Kinematic Bending Moments in Pile Foundations

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 119132
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
Kinematic bending moments in pile foundations

F. Dezi a, S. Carbonari b, G. Leoni c,
a
DIMeCUniversita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

D.A.C.S., Universita Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
c
Department ProCAm, Universita di Camerino, Ascoli Piceno, Italy
b
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history:
Received 6 May 2009
Received in revised form
3 October 2009
Accepted 6 October 2009
In this paper the kinematic seismic interaction of single piles embedded in soil deposits is evaluated by
focusing the attention on the bending moments induced by the transient motion. The analysis is
performed by modeling the pile like an EulerBernoulli beam embedded in a layered Winkler-type
medium. The excitation motion is obtained by means of a one-D propagation analysis. A comprehensive
parametric analysis is carried out by varying the main parameters governing the dynamic response of
piles like the soil properties, the bedrock location, the diameter and embedment in the bedrock of piles.
On the basis of the parametric analysis, a new design formula for predicting the kinematic bending
moments for both the cross-sections at the depositbedrock interface and at the pile head is proposed.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Dynamics
Soilstructure interaction
Kinematic interaction
Piles
Pile foundations
1. Introduction
The dynamic response of piles during transient earthquake
motions has received large attention in recent years and several
researchers have investigated the nature of input ground motion
[1] and the mechanism of soilpile interaction [213] to
determine seismic design loads for pile-supported structures.
Modern seismic codes, like Eurocode 8 [14], have acknowledged
these aspects and suggest accounting for soilstructure interaction effects in designing foundations and superstructures.
During earthquakes, piles undergo stresses due both to the
motion of the superstructure (inertial interaction) and to that of
the surrounding soil (kinematic interaction). In practice, structural
engineers commonly take into account stresses induced by the
inertial interaction, which may be responsible for pile head
failure, but neglect the effects of the kinematic interaction that
may be responsible for pile failure in the case of layered soils with
highly contrasting mechanical characteristics [4,1517]. Under the
assumption of linear behaviour for the soil and the foundation,
kinematic and inertial interaction effects may be studied
separately according to the substructure method [18] commonly
used in professional engineering and research practices.
Various sophisticated models, capable of taking into account
generic conguration of pile groups and nonlinear behaviour of
the soilfoundation system, are available. In the case of linear
behaviour, the boundary element method is widely used given its
versatility in accounting for the wave radiation problem [1923]
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: graziano.leoni@unicam.it (G. Leoni).

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.001
whereas in the case of nonlinear behaviour the nite element

method is most often used [2426]. For design purposes, simpler
and straightforward methods are available to take into account
the effects of kinematic interaction, for instance the dynamic
Winkler models and the static PY models [3,7,2733].
Many authors have proposed simplied procedures and
analytical solutions for the evaluation of the bending moments
due to the kinematic interaction. Margason [34] suggested
computing pile kinematic bending moments from the evaluation
of the free-eld soil curvatures by means of a nite difference
approach without accounting for soilpile interaction and radiation damping. Dobry and ORourke [4] presented a simple model
for the evaluation of the bending moment due to a harmonic
excitation at the bedrock. They proposed a simple formula for
evaluating the bending moment at the pile cross-section located
at the interface between two layers with a sharp change of
properties. A free-eld one-dimensional site analysis is needed for
evaluating the soil strain at the interface between layers, which is
one of the data necessary to apply the formula. Dente [35]
proposed an alternative expression for the evaluation of such
shear strain as a function of maximum acceleration at the freeeld ground surface. Nikolaou et al. [15] performed a parametric
investigation on the bending strains in a pile embedded in a twolayered soil deposit subjected to harmonic steady-state shear
waves and proposed a closed-form expression for the evaluation
of the maximum bending moment at the interface between layers.
Furthermore they performed analyses using real accelerograms
and real soil proles in order to nd a correlation between the
steady-state and a real transitory response. The formulas
proposed may be used to calculate only the bending moment at
the cross-section placed at the interface of two layers with a sharp

ARTICLE IN PRESS
120
F. Dezi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 119132
change of stiffness but is not valid for calculating bending

moments at the pile head.
In this paper a numerical procedure, recently proposed by the
authors [36] for the kinematic interaction analysis of pile groups
with generic geometry and layered soil prole, is specialized and
validated to analyze the seismic behaviour of single piles
embedded in layered soil. A nite element model is used for the
piles and a Winkler-type medium for the soil. Both the piles and
the soil are considered to have a linear behaviour. The soilpile
interaction is performed in the frequency domain and the
excitation motion is obtained by means of a one-D propagation
analysis.
A comprehensive parametric analysis is carried out by
considering single piles with xed-head and by varying the main
parameters governing the dynamic response of piles. The
inuence of the soil properties, the bedrock location, the stiffness
transition between layers, the diameter and the bedrock embedment of piles are discussed.
Finally, on the basis of the parametric analysis, new design
formulas for predicting the kinematic bending moment in endbearing piles, valid both for the cross-sections at the pile head and
at the interface between the soil deposit and the bedrock, are
proposed.
I
6
0
K E4
0
0
I
0
3
0
7
05
is the real valued stiffness matrix of the pile in which I and A are
the moment of inertia and the area of the cross-section,
respectively. When the pile is subjected to a motion, the following
inertia forces arise:
bo; z o2 Mu
where
2
A
6
M r4 0
0
7
05
is the real-valued mass matrix of the pile and r the density.

Under the assumption of no-slippage and no-separation at the
soilpile interface and by considering the soil constituted by innite
horizontal independent layers with linear behaviour (Fig. 1b), the
pile is subjected to line reaction forces given by
ro; z Ks o; zu uff
where uff(o; z) is the Fourier transform of the vector of the freeeld motion at the pile location and
2
3
kh o ioch o
0
0
6
7
0
0
kh o ioch o
Ks o; z 4
5
0
0
kv o iocv o
2. Soilpile dynamic interaction analysis

2.1. Analytical model
A pile embedded in a generic horizontally layered half-space
subjected to seismic excitation is considered (Fig. 1a). The pile,
having length L and diameter D, is considered to be an Euler
Bernoulli beam. In the frequency domain, the displacements at
depth z are described by the complex-valued vector

1
uT o; z u1 u2 u3
where o is the circular frequency and u1, u2 and u3 are the
displacement components of the pile axis referred to the system
{x1, x2, z}.
According to the EulerBernoulli model, the pile strains are
described by the curvatures and the overall normal strain grouped
in the vector
"
#
@2 u1 @2 u2 @u3
T
e
2

Du o; z
@z2
@z2 @z
By considering a linear elastic behaviour for the material, the
stress resultants (bending moments and axial force) are
e
so; z KDu
where
2
8
is the complex-valued impedance matrix of the innite layer placed
at depth z. Its inverse is the response to a harmonic point force with
unit components along the three directions x1, x2 and z. Coefcients
kh, kv, ch and cv are frequency-dependent stiffnesses and dampings
and allow catching both static (o =0) and dynamic behaviour of the
layer including material and radiation dampings. The rst two
terms are related to in-plane forces that induce in-plane pressure
and shear waves while the third is related to out-of-plane forces
that induce radiating shear waves.
The stiffness kh, based on comparative nite-element studies
[37], could approximately be considered to be frequencyindependent and expressed as a multiple of Youngs modulus
Es of the local soil
kh dEs
The evaluation of d is one of the main contributions of the

Kavvadas and Gazetas [7] study; in this work it is assumed to be
equal to 1.2 [2]. According to Makris and Gazetas [30], the stiffness
kv, pertinent to the vertical direction, can be calculated with the
Fig. 1. (a) Pile embedded in a layered soil and (b) model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
following formula:
kv o 0:6Es
2.2. Model validation
s!
1 oD
1
2
Vs
10
Finally, based on the works of Roesset and Angelides [38],

Krishnan et al. [39] and Gazetas and Dobry [37,40], the damping
coefcients may be evaluated according to the formulas

VLa
oD 0:25
k
ch o 2Drs Vs 1
2Z h
11
Vs
o
Vs
cv o 1:2pDrs Vs
oD
0:25
Vs
2Z
kv o
12
where Z is the soil hysteretic damping, Es the Youngs modulus, rs

the density, Vs the velocity of the shear waves and VLa the
Lysmers analogue velocity dened as
VLa
3:4
p1 n
Vs
13
in which n is the Poissons ratio of the soil.

