See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260703050

Dynamic response of piles under harmonic load a critical overview

Conference Paper · February 2014

CITATIONS READS
0 842

1 author:

Indrajit Chowdhury
Independent Researcher
76 PUBLICATIONS   482 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic response of rectangular liquid retaining structures resting on ground considering coupled soil-structure interaction View project

Dynamic soil structure interaction in elalstic domain and some solutions under earthquake force. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Indrajit Chowdhury on 11 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF PILES UNDER HARMONIC LOAD-A
CRITICAL OVERVIEW
Indrajit Chowdhury
Petrofac International Limited Sharjah U.A.E-23467
ABSTRACT: Present paper traces the history of evolution of analysis of piles under dynamic loading, especially pertaining to those
applied for machine foundations. Tracing the development in this area starting with pioneers like Maxwell, Parmelee et al, it
chronologically discusses the different techniques adapted with course of time and finally critically reviews the state of art as
practiced in industry at present. It also discusses in-depth the pros and cons of these techniques with quantitative results as a bench
mark.
1 INTRODUCTION
In last twenty years or more, importance of dynamic response of
pile foundations supporting critical structures have increased
exponentially, especially in India. Reasons that could be
attributed to this are, spurt in industrial and infra-structure
development compounded by growing depletion of sites having
good soil. This is forcing investors to build many facilities in
sites having soil of poor strength, making deployment of pile
foundations almost mandatory.
Development of analytical techniques for piles under dynamic
loading started in two different fronts. 1) Dynamic response of
piles under seismic loading. 2) Dynamic response of piles under
harmonic loads, like one experienced by machine foundations.
A pile experiencing dynamic load under a major earthquake is
actually probabilistic. It may or may not happen in the life span
of a structure, as because return period of an earthquake is
usually 1 in 50 years. However for a machine foundation
supported on piles, this is an absolute certainty - and to authors
perception a serious knowledge gap still exists in the Indian
industry pertaining to its application in this area, despite the fact
that the technology has been in existence for last 40 years or
more (though not full proof yet and limitations to the same still
exists) and should be properly understood before being put to
practice with confidence. The present paper critically reviews
these technologies available and discusses their pros and cons.
1.1 A Brief History on Development of Dynamic Response
of Piles.
Behaviour of pile foundations even under static load is quite
complex. And a number of empirical factors get plugged into the
basic equilibrium equation to ensure that theoretical
computations match field observed data Tomlinson (1994).
This might have prompted Terzaghi & Peck (1967) to state that “
…theoretical refinements in dealing with pile problems are
completely out of place and can be safely ignored”.
The statement did not possibly bode ominous, especially for
further development in India, where protagonists of the
Terzaghian school often scoffed at attempt of any theoretical
development in area of pile dynamics. And this seriously stunted
progress in this difficult yet a very important area in soil
dynamics.
Fortunately, not everybody around the world got discouraged by
this pessimistic assessment and a number of analytical and
numerical approaches to analysis of pile dynamic behaviour
have been developed, that has far superior theoretical basis for
pile design than the equivalent cantilever concept or other purely
empirical methods that dominated the field for decades.
Compounded by lack of guidelines and literature (not universally
available), has further added to the problem and created a serious
knowledge gap among professionals engaged in this field.
It would be enlightening at this juncture to examine as to what
does IS-2974(Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design of
Machine Foundations) advocates in this context.
Clause 5.4.4.3 of the above mentioned code states that …“Pile
soil stiffness factors both in vertical and horizontal mode shall be
determined by conducting in-situ dynamic tests on piles. For
preliminary design however the computational method of
estimation of pile-soil stiffness can be adopted.
Usually in situ dynamic tests are conducted on single pile with
free head condition. In actual practice the pile shall be used in a
group with pile heads largely restrained by pile caps. Allowance
shall be made for these factors in evaluation of pile soil stiffness
to be adopted for design. Failure to take into account of these
factors will lead to error in estimating stiffness of the system.
After evaluating the pile soil stiffness, design shall be carried out
in same way as for block foundation resting directly on soil.”
For those, who are conversant with the technology of pile
dynamics, can possibly testify that above guidelines are to
certain extent evasive, if not ambiguous in content.
In eastern part of India, in most of the places we deploy RCC
bored piles having diameter varying from 600 to 900 mm having
pile lengths varying anything from 15 to 30 meters for critical
machine foundations. It is extremely doubtful, whether such
heavy duty Lazan type exciters are available that would be
capable of exciting such massive piles, and even if possible, if
adequate instrumentations are available to record the response
accurately, to come up with a pile stiffness that is sufficiently
reliable.
In terms of preliminary estimates, what computational method to
be used and what factors to be considered to cater to the fixity at
pile head or group effect in a pile cap – IS-2974 is absolutely
silent on it and so is IS-2911, code of practice for pile design.
Thus an engineer trying to design a pile foundation under
dynamic load based on Bureau of Indian Standard guideline can
well find himself in a cul-de-sac or even after spending
significant amount of money in terms of field dynamic test can
yet arrive at an erroneous result in terms of pile soil stiffness.
The earliest systematic theoretical studies of dynamic soil-pile
interaction are due to Parmelee et al (1964), Penzien (1970),
Novak(1974,1977), Novak et al (1983).
Besides this, a number of researchers like Maxwell et al (1969),
Singh et.al. (1977), Gazetas et.al.(1988,1991),Wolf & VonArx
(1978), Kausel & Kanyia (1982), Banerjee & Sen (1987), have
significantly contributed to this rapidly growing topic.
In India, unfortunately, little research has been carried out in this
area, though in terms of seismic response of piles some work
was carried out by Prakash et al (1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, &
1980). However, in terms of dynamic response of piles under
machine foundation, except for two papers by Saha (1986), Saha
& Ghosh (1986), to the best of author’s knowledge till 2008,
development has been scant in this area for last 28 years or more,
(Pro-Terzaghian lobby, is still in power and calling the shots….).
It was only recently, some work has been carried out by
Chowdury & Dasgupta (2006, 2008a, 2009), which has bridged
a number of gaps that existed in Novak and Gazetas’s theory and
has been successfully implemented in the industry (mostly Gulf
and CIS countries).
Parmelee(1964), Penzien(1970) employed a non linear discrete
model and static theory to describe elastic stress and
displacement field of a pile under seismic load.
Maxwell et al (1969), was possibly first, who tried to develop a
mathematical model for piles under harmonic load for machine
foundations considering soil damping. But this was restricted to
vertical response only based on test observations and
fundamental theory of vibration (Prakash & Sharma 1990).The
method was albeit crude, but came up with an important
observation that stiffness and damping ratios are frequency
dependent.
Singh et.al.(1977), proposed a model based on equivalent
cantilever beam, but fails to take into cognizance the coupled
rocking mode or damping effect of pile soil system, and has
been subjected to some criticism in terms of its mathematical
rigour and assumptions made there in (Howell 1984).
Wolf & Von Arx (1978), essentially used a mixed integral
equation with paraxial boundaries, to cater for infinite domain to
arrive at a solution for piles in three dimensions.
The most comprehensive theory for dynamic response of pile
was possibly developed by Kausel & Kaynia (1982), and that by
Banerjee & Sen (1987), when applying Green’s function to the
response of a rigid cylinder embedded in an elastic half space a
solution was obtained based on boundary integral equations and
still remains back bone of many ongoing researches. But the
technique requires intense computational effort, and is not really
amenable for day to day design office applications.
Novak (1974), used plane strain condition for a pile embedded in
an elastic half space. Using Baranov’s (1967) theory for a rigid
cylinder embedded in an elastic half space, he came up with an
analytical solution backed up by a number of graphs and
coefficient tables for quick computation of pile stiffness and
damping.
Saha(1986), Saha & Ghosh (1986) also used Baranov’s theory
and applying the same to the equilibrium equation of a cylinder
embedded in elastic half space, used Mindilin’s (1936) theory of
stress at a point within an elastic field, to define the stiffness and
damping of the pile soil system. The method is essentially
numerical, and requires electronic computation. The results were
very encouraging when compared to experimental data but the
effort was unfortunately not carried forward or refined for
further industrial use.
Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2006,2008a, 2009) used Novak and
Beredugo’s (1972a b) model for an embedded foundation being
applied to an infinitely thin circular disc embedded in an elastic
half space and integrating the same over the complete pile
length, came up with a generalized analytical solution of the pile
stiffness and damping in vertical, lateral and rocking mode. The
model also caters to inertial effect of pile, partial embedment and
variable soil parameter with depth.
Besides this, finite element method (FEM) has also been
deployed in many cases to estimate the dynamic response of pile
groups – though with some moderate success, as because of the
limitation of the FEM theory itself.
Considering pile dynamics is essentially a problem of wave
propagating to infinity with pile as the source of disturbance,
often makes a FEM analysis prohibitively expensive and
laborious in terns of computation, just to ensure no waves are
reflected back to the system generating spurious modes. This has
often imposed serious limitations to many practical problems.
2 ANALYTICAL METHODS IN VOUGE
2.1 Present state of art.
Of all the techniques discussed previously, Novak (1974, 1977)
and Gazetas (1991), remains most popular in terms of design of
machine foundations supported on piles both in USA and
European industry.
Despite some limitations (this will be discussed subsequently), in
their formulations, both the methods are immensely popular for
there sheer simplicity of application and also for the fact that
theoretical results match reasonably with field observed data and
centrifuge test (especially for concrete and timber piles).
Commercially available programs like DYNA and PILAY has
been developed (at University of Western Ontario Canada) based
on Novak’s theory, and are quite popular in USA. Unfortunately
these software are not readily available in Indian market for
regular use.
In recent past, (beyond 2009 till date..), Chowdhury &
Dasgupta’s model(C-D model) has gained some acceptance in
middle-east and CIS countries. The model has been successfully
applied to many rotating equipment foundations supported on
piles in oil and gas industry.
Above three models, that possibly constitutes state of the art in
industry at present will be discussed hereafter with their
comparative advantages and limitations.
2.2 Novak’s Model for Dynamic response of piles
For a rigid cylinder embedded in soil subjected to harmonic load,
Baranov(1967) solved the elastodynamic equation of equilibrium
to compute the soil reactions in vertical and horizontal direction.
Considering this to be valid for a pile element embedded in soil,
Novak proposed the dynamic equation of equilibrium of a pile in
vertical direction as
∂ 2 w( z , t ) ∂w( z , t ) ∂ 2 w( z , t )
ρ +c − EpA + G ( S w1 + iS w2 ) ×
∂t 2 ∂t ∂z 2 (1)
w( z , t ) = 0
Here ρ=mass density of pile material c= material damping of
pile, Ep= Young’s modulus of pile material A= Cross sectional
area of pile G= Dynamic shear modulus of soil Sw1 and Sw2 are
Baranov’s function and are expressed as
⎡ J (a ) J (a ) + Y (a )Y (a ) ⎤
S w1 = 2πa0 ⎢ 1 0 0 02 1 0 20 0 ⎥ (2)
⎣⎢ J 0 (a0 ) + Y0 (a0 ) ⎦⎥
4
S w2 = (3)
J 0 (a0 )2 + Y0 (a0 ) 2
Here J0(a0), J1(a0) = Bessel’s functions of first kind of the order
zero and one respectively, and Y0(a0), Y1(a0) = Bessel’s function
of second kind of order zero and one, a0= A dimensionless
number @ ωr0/Vs, where ω= Operating frequency of the
machine, r0=Radius of pile cross section, Vs=Shear wave For lateral and rocking mode the dynamic equation of
velocity of soil. equilibrium is expressed by Novak as
Considering w( z , t ) = w( z )eiωt Equation (1) yields an ordinary ∂ 2u ( z , t ) ∂u ( z, t ) ∂ 4u ( z , t )
ρ +c + EpI + G ( S u1 + iS u 2 ) ×
differential equation ∂t 2 ∂t ∂z 4 (10)

