Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R.

Phule 327

Pile Foundations during

Earthquakes in Liquefiable Soils –
Theory to Practice
Deepankar Choudhury,1 Kaustav Chatterjee,2 Ashutosh Kumar3
and Reshma R. Phule4

Abstract

Local soil sites and topography existing at a particular place play a significant role in amplification
of ground motion in the event of an earthquake. As a result the frequency and amplitude of the
seismic waves change when it travels from the bedrock to the ground surface and can have a
detrimental effect on the overlying structure under resonance condition. Hence, construction of a
stable foundation of high rise structures ensuring safety to the population in seismically active areas
is a challenge faced by civil engineers. Liquefaction of soil subjected to earthquake loading is a major
factor affecting pile foundations in seismically vulnerable areas. Ground motions, superstructure
response, free field site response, soil – pile – superstructure interaction and pile – soil – pile
interaction also have a significant impact on behavior of piles and pile-raft foundation installed
in liquefied soil in seismic areas. In the present study, seismic equivalent linear ground response
analysis at a particular soil site comprising of loose sand and subjected to four seismic ground
motions is implemented using SHAKE2000. Fourier amplification ratio and response spectrum
curves are generated which are useful for design engineers in evaluating the seismic hazard at a
particular place. After carrying out ground response analysis and using the obtained results, static
and dynamic analysis of single pile, passing respectively through homogenous and liquefied soil
is implemented using finite difference based program FLAC3D (2009). The influence of dynamic
loading on pile passing through liquefied soil is studied in terms of bending moment and deflection
along pile depth. Finally, the present study is extended to combined pile-raft foundations (CPRF)
under seismic conditions and their advantage over conventional pile foundation is proposed through
practical case study.

1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai – 400076, India. Also, Adjunct
Professor, Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), New Delhi, India. Email: dc@civil.iitb.ac.in
2
PhD Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai – 400076, India.
Email: kaustav.c@iitb.ac.in
3
PhD Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai – 400076, India.
Email: ashutoshkiit90@gmail.com
4
PhD Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai – 400076, India.
Email: reshmaraskar@iitb.ac.in
328 15th SEE-2014

Introduction

A major factor governing the choice of suitable foundation types for high rise structures is the
in-situ subsoil condition existing at that particular place.The infrastructural growth in urban cities
having high population necessitates the construction of several high rise buildings and structures.
These create a challenging task for civil engineers to ensure both safe and economic design for
such structures. However, this task becomes more complex in seismically active areas. Indian
design code IS 1893: Part 1 (2002) enlists the various criteria to be considered for seismic design
of structures (mostly superstructures) in earthquake prone areas. But the use of various seismicity
parameters for design and analysis of pile foundation and combined pile raft foundation for high
rise constructions in seismically active areas are still comprehensively not available in Indian code.
So, studying the response of ground to seismic motions, liquefaction vulnerability of the particular
site and preparation of liquefaction hazard maps have become the basic topics of research among
many civil engineers across the globe.
If the top soil at a particular site is loose or soft or swelling in nature, pile foundations are
widely used for transferring vertical and lateral loads from the superstructure to the deeper soil
strata and hence have wide applications in both onshore and offshore engineering. The analysis of
pile foundation under the impact of seismic forces can be categorized as a complicated soil – pile –
superstructure interaction problem with soil – pile interaction having a significant impact on behavior
of piles passing through liquefying soil. Hence, liquefaction induced lateral ground spreading is an
important factor causing the failure of pile foundation in liquefaction prone areas [Tokimatsu et al.
(1998), Ishihara (1997), Abdoun and Dobry (2002), Abdoun et al. (2003), Phanikanth et al. (2013)],
as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. However, Bhattacharya (2003) and Dash et al. (2010) have mentioned
aboutbuckling instability as another possible failure mechanism of pile foundation, especially
when subjected to combined vertical load with lateral load on the pile top. Various researchers
have studied and analyzed the behaviour of pile foundations in liquefiable soil using experimental,
analytical and numerical procedures. Bhattacharya et al. (2004) proposed an alternative mechanism
based on pile buckling for predicting the failure of pilesin liquefiable soil deposits during an
earthquake. Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005a,b) carried out numerical and analytical studies
to obtain the response of pile foundation in liquefying soil based on finite element method and
solving the partial differential equation of beams on Winkler foundation. Dynamic centrifuge tests
for pile foundations in liquefiable soil have been carried out byAbdoun et al. (2003), Ghosh and
Madabhushi (2007), Knappett andMadabhushi (2012) while shaking table tests have been conducted
by Motamed et al. (2009, 2010) and Motamed and Towhata (2009) and few others. Ayothiraman
and Boominathan(2013) carried out dynamic experiments on instrumented model aluminium single
piles embedded in clay and studied its bending behaviour under the influence of lateral loading.
The influence of axial loads on response of piles in liquefiable soil has been thoroughly studied by
Knappett and Madabhushi (2009a, b), Dash et al. (2010). Bhattacharya et al. (2009) proposed an
approximate method based on equivalent single degree of freedom model to obtain the fundamental
frequency of a structure – pile – soil system while Shadlou and Bhattacharya (2014) proposed a set
of formulas to obtain the dynamic stiffness of a pile for use in inertial interaction analysis based on
elastodynamic solutions. Maheshwari et al. (2004) implemented numerical modelling of single pile
and pile groups using a FORTRAN code 3dNDPILE to study the influence of non-linear behaviour
of soil on the dynamic behaviour of piles while Maheshwari and Emani (2014) carried out seismic
analysis of pile groups in three dimensional domain with non-linear behaviour of soil using FE-
CIFECM coupling in Hybrid Domain and HiSS Plasticity model.Sarkar et al. (2014) proposed new
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 329

