SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 40, No. 5, 113-132, Oct.

2000
Japanese Geotechnical Society

SEISMIC EVALUATIONS OF PILE FOUNDATIONS WITH THREE DIFFERENT

METHODS BASED ON THREE-DIMENSIONAL ELASTO-PLASTIC FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS

MAKOTO KIMURAi) and FENG ZHANoii)

ABSTRACT
In this paper, three methods for seismic evaluation, namely, a separated method using a dynamic analysis on a sim-
plified sway-rocking model (S-R model), a responding displacement method, and a dynamic analysis on a full system,
are investigated by conducting a series of static and dynamic three-dimensional elasto-plastic finite element analyses.
At first, the validity of a newly developed finite element analytical code DGPILE-3D, which is used throughout this
paper, is checked through a dynamic model test on a pile foundation. Then, an elevated railway bridge with a pile
foundation is investigated with the separated method and the responding displacement analysis, which are often used
in seismic design, and a three-dimensional elasto-plastic dynamic analysis on a full system. Two types of ground are
considered in order to understand the influence of the soil on the mechanical behaviors of upper structures and pile
foundations. From these analyses, it is possible to understand the difference of the mechanical behaviors of pile foun-
dation predicted by different methods. Based on the results obtained in this paper, fundamental knowledge needed for
developing an applicable and easily conducted seismic design method with three-dimensional finite element analysis, is
achieved.

Key words: dynamic, elasto-plasticity, pile group, responding displacement method, seismic evaluation, separated
method, three-dimensional finite element analysis (IGC: E4)

three-dimensional dynamic effective-stress analysis of a

INTRODUCTION light structure buried in saturated sandy ground. Taji et
After the Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake, the design al. (1997) conducted a large-scale shaking-table test and a
codes for highway and railway bridges were revised to centrifuge model test to investigate the soil-pile-structure
meet the needs of much higher levels of strength for struc- interaction in potentially liquefying sand. Fukutake
tures (Design Codes of Japan Highway Bridge, 1996; De- (1997) conducted a seismic evaluation of a group-pile
sign Codes for Foundations and Earth-Retaining Struc- foundation surrounded by a frame wall using a 3-D non-
tures of Japan Railway, 1997). In the revised railway linear dynamic analysis. Wakai et al. (1997) conducted a
code, a nonlinear dynamic analysis is strongly recom- seismic analysis of a bridge-ground system using a 3-D
mended for the design of bridges. It is commonly known, nonlinear dynamic analysis. Taguchi et al. (1997) con-
however, that the seismic behavior of a bridge is not only ducted a numerical simulation of the soil-foundation in-
related to the upper structure of the bridge, but also to teraction with a 3-D nonlinear dynamic analysis consider-
the foundation of the bridge and to the. ground upon ing subsoil liquefaction.
which the structure is built. It is recommended, there- It is known that in order to simulate the mechanical be-
fore, that a full system, which consists of upper struc- havior of soils under generalized stress condition, a
ture, foundation and ground, be considered in the sophisticated constitutive model is necessary, which
dynamic analysis because of the merit that relatively few often means that the determination of a few parameters
assumptions are adopted. based on laboratory tests and in situ measurements is
Dealing with the full system in a dynamic analysis is needed. For this reason, a three-dimensional nonlinear
usually thought to be difficult when the nonlinearity of dynamic analysis based on a sophisticated model cannot
both the structure and the ground must be considered. A be commonly used in the seismic design of pile founda-
few studies have been done in this field through both ex- tions.
periments and numerical analyses. Matsuda et al. (1994) It is obviously that to describe the general behavior of
performed a shaking table model test and conducted a soils with a four-parameter model is too ambitious. For
i) Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8317.
ii) Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Gifu University, Gifu 501-1193.
Manuscript was received for review on September 16, 1999.
Written discussions on this paper should be submitted before November 1, 2001 to the Japanese Geotechnical Society, Sugayama Bldg. 4F,
Kanda Awaji-cho 2-23, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0063, Japan. Upon request the closing date may be extended one month.

113

This is an Open Access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

NII-Electronic Library Service
114 KIMURA AND ZHANG

Seismic evaluation of group-pile foundation

method Responding displacement method Dynamic analysis on

1. Determining the interaction between pile 1. Calculating the maximum displacement at a full
foundation and ground with equivalent springs ground surface from an earthquake 3-D dynamic FEM is conducted
by static 3-D FEM vibration analysis of ground only directly on a structure-
2. Simplifying a full system to an S-R model 2. Assuming a distribution of the deformation foundation-ground system with
3. Conducting a dynamic analysis on ·the S-R along the vertical direction in ground relatively few simplifications.
model and calculating the maximum forces in 3. Applying the above assumed deformation
the equivalent springs on the ground to evaluate the sectional
4. Using the maximum forces of the springs as forces of piles
external forces, a static 3-D FEM is again
conducted on the pile foundation to calculate
the sectional forces ofthe piles
Comparing the mechanical behavior of upper
structure (pier) and piles
• Dynamic analysis Understanding the difference of the mechanical
on S-Rmodel behaviors predicted by different methods
• Static analysis of
pile group on finite Developing an applicable and easily conducted
element model seismic design method based on 3-D FEM

Verification of the code

through a model test under
....oPiiE~3fi ... ·:
elastic condition
(Murono et al., 1997) •C •si;ti~ ~r
load
··· 3:n· FEM ·;o~·siJ;ri~g ·c;,~ii~ Tri-linear model for :
• piles in monotonous :
2. Elasto-plastic isotropic hardening model for soils : load, considering the :
3. Tri-linear model for piles and pier considering : influence of axial :
the hysteresis ofM-<1> relation :force on M-<P relation :
4. Simulation of pile with hybrid element
~ ••.•...•.....•.... ~

considering pile-volume influence

5. Rayleigh type of attenuation
••6••• J?!r;.e~! !~t~~~~t!~~ ~~f!t~~ .~f.~~~.P:~.k;~••••••••

--••~ Flow chart of research

.................. Type of andalysis
Jill""'"" use
~ ........
......... Features ofthe FEM codes

Fig. 1. Flow chart of research in this paper and brief introduction to DGPILE-3D

this reason, the numerical analyses in this paper are con-
ducted under a total stress condition, which means that a
potentially liquefying ground is beyond the scope of this
paper. For a potentially liquefying ground, a soil-water
coupling analysis is necessary.
Kimura et al. (1991) developed a three-dimensional
finite element analysis program, GPILE-3D (Ground Pile
Interaction of Laterally Loading Effect), in which the
stress-strain relation of the ground is described by an
elasto-plastic model with an associated flow rule of
Drucker-Prager's yielding criteria. Various improve-
ments were later added to the program (Adachi et al.,
1994; Kimura and Zhang, 1997). GPILE-3D is developed
for static analysis and is limited to a monotonous load-
ing. Its main feature is that the nonlinearity of pile is de-
scribed by a tri-linear model, considering the influence of
axial force on the moment-curvature relation. By develop-
ing the three-dimensional static and dynamic finite ele-
ment analytical code DGPILE-3D (Kimura and Zhang,
1999), the authors try to discover whether or not it is pos-
sible and/ or practical to conduct a three-dimensional
nonlinear finite element dynamic analysis on a structure-
foundation-ground system.
The first purpose of the paper, is to provide a relatively
simple numerical method based on three-dimensional
finite element analysis, in which the nonlinearity of a
ground is described with a simple elasto-plastic model
and its four parameters can be determined based on the
N value of standard penetration test (SPT}, without los-
ing too much accuracy of the description for soils.
The second purpose of the paper is to clarify the fea-
tures, the merits and demerits of the three methods
among which the concepts of the separated method and
the responding displacement method are commonly used
in seismic design.
Figure 1 shows a flow chart of the research in this
paper and a brief introduction to the code DGPILE-3D.
Detailed explanation of the figure will be given in the fol-
lowing sections.
NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR OF GROUND AND PILES
Nonlinearity of Ground
It is known that in the case of Drucker-Prager's associ-

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 115

ated flow rule, the plastic potential is the same as the

yielding function. Therefore, the plastic volumetric
strain will always be negative, which means that swelling
will always occur during shearing. The flow rule of the
Drucker-Prager model is