[ ]
w( z ) ρω + icω + G ( S w1 + iS w2 ) − E p A
2
dz 2
d 2w
= 0 (4)
u( z, t ) = 0
Here I= moment of inertia of the pile πr04/4.Su1 and Su2 are
Solving Equation (4) Novak ultimately derived the stiffness and Baranov’s functions and are expressed as
damping of a single pile in vertical direction as
Ep A Ep A G[ S u1 (a0 ,ν ) + iS u 2 (a 0,ν )] = 2πGa0 ×
k zz = f18,1; c zz = f18, 2 (5)
H 2(2 ) (a0 ) H1(2 ) ( x0 ) + H1(2 ) ( x0 ) H1(2 ) ( x0 )
r0 Vs 1
(11)
Here f18,1 and f18,2 are coefficients that are function of ϑ
slenderness ratio(L/r0) of the pile and the ratio Vs/Vc. Here L is H 0(2 ) (a0 ) H 2( 2) ( x0 ) + H 0( 2) ( x0 ) H 22 (a0 )
the length of the pile, Vs= Shear wave velocity of soil and Vc=
Here H n( 2) = Hankel functions of second kind of order n,
Compression wave velocity of pile → E p ρ .
The values are produced as graphs for different L/r0 ratio and are ϑ = (1 − 2ν ) 2(1 −ν ) , x0 = a0 2 , ν = Poisson’s ratio.
available in a number of standard literatures like Poulos & iωt
Considering u ( z , t ) = u ( z )e and substituting in equation (10)
Davis(1980), Prakash & Sharma(1990) , Das (1993) etc.
one gets an ordinary differential equation as
For ease of computation the values f18,1 and f18,2 can be expressed
for concrete piles as
For L/r0=20
EpI
d 4u ( z )
dz 4
[
+ GS u1 − ρω 2 + i (cω + GS u 2 ) u ( z ) (12) ]
f18,1 = 3.75(Vs / Vc ) 2 − 0.05(Vs / Vc ) + 0.0501 (6) Solving Equation (12) with appropriate boundary conditions
Novak derived the lateral and rocking stiffness and damping
f18, 2 = 15.345(Vs / Vc ) 2.0928
(6a) coefficients as follows.
For L/r0=50 EpI EpI
k xx = 3 f11,1; cxx = 2 f11,2 (13)
f18,1 = 6.25(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 0.05(Vs / Vc ) + 0.0199 (7) r0 r0 Vs
f18, 2 = −10(Vs / Vc ) + 1.5(Vs / Vc ) − 0.012
2
(7a) EpI EpI
kθθ = f 7,1; cθθ = f 7,2 (14)
For L/r0=100 r0 Vs
f18,1 = −3.75(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 0.45(Vs / Vc ) + 0.0061 (8) EpI EpI
k xθ = 2
f9,1; c xx = f 9, 2 (15)
f18, 2 = 1.4(Vs / Vc ) − 0.0083 (8a) r0 r0Vs
The above formulation is valid for vertical bearing piles only. In Equation (13),(14) and 15), the coefficients f11,1,
When the pile is essentially friction type, Novak expressed the f11,2,f7,1,f7,2,f9,1,f9,2 are expressed graphically for various values
stiffness as of Vs/Vc and ν in Novak (1974, 1977) and also given as charts in
various literature like Poulos and Davies(1980), Das (1993) etc.
Ep A E A
k zz = ′ ,1; czz = p f18
f18 ′ ,2 (9) For ease of electronic computation the coefficients are curve
r0 Vs fitted to values as shown in Table 3 and 3a below for ν=0.25
Some selective values of f’18,1 and f’18,2are furnished hereafter and 0.4 [Chowdhury & Dasgupta (2008)].
for reference[for more elaborate values refer Chowdhury &
Dasgupta(2008)]. Tabl-3 Function f for translation and rocking motion ν=0.25
Poissón’s Function f
′ ,1
Table-1 Values of the coefficient f18 Ratio
L/r Ep/G=104 Ep/G=2500 Ep/G=1000 Ep/G=500 0.25 f = 7.25(V / V ) 2 + 0.38(V / V ) − 0.0013
11,1 s c s c
10.87 0.0021 0.0052 0.0104 0.0187
21.74 0.0031 0.0083 0.0166 0.0301 f11, 2 = 17(Vs / Vc ) + 0.915(Vs / Vc ) − 0.0032
2

43.48 0.0042 0.0125 0.0260 0.0405 f 7,1 = −55(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 9.3(Vs / Vc ) + 0.1075

54.35 0.0052 0.0145 0.0281 0.0416
76.08 0.0062 0.0177 0.0301 0.0416 f 7, 2 = −38.75(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 6.55(Vs / Vc ) + 0.0734
100.0 0.0083 0.0197 0.0301 0.0416 f9,1 = −1.81(Vs / Vc )
′ ,2
Table-2 Values of the coefficient f18 f 9, 2 = 0.375(Vs / Vc ) 2 − 2.67(Vs / Vc ) − 0.0005
L/r Ep/G=104 Ep/G=2500 Ep/G=1000 Ep/G=500
10.87 0.0032 0.0126 0.0295 0.0558 It is apparent from above that based on the charts and
21.74 0.0074 0.0232 0.0495 0.0811 expressions produced in Table-3, it is quite simple to develop the
43.48 0.0137 0.0347 0.0579 0.0758 spring and damping values of the pile, which can either be used
54.35 0.0147 0.0379 0.0558 0.0726 for design of a block foundation (where the soil springs and
76.08 0.0189 0.0379 0.0516 0.0695 damping is replaced by pile parameters) or can be used to
100.0 0.0211 0.0337 0.0495 0.0705 develop computer model for structures supported on piles using
these springs and dashpots.
For further details regarding coefficients and the theory Above formulas give stiffness and damping values of a single
reference may be made to Novak (1974, 1977). pile. However in reality an equipment foundation is usually
It has been suggested that the values as furnished by Novak supported by a pile group and this calls for the group interaction
above are most appropriate for a0= 0.1 to 0.8. factor that plays a significant role in ultimate results.
Initially in 1980s, when the technology was first adapted in αθH = α xH 2 ; αθM = α xH 3 (21)
industry, static interaction factor as suggested by Poulos (1979)
was adapted Arya et al (1979). Though it was well known that Where
when piles are closely spaced (S<=3D), this may or may not be ρ c = G z / Gc ; Gz= Shear Modulus at depth Lc/4; Lc=Critical
true. However with no further tools available then, this was the
best that could be adapted, and is still in vogue as a practice in
length of pile → 2r E p / Gc ( )2 7 ;G = Average shear modulus over
c

