Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 275–286 | Cite as

Seismic Response Analysis of Pile Foundations

Original paper


A quasi-3D continuum method is presented for the dynamic nonlinear effective stress analysis of pile foundation under earthquake excitation. The method was validated using data from centrifuge tests on single piles and pile groups in liquefiable soils conducted at the University of California at Davis. Some results from this validation studies are presented. The API approach to pile response using py curves was evaluated using the quasi-3D method and the results from simulated earthquake tests on a model pile in a centrifuge. The recommended API stiffnesses appear to be much too high for seismic response analysis under strong shaking, but give very good estimates of elastic response.


3D seismic analysis Effective stress analysis py Curve Piles Simulation 



The authors are thankful to D. W. Wilson and B. Gohl for the centrifuge tests data. Financial support provided by UBC through University Graduate Fellowship and by NSERC through Research Assistantship to the first author is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. API (1993) Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms. API RP2A-WSD, 20th edn. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Byrne PM (1991) A cyclic shear-volume coupling and pore pressure model for sand. In: Prakash S (ed) Proceedings of the International conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  3. Finn WDL, Gohl WB (1987) Centrifuge model studies of piles under simulated earthquake loading from dynamic response of pile foundations—experiment, analysis and observation. Geotech Spec Publ\ ASCE 11:21–38Google Scholar
  4. Gazetas G, Dobry R (1984) Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J Geotech Eng ASCE 110(1):20–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gazetas G, Fan K, Kaynia A (1993) Dynamic response of pile groups with different configurations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 12:239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gohl WB (1991) Response of pile foundations to simulated earthquake loading: Experimental and analytical results. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin GR, Finn WDL, Seed HB (1975) Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. J Geotech Eng ASCE 101(5):423–438Google Scholar
  8. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis. Report #EERC70–10. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Wilson DW (1998) Soil–pile-superstructure interaction in liquefying sand and soft clay. Report No. UCD/CGM-98/04. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Wilson DW, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Abghari A (1995) Dynamic centrifuge tests of pile supported structures in liquefiable sand. In: Proceedings of the national seismic conference on bridges and highways. San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Wilson DW, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL (1997) Soil-pile-superstructure interaction at soft or liquefiable sites—centrifuge data report for CSP1–5. Report No. UCD/CGMDR-97/01–05. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Wu G, Finn WDL (1997a) Dynamic elastic analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the frequency domain. Can Geotech J 34:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wu G, Finn WDL (1997b) Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the time domain. Can Geotech J 34:44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thuraisamy Thavaraj
    • 1
  • W. D. Liam Finn
    • 2
  • Guoxi Wu
    • 3
  1. 1.Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd.VancouverCanada
  2. 2.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.BC HydroBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations