Bull Earthquake Eng

DOI 10.1007/s10518-016-0029-y

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Behaviour of model pile foundations under dynamic

loads in saturated sand

Y. S. Unsever1 • T. Matsumoto2 • K. Esashi2 • S. Kobayashi2

Received: 19 April 2016 / Accepted: 11 October 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract In Japan and Turkey, predominantly traditional design concept of pile group is
still adopted even though most pile foundations are piled raft foundations in reality. This
situation may be attributed to the still limited knowledge about behaviour of piled rafts
subjected to the combination of static and dynamic loads. Hence, in this study, a series of
shaking table tests on 3-pile piled raft and 3-pile pile group models were carried out in
saturated sand at 1-g field under the combinations of static vertical and dynamic horizontal
loading, where the input motion was sinusoidal wave having a frequency of 20 Hz and 1.50
and 6.00 m/s2 amplitudes. The results showed that, raft-model ground contact in piled raft
is very effective to reduce settlement compared to pile group even in liquefied soil.
Moreover, even in piled raft, the horizontal resistance reduces if liquefaction of the ground
surface occurs, due to the loss of the raft base resistance.

Keywords Piled raft  Pile group  Shaking table test  Saturated sand  Dynamic load

1 Introduction

In recent years, piled raft foundations have been used extensively to reduce average and/or
differential settlement of building foundations subjected to horizontal loading such as
earthquakes, winds, etc. in their lifetime.
Number of experimental studies on horizontal loading of pile foundations were
reported, e.g. Shibata et al. (1989), Murono et al. (1997), Tokimatsu and Suzuki (2004),
Kagawa et al. (2004), Tokimatsu et al. (2005), Zhang et al. (2008), Ishizaki et al. (2012). In
those studies, behaviour of model pile foundations in dry or saturated grounds subjected to

& Y. S. Unsever
unsever@uludag.edu.tr
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Uludag University, Bursa, Turkey
2
Graduate School of Natural Science and Technology, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

static or dynamic (seismic) loading were investigated, where the piles are end bearing
piles. In order to widen the application of piled rafts, physical modelling of piled rafts
supported by friction piles in dry/saturated sand ground subjected to static and/or dynamic
(shaking) horizontal loading were carried out by Pastsakorn et al. (2002), Horikoshi et al.
(2003), Hamada et al. (2012), etc. Similar experiments were carried out by Matsumoto
et al. (2004, 2010) at 1-g field, with consideration of the influence of the super-structure.
Sawada and Takemura (2014) also conducted centrifuge modelling of piled rafts in dry
sand subjected to lateral and moment loads.
Nevertheless, the design framework of piled rafts subjected to combination of static
vertical load and dynamic horizontal load has not been fully established. Therefore tra-
ditional design concept of pile group is still adopted predominantly, even though piled
foundations are piled raft foundations in reality as shown by Yamashita et al. (2011a, b),
Yamashita (2012) from the field measurements, which means the raft effect is not taken
into account in those design approaches and the results do not reflect the actual behaviour
of piled raft (Poulos and Davis 2005; Katzenbach and Leppla 2013).
In this paper, the behaviour of pile foundations such as piled raft and pile group in
saturated sand is examined under the combinations of static vertical and dynamic hori-
zontal loading. The behaviour of the pile foundation is examined under two sinusoidal
waves having the same frequency and different amplitudes by shaking table tests per-
formed on a 3-pile piled raft model with friction piles at 1-g field. This paper is based on
doctoral thesis study, where a series of load tests including static and dynamic loading of
piled raft, pile group and full raft (raft without pile) model foundations were carried out at
1-g field to investigate the behaviour of piled rafts in dry or saturated sand (Unsever et al.
2014). The static loading test conditions were analysed by Plaxis 3D and the results were
presented in Unsever et al. (2015).

2 Experimental setup

The experimental setup such as the properties of model ground and model foundations
used in this study is similar to that described by Unsever et al. (2014). Some details are
described below.

2.1 Model ground and model foundations

Figure 1 shows the schematic illustration of the piled raft model under vertical and
dynamic loads. Silica sand #6, having a relative density, Dr, of about 70 %, was used as a
model ground through the experiments to eliminate the effects of the variation of the model
ground, since it is out of the scope of this study. The physical properties of the sand are
summarised in Table 1. Note that, peak internal friction angle, / was estimated from CD
triaxial test results.
Model ground was prepared in a laminar box having dimensions of 800 (in x-direc-
tion) 9 500 mm (in y-direction) with a depth of 530 mm (Figs. 1, 2). The box was con-
sisted of 10 frames having a height of 50 mm, the inside of which was covered with rubber
membrane to keep the water inside the model ground and to allow the movements of the
ground in the box in horizontal (x) direction during dynamic tests. As a result, the
reflections of the waves from side walls of the box were minimised as much as possible so
that infinite horizontal distance of the ground was simulated. In other words, the reflected