The equilibrium condition of the pile may be expressed in
weak form by the Lagrange-DAlembert principle by assuming
that the work resulting from external forces and inertia forces
^
acting through every virtual consistent displacement eld uz
is
equal to that resulting from stresses acting through every virtual
eu
b z. In the frequency domain, this provides the
strain eld D
following equation:
Z L
Z L
Z L
e D
eu
b dz
b dz o2
b dz
KDu
Ks u u
Mu u
0
b dz;
Ks uff u
121
8u^ a 0
14
Eq. (14) represents a global balance condition and may be used

to solve the problem with variational methods like the Ritzs or
nite element methods. The latter was used by the authors to
develop a tool for the practical analysis of pile group foundations
in layered soils [36].
Once the problem is solved, the displacement prole is known
and the stress resultants may be evaluated from Eq. (3). The
results, given in the frequency domain, have to be transformed
in the time domain by operating the inverse Fourier transform,
in order to evaluate the maximum response attained during
earthquakes (e.g. envelopes of stress resultants).
The results obtained with the procedure presented are

compared with those given by rened three-D nite element
analyses. Solid elements are used to model a prismatic soil portion
having a 100 m 100 m square base and a depth of 30 m (Fig. 2).
These dimensions were chosen so as to avoid absorbing elements
at the lateral boundaries. On the contrary, xed restraints are
placed at the base of the model. The solid mesh is rened in a
signicant section around the bedrockdeposit interface and
around the pile as shown in Fig. 2. The seismic action, assumed
to act along direction x1, is dened with reference to outcropping
bedrock by considering an articial accelerogram matching the
Eurocode 8 Type 1 elastic response spectrum for ground type A
[14]. The input motion at the base of the model is calculated by
taking into account the presence of the upper deposit and
considering the deformable bedrock [41]. In applications using
the proposed method the free-eld motion at the pile location is
obtained with linear one-D site response analysis.
A signicant number of applications, selected from those to be
considered in the parametrical analysis, were carried out. For the
sake of brevity, only some results are reported in order to
demonstrate the potential of the method adopted in the
parametrical analysis. In particular the results for 24 m long piles,
with diameters of 0.6 and 1.2 m, embedded in a soil with the
prole shown in Fig. 2 are reported.
Envelopes of bending moments along the piles are presented in
Fig. 3. Results obtained with the proposed model are in very good
agreement with those of the rened nite element model. This
demonstrates the efciency of the proposed model in predicting
the kinematic stress resultants in the piles. For this reason the
proposed procedure is considered in the following applications
instead of the time-consuming rened nite element analysis.
3. Parametric investigation
A comprehensive parametric study is carried out to analyse the
effects of the kinematic interaction on the internal stress resultants
in oating and end-bearing single piles having the restrained
rotational degree of freedom at the head (xed head). The main
parameters governing the dynamic response of piles such as the
diameter, the properties of the soil (in terms of shear wave velocity
and density) and the bedrock location are considered.
Fig. 2. Comparisons with three-D nite element model: application data.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
122
Soilpile interaction effects are evaluated by means of an

analysis procedure consisting of two steps: rstly the free-eld
motion is dened in absence of piles; secondly, the free-eld
motion is applied to the soilpile system to perform the kinematic
soilpile interaction analysis.
In the rst step the seismic action is dened with reference to
accelerograms at the outcropping rock. Thanks to a linear
deconvolution the accelerogram at the real position of the bedrock
is obtained and nally a linear one-D site response analysis is
performed in order to calculate the free-eld motion within the
soil deposit at the pile location. In the second step, the nite
element numerical procedure proposed by the authors [36] is
used to study the kinematic soilpile interaction problem. The pile
is discretised into elements with length of 0.2 m in order to ensure
the convergence even in the case of small pile diameter and stiff
soil that is the most sensitive to the mesh size.
Fig. 4 shows typical results as provided by the procedure with
reference to a single pile embedded in a two-layer soil prole.
Envelopes of stress resultants (bending moments and shear
forces) and maximum displacements along the pile are reported.
As already seen in previous applications, the bending moment
diagram is characterized by a peak value very close to the layer
interface and by a fairly uniform distribution elsewhere. On the
other hand, the maximum value of the shear force arises in
the bedrock layer nearby the interface. It is worth noticing that

the bending moment is characterized by maximum values that
may induce the pile failure while the shear force is less important.
The diagram of the maximum displacements is characterized
by a shape very similar to the rst vibration mode of the soil
deposit with maximum value at the pile head and almost zero
value near the bedrock. This means that the pile is dragged by the
vibrating soil and that the stress resultants are mainly associated
to the rst vibration mode of the deposit.
It is worth noticing that all the diagrams are almost symmetric
owing to the cyclic nature of the seismic action. In consideration
of the symmetry of the pile cross-section, the absolute diagrams
will be plotted hereafter without losing signicant information.
Furthermore only the bending moments will be shown.
3.1. Analysis cases

A set of 21 analyses are performed with reference to oating
piles in homogeneous soil deposits (Fig. 5a) having mass density
r, shear wave velocity Vs, Poissons ratio n =0.4 and damping
x = 5%. The pile length is assumed to be 24 m.
In the case of end-bearing piles, the soil prole consists of a
soil layer, characterized by thickness h, mass density r and a shear
Fig. 3. Comparisons with three-D nite element model: kinematic bending moments.
Fig. 4. Examples of bending moments, shear forces and horizontal displacement within the pile.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 5. Analyses schemes: (a) homogeneous prole and (b) two-layered soil prole.
Table 1
Parameters adopted in the analysis.
123
evident along the pile. In the layered proles results revealed to be

in very good agreement in the case of Vs = 400 m/s while
differences up to 20%, concerning the maximum bending
moment at the pile head and at the deposit-bedrock interface,
are present in the case of Vs = 100 m/s.
These comparisons reveal that in the case of linear kinematic
interaction analyses the set of seven accelerograms may be
substantially substituted by a single articial accelerogram with
some differences in the case of soft soils.
In the sequel, the parametric investigation is performed
assuming as input motion a single articial accelerogram matching the EC8 Type 1 elastic response spectrum for ground type A
and PGA= 0.25 g. Fig. 8 shows the response spectra obtained from
the deconvolution analyses for all the soil proles investigated
starting from the selected articial accelerogram; each graph
refers to a specic soil type and collects results obtained for
different thickness h of the deformable layer. In all the cases
spectral de-amplications are evident in correspondence of the
fundamental periods of the soil deposits. It is worth noticing that
soil proles with Vs = 400 m/s are particularly responsive to the
deconvolution process in the range 0.00.5 s where the periods of
the soil deposits fall and where the spectrum of the seismic input
action achieves the maximum values.
3.3. Main results
Vs (m/s)
r (Mg/m3)
D (m)
h (m)
100, 200, 400
1.5, 1.7, 2.0
0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,

1.0, 1.5, 2.0
6, 12, 18, 30, 42
wave velocity Vs, overlying a rock stratum having mass density

rb =2.5 Mg/m3 and shear wave velocity Vsb = 800 m/s (Fig. 5b).
Both the layers are characterized by Poissons ratio n = nb = 0.4. The
low-strain shear modulus is considered in the analyses and
damping is assumed to be x = 5%, for the deposit and xb = 2% for the
bedrock. The pile is assumed to be 48 m long and characterized
by Youngs modulus Ep =30000 N/mm2 and mass density rp = 2.5
Mg/m3.
Eight different pile diameters, ve different bedrock locations
and three different shear wave velocities are considered for a total
of 120 cases (Table 1).
The analysis scenarios cover a wide range of possible two-layer
soil proles and make it possible to investigate the effects of the
layer interface on pile bending moments for highly contrasting
soil properties and various pile diameters.
3.2. Seismic motion
According to modern standards (e.g. Eurocode 8 [14]) seven
articial or recorded accelerograms, characterized by a mean
response spectrum matching the one suggested by the code, may
be used to represent the seismic action. Subsequently, the effects
have to be evaluated by averaging the results obtained from the
seven analyses.
In this section the mean results obtained with the seven
accelerograms shown by Fig. 6ag are compared with those
achieved by considering the articial accelerogram given by
Fig. 6h matching the same spectrum. The graphs of Fig. 7 show
the envelopes of the bending moments arising along the piles
of diameters 0.6 and 1.2 m. Four soil stratigraphies, two
homogeneous (Vs = 100 and 400 m/s) and two layered (h= 12 m,
Vs =100 and 400 m/s), are considered. Concerning the
homogeneous deposits the maximum bending moment recorded
at the pile head is almost coincident even if some differences are
3.3.1. Embedment into the stiff layer

The effect of the pile embedment in the stiff layer is
investigated with reference to a single pile of diameter 1.0 m
and different soil proles characterized by h =6, 12, 18 m and
Vs =100, 200 and 400 m/s. For each stratigraphy different pile
embedments were assumed namely 1D, 3D and 5D. Attention is
focused on the pile behavior at the depositbedrock interface. It is
important to point out that the same maximum bending moment
is achieved for embedments greater that 3D (Fig. 9). In particular,
the moment envelope along the pile for an embedment of 3D is
coincident with that of 5D except, quite obviously, for the
exceeding pile length where negligible moments are attained.
For the relative pilebedrock stiffness considered, the previous
results suggest that the embedment of 3D is sufcient to provide
the maximum degree of restraint at the pile base.
3.3.2. Inuence of the pile diameter
The graphs in Fig. 10 show the distribution within the pile
depth of the maximum absolute bending moments for the oating
pile and for end-bearing piles (h =6, 18, 42 m). Each graph collects
the results obtained for different pile diameters and for a constant
value of the shear wave velocity Vs.
In the case of oating piles the maximum bending moment is
attained at the pile head. It is particularly signicant for very soft
soils (Vs = 100 m/s) but reduces dramatically as the soil stiffness
increases. Furthermore, the diagrams are characterised by
different shapes: in the case of soft soil, the bending moment
increases almost linearly from the end to the head of the pile
while for rigid soils it increases only in the lower half pile and
remains almost constant in the upper part.
In the case of end-bearing piles, bending moments assume
maximum values very close to the interface between the deposit
and the bedrock. In the case of the surface layer with small depth,
a second peak arises at the pile head due to the restraint applied
in order to simulate the presence of the cap.
As expected, the pile diameter signicantly affects the
amplitude of the bending moments at the pile head and at the
interface between layers: for a given soil deposit, the bending
moment increases as the pile diameter increases. Although the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
124
Fig. 6. (ag) real accelerograms and (h) articial accelerogram.
distributions have very similar shapes it is worth noticing that the

peaks are characterised by different widths depending even on
the pile diameter.
3.3.3. Inuence of the bedrock depth

With reference to end-bearing piles, the graphs in Fig. 11 show
the kinematic bending moments arising along the piles of
different diameters for all the soil proles considered. Each
graph refers to a couple of shear wave velocity Vs and diameter
D and groups results obtained for different values of h.
The bending moment at the depositbedrock interface increases with the depth whereas that at the pile head decreases
especially in soft soil deposits (Vs =100 m/s).
It is worth noticing that the peak value of the bending moment
increases when the bedrock depth is less than 18 m whereas for
deeper bedrock the peak value remains nearly constant.
In many cases, the bending moment at the pile head is
comparable with that at the depositbedrock interface. It strongly
depends on all the parameters considered in the investigation. In
particular it is evident that for soft soils (Vs =100 and 200 m/s) the
bending moment diagram is characterized by a double peak. The
head peak reduces by increasing the bedrock depth as quickly as
the pile diameter reduces: for very large diameters (D= 2.0 m) the
effect is still signicant at bedrock depths of about 20 m.
3.3.4. Inuence of the soil properties

To better understand the effect of the stiffness contrast
between the two layers on the maximum bending moment, ve
shear wave velocities for the upper soil layer are considered
(Vs = 100, 150, 200, 300 and 400 m/s). The graphs of Fig. 12 show
the bending moment distributions obtained for three pile
diameters and a constant value of the bedrock location h.
As expected, the bending moments increase as the shear wave
velocity Vs decreases. Furthermore the phenomena previously
described are evident: the width of the peak at depositbedrock
interface as well as the bending moment at the pile head increases
by increasing the pile diameter and reducing the soil stiffness.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
125
Fig. 7. Comparisons between results evaluated considering different scismic actions.
Fig. 8. Response spectra at bedrock obtained for all the investigated soil proles.
3.3.5. Inuence of the stiffness transition between layers

In soil proles where the transition between layers is sharp, the
bending moments in the pile have been found to be signicant,
especially near interfaces of layers with highly contrasting stiffness
where a stress peak arises. Because in the practice the transition
between layers may be gradual, a set of analyses were performed to
investigate the effects on the stress resultants that are expected to
reduce. Three different cases characterized by transitional layers
having length 2D, 4D and 6D, respectively, are considered where the
shear wave velocity is assumed to vary linearly between the value

Vs =200 m/s of the upper deposit and the value Vsb =800 m/s of the
bedrock (Fig. 13a).
Figs. 13b and c show the bending moments and the displacement
prole obtained for a two-layered soil prole, with a sharp change of
properties (continuous line), and for the layered soil proles with
different transition zones between the upper and the lower layers.
With reference to the bending moment, a reduction of over 20% is
obtained considering a transition layer of just 2D. The reduction

