Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Buckling analysis of pile foundation in liquefiable soil deposit with

sandwiched non-liquefiable layer
Praveen M. Huded a, Suresh R. Dash a, *, Subhamoy Bhattacharya b
a
Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, India
b
University of Surrey, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Many past earthquakes have shown failure of structures with pile foundations attributed to liquefaction. Various
Pile foundation experimental tests have also shown that buckling is one of the credible reasons for the failure of such pile
Sandwiched non-liquefiable soil profile foundations, which gets insignificant lateral support due to seismic liquefaction of surrounding soil. In nature,
BNWF model
liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil can occur in alternate layers. However, while estimating the buckling ca­
Critical buckling load
pacity of a pile, there are no specific guidelines available, to the best of the author’s knowledge, to reasonably
estimate its buckling capacity considering the effect of sandwiched non-liquefiable layer. Some studies recom­
mend to ignore the sandwiched non-liquefiable layer present within a liquefiable deposit and consider it as a full
liquefiable layer, which can become too conservative in many situations when both the strength and the depth of
non-liquefied sandwiched soil layer are high.
In the present work, a rational method of estimating the buckling capacity of pile foundation in liquefiable soil
with a sandwiched non-liquefiable layer is proposed through a detailed numerical investigation. The developed
numerical model (using Beam on Non-linear Winkler Foundation approach) is validated against the centrifuge
results. The model considers the initial imperfection of pile and material nonlinearity of pile and soil. The P-delta
effect is also considered in the analysis. Detailed parametric study for major influential parameters on the
buckling capacity of the pile foundation has been considered in terms of (a) sandwiched non-liquefiable soil
layer’s type, thickness, and position, (b) pile length above the ground level, and (c) liquefiable soil’s initial
relative density and thickness. Based on this study, an effective length factor (β) has been introduced, which can
be easily used in standard Euler’s buckling equation to find out the buckling capacity of the pile in such layered
soil profile. A simple chart has been developed for β, and a step-wise methodology has been proposed with
explanatory examples for the estimation of buckling capacity of pile foundation in liquefiable soil having
sandwiched non-liquefiable layer, with reference to various influential parameters.

1. Introduction foundations in liquefiable soil may fail due to bending, buckling,

Pile foundations are still one of the most practiced deep foundation
systems for bridges, high-rise buildings, and wharves when the soil
supporting the foundation is weak. Many bridges and building structures
have shown partial or complete collapse during the past earthquakes as
a result of liquefaction [1–3]. Early research considered the lateral
pressure applied by the flowing liquefied soil and top non-liquefiable
crust as a cause of failure, the top non-liquefiable crust being critical
for pile damage [4,5]. The behavior of pile foundation in liquefiable soil
is a transient problem involving the interaction of inertial force, gen­
eration of excess pore pressure, and reduction of soil strength [6]. Pile
excessive settlement, or any combination of these [7]. Codes of practices
such as JRA [8] and Eurocode 8: (Part 5) [9] have emphasized
increasing the bending strength of the pile foundation to counter lateral
forces generated during liquefaction. JRA [8] code suggests that full
lateral pressure of top non-liquefiable soil layer is to be considered onto
the pile, and 30% of overburden pressure is to be considered for the
liquefiable soil. Madabhushi et al. [10] reported that the lateral stresses
imparted on piles by the flowing liquefiable soil are higher than those
estimated by JRA [8]. Failure of structures despite these guidelines
implies that the governing failure mechanism is not adequately
addressed in the current codes of practice [11,12]. Berrill and Yasuda

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ph01@iitbbs.ac.in (P.M. Huded), srdash@iitbbs.ac.in (S.R. Dash), s.bhattacharya@surrey.ac.uk (S. Bhattacharya).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107133
Received 16 April 2021; Received in revised form 16 December 2021; Accepted 21 December 2021
Available online 27 December 2021
0267-7261/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

Fig. 1. (a) Typical bridge foundation; (b) Numerical Model developed; (c) p-y curve of fully liquefied soil (Dash et al. [22]); and (d) p-y curve of sandwiched
non-liquefiable soil (API [23]).

Fig. 2. Soil profiles considered in the present study.

Fig. 4. Typical load-deflection curve.

[6] proposed the possibility of a buckling mechanism for the pile failure,
considering the pile to act as a slender column when the surrounding soil
gets liquefied. Centrifuge experimental studies have demonstrated the
possibility of buckling failure (due to axial load) of pile foundation in
liquefiable soil [11,13], which should be considered as a necessary
check in the design codes of practice [14]. Nadeem et al. [15] analyzed
the buckling behavior of an end-bearing pile using the finite element
method considering the initial geometric imperfections. Knappett and
Madabhushi [13] used Rik’s post-buckling analysis method for buckling
analysis of pile groups. Few studies on the critical buckling load of pile
foundation in liquefiable soil are based on Euler’s buckling theory
without considering the nonlinear behavior of pile material and residual
shear strength of the liquefied soil [16,17]. However, the residual shear
strength of the liquefiable soil and the nonlinearity of the pile material
influence the buckling capacity of the pile [14,18].
Most of the literature on pile foundation considered either one layer
of liquefiable soil or a two-layered soil profile (liquefiable top layer and
a non-liquefiable soil layer). Few experimental studies have considered
Fig. 3. Quarter sine profile of the pile foundation.
three-layered soil profiles with liquefiable soil sandwiched between two

2
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

the pile, a sandwiched non-liquefiable layer of thickness greater than 6D

between two liquefiable soil layers will provide sufficient fixity to the
pile; however, the author recommended the need of experimental and
numerical studies to be carried out to improve their suggestion.
Therefore, in the present study, the effect of sandwiched non-