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

x
y
400
ACC6 ACC5

ACC4

LDT-L LDT-R LDT-1

ACC3
60
115 115
30 LDT-2
240

ACC13
ACC2 PWP1 PWP2
255
150

530 PWP3 PWP4

80

20 PWP5
80

(mm)
240

ACC1
800

Fig. 1 Test setup for horizontal loading of the piled raft (all dimensions are in mm)

Table 1 Properties of the model

Item Value
ground
Density of soil particles, qs (g/cm3) 2.66
Maximum dry density, qdmax (g/cm3) 1.542
Minimum dry density, qdmin (g/cm3) 1.280
Maximum void ratio, emax 1.079
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.725
Median grain size, D50 0.423
Coefficient of uniformity, Uc 1.880
Peak internal friction angle, /0 (deg) 43.2

waves from the side walls of the box might cause overloading of the model if the sidewalls
are not flexible to eliminate boundary effects.
Figure 3a shows the single pile model made of aluminium hollow tube, properties of
which are summarised in Table 2. The effective length of the pile was 255 mm, where the
upper 30 mm of the pile was embedded in the raft (total length of the pile was 285 mm).
Each pile was instrumented with strain gauges at six levels to obtain axial forces, bending
moments and shear forces induced in the pile during loading tests. Piled raft (PR hereafter)
model or Pile group (PG hereafter) model was composed of three model single piles and a
rectangular raft of stainless steel having dimensions of 240 mm 9 80 mm with a thickness
of 30 mm (Fig. 3b, c). Centre-to-centre pile spacing, s, was 80 mm, i.e. 4 times the pile
diameter, D = 20 mm (s/D = 4). In order to increase the friction resistance between the

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 2 Photo of the experiment setup with instrumentations

30 (in raft) 40 80 80 40
80
20
SG1
(mm)
40
240
SG2

40 30
SG3
80 80
40
255

SG4
255
40
vertical strai n
gauges SG5

40
1.1
SG6

35
15 Sand particles on the pile shaft
20
(mm) 20 and the raft base

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3 Model foundations

piled raft and the model ground, the sand particles were glued on the pile shaft and the raft
base. The same model foundation was used for both cases of PR and PG, however 20 mm
space was provided between the raft base and the model ground surface for pile group (PG)
case in order to eliminate the raft effect. Therefore, the total soil layer was 20 mm lower in
PG test than that of PR test and the effective pile length became 235 mm for PG model
which was 255 mm in PR model.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Table 2 Properties of the model

Item Value
pile
Length, L (mm) 255
Outer diameter, D (mm) 20.00
Wall thickness, t (mm) 1.1
Cross sectional area, A (mm2) 65.31
2nd moment of inertia, I (mm4) 2926.2
Young’s modulus, E (N/mm2) 64,000
Poisson’s ratio, t 0.31

2.2 Shaking table and sinusoidal wave

Shaking table used throughout the experiments had dimensions of 1.0 9 1.5 m. The
electric motor of the system provided one way sinusoidal harmonic motion of the fre-
quency, f, up to 30 Hz and up to 20 g acceleration. Maximum capacity (pay load) of the
shaking table was 5000 kg with a maximum stroke of 200 mm.
After a series of shaking table tests of the model ground alone with dry silica sand #6
(green ground) having a dry density of 1.45 g/cm3, the resonant frequency, fn, was esti-
mated as 20 Hz for the model ground through a sweep test, and it was decided to perform
shaking table tests of the piled raft and pile group under frequency of 20 Hz for both dry
and saturated ground conditions. In case of the dry ground, shear wave velocity, Vs, may be
roughly estimated as Vs = 4Hfn where H is the height of the model ground (0.53 m). Vs of
the dry ground is estimated to be 42.4 m/s using fn = 20 Hz and H = 0.53 m.
Note here that the natural frequency of the saturated model ground was not directly
measured. Dry density, qd, and wet density, qt, of the saturated ground were 1.45 and
1.91 g/cm3, respectively. Hence effective vertical stresses in the saturated model ground
are 0.63 times those in the dry model ground. As the shear modulus, G, of the ground is
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
almost proportional to the effective vertical stress, the shear wave velocity, Vs = G=qt ,
of the saturated ground is 0.69 times that of the dry ground. As a result, the natural
frequency, fn, of the saturated ground is estimated to be around 14 Hz. Hence, the input
frequency of 20 Hz is larger than the natural frequency of the saturated model ground.
As described in Unsever et al. (2014), in case of scale ratio of 30 between the prototype
and the model, a concrete pile having 0.6 m diameter and 7.65 m length could be con-
sidered to be represented in this study, according to a similitude rule proposed by Iai
(1989). The input frequency of 20 Hz in the model tests corresponds to 1.56 Hz in the
prototype scale. It should be noted that shaking table tests at 1-g field cannot reflect all the
features of the prototype, but they give fundamental information about performance of the
model. Seismic loading of a foundation system may depend on many features, such as
building-foundation vibration patterns, soil-foundation interaction, soil behavior, etc.
(Romo et al. 2000).

