An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.

_____________________________________________________________________

An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits

during earthquakes

CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (Oct 2002)

By

Subhamoy Bhattacharya
S.P.G.Madabhushi
Malcolm Bolton

This paper has been submitted to Geotechnique and is under

review.

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-1
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits

during earthquakes.
Subhamoy Bhattacharya, S.P.G.Madabhushi and Malcolm Bolton
University of Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT
This paper proposes an alternative pile failure mechanism in liquefiable deposits
during earthquakes. This failure mechanism, based on pile buckling, is formulated by
back analysing 15 case histories of pile foundation performance during earthquakes
and verified using dynamic centrifuge tests. A new parameter, the slenderness ratio of
a pile is introduced to classify pile performance in liquefiable soils. This parameter
fits very well the reported case histories and the centrifuge test results.

INTRODUCTION
There has been confusion among engineers about the mechanism of pile failure
following the collapse of some piled foundations during the 1995 Kobe earthquake.
The failure modes of piles observed were quite similar to the observations after earlier
earthquakes e.g. the 1964 Niigata earthquake. The current understanding of pile
failure is as follows. Soil liquefies, losing its shear strength, causing it to flow taking
with it any overlying non-liquefied crust. These soil layers drag the pile with them,
causing a bending failure. This is often referred to as failure due to lateral spreading.
In terms of soil pile interaction, the current mechanism of failure assumes that the soil
pushes the pile. The Japanese Highway code of practice (JRA 1996) has codified this
concept.

While this mechanism appears plausible, this paper proposes a different pile failure
mechanism, which focuses on the slenderness of piles. The loss of support from the
surrounding liquefied soil can cause a pile to become unstable under axial load,
provided the slenderness ratio of the pile in the unsupported zone exceeds a critical
value. This instability can cause the pile to buckle sideways, eventually causing a
plastic hinge in the pile. In terms of soil-pile interaction, the proposed mechanism
assumes that, during instability, the pile pushes the soil. In this paper, this hypothesis
of pile failure has been investigated by back analysing 15 case histories of pile

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-2
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
foundation performance during past earthquakes and carrying out four dynamic
centrifuge tests.

STUDY OF CASE HISTORIES

Structurally, axially loaded piles are long slender columns with lateral support from
the surrounding soil. If unsupported, these columns will fail in buckling instability
and not due to crushing of the material. Fig 1 shows the length and diameter of tubular
piles used in different projects around the world after Bond (1989). The figure shows
that piles normally have ratios of length to diameter of 25 to 100. In this paper we will
introduce the parameter rmin (minimum radius of gyration) to analyse the piles in the
reported case histories and centrifuge tests. This parameter can represent piles of any
shape (square, tubular or circular) and is used by structural engineers for studying
buckling instability.

2 I
I = A.rmin or, rmin = (1)
A

where:
I = second moment area of the pile section about the weakest axis (m4).
A= area of the pile section (m2).
rmin = minimum radius of gyration of the pile section about any axis of bending (m).

The formula for calculating rmin for various pile sections is shown in Appendix 1. For
a tubular pile rmin is 0.35 times of the outside diameter and hence from figure 1, the
length (L) to rmin ratio of normal piles ranges from 71 to 284.

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-3
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: Length and diameter of tubular piles, Bond (1989).

A significant number of cases of pile performance during earthquake liquefaction

have been reported in the literature. Some pile foundations were found to survive the
earthquake while others suffered severe damage. Fifteen cases of pile foundation
performance are analysed and presented in table 1, giving emphasis to buckling
characteristics. The parameters in the analysis are
1. Leff = Effective length of the pile in the liquefiable region. The definition of
effective length shown in figure 2 has been adopted from column stability
theory and is chosen to normalise the different boundary conditions of pile tip
and pile head. Leff is also familiar as the “Euler’s buckling length” of a strut
pinned at both ends. In practice, designers may prefer to adjust effective length
slightly to account for imperfect fixity, especially in reinforced concrete; e.g
Tomlinson (1977).
2. rmin = minimum radius of gyration of the pile.
3. Slenderness ratio of the pile in liquefiable region, Leff/rmin.
4. Allowable load on the pile, P, based on conventional design procedures, with
no allowance for liquefaction.
5. Euler’s elastic critical load of the pile (Pcr) calculated from the well-known
buckling formula as shown by equation 2.

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-4
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

π2
Pcr = EI (2)
L2eff

6. Axial stress σ in the pile, calculated by dividing P by the cross-sectional area

of the pile, A. The value at failure is written as σf.

A sample calculation of a particular case history is given in Appendix 2. Figure 3

shows the effective length of the piles in a liquefiable zone plotted against the rmin of
the pile section. A line representing a slenderness ratio (Leff/rmin) of 50 is drawn and it
distinguishes poor performance piles from the good ones. This line is of some
significance in structural engineering, as it is often used to distinguish between “long”
and “short” columns. Columns having slenderness ratios below 50 are expected to fail
in crushing whereas those above 50 are expected to fail in buckling instability.

Pile head free

to translate but
fixed in
Pile head
unrestrained Leff= L direction

Leff= 2L
Buckling zone/
Liquefiable layer= L

Leff= 2L

Euler’s buckling of
equivalent pinned strut
Euler’s buckling of
equivalent pinned strut

Figure 2: Concept of effective length of pile.