many industrial houses. the critical length Lc( a few iterations may be needed for this to
converge); α xf = Interaction factor for fixed headed pile;
Tabl-3a Function f for translation and rocking motion ν=0.40 α xH = Interaction factor for pinned headed pile;
Poissón’s Function f
αθH = Rotation due to horizontal force; αθM = Rotation due to
Ratio
0.40 Moment; β p = Angle between the direction of loading and the
f = 7.875(V / V ) 2 + 0.43(V / V ) − 0.0015
11,1 s c s c
line connecting pile centres (see figure-1).
f11, 2 = 18.75(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 1.02(Vs / Vc ) − 0.0037 When the interaction factor α exceeds 1/3 its value should be
replaced by
f 7,1 = −57.5(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 9.65(Vs / Vc ) + 0.1113
α ′ = 1− 2 27α (22)
f 7, 2 = −41.25(Vs / Vc ) 2 + 6.85(Vs / Vc ) + 0.0746 The correction is made to avoid α → ∞ , when s → 0 .Same
f 9,1 = −1.94(Vs / Vc ) expressions are to be used for damping to determine the group
effect.
f 9, 2 = 0.75(Vs / Vc ) 2 − 2.87(Vs / Vc ) − 0.0006
2.3 Gazetas’s Model for Dynamic Response of piles
Significant research was focussed in this area and a number of
expressions were proposed by Kaynia (1982), Gazetas (1993), Adapting the analytical solution developed by Kanyia and
Randolph et al (1982). Kausel (1982), Gazetas et.al.(1988, 1991) developed numerical
ACI-351R-04 the latest code on machine foundation proposed techniques to determine the stiffness and damping coefficients of
by American Concrete Institute in 2004 has come up with piles solving the elasto-dynamic equations in space. This is a
expressions which has more or less now become industry rigorous mathematical solution and is far too computationally
standard and are furnished below. laborious. Realizing this handicap in terms of design office
practice, Gazetas developed curve fitted expressions for the pile
stiffness and damping coefficients that can be used for quick
computation of these parameters. However before applying these
formulas the boundary conditions imposed by Gazetas should be
s clearly understood.
βp These expressions are only valid for floating long piles (L/r>25),
P( Load) when the piles are embedded in a soil stratum of depth H where
H>2L.
Gazetas developed expression for three types of soil.
1. Young’s Modulus (Es) of soil constant with depth.
2. Young’s Modulus of soil varying as Ez=E0(z/H).
3. Young’s Modulus of soil varying as Ez=E0(z/H)0.5
Figure-1 Pile group subjected to dynamic load showing angle
β and pile spacing s. 2.3.1 Es Constant with Depth:
f f = Vs / 4 H ; Lc = 2d E p / E s ( )0.25 (23)
(E p )
In vertical direction for N number of piles in a group the group
stiffness is expressed as (Randolph and Poulos 1982) k zz = 1.9 E s d (L d ) 23
Es − ( L d )( E p E s )
(24)
− (1 5 )
N N
c zz = a0 ρLVsπrd d is valid when (25)
g
K zz = ∑ k ∑α zz v (16) f ≥ 1.5 f r ; rd = 1 − e −p
(
, p = E p Es ( L d ) ) −2
(26)
i =1 i =1
For f ≤ f r , c zz = 0 .For values of f r ≤ f ≤ 1.5 f r linearly
log e (L / s )
αv = interpolate czz. Here f r = VLa / 4 H .
(
2 log e L × d × ρ avg ) (17)
In translational mode
Here L= Pile Length, s= Spacing between the reference pile and
pile in question, d= diameter of pile, ρ avg = Gav / Gb , Gav=
(
k xx = dE s E p E s)0.21 (27)

Average shear modulus along pile depth, Gb= Shear modulus at D xx = 0.8β + 1.1 fd (E p Es )
0.17
(1 Vs ) for f > f f (28a)
pile base. D xx = 0.8β for f ≤ f f (28b)
Similarly for translational motion
N N c xx = 2k xx D xx ω (28c)
g
K xx = ∑ k xx ∑ αx (18) In rocking mode
i =1 i =1 kθθ = 0.15d 3 E s E p E s ( )0.75 (29)
( )0.20 (1 Vs ) for
For fixed headed pile (Randolph and Poulos 1982)
[ ] (
α xf = 0.6 ρ c E p / Gc 1 / 7 (r / s ) 1 + cos 2 β p ) (19)
Dθθ = 0.35β + 0.35 fd E p E s f > ff (30a)

For pinned headed pile Dθθ = 0.25β for f ≤ f f (30b)

[ ] (
α xH = 0.4 ρc E p / Gc 1 / 7 (r / s ) 1 + cos2 β p ) (20) cθθ = 2kθθ Dθθ ω (30c)
Cross stiffness and damping is expressed as
kθx = −0.22d 2 E s E p E s ( )0.5 (31) c θθ = 2k θθ Dθθ ω (51c)

Dθx = 0.80β + 0.85 fd E p E s ( )0.18 (1 Vs ) for f > ff

Cross stiffness and damping is expressed as
( )0.5
(32a)
kθx = −0.24d 2 E0 E p E0 (52)
Dθx = 0.50 β for f ≤ f f (32b)
cθx = 2kθx Dθx ω (33c) (
Dθx = 0.60β + 0.70 fd E p E0 )
0.05
(1 Vs ) for f > f f (53a)
Dθx = 0.35β for f ≤ f f (53b)
2.3.2 Es Varying as Ez=E0(z/H) with Depth, Where z=0 is the cθx = 2kθx Dθx ω (53c)
Free Surface of Soil
( )0.2
The nomenclatures as per Gazetas formulation are as furnished
f f = 0.19VsH / 4 H ; Lc = 2d E p / E s (34) hereafter,
a0 = A dimensionless number ωd / (2Vs )
k zz = 1.8E sL d (L d ) 0.55
(E p E sL ) − ( L d )( E p E sL )
(35)
β = Material damping of pile
Here ESL=ES(L/d).
− (1 3) c xx = Damping in translational mode
c zz = (2 3)a0 ρLVsLπrd d is valid when (36)
c zz = Damping in vertical mode
f ≥ 1.5 f r ; rd = 1 − e − p , p = 2 E p E s ( L d ) −2 ( ) (37) cθθ = Damping in rocking mode
For f ≤ f r , c zz = 0 .For values of f r ≤ f ≤ 1.5 f r linearly cθx = Damping in coupled mode.
interpolate czz. Here f r = VLa / 4 H . and VSH=Shear wave D xx = Damping coefficient in translational mode
velocity of soil at depth H. Dθθ = Damping coefficient in rocking mode
In translational mode
(
k xx = 0.6dE0 E p E0 )0.35 (38)
Dθx = Damping coefficient in coupled mode.
d = Diameter of pile
D xx = 0.60 β + 1.8 fd Vs for f > f f (39a)
E p = Young’s Modulus of pile
D xx = 0.6 β for f ≤ f f (39b)
E s = Young’s Modulus of soil
c xx = 2k xx Dxx ω (39c) E0 = Young’s Modulus of soil at depth H
In rocking mode f = Natural frequency of pile foundation system.
kθθ = 0.15d 3 E s E p E s( )0.8 (40) f f = Free field natural frequency of site
Dθθ = 0.20 β + 0.40 fd Vs for f > f f (41a) H= Depth of the soil stratum
Dθθ = 0.20 β for f ≤ f f (41b) k xx = Stiffness in translational mode
cθθ = 2kθθ Dθθ ω (41c) k zz = Stiffness in vertical mode
Cross stiffness and damping is expressed as kθθ = Stiffness in rocking mode
kθx = −0.17d E0 E p E0
2
( )
0.6
(42) kθx = Stiffness in coupled mode.
Dθx = 0.30β + fd Vs for f > f f (43a) L= Length of the pile.
Lc = Critical length of pile, transferring load to surrounding soil.
Dθx = 0.20 β for f ≤ f f (43b)
r0= Radius of pile section
cθx = 2kθx Dθx ω (43c) Vs = Shear wave velocity of soil
2.3.3 Es varying as E z = E0 z H with depth: VLA = Love wave velocity of soil.

f f = 0.223Vs / H ; Lc = 2d E p / E s ( )0.22 (44)

ω=Operating frequency of machine

k zz = 1.9 E sL d (L d )0.6 E p E sL ( )−( L d )( E p E sL )

(45) The limitations of Gazetas’s expressions are again reiterated
hereafter for preventing possible mis-use.
0.5
Here ESL=ES(L/d) • The expressions are only valid when L/r0 ≥ 25.
c zz = (3 4 )a0 − (1 4 )ρLVsLπrd d is valid when (46) • The pile is a pure friction pile.
f ≥ 1.5 f r ; rd = 1 − e −p
(
, p = 1.5 E p E s ( L d ) ) −2
(47)
• The soil stratum H extends substantially below pile tip
for at least a distance >2L.
For f ≤ f r , c zz = 0 .For values of f r ≤ f ≤ 1.5 f r linearly • When the pile is a bearing pile or carrying load both
interpolate czz. Here f r = VLa / 4 H . through friction and bearing, above formulation are not
valid, though in absence of any other formulation they
In translational mode
( )0.28
are often used(or misused), to determine the stiffness
k xx = 0.80dE s E p E0 (48) and damping coefficient of piles.
D xx = 0.7 β + 1.2 fd E p E0 ( )0.08
(1 Vs ) for f > f f (498a)
• However like Novak’s formulation above expressions
are not material dependent as long as Young’s
D xx = 0.7 β for f ≤ f f (49b) modulus of pile and soil material is known.
c xx = 2k xx D xx ω (49c)
2.4 Chowdhury & Dasgupta’s (C-D) Model
In rocking mode
kθθ = 0.15d 3 E s E p E s( )0.77 (50)
As an originator of this model, it would perhaps not be too much
out of place to explain what motivated us to work in this topic
Dθθ = 0.22β + 0.35 fd E p E s ( )0.10 (1 Vs ) for f > ff (51a) rather then perceiving the effort as “reinventing the wheel”.
Despite their immense popularity (possibly due to sheer
Dθθ = 0.22β for f ≤ f f (51b) simplicity of their application), and strong theoretical
background both Gazetas(1991) and Novak’s(1974,1977)
method do have some deficiencies in terms of design office requirement necessitates, deployment of short piles
practice. The short comings can be summarised as mentioned (L/r0<=20) i.e. soil failure precedes structural failure.
hereafter. No solution in the world exists for the same.