2.3 Test setup and procedure

The model ground was prepared by layers (10 layers of 50 mm and one layer of 30 mm) in
order to control the density of the model ground. First, the laminar box was filled with
water and then known weight of each layer of sand was poured into the box and tamped
until Dr reached 70 %. In this method, the piles are considered to be cast-in-place piles,

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

because sand was poured around the piles then compacted gently. The instrumentations
such as accelerometers and pore water pressure gauges were placed at proper locations
during the preparation of the model ground. After the preparation of the model ground, the
laser displacement transducers and accelerometers were placed on the model foundation
(Fig. 1). In Fig. 1, laser displacement transducers LDT-1 and LDT-2 measure horizontal
displacements and transducers LDT-R and LDT-L measure vertical displacements. In
order to fix these LDTs, an outer frame was constructed as it can be seen in Fig. 2.
After the model ground and the model foundation were set, vertical load was applied on
top of the raft by placing mass plates (weights) until the intended loading level was
reached. Then, the mass plates were fixed to the raft by bolting (The total amount of
vertical load was 300 N for PR and PG tests in saturated sand). Subsequently, the sinu-
soidal input waves were applied horizontally, which had a frequency of 20 Hz and two
different amplitudes (1.50 and 6.00 m/s2). All the data were recorded simultaneously with
a sampling frequency of 1 kHz, by means of a computerised data acquisition system.

3 Experimental results

3.1 Saturated model ground without foundation (green ground) under input
motions of 20 Hz–5 m/s2 and 20 Hz–10 m/s2

Before starting the model foundation tests, green ground tests (model ground without
foundation) were performed in order to check the degree of the saturation and liquefaction
potential of the model ground. The test setup of the green ground is given in Fig. 4. As it is
seen, pore water pressure gauges and accelerometers were located at five different levels.
Saturated green ground tests were carried out for two input motions, having the same
frequency but different amplitudes of relatively large magnitudes; 20 Hz–5 m/s2 and
20 Hz–10 m/s2, because we intended to get fully liquefaction conditions of the green
ground so that the precision of the pore water pressure measurements could be checked.

ACC13
ACC5

63
PWP1
160
ACC4

PWP2
265

PWP3
530
ACC3 340

PWP4

ACC2 445

PWP5

ACC1 800

Fig. 4 Test setup for the saturated green ground

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

3.1.1 Accelerations

Figure 5 presents the measured accelerations at the bottom of the box (input motion) and at
the surface of the ground. Acceleration at the ground surface becomes zero soon after the
start of shaking, which indicates the occurrence of the liquefaction of the model ground
under both input motions.

3.1.2 Excess pore water pressures

Excess pore water pressure, ue versus time, t graphs are given in Fig. 6. PWP3 data was
excluded from the graphs because of malfunction of this gauge. It can be seen that the
excess pore water pressures, which are measured by the pressure gauges and the initial
effective vertical stresses, rv00 , at the corresponding depths, are almost the same (which
means effective stress is 0). Therefore, it can be concluded that the ground is completely
liquefied, which means model ground is fully saturated and the reliability of the pore
pressure measurement is high during shaking table tests. And, it may be judged that fully
undrained condition is realised in the model ground by the input frequency of 20 Hz even
though the small scale model tests with the use of fresh water for pore fluid.

3.2 Piled raft (PR) and pile group (PG) model foundations under 20 Hz
frequency–1.5 m/s2

3.2.1 Accelerations

Figure 7 shows the input accelerations in PR and PG tests which were measured at the base
of the laminar box. It can be said that the input wave is similar for both tests and it is
reasonable to compare the results. It is noticed that the similitude of the acceleration is 1,
according to the similitude rule by Iai (1989). As a realistic input acceleration, a magnitude
of 1.5 m/s2 was selected as the target value in these tests.
Figure 8 presents the measured accelerations at the top of the raft and at the midpoint of
the mass for PR and PG cases. For PR test, the raft and the mass moves together and the
measured responses increase slightly through the test. On the other hand in the PG,
vibrated acceleration is reduced at once after about 1.5 s, and then it shows similar
behaviour to that of PR. This may be due to the closing of the gap, provided as 20 mm

12 12
at the bottom at the bottom
at the surface
Accceleration, ( m/s )

at the surface
Accceleration, ( m/s )

8 8
2
2

4 4

0 0

-4 -4

-8 -8

-12 -12
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 5 Measured acceleration versus time at the bottom and at the top of the model ground for green ground
tests. a 20 Hz–5 m/s2 b 20 Hz–10 m/s2

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

z = 63 mm (0.54 kPa) z = 160 mm (1.42kPa) z=63 mm (0.54 kPa) z=160 mm (1.42 kPa)
z = 340 mm (3.03kPa) z = 445 mm (3.96 kPa) z=340 mm (3.03 kPa) z=445 mm (3.96 kPa)
5 5

4 4
EPW P, ue (kPa)

EPW P, ue (kPa)
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-1
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 6 Excess pore water pressures versus time graph for green ground tests. a 20 Hz–5 m/s2 b 20 Hz–
10 m/s2

2 PR 2 PG
(m/s )
(m/s )

2
2

1 1
Accceleration,

Accceleration,

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 7 Input motion, measured at the bottom of the laminar box a in PR b in PG