Table 1
Soil properties used for model validation with centrifuge test results.
Parameter SB- SB- SB- Reference
03 04 06

Relative Density of sand Dr (%) 44.6 43 40 Bhattacharya

[11]
Specific gravity of sand Gs 2.65 2.65 2.65 Bhattacharya
[11]
emin 0.613 0.613 0.613 Bhattacharya
[11]
emax 1.014 1.014 1.014 Bhattacharya
[11]
Saturated unit weight ρ (ton/m3) 1.896 1.896 1.890 Bhattacharya
[11]
(N1)60cs 9.15 8.5 7.36 (N1)60cs = 46Dr2
CD 41 41 41 Dash et al. [22]
Residual shear strength of 2.3 2.0 1.7 Seed and Harder
Fig. 5. Load deflection curve.
liquefied soil (Lower bound) Sr [35]
(kPa)
non-liquefiable soils [19]. However, in the natural formation of soil Scaling factor for p-y curves 9.2 9.2 9.2 Dash et al. [22]
layers, it is possible that liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil layers can (smooth soil-pile interface) Ns

occur in alternative layers. Soil exploration reports of many construction

sites (mainly coastal regions) with liquefiable deposits have shown the
occurrence of layered liquefiable and non-liquefiable deposits. Whereas, Table 2
detailed studies on the effect of non-liquefiable soil layer (sandwiched Pile properties at prototype scale used for model validation with centrifuge test
between two liquefiable soil layers) on buckling capacity of pile foun­ results (after Bhattacharya [11]).
dation are not available in the literature [20]. Zhang et al. [14] inves­ Parameter Pile_ID-4 Pile_ID-7 Pile_ID-8 Pile_ID-10
tigated the buckling behavior of pile foundation in liquefiable soil Name of test SB-03 SB-04 SB-04 SB-06
considering the residual shear strength of the liquefied soil and Pile outside diameter (m) 0.465 0.465 0.465 0.465
nonlinearity of the pile material; however, a single liquefiable soil layer Length of Pile (m) 9.3 10.50 11.125 11.125
is considered. Bhattacharya and Goda [20] stated that a relatively thin Thickness (mm) 20 20 20 20
Flexural stiffness (kN-m2) 48545 48545 48545 48545
non-liquefiable soil layer (of thickness 3-5D) might not offer restraint to

Fig. 6. Model and instrumentation layout in centrifuge test SB-04 and SB-06. Pile ID-7 shows the buckling failure of the pile after soil liquefaction (Bhatta­
charya [11]).

3
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

soil springs in a BNWF model, as shown in Fig. 1. The soil profiles

considered in this study are shown in Fig. 2, where a non-liquefiable
sandwiched soil layer is considered at the middle of a liquefiable soil
deposit with varying depth. The pile is embedded in a liquefiable soil
deposit of 9 m depth and rock anchored at the base. Therefore, the pile is
considered fixed at 9 m depth below the ground level in the numerical
model.

2.1. Modeling of liquefied soil

In the BNWF model, the soil pile interaction is modelled using

Fig. 7. p-y curve for the liquefiable soil.
nonlinear springs called p-y springs [22], for lateral interaction (Fig. 1c
and d) for an end bearing pile. Centrifuge and shake table experiments
have credibly shown the possibility that an end bearing pile foundation
(both single and pile group) could fail in buckling when the soil sur­
rounding the pile liquefies [11,13,24]. Any non-liquefiable soil or
partially liquefied soil layer would give restraint to the pile deformation
and would increase the buckling capacity of the pile. In the present
study, the liquefiable soil deposit is considered as completely liquefied
and the lateral soil springs (p-y curve) are defined accordingly.
The p-y curve (hyperbolic soil spring model) proposed by Dash et al.
[22] for the liquefied soil is adopted in the present study. In p-y curves,
‘p’ refers to the pressure per unit length by the lateral soil, and ‘y’ refers
to the relative pile-soil displacement [25]. In most of the literature, the
p-y spring for the liquefied soil is modelled based on the recommenda­
tions of JRA [8], API [23]. However, the recent p-y curve as recom­
mended by Dash et al. [22] retains the inherent features of the
liquefiable soil, such as zero strength and stiffness at the initial lower
strains and strain hardening behavior at large strain. This p-y curve can
easily be constructed using equation (1) as:
( )[ ( ( )]
p1 pu + p1 pu − p1 2π yu + y1 )
p=ω y+A 1− ω + tanh y−
y1 2 2 3(yu − y1 ) 2
(Eq.1)

Where pu and yu are ultimate lateral resistance and lateral displacement

Fig. 8. Load deflection curve for experiment SB-04-Pile_ID-7 (Bhatta­ respectively, p1 and y1 are initial lateral resistance and lateral
charya [11]).
Table 4
liquefiable on the buckling capacity of pile foundation is evaluated using Specific soil properties used for various relative densities of liquefiable soil.
a detailed numerical scheme using Beam on Non-linear Winkler Foun­ Parameter Reference
dation (BNWF) model of soil-pile interaction. The method adopted is
Relative Density of 30 35 40 45 50 -
validated against the results of analytical, finite element, and centrifuge sand Dr (%)
tests results. A parametric study has been conducted to quantify the Saturated unit 1.896 1.896 1.890 1.890 1.938 -
effect of relative density of the liquefiable soil, the strength of the weight ρ (ton/m3)
sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer, effect of position of the sand­ (N1)60cs 4.14 5.64 7.36 9.32 11.50 (N1)60cs =
46Dr2
wiched non-liquefiable soil layer, initial geometric imperfections of the CD 41 41 41 41 41 Dash et al.
pile, and pile length above ground level on the buckling capacity of the [22]
pile foundation. Residual shear 0.40 1.03 1.70 5.25 9.0 Seed and
strength of Harder [35]
liquefied soil
2. Beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation model development
(Lower bound) Sr
for buckling load estimation (kPa)
Scaling factor for p- 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 Dash et al.
A numerical model is developed for the soil-pile system using the y curves (smooth [22]
OpenSees® platform (Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simu­ soil-pile
interface) Ns
lation) [21]. The lateral soil-pile interaction is represented as nonlinear