• As presented above, in vertical direction Novak gives Preceding discussions show that despite their popularity, theories
pile stiffness either for a pure bearing pile or a purely provided by both Novak and Gazetas’s is really not full proof
friction pile (refer tables given earlier). While and a significant scope of improvement exists- and this has been
Gazetas’s expression provide pile stiffness for floating the basis for further enhancement.
pile only. However in major cases a pile will carry
load both by bearing and also by friction. Thus a more 2.4.1 C-D Model in vertical direction:
generalized pile stiffness expression is required when As per C-D model in vertical direction, the equilibrium equation
this dual character of a pile can be taken care off which of motion can be expressed as
is the most common behaviour. ( )
E p Ap ∂ 2u ∂z 2 + K f .u = ρAp ∂ 2u ∂t 2 ( ) (54)
Considering u(z,t)= φ(z).q(t) Equation (54) has a general solution
u ( z , t ) = (C1 cos pz + C 2 sin pz )(C3 sin ωt + C 4 cos ωt )
Here Ci , i = 1,2,3,4 are integration constants to be derived from
L-Le
appropriate boundary conditions.
X
At pile head i.e. z=0 as EpAp(du/dz)=0 → C 2 = 0 .At z=L,
E p A p (du dz ) = − K b .u ( z ) z = L (55)
here K b = Gb r0 Cb ,Novak & Beredugo’s coefficient for bearing
L Z Le L H
of an embedded cylinder.
Here Gb = Shear modulus of soil at pile tip, r0=radius of pile and
Cb = Beredugo’s coefficient and is a function of Poisson’s ratio
of soil and can be expressed as Cb = 3.9, 5.2 & 7.5 for ν=0.0,
Figure- 2 Fully and partially embedded pile in elastic half space
0.25 & 0.5 respectively, (intermediate values can be linearly
• The coefficient functions f as furnished by Novak is interpolated).
for very limited number of Vc/Vs values vis-à-vis Equation (55) finally gives a transcendental equation
slenderness ratio. In most cases the values need to be pL tan pL = η (56)
interpolated based on eye estimation or even Where, η = (Gb / E p )(Cb / π )( L / r0 ) is a dimensionless number.
extrapolated as because the values are in many cases Roots of equation (56) for fundamental mode for different values
beyond the curve provided by him which leaves a of η (solved numerically) are as furnished in Table-4 below.
significant scope for an engineer to make considerable
error in the estimation of f.
Table-4 Transcendental solution of η first root.
• Novak initially gave two sets of values for f .One for
concrete and another for timber piles. In many
international projects steel piles are often used for
economic reasons (like Arctic region and arid desert
region). Thus whether these charts are also valid for
such conditions- no clear cut guideline exists.
• In the original paper of Novak(1974), Novak assumed
G to be constant with depth and in Novak (1977) also
gave coefficient of f parabolic with depth Gz=G0(z/H)2,
Considering pL = β the arbitrary shape function of the pile
but G can also vary as other type of functions like
Gz=G0(z/H), Gz=G0(1+z/H)n where n=1,2.. etc, for satisfying the boundary conditions in equation (55) can be
which no clear guidelines exists. expressed as
• In certain situations, post earthquake scenario or in φ ( z ) = cos βz / L (57)
arctic condition pile can be partially embedded either For a cylindrical disc of thickness dz if remains embedded in an
due to liquefaction or functional requirement elastic half space then, its potential energy is expressed as
respectively. Neither Novak nor Gazetas’s formulation E p A p ⎛ du ⎞ 2 Gr0Cb 2 GS1dz 2
can handle this. dΠ = ⎜ ⎟ + u + u (58)
2 ⎝ dz ⎠ 2 2
• Both Novak and Gazetas’s formulation gives the
stiffness and damping values of piles. But does not Where Cb is Berdugo’s coefficient as explained above and S1 is
provide any expressions for dynamic axial force, Baranov’s coefficient as per equation (2).
Moments and Shears induced in pile. For this Then over the full pile length L potential energy Π can be
uncertainty, designers often restrict the piles to their expressed as
50% design capacity. Whether this assumption is over L 2 L
E p Ap ⎛ du ⎞
∫ ∫
GS Gr C 2
restrictive or otherwise no clear guideline exists. Π= ⎜ ⎟ + 1 u dz + 0 b u
2
(58a)
• Neither Novak nor Gazetas takes into consideration the 2 ⎝ ⎠
dz 2 2
0 0
inertial effect of the pile itself. When acting as a pile
From Equation (58) it can be shown Chowdhury and Dasgupta
group this effect can be significant and cannot be
(2008a) that
possibly ignored.
L L
• Finally, both Novak and Gazetas’s solution is valid for
long piles (L/r0>25) i.e. when structural failure of piles
precedes soil failure, however in many cases, project
∫
0
∫
k zz = E p A p φ ′( z ) 2 dz + GS1 φ ( z ) 2 dz + Gr0Cbφ ( L) 2
0
(59)
Here φ(z) is as depicted in equation (57) C z = r0 ρ b Gb Cb + r0 ρG D f S 2 (66)
Equation (59) on integration finally gives
⎡ E p Ap β 2 GS L G r C ⎤ The Beredugo parameters Cb and S 2 are expressed as hereafter.
k zz = ⎢ + 1 + b 0 b⎥
⎢ 2L 2 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (60) Table 5 Beredugo’s(1972a) function Cb
⎡ GS1L E p Ap β ⎤
ν Cb
Gb r0Cb
+⎢ − ⎥ sin 2 β + cos 2 β
⎣ 4β 4L ⎦ 2 0.0 3.438a0+0.5742a02-1.115a03+0.7443a04
0.25 5.06a0
Equation (60), unlike Novak and Gazetas’s model is the general
stiffness of pile considering both bearing and friction load 0.50 7.414a0-2.986a02+4.324a03-1.782a04
transfer mechanism working in tandem. Stiffness for pure
bearing or friction pile can be extracted from Equation (60).
Shape function as expressed by Equation (57) is actually a 0.7022a0
S 2 = 6.059a0 + for all values of ν. (67)
function of bearing stiffness at tip of the pile. a0 + 0.01616
When Gb is very small compared to G i.e. Gb << G , β → 0 and
the pile acts as pure friction pile when Equation (60) can be Where a0 = ωr0 / Vs is a dimensionless number.
simply expressed as Considering Equation (66) is valid over a cylindrical disc of
GS L infinitesimal thickness dz embedded in an elastic half space,
k zzf = 1 (61)
2 integrating over the full length L of pile we have
In equation (61), superscript f stands for the load transfer L
⎛ βz ⎞
mechanism friction.
Using similar technique used by Lysmer (1966) to determine
∫
c zz = ρG r0 S 2 cos 2 ⎜ ⎟ + ρ b Gb r0Cb cos 2 β
0
⎝ L ⎠
(68)

coefficients soil springs from Bycroft’s (1956) elastic half space

expressions, equation (60) was compared with Gazetas(1991) → c zz = ρG r0 S 2 L
(1 + sin 2β ) +
ρ b Gb r0Cb cos 2 β (69)
and Kausel’s(1982) solution, and based on this the value S1 was 2
recommended by Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2006) independent Equation (69) is the general damping expression considering
of frequency as both bearing and friction transfer mechanism acting together.
Here ρb= Mass density of soil at pile tip and ρ = Mass density of
S1 = [9.553(1 + ν )] λ1 3 ` (62) soil around pile shaft.
Here ν= Poisson’s ratio of soil and λ= Slenderness ratio of pile For bearing piles, considering β=π/2 ignoring last term as this
L/r0. value becomes infinite as Gb → ∞ Equation (69) can be
For bearing pile, it is obvious that bearing stiffness Gbr0Cb has to expressed
have a very high value. Theoretically, when η → ∞ ,
ρG r0 S 2 L
implies, β tan β → ∞ , or β → π 2 . For η ≅ 50 , consider → c bzz = (70)
2
β ≅ π 2 when equation (59) can be expressed as For friction pile when β=0 when we have
L L
⎛ πz ⎞ ⎛ πz ⎞
∫
= E p Ap β 2 sin 2 ⎜
∫
⎟dz + GS1 cos 2 ⎜
b
k zz ⎟dz (63) ρG r0 S 2 L
⎝ 2 L ⎠ ⎝ 2L ⎠ c zzf = + ρ b Gb r0Cb (71)
0 0 2
E p Apπ 2 GS L
When Gb is a very small value
→ k zz
b
= + 1 (64) ρG r0 S 2 L
8L 2 c zzf = (72)
It may be noted that the third term in equation (59) is ignored 2
while writing equation (63).Considering the base as infinitely
stiff, the third term has no meaning as the pile starts behaving as 2.4.2 C-D Model for partially embedded pile –vertical direction
pinned base column with zero displacement at pile tip.
In equation (64) the superscript b implies the pile load transfer We now present the case of partially embedded pile for which no
mechanism as bearing. If the shaft soil stiffness G is very weak solution has been proposed by any researcher and yet remains an
then second term in equation (64) can well be ignored and the important case in profession especially for arctic condition and
stiffness is represented by structural stiffness of the pile shaft Trans-Saharan countries where in many places due to functional
only, which is logical. reasons top of piles are deliberately kept 2.0-2.5 meter above
The mass contribution of the pile is expressed as Chowdhury and ground level or also could be an outcome of a post earthquake
Dasgupta (2006) scenario analysis when a part of soil below pile cap has liquefied
L and the pile is yet expected to operate under partially free
γ p Ap L ⎡
( )∫
M p = γ p A p g φ 2 ( z )dz → ⎢1 +
sin 2 β ⎤
2β ⎦
⎥ (65) standing condition (for e.g. an emergency diesel generator
2g ⎣ foundation).
0
For this case η e = (Gb / E )(Cb / π )( Le / r ) , where Le is the
Inertial contribution of pile mass has been completely ignored by
both Novak and Gazetas has been estimated in this case. When embedded length of pile and Le<L. Equation (59) and (68) gets
piles are acting in group, this can contribute significantly to modified to
L L
overall response.
∫
k zz = E p Ap φ ′( z )2 dz + GS1
∫φ ( z) dz + Gr C φ (L)
2 2
For both bearing and friction pile when β=π/2 and 0 respectively 0 b (73)
M p = γ p A p L 2g . Here g= acceleration due to gravity, γp=Wt. 0 L − Le
Density of pile material. L
⎛ βz ⎞
The damping effect is as considered hereafter.
For a rigid cylinder embedded in ground, the damping as per
c zz = ρG r0 S 2
∫
L − Le
cos 2 ⎜ ⎟ + ρ b Gb r0Cb cos 2 β (74)
⎝ L ⎠
Novak and Beredugo(1972a) is expressed as
 ⎡ E p Ap β 2 GS L G rC ⎤
2.4.3 C-D Model for long pile in translational and rotational
k zz = ⎢ + 1 e + b 0 b⎥ modes
⎢ 2L 2 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦ (75) In this case considering the equation of equilibrium of an infinite
⎡ GS1Le E p Ap β ⎤ Gb r0Cb
⎥ sin 2 β + cos 2 β
+⎢ − beam embedded in an elastic foundation the displacement
⎣ 4β 4L ⎦ 2 function u can be expressed as Timoshenko (1982)