4 4
Raft Mass
PR Raft Mass PG
3
Accceleration, ( m/s )

3
( m/s )

2
2

2 2
1 1
Accceleration,

0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 PG-like beh. PR-like beh.
-3
-4 -4
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 8 Acceleration responses measured at the raft and at the mid-height of the mass. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/
s2) b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)

between the raft and the ground at the initial state (see Fig. 16), at t = 2.3 s. As mentioned
in detail later in Fig. 17b, the surface layer of the ground reaches nearly full liquefaction
condition after t = 1.2 s, in the case of PG. Hence, it is thought that lateral resistance of of
the pile near the ground surface decreases remarkably, resulting in larger rocking motion of

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

the raft and the mass, in other words, difference of the horizontal accelerations between the
raft and the mass. It is interesting to note that the accelerations of the raft and the mass
becomes almost identical after the raft touched the ground surface at t = 2.3 s.

3.2.2 Horizontal loads

Figure 9 depicts the horizontal load, H—displacement, u behaviours of the piled raft and
pile group under the shaking. The horizontal load was calculated simply by multiplying the
mass of the weight plates by the acceleration measured on the mass. Horizontal dis-
placement was derived from the measured acceleration on the raft. The horizontal stiffness,
DH/Du, of PR ad PG is comparable, although the amplitudes of the maximum horizontal
displacement is smaller in PG than in PR. It is inferred that this result is caused by the
generation of gap between the piles and the surrounding at PG case, which decreases the
transfer of the ground motion to the foundation. In order to calculate shear forces, Qi,
generated on the pile section i approximately, the following equation was used:
Qi ¼ ðMiþ1  Mi Þ=dz ð1Þ
where Mi is the bending moment in the pile section, i and dz is the length of the pile
section. Mi can be estimated from the measured axial strains, and the mechanical and
geometrical properties of the model pile.
In Fig. 10, percentage of horizontal load carried by 3 piles with time is shown for both
cases. Here, horizontal load (shear force) of each pile was calculated by means of Eq. (1)
using the bending moments at SG1 and SG2, and dz = 40 mm (see Fig. 3). Hence hori-
zontal load of each pile in Fig. 10 corresponds to lateral soil resistance acting on the pile
shaft below 40 mm from the raft base. That is, lateral soil resistance acting on the top
section of 40 mm of each pile shaft is not included in the horizontal load in Fig. 10.
Although the results scatter, the following tendency would be drawn. In PR case, 0–40 %
of the total horizontal load is carried by 3 piles through the test. On the other hand, in the
test of PG, most of the total load is carried by 3 piles due to the gap between the raft and
the ground surface at the beginning as expected. However, this percentage drops between
20 and 40 % after the gap is closed at t = 2.3 s.

3.2.3 Bending moments and shear forces on piles

Figure 11 shows the bending moment distribution along the pile shaft on each pile for PR
and PG models, respectively. In both PR and PG, the highest amplitudes of bending

Fig. 9 Horizontal load versus

200 PR
horizontal displacement
Horizontal load, H (N)

PG
relationship for PR and PG tests
100

-100

-200

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

Horizontal disp., u (mm)

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

Perc. of horizontal load carried

Perc. of horizontal load carried

100 100
PR PG
80 80
by 3 piles, HL (%)

by 3 piles, HL (%)
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 10 Percentage of horizontal load carried by 3 piles. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)

moment are caused at the pile head (Level 1), and decreased to the pile tip (Level 6). Note
that, in PG larger bending moments are generated even though smaller horizontal dis-
placements of the raft occurred. This phenomena is pronounced clearly in the centre pile,
P2. It is seen that the changes of the bending moments are not symmetrical with respect to
the horizontal displacement, especially in the edge piles, P1 and P3. This might be due to
accumulation of the inclination of the foundations during shaking. If we focus on the
increments of the bending moments, the sign of the bending moments change when the
displacements change sign.
Figure 12 shows the relationship of the shear force at pile head and horizontal dis-
placement of each model. It is seen that the piles in PR model exposure larger shear forces
than that of PG. However, if the shear forces are normalised by the maximum horizontal
load of each model (Fig. 9), it is seen that maximum shear force carried by each pile is
15 % of the maximum horizontal load for both models.

3.2.4 Vertical loads

Change of vertical load proportions carried by piles with time is given in Fig. 13 for PR
and PG models. Vertical load on each pile is axial force measured at strain gage SG2
located 60 mm below the raft base, because it was judged that axial strains at SG1 (20 mm
below the raft base) are influenced by the pile head which is rigidly fixed into the raft.
Hence, vertical load on each pile in Fig. 13 does not include the shaft resistance of the top
section of 60 mm. The vertical load carried by 3 piles in PR prior to the start of shaking
was about 200 N, which was 65 % of the total weight plates, 300 N. Although the results
are scattered it can be said that vertical load carried by the 3 piles is about 65 % of the total
load in PR before the shaking which decreases to 50 % after the shaking. In PG, the
proportion of the total load supported by the 3 piles is 95 %, and then increases to 100 %
around t = 2 s. This means that the shaft resistance acting on the top section of 60 mm
reduces to zero. Thereafter the raft carries about 30 % of the total vertical load, which
gradually decreases.
Figure 14 shows the change of vertical load of each pile (pile head axial force) with
time for PR and PG. As it can be seen, in PR the vertical load carried by each pile
decreases slightly during dynamic loading. It could be due to the increment of the raft and
model ground contact during the test. In PG, pile loads seems to reduce suddenly after the
raft touched the ground surface at around t = 2.3 s.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