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-5
 An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Table 1: Summary of pile performances

Sl Case History and L* L0** Pile Framing Leff rmin Leff P Pcr σ Lateral spreading Performance
no. Reference. (m) (m) section action/ β ∗∗∗ (m) (m) /rmin MN MN MPa observed?
/type value
1 10 storey-Hokuriku building, 12 5 0.4m dia Large piled raft 5.0 0.1 50 0.77 12.4 6.2 Yes, nearby Good
1964 Niigata earthquake, RCC with basement. ground moved
Hamada (1992) 1 by 2m.
2 Landing bridge, 1987 9 4 0.4m Raked piles, no 2.0 0.12 17 0.62 139 3.8 Yes, ground Good
Edgecumbe earthquake, square sway frame cracked and
Berrill et al (2001) PSC 0.5 sand ejected.
3 14 storey building in 33 12.2 2.5m dia Large pile group 12.2 0.63 19 19 3183 3.8 Yes, quay walls Good
American park, 1995 Kobe RCC and large pile on the west,
earthquake, Tokimatsu et al dia. south and east
(1996) 1.0 moved.
4 Kobe Shimim hospital, 1995 30 6.2 0.66m Large piled raft 6.2 0.23 27 3.0 91 92.6 No, Ground Good
Kobe earthquake, Soga dia Steel with basement. subsided.
(1997) tube 1.0
5 Hanshin expressway pier, 41 15 1.5m dia Small group (22 15 0.38 40 14 272 7.9 Yes, ground Good
1995 Kobe earthquake, RCC piles) moved by
Ishihara (1997) 1.0 0.62m.
6 LPG tank 101, Kobe 27 15 1.1m dia Large piled raft 15 0.28 53 4.1 79 4.3 Yes, ground Good
earthquake, Ishihara (1997) RCC 1.0 moved by 0.7m.
7 N.H.K building, 1964 12 10 0.35m Groups tied by 20 0.09 222 0.43 0.45 4.4 Yes, nearby Poor
Niigata earthquake, Hamada dia RCC flexible beam, ground moved
(1992) Less embedment by 2m.
at pile tip.
2.0
8 NFCH building, 1964 9 8 0.35m Groups tied by 16 0.10 160 0.29 0.63 4.5 Yes, nearby Poor
Niigata earthquake, Hamada dia RCC flexible beam, ground moved
(1992) hollow Less embedment by 1 to 2m.
at pile tip
2.0

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-6
 An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Sl Case History and L* L0** Pile Framing Leff rmin Leff P Pcr σ Lateral spreading Performance
no. Reference. (m) (m) section action/ β ∗∗∗ (m) (m) /rmin MN MN MPa observed?
/type value
9 Showa bridge, 1964 Niigata 25 19 0.6m dia A single row of 38 0.21 181 0.96 1.10 56.3 Yes, width of Poor
earthquake, Hamada (1992) Steel piles river decreased.
tube 2.0
10 Yachiyo Bridge, 1964 11 8 0.3m dia Isolated footing 16 0.08 200 0.34 0.39 4.8 Yes, width of Poor
Niigata earthquake, Hamada RCC 2.0 river decreased.
(1992)
11 Gaiko Ware House, 1983 18 14 0.6m dia Isolated footing 28 0.16 175 1.47 1.61 9.3 Yes, nearby Poor
Chubu earthquake, Hamada PSC 2.0 ground moved
(1992) hollow by 1.5m.
12 4 storey fire house, 1995 30 18 0.4m dia Groups tied by 18 0.10 180 0.89 0.96 7.0 Yes, building Poor
Kobe earthquake, Tokimatsu PSC beam. moved and tilted
et al (1996) 1.0 towards the sea.
13 3 storied building at Fukae, 20 16 0.4m dia Groups tied by 16 0.12 133 0.72 1.02 9.4 Yes, building Poor
1995 Kobe earthquake, PSC beam. moved and tilted
Tokimatsu et al (1998) hollow 1.0 towards the sea.
14 Elevated port liner railway, 30 12 0.6m dia Isolated footing, 12 0.15 80 1.38 10.92 4.9 Yes, Poor, cracks
1995 Kobe earthquake, Soga RCC large were seen in
(1997) embedment at the piles.
pile tip.
1.0
15 LPG tank 106,107 –1995 20 15 0.3m dia Groups tied by 15 0.08 187 0.46 0.38 6.6 No, ground Poor
Kobe earthquake, Ishihara RCC beams. subsided.
(1997) hollow 1.0
*
L = Length of the pile;
**
L0 = Length of pile in liquefiable region/ buckling zone.
∗∗∗
β = Factor for estimating effective length. Leff = β L0.

__________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-7
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

0.8

0.7

0.6
Good performance
0.5
Poor performance

(rmin)
0.4
Leff/rmin = 50
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Effective length (Leff)

Figure 3: Leff versus rmin for piles studied

Euler's Theo ritical curve

fo r M 25 co ncrete
21 Go o d perfo rmance

P o o r perfo rmance

16 Yield stress line

Rankine's fo rmula
σ(MPa)

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

(Leff /rmin)

Figure 4: Plot of concrete pile performance mentioned in table 1.

Figure 4 shows the plot of 13 concrete piles mentioned in table 1. The piles are
assumed to be of M25 grade concrete (BS 8110), with a characteristic strength of 25
MPa. In the plot, three well-defined lines are drawn viz.
• Yield stress line (σy = 11.2 MPa) taken as the design crushing value,
• Euler’s curve for σcr, which is the elastic stability limit from equation 3.
• A curve for σf drawn using Rankine’s formula (1866) shown by equation 4.
This design curve mediates the transition between strength and stability. Many

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-7
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
other similar curves, such as Perry-Robertson (1886&1925), can equally be
used.
Substituting the value of I from equation 1 into equation 2 and noting that σcr is the
critical stress given by (Pcr/A), the following equation is obtained.
Pcr π2
σ cr = = E (3)
A  L 2
 eff 
 rmin 

which leads to

1 1 1
= + (4)
σf σ cr σy

where σy is yield stress of the material and σcr is the elastic critical stress as calculated
by equation 3, leading to an estimate of the combined failure stress σf.

HYPOTHESIS ARISING FROM THE STUDY OF CASE HISTORIES

The study of the case histories seems to show a dependence of pile performance on
buckling parameters. As short columns fail in crushing and long columns in buckling,
the analysis suggests that pile failure in liquefied soils is similar in some ways to the
failure of long columns in air. The lateral support offered to the pile by the soil prior
to the earthquake is removed during liquefaction. This hypothesis is shown in figure 5
and explained below.

During earthquakes, soil layers overlying the bedrock are subjected to seismic
excitation consisting of numerous incident waves, namely shear (S) waves,
dilatational or pressure (P) waves, and surface (Rayleigh and Love) waves which
result in ground motion. The ground motion at a site will depend on the stiffness
characteristics of the layers of soil overlying the bedrock. This motion will also affect
a piled structure. As the seismic waves arrive in the soil surrounding the pile, the soil
layers will tend to deform. This seismically deforming soil will try to move the piles
and the embedded pile-cap with it. Subsequently, depending upon the rigidity of the

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-8
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
superstructure and the pile-cap, the superstructure may also move with the foundation.
The pile may thus experience two distinct phases of initial soil-structure interaction.
1. Before the superstructure starts oscillating, the piles may be forced to follow
the soil motion, depending on the flexural rigidity (EI) of the pile. Here the
soil and pile may take part in kinematic interplay and the motion of the pile
may differ substantially from the free field motion. This may induce bending
moments in the pile.
2. As the superstructure starts to oscillate, inertial forces are generated. These
inertia forces are transferred as lateral forces and overturning moments to the
pile via the pile-cap. The pile-cap transfers the moments as varying axial loads
and bending moments in the piles. Thus the piles may experience additional
axial and lateral loads, which cause additional bending moments in the pile.

These two effects occur with only a small time lag. If the section of the pile is
inadequate, bending failure may occur in the pile. The behaviour of the pile at this
stage may be approximately described as a beam in an elastic foundation, where the
soil provides sufficient lateral restraint. The available confining pressure around the
pile is not expected to decrease substantially in these initial phases. The response to
changes in axial load in the pile would not be severe either, as shaft resistance
continues to act. This is shown in figure 5 (b).

In loose saturated sandy soil, as the shaking continues, pore pressure will build up and
the soil will start to liquefy. With the onset of liquefaction, an end-bearing pile
passing through liquefiable soil will experience distinct changes in its stress state.
• The pile will start to lose its shaft resistance in the liquefied layer and shed
axial loads downwards to mobilise additional base resistance. If the base
capacity is exceeded, settlement failure will occur.
• The liquefied soil will begin to lose its stiffness so that the pile acts as an
unsupported column as shown in figure 5(c). Piles that have a high slenderness
ratio will then be prone to axial instability, and buckling failure may occur in
the pile, enhanced by the actions of lateral disturbing forces and also by the
deterioration of bending stiffness due to the onset of plastic yielding.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-9
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
In sloping ground, even if the pile survives the above load conditions, it may
experience additional drag load due to the lateral spreading of soil. Under these
conditions, the pile may behave as a beam-column (column with lateral loads); see
Figure 5d.
Pstatic + Pdynamic Pstatic + P' dynamic Pstatic + P'dynamic
Pstatic

Plateral P'lateral P'lateral

Loose Sand
Liquefied Sand

Dense sand Dense sand Dense sand

Soil has liquefied.

Shaking starts, soil In sloping ground,
Before earthquake Inertia forces may
yet to liquefy. Pile lateral spreading
in level ground. act. Pile acts as a
acting as a beam. may start.
column, and may
buckle

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 5: The time history of loading in the proposed failure mechanism.

DYNAMIC CENTRIFUGE MODELLING AND MODEL LAYOUT

Dynamic centrifuge modelling is regarded as an appropriate tool to test the new
hypothesis of pile failure irrespective of lateral drag. The 10m-beam centrifuge at the
Schofield Centre of Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED) was used
to perform the centrifuge tests. Details of the centrifuge and the applicable scaling
laws can be found in Schofield (1980) and Schofield (1981). A mechanical shaking
table known as the Stored Angular Momentum (SAM) earthquake actuator developed
at Cambridge University (Madabhushi et al., 1998), was used to impart in-flight
earthquake loading to the physical models.
In a full-scale structure, piled foundations rest within a soil that is unbounded
laterally. In order to simulate an analogous situation in the centrifuge model, a
specially designed model container known as the ESB (Equivalent Shear Beam) box
has been used. The container has inside dimensions of 560mm × 235mm × 220mm

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-10
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
(deep) and its boundary wall is designed to have the same dynamic stiffness as that of
unliquefied soil in the free field. Details of the design of the box can be seen in
Schofield and Zeng (1992).
Four model tests (SB-02, SB-03, SB-04 and SB-05) were carried out at 1: 50 scale
and at 50-g (i.e. at fifty times the earth gravities) to study the problem of pile failure.
Experiments were designed in level ground to avoid the effects of drag due to lateral
spreading. The main aim was to study the effect of axial load on a pile as the soil
liquefies. Eleven piles were tested in the four tests performed. The model pile is made
of dural alloy tubes, the properties of which are given in table 2. A schematic diagram
showing the basic principle of the experiments is shown in figure 6. A block of brass
fixed at the pile head as shown in figure 7 is used to simulate the axial load in the pile
in all the tests. With the increase in centrifugal acceleration to N-g, the brass weight
imposes increasing axial force in the pile as shown in figure 6. One problem of using
a brass weight is the action of Earth’s gravity by which the resultant load acting on a
radial pile is not purely axial. At lower g-levels especially, the soil may not gain
enough confining pressure to prevent the pile deflecting under disproportionately
large lateral forces, and the experiment may therefore begin by inducing an initial
imperfection.