r ρG S 2 Le u = e − pz (C1 cos pz + C2 sin pz ) (84)

1
c zz = ρG r0 S 2 Le + r0 ρ b Gb Cb + 0 sin 2 β Considering displacement u as u=u0 at z=0 and rotation θ=θ0 at
2 4β
(76) z=0 when for very small θ, θ0=u0/L, it has been shown by
r0 ρ b Gb Cb Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2008a, 2009) that the general shape
+ cos 2 β
2 function for both translational and rotation mode is expressed as
For soil with variable G like G=G0(z/H)α, equation (59) and (68) −
βz
βz βz ⎞
⎛
gets modified to φ ( x) = e L ⎜ cos + η sin ⎟ (85)
L L ⎝ L L ⎠

∫ ∫ (z H ) φ ( z) dz + Gr C φ (L)
α
k zz = E p Ap φ ′( z ) 2 dz + GS1 2
0 b
2
(77) Here, η = 1+ 1 / β ,and β = 4 GS x1L4 / E p I p ,&,S=Beregdugo’s
0 0
functions and are Sx1 for translational mode and Sθ1 for rotational
L
2 ⎛ βz ⎞
mode respectively.
c zz = ρG r0 S 2
∫ (z H )α cos ⎜ ⎟ + ρ b Gb r0Cb cos β (78)
2
Like in case of vertical pile, developing the energy equations,
⎝ L ⎠ corresponding stiffness, mass and damping values of single piles
0
For α=1.0 when soil stiffness is varying linearly with depth. are expressed for G constant with depth as

`1 ⎡ E p Ap β GS L ⎛ 1 ⎞ G rC ⎤
2
k zz = ⎢
2⎢ L
+ 1 ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ + b 0 b ⎥ +
4 ⎝ β ⎟⎠
⎜ 2 ⎥
⎡ 5X
EpI p ⎢ 4 1− e
−2β
−( 3Y 3η ⎤
−
4 ⎥
)
⎣ ⎦ (79) k xx = 3 ⎢ 8
⎥ (86)
1 ⎡ GS1L E p Ap β ⎤ ⎡ GS1L Gb r0Cb ⎤ L ⎢ (η − 1)3
⎥
⎢ − ⎥ sin 2 β + ⎢ + ⎥ cos 2 β ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
2⎣ β L ⎦ ⎣⎢ 4 β
2 2 ⎦⎥ Values of Sx1 for ν=0.25 and 0.4 are given in Table-6 &7

⎡2 ⎛ 1 β 2 2 β 4 ⎞⎤ Table-6 Sx1 for ν=0.25

c zz = ρG r0 S 2 L ⎢ − 2 β 2 ⎜ − + ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ 3 ⎜ 7 33 675 ⎟⎥
⎝ ⎠⎦ (80)
+ r0 ρ b Gb Cb cos β 2

For α=2.0, when soil stiffness is varying as a parabolic curve.

⎡ GS L ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎟⎤
1 ⎜
⎡ E p A p β 2 GS L G r C ⎤ ⎢ 2 ⎜ 2 β + ⎥
k zz = ⎢ + 1 + b 0 b ⎥ + ⎢⎢ ⎝ 3β 3 ⎟⎠⎥ ×
⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎢ E p Ap β
L 6
⎣ ⎥
⎢⎣ − ⎥⎦ Table-7 Sx1 for ν=0.40
4L
⎡ GS L G r C ⎤
sin 2 β + ⎢ 1 + b 0 b ⎥ cos 2 β (81)
⎣ β 2 ⎦

⎡ r0 ρ b Gb Cb ρG r0 S 2 L ⎤ ρG r0 S 2 L
c zz = ⎢ − ⎥+ sin 2 β
⎢⎣ 2 4 ⎥⎦ 8β
(82)
⎡ r0 ρ b Gb Cb ρG r0 S 2 L ⎤
+⎢
⎢⎣ 2
+
4β
⎥ cos 2 β
⎥⎦
⎡
γ p Ap L ⎢ X 1 − e ( −2β
)+ Y2 + η ⎤⎥
M xx = ⎢ ⎥ (87)
For all cases mentioned above the inertial mass contribution Mp 4g ⎢ β ⎥
remains same as equation (65). ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥

( )
Dynamic axial load is considered as
⎡ −2β Y ⎤
⎛ ∂u ⎞ E p Ap β βz ⎢ X 1− e + +η ⎥
Pdyn = − E p Ap ⎜ ⎟ = u0 sin (83) c xx = r0 ρG S x 2 L ⎢ 2
⎥ (88)
⎝ ∂z ⎠ L L ⎢ 4β ⎥
It may be noted based on above equations that the solution is ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
completely general and does not restrict the behaviour either to
In equations (86) to (88) X = 1 + η 2 , and Y = 1 − η 2 , value of
bearing or friction only and neither there is any restriction
pertaining to material nor if the pile is long or short. Beredugo’s function S x 2 is a frequency dependent damping
parameter furnished in Table 8.
Table-8 Beredugo’s(1972b) function for Sx2 ⎡
EpI p ⎢
( )⎛1 ψ ⎞ ⎛ ψ
X (1 + ψ ) 1 − e − 2 β + Y ⎜ + ⎟ − η ⎜1 −
⎝2 4 ⎠ ⎝ 2
⎞⎤
⎟⎥
⎠ ⎥ (96)
kθθ = ⎢
L ⎢ 2(η − 1) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
In equation (96), the term ψ = 4Gλ2 Sθ 1 ( ) (πE β )
p
2
is a
dimensionless number and λ = L / r0 the slenderness ratio of the

pile. β = 4 GSθ 1L4 E p I p where Sθ1 is Beredugo’s function for

For piles partially embedded to depth Le where Le<L, L=length an embedded rigid cylinder modified for long piles by
of pile Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2009) for ν=0.25 and 0.4 and are
furnished in Table 9 &10.
β e = 4 GS x1Le 4 / E p I p , ηe = 1 + 1 / β e ,
Table-9 Values of Sθ1 for ν=0.25
X e = 1 + ηe 2 , Ye = 1 − ηe 2 and α = Le L < 1.0
⎡⎧ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎛1 α ⎞ ⎛1 ⎞⎫ ⎤
⎢ ⎪ X e ⎜ α + ⎟ + Ye ⎜ − ⎟ + ηe ⎜ − α ⎟⎪ ⎥
⎢⎪ ⎝ 4⎠ ⎝8 2 ⎠ ⎝4 ⎠⎪ ⎥
⎢⎨ −2βe ⎛ − 2 β e (1−α ) ⎞
⎬⎥
⎪
⎢ − X ee
E p I p ⎢ ⎪⎩
⎜ (α 4)e + 1⎟ ⎪⎥
⎪⎭ ⎥
⎝ ⎠
k xx = 3 ⎢ ⎥ (89)
Le ⎢ (ηe − 1) 3
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ Table-10 Values of Sθ1 for ν=0.40
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎡
(
γ p Ap Le ⎢ X eα 1 − e )
− 2β e Yα
+ e + ηeα ⎥
2
⎤
M xx = ⎢ ⎥ (90)
4g ⎢ 1 (ηe − 1) ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
⎡
(
⎢ Xe 1− e
−2βe Y
) ⎤
+ e + ηe ⎥
cxx = r0 ρG S x 2 Le ⎢ 2
⎥ (91)
⎢ 4 (ηe − 1) ⎥ Other parameters like X, Y etc. are same as described for lateral
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ stiffness of piles above.
For G varying as Gz = G ( z / H ) j , where j is a number like 0,1,2 The inertial contribution is expressed as
γ p A p r0 2 L
etc the stiffness and damping matrix are as expressed hereafter.
Jθ θ = [XF (λ ) + Y 2 + η ] (97)
For j=1, 16βg
⎡ ⎧⎪ ⎛5 1 ⎞⎫⎪ ⎤ Here
⎢ X ⎨1 − e − 2 β ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎬ ⎥
E p I p β 3 ⎢ ⎪⎩ ⎝ 4 4 β ⎟⎠⎪⎭ ⎥ λ2 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞
k xx = ⎢ ⎥ (92) F (λ ) = 1 − e − 2 β + − 4λ2 e − 2 β ⎜ 2 + − 2 ⎟ (98)
L3 ⎢ ⎛ 1 3β ⎞ ⎛ β 2 ⎜ β β ⎟⎠
1 ⎞⎥ ⎝
⎢− Y ⎜⎝ 2 − 16 ⎟⎠ − η ⎜1 − 8β ⎟⎥
⎜ ⎟
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎡
(
⎢ X 1− e
−2 β Y
) ⎤
+ +η ⎥
2
cθθ = r0 3
ρG Sθ 2 L ⎢ ⎥ (99)
4β
cxx =
r0 ρG S x 2 L ⎡
4β 2
{
⎢X 1− e
⎣
−2β
}
(1 + β ) + 3Y + η ⎤⎥ (93)
4 2⎦
⎢
⎣⎢
⎥
⎦⎥