(1)

where jy is the yielding function, fp is the plastic potential

and A is a positive parameter.
The yielding function is expressed as follows:
(2)
- - - ~=0.018
where ]z is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress ········- ~=0.0018 (a=0.018)
tensor and am is the mean stress. In addition, a and Ks are ,.-..
~
0 ~=0.0
material constants which can be determined from cJ>, the '-'

internal frictional angle of the soil, and c, the cohesion of ·§

.l:l 0.8
the soil, as rl)
C,.)
0.6
2 sin cJ> 6c cos cJ>
(3)
"€
-13(3 +sine/>)' Ks .f3(3 +sin cJ>) ' ] 0.4
0
The plastic potential in the theory is expressed as > 0.2
.~
......
fp=(Jz) 112 -3fiam-Ks=O (4) ~ 0_3 0 3
0:: Shear strain (%)
where p is the dilatancy parameter which can be com-
(b) Dilatancy
puted with Eq. (3) by substituting the frictional angle
with dilatant angle p. If P=O, it means no dilatancy. If Fig. 2. Stress-strain and stress-dilatancy relations in hollow cylinder
P=a, it means an associated flow rule. test with Drucker-Prager model (Confining and axial pressures are
In Eq. (3), a and Ks are evaluated based on the condi- kept constant.)
tion that the Drucker-Prager yielding surface coincides
with the Mohr-Coulomb yielding surface in triaxial exten-
sion. In triaxial compression, this may result in an un- and a half cycles of torsional shearing strain while the
derestimation of the strength of soils. Considering the confining and axial stresses are kept constant. It is found
fact that most of the elements around a pile group are that the stress-strain relation remains the same during
not in purely triaxial compression, the way of fitting the each cycle for different P values (fi=O.O, P=0.0018,
Drucker-Prager yielding surface with the Mohr- P=0.018, a=0.018). The plastic volumetric strain in Fig.
Coulomb yielding surface at extension is preferred. 2(b) is different, however, if p takes a different value. The
The loading and unloading conditions are expressed as larger the P value is, the larger the plastic volumetric
strain will be.
jy=O, dfy>O: loading If the simulation is conducted under the same condi-
jy=O, d/y=O: neutral (5) tions but with the volumetric strain restricted to zero, it is
jy=O, d/y<O: unloading. found from Fig. 3 that in the case of the associated flow
rule, the shear strength increases during each loading cy-
The incremental stress-strain relation can then be given cle because of the increase in mean stress. If P=O (non-as-
as sociated flow rule), the shear strength is kept constant.
dau=Dijkt" dekz, In soft clay a positive dilatancy usually does not occur.
In the case of sandy ground, the dilatancy is dependent
afp aJy
e -
D ijqr - -aD emnkl
aUqr on the density of the sand. For loose sand, negative
Umn dilatancy usually occurs. In the seismic evaluation of pile
(6)
a/y aJP foundation, most concern is on soft ground. It is, there-
--D'Jnnqr-
aamn aaqr fore, reasonable to suggest that when a boundary value
problem related to a pile foundation in soft ground is con-
D~jkt=A.~u~kt+ G(~ik~jt+~u~jk),
sidered, the condition that P is equal to or less than zero
Ev E is preferred. For simplicity, the condition of P=O is as-
A. , G (7)
(1 + v)(1- 2v) 2(1 + v) sumed throughout this paper.
Figure 2 shows a theoretical simulation of stress-strain The advantage of the model is that it is very simple and
relation in a hollow cylindrical torsional test on sand. In only four parameters need to be determined. In the de-
the simulation, the cyclic shearing load is applied by two sign stage, 1apanese engineers prefer to determine these
parameters with N, the value of SPT, instead of with

NII-Electronic Library Service

116 KIMURA AND ZHANG

(a) (~=0.018, a=0.018)

0. 6 I""T""ri""T'"T""T""T"'"I..,...,...T""rT"i""T'"T""T""T"'"I""T""T""T""rT"i""T'"T"'T""T""1

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 L..J...I...I...I....L....I...I...J....J...J....J...J...J....L...J;;;L..I.J...I....J...J....J...J...J..J...J....J...J....I..J

-3 -2 -1 0 2 3

_....
t'\S

~
...._,
0.4
U)
0.2 Fig. 4. Possible stress paths on failure line of Drucker-Prager model
U)
(1.)
tl 0
U)

~ -0.2
(1.)
,..d -0.4
r:/)

(c) (~=0.0, a=0.018)

0 .6 r-r-T"T""T""I""T""T'""T""T'""''...,...,....,...,....,........,...I""T""T'""T""T'""''...,...,...,...,....,...,....,

0.4
0.2
0
··········
-0.2
-0.4 Fig. 5. Tri-linear model for piles and pier
-0.6- 3~..U...:.::-L-L-L...L...I:-J...J-j,.~.J..J....y..J-.I...J...J..~....L...1.:!

modified model is called a modified Drucker-Prager

Fig. 3. Stress-strain relation in hollow cylinder test with Drucker- model. It should be kept in mind that the Drucker-Prager
Prager model (Volumetric strain is restricted to zero.) model is an elasto-perfect plastic model and its Young's
modulus is independent of confining stress am.

laboratory tests. In this case, the following empirical for- Nonlinearity of Piles
mulae are recommended (Design Codes for Foundations In GPILE-3D, only monotonous loading is considered
and Earth-Retaining Structures of Japan Railway, 1997): (Adachi et al., 1994). Therefore, the nonlinearity of the
relation between the bending moment and the curvature
c=qu/2=(1/160)N(MPa) for clay (Terzaghi-Peck) (8)
of the pile (M- rf> relation) is simulated by a trilinear
~ )
06
<t>= 1.85 ( , I . +26 ( o) for sand, model in which the influence of axial force on M- rp rela-
av ao+ 0 .7 tion is considered. In DGPILE-3D, however, cyclic load-
ac)=0.1 MPa (9) ings should be considered. In cyclic loading condition, it
is difficult to give a proper description of the influence of
E= 1.4 to 2.8N (MPa) (10)
axial force on the M- rf> relation. For this reason, the
The disadvantage of the model is that when a stress M- rf> relation of pile is simulated here by a kinematic
state reaches the failure line, it will move along the line if hardening trilinear model, taking into consideration the
the stress increment is judged as a loading, as shown in hysteresis of loading and unloading, as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4. In the case of normally consolidated clay under The influence of axial force on M- rp relation, is not con-
drained and undrained conditions, or in the case of sand sidered, as explained in Figure 1. In the M- rp relation,
under a drained condition, however, it is known that the Me, My, and Mu represent the cracking, yielding and ulti-
shear strength of the soil is kept almost constant on the mate moments, while rf>c, rf>y, and rf>u represent the corre-
failure line. For this reason, a simple modification is sponding curvatures. In this paper, these values are deter-
added to the model in such a way that, when a stress state mined under the condition of static axial force.
is at the failure line and its stress increment is judged as a In simulating a pile, the normal way in the finite ele-
loading according to Eq. (5), then an adjustment is made ment analysis is to use a beam element that is known to
to keep the stress state stationary along the failure line by be a non-volume element. In the finite element analysis
setting the Young's modulus in Eq. (7) at a very small of a pile group, the pile-volume influence cannot be ig-
value while Eq. (6) remains valid. In this paper, the nored. If the area and volume of piles are not considered

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION
Hybrid element
Pile
Solid element
(El)solid (EA)solid
Beam element
(El)beam (EA)beam
EI=(EI)solid+(EI)beam
EA=(EA)solid+(EA)beam
Fig. 6. Hybrid element and its mechanism
properly, it is almost impossible to simulate well the inter-
action between the piles and the ground that is heavily de-
pendent on the geometry of the piles. For this reason, a
hybrid element that consists of a beam element and a few
solid elements is introduced to simulate the pile, as
shown in Fig. 6.
The stiffness of the pile is shared by the beam element
and several solid elements in such a way that the bending
stiffness of pile EI is equal to the sum of the bending stiff-
ness of beam element (EI)beam and solid elements (EI)solid·
The sharing ratio between the stiffness of beam element
and the solid should be determined in such a way that the
mechanical behavior of a cantilever beam simulated by a
single beam element and the hybrid element will be the
same. It is found that the higher the sharing ratio is, the
closer the mechanical behavior between a single beam ele-
ment and the hybrid element will be. On the other hand
considering the main purpose of introducing the hybrid
element, the solid elements within the hybrid element
should be 'hard' enough to represent the pile-size
influence. Therefore, the stiffness of the solid elements
should be kept to a certain level. Based on the above dis-
cussion, the sharing ratio between the stiffness of the
beam element and the solid elements is selected as 9 to 1.
If we keep in mind that the stiffness of concrete is in the
order of 104 MPa and the stiffness of soft soil is in the or-
der of 10 MPa, the stiffness of the solid elements within
the hybrid element is stiff enough to represent the pile-
size influence. In the case of a nonlinear M -l/> relation,
the Young's modulus of the beam element is determined
by the kinematic hardening trilinear model shown in Fig.
5 to which the Young's modulus of the solid elements is
linked.
THREE METHODS OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS
FOR PILE FOUNDATIONS
In the following, the three methods of seismic evalua-
tion for pile foundations shown in Fig. 1 are explained in
detail.
117
Separated Method Using a Dynamic Analysis on S-R
Model
There are a few methods for evaluating the equivalent
springs that can represent the interaction between a pile
foundation and a ground. Kimura and Zhang (1997)
proposed a separated method, in which a static elasto-
plastic three-dimensional finite element analysis (GPILE-
3D) is conducted to evaluate the equivalent springs, con-
sidering the nonlinearity of both the ground and the
piles. The stiffness matrix of the 3-dimensional equiva-
lent springs is given in Eq. (11) in which kx, ky, kz, k 8x,
key, kez, represent the springs in six directions. Here kyex
and kxey are associated springs which can be evaluated
along with springs kx and ky respectively.
Hx kx 0 0 0 kxey 0 <5x
Hy 0 ky 0 kyex 0 0 <5y
Hz 0 0 kz 0 0 0 <>z
(11)
Mex 0 kyex 0 kex 0 0 Ox
Mey kxey 0 0 0 kez 0 Oy
Mez 0 0 0 0 0 kez (}z
The feature of the method, which is different from the
usual ways used in the seismic evaluation of pile founda-
tions, is that in calculating these equivalent springs, the
efficiency of a pile group can be properly evaluated in an
arbitrary arrangement because of the capability of
GPILE-3D and DGPILE-3D to take into consideration
such factors as the pile-volume influence, and the non-
linearity of soils and piles. Three-dimensional calculation
needs to be done six times in order to evaluate these
springs. In the calculation, the load can be applied by
either prescribed loads or prescribed displacements. In
the present study, prescribed load is used in the calcula-
tion.
In the separated method, a full system is firstly sim-
plified to an S-R model (a frame-spring model) by
representing the interaction between a ground and a foun-
dation with the equivalent springs. A dynamic analysis is
then conducted only on the S-R model, which is much
easier if compared with the dynamic analysis on a full sys-
tem. From the dynamic analysis on the S-R model, it is
possible to evaluate the maximum forces acting on the
equivalent springs. Finally, using the maximum forces of
the springs obtained from the dynamic analysis, a static
analysis is again conducted on the pile foundation to cal-
culate the sectional forces of the piles. In this method,
the forces of the piles caused by the deformation of the
ground are not considered.
Responding Displacement Method
The responding displacement method is a method in
which the main force of an earthquake is regarded as the
deformation of the ground. In this case, the sectional
forces of piles can be evaluated with a static finite ele-
ment analysis in which a prescribed displacement, usu-
ally evaluated from an earthquake vibration analysis of
the ground only, is applied to the ground. The inertial
NII-Electronic Library Service
118 KIMURA AND ZHANG
force from the upper structure is disregarded. In this
case, the position where a prescribed displacement is ap-
plied may affect the behavior of the pile foundation.
There are two ways in regard to the application of the
prescribed displacement in the responding displacement
method based on FEM. One is that the prescribed dis-
placements in all nodes are firstly transformed to nodal
forces based on an elastic finite element analysis, and
then these nodal forces are applied at all nodes. The
other is that the prescribed displacements are applied di-
rectly in some places, but not at all nodes. Each method
has its advantages and disadvantages. The former has the
advantage of being independent of loading position but
is considered under elastic condition. The latter has the
disadvantage of being dependent on loading position but
is considered under plastic condition. In this paper, the
latter is preferred because everything should be consid-
ered under plastic condition in a major earthquake.
The advantage of the first two methods is that finite ele-
ment analyses related to a ground can be conducted un-
der static condition, which is relatively easy and can save
a lot of calculating time. The disadvantages of the
methods are that, (1) the dynamic interaction between a
pile foundation and a ground is evaluated statically and
(2) it is very difficult to evaluate the phase difference be-
tween the inertial force from an upper structure and the
deformation of a ground during an earthquake. Murano
et al. (1997) discussed the phase difference experimentally
under elastic condition. As a matter of fact, if the stress-
strain relation of soils exceeds elastic region, it is almost
impossible to evaluate the phase difference without con-
ducting a dynamic analysis. Therefore, dynamic analysis
Plane view
(a) Overall view of ground, pile foundation, upper
structure and the layout of measurement
Fig. 7. Dynamic model test on structure-foundation-ground system (Murono et al., 1997)
of a full system is badly needed to understand the dynam-
ic interaction between a ground and a pile foundation.
The advantage of the dynamic analysis of a full system
based on three-dimensional FEM over the first two
methods is out of question. The problems are, (1) how to
properly evaluate the nonlinear behavior of the ground
and the structure, which may greatly affect the mechani-
cal behavior of the pile foundation subjected to cyclic
lateral loading up to the ultimate state; (2) how to make
it easy and applicable to conduct the dynamic analysis on
a full system in the seismic evaluation of a pile founda-
tion for highway and railway bridges.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF A DYNAMIC
MODEL TEST ON A FULL SYSTEM
Murano et al. (1997) conducted a dynamic model test
on a structure-foundation-ground system to investigate
the seismic behavior of group-pile foundation. The
material of the model ground is silicon gum, and the
material of both the piles and the pier is teflon. Figure 7
shows the overall view of the model ground, the pier, the
pile foundation and the layout of the measurement. Ta-
ble 1 shows the parameters of the model ground and the
structures. The pile foundation consists of four piles,
51.5 em in length and 2 em in diameter. The pier also con-
sists of four individual thin rectangular bars that are
fixed together at the top and the bottom. The eigen
periods of the model ground and upper structure, ob-
tained from the model test, are 0.192 and 0.101 seconds,
respectively. In the test, acceleration meters were buried
in different layers of the model ground, as shown in Fig.
(b) Sectional views of upper structure
and pile foundation
NII-Electronic Library Service
 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 119

Table 1. Parameters of model ground and structures Figure 10 shows a comparison of the responding ac-
celerations, obtained from the numerical analysis and the
Moment of
Material
E
inertial
Area Height Density Poisson's model test, at the points where the acceleration meters
(MPa) 4 (cm2) (em) (g/cm3) ratio are installed, as shown in Fig. 7. It is clear that the maxi-
(cm )
mum accelerations as well as the shapes of the wave are
ground silicon 0.3525 - - 51.5 1.0 0.49
almost the same for the numerical analysis and the test.
pile teflon 578.43 0.7854 3.142 51.5 2.26 0.20 This phenomenon can also be verified from Fig. 11, in
pier teflon 578.43 1.333 4.000 13.6 2.26 0.20 which a comparison of the responding acceleration spec-
trum obtained from the numerical analysis and the test is
given. Except in the area in which the period is less than
0.3 seconds and the numerical results are a little larger
than the test results, the two spectrums are the same. The
accuracy of the numerical analysis is proven to be rather
high.