(a) (b)
Fig. 1: Liquefaction induced ground spreading and failure of (a) Kawagishi – Cho apartment and (b) Showa
bridge due to lateral spreading during the 1964 Nigaata earthquake [ Kramer (2005)]

Fig. 2: Pile failure during earthquake as proposed by Tokimatsu et al.(1998) [see Choudhury et al. (2009)]

methodologies for implementing seismic requalification studies of pile foundations in liquefiable

soils.
If the soil layers under the structure have adequate bearing capacity, then raft can provide
economical solution unless the serviceability of the structure is affected due to unacceptable
settlement. In such cases conventional pile foundation is preferred which takes care of serviceability
criteria but may leads to uneconomical design. Hence, introduction of few numbers of piles below
raft foundation would reduce the settlement of raft foundation and make the foundation system
economical. This composite foundation system which consist of spread foundation i.e. raft and
comparatively few number of piles (friction or end bearing piles) is called Combined Pile-Raft
Foundation (CPRF) [(Katzenbach et al. (2012)]. International Society of Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering provideinternational guideline for CPRF design,construction and practice,
cover page of it is shown in Fig. 3(a) [Katzenbach and Choudhury (2013)]. Total resistance against
the superstructure load depends upon sum of settlements of foundation and consists of pile resistance
and base resistance, as shown in Fig. 3(b) and mentioned by Katzenbachet al. (2009).
330 15th SEE-2014

Rtotal,k= ΣRpile,k, j+ RRaft, k (1)

Pile resistance: Rpile,k,j(s)=Rb,k,j(s) +Rs,k,j(s) (2)
Raft resistance: Rraft,k(s)=∫∫ σ(s, x, y) dxdy (3)
where, R total,kistotal resistance of CPRF, RRaft,kischaracteristics raft resistance, (ΣRpile,k,j) is
characteristics pile resistance and s is settlement of spread foundation.
The characteristic base resistance results from the integration of the settlement dependent
contact pressure σ(s, x, y) in the ground plan area of the raft. The distribution of the super structure
loadbetween the different bearing structures of a CPRF is described by the CPRF coefficient, αCPRF
(Eq. 4) which defines the ratio between the amount of load carried by the piles Σ Rpilek,i and the
total load of the building Rtotal. Co-efficient of one represents a freestanding pile group, ignoring
the existence of the raft. Co-efficient of zero represents the load carried by raft foundation alone.

CPRF coefficient: α CPRF =

∑ Rpile k,i (4)
Rtotal,k
The use of piles to reduce raft settlement may lead to economical design without compromising
safety and performance of foundation system and the use of this technique have been increasing
widely in recent years [Poulos et al. (2001)]. Detailed investigations of several high rise buildings
like Messeturm Tower, Main Tower, Eurotheum etc. mainly in Frankfurt am Main, Germany
were carried out which state that load sharing in CPRF depends upon pile-soil-raft interactions
[(Katzenbach et al. (2005)]. Case study on twelve storey building in Japan revealed that CPRF
shows the consistent behaviour under liquefiable soil deposits when Tohoku earthquake of Mw=9
struck the Japan on March 11, 2011 [Yamshita et al. (2012)].

(a) (b)
Fig. 3: (a) Cover page of International Guideline for CPRF and (b) Schematic representation of load
carrying and interaction mechanism of CPRF foundation[(Katzenbach and Choudhury (2013)]
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 331