For j=2 we have Sθ 2 = 0.0144a0 + 5.262a0 2 − 4.177a03

Here, (100)
⎡ ⎧⎛ 1 ⎞⎟ − 2 β ⎫ ⎤ + 1.643a0 4 − 0.2542a0 5
⎢ ⎪⎜1 + −e ×⎪ ⎥
3⎢ ⎜ 2⎟ ⎥
For piles partially embedded to a depth Le when Le<L we have
EpI pβ ⎪⎝ 16β ⎠ ⎪ Y
k xx = ⎢ ⎨ ⎬ − − η ⎥ (94)
( )⎤⎥
X
L3 ⎢ ⎪⎛ 3 1 1 ⎞ ⎪ 2 ⎥ ⎡ X α + ψ − αe −2 β eα − ψe −2 β e
⎢ ⎪⎜⎜ + − 2⎟ ⎪
⎟ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ e
⎪ 2 4 β β
⎣⎢ ⎩⎝ 8 ⎠ ⎭ ⎦⎥ ⎢ ⎛α ψ ⎞ ⎛ ψ⎞ ⎥
EpI p ⎢ + Ye ⎜ 2 + 4 ⎟ − η e ⎜ α − 2 ⎟ ⎥
r ρG S x 2 L ⎡ ⎧⎪ 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎫⎪⎤ kθθ = ⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥ (101)
c xx = 0 ⎢X ⎨ − e − 2 β ⎜ 2 + − 2 ⎟⎬⎥ (95) Le ⎢ 2(η e − 1) ⎥
4β ⎢ ⎪⎩ 4 β 2 ⎜ β β ⎟⎠⎪⎭⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
The inertial contribution for both cases remains same as ⎢ ⎥
Equation (87). ⎣ ⎦
Similarly for rotational mode the stiffness, damping and mass
contribution are expressed as hereafter.
⎡
⎢ Xe 1− e (
−2 βe
)Y ⎤
+ e + ηe ⎥
2
cθθ = r0 3
ρG Sθ 2 Le ⎢ ⎥ (102)
4 / (η e − 1)
For fully embedded pile with G constant with depth
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Here subscript e stands for embedment when α = Le / L , Here I1 and I2 are integration constants that would be elaborated
subsequently.
β e = 4 GSθ 1 Le 4 E p I p , η e = 1 + 1 / β e , X e = 1 + η e 2 , Based on theoretical estimation let computed frequency be ωc.

Ye = 1 − η e 2 etc. [ ]
Then ωc 2 = GS x1 g γ p A p [4(I1 I 2 ) + 1] (108)
The mass moment of inertia remains same as Equation (97)
however relevant terms are treated with subscript e, except Based on dynamic testing at site, let the observed frequency be
λ which is for full length of pile. ωf. Thus error ε in the theoretical computation can be expressed
as
For G varying as Gz = G ( z / H ) j , where j is a number like 0,1,2
ε = ωc 2 − ω f 2 (109)
etc the stiffness and damping matrix are as expressed hereafter.
For j=1, The error is now set to zero by modification of Ep/G value.
⎡ ⎛ This can be very easily done in an excel solver, when setting ε=0
ψ ⎧ ψ ⎞⎤
⎢ X ⎜⎜1 + − e − 2 β ⎨1 + (1 + β )⎫⎬ ⎟⎟⎥ solution can be easily obtained with constrained boundary
EpI pβ ⎢ ⎝ 2β ⎩ 2β ⎭ ⎠⎥ condition that Sx1>0.0. This will automatically update the Ep/G
kθθ = ⎥ (103)
2 L ⎢⎢ ⎛ 3ψ 1 ⎞ ⎛ ψ ⎞ ⎥
value and other parameters like Sx1 I1, I2 etc and will be the true
+ Y ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ − η ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟ value with which further computation may be proceeded
⎢ β β ⎥
⎣ ⎝ 8 2 ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎦ with[for further details of this method refer Chowdhury and

{ }
⎡ 3Y η ⎤ Dasgupta(2008a)].
cθθ = r0 3 ρG Sθ 2 L ⎢ X 1 − e −2 β (1 + β ) + + ⎥ (104) The suggested value of Sx1 with which to start the iteration, are
⎣ 4 2⎦ further furnished in Table 11.
For j=2 we have
Table-11 Suggestive value of Sx1 for L/r0<=20
⎡ ⎧⎛ ⎞ ⎫ ⎤
⎢ ⎪⎜1 + ψ ⎟ − e −2 β × ⎪ ⎥
⎢ ⎜
⎪⎝ 8β ⎠2 ⎟ ⎥
EpI pβ
⎢ X ⎪⎨ ⎪⎪ Y
kθθ = ⎬ + − η ⎥ (105)
2 L ⎢ ⎪⎛ ψ ⎛ ⎞ ⎞⎪ 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎪⎜1 + ⎜ 2 + − ⎟ ⎟⎪
1 2
⎥
⎢ ⎪⎜⎝ 2 ⎜⎝ β β2 ⎟⎟
⎠ ⎠⎭⎪ ⎥
⎣ ⎩ ⎦
r0 3 ρG Sθ 2 L ⎡ ⎧⎪ 1 ⎛ 1 2 ⎞⎟⎫⎪⎤⎥
cθθ = ⎢X ⎨ − e −2β ⎜ 2 + − ⎬ (106) Having updated I1 and I2 the damping factor for pile can be
4β ⎢ ⎪⎩ 4 β 2 ⎜ β β 2 ⎟⎠⎪⎭⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎦ computed as
The mass moment of inertia for both cases remains same as c xx = r0 ρG S x 2 LI 2
Equation (97) above. Here Sx2 is as defined in Table 8
1 2
2.4.4 C-D Model for short piles (L/r0<=20) translational and
rotational modes Here I1 =
∫ [AV (βξ ) + BV (βξ )]
0
0 1 (110)

No analytical solution exists for short piles till date than the one 1 2
proposed herein Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2008a, 2009).
One of the major reasons that could have discouraged the
researchers around the world to take up this challenge is possibly
And I 2 =
∫ [AV (βξ ) + BV (βξ )] (111)
0
2 3

two folds. Here V0,V1,V2,V3 are Puzerevsky’s function [Karnovsky &

1. Considering short pile is essentially a finite beam on Lebed (2001)], and are expressed as
elastic foundation the displacement function is
u = e − pz (C1 cos pz + C2 sin pz ) V0 ( pz ) = cosh pz cos pz (112)

+ e (C3 cos pz + C4 sin pz )

pz
when handling four
(
V1 ( pz ) = 1 )
2 (cosh pz sin pz + sinh pz cos pz ) ) (113)
boundary conditions makes computation inordinately V2 ( pz ) = sinh pz sin pz (114)
difficult and tedious.
2. In rare cases the theoretical values would match actual
(
V3 ( pz ) = 1 )
2 (cosh pz sin pz − sinh pz cos pz ) ) (115)
field data, as because, considering the diameters of Here, β = pL = 4 GS x1L4 / E p I p , ξ = z / L
these piles are usually large either driving or boring of
these piles will significantly disturb the soil changing 1⎡ V3 ( β ) ⎤ 1 ⎡ V2 ( β ) ⎤
the Ep/G ratio of soil when final stiffness and damping A= ⎢V2 ( β ) − ⎥ ,B= ⎢ − V1 ( β )⎥
∆ ⎢⎣ β 2 ⎥⎦ ∆ ⎢⎣ β 2 ⎥⎦
values will invariably alter from the data furnished
initially in the geotechnical report. Jadi (1999) carried ∆ = V2 2 ( β ) − V1 ( β )V3 ( β )
out full scale tests on the piles and observed that
For rotational mode
computed frequency and observed frequency at field
varied as high as 30 to 40% kθθ = Gr0 2 Sθ 1L[4 I 3 + I 4 ] (116)
Thus theoretical values proposed herein must be backed up by The mass moment of inertia of pile is expressed as
dynamic field test on sample piles to observe the natural
M p r0 2 γ p A p L3
frequency of the pile in field and adjust the Ep/G accordingly. J θθ = I3 + I5 (117)
Considering these piles are relatively short does not pose any 4 g
problem in terms of dynamic testing.
For translation mode
[ ]
k xx = GS x1L[4 I1 + I 2 ] , m xx = γ p A p L g I 2 . (107)
 1 2 dynamic property of soil backfilled, after the pile caps are cast.

