HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

Fukae bridge collapse (Kobe 1995) revisited: New insights

L. Sakellariadis a, I. Anastasopoulos a,⇑, G. Gazetas b
a
Dept. of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, ETH Zürich, Switzerland
b
National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Received 17 January 2020; received in revised form 29 July 2020; accepted 19 September 2020
Available online 6 November 2020

Abstract

The paper revisits the notorious collapse of 18 spans of the elevated Route No. 3 of Hanshin Expressway during the 1995 Kobe earth-
quake. The overturned deck was monolithically connected to 3.1 m diameter piers, which failed dramatically. In stark contrast, the mas-
sive 17–pile groups survived the earthquake and are still in use, supporting the new bridge. The scope of the study is dual. Initially, the
actual pile group–bridge–soil system is investigated employing the finite element (FE) method, accounting for material and geometric
nonlinearities. Reinforced concrete (RC) members (pier and piles) are modelled using the Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model,
while a kinematic hardening model is employed for the soil. The numerical simulation reproduces the observed shear-dominated failure
at the region of reinforcement cut-off. The analysis reveals that the pile group sustains non-negligible rocking during shaking (despite
being over-designed), leading to alternating tension and compression of the edge piles, combined with shear-moment loading. The result-
ing stiffness reduction of the cracked under tension piles leads to load redistribution towards the stiffer compressed piles, preventing plas-
tic hinging of the weaker piles (under tension). These findings are consistent with post-earthquake in-situ testing, qualitatively verifying
the numerical analysis technique. Subsequently, alternative foundation concepts are explored, starting with the pilecap of the original
configuration acting as a shallow footing, provoking nonlinear rocking response. It is shown that soil yielding acts as a ‘‘fuse”, preventing
collapse at the cost of increased settlements and limited residual foundation rotation. The benefits and limitations of such a shift towards
nonlinear soil–foundation response are further explored, studying four intermediate foundation schemes.
Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Kobe earthquake; Bridge collapse; Nonlinear analysis; Soil-structure interaction

1. Introduction reclaimed land. As a result, almost every type of structure

The devastating Mw 7 Great Hanshin 1995 earthquake
in Kobe, Japan, is considered an event of enormous signif-
icance in the history of earthquake engineering. Located in
a very narrow stretch of land (a mere kilometer wide, but
almost 30 km long) Kobe is characterized by very dense
infrastructure (Fig. 1). Most of its expressways are elevated
on bridges, and a substantial part of the city is built on
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lampross@ethz.ch (L. Sakellariadis), ixa@ethz.ch
(I. Anastasopoulos), gazetas@central.ntua.gr (G. Gazetas).
was subjected to extreme seismic shaking during the 1995
Kobe earthquake, substantially exceeding the design con-
siderations of the time. The lessons learned from the Kobe
earthquake influenced substantially the seismic practices
and codes not only in Japan but also worldwide. Further-
more, the reconstruction and retrofit methodologies and
techniques that were developed and applied in Kobe
pushed forward the relevant state-of-the-art.
Despite being well-engineered (using the best methods of
analysis and construction technologies available at the
time, mostly 70–800 s), when subjected to accelerations
much higher than their design levels, many structures were
pushed well into their nonlinear regime and failure proved

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2020.09.005
0038-0806/Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 L. Sakellariadis et al. Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467

Fig. 1. City of Kobe, showing the Hansin expressway Route 3 extending almost parallel to the fault projection, and the location of the collapsed bridge
piers at the area of Fukae; post-seismic photo of the collapsed bridge and exhibit of plastic hinging of one of the failed piers in the city seaside.

to be often unavoidable. This study revisits one of the most
dramatic failures of the 1995 Kobe earthquake: the col-
lapse of 18 spans of the elevated Hanshin Expressway
Route No. 3 in the Fukae area (Fig. 1). The deck was
monolithically connected to 3.1 m diameter circular piers,
founded on 17–pile groups in alluvium sand and gravel.
The collapse has been attributed to inadequate structural
design regarding mainly the addition of a prematurely ter-
minated third row of longitudinal reinforcement and insuf-
ficient shear capacity due to poor transverse reinforcement
(Kawashima & Unjoh, 1997).
Surprisingly, the failure did not occur at the bottom of
the pier (location of maximum bending moment) but
2.5 m above the pilecap, where shear cracking initiated.
In this critical section, the third row of longitudinal rein-
forcement was terminated (Fig. 2a), mobilizing a brittle
shear mode of failure instead of the desired flexural mech-
anism which would have added ductility to the system. The
concept of ‘‘capacity design” was not known at that time;
the collapse is largely due to its absence. Moreover, the role
of soil–foundation–structure interaction (SFSI), which is
still often ignored in design or considered a priori benefi-
cial, was proven detrimental. Along with important site
effects, previous studies (Gazetas et al., 2006; Mylonakis
et al., 2006) have shown that the elongation of the natural
period of the bridge due to SSI (T SSi > T fixed ) resulted in
higher spectral demands S A (Fig. 2b). Nevertheless, the
exact role of the piled foundation on the response and
the failure of the bridge has not yet been fully understood
or quantified.
The collapse of the Fukae bridge is re-examined herein
by comparatively assessing the performance of the original
foundation, which survived the earthquake and is still in
use (for the fully replaced bridge), to that of alternative
design concepts, considering nonlinear soil-foundation
interaction (e.g., Anastasopoulos et al., 2010a, 2010b). A
single segment of the collapsed bridge is modelled employ-
ing the finite element (FE) method (Figs. 3 and 4), adopting
the geometry and material properties (mass M, moment of
inertia I, pier diameter D, pile diameter d, pile length L) of
the actual system (Kawashima & Unjoh (1997)). Emphasis
is given on the nonlinear response of each component of
the entire pile-group–bridge–soil system and their
interactions.
At first, the results of the numerical simulation
regarding the behavior of the actual system are verified
against post-earthquake observations and results of pre-
vious relevant studies. The study then focuses on the
foundation level, investigating the ‘‘successful” geotech-
nical performance of the original pile group. The bene-
fits of such foundation design philosophy are
questioned through comparative assessment of the origi-
nal foundation against five foundation alternatives. Even
25 years after the Kobe earthquake, the well docu-
mented Fukae bridge case history not only offers a
unique opportunity for validation of modern numerical
tools against field observations, but also offers an excel-
lent basis for the exploration of alternative foundation
concepts aiming to enhance the resilience of critical
infrastructure.

Fig. 2. (a) Reinforcement details and critical section where the 3rd row of longitudinal rebars was terminated and shear cracking initiated; lower section of
a collapsed pier exposed in the Hanshin Expressway earthquake museum; and (b) increase of spectral demand due to SSI-induced period elongation.
1451
 L. Sakellariadis et al. Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467

Fig. 3. Overview and geometric details of the examined segment of Fukae bridge.

Fig. 4. Key attributes of the FE model of a single segment of the Fukae bridge in Abaqus.