ARTICLE IN PRESS
126
Fig. 9. Effects of the pile embedment in the bedrock on the bending moment.
reaches 50% when the transition layer is 6D thick. It is worth noticing that the peaks become considerably smoother and that the
maximum values translate upwards. This may be understood by
observing the pile displacement proles that are characterised by
lower curvatures as the transition layer becomes thicker. Finally, the
bending moments at the pile section far from the transition layer are
not affected by the thickness of the transition layer.
4. Empirical design formulas

With reference to kinematic pile bending moments at the
interface between soil layers, Nikolaou et al. [15] presented a
critical review of the design methods proposed by Marganson [34]
and Dobry and ORourke [4] pointing out some drawbacks. The
rst considers the pile subjected to the soil curvatures encounter-
ing problems with the interface between different layers. The

second assumes harmonic excitations obtaining results that
overestimate those of transient shakings. Nikolaou et al. [15]
propose an expression for evaluating the maximum steady-state
bending moment at the interface of the layers and introduce a
coefcient to adjust the results in the case of real seismic motions,
overcoming the limits of the previous formulations. However no
formula is presented to calculate the bending moment at the pile
head.
In order to nd empirical formulas to predict the kinematic bending moments at the pile head and at the interface
between bedrock and deposit, the results are normalized with
respect to the values obtained for the stiffer soil (Vs = 400 m/s).
Figs. 14 and 15 show the maximum normalised kinematic
bending moments at the pile head and at the depositbedrock
interface, respectively, versus the shear wave velocity of the upper

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 10. Effects of pile diameter on bending moments: (a) oating piles and (bd) end-bearing piles.
127

ARTICLE IN PRESS
128
Fig. 11. Effects of the bedrock depth on bending moments: (a) D = 0.4 m, (b) D = 0.8 m, (c) D = 1.2 m and (d) D = 2.0 m.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
129
Fig. 12. Inuence of the soil characteristics on bending moments.
Fig. 13. Effects of stiffness transition between layers: (a) cases analysed, (b) bending moment envelope and (c) proles of displacements.
soil layer. Values M400 of absolute bending moments obtained

with Vs = 400 m/s are also reported.
With reference to the pile head (Fig. 14) three remarks may be
made: (i) the values of M400 are only slightly dependent on h
whereas they are very sensitive to the pile diameter; (ii) for each
deposit depth h, diagrams of normalised bending moments versus
Vs are superimposed for the different pile diameters and are
characterised by an exponential trend; (iii) only for soft soils
(Vs =100200 m/s) and low-depth deposits (h= 6 m) a dependency
on the pile diameter is evident.
With reference to the bending moment at the depositbedrock
interface (Fig. 15), values of M400 are more sensitive to the deposit
thickness whereas the above considerations hold for the normalised
bending moments.
These remarks suggest that an empirical expression of the
bending moments, both at the head and at depositbedrock
interface, may have the following form:
PGA
M400 D; hef D;hVs 400
MVs ; D; h; PGA
0:25 g
15
where the ratio PGA/0.25 g accounts for different seismic

intensities owing to the problem linearity. Formulas for evaluating
bending moments M400(D, h) and the function f(D, h), dening the
dependency of the exponential regression on D and h, are
calibrated with a nonlinear least square procedure by tting the
data obtained in the parametric analysis.
With reference to the maximum bending moment at the
interface between bedrock and deposit, the following polynomial
approximations hold:
M400 D; h 77:7D3 409D2 192D 24:5
0:0009h2 0:068h 0:2
f D; h 0:000124h 0:011060:05D 0:864
16
17
On the other hand, with reference to the maximum

bending moment at the pile head, the following expressions are
obtained:
M400 D; h 85D3 85:75D2 30:93D 3:37
0:000133h2 0:00042h 1:091
f D; h 0:000067h 0:01130:07D 1:002
18
19

ARTICLE IN PRESS
130
Fig. 14. Normalized bending moments at the pile head.
Fig. 15. Normalized bending moments at the depositbedrock interface.
Eq. (15) permits predicting straightforward the bending moments at the critical sections of an end-bearing pile embedded
in a generic homogeneous soil by knowing the PGA asso-
ciated to the soil of class A as dened in EC8 [14], the velocity

of the shear wave of the deposit, the pile diameter and the
bedrock depth. It is worth noticing that formula (15) accounts