SEISMIC EQUIVALENT LINEAR GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Site specific ground response analysis is an element of significant influence in the field of
geotechnical earthquake engineering since it gives an insight to the profound impact of local soil
conditions and geological features on the ground response, during an earthquake. Several factors like
topography existing at a particular site, bedrock conditions and local soil layers amplifies the ground
motion when it travels from the bedrock to the surface, which can have a detrimental influence on
the overlying structures. Site specific ground response analysis can be implemented using linear,
equivalent linear and non linear approach [Kramer (2005)].
In the present study, seismic equivalent linear ground response analysis is conducted at a soil site
comprising of homogenous dry loose sand layer, having unit weight (γ) 14kN/m3, friction angle
(ϕ) 300 and Poisson’s ratio (μ) 0.35, by using SHAKE2000 [Ordonez (2012)] computer software.
Four different seismic ground motions are chosen for the analysis which includes 1989 Loma
Gilroy, 1995 Kobe, 2001 Bhuj and 2011 Sikkim earthquake motions. It is observed from Fig. 4(a)
that the maximum output acceleration at the ground surface is significantlyamplified when Kobe
motion is the input motion, thereby indicating the ground acceleration at the bedrock level have
been amplified by almost 1.72 times of that at the bedrock level. Similarly, for 1989 Loma Gilroy,
2001 Bhuj and 2011 Sikkim motions, the output acceleration got amplified at ground surface by
1.20, 2.39 and 1.58, respectively. The response spectrum curves at the ground surface for the various
input motions are illustrated in Fig. 4(b). It is observed that the maximum spectral acceleration is
1.502g at a time period of 0.84sec for 1995 Kobe motion. The peak spectral acceleration for 1989
Loma Gilroy, 2001 Bhuj and 2011 Sikkimmotions are 0.56g at 0.4sec, 0.31g at 0.52sec and 0.46g
at 0.21sec, respectively.

LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION USING SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES

Liquefaction occurs generally at shallow depths in mostly loose to moderately dense granular
saturated soils, due to rapid loading during seismic events due to insufficient time for dissipation of
excess pore-water pressures through natural drainage. Urban structures were considered safer before
the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, which shattered the myth of urban seismic safety through widespread

Fig. 4: (a) Variation of amplification of acceleration (amax(g)/MHA) along depth and (b) Response spectrum
curves at 5% damping at ground surface
332 15th SEE-2014

damage to modern buildings [(Sinha et al. (2008)]. Prakash and Sandoval (1992) investigated the
liquefaction behavior of low plasticity silts while Prakash and Guo (1998) carried liquefaction studies
of silts with having clay content. Prakash and Puri (2010) conducted cyclic triaxial tests to study the
liquefaction behavior of silts and silt clay mixers over a range of plasticity values.
Measures to mitigate the damages caused by liquefaction require accurate evaluation of
liquefaction potential of soils which has been carried out in the recent past using methods proposed
by Robertson and Wride (1997), Youd et al. (2001), Seed et al.(2001, 2003), Cetin et al. (2004),
Idriss and Boulanger (2004, 2008) and Boulanger and Idriss (2014). These methods, also known
as deterministic methods, were based on standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests
(CPT) and shear wave velocity (Vs) criteria and were developed from field liquefaction performance
cases at sites that had been characterized with the corresponding in situ tests.In these procedures,
liquefaction of a soil is predicted to occur if the factor of safety (FS), defined as the ratio of cyclic
resistance ratio (CRR) of the soil required to cause initial liquefaction, divided by the cyclic stress
ratio (CSR) induced at various depths within the soil by the earthquake, is less than or equal to 1.
No soil liquefaction is predicted if FSis more than 1.
All these procedures use common equation to determine the CSR based on the seismic (ground
motion) parameters derived from the ground response analysis for specific site, but each equation
use different relationship to determine the stress reduction coefficient ‘rd’[Choudhury et al. (2014)].
The CRR also varies significantly between these procedures because each procedure uses different
factors to account for earthquake magnitude and overburden stresses. The variation of CRR for the
three commonly used procedures of Youd et al. (2001), Cetin et al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger
(2008) are shown in Fig. 5 andthe variation of the overburden stress factor, Kσ,proposed by Youd et
al. (2001), Cetin et al. (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2004) are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5: comparison of crr curves Fig. 6: comparison of Kσ correction factors

AnALYSIS oF PILE FoundAtIonS In HoMoGEnouS And LIQuEFIEd SoIL

After conducting site specific ground response analysis and liquefaction study at a seismically active
area, the next important area of study is analysis of pile foundation subjected to input seismic motions
and passing through liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil layers. Generally, piles are initially analyzed
and designed for static loading and if found safe against deflection and bending, they are subjected
to dynamic loadsand analysis is carried out, as has been done in the present study.
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 333

Analysis of pile subjected to static loading

As shown in Fig. 7, a single pile is modeled in finite difference based geotechnical software FLAC3D
(2009) which is a 3-Dimensional explicit finite difference based computer program and performs
a Lagrangian analyses for engineering mechanics computation.The numerical model developed in
the present study is validated with Reese and Matlock (1956) theory for both free headed and fixed
headed piles subjected to lateral load. A concrete pile of M30 grade concrete and loose sandy soil
is chosen as the input parameters [Rao et al. (2013)], with the normal stiffness and shear stiffness
at soil-pile interface being calculated as per Timoshenko and Goodier (2002). The results obtained
are illustrated in Figs. 8 and 9 for fixed headed and free headed piles, respectively and maximum
pile head deflection and pile bending momentarenoted. It is observed that the present results are
in good agreement with the results obtained using Reese and Matlock (1956) theory for both free
headed and fixed headed piles.

(a) (b)
Fig. 7: Mesh for (a) soil grid and (b) soil-pile grid considered in the present analysis in FLAC3D

Fig. 8: comparison of (a) pile deflection and (b) pile bending moment along depth obtained in present
study with that obtained from reese and Matlock (1956) theory for fixed headed pile under static condition
334 15th SEE-2014

Fig 9: Comparison of (a) pile deflection and (b) pile bending moment along depth obtained in present
study with that obtained from Reese and Matlock (1956) theory for free headed pile under static condition

Analysis of piles subjected to dynamic loading in liquefied soil

After conducting static analyses of the pile soil model generated in FLAC3D (2009), dynamic
analyses of a free headed pile with floating tip boundary condition is implemented by subjecting
the piles to 4 different input seismic motions. The ground motions chosen for the present analyses
are 1989 Loma Gilroy motion, 1995 Kobe motion, 2001 Bhuj motion and 2011 Sikkim earthquake
motion, having a wide variation of strong motion parameters like frequency content, bracketed
duration and peak ground acceleration, as indicated by Phanikanth et al. (2011). The input motions
are applied at the tip of the free headed pile having length (l) 8m and diameter (d) 600mm and
embedded in a two-layered soil system comprising of a liquefiable layer of loose sand underlain
by a non-liquefiable layer of stiff clay, as shown in Fig. 10. The water table is located at the
ground leveland the same is simulated in the numerical model. The non-liquefiable clay layer and
liquefiable loose sand layer are modeled using Mohr-Coulomb and Byrne (1991) constitutive model,
respectively. The analysis is conducted for kinematic loading by varying the depth of liquefied layer
(Lliq) and the response of the pile in terms of bending moment and deflection along the pile depth
is obtained.

Fig. 10: (a) Dynamic centrifuge test model of Abdoun et al. (2003) and (b) model used in the present
study for dynamic analysis of single pile in FLAC3D
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 335

AnALYSIS And rESuLtS

The behaviour of a free headed pile passing through liquefiable loose sand layer and embedded
in non-liquefiable stiff clay layer under the action of various input seismic motions are illustrated
in Figs. 11 (a) and (b). It is observed that the maximum bending moment occurs at a depth of 5m,
which is the interface of two layers, for all the input ground motions. Further, the maximum bending
moment of 175kNm is observed for 1995 Kobe motion, while for 1989 Loma Gilroy, 2001 Bhuj
and 2011 Sikkim motions the bending moment magnitudes are 118.3kNm, 125kNm and 132kNm,
respectively. The variation of pile deflection with pile depth is illustrated in Fig. 11(b). It is observed
that the maximum pile head deflection is 48.2cm under the action of 1995 Kobe motion, while for
1989 Loma Gilroy, 2001 Bhuj and 2011 Sikkim motions, the deflection magnitudes are 40.6cm,
23.9cm and 32cm, respectively. The magnitude of pile deflection decreases with depth of the pile and
reaches almost zero beyond a depth of 5m. This is due to the deeper soil layers are more densified
owing to the high overburden stress transmitted from the top soil layers [Chatterjee and Choudhury
(2013)]. Beyond a depth of 5m, the non-liquefiable stiff clay layer has both higher density and
higher shear stiffness and normal stiffness compared to the liquefiable loose sand layer, and thereby
resulting in almost negligible displacement.
The influence of depth of liquefiable layer on soil – pile response and subjected to kinematic
loading is also studied in the present analysis. The depth of liquefied layer Lliqis varied in terms
of total pile length l as Lliq/l = 0.25, 0.5, 0.625, 0.75 and 1.0. The variation of bending moment
and deflection with pile depth for 2001 Bhuj motion for different combinations of Lliq/l is shown
in Figs. 12(a) and (b). It is observed for 2001 Bhuj motion that maximum pile head deflection is
10.4cm when Lliq/l is 0.25 and it increases to 23.9cm when Lliq/l increases to 0.6, thereby showing
an increase of 56.5%. However, when the entire soil is liquefying, i.e., Lliq/l = 1.0, the deflection at
the pile head is 14.6cm while at the pile tip it is -16cm. A similar trend of results is also observed
for the other 3 different earthquake motions. The variation of bending moment with pile depth
for different combinations of Lliq/l ratio is shown in Fig. 12(a). The maximum bending moment is
observed to occur at the interface of the liquefied layer and non-liquefied layer and is maximum
when Lliq/l ratio is approximately 0.6 and with a subsequent increase in depth of liquefying layer,

Fig. 11: Variation of (a) bending moment (knm) with pile depth (m) and (b) deflection (cm) with pile depth
(m)for different earthquake motions considered in the present study
336 15th SEE-2014

Fig. 12: Variation of (a) bending moment (knm) with pile depth (m) and (b) deflection (cm) with pile depth
(m)for different combinations of Lliq/l ratio and subjected to 2001 Bhuj motion

the magnitude of bending moment reduces. A maximum bending moment of 125kNm is observed
for 2001 Bhuj earthquake motion and when Lliq/l ratio is 0.6. However, when Lliq/l ratio increases to
1.0, the bending moment reduces to 68kNm, thereby showing a reduction of approximately 45.6%.

SEISMIc AnALYSIS oF coMBInEd PILE rAFt FoundAtIonS (cPrF)

The analysis of CPRF has been carried out in the present study using FLAC3D (2009). Four concrete
piles having length 9m and diameter 0.5m is modelled having 2m spacing centre to centre. The raft
of size 4m x and 1m thickness is modelled. The Young’s modulus of raft and piles is taken as 41.7
GPa. Dimensions of raft and piles are taken from Horikoshi et al. (2003) and Eslami et al.(2011).
Toyoura sand was considered in the present study. The modulus of elasticity of Toyourasand is
taken as 4x104kPa, unit weight of Toyoura sand is 16.3 kN/m3 with Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, dilation
angle of 1o, cohesion of 10 kPa. The properties of Toyoura sand is taken from Kimura et al. (1985).

Modeling of cPrF

Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion is chosen for Toyoura sand model and raft and piles are considered
as elastic member in the analysis. Four square piles having 9m length and size of 0.5m is generated
and connected rigidly to the raft. The three dimensional view of soil-pile-raft model generated in
FLAC3D is shown in the Fig. 13. In order to simulate actual field condition, soil mass is fixed at base
and roller boundaries are employed at the sides so that soil model can deform under the application
of vertical load. The capacity of a pile is a function of the skin friction resistance along the pile
shaft only is considered in the present analysis. The skin friction resistance is modelled by placing
an interface along the pile surface. The interface properties have been selected as per experimental
results of Horikoshi et al. (2003) and are provided between the soil and raft in order to prevent
separation between raft and soil. The model was first brought to equilibrium state under gravity
loads before the installation of piles. Then piles were modelled and again brought into equilibrium.
Actual vertical stress (according to the equation = γh) at theinitial condition are -260 kPa at the
bottom and 0 kPa at top. It is observed that the vertical stresses computed by FLAC3D are almost
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 337

same values as specified.The load applied on to the raft is in theform of vertical pressure which is
obtained from scaling the mass of raft i.e. 4.69 kg used in centrifugerotated at 50g to normal gravity
level which comes around 366.4kPa of vertical pressure. The boundary conditions of the model is
modified in dynamic analysis by applying free – field boundary condition which contain dampers
in normal and shear directions to absorb the seismic wave reflections at the model boundaries, there
by simulating the infield conditions.

Analysis and results

The model is analyzed under static loading condition which shows the maximum bending moment
of 138 kNm and settlement of 2.5 cm. Total vertical loads taken by all the piles are around 2600kN
which gives the CPRF co-efficient, i.e., total load carried by the pile foundation to the total load
applied to the CPRF system is around 0.44.For the validation of model an input dynamic loading
of 1 m/s2 in the prototype scale with a frequency of 1Hz was applied at the model base which is
very similar to centrifuge test done by Nakai et al. (2004) has been applied to the base of soil in
x- direction. Fig. 14 shows the maximum bending moment response of pile along its length under
sinusoidal loading condition in FLAC3D. From Fig. 15 it can be inferred that bending moment
response is in agreement with Eslami et al. (2011) when compared for sinusoidal loading case and
the maximum bending moment observed on the pile top is 148 kNm. After validation of the present
model, same model is analysed under real acceleration time history of 1979 El-Centro and 2001 Bhuj
earthquake motions having PGA of 0.106g and 0.425g, respectively. Bending moment response of
pile in CPRF under acceleration time history of El- Centro and Bhuj Earthquake is shown in Fig. 15.
Under El-Centro loading condition maximum bending moment observed is 259 kNm which matches
with the bending moment response shown by Eslami et al. (2011). Under 2001, Bhuj earthquake
loading, maximum bending response is 196.9 kNm. Total settlement of the CPRF is found to be 5.7
cm under El-Centro loading condition which is nearly same as mentioned by Eslami et al. (2011)
and in case of 2001Bhuj motion total settlement of nearly 3cm is observed.

Fig. 13: Three dimensional view of CPRF model in FLAC3D (2009)

338 15th SEE-2014

Fig. 14: Bending moment variation along pile Fig. 15: Bending moment variation along pile
length in sinusoidal loading condition in FLAc3d length under different cases

cASE StudY oF cPrF undEr EArtHQuAKE condItIon

A practical case study on a base isolated twelve storey building of Tokyo having height of 38.7m
which was founded on loose silty sand underlain by soft cohesive soil having huge potential for
liquefaction. CPRF with deep cement mixing was employed to increase the bearing capacity for raft
foundation and cope of with the problem of liquefaction, shown in Fig. 16. The PGA of 1.748m/s2
was observed near the ground surface. The other building Hardon Experimental of Ibarakiin Japan
having height of 19m is founded on subsoil having medium to dense sand underlain by cohesive
layer. The building is supported by CPRF with 371 PHC piles. The PGA at the depth of 6m below
the ground was recorded as 3.24m/s2. In both the buildings, settlement of the foundation, contact

(a) (b)
Fig. 16: (a) tweleve storey building in tokyo and (b) Ground subsidence along the experimental hall
[after Yamashita et al. (2012)]
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 339

pressures and pore water pressures were monitored from the date of construction to the stuck of
2011, Tohuku Pacific Earthquake Mw=9. All monitored data were consistent before and after the
earthquake hence showing excellent performance of CPRF during earthquake, showing excellent
performance of CPRF during earthquake.

Conclusions

The major conclusions from the present study are highlighted below as follows:
1. Seismic equivalent linear ground response analysis shows that the amplification of ground
motion is more for 2001 Bhuj and 2011 Sikkim motions, compared to 1995 Kobe motion,
although the later had higher amplitude of motion at bedrock level. This is due to the higher
frequency content and bracketed duration of the former two seismic motions.
2. The static analysis of pile foundations using FLAC3D (2009) is found to validate well with
Reese and Matlock (1956) theory. Further, with an increase in vertical load on the pile top, the
lateral load carrying capacity of both fixed headed and free headed pile is found to increase
substantially.
3. Dynamic analysis of pile embedded in liquefiable soil shows that maximum bending moment
occurs at the interface of the liquefiable soil layer and non-liquefiable soil layer and bending
moment is maximum when the depth of the liquefiable layer is approximately 60% of the
total pile length.
4. Present study shows that response of CPRF is quite well because of major contribution of
raft in load sharing which is not the case in case of pile group foundation where raft does
not have any contribution in load sharing.
5. Behavior of CPRF under sinusoidal loading, Bhuj and El-Centro loading conditions has been
carried out using finite difference based software FLAC3D. The bending moment response
of pile under dynamic loading matches with the results proposed by Eslami et al. (2011). The
obtained results show that maximum bending moment along the pile length was observed
to be 148kNm, 259 kNm and 196.9 kNm under sinusoidal, El- Centro and Bhuj earthquake
respectively and there is 7%, 87% and 42% increase in bending moment, respectively when
compared with static case.
6. It can be concluded that CPRF is taking load under combined interaction of soil- pile-raft.
Major portion of load has been taken by raft as compared to piled foundation. Bending moment
response shows that CPRF is showing consistent behavior under different earthquake loading
conditions. Practical case study of CPRF during earthquake also validates the theoretical
findings.

REFERENCES

1. Abdoun, T. and Dobry, R. (2002).“Evaluation of pile foundation response to lateral spreading,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9–12), 1051–1058.
2. Abdoun, T., Dobry, R., O’Rouke, T.D. and Goh, S.H. (2003). “Pile foundation response to lateral spreads:
Centrifuge modelling,”Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 129 (10), 869-
878.
3. Ayothiraman, R. and Boominathan, A. (2013). “Depth of fixity of piles in clay under dynamic lateral
load,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 31, 447-461.
4. Bhattacharya, S. (2003). “Pile instability during earthquake liquefaction,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Cambridge, U.K.
340 15th SEE-2014

5. Bhattacharya, S., Madabhushi, S.P.G. and Bolton, M.D. (2004). “An alternative mechanism of pile failure
in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes,” Geotechnique, 54(3), 203-213.
6. Bhattacharya, S., Adhikari, S. and Alexander, N.A. (2009). “A simplified method for unified buckling and
fee vibration analysis of pile – supported structures in seismically liquefiable soils,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 29, 1220-1235.
7. Boulanger, R.W. andIdriss, I.M. (2014). “CPTandSPTbased liquefaction triggeringprocedures,”Report No.
Ucd/Cgm-14/01 Center for Geotechnical Modeling Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of California, Davis, California.
8. Bowles, J.E. (1997). “Foundation analysis and design,” 5th edition McGraw-Hill, Inc.
9. Byrne, P. (1991). “A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore-pressure model for sand,” In Proceedings:
Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics (St. Louis, Missouri, March 1991), 47-55.
10. Cetin, K.O., Seed, R.B., Kiureghain, A.D., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., Kayen, R.E. and Moss, R.E.S.
(2004). “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil
liquefaction potential,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130 (12), 1314-1340.
11. Chatterjee, K. and Choudhury, D. (2013). “Variations in shear wave velocity and soil site class in Kolkata
city using regression and sensitivity analysis,” Natural Hazards, Springer, 69(3), 2057-2082(doi: 10.1007/
s11069-013-0795-7).
12. Choudhury, D., Bharti, R.K., Chauhan, S. and Indraratna, B. (2008). “Response of multilayer
foundation system beneath railway track under cyclic loading,” Journal of Geotechnical and
GeoenvironmentalEngineering, ASCE, 134(10), 1558-1563.
13. Choudhury. D., Phanikanth, V.S. and Reddy, G.R. (2009). “Recent advances in analysis and design of
pile foundations in liquefiable soils during earthquake: a review,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, India, LXXIX(II), 141-152.
14. Choudhury, D., Phanikanth, V.S., Mhaske, S.Y., Phule, R.R. and Chatterjee, K. (2014). “Seismic
liquefaction hazard and site response for design of piles in Munbai city,” Indian Geotechnical Journal,
Springer, India (in press, available online with doi: 10.1007/S40098-014-0108-4).
15. Dash, S.R., Bhattacharya, S. and Blakeborough, A. (2010). “Bending-buckling interaction as a failure
mechanism of piles in liquefiable soils,”Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30 (1-2), 32-39.
16. Eslami, M.M., Aminikhah, A. and Ahmadi. M.M. (2011). “A comparative study on pile group and piled
raft foundations (PRF) behavior under seismic loading,” Journal of Computational Methods in Civil
Engineering, 2(2), 185-199.
17. FLAC3D (2009). “Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continuaversion 4.0,” Itasca Consulting Group,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A.
18. Ghosh, B. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2007). “Centrifuge modeling of seismic soil structure interaction
effects,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237(8), 887-896.
19. Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T. and Fukuyama, H. (2003a). “Performance of
piled raft foundations subjected to static horizontal loads,” International Journal of Physical Modeling in
Geotechnics,2, 37-50.
20. Horikoshi, K., Matsumoto, T., Hashizume, Y., Watanabe, T. and Fukuyama, H. (2003b). “Performance
of piled raft foundations subjected to dynamic loading,” International Journal of Physical Modeling in
Geotechnics, 2, 51-62.
21. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2004). “Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential
during earthquakes,” Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion
Press,1, 32-56.
22. Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). “Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes,” Monograph, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute. Oakland, CA.
23. IS 1893 Part 1 (2002). “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structure,” Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi, India
Deepankar Choudhury, Kaustav Chatterjee, Ashutosh Kumar and Reshma R. Phule 341