J_::J::: :
-2000 5 10 15 20
Figure 12 shows a comparison of the transfer function
in the surface of the ground and at the top of the pier ob-
tained from the numerical analysis and the test. In the sur-
Time (sec) face of the ground, the calculated resonance frequency
agrees well with the tested response, while the calculated
Fig. 8. Input wave
transfer function is a little larger than the tested one. At
the top of the pier, there are two resonance frequencies.
One is inherent from the ground and the other is from
the upper structure. The calculated transfer functions are
larger than the tested ones in a lower frequency area but
smaller than the tested ones in a higher frequency area.
The calculated transfer function decreases to zero in a
very high frequency area. From the above discussion,
however, it can be concluded that DGPILE-3D can simu-
late the mechanical behavior of the structure-founda-
tion-ground system well in a dynamic test.
Node: 1540
Element: 1152

SEISMIC EVALUATIONS OF A PILE

Fig. 9. Finite element mesh used for simulation of dynamic model test
7. The input wave, with a maximum acceleration of
amax= 114 gal, is shown in Fig. 8. As the model ground
and the structure are made of typical elastic materials,
the mechanical behavior of the model ground and the
structure were observed to be elastic in the dynamic
model test.
A three-dimensional dynamic analysis is conducted in
this paper to simulate the model test, by which the validi-
ty of the code DGPILE-3D can be confirmed. Figure 9
shows the finite element mesh used for the simulation of
the dynamic model test. Because of the symmetric condi-
tion of the geometry and the load, only half of the
domain is taken under consideration. The boundary con-
ditions are the same as the model test, that is, free at the
two sides whose normal direction is parallel to x-axis, slid-
ing at the two sides whose normal direction is parallel to
y-axis and fixed at the bottom. The mesh consists of 1540
nodes and 1152 8-node isoparametric solid elements. In
the dynamic analysis, a Rayleigh type of attenuation is
adopted and the attenuation constants of the ground, the
piles and the pier are assumed as 5%. The direct integra-
tion method of Newmark-P is used in the dynamic analy-
sis and the time interval is 0.01 seconds.
FOUNDATION
An elevated railway bridge with a group-pile founda-
tion is considered in a seismic evaluation. The bridge,
which is designed for a common light-rail transportation
system in urban area is supported by a group-pile founda-
tion made of 2 x 2 cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles,
1.2 meters in diameter (D) and 20 meters in length, as
shown in Fig. 13. The distance between the centers of the
two piles is 2.5D, that is, 3 meters. For simplicity, the
round-shaped piles are simulated with square-shaped ele-
ments in the finite element analyses, making sure that the
bending stiffness EI of the representative hybrid element
is equal to the original one. Figure 13 also shows the
finite element mesh that consists of 2680 nodes and 2200
8-node isoparametric solid elements, with slide bounda-
ries on the side surfaces and fixed boundaries at the bot-
tom.
Two types of ground, shown in Fig. 14, are considered
in order to investigate the influence of the ground materi-
als. The two grounds are each composed of three layers.
The first two layers are alluvial and the third layer is
diluvial. The pile group is laid on this third layer. The
thicknesses of the first two layers are 4 and 16m, respec-
tively. In Ground 1, the 1st layer is silt clay and the 2nd
layer is sand. In Ground 2, the 1st layer is sand and the
2nd layer is a very soft clay. The bottom layers of the two

NII-Electronic Library Service

120 KIMURA AND ZHANG

40
20

-20
-40
20
10

-10

-20
20
10

,.-...
~-10
OJ) 1-100
'-' '-'

§ -20 § -200
·-g 20 ·~ 20
t Q)
a)
] 10 C) 10
~
C)
<r;

-10 -10

-20
20
10

-10
-20
20

Time (sec)
(a) Calculation (b) Experiment

Fig. 10. Comparison of responded acceleration obtained from calculation and experiment

grounds are the same. They are supposed to be an elastic
material in the numerical analyses. For simplicity, the
material properties of the grounds are determined in such
a way that an average value is assumed for each soil lay-
er, as shown in Table 2. In determining the parameters c
and¢, Equations 8 and 9 are usually used. In the case of
Ground 2 where a soft clay layer with theN value of 2 dis-
tributes from -4 m to -20m, however, the value of c
determined from Eq. (8) would be so small that the soil
would fail at the k 0 condition. Considering the empirical
relation CuI p' for soft clay, the average value of the layer
is assumed as 0.044 MPa for the whole layer. Similarly,
an average value of ¢ in the second layer of Ground 1 is
assumed. The material properties of the piles and the pier

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 121

experiment
- - - calculation

..-15
Q

~10
10
~ 5

Period (sec)
5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (Hz)
(a) Ground surface

1
Period (sec)

5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (Hz)
Period (sec)
(b) Top of pier

Fig. 11. Comparison of responded acceleration spectrum obtained Fig. 12. Comparison of transfer function obtained from experiment
from experiment and calculation and calculation

Upper structure
(m=300 ton) Pier (H=7 m)

1st layer

2nd layer

3rd layer

(a) A full system of structure-foundation-ground Node: 2680

Element: 2200

(b) Footing

Fig. 13. Geometry of toll bridge with group-pile foundation investigated in seismic evaluation

NII-Electronic Library Service

122 KIMURA AND ZHANG

-~- load-displacement curve

"¢
s Silty clay
N=8
s
"¢ Isand
N=8
- - o - - equivalent spring

Clay
s s
~""g 10
Sand N=2
\0
....... N=20 ~

0
N=50 .....:l
s N=50
.......
elastic s
......., el~tic
"'
......
t
"'' -- t
'
20 40
(a) Ground 1 (b) Ground 2 Displacement (em)

Fig. 14. Geologic profiles of model grounds

(b) Ground 2
Table 2. Material properties of grounds p

Layer
Thickness
Soil
Density
N
E
v
c cf>
~ 10
""g
y3

(m) (g/ cm3 ) (MPa) (MPa) (0) 0

.....:l
Ground 1 4 silty 1.60 8 20.0 0.40 0.044 4
clay
1 2 16 sand 1.80 20 50.0 0.33 0.0 30 20 40 60
Displacement (em)
3 1 elastic 2.00 50 100.0 0.30 - -

Ground 1 4 sand 1.80 8 20.0 0.33 0.0 30 Fig. 15. Load-displacement curve and skeleton curve of horizontal
equivalent springs (kx)
2 2 16 clay 1.60 2 5.0 0.40 0.044 4
3 1 elastic 2.00 50 100.0 0.30 - -
Table 5. Nonlinear properties of equivalent horizontal springs
(kx=ky)
Table 3. Material properties of concrete and reinforcement
Py 1 (MN) Py2 (MN) Py3 (MN) r5y 1 (em) r5y2 (em) r5y3 (em)
Strength of Strength of Ground 1 10.4 12.8 16.4 3.93 9.54 58.1
Reinforcement
concrete reinforcement
Ground 2 10.0 16.0 20.0 2.49 5.02 53.8
Pile 24.0 (MPa) 300.0 (MPa) D29-24

Pier 24.0 (MPa) 400.0 (MPa) D35-44

Table 6. Values of elastic equivalent springs
Young's modulus of concrete=2.5 x 104 (MPa)
kz kox key
(MN*m/m) (MN*m/rad) (MN*m/rad)
Table 4. Nonlinear parameters of pier and piles
Ground 1 1724.1 9857.6 9857.6
Me My Mu
C/Jc (1/m) C/JY (1/m) cpu (1/m) Ground 2 1052.6 5521.5 5521.5
(kN*m) (kN*m) (kN*m)

Pile 702.2 1591.0 2230.2 0.000276 0.00233 0.0110

Pier 2591.0 8799.0 11867.0 0.000201 0.00189
are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The initial stress condition
of the grounds is assumed to be a gravitational stress field
without the existence of piles.
Evaluation with Separated Method
Figure 15 shows the horizontal load-displacement rela-
tions of the group-pile foundation under conditions
where the bending moment acting on the footing is zero
and only the load along the x-direction is applied. Be-
cause the influence of the associated springs kxoy and kyox
is not important in this case, their values are assumed to
be zero. The boundary condition of the piles in the calcu-
0.00629 lation is that the head of the pile is fixed with the footing
and the toe of the pile is free. It is clear from this figure
that the interaction between the group-pile foundation
and the ground shows a nonlinear behavior. It is also
found that there is a strong hysteresis in the load-displace-
ment relation. Therefore, a trilinear model that considers
the hysteresis is assumed for the horizontal equivalent
spring in which the skeleton curve is taken as the load-dis-
placement relation in the loading process, as shown in
Fig. 15. Table 5 shows kx, the stiffness of the horizontal
equivalent springs in the case of Ground 1 and Ground 2.
In Fig. 15 and Table 5, Pyt, Pyz, Py3, ~yt, ~y2 and ~y3,
represent the values of the force and the displacements at
three points of the tri-linear skeleton curve, that is, the
first yielding point, the second yielding point and the ulti-

