Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles, Con. Geot. J. Vol. II No 4, pp. 574-598. Novak, M.(1991). Piles Under Dynamic Load. Proceedings; second international Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, March 11-15. Novak, M. and El Sharnouby, E.B. (1983). Stiffness and Damping Constants for Single Piles, J. Geot. Engg. Dn. ASCE, Vol. 109 No 7, pp 961-974. Novak, M. and El Sharnouby, E.B. (1984). Evaluation of Dynamic Experiments on Pile Groups, J. Geot. Engg. Dn. ASCE, Vol. 101,No 6, pp. 737-756. Novak, M and Howell, J.H (1977).Torsional Vibration of Pile Foundation. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 103 (GT-4), 271-285.
15

Pecker, A. (1996). Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, 11th World Conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico. Poulos, H.G (1971). Behavior of Laterally Loaded Piles. II Piles Groups. J. Soil Mech. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 97(SM-5), 733-751. Poulos, H.G. (1975). Lateral load Deflection Prediction for Pile Groups, Journal, Geotechnical Engineering Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT1, pp. 19-34. Poulos, H.G.,(2007). Ground Movements a Hidden Source of Loading on Deep Foundations, DFI , Journal, Vol.1, No. 1, pp. 37-53. Prakash, S., (1981). Soil Dynamics. McGraw Hill, New York. Reprinted SP Foundation, Rolla, MO. Prakash, S. and Jadi, H. (2001). Prediction of Lateral Dynamic Response of Single Piles Embedded in Fine Soils. Proc. Fourth Intern. Conf. On Recent Advances in Geot. EQ. Eng. And Soil Dyn., San Diego, CA. Prakash, S. and Puri, V.K. (1988). Foundation for Machines Analysis and Design. John Wiley &Sons, New York. Prakash, S. and Puri, V.K.,(2008). Piles Under Earthquake Loads, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV, CD-ROM, May 18-22, Sacramento, CA Prakash, S. and Saran, S. (1971). Bearing capacity of Eccentrically Loaded Footings. J. Soil Mech. And Found. Div., ASCE, VOl. 117, No. 11, pp.95-111. Prakash, S. and Sharma, H.D. (1990). Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Prasad, S.K., Chandrahara, G.P., Nanjundaswamy, P. and Revansiddappa, K. (2004). Seismic Bearing Capacity of Ground from Shake Table Tests, IGC -2004, Vol. 1, Warangal. Richards, R., Elms, D.G. and Budhu, M. (1993). Seismic Bearing Capacity and Settlement of Foundations, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 4, April, pp 662-674. Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Vesic, A.S.,(1973). Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations, J. Soil Mech. And Foundation Div. , ASCE, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp.45-73. Wass , G. and Hartmann, H.G. (1981). Pile Foundations Subjected to Horizontal Dynamic Loads, European Simulation Meeting. Modeling and Simulating of Large Scale Structural Systems. Capri, Italy, p.17 Woods, R.D. (1984). Lateral Interaction between Soil and Pile. Proceedings International Symposium on Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 47-54.

16

You might also like