24. IS 2911 Part1: Section 4 (1984). “Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile
Foundations,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
25. Ishihara, K. (1997). “Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe earthquake: Terzaghi Oration,” Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany.
26. Katzenbach, R., Bachmann, G., Boled- Mekasha, G., and Ramm, H. (2005). “Combined Pile Raft
Foundations (CPRF) - an appropriate solution for the foundations of high rise buildings,” Slovak Journal
of Civil Engineering, 3, 19-29.
27. Katzenbach, R.,Clauss, R.,Ramm, H.,Wasberseck, T. and Choudhury, D. (2009). “Combined pile-raft
foundations and energy piles – Recent trends in research and practice”, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Deep Foundations – CPRF and Energy Piles, May 15, 2009, Frankfurt am Main, Germany,
Darmstadt Geotechnics No. 18, pp. 3-20.
28. Katzenbach, R., Ramm, H. and Choudhury, D. (2012). “Combined pile-raft foundations – A sustainable
foundation concept,”Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Testing and Design Methods for Deep
Foundations, IS-Kanazawa 2012, organized by JGS, TC212 and TC205 of ISSMGE,Kanazawa, Japan, 1,
25-34.
29. Katzenbach, K. and Choudhury, D. (2013). “ISSMGE Combined Pile-Raft Foundation Guideline”
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE),Deep Foundations,
pp. 1-28.
30. Kimura, T., Kusakabe. O. and Saitoh, K. (1985). “Geotechnical model test of bearing capacity problems
in centrifuge,” Geotechnique, 35(1), 33-45.
31. Knappett, J.A. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2009a). “Influence of axial load on lateral pile response in
liquefiable soils. Part I: Physical Modeling,”Geotechnique, 59(7), 571 - 581.
32. Knappett, J.A. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2009b). “Influence of axial load on lateral pile response in
liquefiable soils. Part II: Numerical Modeling,” Geotechnique, 59(7), 583 - 592.
33. Knappett, J.A. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2012). “Effects of axial load and slope arrangement on pile group
response in laterally spreading soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
138, 799 – 809.
34. Kramer, S.L. (2005). “Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,” Prentice Hall, New Jeresy.
35. Liyanapathirana, D.S. and Poulos, H.G. (2005a). “Seismic lateral response of piles in liquefying
soil,”Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,131, 1466–1479.
36. Liyanapathirana, D.S. and Poulos, H.G. (2005b). “Pseudo-static approach for seismic analysis of piles in
liquefying soil,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 131, 1480–1487.
37. Maheshwari, B.K., Truman, K.Z., EI Naggar, M.H. and Gould, P. L. (2004). “Three – dimensional finite
element nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile groups for lateral transient and seismic excitations,”Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 41, 118 – 133.
38. Maheshwari, B.K. and Emani, P.K. (2014). “Three dimensional nonlinear seismic analysis of pile groups
using FE-CIFECM coupling in hybrid domain and HiSS plasticity model,” International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE, (in press with doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000335).
39. Motamed, R., Towhata, I., Honda, T, Yasuda, S., Tabata, K. and Nakazawa, H. (2009). “Behaviour of pile
group behind a sheet pile quay wall subjected to liquefaction-induced large ground deformation observed
in shaking test in E-defense project,” Soils and Foundations, 49(3), 459-475.
40. Motamed, R.,Sesov, V.,Towhata, I. and Ngo Tuan Anh. (2010). “Experimental modeling of large pile
groups in sloping ground subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral flow: 1-gshaking table tests,” Soils and
Foundations, 50(2), 261-279.
41. Motamed, R. and Towhata, I. (2009). “Shaking table model tests on pile groups behind quay walls subjected
to lateral spreading,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 135(3), 477-489.
42. Nakai, S., Kato, H., Ishida, R. and Mano, H. (2004). “Load bearing mechanism of piled raft foundation
during earthquake,”Proceedings of third UJNR workshop on soil-structure interaction, Menlo Park,
California, USA.
43. Ordonez, G.A. (2012). “SHAKE2000: A computer program for the 1D analysis of geotechnical earthquake
engineering problems,” User’s Manual, GeoMotions LLC, Lacey, Washington, USA
342 15th SEE-2014