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 123

mate point.
Because of the symmetric condition, the horizontal
equivalent springs kx and ky are the same. The rotational
equivalent springs kox and koy are also the same. The tor-
sional spring koz is not considered here because of the
symmetric condition. The other springs except the
horizontal springs behave elastically and their values are
listed in Table 6.
In seismic engineering design, when a dynamic analysis
is conducted on an S-R model, the input earthquake
wave should be a surface wave. However, in the case of a
full system, the input earthquake wave is a base wave,
which is applied at the boundary between the surface-lay-
er ground and the base ground. In this paper, the same
way is used. That is, the surface wave is calculated from
the earthquake vibration analysis of the ground in which
the input base wave is the same as the wave used in the
analysis on a full system. Therefore it is possible to com-
pare the results obtained from different methods in the
same condition.
Based on the above discussion and the values of the
equivalent springs, a dynamic analysis on the simplified
S-R model is conducted. At first, an earthquake vibra-
tion analysis of the ground is conducted to calculate the
surface wave. A direct integration method of Newmark-P
is adopted and the finite element mesh for the ground is
soo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ lated results will be shown later in order to compare them
!:9 400
1::
0
·~ 0 6-Jv.WW~/MIPIUAIIT '\1\A,i/U
~ Evaluation with Responding Displacement Method
8 -400
(..)
<_goo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 5
Time (sec)
Fig. 16.
the same as that shown in Fig. 13. Here, an equal-dis-
placement-boundary condition is used between the two
side boundaries whose normal direction is parallel to the
x-axis to simulate the infinite boundary in real situation.
In this case, the group-pile foundation and the upper
structure are not included in the mesh. Figure 16 shows
the input earthquake wave used in the analysis, which is
an artificial earthquake wave specified for the seismic de-
sign of railway bridges in Japan. It has a maximum ac-
celeration of 722 gal in a horizontal direction. In the anal-
ysis, the attenuation constant of the ground is assumed
as 10%. Figure 17 shows the surface waves obtained
from the analysis of the two grounds. It is clear that the
maximum surface acceleration of Ground 1 is much
larger than that of Ground 2, while the maximum dis-
placement of Ground 1 is much smaller than that of
Ground 2.
A dynamic analysis on an S-R model can then be done
under the conditions that the attenuation constants of
the ground and the equivalent springs are 5% and 10%,
respectively. The time interval of the integration in the dy-
namic analysis is 0.01 sec. Figure 18 shows the time
responses and the maximum forces acting on the horizon-
tal spring (/max) and the rotating spring (Mmax). Using the
maximum forces obtained from the above analyses as the
external forces, it is possible to calculate the sectional
forces of the piles with a three-dimensional elasto-plastic
finite element analysis on the pile foundation. The calcu-
with the results obtained from other methods.
In the separated method, the earthquake force is not
sufficient because it does not consider the influence of the
10 15 deformation of the ground in which a pile foundation is
buried during an earthquake. Here, a responding dis-
Input wave placement analysis is conducted with DGPILE-3D. The

,....._ a = -669 gal (t=9.21sec) ,....._ d =-27.7cm (time=8.81sec)

1 800 .,.,...,..,....,."'T"T..,....,.."'""T"'1r-T""T-Tm~ax~"'""T"'1r-T""T"'T"T..,....,..'T""'I"""T""'""'T""''""'T'..,...,..'T""'I"""~'""'~""~ ~ 50 .,.,...,r-T""T"'T"T-r-r-"'""T"'1~-rm""T"ax-r-r-,...,...,,...,..-r"TT-r-r-T"T"r-r-r"TTi"''T"T"r-r-:1
~ 400 "S 25
0 ~
·.g
~
0 s
~
0
C) -400 Jg -25
<u
-800
0 5 10 15
Ground 1
~
&;o.l..,j,.J....I..I....l...J...J....I..............I....I...i............l.-j,j.....I....J.....J..,j,.,.....I....J.....J..,j,.,.....I....J.....I.-j,j............

20
o..
.~ -50
° ....~.-~...I,....L...oi............
I;;;,J,j,.................

0 5
Ground 1
""-"-J...........I....I...I.......................l...l...lo.....................l.-l.................

10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
252 1 ( 5 86 ) d = 42.2 em (time=8.36sec)
i 800~~~~~~am~ax~=~-~~g~a~t~=~·~se~c~~ ~ 50~~~~~~m~ax~~~~~~~~~~
§ 400 "S 25
·~ 0 ~ 0
C) -400 ~ -25
u Ground 2 o.. Ground 2
....._._.~..~....~...~............~....~...~...........~ .~ -5o~~~~~.....l....l...~~~~~wu~~~~
<-80oi;;;,J,J,..........
0
l...l...lo.J....I..I....l...J...J....I................._._...........

5 10
Time (sec)
15 20 ° 0 5 10
Time (sec)
15 20

(a) Acceleration (b) Displacement

Fig. 17. Responses of acceleration and displacement at ground surface

NII-Electronic Library Service

124 KIMURA AND ZHANG

S 15 r="T""T"~""T'""r-T"'T'"M,....,-lfl'¥-=I"'T1"'T'"4"r"T.9-rr2..,-MNrT'-r-T""T*m.. ,--r""lt(r-1'"=..,_.9.I"'T37"'T'"s"r"Tec_,. ).,. .)r-T"'::

~~
0
Q)

s
~-15 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
f =1.56 MN (t=5.92sec))
3 ~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s 15 M =7.801 MN*m (t=5.95sec))
r:-r-r-r-r-r-r-T""T""T-r-r'-'+"1'-T""T""T-r-T"'"T'""T""T""T"""""'1"""T"'"T'""'r.,...,....,""'1"""T"'"T'""'r"T""T"""1....,....;'::1

~0
Q) ~ 0
~ ~
0
~ s
~ -15 o~.J...J....J....J....J.....L...J.....J-I....I...I...J...J....J....J....J.....L1~o~..J......I...JL-I-I...~~~-I.....I...:l
5 10 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) Forces of horizontal springs (b) Moments of rotating springs
Fig. 18. Responses of spring forces