Table 3
Validation of centrifuge tests.
Test Name Axial Load applied (kN) Computed buckling load (kN) Experimental result Results according to numerical method

a = 0.5%L a = 1.0%L a = 2.0%L

SB-03-Pile_ID-04 750 1797.0 - 1244.0 Did not collapse Buckling load > Applied axial load (No Failure)
SB-04-Pile_ID-07 1563 1512.0 1152.0 878.0 Failure Buckling load < Applied axial load (Failure)
SB-04-Pile_ID-08 2225 1231.0 952.0 773.0 Failure Buckling load < Applied axial load (Failure)
SB-06-Pile_ID-10 1875 1105.0 857.0 733.0 Failure Buckling load < Applied axial load (Failure)

4
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

( )
1 y
p = pult,c (Eq. 3)
2 2.5Dε50

Fig. 9. Effect of relative densities of soil on buckling capacity of pile.
Where ε50 is the strain at half the maximum principal stress difference.
A study has also been carried to understand the change in critical
buckling load by modelling the friction component of the non-
liquefiable soil layer. Three soil profiles (b, d, and f), as shown in
Fig. 2, have been taken to examine the change in the critical buckling
load of the respective pile foundation after considering the axial pile-soil
interaction. The friction component of the pile-soil interaction is added
to the model using TzSimple1 materials [26]. Since the effective stress in
the clay layer remains the same under earthquake loading, the ultimate
resistance of t-z spring is assigned as a constant [27]. The
load-deformation properties of the t-z springs are determined from API
[23] guidelines. The study showed that the percentage change in
buckling capacity despite the inclusion of the friction component of the
clay soil is less than 1%, as the pile foundation has a fixed base.
It may also be highlighted that, in a liquefiable deposit, during and/
or after the seismic shaking, there is a possibility of settlement of non-
liquefied layer that can impose additional axial load (down-drag) to
the pile. However, this settlement of non-liquefied layer into liquefiable
soil layer is associated with pore-water pressure dissipation leading to an
increase in strength of the liquefied soil and eventually increasing the
soil resistance around the pile. The long-term post-liquefaction pile ca­
pacity (during and after seismic shaking) against buckling, considering
both pore pressure generation/dissipation and down-drag effect re­
quires multi-step analysis. Therefore, for a simplified pseudo-static
approach in the present numerical study, the buckling capacity of pile
has been evaluated at fully liquefied state and the effect of the negative
friction (down-drag) through axial soil-structure interaction is ignored.

2.3. Modelling of the pile

In the present analysis, an end-bearing pile is considered, which is

rock anchored at its base. The pile is modelled using nonlinear beam
column elements. The nodes of the pile elements are modelled in two
dimensions with three degrees of freedom (two translational and one
rotational). The pile material nonlinearity is considered in the analysis
by defining the stress-strain response of pile material through the fibre
section. Corotational transformation is adopted to capture the geometric
nonlinearity of the modelled pile, which can be constructively be used
for evaluating the buckling load [14,29].

2.4. Initial geometric imperfections of the pile

Fig. 10. Influence of pile length above ground level on the buckling capacity of Initial imperfections are induced in piles during manufacturing,
the pile (a/L-1.0%).
transportation, or during construction (during driving or boring). It is
very impractical to achieve zero radius of curvature (or perfect
displacement respectively, and weighted function ω is given by equation straightness) after the installation of pile foundation [15]. The initial
(2). The constants (y1, yu, p1, pu) in equations (1) and (2) can be evalu­ curvature induced in the pile profile makes it more vulnerable towards
ated based on typical bore log data. the buckling mode of failure. Lateral load from the superstructure, soil
1
( [ (
6π 4y1 + yu
)]) slope movement during the earthquake increases the lateral displace­
ω= 1 − tanh y− (Eq. 2) ment of pile combined with the initial geometric imperfections decrease
2 yu 6
the buckling capacity of the pile foundation. End bearing and friction
2.2. Modeling of sandwiched non-liquefied soil pile response are governed by the initial degree of pile curvature and
slenderness ratio [30,31]. While the surrounding soil offers significant
The sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer is considered as a clay resistance against lateral deflection and buckling in-service conditions,
layer, and is modelled using PySimple1 spring (as available in OpenSees) the same is not true if the surrounding soil is liquefied. Initially, an
for soil pile interaction [26]. Here the pult is specified as a constant as the imperfect pile in liquefiable soil is more prone to buckling failure.
effective stress in the clay layer does not vary during earthquake load Dunlope et al. [32] based on the experimental work, recommended the
[27]. The p-y curves for clay soil can be generated based on the API [23] bent pile shape approximated to a quarter sine profile. A Similar quarter
guideline, which is based on the model proposed by Matlock [28], as sine profile was also used in the study by Zhang et al. [14] and Nadeem
shown in equation-3. et al. [15]. The geometric imperfection in terms of pile head displace­
ment that could occur during the construction of a pile foundation, as
per measured data [15,33], ranges 0.5%–3.2% of the pile length.