44. Phanikanth, V.S., Choudhury, D. and Reddy, G.R. (2011). “Equivalent-linear seismic ground response
analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 29(6), 1109-1126.
45. Phanikanth, V.S., Choudhury, D. and Reddy, G.R. (2013). “Behavior of single pile in liquefied deposits
during earthquakes,” International Journal of Geomechanics, ASCE,13(4), 454 – 462.
46. Prakash, S. and Guo, T. (1998). “Liquefaction of silts with clay content,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, ASCE, Seattle, WA, Vol. I, pp. 337-348.
47. Prakash, S. and Puri, V.K. (2010). “Past and future of liquefaction,” Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical
Conference, IGC-2010, GEOtrendz, December 16 – 18, 2010, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India, Invited Papers,
pp. 63-72.
48. Prakash, S. and Sandoval, J.A. (1992). “Liquefaction of low plasticity silts,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 71(7), 373-397.
49. Poulos, H.G. (2001). “Piled Raft Foundations: design and applications,” Geotechnique, 51(2), 95-113.
50. Rao,V.D., Chatterjee, K. and Choudhury,D. (2013). “Analysis of single pile in liquefied soil during
earthquake using FLAC3D,” Proceedings of the International Conference on State of the Art of Pile
Foundation and Pile Case Histories PILE – 2013, June 2-4, 2013, Bandung, Indonesia, Vol. 1, pp. F5-1
to F5-7.
51. Reese, L.C. and Matlock, H. (1956). “Non-dimensional solutions for laterally-loaded piles with soil
modulus assumed proportional to depth,” Proceedings of the 8th Texas Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, Austin, Texas, 1-41.
52. Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C. E. (1997). “Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on the SPT and
CPT,” Proceedings of the NCEER workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Dec.,
1997, University Of California.
53. Sarkar, R., Bhattacharya, S. and Maheshwari, B.K. (2014). “Seismic requalification of pile foundations
in liquefiable soils,” Indian Geotechnical Journal, 44(2), 183-195.
54. Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M. and Riemer, M. F.
(2001). “Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering and Seismic Site Response Evaluation,” 4th
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
March, 2001, San Diego, California.
55. Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Moss, R. E. S., Kammerer, A. M., Wu, J., Pestana, J. M., Riemer, M. F., Sancio,
R. B., Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E. and Faris, A. (2003). “Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering:
A unified and consistent framework,” Report No. EERC 2003306, University of California, Berkeley,
California.
56. Shadlou,M. and Bhattacharya, S. (2014).“Dynamic stiffness of pile in a layered elastic continuum,”
Geotechnique, (doi: 10.1680/geot.13.P.107).
57. Sinha, R., Aditya, K.S.P. and Gupta, A. (2008). “GIS-based urban seismic risk assessment using RISK.
IITB,” ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 45(3-4), 41–63.
58. Timoshenko, S.P. and Goodier, J.N. (2002). “Theory of Elasticity,” 3rd Edition, Tata McGraw-Hill
Education.
59. Tokimatsu, K., Oh-oka, H., Satake, K., Shamoto, Y. and Asaka, Y. (1998). “Effects of lateral ground
movements on failure patterns of piles in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake,” Proceedings of
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, Reston, 1175-1186.
60. Yamashita, K., Hamada, J., Onimaru, S. and Higashino, M. (2012). “Seismic behaviour of piled raft
with ground improvement supporting a base-isolated building on soft ground in Tokyo,” Soils and
Foundations,52, 1000-1015.
61. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Ronald, A. D., Ignacio, A., Gonzalo, C., John, C. T., Dobry, R., Finn, L.W.D.,
Leslie, H.F. Jr, Ellen, H.M., Kenji, I., Koester, J.P., Sam, L.S.C., William, M.F. III, Geoffrey, M.R., James,
M.K., Yoshiharu, M., Maurice, P.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H II (2001). “Liquefaction
resistance of soils summary: Report from 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation
of liquefaction resistance of soil,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental. Engineering, ASCE,
127, 817–833.