Moment (MN*m)
o~.n"n~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 5

--o.6m
-cr-I.9m
gw --o.6m
~~~~~~----t -cr-I.9m
5 ..9m
--¢----
0 15 5.9m
--¢----

20 20

-2 0 2 -2 0 2 4
(a) Ground 1 (b) Ground2

Fig. 19. Distribution of moments of pile obtained from responding displacement method

deformation of the ground along a vertical direction is as-
sumed to be a cosine distribution, while the maximum dis-
placement at the ground surface is 27.7 em in the case of
Ground 1 and 42.2 em in the case of Ground 2, which is
evaluated from the dynamic analysis on a ground as
shown in Fig. 17. A prescribed plane-distributed displace-
ment is applied in the x-direction, at two vertical planes
away from each side of the footing. The distance from
the edge of the footing to the center of a pile is 1.2 m.
The inertial force that comes from the upper structure
during an earthquake is not considered in the analysis.
The heads of the piles are fixed in the calculation.
The influence of the distance from the point at which
the prescribed displacement is applied to the footing in
the responding displacement method is investigated, giv-
ing consideration to three cases with different distances
(S) of 0.6 m, 1.9 m, and 5.9 m.
Figure 19 shows a comparison of the distribution of
the moments by the responding displacement method at
different loading distances. In the case of Ground 1, the
distribution of the moments does not change too much
due to the difference in loading distance. Because
Ground 1 is relatively stiff compared to Ground 2, it is
easy to transfer the load to the pile foundation even if the
load is applied at a great distance. In the case of Ground
2, however, the distribution of the moments shows a big
difference with various loading distances. The larger the
loading distance is, the smaller the bending moment will
be. In soft ground, therefore, it is somewhat difficult to
choose a suitable loading distance for the responding dis-
placement method. Much attention should be paid to the
proper choice of a loading distance.
Figure 20 shows the distributions of displacements in x
direction. It is clear from the figure that in the case of
Ground 1, a sliding surface exists in the ground due to
the failure of the surface-layer ground. In the case of

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION
(a)-2 S=1.9 m
(a) Ground 1
Fig. 20. Horizontal displacement (em) of grounds obtained from responding displacement method (Given displacements are applied from left to
right.)
Ground 2, the displacement is evenly distributed.
Dynamic Analysis on a Full System
In this paper, a Rayleigh type of attenuation is adopt-
ed and the attenuation constants of the structures and the
ground are assumed as 5% and 10%, respectively, in the
dynamic analysis of a full system. It is known that the
value of attenuation that is very difficult to be evaluated
for a full system may greatly affect an elastic dynamic
response. In the plastic region, however, the hysteretic at-
tenuation from the elasto-plastic behaviors of soils and
piles may become a dominant factor. In engineering de-
sign, the hysteretic attenuation is usually equalized to an
equivalent viscous attenuation, by taking a large value of
attenuation for strong elasto-plastic materials. For exam-
ple, the value of attenuation for soft clay under a strong
earthquake movement may take a value of 20%. There-
fore, the value of attenuation assumed here is not deter-
mined by a strict analysis and is only an empirical one.
Although the stiffness of the ground, the piles, and the
pier may change because of the nonlinearity of these
materials, the viscous matrix calculated from the Ray-
leigh type of attenuation is assumed to be constant in
spite of the changes in the stiffness matrix. In order to cal-
culate the viscous matrix, an eigenvalue analysis for the
full system is conducted to evaluate the first two eigen-
values. The eigenvalue analysis shows that the first two ei-
125
(b)-1 S=0.6 m
(b )-3 S=5 .9 m
(b) Ground 2
gen periods in the case of Ground 1 are 0.856 and 0.807
sec., respectively, and 2.524 and 1.965 sec. in the case of
Ground 2. The eigenvalue analysis is conducted with a
hybrid of Jacobian and subspace methods. In the earth-
quake vibration analysis, a direct integration method of
Newmark-P, the same method as is used in the S-R
model, is adopted and the time interval of the integration
is 0.01 sec.
Figures 21 and 22 show the hysteresis of the stress-
strain relation (a zx- ezx) at different positions for Ground
1 and Ground 2. In Ground 1, the stress-strain relations
of elements e1 - e9 behave elasto-plastically and a big hys-
teresis loop exists in the stress-strain relation. The stress-
strain relations in the surface-layer ground behave elasti-
cally. In Ground 2, however, the stress-strain relation is
quite different from the relations in Ground 1. Except for
element e1, in which a big hysteresis loop exists in the
stress-strain relation, the stress-strain relations of the
ground behave elastically. This phenomenon implies that
if the bottom-layer ground fails during an earthquake,
the vibration wave will not transfer to the upper layers,
on the condition that the shear strength of the ground
along the vertical direction is the same. The failed soil lay-
er looks like a shelter for preventing the strong waves
from reaching the surface. The displacement on the
ground surface, however, may be very large.
Figures 23 and 24 show the hysteresis of the moment-
NII-Electronic Library Service
126 KIMURA AND ZHANG

~ ~ ~
~100 ~100 ~100

II!
b~ b~ b~
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
~ ~ ~
~100 ~-100 ~-100
] ] ]
C/) C/) C/)

-200 ~............................................................
J;;I..I.I...I.J,..J..I..J...I..I..I....I..I..I.,j............ -200 C..U...L.L.U..I..I..J...L.U..U..I...I-I..J............U..U..J....I..U.J..U..I..J...I..I..I....J;;J -200 ~.I.J,..J..I.~~ ~.L.L.U.~~~~
............

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04

Shear strain E Shear strain Ezx Shear strain E
200 zx 200 ..,...,..,..,...,.....,...,...,....,...,.....,...,...,....,...,.....,...,...,....,...,.....r-rT"r.,...,.....r-rT"r'"1"'1 200..,...,..,..,...,.....~.,...,.....~.,...,.....~~zx~.,...,.....~~
~ ~ ~
~100 ~100 ~100
b~ b~ b~
~ 0 / ~ 0 00 0
~ ~ ~
~-100 ~100 ~-100
~ ] ]
v• C/) C/)
-200 t:U.J...u..l..u.J..L..L.J....U..J..J...I..I..l..L.L..u..l..u.J..L..L.J....U...u..J..l..J..I.,.I;;I -200 tl...U..W..U...J....L.L.L..L.J..J.~~~~.L..L.J..J...u..I..L..U..J:I -200 t:U.J...u..l..u.J..L..L.J....U..I..U.I..l..L.L..u..l..u.J..L..L.J....U...u..J..~
-0~04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Shear strain E Shear strain E Shear strain E
200..,...,..,..,...,.....~.,...,.....r-rT"r.,...,.....~.,...,.....zx~.,...,.....~~ 200..,...,..,..,...,.....r-rT"r.,...,.....~.,...,.....~.,...,.....zxr-rT"r.,...,.....~~ 200..,...,..,..,...,.....r-rT"r.,...,.....~.,...,.....~~~.,...,.....~~

Shear strain E Shear strain E

zx
200~.,...,.....r-rT"r"T"TTr-rT"r"T"TTr-rT"r"T"TTzxr-rT"r.,...,.....r-rT"r~
~ ~
~100 ~100
b~ b~
~ 0 / ~ 0
~ ~
~100 ~100
63 ~
-200 tl.J.J...L...U.Ju..J...L...L.J,...U..J..J...I..I..l..L.L..L...U.Ju..J...L...L.J,...U...u..J..L..J..J..J;;J -200 t:U.J.~L.,U...!...L.J....U...u..J..I..l..L.L~.........................u..J..J....I..I....I;
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Shear strain E Shear strain E
200~~~~~rrrr~~~~~ 200 p;;-rrrrT"TjTrn-r;ry::r~:t:t::C:~TTTT"1'"'TTtl

-0.02 0 0.02 0.04

Shear strain E
zx
Fig. 21. Hysteresis of stress-strain relation at different position in ground (Ground 1)

curvature relations at different positions of the piles in important role in the moment-curvature relation of piles.
Ground 1 and Ground 2. The difference of M- cp rela- Figure 25 shows the deformation patterns of the
tions at various positions in the ground is not as large as grounds calculated from the dynamic analyses on the full
the stress-strain relations shown in Figures 21 and 22. system. In the case of Ground 1, there is a clear rocking