Package at 50-g

Arm of the centrifuge 50-g

1-g

Axis of the
centrifuge
Package at 1-g

Figure 6: The forces that act on the model pile.

Following figure 6, there are three load effects, which control the failure mechanism
in the centrifuge:
1. 1-g effect of Earth’s gravity on the pile head mass,
2. N-g effect of centrifuging the pile head mass,
3. Inertia force induced during earthquake shaking.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-11
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
A typical layout of a model is shown in figure 8. Table 3 summarises the four tests
stating the parameters involved. It may be noted that through the sequence of tests the
above-mentioned loading effects were successfully decoupled. In test SB-02, all three
effects were present while in test SB-04 only the effect of axial load was studied. The
effect of 1-g was countered in tests SB-03, SB-04 and SB-05 by fixing the bottom of
the pile in a wedge at a slope 1 in 50 as shown in figure 7. This corrects the
imperfection in simulated gravity and imposes a purely axial load in the pile at 50-g.
In test SB-04, a specially designed frame was used to restrain the head mass against
inertial action as shown in figure 9. Thus the pile is only allowed to move in a
transverse direction orthogonal to the direction of shaking. Also, while the wedge
corrects the 1-g effect at 50-g, at lower g levels the load acting is still not purely axial.
So as to avoid premature failure while the g-level is being increased, a retractable
pneumatic piston was used to hold the head mass temporarily. The pressure in the
piston was released when the package reached 50-g and the pile remained stable.
Lateral shaking was then imparted to the model. Test SB-04 was repeated as SB-05,
but without soil. Therefore, the various influences on pile behaviour could be
distinguished.

Fraction E silica sand prepared to a relative density of 45% was used for each model.
Table 4 shows the properties of the sand. To have a consistent scaling law for time in
inertial problems featuring pore pressure generation and dissipation, the viscosity of
the pore fluid must be scaled up. Silicone oil was used, having a viscosity 50 times
that of water.

Miniature instruments such as pore pressure transducers (PPT) and accelerometers

(ACC) were buried in the model to obtain the soil response. An earthquake of 0.5 to
0.9 sec duration, 50 Hz frequency, and of lateral intensity 5g, was fired in the tests,
which would correspond to 25 sec to 45 sec duration of a 1 Hz frequency earthquake
of peak bedrock acceleration 0.1g at prototype scale.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-12
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Wedge
(1 in 50)

Figure 7: Method adopted to simulate axial load in pile and to minimise the 1-g effect.

LVDT-8 LVDT-1 LVDT-10

ACC 7340
ACC 8915 ACC 1572 10mm silt
ACC 1926 ACC 8131 ACC 8925
1.56Kg 1.96Kg 1.26Kg

PPT 6273 PPT 6679

60 ACC 3478
PPT 6671 PPT 2259
ACC 3477 125 150
55 PPT 6675 PPT 6674

20 ACC 3492

ACC 8076

Direction of shaking
560 mm

Figure 8: Model layout and instrumentation in test SB-02

Table-2: Properties of model pile

Material Aluminum Alloy (Dural)

E (Young's Modulus) 70 GPa
Outside diameter 9.3 mm (9.2 mm in test SB-02)
Inside diameter 8.5 mm
rmin of the section 3.1 mm
Yield Stress (measured) 250 MPa
Plastic moment capacity (Mp) 8175 Nmm
EI of the section 7.77 × 106 Nmm2

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-13
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Permitted direction of
pile head movement

Direction of shaking

Figure 9: Test SB-04 with guides to hold the masses against inertia force.

Table 3: Summary of the tests

Test ID Parameters involved in the test Remarks
SB-02 1-g effect, axial load and inertial effects Two piles failed during
(with soil) swing up due to 1-g effect.
SB-03 The effect of axial load and inertia load 1-g effect removed by
(with soil) wedge
SB-04 Only the effect of axial load 1-g and inertial effects
(with soil) removed
SB-05 Only the effect of axial load 1-g and inertial effects
(no soil) removed

Table 4: Properties of Fraction E sand (after Tan 1990)

D10 grain size 0.095 mm
D50 grain size 0.14 mm
D60 grain size 0.15 mm
Specific Gravity Gs 2.65
Minimum Void ratio emin 0.613
Maximum Void ratio emax 1.014
Permeability to water (e = 0.72) 0.98 E -04 m/s
Angle of shearing resistance at critical state φcrit 320 (estimated value)

In all the tests the models were fully prepared at 1-g, thus pile installation effects were
not considered. The piles were fixed in place in the ESB box and sand was poured
uniformly in layers by air-pluviation from an overhead hopper. After the completion
of sand pouring, the model was fully saturated by silicone oil. The pile head masses
were so designed that the axial loads applied to the piles at 50-g were arranged around

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-14
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
Euler’s elastic critical load (Pcr) assuming the pile to be a long column with the
liquefied soil offering no support.