∫ [AV (βξ ) + BV (βξ )]

Even if this be known, in future, this soil can well be excavated
I3 = 1 2 (118)
for maintenance of utility lines running close to the foundation
0 (see Figure-3) or laying cables and even new foundations at a
1 2 latter stage, if revamping or extension of the plant is taking

∫ [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]

I4 = (119) place.
Thus, from pure practical consideration, the author opines to
0 ignore this effect (except mass of soil coming on the projected
1 part of the pile cap if any) and keep the embedment issue as a
I 5 = ξ 2 [AV2 (βξ ) + BV3 (βξ )]
∫
0
(120) margin in hand as embedment usually enhances the damping as
well as the stiffness effect. For puritans however, the complete
The integrals I1 to I5 can be easily computed by numerical solution considering embedment effect is furnished in
integration like Simpson 3/8th rule or other standard methods. Chowdhury and Dasgupta (2008).
Ignoring the embedding effect of soil surrounding pile cap,
For rotational case β = pL = 4 GSθ 1L4 / E p I p computing the vertical stiffness of pile, the group stiffness for
It may be noted in this case that as we have already done the piles under a pile cap may be computed by Equation (16) and
correction for Ep/G value for translational mode no further Equation (18).
dynamic test is required. The suggestive values for Sθ1 are as The contributing mass may be calculated as
furnished in Table 12. M c = M pc + M e + M pile (122)
Here, Mc= Contributing Mass, Mpc=Mass of pile cap and soil on
Table-12 Suggestive value of Sθ1 for L/r0<=20 it, Me=Mass of the mounted equipment, Mpile= Mass of pile as
Ep/Gs Sθ1(ν=0.25) Sθ1(ν=0.4) Sθ1(ν=0.5) per equation (65) multiplied by N. Where N= Number of piles in
250 15.563 16.561 17.197 the pile group.
500 21.046 22.468 23.37 Natural frequency in vertical direction is expressed as
1000 27.873 29.86 31.14 ωv = K zzg M c (123)
2500 39.05 42.04 43.98
The damping ratio is expressed as
5000 49.07 53.01 55.58
10000 60.18 65.31 68.60 ζ v = C zzg 2 K zzg M c (124)
In equations (123) and (124) the superscript “g” stands for group
The damping factor is expressed as effect.
cθθ = r0 3 ρG Sθ 2 LI 4 (121) Amplitude of vibration in vertical direction is expressed as
Here Sθ2 is as per Equation (100). P0 K zg
u zz = sin ωmt (125)
2.4.4 Computation of Amplitude of Vibration and (1 − r )2 + (2ζ v r )2
Dynamic Moments and Shears Here P0 =Applied dynamic load from the machine.
For maximum amplitude, sinωmt=1.0, u zz → u0
Dynamic axial force can then be computed from Equation (83).
P0 For coupled translation and rocking mode the dynamic equation
C.L of equipment of equilibrium can be expressed as (refer Figure-3).
M0
Soil Line ⎡ M cx 0 ⎤ ⎧u&&c ⎫ ⎡ C xx g
− C xx
g
Z c ⎤ ⎧u& c ⎫
⎢ ⎥ ⎨ && ⎬ + ⎢ 2 ⎥⎨ & ⎬
⎣⎢ 0 J θ
⎥ ⎩ ⎭ ⎣⎢ xx c
θx ⎦ − C g
Z C g
θθ + C xx Z c ⎦⎥ ⎩ θ ⎭
g
(126)
C ⎡ K xx g
− K xx
g
Z c ⎤ ⎧u c ⎫ ⎧ P0 ⎫
+⎢ 2 ⎥⎨ ⎬ = ⎨ ⎬ sin ω m t
⎢⎣− K xx Z c Kθθ + K xx Z c ⎥⎦ ⎩ θ ⎭ ⎩M 0 ⎭
g g g

Future Zc Couple natural frequency of the pile & pile cap system can be
Pipe obtained from the expression
⎡ K xx
g
− M cxω 2 − K xx
g
Zc ⎤
dpe ⎢ 2⎥
=0 (126a)
⎢⎣ − K xx Z c
g
Kθθ + K xx Z c − J θxω ⎥⎦
g g 2

In equation (126), Mcx is the contributing mass in translation and

Figure-3 Pile cap supported on piles embedded in ground under
harmonic force.
One major controversy that is prevalent with the dynamic
analysis of pile, pile cap plus equipment mounted on it is –
should the embedment effect of soil surrounding the pile cap be
taken or not?
While a number of memoirs concur to this opinion and has
proposed solution based on same, however, as per the author this
is not a prudent practice- especially in industrial plants (the
reader is though at total liberty to disagree with the same).
Firstly, the soil surrounding the pile cap is basically backfilled
soil. In most of the cases no geotechnical test is carried out at
such an advanced phase of construction to establish the in-situ
can be expressed as
M cx = M pc + M e + M pile , where Mpc and Me are already
explained before and Mpile is mass of single pile as per Equation
(87), multiplied by N the number of piles in the group.
Identical expressions are to be derived for mass moment of
inertia Jθx too.
For solution of uc and θ, Equation (126) though looks elegant
becomes inordinately complex to solve as because the damping
matrix [C], plays the spoil sport.
Considering this matrix is radiation type (due to waves
emanating from the pile and dispersing to infinity), unlike
material damping is neither proportional to mass of the pile nor
its stiffness.
For this, the classical modal technique as applied to problems in P ile S tiffn e s s L /r=8 0
structural dynamics does not apply in this case as the matrix does

Pile stiffness(kN/m)
6 .0 0 0 0 E +0 6
not decouple on orthogonal transformation. 5 .0 0 0 0 E +0 6
4 .0 0 0 0 E +0 6
Thus, one has to resort to time history analysis like Wilson-θ, 3 .0 0 0 0 E +0 6
K p ile (b e a ring )

Newmark-β methods etc. Bathe (1980). And this should be the 2 .0 0 0 0 E +0 6

1 .0 0 0 0 E +0 6
N o va k (1 9 7 4 ,b e a ring )
ideal procedure for computation of amplitude for a critical 0 .0 0 0 0 E +0 0
D o b ry a nd
compressor or a gas turbine foundation. However for lesser