2. Finite element analysis methodology the lateral edges (multipoint kinematic constraints applied
at each level) that allow the model to mimic free-field soil
The static and dynamic response of a single segment of response under shear loading.
the Fukae bridge is analyzed employing the FE method
using ABAQUS. In total, six different foundation configu-
2.1. Soil modeling: kinematic hardening model
rations are explored, starting with the actual very stiff 17–
pile foundation with its large cap and a highly nonlinear
In contrast to the detailed reports of the structural
rocking shallow footing alternative consisting only of the
detailing of the Fukae bridge, the geotechnical data of
pilecap. Then based on the outcome of this investigation
the foundation are very limited. To that end, a simplified,
four intermediate approaches are further explored.
yet realistic, soil profile described by the equivalent
The key attributes of the FE model of the examined
undrained shear strength S u and shear wave velocity Vs is
bridge segment are shown in Fig. 4. The lateral boundaries
outlined based on the limited available SPT measurements
of the model are placed at distance 10d (d: pile diameter)
N 80 (Iwasaki et al., 1995) (Fig. 5a). The selected parameters
from the edge piles, while the vertical boundaries are placed
are based also on previous case studies of the Fukae bridge
at distance of 10d below the pile tip to reduce undesired
(Gazetas et al., 2006, Mylonakis et al., 2006). The 6-layered
boundary effects, while maintaining computational effi-
soil profile (Fig. 5a) is modelled with hexahedral (8-node)
ciency. A key feature is the tensionless interfaces with
elements, adopting a thoroughly validated kinematic hard-
appropriate friction coefficients l, which are introduced
ening model, with a modified pressure-dependent Von
between the soil and the foundation (piles and pile-cap)
Mises failure criterion and associated plastic flow rule
allowing for sliding and detachment, properly accounting
(Anastasopoulos et al., 2011). The evolution of stresses is
for such geometric nonlinearities. The 17 piles are rigidly
defined as:
connected to the pilecap to ensure fixed head conditions.
Furthermore, appropriate periodic boundaries are used at r ¼ ro þ a ð1Þ
1452
 L. Sakellariadis et al. Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467

Fig. 5. Soil modelling: (a) simplified soil profile (S u ; V s Þ, based on in-situ SPT, N 80 , measurements; and (b) Simulation of simple shear tests for cmax ¼ 0:002
and cmax ¼ 0:01 and comparison of numerical analysis (dots) to the G  c curves of Vucetic & Dobry (1993).

where ro corresponds to the stress at zero plastic strain,
and a is the ‘‘backstress’’. The latter controls the kinematic
evolution of the yield surface in the stress space through a
function F :
F ¼ f ð r  aÞ  r o
The plastic flow rate e_ pl follows an associated flow rule:
_ @F

e_ pl ¼ e pl ð3Þ
@r
_
where: e pl is the equivalent plastic strain rate.
The evolution law of the model consists of a nonlinear
kinematic hardening component, which describes the trans-
lation of the yield surface in the stress space, and an isotro-
pic hardening component, which defines the size of the
yield surface as a function of plastic deformation
(Gerolymos & Gazetas, 2005). The evolution of the kine-
matic component of the yield stress is described as follows:
1 2.2. Modelling of structural members: Concrete damaged
a_ ¼ C ðr  aÞ_epl  ca_epl
ro
where: C is the initial kinematic hardening modulus
(C ¼ ry =ey ¼ E ¼ 2ð1 þ vÞGo) and c a parameter that
determines the rate at which the kinematic hardening
decreases with increasing plastic deformation.
The calibration of model parameters requires knowledge
of: (a) the undrained shear strength S u ; (b) the small-strain
stiffness (expressed through Go or V s ); and (c) the stiffness
degradation(G  c and n  c curves). The nonlinear
features of the selected constitutive model are shown
Fig. 5b. Numerical results of shear stress, s – shear strain,
c loops are shown indicatively for two levels of shear strain
(cmax ¼ 0:002 and cmax ¼ 0:01). The computed values of
ð2Þ secant stiffness (dots) are compared to the widely used
G=Go  c (stiffness degradation) curves of Vucetic and
Dobry (1991). More details on the constitutive model can
be found in Anastasopoulos et al. (2011).
The adopted constitutive model has been validated
against a plethora of physical model tests (centrifuge, 1 g,
and large-scale) referring to: (a) surface and embedded
foundations subjected to cyclic loading and seismic shaking
(Anastasopoulos et al., 2011, 2012); (b) piles subjected to
cyclic loading (Giannakos et al., 2012); (c) bar-mat retain-
ing walls subjected to seismic shaking (Anastasopoulos
et al., 2010a, 2010b); and (d) circular tunnels subjected to
seismic shaking (Bilotta et al., 2014; Tsinidis et al., 2014).
ð4Þ plasticity
To gain deeper insights on the collapse mechanism, crit-
ical reinforced concrete (RC) structural members (pier and
piles) are modelled in a fairly rigorous way. The unconfined
cover and the confined core of RC sections are simulated
with nonlinear solid elements, employing the Concrete
Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model, which is available in
ABAQUS. The latter is capable of modelling the inelastic
quasi-brittle response of concrete using the concepts of
1453
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
Fig. 6. Modelling of structural members: (a) stress-stain response of unconfined concrete cover and confined concrete core (left), and of the steel
reinforcement bars (right); and (b) compression and tension damage indices in function of the corresponding inelastic axial strain.
isotropic damaged elasticity combined with isotropic ten-
sile and compressive plasticity.
The model is a continuum, plasticity-based, damage
model for concrete. Designed for monotonic, cyclic, and
dynamic loading, it considers two failure mechanisms: ten-
sile cracking and compressive crushing. The evolution of
the yield surface is controlled by two hardening parameters
related to each mechanism. Under uniaxial tension, the
stress–strain response follows a linear elastic relation until
reaching the failure stress. The subsequent formation of
micro-cracks is macroscopically introduced by a softening
stress–strain response. Similarly, under compression the
response is linear until initial yield; in the plastic regime
it is characterized by stress hardening followed by strain
softening beyond the ultimate stress.
Both the uniaxial tension and compression stress–strain
(rc -ec ) relationships of concrete are defined by the user as a
tabular function, adopting commonly used relations for
confined core concrete under compression (Mander et al.
1988) and tension (Chang & Mander, 1994) and the uncon-
fined cover concrete (Chang & Mander, 1994) considering
concrete C35. This representation indicatively shown in
Fig. 6a for the upper section of the collapsed pier. It can
be seen that the compressive strength rf ;cc of the concrete
core is higher than the strength rf ;uc of the concrete cover
thanks to the confinement offered by the transverse rein-
forcement. Furthermore, the ductility of the confined con-
crete is also increased. With respect to the unloading
response, the elastic stiffness appears to be degraded. This
degradation is different between tension and compression,
becoming more pronounced with the increase of plastic
strain. The degraded response (Fig. 6a) is characterized
by two independent uniaxial damage indices, d t and d c ,
1454
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
which are functions of the corresponding inelastic strains
ein (Fig. 6b):
Eun ¼ ð1  d c ÞEc;o ð5Þ
where: Ec;o ¼ 28GPa the initial stiffness of concrete.
The longitudinal reinforcement is modelled by means of
rebars (1D rods), defined as ‘‘equivalent” surface elements
embedded in the concrete elements. A simple elastic-
perfectly plastic stress strain (rs -es ) relationship (Fig. 6a)
for steel S350 (rf ;s ¼ 350MPa; Es ¼ 210GPaÞ is used until
the axial strain reaches es;u ¼ 12%. After this point, the steel
capacity drops rapidly to almost zero, corresponding to the
initiation of buckling. The rebars are superposed on the
mesh of the concrete elements, which implies that perfect
bonding is assumed between the reinforcement and con-
crete. Thus, the bahaviour of concrete is considered inde-
pendently of that of the rebar. Hence, slip effects or loss
of confinement cannot be captured. This limitation cer-
tainly affects post-failure behavior.
The modelling methodology has been validated in
Agalianos et al. (2020) against two half-scale model tests
conducted by Prakash et al. (2010), The tests examined
the response of circular RC columns subjected to axial
force with low to moderate shear. Two column height-to-
diameter ratios, H =D ¼ 6 and H =D ¼ 3, were considered
corresponding to low and moderate shear, respectively.
Both specimens had a diameter D ¼ 0.61 m, 2.1% longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio and constant axial load ratio
N=N ult = 0.07. A comparison of the FE model to the exper-
imental results is shown in Fig. 7a in terms of F  d
response. The model captures reasonably well the experi-
mental results both in terms of stiffness and ultimate
capacity.
 L. Sakellariadis et al. Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467

Fig. 7. CDP modelling of RC piers and piles: (a) validation against 1:2 scaled experiments of RC columns (Agalianos et al. 2020); (b) verification against
RC section analysis (Response 2000) in terms of axial force–bending moment interaction for the lower and upper section of the collapsed pier; and (c)
shear force–bending moment interaction diagram of the upper section (2 rebar rows) compared to ASSHTO-99 guidelines, and failure modes with
superimposed contours of concrete damage.