2 2

Bending moment, M (N.m)

Bending moment, M (N.m)
Level 1
Level 2

1 P1
Level 3
Level 4 1 P1
Level 5
Level 6
0 0
Level 1
-1 Level 2
-1 Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
-2 -2 Level 6

-3 -3
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal disp., u (mm) Horizontal disp., u (mm)
3 2
Bending moment, M (N.m)

Level 1

Bending moment, M (N.m)

Level 2
2 P2 Level 3
Level 4 1 P2
Level 6
1
0
0
Level 1
-1 Level 2
-1 Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
-2 -2 Level 6

-3 -3
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal disp., u (mm) Horizontal disp., u (mm)
3 3
Bending moment, M (N.m)

Bending moment, M (N.m)

2 2 P3
1 1

0 0
Level 1
-1 Level 2 Level 1
-1 Level 2
Level 3
Level 4 Level 3
-2 P3 Level 5 -2 Level 4
Level 6 Level 5
Level 6
-3 -3
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal disp., u (mm) Horizontal disp., u (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 11 Bending moment versus horizontal load relationship along each pile for PR and PG tests. a PR
(20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)

3.2.5 Vertical displacements

The settlement of the model foundations was measured at the top of the raft by the help of
two laser displacement transducers. Figures 15 and 16 show the average of two mea-
surements as the settlement of the raft took place during the shaking table tests for PR and
PG. In both PG and PR, vertical displacement increases with increasing number of cycles
(Fig. 15a, b). The final settlement of the PR is 3 mm (Fig. 15a). In PG, the settlement is
enhanced by cyclic loading until the settlement reached 19 mm, however, the settlement
was suppressed hereafter because the raft touched the ground surface, as shown in
Fig. 15b. The favourable effect of the raft to suppress the settlement is also found from the

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

40 40
PR 30
30 PG P1

Shear force, Q (N)

Shear force, Q (N)

20 20 P2
10 10 P3

0 0
-10 -10
-20 P1 -20
P2
-30 P3 -30
-40 -40
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal disp, u (mm) Horizontal disp., u (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 12 Relationship of the pile head shear force and horizontal displacement of each model. a PR (20 Hz–
1.5 m/s2) b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)
Perc. of vertical load carried
Perc. of vertical load carried

100 100

80 80
by 3 piles, VL (%)
by 3 piles, VL (%)

60 60

40 40

20 PR 20 PG
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 13 Change of vertical load proportions carried by 3 piles. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)

160 160
PR P1
PG
Vertical load, VL (N)

140 140
Vertical load, VL (N)

P2
120 P3 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40 P1
20 20 P2
P3
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 14 Change of vertical load on each pile during shaking. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)

settlement vs time in Fig. 16. The settlement of PG rapidly increased with time after the
start of shaking, but it was suddenly suppressed when the raft touched the ground surface.
The rate of the settlement of PG after the raft was supported by the ground became
comparable to that of PR.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

0 0
Vertical disp., w (mm)
PR

Vertical disp., w ( mm)

PG
-5
PG
-1 -10

-15

-2 -20

-25

-3 -30
-0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 -0,20 -0,15 -0,10 -0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20
Horizontal disp., u (mm) Horizontal disp., u (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 15 Vertical displacement versus horizontal displacement relationship. a PR and PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)
b PG (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2)

Fig. 16 Vertical displacement 0

comparison of PR and PG tests
Settlement, w (mm)

(20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) -5

-10 PR
PG
-15

-20

-25

-30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time, t (s)

3.2.6 Excess pore water pressures

Figure 17 depicts excess pore water pressures generated during the shaking tests of PR and
PG models. In PR case, excess pore pressures at PWP4 (z = 210 mm, rv00 = 1.87 kPa)
and PWP5 (z = 290 mm, rv00 = 2.58 kPa) rapidly increased to a constant value of
1.8 kPa. It can be inferred from this result that a full liquefaction occurred at PWP4. The
excess pore pressures at PWP1 and PWP2 (z = 60 mm, rv00 = 0.53 kPa for both) also
z = 60 mm (PWP1, 0.53kPa) z = 60 mm (PWP2, 0.53kPa) z = 40 mm (PWP1, 0.36kPa) z = 40 mm (PWP2, 0.36kPa)
z = 210 mm (PWP4, 1.87kPa) z = 290 mm (PWP5, 2.58kPa) z = 190 mm (PWP4, 1.69kPa) z = 270 mm (PWP5, 2.40kPa)
4 4

3 3
EPW P, ue (kPa)

EPW P, ue (kPa)