This implies that the deformation of the ground and not phenomenon in the ground around the pile foundation.
the vibration (usually referred to as acceleration) plays an The vertical displacement of the ground on two sides of

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 127

"2' "2' "2'

~ 50 ~ 50 ~ 50
b~ b~ b~
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
~ ~ ~
ta -50 ta -50 ta -50
~ ~ ~
-1 00 t:I..U.J..U..I..U...U,J.J..I...L.J..U..I..I...I..J.J..I..U.J..U..I...I...L.I..JL.J..U..I..,I;;l -1 00 t:I..U.J..U..I..U...U,J.J..I...L.J..U..I..I...I..J.J..I..U.J..U..I..U...UL.J..U..I..,I;;l -1 00 t:I..U.J..U..I...I...L.I..JL.J..U..I..I...I..J.J..I..U...U...U...I...L.I..JL.J..U..I..I...I..J.J..,J;J
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Shear strain 8 Shear strain 8 Shear strain 8
100,..,.,..,rT"''"T''T"'!"M"'!"T"T"'T"''"MrT"''"T''!"'!"T"'~zx~T'T'n'!"'!"T"'~ 100 zx 100 ,..,.,..,"'!"T"T"T"n"l"' "T"T"'T"'!"MrT'T"T''!"'!"T"'T'T'ZXT"n"l"'!"T"T"'T"'!"M"TT't::
"2' "2' "2'
~ 50 ~ 50 ~50
b~ b~ bt:l
~ o 1 ~ o ~ 0
~ ~ ~
ta -50 ta -50 ta -50
~ ~ ]
00
-100 t:I..U...J...I...WL..U.J.J.J.J...I..J..J.J..J..J.J..L..I..I.J..U..U.J..U.J~.l..J..W;J -100 t;U,.J,..j,J,J.,U...U..L.U.J...u..J...U..U..j,J,J.,U...U..L.U.J..I..U.~ -1 00 !;l..I,J...I..J..l.JU...U..L.U.J..I..U..U...U..I..U..U..U..I..J..l.JU..U..............
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.12 -0.06 0 0.06 0.12
Shear strain 8 Shear strain 8 Shear strain 8
100 zx 100 ...,..,...,."''T' '",..,..,..,...,...,..,..,..,..,..,."''T' '",..,..,..,...,...,..,..zx,..,..,..,...,...,..,..,..,..,.,."t:'J zx
"2' "2'
~ 50 ~50
b~ b~
~ o 1 ~ o
~ ~
ta -50 ta -50
] ~
00 00
-1 00 C..U.J..U..I..U...UL.J..U..L.J..U...I..J..I..I...I...U..L..U...UL.J..U..I..I...I..J.,u;j -1 00 t;U,.J,..I.J..L.I..J..j,J,JL.J..U..I..I...I..J.J..I..U.J..I..U...U..U..Io..U..L.J..U.......
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Shear strain 8 Shear strain 8
100 100 IT'T"l''T"T'T'T..,..,.,..,"''"T'T"M"M",.,..,...,.T"'"T'1'~..,..,.,..,"'1"T'T"~
"2' "2'
~50 ~ 50
b~ bt:l
~ 0 ~ 0
~ ~
ta -50 ta -50
] ]
00 00
-100 tl..I....L..J...i...WU..U.J.J.J...I..J..J.J..J..J.J..L..j,J,J.,U..U...I..I.J..~.l..J..W;J -100 t;U..J...j,J,J.,U...U..U...U.,J..J,J,..U..U..I..J..l.JU..U..U...U.,J..J,J,.~
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Shear strain 8 Shear strain 8
zx zx

Fig. 22. Hysteresis of stress-strain relation at different position in ground (Ground 2)

the footing is in up and down directions, while the failure in the ground near the pile foundation. The
horizontal displacement is not disturbed very much. In horizontal displacement, however, is not disturbed very
the case of Ground 2, a rather complicated distribution much either, being similar to the case of Ground 1. It is
of vertical displacement is observed in the ground around also found that the disturbed area in which the displace-
the pile foundation, showing that a vigorous change in ment changes vigorously is restricted only to the vicinity
vertical displacement occurs, which may be caused by a of the pile foundation.

NII-Electronic Library Service

128 KIMURA AND ZHANG

s*
~
'--'
EQ)
2

0
[!
-..
*
~
s

E
Q)
2

0
s*
~
'--'
E
4

2
0
b30
s
0
-1 s
0
-1
Q)

s
0
-2
::;s ::;s ::;s
-2 -2 -4
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -6
Curvature (10-3/m) Curvature (10-3/m)

2 2 2
-..
s* s s*
[l1J
*
~ 0 ~
'--' 0 ~
'--' 0
i:l
Q)
EQ) E
s
0
-1 s
0
-1 Q)

s
0
-1
::;s ::;s ::;s
-2
-2 -1 0 1
3
2 -3 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Curvature (10- /m) Curvature (10-3/m)

2 2 2
-.. -..
s s* s

tt?
* *
~ ~ ~
'--'
EQ)

s
0
-1
0 '--'
i:l
Q)

s
0
0

-1
'--'
EQ)

s
0
0

-1
I
::;s ::;s ::;s
-2 -2
-3 -2 -1 0 1
3
2 -3 -2 -1 0 J 2 3
Curvature (10- /m) Curvature (10- /m)
2 2
-.. -.. b5
s s

[ll!l
* *
~
'--' 0 ~
'--' 0
E E
Q)

s
0
-1 s
0
-1
::;s ::;s
-2 -1 0 1 2
3
Curvature (10- /m)
2 2
-..
s
* *
s
~
'--' 0 ~
'--' 0
EQ)
i:l
Q)

s
0
-1 s
0
-1
::;s ::;s
-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
3
Curvature (10- /m)

Fig. 23. Hysteresis of moment-curvature relation at different position of pile (Ground 1)

Comparison of the Mechanical Behaviors of the Upper
Structure and the Piles with Different Methods
Comparisons of the results obtained from three differ-
ent methods are made to understand the characteristics
of these methods in the seismic evaluation of a pile foun-
dation. Figure 26 shows a comparison of the hysteresis of
the M- l/J relation at the bottom of the pier obtained
from the dynamic analyses on the S-R model and the full
system. It is found that the maximum moment and the
hysteresis of the M -l/J relation are quite similar to each
other in both grounds.
Figure 27 shows a comparison between the time history
of the responding acceleration at the top of the pier ob-
tained from dynamic analyses with different models. It is

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 129

s
~
~
0
s-1
0
~

,...... 2 ,...... 2 ,...... 2

s s s

(!111
* * *
~ ~ ~
'-"

~
~
Q)
s
0
0

-1
'-"
~
Q)

~
§
0

-1
'-"
~
Q)

~
s
0
0

-1
Jl
-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 3
3
Curvature (1 o- /m)

2 2 2
s* s* s*
~
~
Q)

~
s
0
0

-1 IJt7 ~
'-"
-a
s
~
Q)

0
0

-1
~
'-"
1::!
Q)

§
~
0

-1

-2
-3
I
2 2
s* s*
~
'-"
0
~ 0
-a
Q)
1::!
Q)

§ -1 § -1
~ ~
-2
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Curvature (1 o-3/m)
,...... 2 2

*
s s
*
~
'-"
~
'-"
0 0
1::!
Q)
-a
Q)
s
0 -1 § -1
~ ~

Fig. 24. Hysteresis of moment-curvature relation at different position of pile (Ground 2)

found that the maximum values of the acceleration as
well as the wave shapes obtained from different analyses
are almost the same for both grounds.
Figure 28 shows a comparison between the time history
of the responding displacement at the top of the pier ob-
tained from dynamic analyses with different models. The
differences in amplitude between the two responding dis-
placements are very large, and the displacements are in a
different order. It is clear that the displacement calcu-
lated from the S-R model does not take into considera-
tion the deformation of the ground, which in the dynam-
ic analyses on the full system, may be as large as 30 em. If
the displacement is added to the one obtained from the S-
R model, it is reasonable to say that the responding dis-

NII-Electronic Library Service

130 KIMURA AND ZHANG

Horizontal
displacement

Vertical Vertical
displacement
displacement
(a) Ground 1 at t=8 sec. (b) Ground 2 at t=7 sec.

Fig. 25. Displacements (em) of two grounds obtained from dynamic analyses on full system

12~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12~~~~~~~~~~~~

s 8 s 8

~ ~
4 4
0 '-" 0
~ ~
s0
-4 s -4
0
::;E -8 ::;E -8
-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .j,U,j,J,.j,U,j,J,~
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
3 3
Curvature (1 0- /m) Curvature (10- /m)
12~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12~~~~~~~~~~~~

s 8 s 8

~~
~
~
'-" 0
4

s0
-4
~
s
0
-4
::;E -8 ::;E -8
-12 ~u.u.l.i...l,,,...j,.J..I..,j,j,j.l..J..I..J..L.I.I.u...iU.U.U...I,,,...j,.J.l..J..I..J..L.~~..I.,I;;I -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...u.u.u=~
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
3 3
Curvature (1 0- /m) Curvature (1 o- /m)
(a) Full system (b) S-R model
Fig. 26. Comparison of moment-curvature relations at bottom of pier

placements at the top of the pier obtained from the two The distribution of the moment obtained from the dy-
dynamic analyses are of the same order. namic analysis on the full system is the one at the time
Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded when a maximum bending moment occurs in the piles
that if concern is restricted to the upper structure, the (t=8.42 sec. for Ground 1 and t= 11.84 sec. for Ground
separated method with a dynamic analysis on a simplified 2). It is found from the figure that the results from the
S-R model developed in this paper can obtain reasonable separated method are much smaller than the others and
results. its maximum value is only about one third of the result
Figure 29 shows a comparison of the distribution of from the responding displacement method. The results