ARTICLE IN PRESS
131
Fig. 16. Comparisons between theoretical and design formula (26) results: (a) at pile head and (b) at depositbedrock interface.
both for the local site response and the soilpile kinematic
interaction.
Fig. 16 gives a comparison of the results obtained by applying
the formula (15) with those obtained with the analytical
procedure proposed in the rst section, validated in Ref. [36],
and compared with three-D nite element models in this paper.
The discrepancies are generally acceptable for design purposes.
Less precision is obtained for bending moments at the head of
piles with a very small diameter. Fig. 16b gives a comparison with
the results obtained by also applying the formula of Nikolaou et al.
[15] (white dots) that is able to predict kinematic bending
moments only at the depositbedrock interface. As may be
noticed, the proposed formula (15) gives better results.
5. Conclusions
The effects of kinematic interaction on the bending moment in
single end-bearing and oating piles have been studied. A
numerical procedure proposed by the authors [36] has been used
in performing a comprehensive parametric analysis by considering different pile diameters, bedrock depths and shear wave
velocity of the deposit. Furthermore, design empirical formulas
have been proposed to evaluate the kinematic bending moments
at the pile head and at the depositbedrock interface.
The seismic action is dened with reference to outcropping
bedrock by considering articial accelerograms matching the
Eurocode 8 Type 1 elastic response spectrum for ground type A
[14]. Shaking at the actual bedrock depth is calculated by a linear
deconvolution and the ground motion within the soil deposit is
obtained with a linear one-D site response analysis.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the parametric
analysis:
For the relative pilebedrock stiffness considered in this paper,

the embedment of 3D is sufcient to provide the maximum

degree of restraint at the pile base.
The peak values of the bending moment in the pile, at the
interface between the deposit and the bedrock, increase with
the pile diameter and the thickness of the surface soil layer as
well as with the stiffness contrast between layers.
For small values of the surface soil layer thickness, the
maximum bending moment arises at the pile head instead of
at the layer interface.
The bending moments at pile head and at layer interface

sharply reduce as the shear wave velocity increases and
A reduction of the bending moment is obtained considering