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 17 Excess pore water pressure versus time for PR and PG tests. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) b PG (20 Hz–
1.5 m/s2)

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

increased gradually to 1.7 kPa. This value, ue = 1.7 kPa, is higher than the effective
overburden pressure, rv00 , disregarding the weight of the foundation and the weight plates.
The vertical load transferred from the raft base to the ground increases the stress level in
the ground, especially at the shallower depth. This might have caused excess pore water
pressure, ue, higher than initial effective vertical stress, rv00 , at the shallower depth. It can
be said that PR has a potential to mitigate liquefaction of the ground. In other words,
severity of the damage caused by the liquefaction could be reduced by transferring the
superstructure load to the ground at shallower depths by the help of the raft contact.
The depths of the pore water pressure gauges in PG test were 20 mm shallower than
those in PR test, because 20 mm gap was created between the raft base and the ground
surface in PG test. It is seen from Fig. 17b that excess pore pressures at PWP4
(z = 190 mm, rv00 = 1.69 kPa) and PWP5 (z = 270 mm, rv00 = 2.40 kPa) rapidly
increased to a constant value of 1.7 kPa, similarly to the case of PR. It can be inferred from
this result that a full liquefaction occurred at PWP4. The excess pore pressured at PWP1
and PWP2 (z = 40 mm, rv00 = 0.36 kPa for both) increased to 0.4 kPa around t = 2 s,
indicting the full liquefaction of the shallow depth of the ground. The excess pore pressures
at PWP1 and PWP2 increased gradually again after t = 2.3 s when the raft touched the
ground surface, due to the vertical load transfer from the raft base to the ground.

3.3 Piled raft (PR) model foundation under 20 Hz frequency–1.50 m/s2

and 20 Hz frequency–6.00 m/s2

The advantages of PR over PG during dynamic (shaking) loading were presented in

Sect. 3.2. In order to investigate the behaviour of PR when it is subjected to a large
sinusoidal input motion, shaking table test of PR was conducted with an input motion
having a frequency of 20 Hz and amplitude of 6.00 m/s2. The test results are presented and
compared with those obtained in the previous PR test with the input motion having the
frequency of 20 Hz and the amplitude of 1.50 m/s2. For comparison purposes, the some
results of the previous PR test (20 Hz–1.50 m/s2) are again indicated.

3.3.1 Accelerations and horizontal loads

Figure 18 shows the measured input motions and Fig. 19 depicts the measured accelera-
tions at the surface of the model ground for PR model tests under 20 Hz frequency–

6 6
( m/s )
(m/s )

2
2

4 4

2 2
Accceleration,
Accceleration,

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time, t (s) Time, t (s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 18 Input motion, measured at the bottom of the laminar box. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis) b PG
(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

4 4
3 3

( m/s )
( m/s )

2
2

2 2
1 1

Accceleration,
Accceleration,

0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-3 -3
-4 -4
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 19 Accelerations measured at the ground surface. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis) b PG (20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

1.50 m/s2 and 20 Hz frequency–600 6.00 m/s2, respectively. When the measured accel-
eration of the ground surface of 1.50 m/s2 is compared with that of 6.00 m/s2 (Fig. 19), it is
found that in PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2) test, the acceleration attenuates at about t = 2 s (which
may be due to the liquefaction of the ground surface), whereas the acceleration is more
stable in PR(20 Hz–1.50 m/s2). It may be interesting to compare Fig. 19b (PR, 20 Hz–
6 m/s2) and Fig. 5a (green field, 20 Hz–5 m/s2) as the magnitudes of input acceleration in
both tests were comparable. In the shaking test of PR (20 Hz–6.00 m/s2), the ground
acceleration was not measured just beneath the raft and was measured at 10 mm away from
the edge of the raft in y direction (see Fig. 1). It is seen from Fig. 5a that the maximum
acceleration of the ground surface of the green field is 0.8 m/s2, meanwhile that in the PR
test attains 2.8 m/s2. The larger value in the PR test may suggest that liquefaction of the
ground is suppressed until t = 1.5 s due to the increase of the stresses in the ground by the
vertical loading from the foundation.
The response accelerations of the models measured at the raft and the mass shows similar
behaviour with those of the ground surface accelerations for both models, although the
amounts of the accelerations are greater at the raft and the mass compared to the ground surface
accelerations (Fig. 20). In PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2) test, the acceleration of the raft becomes
larger than that of the mass after t = 2 s, indicating the secondary vibration mode occurs.
Figure 21 shows the relationship between the horizontal displacement and the hori-
zontal load of both cases. In PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2), horizontal load versus horizontal

4 4
Raft Mass
PR Raft Mass
3 3
(m/s )
Accceleration, (m/s )

2
2

2 2
1 1
Accceleration,

0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
2
-3 -3 PR-6.00 m/s
-4 -4
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 20 Acceleration responses measured at the raft and at the mid-height of the mass. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/
s2) (bis) b PG (20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

200 200

Horizontal load, H (N)

Horizontal load, H (N)

100 100

0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0,2 -0,1 0,0 0,1 0,2
Horizontal disp., u (mm) Horizontal disp., u (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 21 Horizontal load versus Horizontal displacement relationship. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis) b PG
(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

displacement graph has a large cycle before the ground reached liquefaction (shown by the
black colour, t \ 2.3 s), and the cycle became very small after the occurrence of lique-
faction (shown by the red colour, t [ 2.3 s).