5
P.M. Huded et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of sandwiched non-liquefiable clay layer on the buckling capacity of pile.
Therefore, to consider the effect of initial imperfection, a quarter sine
wave profile is adopted with an amplitude of imperfections (a/L) as
0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, and 2.5% (Fig. 3), in the present study. These
initial imperfections were modelled by providing displaced coordinates
at various pile nodes based on equation-4 for quarter sine profiles, where
‘a’ is the initial imperfection amplitude at the top of the pile and L is the
length of the pile (Fig. 3).
( πy )
x = a sin (Eq. 4)
2L
2.5. Estimation of critical buckling load
The pile is modelled as a beam-column element and is meshed in the
vertical direction at 0.25 m intervals, and the p-y springs are at each
node of the pile element. The properties of the p-y springs are derived
based on the soil properties such as soil relative density, unit weight of
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133
soil, and dimensions of the pile, based on the recommendations of Dash
et al. [22] and API [23]. Nonlinear buckling analysis of pile foundation
has been carried out by applying displacement controlled axial
compression, which resulted in load-deflection curve as shown in Fig. 4.
The peak load of the load-deflection curve is considered as the critical
buckling load of the pile foundation, similar to the approach followed by
Zhang et al. [14] and Nadeem et al. [15].
3. Validation of the proposed BNWF model
The proposed BNWF model for evaluating critical buckling load is
validated against analytical, finite element, and centrifuge experiment
studies given by Chajes [34], Nadeem et al. [15] and Zhang et al. [14],
and Bhattacharya [11], respectively.
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

Fig. 12. Soil profiles considered in the study for various clay layer positions on the buckling capacity of pile.

Fig. 13. Influence position of non-liquefiable soil (clay) layer on the buckling capacity of pile.

7
P.M. Huded et al.
Fig. 14. Effect of relative density of liquefiable soil on buckling capacity of the pile for various types of sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layers.
3.1. Validation with analytical solution
Chajes [34] has given analytical solutions for initially bent columns.
One such example is validated by Nadeem et al. [15] (using Rik’s
method in ABAQUS) and Zhang et al. [14] (using OpenSees). A column
with a slenderness ratio (L/d) of 20 is modelled along with an initial
imperfection in the form of a half-sine wave with an imperfection
amplitude (a) of 0.3 m.
In the present analysis, the column is modelled both as linear elastic
and elastoplastic material considering its yield strength. The results of
the analysis considering both these cases are shown in Fig. 5. As ex­
pected, the buckling capacity of the elastoplastic column is lower than
the elastic column.
3.2. Validation of centrifuge tests
The developed numerical model is also checked against the centri­
fuge experiments conducted by Bhattacharya [11], where a series of
centrifuge experiments were carried out at various ratios of P/PE (P; is
applied axial load and PE is Euler buckling load). Experiments named
SB-04-Pile_ID-07, SB-04-Pile_ID-08, SB-06-Pile_ID-10, and
SB-03-Pile_ID-04 are considered in the present study for validation.
Fig. 6 shows the centrifuge test experimental setup of SB-04 and SB-06.
All the experiments consisted of a single soil layer of depth 9 m (in
prototype scale) of liquefiable saturated silica sand. Table 1 presents the
soil properties used in the present validation work corresponding to the
soil being used in the centrifuge tests. The pile used in the centrifuge test
was made of Aluminium, the structural properties of which are listed in
Table 2. The pile is fixed at the base of the model container. In the
centrifuge experiment, the model is prepared in gravity acceleration 1g
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133
and tested at centrifugal acceleration (50g), which is perpendicular to
each other, which could induce a geometric imperfection. As the data of
this geometric imperfection is not explicitly measured during the
experimental work, an imperfection amplitude of 0.5% times the length
of the pile (L) in the form of a quarter sine wave profile is considered.
The soil pile interaction is modelled in both ways (a) by using p-y curves
based on API [23] with a degradation factor of 0.1 (i.e., stiffness reduced
to 10% of the initial values to account for liquefaction), and (b) by
considering p-y curve proposed for the liquefied soil by Dash et al. [22]
(Fig. 7). The load-deflection plot for the experiment SB-04-Pile_ID-07 is
shown in Fig. 8. It is evident from Fig. 8 that p-y curves based on the API
[23] with a reduced stiffness do not predict the failure, whereas the pile
had failed during the experiment.
In contrast, the analysis with the Dash et al.’s p-y model could able to
predict the failure of the pile due to buckling. This might be due to the
fact that the API p-y curve model has higher initial stiffness at small
strain levels, as compared with the Dash et al. model, as shown in Fig. 7.
Zhang et al. [14], in their study, have also drawn a similar conclusion
using Dash et al. p-y spring model. The results of the experimental tests
and the present numerical study are given in Table 3, which shows good
agreement in the results and the developed numerical model is able to
capture essential pile response by modelling soil-pile interaction in a
rational manner. Therefore, in the subsequent parametric study, the
model proposed by Dash et al. [22] is adopted for the liquefied soil.
4. Parametric study
The parametric study is conducted to evaluate the buckling behav­
iour of the pile foundation. For all the analyses, the pile properties are
considered the same as in the case of Pile_ID-07 (Table - 2). The
P.M. Huded et al.
Fig. 15. Chart to find out effective length factor (β).
parametric study is mainly carried out in two steps.
(a) In the first step, an end bearing pile is considered in a single
liquefiable soil layer. Effect of soil relative density, geometric
imperfection of pile, and pile length above ground level has been
investigated.
(b) In the second step, an end-bearing pile in layered soil where a
non-liquefiable soil layer is sandwiched in between the liquefi­
able soil layers is considered. In this step, the effect of type,
thickness, and the location of sandwiched non-liquefiable layer
on buckling capacity of the pile foundation is also investigated in
addition to the variables studied in step-1.
4.1. For pile in a single liquefiable soil layer
4.1.1. Effect of relative density of liquefiable soil
The residual shear strength of the liquefied soil influences the critical
buckling load of the pile foundation [14]. Effect of different relative
densities such as Dr = 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, and 50% are considered in
this study. Table 4 shows the soil properties used. The normalised
buckling load (Pcr/PE) with reference to Euler’s elastic buckling load for
a free standing cantilever pile is plotted in Fig. 9 for various initial
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133
geometric imperfection factors. For increasing initial relative density
(Dr) of liquefiable soil, the buckling capacity of the pile is found to be
higher due to the higher initial stiffness and residual shear strength of
soil at higher Dr. The buckling capacity of the pile foundation varies
exponentially with respect to the relative density of the liquefiable soil
irrespective of the amount of initial geometric imperfection. However,
for the geometric imperfection (a/L) of 0.5%, the buckling capacity is
increased by 84% as Dr changes from 30% to 50%. Also, as expected, the
higher is the initial geometric imperfection, the lower is the buckling
capacity of the pile.
4.1.2. Effect of pile length above ground level
The embedded depth (L) of the pile in the soil is 9 m in the present
study. To evaluate the influence of unsupported pile length above the
ground (l) on its buckling capacity, five cases are considered where l =
0.1L, (1 m); 0.18L, (2 m); 0.25L, (3 m); 0.30L, (4 m); and 0.36L,(5 m).
Variation of normalised buckling load (Pcr/PE) with respect to pile
length above the ground (l) is plotted in Fig. 10. The figure clearly shows
that with an increase in unsupported pile length above the ground (l),
the buckling capacity of the pile decreases exponentially for all types of
liquefiable soil deposits due to the increase in the effective length of the
pile, as observed by Zhang et al. [14]. As the pile length above the
ground level increases from 1 m to 5 m, the buckling capacity decreases
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

Fig. 16. Flow chart for the estimation of buckling load.

Table 6
Buckling load for the numerical examples.
Case-(i) Case-(ii) Case-(iii)

DNL/DLL 0.22 0.40 0.33

k 0.5 0.5 0.5
β 1.80 1.55 1.50
Pcr (kN) 1017.0 4441.0 7040.0
PEa(kN) 824.0 2667.0 3959.0
a
PE is the Euler buckling load estimated considering the pile as a free standing
cantilever pile of length (L).

by 49%, 49.8%, 50%, 53%, and 56% for the soil deposits of relative
density (Dr) 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, and 50% respectively.

4.2. For pile in layered liquefiable soil

4.2.1. Effect of sandwiched (clay) layer on the critical buckling capacity of

pile
To study the effect of sandwiched non-liquefiable layer on the
buckling capacity of the pile foundation, a sandwiched clay layer at the
Fig. 17. Configuration of pile foundation for the illustration examples. middle of a liquefiable layer is considered (Fig. 2). The thickness of the
non-liquefiable clay layer (DNL) is varied between 1 m and 7 m. Also, to
examine the effect of the position of the non-liquefiable soil layer, its
Table 5 position has also been varied from ground level to the bottom of the
Properties of pile used in the illustration examples. liquefiable soil deposit. Three types of non-liquefiable soil layers are
Parameter Case-(i) Case-(ii) Case-(iii) considered in the present analysis (soft, Medium, and Stiff clay), the
Pile outside diameter (m) 0.3 0.5 0.75
properties of which are taken from IS 2911-2010 [36].
Thickness (mm) 18 20 20 Critical buckling analysis for all the six soil profiles as per Fig. 2 is
Modulus of Elasticity (E) (GPa) 210 210 210 carried out for various conditions of initial imperfection with a quarter
sine wave pile profile. The normalised buckling load (Pcr/PE) with
reference to Euler’s elastic buckling load for a free standing cantilever
pile is plotted for different types of non-liquefiable soil (clay) in Fig. 11.
For the comparison, all the plots include one case without any sand­
wiched non-liquefiable soil layer. It is observed from Fig. 11 that an
increase in the strength of sandwiched clay layer increases the buckling
load of the pile, which essentially implies that sandwiched clay layer
provides some amount of lateral fixity that reduces the effective length
of the pile, thereby increasing its buckling capacity. As the depth of the