The CDP modelling methodology is further verified
against RC section analysis using Response 2000 (Bentz,
2000). The simulation is conducted adopting the material
parameters of the actual bridge, as reported by
Kawashima & Unjoh (1997). Special attention was given
to the reinforcement details of the collapsed pier, using dif-
ferent reinforcement ratio for the lower section of the pier
(up to 2.5 m above the pilecap) and the upper section, cor-
responding to the previously discussed 2 and 3 rows of lon-
gitudinal bars, respectively. Where not available (e.g. for
the piles), reasonable assumptions were made regarding
the concrete type and the reinforcement ratio (typical min-
imum 1% ratio).
Fig. 7b and c offer an overview of the FE simulation in
terms of axial force–bending, moment (N  M) and shear
force–bending moment (F  M) interaction diagrams.
With respect to the flexural response (Fig. 7b), the FE anal-
1455
ysis using the CDP model is in good agreement with the
RC section analysis for both the upper and the lower sec-
tion of the collapsed pier. Fig. 7c illustrates the compated
(FE analysis) response of the upper section of the collapsed
pier (two rebar rows) for different moment–shear ratios (by
altering the height of the column). Good agreement is
shown with the results of RC section analysis (Response
2000) and the ASSHTO-99 guidelines, especially up to rea-
sonable height-to-diameter ratios (H  6 m). Further
reduction of the height of the pier leads to overestimation
of the shear resistance.
The contours of concrete damage d c presented in
Fig. 7c, indicate that the numerical simulation is capable
of reproducing the different modes of failure (flexural and
shear). These results are also assessed against post-
earthquake observations and previous studies. Adachi
et al. (2003) reported the dramatically different response
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
of two adjacent, almost identical piers, situated near the
Fukae section. The first pier failed in shear, at the region
of longitudinal reinforcement cut-off, causing the collapse
of the supported span. On the contrary, the second pier
experienced damage in the form of flexural micro-
cracking at its bottom, surviving the earthquake. The only
difference between the two piers was the additional (3rd)
reinforcement row, terminating at 2.5 m distance from
the base.
Adachi et al. (2003) also conducted a series of 1:7 scaled
physical model tests (static and cyclic), which reproduced
the observed performance and revealed the inherent weak-
ness of the heavier reinforced pier. The increased flexural
resistance of the heavier reinforced pier attracted higher
bending moment and, consequently, shear force. Given
the same shear capacity (same diameter and transverse
reinforcement), the structure failed due shear failure. On
the contrary, the lightly reinforced pier reached its flexural
capacity faster, and therefore the shear demand was lim-
ited. This pier failed in bending, developing flexural cracks,
but did not collapse; by contrast, the shear failure of the
heavier reinforced pier was brittle. A similar response is
observed in the numerical results of Fig. 7c, comparing
the 8.5 m to the 12 m tall pier. The first height corresponds
to the collapsed pier (12 m  2.5 m = 8.5 m), where a shear
mode of failure is observed. The taller pier (12 m) repre-
sents the case with only 2 rows of reinforcement over the
entire length of the pier, which experiences a more ductile
flexural mode of failure (as would have been the case, if
the pier had been capacity designed). It may therefore be
concluded that the CDP model offers a good approxima-
tion of complex RC response within the scope of this study.
The implementation of the CDP model for the RC piles
is a key advancement of the present simulation. Although
the importance of the structural nonlinearities of the piles
has already been pointed out by various researchers, this
is typically accounted for in a simplified manner.
Gerolymos & Gazetas (2005) investigated the static and
dynamic response of piles using a dynamic nonlinear
Fig. 8. Pile group modelling: (a) FE modelling of RC piles using nonlinear beam elements (Mc) vs CDP modelling; and (b) Illustration of the resisting
mechanisms of the pile group under seismic loading.
1456
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
Winkler spring model that assumed different Moment–cur-
vature ðM  cÞ loops for well and poorly reinforced con-
crete. In continuum–based approaches, the structural
behavior of the piles is considered in a similar simplified
manner using nonlinear beam elements to simulate the
Moment–curvature ðM  cÞ response obtained from RC
section analysis. As depicted in Fig. 8a the beam elements
can be further encased in 3D continuum elements of nearly
zero stiffness (dummy elements), enabling a realistic repre-
sentation of the pile periphery. (e.g., Giannakos et al.,
2012; Sakellariadis et al. 2019).
The key limitation of such approaches is the dependency
of the adopted M  c curve to the selected level of axial
load. The seismic inertia loads are transmitted to the pile
group to a large extent through axial loading, resulting in
significant variations of the axial pile forces during shaking
(Fig. 8b). Neglecting the interaction between axial load and
moment capacity, (N  M), may lead to non-negligible dis-
crepancies, not necessarily on the safe side (Fig. 8a). With
few exceptions, mainly referring to static loading of piles
(Gerolymos et al., 2015; Psychari et al., 2019) the sensitivity
of pile group structural response to the variation of axial
loading has not yet attracted the necessary attention. To
the best of our knowledge, no attempt has been made to
investigate the dynamic performance of pile groups
accounting for this important feature of RC behavior.
2.3. Seismic excitation
Due to the prohibitive computational cost, limited time-
history analyses were performed for the various foundation
configurations. In the absence of a seismic record at the
exact location, the Fukiai (000) record was chosen as the
most representative. This motion was recorded just a little
further away (about 8 km) from the collapsed bridge but at
a similar distance from the Noijima fault, and on similar
geological and soil conditions. The nearly-fault-normal
component of the record was further deconvoluted at -
23 m depth using equivalent-linear analysis, and used as
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
input motion. The time history and its elastic spectrum are
shown in Fig. 9.
3. Actual pile group vs. rocking footing
This section initially investigates the performance of the
original bridge–pilecap–pile group configuration. Subse-
quently, the role of the original 17-pile group is critically
assessed by exploring an extreme modification of the foun-
dation: the 17 piles are removed along with the cover layer
leaving only the pilecap acting as a shallow footing, thus
provoking highly nonlinear response. Extensive studies
have shown that such nonlinear interaction can be used
for the seismic protection of structures (e.g. e.g., Kutter
et al. 2003; Mergos & Kawashima 2005; Anastasopoulos
et al., 2010a, 2010b), suggesting a plastic design approach
tolerating full mobilization of foundation moment capacity
under seismic loading. Modern design guidelines, such as
FEMA 750 (2009) and the second generation of Eurocode
8 (Pecker, 2019), progressively encourage such approaches
provided that certain performance criteria are met
(Performance-Based design).
Prior to comparatively assessing the seismic perfor-
mance of the two foundation alternatives, they are both
Fig. 9. Acceleration time histories and elastic response spectra of the original and the deconvolved Fukiai_000 record used for the nonlinear time history
analyses.
Fig. 10. FE deformed mesh with superimposed soil plastic strains and load-settlement ðP  wÞ response of the actual 17-pile group and of the rocking
footing alternative under vertical loading.
1457
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
subjected vertical push and horizontal pushover analysis.
The static (vertical) and the seismic (combined loading)
capacity of the existing pile group and of the shallow foot-
ing are evaluated.
3.1. Bearing capacity analysis
Fig. 10 presents the results of the FE analysis of the two
foundations under vertical loading in terms of load– settle-
ment curves. This investigation was conducted for the com-
pleteness of the comparison of the various alternatives
since the vertical (static) safety factor is typically a key
parameter in foundation design. For completeness, the
bearing capacity of the two alternatives is also estimated
applying the traditional analytical semi-empirical bearing
capacity methods which are typically used for design ignor-
ing pile-to-pile interaction under the large deformations
prevailing at failure (Kanellopoulos & Gazetas, 2019).
The bearing capacity of the pile group is estimated as:


P ult ¼ n  P shaft þ P tip
 
 pd 2
¼ n  p  d  L  a  Su þ  9  S u;tip  70MN ð6Þ
4
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
where:
n = 17 (number of piles)
d = 1 m (pile diameter)
L = 12 m (pile length)
a = 0.6 (adhesion factor)

S u = 105 kPa (average undrained shear strength over the
pile length)
Sutip = 250 kPa (undrained shear strength at the pile tip)
Similarly, the bearing capacity of the shallow footing is
estimated following Prandl΄s bearing capacity formula:
P ult ¼ 5:14  Su  Acap  ð1 þ sc Þ  48:8MN
where:
sc = 0.2 (shape factor for square footing)
Acap = 121 m2 (pile cap area)
S u = Undrained shear strength of the soil layer under-
neath the cap
Considering the acting vertical loads
(P acting ¼ P deck þ P pier þ P cap  20MNÞ, the estimated
capacity for the pile group using bearing capacity theory
results to a global factor of safety against purely vertical
loading FS v  3:5, which is a reasonable design value. On
the other hand, despite the extreme modification, the shal-
low foundation offers an adequate vertical factor of safety
FS v  2:52.
Comparing the numerical results to the bearing capacity
estimates, the vertical capacity of the pile group is found to
be substantially higher. This is primarily attributed to the
contribution of the pile cap (ignored in Eq. 6 above), whose
base and four sides contribute to foundation reaction. Fur-
Fig. 11. FE deformed mesh with superimposed soil and concrete plastic strains and horizontal pushover ðF  dÞ response of the actual 17-pile group (PG),
compared to the shallow footing (F) alternative, and the fixed-base pier (P).
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
thermore, Eq. 6 does not consider group effects. The
numerical result yields a much higher FS v  7:5. On the
contrary the numerical result of the shallow footing yields
P ult  50 MN (Fig. 10) which is in good agreement with
the analytical solution offering an additional verification
of the FE modelling technique. Interestingly, for this level
of vertical loading, the shallow footing (pile cap) is
expected to experience a combination of uplift and bearing
capacity failure mechanisms under excessive seismic load-
ing (Gazetas et al., 2013).
ð7Þ 3.2. Pushover analysis
To gain deeper understanding of the behavior of the two
foundation schemes under combined vertical, horizontal
and moment loading, a pushover analysis is performed in
this section. The analysis is displacement controlled and
the horizontal displacement is applied 12 m above the
foundation level, corresponding to the center of mass of
the deck. For the pushover analyses of the two foundation
alternatives, the pier is modeled as perfectly rigid to focus
on foundation response. An additional investigation is per-
formed examining the actual bridge pier assuming fixed
base conditions, to determine its structural capacity.
The results of the FE analysis are collected in Fig. 11
and are intentionally presented with respect to shear (hor-
izontal) force–displacement ðF  dÞ response, since this
was found to be critical for the structural integrity of the
examined pier. The analysis of the fixed-base RC pier
shows that it fails primarily in shear, 2.5 m above its base
at the point of longitudinal reinforcement cut-off. This is
1458
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
consistent with the results of Fig. 7, but also (and most-
importantly) with the post-earthquake reconnaissance by
Kawashima & Unjoh (1997) and Adachi et al. (2003),
and as can be seen in the photos of the collapsed bridge
(Fig. 1). For the evaluation of foundation capacity, it is
convenient to use an apparent seismic safety (over-
strength) factor k defined as:
F foundation;ult
k¼
F pier;ult
According to the results of Fig. 11, the ultimate capacity
of the pile group foundation is F pilegroup;ult  12MN while
the capacity of the shallow footing is P footing;ult  3:8MN .
The shear capacity of the RC pier is in between these two
values: F pier;ult  5:2MN . Using the k factor (Eq. (8)), the
capacity of the two foundation alternatives may be
expressed as a function of the structural capacity of the pier
as kpilegroup ¼ 2:2 (i.e., foundation over-strength) and
kfooting ¼ 0:7 (i.e., foundation under-strength).
Regardless of the various simplifications and potential
variations from the actual soil conditions (simplified Su
profile based on limited in-situ measurements), it is evident
that the design of the original foundation incorporates a
significant over-strength factor. The pier will fail well
before any threatening load is transmitted onto the pile
cap. This is totally consistent with the condition of the
bridge right after the Kobe earthquake: the piers collapsed
while there was no visible evidence of foundation rotation,
settlement, or damage (Fig. 1). Although in this case the
over-strength factor was rather high, overall this aspect
of design of the original bridge complies to the provisions
(‘‘capacity” design) of modern seismic codes, which guide
Fig. 12. Seismic performance of the bridge subjected to the Fukiai_000 record in terms of deformed model with plastic strain contours, drift d time
histories, and settlement-rotation ðw  hÞ response. Comparison of: (a) actual 17-pile group; to (b) shallow footing.
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
the damage to structural members, considering their
response more reliable and repairable. On the contrary,
looking at the k < 1 factor of the modified shallow founda-
tion, geotechnical failure is provoked prior to plastic hing-
ing of the pier, limiting the inertial load transmitted to the
superstructure (as shown below).
3.3. Seismic performance: Actual capped–17–pile group vs.
ð8Þ the rocking footing
The performance of the collapsed bridge pier with the
two foundation schemes (actual 17-pile group and shallow
footing) is comparatively assessed in terms of drift d time
histories, distinguishing between rotational dh (due to foun-
dation rotation) and flexural drift dstr , which corresponds
to the structural damage (Fig. 12). The foundation perfor-
mance is also evaluated on the basis of settlement-rotation
ðw  hÞ response. The two foundation alternatives are also
compared in terms of cumulative RC damage and soil plas-
tification (deformed FE model with superimposed plastic
strain contours).
Focusing on the actual configuration, the FE model cor-
rectly captures the observed failure mode (Fig. 12). The
shear-type failure at the region of longitudinal reinforce-
ment cut-off (2.5 m above the pile-cap) is consistently
reproduced. However, the FE model cannot reproduce
the post-failure response leading to the dramatic overturn-
ing collapse. The pile group experiences limited rocking
and almost the entire drift d is due to structural deflection
dstr . The maximum flexural drift dstr;max ¼ 0:27m, is primar-
ily concentrated at the upper section forming a plastic zone
2.5 m above the pile cap.
1459
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
This critical section is further investigated plotting the
contours of concrete compressive damage d c and the
moment–shear ðM  F Þ load path. Each point of Fig. 13
corresponds to the M  F response at the critical section
at each time step throughout the dynamic time history
analysis. The results show that the M  F load path reaches
the failure envelope at various time increments during
shaking, resulting in a large zone of elements around the
critical section that reach their ultimate compressive capac-
ity (d c contours). The strength degradation of the critical
section after failure can also be visualized in the M  F
load path: after reaching the failure envelope, the M  F
points tend to concentrate around the origin, as they can-
not exceed the ‘‘degraded” failure envelope (shown
schematically in the graph) that corresponds to the residual
capacity of the RC pier. With d c reaching 0.9 and the flex-
ural drift of the upper 8.5 m dstr;upper ¼ 0:24m, collapse is
certain. The drift ratio of the upper 8.5 m, dr;upper ¼ 2:8%
corresponds to the collapse damage state according to
Ghobarah (2001). Moreover, the M  F load path reaches
the failure envelope at a point corresponding to shear-
dominated failure, which is consistent with the observed
brittle collapse.
In stark contrast, the bridge with the (perhaps extre-
mely) under-designed shallow foundation survives with
minor damage. The maximum total drift is similar to
the previous case, but is now mainly due to foundation
rocking (Fig. 12). Thanks to foundation compliance,
the structural deflection is limited to dstr;max ¼ 0:04m,
which corresponds to minor damage of the RC pier. This
is confirmed in Fig. 13, which shows that the damage is
Fig. 13. Comparative assessment of the structural performance of the pier founded on the 17-pile group (left) and the shallow footing (right) in terms of
concrete damage dc (top) and moment–shear ðM  F Þ load path compared to the failure envelope of the critical section (the degraded failure envelope is
shown schematically).
1460
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
limited to the unconfined cover, with d c not exceeding 0.2;
the M  F load path of the critical section remains well
within the failure envelope throughout the earthquake.
The price to pay is the increased settlement w ¼ 19cm
and residual rotational drift dh;res ¼ 4:8cm. In view of
the similarity of piers and soil conditions, and given the
35 m spans, these residual deformations would not cause
any appreciable damage; the dramatic collapse is
avoided.
Looking back at the drift time histories of the pile group
founded bridge (Fig. 12), limited foundation rocking can
be observed. The moment of maximum drift dmax is picked,
to further investigate the loading of the edge piles. The
results are shown in Fig. 14, both with respect to the axial
load–bending moment ðN  MÞ interaction of the critical
pile section (Fig. 14a), and in terms of axial force ðN Þ
and bending moment ðMÞ distribution with depth
(Fig. 14b). Seismic loading subjects the edge piles to alter-
nating compression and tension, with the latter signifi-
cantly reducing their moment capacity. Interestingly, the
failure envelope is not reached (Fig. 14a). This can be
explained using the bending moment distributions of
Fig. 14b. The additional kinematic loading is evident, judg-
ing from the shape of the diagrams at the interfaces
between the various soil layers. However, focusing on the
pile head it becomes evident that the compressed piles (4)
undertake almost the entire loading, while the bending
moments at the pile head of the piles under tension (1) is
almost zero. Interestingly, this is not related to structural
failure, as the N  M load path is not reaching the failure
envelope.
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
Fig. 14. Loading of the edge piles at the moment of maximum drift dmax (Fukiai_000 record): (a) axial force-bending moment ðN  MÞ load path
compared to the failure envelope of the RC edge piles; and (b) distribution with depth of axial force ðN Þ and bending moment ðMÞ of the edge piles.
Despite not reaching the failure envelope, the piles
under tension (pile 1) sustain significant stiffness reduction
due to micro-cracking, which is nicely captured by the
Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) model. This stiffness
reduction leads to load redistribution towards the stiffer
foundation components (i.e., the compressed piles, 1), thus
preventing structural failure of the ‘‘weaker” piles under
tension (4). At the end of shaking, a significant number
of elements close to the pile-cap have exhausted their ten-
sile strength, which is consistent with the post-seismically
observed cracks, and with the reduced stiffness of concrete
specimens in subsequent field and laboratory tests.
The results of the original bridge–pile group configura-
tion are in good agreement with post-earthquake inspec-
tions, providing increased confidence on the numerical
analysis technique. Better understanding is gained with
respect to nonlinear pile–soil interaction as the structural
nonlinearities of the piles play an important role, which
is typically ignored. Based on the performance of the
bridge it may be safely concluded that foundation seismic
design should not be treated separately from the super-
structure, since geotechnical ‘‘success” does not prevent
structural failure. Furthermore, the study so far provides
further evidence on the beneficial role of nonlinear soil–
foundation interaction under excessive seismic loading.
The under-designed shallow footing protects the bridge
pier from excessive structural deflection, at the cost of
increased settlement (and residual rotation). The latter
may limit the applicability of such an approach in systems
where settlements are not tolerable. To that end, it is essen-
tial to investigate further mitigation measures or intermedi-
ate approaches that may offer a compromise between
geotechnical and structural performance.
4. Intermediate foundation concepts
Following the previous fundamental conclusions, an
attempt is made to make ends meet between successful
1461
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
structural and acceptable geotechnical performance. This
section investigates 4 intermediate concepts, ranging from
smaller capped-9-pile group and embedded footing, to an
unconnected piled raft foundation, and to a shallow foot-
ing supported by an unconnected confining ‘‘ring”. The
increase of foundation capacity compared to the shallow
footing is expected to partially or completely cancel the
‘‘rocking isolation” effect, unavoidably increasing pier dis-
tress. The four concepts are briefly described below with
examples of similar research studies and applications in
practice:
(i) Reduced piled foundation
A smaller pile group foundation is studied, removing the
two edge rows of piles in the transverse direction. This
modification results to a 9-pile group consisting of 2 rows
of 4 piles and an additional pile in the center. The reduced
pile group is adequate in terms of static (due to purely ver-
tical loading) safety factor and settlement, offering at the
same time reduced moment capacity in the transverse direc-
tion of seismic loading. A similar concept has been
explored by Sakellariadis et al. (2019) referring to widening
of existing bridges.
(ii) Unconnected piled raft
The approach of an unconnected piled raft has been
explored experimentally as a remediation measure for set-
tlement and rotation of rocking footings (Deng & Kutter,
2012; Loli et al., 2015). Such concepts have also been
applied in some major bridges, such as the Rion–Antirion
bridge in Greece, where unconnected piles where used in a
similar manner as part of a hybrid foundation solution
(Pecker, 2003). The original configuration is slightly modi-
fied, removing the cover layer and the kinematic con-
straints between the piles and the cap. An additional thin
soil layer is introduced between the pile cap and the ‘‘im-
proved soil” targeting low interface friction angle, thus
provoking sliding. Depending on the material of this layer,
such an approach can limit the maximum allowable inertia
load, while bearing capacity failure and excessive settle-
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
ments are prevented thanks to the axial pile stiffnesses. This
layer is added to the FE model as a frictional interface of
low friction coefficient l ¼ 0:25, which corresponds to an
interface between precast concrete and silty soil.
(iii) Embedded footing
The embedded footing is very similar to the previously
investigated shallow footing. The main difference is the
cover layer, which is not removed, offering additional con-
finement compared to the shallow foundation. From a
practical point of view, this approach is more typical than
a shallow footing, since a small excavation is always neces-
sary for a number of reasons. The nonlinear seismic beha-
viour of embedded foundations in cohesive soil was
investigated recently by Zafeirakos and Gerolymos, 2014
who proposed a seismic design methodology focusing on
bridge systems. Similarly for non-cohesive soils, Taeseri
et al. (2019) investigated the entire range of nonlinear rock-
ing response of embedded footings proposing stiffness-
degradation charts which can be implemented for design
purposes.
(iv) Rocking footing with confining ‘‘ring”
The last alternative is the previously examined rocking
footing, combined with an unconnected confining ‘’ring’’.
The latter is a heavy hollow rectangular RC slab, placed
next to the footing with a small clearance. Being
unconnected to the footing, its contribution is limited to
Table 1
Vertical safety factor FS v and over-strength factor k of the studied
foundation alternatives.
Foundation Configuration FS v k alternative foundation configurations is comparatively
Capped 17-Pile group (original) 8 2.20
Capped 9-Pile group 5 1.30
Unconnected piled raft 7 1.01
Embedded footing 3.5 1.15
Shallow footing with confining ring 2.7 0.93
Shallow footing (rocking) 2.5 0.70
Fig. 15. Four intermediate foundation concepts subjected to purely vertical loading: mobilized failure mechanisms (FE deformed mesh with superimposed
soil plastic strains) (left) and load–settlement ðP  wÞ response (right).
1462
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
the additional confining stresses and the kinematic con-
straint it imposes to the underlying soil, preventing it’s
‘‘squeezing” out during seismic loading, and thus reducing
settlements.
The four foundation alternatives are initially subjected
to vertical and horizontal pushover loading in order to
determine the vertical safety factor FS v and the apparent
seismic over-strength factor k (Eq. (8)). Table 1 offers a
summary of the FE results for both types of loading.
Fig. 15 compares the mobilized failure mechanisms (FE
deformed mesh with superimposed plastic strain contours)
and the load settlement ðP  wÞ response of the four foun-
dation alternatives subjected to purely vertical loading. The
mobilised failure mechanisms vary substantially, resulting
in a wide range of bearing capacities and static (due to
purely vertical loading) factors of safety ðFS v ¼ 2:7  7Þ.
The results of the horizontal pushover analyses are pre-
sented in Fig. 16 in terms of mobilized failure mechanisms
and horizontal force–displacementðF  dÞ response, also
compared to the capacity of the pier. All alternatives
reduce significantly the over-strength factor
k ¼ 0:93  1:3; compared to the original pile group
ðk ¼ 2:2Þ. In 2 out of 4 cases (reduced pile group, embed-
ded footing), the pier remains the most vulnerable compo-
nent ðk > 1Þ. The resistance of the unconnected piled-raft is
almost equal to that of the pier, while the shallow footing
with confining ring is the only case of under-strength
ðk < 1Þ. Interestingly, the four concepts do not only cover
a wide range of k, but also vary in stiffness.
The seismic performance (Fukiai_000 record) of the
assessed in Fig. 17, in terms of deck drift time histories (dis-
tinguishing between dh and dstr ) and settlement–rotation
ðw-hÞ response. FE deformed mesh with superimposed con-
tours of concrete cumulative damage and soil plastification
are also plotted. The results are summarized in Table 2
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
Fig. 16. Four intermediate foundation concepts subjected to horizontal pushover loading: mobilized failure mechanisms (FE deformed mesh with
superimposed soil plastic strains) (left) and horizontal force–displacement (F  d) response (right), compared to the fixed-base RC pier.
with respect to the maximum values of deck drift and resid-
ual values of foundation rotation and settlement.
Starting with the smaller 9-pile group (Fig. 17), the
structural performance is improved compared to the origi-
nal 17-pile group. Thanks to the increased foundation com-
pliance and the mobilized nonlinear energy dissipation
mechanisms, the rocking drift is increased (dh;max ¼
0.11 m compared to 0.04 m of the original), leading to
20% reduction of the flexural drift (dstr;max = 0.23 m as
opposed to 0.27 m). As for the original foundation, the
piles survive the earthquake without any structural dam-
age. Still though, the pier sustains severe damage, as
revealed by the M  F load path and the contours of of
concrete damage d c of Fig. 18. As for the original 17-pile
group, after reaching the failure envelope, the M  F
points are bounded by the ‘‘degraded” failure envelope
(shown schematically), which is indicative of a high proba-
bility of collapse. Nonetheless, the reduction of dstr;max is
promising in terms of the potential application of such pile
group layouts (limited pile rows in the critical direction of
seismic loading). Especially for retrofit of upgraded/
widened bridges, installing the new piles (if needed for ade-
quate FS v or for settlement reduction) close to the founda-
tion center of rotation would not increase k, thus allowing
beneficial nonlinear pile group response.
Proceeding to the unconnected piled raft concept, the
flexural drift is reduced by 60% compared to the original
configuration (Fig. 17b, Table 2). Thanks to the reduced
k ¼ 1.01 (the foundation moment capacity is almost equal
to that of the pier), the critical section does not fail com-
pletely. This can be seen in the M  F load path (of the crit-
ical section) and the contours of concrete damage d c of
Fig. 18. In contrast to the previous case, no strength degra-
dation is observed and the formation of a broad failure
1463
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
zone is avoided: d c ¼ 0:9 only at the pier edges. With this
foundation configuration, although the damage might have
been irreparable, collapse would probably be avoided.
Although the foundation experiences significant uplifting
(as revealed by the w  h plot of Fig. 17b), the residual set-
tlement is limited to w ¼ 2:2cm; the residual rotation is
negligible.
The seismic performance of the remaining two configura-
tions is qualitatively similar to that of the previously ana-
lyzed shallow footing. The embedded footing results in
over-strength factor k > 1, therefore the pier remains the
most vulnerable system component. However, the seismic
performance of the pier founded on an embedded footing
seems to be the most ‘‘balanced”, satisfying both structural
and geotechnical performance criteria. The flexural drift is
almost double compared to the rocking footing
(dstr;max = 0.08 m compared to 0.04 m), but the pier survives
the earthquake with repairable damage (Fig. 17c). This is
confirmed in Fig. 18c, where it can be seen that the M  F
load path (of the critical section) marginally reaches the fail-
ure envelope, without any signs of strength degradation.
The limited amount of damage is revealed more clearly by
the contours of concrete damage, with d c  0.3. Although
the foundation moment capacity is 15% higher than that
of the pier ðk ¼ 1:15Þ, the energy dissipation due to nonlin-
ear foundation response reduces structural damage signifi-
cantly. At the same time, the settlements are reduced by
35% compared to the shallow footing.
The last foundation configuration incorporates a hybrid
concept, adding a ‘‘confining ring” to the previously
explored rocking (shallow) footing. The role of such addi-
tional component is dual: it increases the confining pres-
sures around the foundation, also offering kinematic
restraint to the shearing of soil in the vicinity of the foot-
 L. Sakellariadis et al. Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467

Fig. 17. Seismic performance of the bridge founded on the four intermediate foundation configurations (Fukiai_000 record). FE deformed mesh with
superimposed concrete damage and soil plastic strains (left), deck drift d (distinguishing bewteen the rocking dh and the flexural dStr component), and
settlement–rotation ðw  hÞ response: (a) smaller capped 9-pile group; (b) unconnected piled raft; (c) embedded footing; and (d) shallow footing with
confining ring.

Table 2
Seismic performance of the bridge for all foundation concepts (Fukiai_000 record).
Foundation Configuration dstr;max ðmÞ dh;max ðmÞ hres ðradÞ wðcmÞ
17-Pile group (original) 0.27 0.04 0.0009 0.5
9-Pile group 0.23 0.11 0.003 1.3
Unconnected piled raft 0.11 0.24 0.0001 2.2
Embedded footing 0.08 0.24 0.003 12.2
Footing with confining ring 0.05 0.25 0.004 14.5
Shallow footing (rocking) 0.04 0.25 0.004 18.8

1464
 L. Sakellariadis et al. Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467

Fig. 18. Comparative assessment of the structural performance of the pier founded on the four intermediate foundation alternatives in terms of concrete
damage dc and moment–shear ðM  F Þ load paths compared to the failure envelope of the critical section (the degraded failure envelope is shown
schematically).

ing, reducing its tendency to be squeezed out during cyclic
loading. This dual role is proven beneficial (Fig. 17), pre-
venting structural damage of the pier, equally sufficient to
the shallow footing (dstr;max ¼ 0.05 m as opposed to
0.04 m), and reducing by 25% the foundation settlement
(w ¼14.5 cm instead of 18.8 cm). As shown in Fig. 18,
M  F load path (of the critical section) remains within
the failure envelope throughout the seismic motion. It is
worth mentioning that the dimensions of the confining ring
were selected indicatively. The performance could be
improved further, if the dimensions and dead load of the
confining ring were optimized.
Summarizing, the performance of the examined founda-
tion alternatives lies between that of the original 17-pile
group and the rocking shallow footing. It is worth pointing
out that the main scope of this study was to explore how dif-
ferent foundation concepts would have potentially altered
the dramatic collapse of the Fukae bridge. To that end, it
is crucial to account for the poorly reinforced RC pier
and the level of seismic excitation that substantially
exceeded the design considerations, when evaluating the
previous results. Under the specific assumptions, the
embedded footing was proven the most efficient solution
preventing structural damage at the cost of tolerable settle-
ments. Similarly, the shallow footing and the hybrid solu-
tion employing a confining ring would have prevented
structural failure at the cost of further increased settle-
ments. The unconnected piled raft improved substantially
the overall performance, but could be much better exploited
if the sliding (shear) capacity of the footing was lower than
that of the pier. Finally, the reduced pile group would not
have prevented collapse, but still led to improved overall
performance, constituting a promising alternative if
designed properly along with structural design.
In all cases examined almost the entire flexural distor-
tion was concentrated at the upper 8.5 m of the pier.
Table 3 characterizes the performance of the studied alter-
natives, using the damage states of Ghobarah (2001) in
function of the drift ratio of the upper section. For the sin-
gle record used in this study (Fukiai_000), the structural
damage ranges from repairable to collapse. The presented
results should not be generalized; the damage state of the
bridge for each foundation configuration is sensitive not
only to the intensity but also to the frequency characteris-
tics of the input motion. To fully explore the advantages
and limitations of each scheme, further parametric studies
accounting for various earthquake scenarios are essential.
However, it may be concluded that the foundation concept
significantly affects the seismic performance and can poten-
tially enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure.

Table 3
Comparison of all foundation alternatives in terms of damage state, based on the drift ratio.
Foundation configuration dstr;max ðmÞ dr;max Damage State
17-Pile group (original) 0.24 2.8% Collapse
9-Pile group 0.19 2.2% Severe
Unconnected piled raft 0.072 0.85% Irreparable
Embedded footing 0.043 0.5% Repairable 8.5 m
Footing with confining ring 0.038 0.45% Repairable
Shallow footing (rocking) 0.04 0.47% Repairable

1465
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
5. Synopsis and conclusions
The collapse of the Fukae bridge is a dramatic exam-
ple of a system prone to brittle structural failure sub-
jected to seismic loading substantially exceeding its
design. Its failure was accompanied by ‘‘successful” foun-
dation performance. To gain deeper insights on this con-
tradictory response, advanced numerical tools were
implemented regarding RC members (pier and piles)
and soil nonlinear behavior. The numerical simulation
successfully reproduced the shear-dominated mode of
failure at the region of longitudinal reinforcement cut-
off. The analysis also confirmed that, despite being highly
overdesigned, the pile group foundation experienced lim-
ited but non-negligible swaying and rocking during shak-
ing, as a result of which the piles were subjected to
tension and combined shear-moment loading. The result-
ing stiffness reduction of the cracked under tension piles
leads to load redistribution towards the stiffer compressed
piles, preventing plastic hinging of the weaker piles (un-
der tension). These findings are consistent with post-
earthquake in-situ testing.
The successful comparison of the analysis to post-
earthquake observations increases further the confidence
to the numerical analysis technique and the implemented
concrete damaged plasticity (DCP) model. This allowed
deeper understanding of complex pile group–soil–structure
interaction mechanisms, accounting for structural nonlin-
earities (in addition to soil). The fact that the ‘‘injured”
piles were left in place and remained in use for the new
bridge, despite their cracking and stiffness reduction,
inspired the extreme modification of the original founda-
tion concept, removing all 17 piles and the cover layer. In
this way, highly nonlinear SFSI was provoked, which
was found to prevent collapse at the cost of increased set-
tlement and limited residual foundation rotation. The
favorable response of the pier founded on just the pile
cap offers support to the rocking foundation concept
(e.g., Kutter et al. 2003; Mergos & Kawashima 2005;
Anastasopoulos et al., 2010a, 2010b).
To deal with the shortcomings of the rocking footing, but
still gain the benefits of nonlinear SFSI, four additional
intermediate foundation concepts were investigated. The
examined concepts were based on the minimum modifica-
tion of the original configuration; no optimization was fol-
lowed. In this sense, accounting also for the poor
structural details of the pier and the (realistic but) single seis-
mic record used, it is not possible to conclude on a clearly
superior approach.
Based on the numerical results of the specific case exam-
ined, the following conclusions can be drawn:
 Reducing the number of pile rows in the critical direc-
tion of seismic loading is promising in improving the
seismic performance, but not sufficient to prevent severe
damage of the examined pier.
1466
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
 The unconnected piled raft alternative reduces both the
structural distress and the settlement. To fully exploit
this approach, the superstructure should be tolerant to
potentially large displacements due to sliding.
 Partial or full embedment of the footing can be an effec-
tive measure for settlement reduction, but a large
embedment may partially cancel the isolation effect of
a rocking foundation.
 Hybrid approaches adding confinement and kinematic
constraints (using a confining ring) around the rocking
foundation can be quite efficient. Such approaches
would require optimization of dimensions and confine-
ment to maximize benefits.
All cases examined adopted the structural details of the
collapsed pier. The performance of each concept could be
further improved following a holistic design approach,
treating the structural members and the foundation as a
system. The weakness of the current design trend is sum-
marized in the paradox of the overturned collapsed bridge
and the almost intact foundation. Evidently, over-sized
foundations can lead to seismically inadequate systems,
while permitting or provoking nonlinear soil–foundation
response can be quite beneficial. The penalty of residual
settlement (and rotation) should be considered and miti-
gated, especially for deformation intolerant structures. To
that end, performance–based design considering the entire
soil-foundation-structure system (and not each component
individually) is essential towards enhancing the safety and
resilience of critical infrastructure.
Acknowledgement
The financial support for this paper has been provided
by the Swiss Federal Roads Office (FEDRO) within the
project AGB2017/001 (Development of reliable methods
for optimized retrofit design of bridge pile groups) and is
greatly appreciated. The authors would like to acknowl-
edge the contribution of Dr. Evangelia Garini in the decon-
volution analysis, as well as Antonia Psychari and
Athanasios Agalianos in the calibration of CDP model
parameters. The support of Dr. Hiroyuki Kimata and
Dr. Yukio Adachi in providing valuable data is also grate-
fully acknowledged. The paper is dedicated to the memory
of Dr. Takashi Tazoh, whose contribution in understand-
ing and documenting case histories from the Kobe 1995
earthquake is invaluable.
References
ABAQUS 6.11. (2014). Standard user’s manual. Dassault Systèmes
Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA.
Adachi, Y., Ishizaki, H., Ikehata, S., Ikeda, S., 2003. Verification of the
Failure of Reinforced Concrete Piers under the Near-field Earthquake.
Hanshin Expressway Public Corporation Publications, Japan.
Agalianos, A., Sieber, M., Anastopoulos, I., 2020. Cost-effective analysis
technique for the design of bridges against strike-slip faulting.
 L. Sakellariadis et al.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 49, 1137–1157.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3282.
Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G., Loli, M., Apostolou, M., Gerolymos, N.,
2010a. Soil failure can be used for seismic protection of structures.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 309–326.
Anastasopoulos, I., Georgarakos, T., Georgiannou, V., Drosos, V.,
Kourkoulis, R., 2010b. Seismic performance of bar-mat reinforced-soil
retaining wall: Shaking table testing versus numerical analysis with
modified kinematic hardening constitutive model. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 30 (10), 1089–1105.
Anastasopoulos, I., Gelagoti, F., Kourkoulis, R., Gazetas, G., 2011.
Simplified constitutive model for simulation of cyclic response of
shallow foundations: validation against laboratory tests. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 137 (12), 1154–1168.
Anastasopoulos, I., Loli, M., Gelagoti, F., Kourkoulis, R., Gazetas, G.,
2012. ’Nonlinear soil–foundation interaction: numerical analysis’.
Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering.
Bentz, E.C., 2000. Sectional Analysis of Reinforced ConcreteMembers.
Department of Civil Engineering. University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada, p. 184.
Bilotta, E., Lanzano, G., Madabhushi, S.G., Silvestri, F., 2014. A
numerical Round Robin on tunnels under seismic actions. Acta
Geotechnica 9 (4), 563–579.
Chang, G., and Mander, J. B. (1994). ‘‘Seismic energy based fatigue
damage analysis of bridge columns: Part I—Evaluation of seismic
capacity.” NCEER Technical Report No. 94-0006, Buffalo, N.Y.
Deng, L., Kutter, B.L., 2012. Characterization of rocking shallow
foundations using centrifuge model tests. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 41 (5), 1043–1060.
FEMA. 2009. Recommended seismic provisions for new buildings
andother structures. FEMA 750. Washington, DC: Building Seismic
Safety Council, National Institute of Building.
Iwasaki, T., Fujino, Y., Iemura, H., Ikeda, S., Kameda, H., Katayama, T.,
Kawashima, K., Onishi, Y., Saeki, S., Toki, K., 1995. Report on
Highway bridge damage caused by the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake
of 1995. Committee on Highway Bridge Damage caused by the
Hyogo-Ken Nambu Earthquake, Japan.
Gazetas, G., Anastasopoulos, I., Gerolymos, N., Mylonakis, G., Syngros,
C., 2006. The Collapse of the Hanshin Expressway (Fukae) Bridge,
Kobe 1995: Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction, Reconstruction.
Seismic Isolation. Entwicklungen in der Bodenmechanik, Bodendy-
namik und Geotechnik, pp. 93–120.
Gazetas, G., Anastasopoulos, I., Adamidis, O., Kontoroupi, T., 2013.
Nonlinear rocking stiffness of foundations. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 47, 83–91.
Gerolymos, N., Papakyriakopoulos, O., Brinkgreve, R.B.J., 2015.
Macroelement modeling of piles in cohesive soil subjected to combined
lateral and axial loading. Analytical Methods in Petroleum Upstream
Applications 373.
Gerolymos, N., Gazetas, G., 2005. Phenomenological model applied to
inelastic response of soil-pile interaction systems. Soils and Founda-
tions 45 (4), 119–132.
Giannakos, S., Gerolymos, N., Gazetas, G., 2012. Cyclic lateral response
of piles in dry sand: Finite element modeling and validation.
Computers and Geotechnics 44, 116–131.
1467
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 1450–1467
Ghobarah, A., 2001. Performance-based design in earthquake engineer-
ing: State of development. Eng. Struct. 23 (8), 878–884. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00036-0.
Kanellopoulos, K., Gazetas, G., 2019. Vertical static and dynamic pile-to-
pile interaction in non-linear soil. Géotechnique, 1–16.
Kawashima, K., Unjoh, S., 1997. The damage of highway bridges in the
1995 Hyogo-ken nanbu earthquake and its impact on Japanese seismic
design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1 (03), 505–541.
Kutter BL, Martin G, Hutchinson TC, Harden C, Gajan S, Phalen JD
(2003) Status report on study of modeling of nonlinear cyclic load-
deformation behavior of shallow foundations. In: PEER workshop,
University of California, Davis, March 2003
Loli, M., Knappett, J.A., Brown, M.J., Anastasopoulos, I., Gazetas, G.,
2015. Centrifuge testing of a bridge pier on a rocking isolated
foundation supported on unconnected piles. Proceedings of 6th
ICEGE, paper, 362..
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R., 1988. Theoretical Stress-Strain
Model for Confined Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering 114
(8), 1804–1826.
Mergos, P.E., Kawashima, K., 2005. Rocking isolation of a typical bridge
pier on spread foundation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9 (sup
2), 395–414.
Mylonakis, G., Syngros, C., Gazetas, G., Tazoh, T., 2006. The role of soil
in the collapse of 18 piers of Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe
earthquake. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics 35 (5),
547–575.
Pecker, A., (2003) A seismic foundation design process, lessons learned
from two major projects: the Vasco de Gama and the Rion Antirion
bridges. In ACI International Conference on Seismic Bridge Design
and Retrofit. La Jolla, California.
Pecker, A. (2019). Development of the second generation of Eurocode 8–
Part 5: A move towards performance-based design. In Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engi-
neering, ICEGE, Rome, Italy (p. 273). CRC Press.
Prakash, S., Belarbi, A., You, Y.M., 2010. Seismic performance of circular
RC columns subjected to axial force, bending, and torsion with low
and moderate shear. Engineering Structures 32 (1), 46–59.
Psychari, A., Agalianos, A., Sakellariadis, L., Anastasopoulos, I., 2019.
On the effect of RC moment-axial load interaction in the moment
capacity of a pile group. In Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Natural Hazards and Infrastructure.
Sakellariadis, L., Marin, A., Anastasopoulos, I., 2019. Widening of
Existing Motorway Bridges: Pile Group Retrofit versus Nonlinear Pile-
Soil Response. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering 145 (12), 04019107.
Taeseri, D., Laue, J., Anastasopoulos, I., 2019. Non-linear rocking
stiffness of embedded foundations in sand. Géotechnique 69 (9), 767–
782.
Tsinidis, G., Pitilakis, K., Trikalioti, A.D., 2014. Numerical simulation of
round robin numerical test on tunnels using a simplified kinematic
hardening model. Acta Geotechnica 9 (4), 641–659.
Vucetic, M., Dobry, R., 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response.
Journal of geotechnical engineering 117 (1), 89–107.
Zafeirakos, A., Gerolymos, N., 2014. Towards a seismic capacity design of
caisson foundations supporting bridge piers. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 67, 179–197.