0
0

00

00
G a ze ta s (1 9 8 8 )

00
25

50

10

50

10
foundations, like pumps, ID Fan, FD fan foundation etc, time E p /G s
history analysis can be construed as far too expensive. In such
case one can convert the non-classical damping matrix into an
equivalent Rayleigh Damping matrix and modal analysis can Figure-4 Comparison of pile stiffness vertical C-D model
then well be applied Chowdhury (2011).[The paper is available (bearing) versus others.
as a free download at www.researchgate.net.]
The computed value of uc and θ vide equation (126) are at centre
C (vide Figure-3). The amplitude of vibration at pile head is
expressed as
(
u 0 = uC − Z c − d pe θ )
(127)
Here dpe=Depth of pile head embedded inside the pile-cap from
bottom of concrete.
The variation of the displacement and rotation along the depth of
pile is expressed as
⎡ −β z
⎛ βz β z ⎞⎤⎥
u x = u 0 ⎢e L ⎜ cos + η sin ⎟ (128)
⎢ ⎝ L L ⎠⎥ Figure-5: Comparison of pile stiffness vertical C-D Model
⎣ ⎦
(friction) versus others.
⎡ −β
z ⎤
L ⎛⎜ cos βz βz ⎞⎥
θ x = θ ⎢e ⎟ + η sin (129)
⎢ ⎝ L L ⎠⎥
⎣ ⎦
Dynamic moment and shear in the pile is expressed as
⎡ d2 d ⎤
M z = − E p I p ⎢u 0 2 φ ( z ) + θ φ ( z )⎥ (130)
⎣⎢ dz dz ⎦⎥
⎡ d3 d2 ⎤
V z = − E p I p ⎢u 0 3 φ ( z ) + θ 2 φ ( z )⎥ (131)
⎣⎢ dz dz ⎦⎥
z
− 2E p I p β 2 −β βz βz ⎞
Mz = u0 e L ⎛⎜ sin − η cos ⎟
L2 ⎝ L L ⎠
(132) Figure-6 Comparison of pile stiffness lateral C-D Model versus
EpI pβ ⎡ βz βz ⎤ others.
− θ ⎢(η − 1)cos − (η + 1)sin ⎥
L ⎣ L L⎦
And,
z
− 2E p I p β 3 −β
Vz = u0 e L ⎛⎜ (η + 1)cos βz + (η − 1)sin βz ⎞⎟
L3 ⎝ L L ⎠
(133)
2E p I p β ⎛
2
βz βz ⎞
− θ ⎜ sin − η cos ⎟
L2 ⎝ L L ⎠
Reader may note that these moments or shears as per Gazetas or
Novak’s formulations cannot be computed, and this has possibly
compelled designer/code committees to restrict the pile capacity
to 50% of its static load capacity.
Figure-7 Comparison of pile stiffness Rocking mode C-D Model
versus others.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Figures 4 to 7 show that with C-D model when friction transfer
Based on above, the question that arises then is how the stiffness mechanism is adapted, it is in excellent agreement with Gazetas
values compare, based on the three methods discussed? expression for vertical direction. For bearing case, the values are
The study has been done in detail in Chowdhury and Dasgupta slightly higher than friction value of Gazetas which is logical.
(2006, 2008a, 2009). A few sample comparisons are shown In vertical direction, Novak’s value are close to C-D model and
herein for reader’s reference. Gazetas till Ep/Gs value of about 1000, but gives lower value as
the soil gets stiffer. It is apparent that when a general pile with
combined bearing and friction load transfer occurs, C-D model
will give more realistic picture than other methods.
For lateral and rocking case again, C-D model values &
Gazetas’s formulation are in excellent agreement (and so is
Novak). It may be noted that Gazetas model is usually construed
as mathematically more rigorous.
Amplitude comparison is not made herein, simply because C-D
model advocates taking into consideration inertial effect of pile
which the other methods ignore and would certainly make a
difference.
A typical time history response based on C-D model and
equation (126) for a real time compressor foundation
(constructed and in operation in Algeria since 2010) in coupled
mode is shown hereafter.
Figure 7 Time History Response (coupled mode) for a
compressor foundation.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Other than tracing the history of development of pile dynamics
subjected to harmonic load, the paper has discussed in detail the
pros and cons of different state of the art as prevalent in industry.
It is evident that of all the methods presently adapted, Novak’s
formulation is most simple to compute, though limitations as
cited above are quite a few.
Gazetas’s formulation is more rigorous in terms of its derivations
but it is restricted to floating piles only.
In C-D model, though the formulation is more general, the
computation is certainly more involved. Manual computation is
not difficult, but as because of intricacy of the calculations, it
would be preferable that stiffness, damping and inertial
properties are generated by a computer and subsequent
calculations be done. Nevertheless, it bridges a number of
lacunae prevalent with other established methods.
The solution of short pile as per C-D model is possibly proposed
for the first time, and could be of immense benefit to
professional engineers facing this un-researched issue.
The dynamic axial force, bending moment and shear force are
clearly analytical with no simplification or numerical error
inherent, and can be added to the static component to finally
arrive at the design load to be carried by the pile. As such,
restricting the capacity (ad-hoc) to 50 % of its capacity is really
not necessary. The factor of safety (of 50%) can well be
increased to economize on the number of piles.
Finally, a word of caution for practising engineers using this
technology would perhaps not be out of place at this juncture.
Irrespective of the technology adapted, 1) Novak, 2) Gazetas or
3) C-D model, basis of computation of damping for all of them
are waves dissipating from the pile in an infinite elastic half
space, unhindered.
None of them takes into consideration reflection and diffraction
of waves from other piles in a pile group that could significantly
attenuate the overall damping factor. This phenomenon is indeed
difficult to model.
Thus, to be on safe side, under no circumstance does the author
recommends to take a damping ratio more than 20% in real time
design- whatever the theoretical values one may arrive at,
especially when pile centre to centre distance in a pile group
s ≤ 2.5D to 3.0D, unless there is a strong theoretical reason by
which such decision can be justified.
5 REFERENCES
ACI 351.3R-04 (2004), Foundations for Dynamic Equipment.
Special Report by ACI committee #351.
Arya S.C, O’Neil M.W. and Pincus G (1979) Design of
Structures and Foundations for Vibrating Machines, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, USA.
Banerjee P.K. and Sen R (1987), Dynamic behaviour of Axially
and Laterally Loaded Piles and Pile Groups; Chapter 3
Developments of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Vol # 3 Ed. Banerjee P.K & Butterfield R;
Elsevier Applied Science London.
Baranov V.A.(1967), On the calculation of excited Vibration of
an Embedded foundation, Voprosy Dinamiki Prochnocti
#14,Polytechnic Institute Riga;195-209.
Bathe K.J. (1980), Finite Element Procedures; Prentice Hall
Publication New Delhi.
Beredugo Y.O. and Novak M (1972), Vertical Vibration of
embedded footing, Jl. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division ASCE # 98 SM12 1291-1310.
Beredugo Y.O. and Novak M (1972), Coupled Horizontal and
Rocking Vibration of embedded footing, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal; NRCC V9 # 4, 477-497.
Bycroft G.N.(1956) Forced Vibration of a rigid circular plate on
a semi infinite half space on an elastic stratum Philosophical
Transactions Royal Society of London # 248, 327-368.
Chowdhury I and Dasgupta S.P.(2006) Dynamic response of
piles under vertical loads Jl. of Indian Geotechnical Society
Volume 36(2) 115-143.
Chowdhury I and Dasgupta S.P. (2008) Dynamics of Structures
and Foundations – a unified approach Vol. 1&2; Taylor and
Francis; Leiden, Holland.
Chowdhury I and Dasgupta S.P.(2008) Dynamic analysis of
piles under lateral loads Jl. of Indian Geotechnical Society
June 249-277.
Chowdhury I and Dasgupta S.P.(2009) Dynamic analysis of
piles under rocking motion Jl. of Indian Geotechnical Society
Volume 39(4) 360-386.
Chowdhury I (2011) Dynamic response of Machine foundations
considering soil damping and embedment; National Seminar
on Geo-techniques for construction design and performance
of structures. Indian Geotechnical Society, Kolkata, India.
(Available as a free download at www.researchgate.net).
Das B.M. (1993) Principles of Soil Dynamics, Boston
Massachusetts; PWS-Kent Publication USA.
Gazetas G and Dobry R (1988) Simple methods for dynamic
stiffness and damping of floating pile groups; Geotechnique
Vol38 #4 557-574.
Gazetas G(1991) Foundation Vibrations Foundation Engineering
Handbook, Ed. Y Fang, Van Nostrand Reinhold Publication
USA.
Gazetas G, Fan K, Kanyia A and Kausel E (1991) Dynamic
Interaction Factors for floating pile groups Jl. of Soil Mech. &
Found. Div. Proc. ASCE, 117 #10: 1531-1548.
Howell J (1984) Design of deep foundations, Analysis and
Design of Machine Foundations Ed. Moore P.J. Oxford
Publications of India; New Delhi, India.
IS 2974(1998) Code of practice for design and construction of
machine foundations. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
India.
 IS-2911(1997) Code of practice for design and construction of Randolph M and Poulos H.G.(1982) Estimating flexibility of
pile foundations. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, Offshore pile groups. Proc. 2nd International Conference in
India. Numerical Methods in Offshore piling Houston Texas USA.
Jadi H(1999) Prediction of lateral dynamic response of single Saha S (1986) Vertical Vibration of Tapered Piles. Jl. of
pile embedded in clay. PhD Thesis, University of Missouri Geotechnical Engineering Division Proc. ASCE, Vol. 112 #
Rolla USA. 3, 290-30.
Karnovsky I and Lebed O (2001) Formulas for structural Saha S and Ghosh D.P. (1986) Dynamic lateral response of piles
Dynamics; MaçgrawHill Publication NY.USA. in coupled mode. Jl. of Soil and Foundation Engineering
Proc. Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics Vol. 1 # 3, 1-10.
Kausel E and Kaynia A (1982) Dynamic stiffness and seismic
response of pile groups; Research report # R_82 MIT USA. Singh J.P., Donovan N.C., and Jobsis A.C (1977) Design of
Machine Foundations on Piles. Jl. of Geotechnical
Kaynia A. and Kausel E (1982) Dynamic Behaviour of pile
Engineering Division Proc. ASCE, Vol. 123 # GT8, 863-877.
group 2nd International Conference in Numerical Methods in
Offshore piling Houston Texas USA. Terzaghi K and Peck R.B.(1967) Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Practice John Wiley Publication USA.
Lysmer J and Richart F.E,(1966) Dynamic response of footing to
vertical loading. Jl. of Soil Mech. & Found. Div. Proc. ASCE, Timoshenko S (1982) Strength of Materials Vol-2, Van Nostrand
92 # SM7: 65-91. and Reinhold Publication USA.
Maxwell A.A; Fry Z.B and Poplin J.K. (1969), Vibratory Tomlinson M.J (1994) Pile Design and Construction Practice 4th
Loading of pile foundations, ASTM Special technical Edition, Chapman and Hall London UK.
publication # 444, 338-361.
Wolf J.P. and VonArx G.A.(1978). Impedance function of a
Mindilin R.D.(1936) Force at a point in the interior of a semi group of vertical piles. Proc. Speciality Conference on
infinite solid. Physics Vol#7 195-202 Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Pasadena
California USA.
Novak M (1974) Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles
Canadian Geotechnical Journal; NRCC Vol. 11, 574-598
Novak M (1977) Vertical Vibration of Floating piles Jl. of
Engineering Mechanics. Proc. ASCE, 103 # EM1: 153
Novak M and El Sharnouby B (1983) Stiffness and damping
constants for single pile. Jl. of Geotechnical Engineering
Division Proc. ASCE, 109, 961-974.
Parmelee R.A, Penzien J , Scheffey C.F, Seed H.B, and Thiers G
(1964) Seismic effects of structures supported on piles
extending through deep sensitive clay. University of
California, Berkeley; Report # SESM64-2.
Penzien J (1970) Soil Pile foundation Interaction, Earthquake
Engineering Ed. Wiegel, Prentice Hall Publication, New
Jersey USA.
Poulos H (1979) Group Factors for Pile deflection estimation. Jl.
of Geotechnical Engineering Division Proc. ASCE, Vol. 5 #
GT12, 1489-1509.
Poulos H and Davis E.H. (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design, John Wiley Publication, NY, USA.
Prakash S and Agarwal S.L. (1967), Effect of Pile Embedment
on Natural Frequency of Foundation. Proc. South East
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Bangkok Thailand 333-336.
Prakash S and Sharma H.D.(1969) Analysis of Pile Foundations
against Earthquakes, Indian Concrete Journal 205-220.
Prakash S and Agarwal H.P.(1971) Effect of Vibrations on Skin
Friction of Piles. Proc. 4th Asian Regional Conference on Soil
Engineering, Bangkok Thailand.
Prakash S and Chandrashekharan V.(1973) Pile Foundation
Under Lateral Dynamic Loads. Proc. 8th Int. Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow
USSR. 199-203.
Prakash S and Chandrashekharan V.(1980) Free Vibration
Characteristics of Pile. Proc. 9th Int.Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Tokyo Japan.333-
336.
Prakash S and Sharma H.D.(1990) Pile Foundations in
Engineering Practice, Wiley Publication New Delhi India.

View publication stats