10
P.M. Huded et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133

clay layer increase, the buckling capacity also increases for all the soil to a freestanding column having negligible lateral support, and buckling
profiles. It is observed from the study that, for the case of soft clay, a could be a possible mode of failure, as observed by Bhattacharya [11],
minimum thickness of 2 m (4.5D) is necessary to have a buckling ca­ Zhang et al. [14], and Haldar et al. [16]. Therefore, when the pile
pacity of 20% or more as compared to the case without any sandwiched foundation is in liquefiable soil, the buckling strength check becomes
clay layer. However, for medium and stiff clay, even a thickness of 1 m imperative during design. Hence, based on the present study, a simpli­
(2.25D) gives the buckling capacity 20% or more as compared to no- fied scheme is proposed for calculating the critical buckling load for the
sandwiched layer case. Hence the sandwiched non-liquefiable clay pile foundation in a liquefiable soil deposit with a sandwiched
layer, if encountered in the liquefiable soil deposit, would be beneficial non-liquefiable soil layer, in a standard buckling load formulation
for the pile foundation from the buckling point of view. This effect of (similar to Euler’s buckling load formula) as given below.
fixity by the sandwiched clay layer is also emphasized in the study by
Π 2 EI
Bhattacharya and Goda [20]. Pcr = ( )2
Leff
4.2.2. Effect of position of non-liquefiable (clay) layer on the buckling Leff = β*L
capacity of pile
β = Effective length factor
It is evident from the above results that sandwiched non-liquefiable
clay layer gives partial fixity effect to the pile. It is also expected that the L = Total length of pile ​ (Pile ​ cap ​ to ​ bottom ​ anchorage)
position of the sandwiched clay layer within a liquefiable soil deposit
The above formulation introduces an effective length factor (β)
can alter/influence the pile behaviour. Therefore to quantify the effect
whose value has been derived from the numerical study. The parametric
of the position of sandwiched clay layer on the buckling capacity of the
study has shown that the buckling capacity of the pile foundation in
pile, the position of the clay layer is varied from the ground level to the
sandwiched non-liquefiable soil profile depends on the parameters such
bottom of the soil profile. A representative sketch for 1 m clay layer with
as (a) ratio of pile length above ground level to the total pile length (l/L);
varying positions is shown in Fig. 12. The study is conducted for the clay
(b) type of the sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer and the liquefiable
layers of thickness 1 m–8 m for the initial imperfection of (a/L) of 1%.
soil; (c) ratio of the depth of non-liquefiable soil layer to the total depth
The pile length above the ground level is considered as 2 m. The nor­
of liquefiable soil layer (DNL/DLL); (d) Position of the sandwiched non-
malised buckling load (Pcr/PE) is plotted in Fig. 13. The x-axis of the
liquefiable soil (clay) layer in the liquefiable soil deposit. Based on
figure represents the ratio of the depth of the middle of the sandwiched
these parameters, the effective length factor has been developed for
clay layer from the ground level to the depth of liquefiable soil deposit
various soil configurations shown in Fig. 2. The effective length factor is
(k), and the y-axis represents Pcr/PE.
proposed in the form of a chart, as shown in Fig. 15.
Irrespective of the type of sandwiched clay layer, as the position of
Analyzing the effect of the ratio of the length of pile above the
the sandwiched clay layer shifts towards the bottom, the buckling ca­
ground to the total length of the pile (l/L- 0.1, 0.18, 0.25, 0.3, and 0.35),
pacity of the pile foundation decreases. A non-liquefiable layer at deeper
the effective length factor (β) is found to be less affected (variation is less
depths increases the effective length of the pile and hence the decrease
than 4%), and hence it is not considered as a variable in defining β. As
in the buckling capacity of the pile. However, this decrease in buckling
per the Indian Road Congress code (IRC-78) [37], the maximum
capacity for stiff clay case is more pronounced for all the depths of the
allowable tilting of pile foundation is 0.6% for road bridges. Similarly, as
clay layer. For the case of soft clay of thickness 1 m and 2 m, the in­
per the Indian Railways Bridge Manual [38], the maximum allowable
fluence of position is found to be negligible in terms of buckling capacity
tilting is 1.5%. Therefore, the design chart has been prepared for an
(Fig. 13).
initial imperfection of 1.5% (a/L) as a conservative estimation. The use
of the proposed design methodology has been illustrated in the form of a
4.2.3. Effect of relative densities of liquefiable soil layer
flow chart (Fig. 16) along with a few numerical examples in the
All the analyses presented in the above sections are with a liquefiable
following section for clarity and ease of adaptation in practice.
soil of relative density of Dr – 30%. Therefore, to understand the effect of
initial relative density of the liquefiable soil layer (Dr) on the buckling
5.1. Numerical example based on the proposed scheme
capacity of pile foundation, five cases are considered with Dr = 30%,
35%, 40%, 45%, and 50% for the Soil profile – (d) (Refer Fig. 1, DNL/DLL
Three cases of a steel tube pile foundation passing through the
= 3/9). Fig. 14 plots the effect of relative density of liquefiable soil layer
sandwiched non-liquefiable soil profile are chosen to demonstrate the
on buckling capacity (normalised buckling capacity, Pcr/PE) of pile
application of the developed method for estimating the buckling ca­
foundation for various geometric imperfection ratios (a/L) and for
pacity of the pile. The soil profiles are shown in Fig. 17, and the prop­
various types of sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layers. It can be
erties of the pile are given in Table 5. The procedure for estimating the
observed from the figure that as the strength of liquefiable soil increases,
buckling load is explained step-wise in the following section.
the buckling capacity of the pile also increases for all cases. Also, higher
is the geometric imperfection, and lower is the buckling load. As the
(1) Step 1: Fixing the configuration of pile and collection of pile and
relative density of liquefiable soil deposit changes from 30% to 50%, the
soil data required for the calculation.
buckling capacity increases by 15% for an initial imperfection of 0.5%,
(2) Step 2: Find the following ratios such as DNL/DLL, k = LNL/DLL
for stiff clay as a sandwiched layer. This increase in buckling capacity is
(3) Step 3: Select a plot corresponding to the relative density of the
higher for medium and soft clay, which is 21% and 32%, respectively.
liquefiable soil (Dr) and the shear modulus of the non-liquefiable
Also, for a particular relative density of liquefiable soil (say at Dr =
soil layer (GNL), referring to Fig. 15.
50%), the increase in geometric imperfection from 0.5% to 2.5% reduces
(4) Step 4: Using k and DNL/DLL find the β value from Fig. 15. For
the buckling capacity by 35.3% for stiff clay as a sandwiched layer. This
intermediate values of Dr and DNL/DLL, the effective length values
decrease is 36% and 40.4% for medium and soft clay, respectively.
can be linearly interpolated.
(5) Step 5: Estimate buckling capacity as,
5. Proposed scheme for estimating buckling load of pile
(6) Step 6: For design, it is recommended that axial load in-service
foundation in a layered liquefiable soil
condition (unfactored) shall be less than Pcr/3.
The pile foundation will be under the influence of confining pressure Π 2 EI
of the surrounding soil, unlike the column element. However, during Pcr =
(βL)2
seismic liquefaction, the behavior of the pile in liquefiable soil is similar

11
P.M. Huded et al.
Based on the above step-wise calculation, buckling load is estimated
for the three cases considered and is presented in Table 6.
6. Conclusion
The present study was to comprehend the buckling behavior of pile
foundations in the sandwiched non-liquefiable soil profile. A BNWF
model is developed to estimate the critical buckling load of pile foun­
dation through nonlinear large displacement analysis. A parametric
study has been carried out to understand the effect of type, depth, and
position of sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer on the buckling ca­
pacity of the pile. Parameters such as the relative density of liquefiable
soil, type of non-liquefiable soil layer, pile length above ground level,
and initial imperfection are varied to analyse their influence on its
buckling capacity. Based on the study, a design chart has been developed
which could be used for estimating the buckling capacity of pile foun­
dation in the sandwiched non-liquefiable soil profile. Major conclusions
from this study can be summarised as follows.
• For pile foundation in single layered liquefiable soil deposit, as the
relative density of liquefiable soil increases, the buckling capacity of
the pile foundation also increases. Increase in initial geometric
imperfection decreases the buckling capacity of the pile foundation.
Similarly increase in the pile length above the ground level also
decreases the buckling capacity of the pile foundation.
• From the validation study, it is evident that the hyperbolic soil spring
model for liquefied soil realistically captures the liquefied soil-pile
interaction as compared to the simplified, reduced API recom­
mended p-y curve while comparing the pile responses with centrifuge
test results.
• The sandwiched non-liquefiable layer directly influences the buck­
ling capacity of the pile foundation. A soft clay layer of 2 m thick
(4.5D) is required to give 20% higher buckling capacity compared to
the case without any sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer. For
medium and stiff clay layer of depth 1 m (2.25D) would give a 20%
higher buckling capacity. Hence the presence of the sandwiched non-
liquefiable soil (clay) layer is advantageous to the pile foundation for
buckling behaviour if it is sufficiently thick, strong, and stiff.
• The position of the sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer also in­
fluences the buckling capacity of the pile foundation. As the sand­
wiched non-liquefiable soil layer shifts away from the ground level,
the buckling capacity of the pile foundation decreases. This effect is
significant if the sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer is of stiff clay.
• A study on the effect of relative soil density of liquefiable soil layers
on buckling capacity of the pile foundation in sandwiched non-
liquefiable soil profile inferred that higher relative density of lique­
fiable soil increases the buckling capacity of the pile foundation.
• An effective length factor (β) is proposed in this study that can be
used in standard buckling load estimation formulation to evaluate
the buckling capacity of the pile during seismic liquefaction. The
factor β can be evaluated using the proposed chart, which is based on
(a) type of the sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer and the lique­
fiable soil; (c) ratio of the depth of non-liquefiable soil layer to the
total depth of liquefiable soil layer (DNL/DLL); (d) position of the
sandwiched non-liquefiable soil layer in the liquefiable soil deposit.
This numerical study considers an end-bearing pile in a layered liq­
uefiable deposit while estimating its buckling capacity. Although it is
recognised that the settling of sandwiched non-liquefied soil layer can
induce additional axial load due to down drag and can change the net
buckling load on a pile, the down-drag is associated with pore-water-
pressure dissipation, and in turn, increases confinement resistance on
the pile foundation. Further study may be carried out to evaluate the
buckling capacity of pile foundation considering the down-drag effect in
a post-liquefaction scenario.
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133
Authors statement of credit report
Praveen Huded: Conceptualization, Methodology, Modelling,
Analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation. Suresh R Dash: Concep­
tualization, Writing integration, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervi­
sion. Subhamoy Bhattacharya: Reviewing and Editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank The Ministry of Education,
Government of India for the financial assistance provided during the
research work.
References
[1] Abdoun T, Dobry R. Evaluation of pile foundation response to lateral spreading.
Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2002;22(9–12):1051–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-
7261(02)00130-6.
[2] Yoshida N, Tazoh T, Wakamatsu K, Yasuda S, Towhata I, Nakazawa H, Kiku H.
Causes of Showa Bridge collapse in the 1964 Niigata earthquake based on
eyewitness testimony. Soils Found 2007;47(6):1075–87. https://doi.org/10.3208/
sandf.47.1075.
[3] Madabhushi SPG, Patel D, Haigh SK. Geotechnical aspects of the Bhuj Earthquake.
EEFIT report on the Bhuj earthquake. London: Institution of Structural Engineers;
2005.
[4] Hamada M. Performances of foundations against liquefaction-induced permanent
ground displacements. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake
engineering, Auckland, New Zealand; 2000.
[5] Berrill JB, Christensen SA, Keenan RP, Okada W, Pettinga JR. Case study of lateral
spreading forces on a piled foundation. Geotechnique 2001;51(6):501–17. https://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.2001.51.6.501.
[6] Berrill J, Yasuda S. Liquefaction and piled foundations: some issues. J Earthq Eng
2002;6(S1):1–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460209350431.
[7] Mohanty P, Dutta SC, Bhattacharya S. Proposed mechanism for mid-span failure of
pile supported river bridges during seismic liquefaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2017;102:41–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.013.
[8] JRA Specification for highway bridges, part v seismic design. Japanese Road
Association; 2003.
[9] Eurocode CE. 8: design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part
1994;2. 1998-2.
[10] Madabhushi G, Haigh S, Knappett J. Design of pile foundations in liquefiable soils.
World Scientific; 2010.
[11] Bhattacharya S. Pile instability during earthquake liquefaction. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Cambridge); 2003.
[12] Dash SR, Bhattacharya S, Blakeborough A. Bending–buckling interaction as a
failure mechanism of piles in liquefiable soils. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2010;30
(1–2):32–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.08.002.
[13] Knappett JA, Madabhushi SP. Influence of axial load on lateral pile response in
liquefiable soils. Part I: physical modelling. Geotechnique 2009;59(7):571–81.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.009.3749.
[14] Zhang X, Tang L, Ling X, Chan A. Critical buckling load of pile in liquefied soil. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2020;135(a). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106197.
106197.
[15] Nadeem M, Chakraborty T, Matsagar V. Nonlinear buckling analysis of slender
piles with geometric imperfections. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(1):
06014014. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001189.
[16] Haldar S, Sivakumar Babu GL, Bhattacharya S. Buckling and bending response of
slender piles in liquefiable soils during earthquakes. Geomechanics Geoengin: Int J
2008;3(2):129–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486020802087101.
[17] Bhattacharya S. Safety assessment of existing piled foundations in liquefiable soils
against buckling instability. ISET J Earthq Technol 2006;43:133–47.
[18] Shanker K, Basudhar PK, Patra NR. Buckling of piles under liquefied soil
conditions. Geotech Geol Eng 2007;25(3):303–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-006-9111-6.
[19] Abdoun TH. Modeling of seismically induced lateral spreading of multi-layered soil
and its effect on pile foundations. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; 1997.
[20] Bhattacharya S, Goda K. Probabilistic buckling analysis of axially loaded piles in
liquefiable soils. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2013;45:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.soildyn.2012.10.004.
[21] McKenna F. OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation.
Comput Sci Eng 2011;13(4):58–66.
[22] Dash S, Rouholamin M, Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S. A practical method for
construction of py curves for liquefiable soils. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2017;97:
478–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.03.002.
P.M. Huded et al.
[23] RP2A-WSD. API. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing
fixed offshore platforms–working stress design–. Houston: American Petroleum
Institute; 2000.
[24] Zhang X, Tang L, Li X, Ling X, Chan A. Effect of the combined action of lateral load
and axial load on the pile instability in liquefiable soils. Eng Struct 2020;(b):205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110074. 110074.
[25] Lombardi D, Dash SR, Bhattacharya S, Ibraim E, Muir Wood D, Taylor CA.
Construction of simplified design p–y curves for liquefied soils. Geotechnique
2017;67(3):216–27. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.116.
[26] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soil-pile-
structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;
125(9):750–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(750).
[27] Wang X, Luo F, Su Z, Ye A. Efficient finite-element model for seismic response
estimation of piles and soils in liquefied and laterally spreading ground considering
shear localization. Int J GeoMech 2017;17(6):06016039. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000835.
[28] Matlock H. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. InOffshore
technology conference 1970. Offshore Technology Conference; 1970.
[29] Denavit MD, Hajjar JF. Description of geometric nonlinearity for beam column
analysis in OpenSees. Boston, Massachusetts: Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University; 2013. Report No. NEU-CEE-
2013-02.
13
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 154 (2022) 107133
[30] Rezaiee MP, Mazindrani ZH. Optimal capacity of axially loaded bent pile.
Amirkabir Journal of Science and Technology 1990;4(8):65–78.
[31] Khan AK, Pise PJ. Dynamic behaviour of curved piles. Comput Struct 1997;65(6):
795–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(97)00043-6.
[32] Dunlop P, Sandiford RE, Erali DR. Instrumented load test on a bent pile. In: Proc.,
3rd Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Rolla, MO: Missouri
Univ. of Science and Technology; 1993. p. 27–30.
[33] Chan SF, Hanna TH. The loading behaviour of initially bent large scale laboratory
piles in sand. Can Geotech J 1979;16(1):43–58. https://doi.org/10.1139/t79-005.
[34] Alexander C. Principles of structural stability theory. Massachusetts: Massachusetts
State University; 1974. Prentice-Hall Inc, USA.
[35] Seed RB, Harder LF. SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and
undrained residual strength. In: Proceedings of the H. Bolton seed memorial
symposium. Vancouver, British Columbia: BiTech Publishers, Ltd.; 1990.
p. 351–76. Berkeley, CA.
[36] IS 2911-1-2. Design and construction of pile foundations, Part 1: concrete piles,
section 2: Bored cast in-situ concrete piles. Bureau of Indian Standards; 2010.
[37] Standard specifications and code of practice for road bridges. Indian roads congress
(section-IV). IRC; 2000. p. 78.
[38] Indian Railways bridge Manual. Railway board. Ministry of Railways. Government
of India; 1998.