TESTS RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Overall pile performance

The summary of the performance of the 9 piles in tests SB-02, SB-03 and SB-04 is
shown in table 5. The test results of SB-05 are not included in the table, as the test
was identical to SB-04 except that it did not have soil, and so the model piles act as
cantilever struts. In the table, Pcr represents the elastic critical load of the pile treated
as a column neglecting any support from the soil. It can be seen that in tests SB-02
and SB-04 all piles which should have failed did fail, whereas the piles in SB-03
should not have failed according to the buckling criterion, and did not fail. Pile failure
in SB-02 cannot be positively attributed to the effects of axial load since lateral loads
were also applied, whereas in test SB-04 the load was purely axial at failure. It can be
concluded that tests SB-03 and SB-04 support the hypothesis of pile failure occurring
for P/Pcr ≥ 1. Figure 10 shows the slenderness ratio of the pile plotted against the
mean axial stress. In the figure the yield stress line, Euler’s elastic instability curve
and Rankine’s combined buckling curve are plotted. The graph has a close
resemblance with the observed case histories of pile foundation performance during
past earthquakes, as shown in figure 4.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-15
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
Table 5: Performance of piles during the centrifuge tests

Pile Head Max Leff P/Pcr Remarks

ID mass load P/A
P (Leff/rmin)
Test ID kg N MPa
SB-02 1 1.96 768 79 Leff = 355mm 0.97 Failed at 40-g
Pile length = 114 during swing up
160mm 2 1.56 642 65 Leff = 350mm 1.01 Failed at 42-g
rmin =3.1mm 113 during swing up
A=9.7 mm2 3 1.26 617 63 Leff = 345mm 0.97 Failed during
111 earthquake
SB-03 4 0.60 294 26.3 Leff = 372mm 0.5 Did not collapse
Pile length = 120
180mm 5 0.45 220 19.7 Leff = 370mm 0.35 Did not collapse
rmin =3.1mm 119
A = 11.2 mm2 6 0.23 113 10.1 Lef = 370mm 0.22 Did not collapse
119
SB-04 7 1.25 610 54.5 Leff = 420mm 1.04 Failed during
Pile length = 135 earthquake
180mm 8 1.78 872 78 Leff = 445mm 1.48 Failed during
rmin = 3.1mm 144 earthquake
A = 11.2 mm2 9 4.68 2249 201 Leff = 90mm 0.25 Did not collapse
29

Replication of mechanism

Figure 11 (a) shows the surface observation of the piles after test SB-02. It may be
noted that the heads of the piles rotated. It is quite similar to visual observations of the
piled building shown in figure 11 (b). The building is Kandla port tower in laterally
spreading soil, which tilted by 15 degrees after the 2001 Bhuj earthquake (India). The
pile that failed during the earthquake is shown in figure 11 (c) and the figure shows
that the hinge formed at the top third of the pile. Figure 11 (d) shows the point of
hinge formation in the failure of a three-storey R.C building revealed after excavation
following the 1995 Kobe earthquake. There is a similarity between the locations of
hinge formation in the centrifuge test and in the aftermath of real earthquakes. This
demonstrates that the pile failure mechanisms observed in the field can be replicated
using dynamic centrifuge modelling. It may be noted that the real piled buildings were
in laterally spreading soil whereas the model piles in the experiments were in level
ground. Thus the centrifuge tests point out that buckling can be a possible failure
mechanism of piles in liquefiable soil sites.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-16
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Euler's curve
300
Failed pile

250 Good
performance
Rankine's curve
Stress in pile (MPa)
200
Yield stress

150

100

50

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Slenderness ratio

Figure 10: Performance of the piles in the tests SB-02, SB-03 and SB-04.

Figure 11 (a): Piles after the test in SB-02. Figure 11 (b): Kandla tower after Bhuj
earthquake, (Madabhushi et al 2001).

(b)

Figure 11 (c): Pile 3 after the earthquake. Figure 11 (d): Excavation of 3-storey
R.C building (Tokimatsu et al, 1997).

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-17
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
Effect of axial load on pile foundation.

The present paper is intended to improve understanding of the effects of axial load on
a pile during soil liquefaction and hence experiments SB-04 and SB-05 need to be
discussed in more detail. It may be noted that no inertia force was acting on the pile
head in the direction of buckling in tests SB-04 and SB-05 and hence the test results
are the effects of axial load alone. Figure 12 (a) shows pile 7 partially revealed after
the test during and figure 12 (b) shows the pile after excavation was complete. In test
SB-05, an identical pile was tested in the absence of soil and figure 12 (c) shows that
pile after the test. Similar forms of buckling are shown in figure 13 for pile 8, and thus
we can conclude that this observation is repeatable.

In both tests, the piles buckled in the transverse direction, i.e. orthogonal to the
direction of shaking. In test SB-04 the hinge formed about one third the way down the
liquefiable soil whereas in test SB-05 the hinge formed at the bottom third of the pile
in air.

Figure 14 shows the instrumentation layout with pore pressure transducer locations
surrounding pile 8 and also in the free field. Figure 15 shows the free field traces of
excess pore pressure. It may be noted that as the shaking starts the pore pressure rises
in the soil starting from top and proceeding downwards. In every case, at a time of
about 0.5 seconds in the history, or about 0.25 s after shaking started, the excess pore
pressures δu in the free field reach a plateau. Figure 15 shows that in each case the
plateau corresponds well with an estimate of the pre-existing effective vertical stress
at the corresponding elevation, suggesting that σ′v had fallen to zero. Between 0.5 s
and 1.0 s in figure 15, the pile will have lost all lateral effective stress in a progressive
fashion, top-down. When this advancing front reached a critical depth Hc given by
equation 5, the pile would have become elastically unstable following equation 2.

π 2 EI
Hc = (5)
4P

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-18
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
This instability will cause the pile to begin to move slowly sideways, pushing the soil.
At the same time, the front of zero effective stress continues to advance swiftly
downwards until the whole length of the pile is unsupported by the soil grains.

Resistance of liquefied soil

It is interesting to note the difference in mode shape of the piles in tests SB-04 in
saturated sand and SB-05 in air. Figure 16 shows the mode shapes of the buckled pile
in the two tests. Curvature being related to bending moment, the tests suggest that the
lower part of the “liquefied” soil zone somehow offered resistance to the buckling pile
and reduced bending moments in the lower two-thirds of its length. We might
conclude that “liquefied” soil cannot prevent the initiation of buckling in an initially
straight pile, but that some secondary support then becomes available.