3.3.2 Bending moments and shear forces on piles

The shear forces at each pile head are given in Fig. 22. Even though maximum horizontal
displacement is less in PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2), shear forces in the piles are larger in
PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2) than in PR(20 Hz–1.50 m/s2). Therefore, it can be said that the
larger the input motion (acceleration), the possibility of liquefaction of the model ground
and also the risk of the failure of the piles are increased.

3.3.3 Vertical loads and vertical displacements

Figure 23 compares the change of vertical load proportions between the 3 piles for both
cases. It is seen that the loads carried by 3 piles drops drastically to 20 % during the test in
PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2), as shown in Fig. 23b. However, in PR(20 Hz–1.50 m/s2), the
amount of the decrement is limited to 50 %. This results show that, the piles in PR(20 Hz–
6.00 m/s2) failed geotechnically through the test under the applied loads.
50 50
40 40 P1
P2
30 30
Shear force, Q (N)

Shear force, Q (N)

P3
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
-20 P1 -20
-30 P2 -30
-40 P3 -40
-50 -50
-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal disp, u (mm) Horizontal disp, u (mm)
(a) (b)

Fig. 22 Relationship of the pile head shear force and horizontal displacement. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis)
b PG (20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Perc. of vertical loads carried

100
Perc. of vertical load carried
100

80 80

by 3 piles, VL (%)
by 3 piles, VL (%)

60 60

40 40

20 PR 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 23 Change of vertical load proportions carried by piles and raft. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis) b PG
(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

0 0
Settlement, w (mm)

Settlement, w ( mm)

-5 -5

-10 PR
-10
PG
-15 -15

-20 -20

-25 -25

-30 -30
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 24 Change of vertical displacement during shaking. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis) b PG (20 Hz–
6.00 m/s2)

Figure 24 shows the settlement of the raft under dynamic loading with time. It is clearly
seen that the settlement of the raft under dynamic loading with 6.00 m/s2 amplitude was
almost ten times larger than that of 1.50 m/s2 case. In addition, the settlement of the raft
increases linearly with time through PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2) case. This may indicate that full
liquefaction of the ground near the ground surface occurred in case of PR (20 Hz–6.00 m/s2),
which results in the loss of the raft base resistance.

3.3.4 Excess pore water pressures

Excess pore pressures, ue, measured in both tests are depicted in Fig. 25. In PR(20 Hz–
6.00 m/s2), excess pore pressures at PWP1 and PWP2 (z = 60 mm, rv00 = 0.53 kPa for
both) rapidly increased to a constant value of 1.5 kPa, which is similar to those in
PR(20 Hz–1.50 m/s2). The value of 1.5 kPa greater than rv00 is attributed to the vertical
load transferred from the raft base to the ground. The excess pore pressures at PWP4
(z = 210 mm, rv00 = 1.87 kPa) and PWP5 (z = 290 mm, rv00 = 2.58 kPa) also increased
rapidly exceeding 3 kPa. The value of ue = 3 kPa is sufficiently larger than the values of
rv00 , indicating that the full liquefaction of the ground was caused to a deeper depth in
PR(20 Hz–6.00 m/s2).

123
 Bull Earthquake Eng

z = 60 mm (PWP1, 0.53 kPa) z = 60 mm (PWP2, 0.53kPa)

z = 60 mm (PWP1, 0.53kPa) z = 60 mm (PWP2, 0.53kPa) z = 210 mm (PWP4, 1.87kPa) z = 290 mm (PWP5, 2.58 kPa)
z = 210 mm (PWP4, 1.87kPa) z = 290 mm (PWP5, 2.58kPa)
4 4

3 3

EPW P, ue (kPa)
EPW P, ue (kPa)

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time, t (s) Time, t (s)
(a) (b)

Fig. 25 Excess pore water pressures in model ground. a PR (20 Hz–1.5 m/s2) (bis) b PG (20 Hz–6.00 m/s2)

4 Conclusions

In this paper, the results and discussion of dynamic horizontal loading tests piled raft and
pile group models in saturated sand is described. The main result can be summarised as
below:
• Maximum horizontal displacement of PG was less than that of PR during shaking. This
may be due to the lack of transfer of the ground motion to the model foundation due to
the gap between the raft and the ground generated in PG case.
• For both PR and PG cases, bending moments generated in piles have largest values at
the pile head which decreases through the pile length. Moreover, in PG larger bending
moments are generated even though smaller horizontal displacements occurred.
• Settlement of PR was largely suppressed in PR compared to PG during shaking, due to
the existence of raft base resistance in PR. In other words, PR is very effective to
reduce settlement, compared to PG.
• In PR, transferring of the vertical load through the raft to the model ground causes
increasing of the effective stresses at shallow depths, which terminates the liquefaction
of the model ground at those levels.
• Even in PR, the horizontal resistance reduces if liquefaction of the ground surface
occurs, due to the loss of the raft base resistance.
• When the amplitude of the applied sinusoidal wave is increased without changing the
frequency, the model ground liquefies severely which causes the failure of the piles.
The effect of the liquefaction can be seen clearly from the response of the model raft
since the horizontal resistance of the raft drops drastically after liquefaction occurs.
• It can be said that increasing the input motion (acceleration), increases the possibility of
liquefaction of the model ground and also the risk of the failure of the piles (the vertical
load carried by the piles decreases significantly by increasing the amplitude of the
dynamic loading).
Therefore, PR is effective, economical and safe foundation type even in shaking
loading, compared to conventional pile group. In cases of liquefiable soils or soft soils, PR
with soil reinforcement or soil improvement near the ground surface will be a practical
solution.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng

Acknowledgments The authors greatly appreciate Mr. Shinya Shimono, Kanazawa University, for his
devoted support in carrying out the experiments.

References
Hamada J, Tsuchiya T, Tanikawa T, Yamashita K (2012) Lateral loading model tests on piled rafts and their
evaluation with simplified theoretical equations. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Testing and Design Methods for Deep Foundations (IS-Kanazawa 2012), 1:467–476
Horikoshi K, Matsumoto T, Hashizume Y, Watanabe T (2003) Performance of piled raft foundations
subjected to dynamic loading. Int J Phys Model Geotech 3(2):51–62
Iai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1 g gravitational field. Soils
and Found 29(1):105–118
Ishizaki S, Tokimatsu K, Nagao T (2012) Overview of semi-rigid pile head connection methods and their
effect on buildings in liquefiable soil. Proceedings the 9th International Conference on Testing and
Design Methods for Deep Foundations:IS- Kanazawa: 13–24
Kagawa T, Sato M, Minowa C, Abe A, Tazoh T (2004) Centrifuge simulation of large-scale shaking
table tests: case studies. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 130(7):663–672
Katzenbach R, Leppla S. (2013) Economic solutions for geotechnical challenges like super high-rise
buildings and urban tunnelling. In: International Conference state of the art of pile foundation and pile
case histories, Indonesia A1-1–A1-12
Matsumoto T, Fukumura K, Oki A, Horikoshi K (2004) Shaking table tests on model piled rafts in sand
considering influence of superstructures. Int J Phys Model Geotech 4(3):20–37
Matsumoto T, Fujita M, Mikami H, Yaegashi K, Arai T, Kitiyodom P (2010) Load tests of piled raft models
with different pile head connection conditions and their analyses. Soils and Found 50(1):63–81
Murono T, Nishumura A, Nagazuma M (1997) Model test on a group-pile considering the vibration of
ground in seismic evaluation. Proceedings of the 24th Symp. of Japan Earthquake Engineering.
625–628
Pastsakorn K, Hashizume Y, Matsumoto T (2002) Lateral load tests on model pile groups and piled raft
foundations in sand. In: Proceedings of International Conference Physical Modelling in Geotechnics.
709–714
Poulos HG, Davis AJ (2005) Foundation design for the emirates twin towers Dubai. Can Geotech J
2:716–730
Romo MP, Mendoza MJ, Garcia SR (2000) Geotechnical factors in seismic design of foundations state of
the art report. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zeland, 2832
Sawada K, Takemura J (2014) Centrifuge model tests on piled raft foundation in sand subjected to lateral
and moment loads. Soils and Found 54(2):126–140
Shibata T, Yashima A, Kimura M (1989) Model tests and analyses of laterally loaded pile groups. Soils and
Found 29(1):31–44
Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H (2004) Pore water pressure response around piles and its effects on p-y behavior
during soil liquefaction. Soils and Found 44(6):101–110
Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Sato M (2005) Effects of inertial and kinematic interaction on seismic behavior of
pile with embedded foundation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):753–762
Unsever YS, Matsumoto T, Shimono S, Ozkan MY (2014) Static cyclic load tests on model foundations in
dry sand. Geotech Eng J SEAGS and AGSSEA 45(2):40–51
Unsever YS, Matsumoto T, Ozkan MY (2015) Numerical analyses of load tests on model foundations in dry
sand. Comput Geotech 63:255–266
Yamashita K (2012) Field measurements on piled raft foundations in Japan. Proceedings of International
Conference on Testing and Design Methods for Deep Foundations, Kanazawa 79–96
Yamashita K, Yamada T, Hamada J (2011a) Investigation of settlement and load sharing on piled rafts by
monitoring full-scale structures. Soils and Found 51(3):513–532
Yamashita K, Hamada J, Yamada T (2011b) Field measurements on piled rafts with grid-form deep mixing
walls on soft ground. Geotech Eng J SEAGS and AGSSEA 42(2):1–10
Zhang F, Okawa K, Kimura M (2008) Centrifuge model test on dynamic behavior of group-pile foundation
with inclined piles and its numerical simulation. Front Archit Civ Eng China 2(3):233–241

123