the moments obtained from the three different methods. obtained from the responding displacement analysis and

NII-Electronic Library Service

 SEISMIC EVALUATION OF PILE FOUNDATION 131

Ground2 Ground2
5 10 15 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) Full system (b) S-R model
Fig. 27. Comparison of responses of the acceleration at top of pier

5 60~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"-"
"SQ) 30
5 0
C)
..$ -30
a
0..
-60
0 5 10 15 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
1f 60~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1f 6~~~~~~rn~~~nn~~~~~rr~
"-" "-"
"S 30 "S 3
~ 0 ~ 0
~ -30 Ground 2
~
]. - 3 Ground 2
~
0 -600
5 10
15 20 o -6 ol;;;.l....I...J...I..J,....J,....J....J..J...5.1...J...J...J....I..J....J,....J....J..J...11....Lo..I-.I...J.-"-I..-L..J....I.-11....L5..1-.L...J.-"-1..-~20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) Full system (b) S-R model
Fig. 28. Comparison of responses of displacement at top of pier

0
Soil1
5 5

s 10
'-"
Soi12
~
Q 15

20 20

25~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -3 -1.5 0 1.5
Moment (MN*m) Moment (MN*m)
(a) Ground 1 (b) Ground 2

- dynamic analysis (t=8.42 sec.) ·······-- Mc=0.702 MN*m

-o--- seperated method --------- My=1.591 MN*m
-<r-- responding displacement method (S=5.9) --------- Mu=2.230 MN*m

Fig. 29. Comparison of distributions of moments in piles obtained from different methods

NII-Electronic Library Service

132 KIMURA AND ZHANG
the dynamic analysis of the full system are of the same
order and in a similar distribution along a vertical direc-
tion. At a depth of 15- 17m, the distributions of the mo-
ment obtained from the dynamic analysis and the
responding displacement method show a very sharp
change in both grounds. This phenomenon is thought to
be the result of the vigorous changes in deformation near
the area.
It is obvious that the moment in the pile caused by the
deformation of the ground in the present analyses is far
more predominant than the moment caused by the iner-
tial force from the upper structure. The maximum bend-
ing moment occurs within a ground instead of at the top
of the piles, which has been verified in the reports about
the damage investigation after Hyogoken-Nambu earth-
quake (Horikoshi, et al., 1996). Therefore, the influence
of the deformation of a ground on piles must be consi-
dered.
CONCLUSION
By conducting a series of static and dynamic three-
dimensional finite element analyses (DGPILE-3D), a
number of methods used in the seismic evaluation of a
pile foundation are discussed in detail. The following con-
clusions can be made:
(1) A model test on a full system that consists of a
pier, a group-pile foundation, and a ground is simulated
with a three-dimensional dynamic analysis under an elas-
tic condition. The mechanical behaviors, such as the
responding accelerations of the ground and the structure,
the spectra of the accelerations, and the transfer function
of the ground and the pier can be well simulated.
(2) If a seismic evaluation is restricted to the upper
structure of a structure-foundation-ground system, the
separated method proposed in this paper, using a dynam-
ic analysis on a simplified S-R model, can obtain reasona-
ble results. For the piles, however, the results may
underestimate the sectional forces of the piles.
(3) The loading position of a prescribed displacement
in the responding displacement method may affect the dis-
tribution of sectional forces in a pile, especially in a case
where the ground considered is very soft. Precautions
should be taken before using the method in the seismic
evaluation of a pile foundation.
(4) During a major earthquake, the influence of the
deformation of a ground on the piles cannot be disre-
garded. The moment in the pile caused by the deforma-
tion of a ground may be far more predominant than the
moment caused by the inertial force from the upper struc-
ture. In the seismic evaluation of a group-pile founda-
tion, the moment near the head of the piles is usually
checked very carefully, while the moment of the piles at a
deep place does not attract too much of the engineers' at-
tention. Based on the results obtained in this paper, it is
worth emphasizing that the influence of the deformation
of a ground on the piles must be considered carefully.
(5) Dynamic analysis on a full system, which has few-
er assumption compared with other methods and directly
takes into consideration the interaction between soils and
foundations, is possible nowadays because of the quick
development of computer and numerical technology.
The constitutive model of the ground considered in this
paper is simple and only four parameters are needed.
These parameters can be determined with the N value of
SPT, which is quite familiar to engineers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sincere thanks are given to Dr. A. Nishimura and Dr.
T. Murono of the Japan Railway Research Institute, for
providing the precious experimental data used in this
paper.
REFERENCES
1) Adachi, T., Kimura, M. and Zhang, F. (1994): "Analyses on ulti-
mate behavior of lateral loading cast-in-place concrete piles by
three-dimensional elasto-plastic FEM," Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf.
Computer Method and Advance in Geomechanics, Vol. 3, pp.
2279-2284, Morgantown: Balkema.
2) Design Codes of Foundations and Earth-Retaining Structures of
Japan Railway (1997): Japan Ministry of Transportation, ISBN 4-
621-04315-3 C 3051, Maruzen Print Co. Ltd. (in Japanese).
3) Design Codes of Japan Highway Bridge, Vol. V, Seismic Design-
ing, 1996, Japan Highway Association, ISBN 4-88950-234-3,
Maruzen Print Co. Ltd. (in Japanese).
4) Fukutake, K. (1997): "Seismic evaluation of a group-pile founda-
tion surrounded by a frame wall using a 3-D nonlinear dynamic
analysis," Proc. of the 24th Symp. of Japan Earthquake Engrg.,
pp. 673-676 (in Japanese).
5) Horikoshi, K., Ohtsu, H., Kimura, M. and Oka, F. (1996): "Inves-
tigation of piles damages by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earth-
quake," Tsuchi-to-Kiso, Vol. 44, No. 11, pp. 27-29 (in Japanese).
6) Kimura, M., Yashima, A. and Shibata, T. (1991): "Three-dimen-
sional finite element analysis of laterally loaded piles," Proc. of the
7th Int. Conf. Computer Method and Advance in Geomechanics,
pp. 145-150, Cairns: Balkema.
7) Kimura, M. and Zhang, F. (1997): "Seismic evaluation of pile foun-
dation," Proc. of the 6th Int. Symp. Numerical Models in Ge-
omechanics, pp. 545-548, Montreal: Balkema.
8) Kimura, M. and Zhang, F. (1999): "Seismic evaluation of pile foun-
dation by static and dynamic 3-D finite element analyses,'' Proc. of
the 11th Asian Regional Conf. of Int. Society for Soil Mechanics
and Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 1, pp. 507-510.
9) Matsuda, T., Ito, K. and Toriihara, M. (1994): "Shaking table test
and dynamic effective stress analysis of light structure under satu-
rated sandy ground," Proc. of 8th Int. Conf. Computer Method
and Advance in Geomechanics. Vol. 2, pp. 935-941, Morgantown:
Balkema.
10) Murono, T., Nishimura, A. and Nagazuma, M. (1997): "Model
test on a group-pile foundation considering the vibration of
ground in seismic evaluation," Proc. of the 24th Symp. of Japan
Earthquake Engrg., pp. 625-628 (in Japanese).
11) Taji, Y., Sato, M., Kagawa, T. and Minowa, C. (1997): "Investiga-
tion on soil-pile-structure interaction in liquefying sand by a large
scale shaking-table test and centrifuge test," Proc. of the 24th
Symp. of Japan Earthquake Engrg., pp. 277-280 (in Japanese).
12) Taguchi, Y., Tateishi, A., Oka, F. and Yashima, A. (1997): "Nu-
merical simulation of soil-foundation interaction behavior during
subsoil liquefaction," Proc. of the 6th Int. Symp. Numerical
Models in Geomechanics, pp. 561-564, Montreal: Balkema.
13) Wakai, A., Ugai, K. and Matsuda, T. (1997): "Seismic analysis of
a bridge-ground system excited in the axial direction of the
bridge," Proc. of the 6th Int. Symp. Numerical Models in Ge-
omechanics, pp. 709-712, Montreal: Balkema.
NII-Electronic Library Service