Experimental work has been carried out by Takahashi et al (2002) to study the lateral
resistance of piles in a liquefied soil. A pile was modelled as a buried cylinder that
could be pushed laterally through “liquefied” soil. The displacement rate of the
cylinder varied from 1mm/sec to 100mm/sec. The test results show that the initial
resistance to movement is negligible at all rates of loading but that some lateral
resistance was then mobilised after a certain amount of displacement. They further
conclude that the higher the rate of loading the larger is the resistance. This supports
the inference from the reduced curvature at depth in test SB-04 that “liquefied” soil
can offer some shear resistance. Soil with σ′v = 0 is often, and misleadingly, described
as being in a state of “liquefaction”. As will shortly be demonstrated, the soil may
have lost all its effective stress but has retained (or even increased) its original
density. It is infinitely over-consolidated, denser than its critical density at its current
effective stress level, highly dilatant, and can therefore regenerate considerable shear
strength if it is subjected to ongoing undrained shear strains.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-19
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

(a) (b) (c)

Figure12 (a): Mode of failure of pile 7 in test SB-04 during excavation.

Figure12 (b): Pile 7 after excavation.
Figure12 (c): Same pile in test SB-05.

(a) (b)
Test 13 (a): Mode of failure of pile 8 in test SB-04.
Test 13 (b): Mode of failure of the same pile in test SB-05.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-20
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

52.5
mm
PPT 6793 PPT 6260
PPT J13
92.5
mm

PPT 6264 PPT 6671

PPT 6680
127.5
mm

PPT 6669 PPT 6697

PPT 6674

2 5
mm mm

Figure 14: Instrumentation near the pile 8 in test SB-04.

Estimated
σ′v = 0

Figure 15: Plot of PPT data in far field of the pile.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-21
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
1 2 3

1. Initial configuration before the tests

2. Behaviour in presence of soil (SB-04)
3. Behaviour in absence of soil (SB-05)

Figure 16: Comparison of the buckling mode shape of pile in tests SB-04 and SB-05.

It must be expected that the imposition of shear strains at low effective stresses in
moderately dense soil will lead to an attempt to dilate, suppressed by the need for
water to flow into the zone affected, which must then create a local reduction of pore
fluid pressure. Figure 17, comparing the PPT traces at shallow depth in the near field
of the pile (PPT 6260 in front of the pile, i.e. in the direction of eventual buckling;
6793 behind the pile) and the far field PPT J13, supports this hypothesis. At first, up
to 0.4 s, the three PPTs record the same pressures rising to “liquefaction”. Then, until
1.0 s the PPT in front of the pile shows a circa 10 kPa reduction of pore pressure with
additional sharper downward spikes at each earthquake cycle. The PPT behind the
pile shows positive spikes which are at first out of phase with those in front and which
then come in phase. The cyclic component of the PPT data behaviour is clearly related
to the shaking, and therefore to motions orthogonal to the eventual direction of
buckling. But the steady component of pore pressure reduction in front of the pile
must be due to suppressed dilation as the pile begins to push the previously
“liquefied” soil aside. Evidently the soil in that zone is liquefied no longer, but enjoys
a vertical effective stress of between 10 and 20 kPa – enough for the pile to receive
significant support – again, temporary.

By 1.0 s in the time record of figure 17, however, the pore pressure reduction in front
of the pile has diminished, due to transient inflow presumably, to the point where the
positive spikes take the pore pressure in front of the pile back up to the “liquefaction”

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-22
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
pressures of the far field. At that point the pile head load collapsed onto the surface of
the saturated sand, when the pile plastically buckled. A tremendous negative spike of
pore pressure is seen on PPT 6260 in front of the pile. By the time shaking ceases at
1.1 s this PPT is recording a steady 25 kPa pore pressure deficit compared with the
“liquefied” far field, as the previously “liquefied” soil in the near field must now
participate in the undrained bearing capacity of the load, acting as a rather tilted
shallow foundation. Because it must carry load, and because it can generate as much
effective stress as it needs to achieve that, its pore pressure drops correspondingly

Figure 18 shows that the ultimate displacement δ of the top of the pile, when
normalised by the pile diameter D, gives a reference shear strain (Goh and O’Rourke,
1998; Takahashi et al, 2002) of δ/D = 200%. This magnitude of shear strain is quite
sufficient for the achievement of a critical state in the shear zone. Since the far field
remains “liquefied” beyond 3 s in the upper third of the soil layer, the “drained”
critical state achieved in the upper third of the pile is one of zero effective stress and
zero shear strength.

Figure 17: Near field and far field pore pressure measurements at 52.5mm depth.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-23
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Dia =
9.3mm 38% 200%
20mm
40
mm
P
20mm
3.5mm Shearing of soil
above the hinge
formation
90
mm
Percentage of shearing of soil
from the plastic deformation
measurements of the pile after
the test
50 3.5mm
mm

Fixed base

Figure 18: Plastic deformation measurements of pile 8 after test SB-04.

CONCLUSIONS

1. A similar failure mode as for full-scale piles observed after real earthquakes in
liquefiable soil has been replicated with model piles in level ground in a centrifuge.
Case histories and centrifuge test results match satisfactorily with a newly proposed
theory of pile failure by buckling instability. The pile can buckle and push the soil; it
is not necessary to invoke lateral spreading of the soil, which pushes the pile. This
instability depends on the slenderness ratio (Leff/rmin) of the pile exceeding a critical
value in the liquefiable region. Once the surrounding soil has its effective stresses
eliminated by an earthquake, a susceptible pile starts to buckle in the direction of least
elastic stiffness. If the soil around the pile remains liquefied for long enough, the pile
will suffer gross deformations and the superstructure will either tilt or deform.

2. Sufficient information has been obtained from centrifuge models to propose a

hypothesis for pile-soil interaction during a buckling event. The buckling pile begins
to shear the soil next to it, which will start to offer some temporary lateral resistance.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-24
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
Even a loose-medium sand will have a rather large undrained shear strength. Such a
sand could certainly apply the small restraint necessary to hold a buckling pile in
quasi-static equilibrium. It achieves this by inducing a negative pore pressure
increment in the shear zone relative to the “liquefied” far field. But the pore pressure
difference creates a component of transient flow towards the pile. This flow feeds the
dilation of the shearing soil, and reduces its strength as its density decreases. As the
far field “liquefaction” pore pressures are reasserted, the lateral resistance of the soil
reduces. It is the upper part of a liquefiable sand layer that remains longest in a state
of “liquefaction” due to upward hydraulic gradients, and it is the upper part of the pile
which displaces most, and which can fully soften the supporting soil adjacent to it.
The buckling pile will suffer increasing loss of bending stiffness due to plastic
yielding, so the restraint necessary to hold it in equilibrium will increase. The
imbalance between reducing soil support, increasing bending moment created by
lateral displacement of the pile cap, and deteriorating bending stiffness of the pile,
inevitably leads to the formation of a relatively shallow plastic hinge or fracture,
presaging dynamic collapse.

3. When saturated sand is shaken, its vertical effective stress can drop to zero as
its pore pressure rises. This is sometimes spoken of as “liquefaction” and inverted
commas have been used throughout the paper to indicate this sense of the word. But
in both common speech, and in science, to liquefy means to transform to a liquid, and
the defining characteristic of a liquid is that it does not offer any significant resistance
to flow. In solid mechanics, flowing is shearing. So a liquefied soil would require no
significant shear stress to produce large shear strains. The initial achievement of
σ′v = 0 in sand should therefore be spoken of as suspension, not liquefaction, since it
is acknowledged that only super-loose sands (with an initial voids ratio exceeding emax
as conventionally determined) loose their undrained shear resistance completely.

4. Evidently, interlocking in a suspension of recently shaken sand grains with a

relative density of 45% could provide enough shear resistance to prevent the
development of the full-height buckle observed when a similar pile was tested in air.
This resistance of a suspension to shearing has been shown to be due to suppressed
dilation following interlocking. Pore pressures fall, and effective stresses rise, in

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-25
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
zones where the suspension is shearing. Correspondingly, this resistance is temporary
as fluid drains into the shear zone from the suspension below. If the upward flow of
water from below is maintained for long enough, the shearing suspension will dilate
sufficiently for the grains to loose all their capacity to interlock. The fully sheared,
fully dilated, fully softened, suspension will then have reached a critical state at zero
effective stress and high voids ratio. It may then properly be described as liquefied.
Liquefaction of sands therefore requires a source of water (from a suspension below
the point of inspection), and a mechanism for mixing (i.e. shearing) excess water with
the sand so as locally to exceed the critical voids ratio at zero effective stress, circa
emax.

5. After an earthquake, foundations on or in suspended sands will inevitably

settle, together with the ground surface, as pore pressures dissipate but they should not
suffer gross shear. If a zone of soil in contact with the foundation can liquefy,
however, the foundation can cause unlimited soil shearing and the superstructure may
collapse. Fear of soil liquefaction has been engrained in geotechnical engineers for
two generations. A significant step forwards would be a moratorium on the use of
“liquefaction” to describe any soil state than that of a heavy liquid.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Mr Chris Collison and Mr John Chandler for technical
support in doing the tests. Discussions with Mr Allan McRobie and support from Dr
S.K.Haigh are gratefully acknowledged. The first author is thankful to Nehru Trust for
Cambridge University and Cambridge Commonwealth Trust for financial help in
doing the research.

NOTATION
Leff: =Effective length of the pile in liquefiable region
rmin = minimum radius of gyration
I = Second moment area of the section
Pcr = Elastic critical load
A = Area of the section of the pile
σf = Failure stress

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-26
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
σy = Yield stress
σcr = Elastic critical stress
Leff/rmin = Slenderness ratio

APPENDIX-1

Pile section I (second moment of area) rmin (minimum radius of Remarks

and area of the section (A) gyration)
Square of sides a a4 rmin = 0.288 a
I=
12 I a
rmin = =
A = a2 A 12
Solid circular section π
(dia d) I= d4
64 rmin = 0.25 d
I d
rmin = =
π A 4
A= d2
4
Tubular section π For practical
Inside dia. (di) I=
64
(d 4
o − d i4 ) purposes,
Outside dia. (do) I d o2 + d i2 rmin = 0.35 do
π rmin = = t
A=
4
(d 2
o − d i2 ) A 4 as
do
≤ 0.01

where,
t=thickness

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-27
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX –2:
Failure of Showa bridge after 1964 Niigata earthquake:
Figure 19(a) and 19 (d) shows the failure of the 12 span 307m long Showa bridge.
Figure 19(b) shows the post earthquake failure investigation and recovery of the
damaged pile along with the soil investigation. The foundation consists of a row of
piles connected laterally.

Design data of pile:

Length 25m
External diameter 609mm
Internal diameter 591mm
Material Steel
E (Young’s Modulus) 210GPa

Conventional pile capacity:

The pile capacity is estimated based on SPT values. Standard correlations have been
used and the values are shown in figure 19 (c).

Shaft resistance
Layer 1 (outer) 565kN
Layer 2 (outer) 565kN

Base resistance
Plugged mechanism 2184kN
Unplugged mechanism 127kN

ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY = 3314 kN

(Plugged mechanism)
ULTIMATE PILE CAPACITY = 2387 kN
(Unplugged mechanism)

ALLOWABLE LOAD IN PILE = 955 kN

(Using a factor of safety of 2.5)

Length in liquefiable zone = 10m

Structural properties of pile:

rmin 212mm
Moment of inertia (I) 7.63×108 mm4
Effective length (Leff) 38m
Slenderness ratio 181
From the buckled shape (shown as original position in figure 19 (b)), it is clear that
the pile had fixed-free boundary condition.

BUCKLING LOAD OF PILE = 1095kN

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-28
 An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________

Figure 19(a): Collapse of Showa Figure 19 (b): Failed pile of Showa

bridge, 1964 Niigata earthquake, bridge showing the soil profile,
Japan. Photo courtesy: NISEE Fukoka (1966).
website.

Pa

9000

Layer 1
N= 10
φcrit= 33
Liquefiable soil

τs in kPa= 30
10000

Layer 2
6000 N= 23
φcrit= 34
τs in kPa= 50
qb in kPa= 7500

Figure 19 (d): Another view of the collapsed bridge. The

Figure 19(c): Design data to
figure shows the foundation system. Photo courtesy:
estimate the parameters in the
analysis. EERC (University of California) website.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-29
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES

1. Ayrton, W.E and Perry, J (1886). “On struts”. The Engineer, 62, pp 464.
2. Berrill, J.B., Christensen, S. A., Keenan, R. P., Okada, W. and Pettinga, J.R.
(2001). Case Studies of Lateral Spreading Forces on a Piled Foundation.
Geotechnique 51, No. 6, pp 501-517.
3. Bond, A. J. (1989). Behaviour of displacement piles in over-consolidated
clays. PhD thesis, Imperial College (UK).
4. B.S 8110: 1985, Structural Use of Concrete, British Standard Institution,
London.
5. Fukoka, M (1966). Damage to Civil Engineering Structures, Soils and
Foundations, Tokyo, Japan, Volume-6, No-2, March 1966, pp 45-52.
6. Goh, S and Rourke T.D (1999). Limit state model for soil-pile interaction
during lateral spread. Proc. 7th. U.S.-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant
Design of lifeline facilities and countermeasures against soil liquefaction.
Seattle, WA.
7. Hamada, M. (1992). Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines:
1964 Niigata earthquake. Case Studies of liquefaction and lifelines
performance during past earthquake. Technical Report NCEER-92-0001,
Volume-1, Japanese case studies, National Centre for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
8. Hamada, M. (1992). Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines:
1983 Nihonkai-Chubu earthquake. Case Studies of liquefaction and lifelines
performance during past earthquake. Technical Report NCEER-92-0001,
Volume-1, Japanese case studies, National Centre for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
9. Ishihara, K. (1997). Terzaghi oration: Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe
earthquake. Proceedings of ICSMFE, Hamburg, pp 2047-2073.
10. JRA (1996). Japanese Road Association, Specification for Highway Bridges,
Part V, Seismic Design.
11. Madabhushi, S.P.G., Schofield, A. N. and Lesley, S. (1998). A new Stored
Angular Momentum based Earthquake Actuator. Proceedings of Centrifuge
’98 Tokyo, 111-116.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-30
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
12. Madabhushi, S.P.G., Patel, D. and Haigh, S.K. (2001). Draft version of
“EEFIT report on observations of the 26th.Jan 2001 Bhuj earthquake in India.
Institution of Structural Engineers, UK.
13. Rankine, W.J.M (1866). Useful rules and tables. London.
14. Robertson, A (1925), “The strength of struts”, ICE selected eng. Paper, 28.
15. Soga, K. (1997). Chapter 8, “Geotechnical aspects of Kobe earthquake”, of
EEFIT report, Institution of Structural Engineers, UK.
16. Schofield, A. N. (1981). Dynamic and Earthquake Geotechnical Centrifuge
Modelling. Proc. Int. Conf. Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Vol. 3, 1081-1100.
17. Schofield, A. N. (1980). Cambridge Centrifuge operations. Twentieth Rankine
Lecture. Geotechnique, London, England, Vol. 30, 227-268.
18. Schofield, A. N. and Zeng, X (1992). Design and performance of an
equivalent shear beam container for earthquake centrifuge modelling.
Technical report CUED/D-Soils/TR .275.
19. Takahashi, A., Kuwano, Y., and Yano, A. (2002). Lateral resistance of buried
cylinder in liquefied sand. Proceedings of the International Conference on
physical modelling in geotechnics, ICPMG-02, St. John’s, Newfoundland,
Canada, 10-12th July.
20. Tan, F.S.C 1990). Centrifuge and Theoretical Modelling of Conical Footings
on Sand. PhD Thesis, Cambridge University, U.K.
21. Tokimatsu K., Oh-oka Hiroshi, Satake, K., Shamoto Y. and Asaka Y. (1998).
Effects of Lateral ground movements on failure patterns of piles in the 1995
Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake. Proceedings of a speciality conference,
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, ASCE
Geotechnical Special publication No 75, pp 1175-1186.
22. Tokimatsu K., Oh-oka Hiroshi, Satake, K., Shamoto Y. and Asaka Y. (1997).
Failure and deformation modes of piles due to liquefaction-induced lateral
spreading in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake”, Journal Struct. Eng. AIJ
(Japan), No-495, pp 95-100.
23. Tokimatsu K, Mizuno H. and Kakurai M. (1996). Building Damage associated
with Geotechnical problems. Special issue of Soils and Foundations, Japanese
Geotechnical Society, Jan 1996, pp 219-234.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-31
An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes.
_____________________________________________________________________
24. Tomlinson, M.J (1977). Pile Design and Construction Practice, A viewpoint
publication.

___________________________________________________________________
CUED/D-SOILS/TR324 (October 2002) Page-32