soil proles with transition layers instead of a sharp change of
properties. Bending moment peaks become considerably
smoother and wider.
On the basis of the parametric analysis, new design formulas
for predicting the kinematic bending moment in end-bearing piles
have been proposed. They are valid both for the cross-sections at
the pile head and at the interface between the soil deposit and the
bedrock. Their application is straightforward since few parameters, namely the PGA, the bedrock depth, the shear wave
velocity of the soil deposit and the pile diameter, are necessary.
Local site response effects are accounted for without having to
perform specic analyses. The comparisons with the analytical
solutions are very satisfactory.
References
[1] Ishihara K. Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford: Clarendon Press;
1996.
[2] Kagawa T, Kraft LM. Lateral load-deection relationships of piles subjected to
dynamic loads. Soils and Foundations 1980;20(4):1936.
[3] Flores-Berrones R, Whitman RV. Seismic response of end-bearing piles.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering DivisionASCE 1982;108(4):
55469.
[4] Dobry R, ORourke MJ. Discussion on Seismic response of end-bearing piles
by Flores Berrones R. and Whitman R.V. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering DivisionASCE 1983;109(5):77881.
[5] Mineiro AJC. Simplied procedure for evaluating earthquake loading on piles.
Lisbon: De Mello Volume; 1990.
[6] Novak M. Piles under dynamic loads: state of the art. In: Proceedings of the
2nd international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics. USA: St. Louis; 1991. p. 243356.
[7] Kavvadas M, Gazetas G. Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head
piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 1993;43(2):20722.
[8] Pender M. Seismic pile foundation design analysis. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1993;26(1):49160.
[9] Kaynia AM, Mahzooni S. Forces in pile foundations under seismic loading.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 1996;122(1):4653.
[10] Poulos HG, Tabesh A. Seismic response of pile foundationssome important
factors. In: Proceedings of the 11th WCEE. Acapulco, Mexico; 1996. Paper no.
2085.
[11] Gazetas G, Mylonakis G. Seismic soilstructure interaction: new evidence and
emerging issues. Geotechnical earthquake engineering & soil dynamics. In:
Proceedings of the third Geo-Institute ASCE conference, vol. II, Seattle, USA,
1998. p. 111974.
[12] Milonakis G. Simplied model for seismic pile bending at soil layer interfaces.
Soils and Foundations 2001;41(4):4758.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
132
[13] Banerjee PK, Davies TG. The behaviour of axially and laterally loaded
single piles embedded in nonhomogeneous soils. Geotechnique 1978;28(3):
30926.
[14] En 1998-1. Eurocode 8 design of structure for earthquake resistance part
1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee
for Standardization; 2004.
[15] Nikolaou AS, Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Tazoh T. Kinematic pile bending during
earthquakes analysis and eld measurements. Geotecnique 2001;51(5):
42540.
[16] Mylonakis G. Contributions to static and seismic analysis of piles and pilesupported bridge piers. Ph.D. Thesis, State University of New York, USA, 1995.
[17] Sica S, Mylonakis G, Simonelli AL. Kinematic bending moments of piles:
analysis vs. code provisions. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. Tessaloniki, Greece; 2007.
[18] Wolf JP. Dynamic soilstructure-interaction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc.; 1985.
[19] Maeso O, Aznarez JJ, Garca F. Dynamic impedances of piles and groups of
piles in saturated soils. Computers and Structures 2005;83:76982.
[20] Coda HB, Venturini WS. On the coupling of 2D BEM and FEM frame model
applied to elastodynamic analysis. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 1999;36:4789804.
[21] Millan MA, Domnguez J. Simplied BEM/FEM model for dynamic analysis of
structures on piles and pile groups in viscoelastic and poroelastic soils.
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 2009;33:2534.
[22] Padron LA, Aznarez JJ, Maeso O. Dynamic analysis of piled foundations in
stratied soils by a BEMFEM model. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2008;28(5):33346.
[23] Maheshwari BK, Truman KZ, El Naggar MH, Gould PL. Three-dimensional
nonlinear analysis for seismic soilpile-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 2004;24(4):34356.
[24] Sadek M, Isam S. Three-dimensional nite element analysis of the seismic
behavior of inclined micropiles. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
2004;24(6):47385.
[25] Jeremic B, Jie G, Preisig M, Tafazzoli N. Time domain simulation of soil
foundationstructure interaction in non-uniform soils. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2009;38:699718.
- ukarslan
[26] Kuc
S, Banerjee PK. Behavior of axially loaded pile group under
lateral cyclic loading. Engineering Structures 2003;25:30311.
[27] Matlock H, Foo SH, Bryant LL. Simulation of lateral pile behaviour. In:
Proceedings of earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, ASCE. Pasadena,
California; 1978. p. 60019.
[28] Nogami T, Chen HL. Prediction of dynamic lateral response of non linear
single pile by using Winkler soil model. In: Proceedings of the session on
dynamic response of pile foundations-experiment, analysis, and observation;
Geotechnical special publication no. 11, ASCE. Atlantic City, New Jersey; 1987.
p. 3952.
[29] Novak M. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 1974;11:57497.
[30] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pilesoilpile interaction-part II: lateral and
seismic response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1992;21(2):14562.
[31] Romo MP, Ovando-Shelley E. PY curves for piles under seismic lateral loads.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 1999;16(4):25172.
[32] Rovithis E, Kirtas E, Pitilakis K. Experimental py loops for estimating seismic
soilpile interaction. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2009;7(3):71936.
[33] Catal HH. Free vibration of semi-rigid connected and partially embedded piles
with the effects of the bending moment, axial and shear force. Engineering
Structures 2006;28(14):19118.
[34] Margason E. Pile bending during earthquakes. Lecture, 6 March 1975, ASCEUC/Berkeley Seminar on Design Construction and Performance of Deep
Foundations (unpublished).
[35] Dente G. Pile foundations; guidelines on geotechnical aspects for designing in
seismic areas. Bologna, Italy: Patron Editore; 2005 (in Italian).
[36] Dezi F, Carbonari S, Leoni G. A model for the 3D kinematic interaction analysis
of pile groups in layered soils. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2009;38(11):1281305.
[37] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 1984;110:2040.
[38] Roesset JM, Angelides D. Dynamic stiffness of piles. In: Numerical methods in
offshore piling. CE, London; 1989. p. 7581.
[39] Krishnan R, Gazetas G, Velez A. Static and dynamic lateral deections of piles
in non-homogeneous stratum. Geotechnique 1983;23(3):30725.
[40] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Single radiation damping model for piles and footings.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 1984;110:93756.
[41] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall; 1996.

Kinematic Bending Moments in Pile Foundations

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kinematic Bending Moments in Pile Foundations

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

Author's personal copy

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering