E.

Cosenza (ed), Eurocode 8 Perspectives from the Italian Standpoint Workshop, 263-275, 2009 Doppiavoce, Napoli, Italy

SOIL-PILE KINEMATIC INTERACTION: NEW PERSPECTIVES FOR EC8 IMPROVEMENT

Roberto Cairo a, Enrico Conte a, Giovanni Dente a, Stefania Sica b, Armando Lucio Simonelli b
a b

University of Calabria, Rende (CS), Italy, cairo@dds.unical.it University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy, alsimone@unisannio.it

ABSTRACT Kinematic interaction between soil and structure originates from the incompatibility of the seismic free-field motion and the displacements of a more rigid embedded foundation. Foundation piles will actually experience deformations not only due to the loads directly transmitted by the superstructure, but also due to the passage of the seismic waves through the surrounding soil. In particular, bending moments may reveal quite important and, under certain circumstances, should be taken into account in the design, as prescribed by recent seismic codes (EN 1998-5; D.M. 14.1.2008). In this paper, the main results of a theoretical study are illustrated and some preliminary elements to be considered for seismic building codes are suggested. KEYWORDS Piles, kinematic interaction, code, simplified approach, bending moment. 1 INTRODUCTION During strong earthquakes foundation piles tend to significantly modify soil deformations, since they oppose to the seismic motion of the ground. The interplay between soil and structure makes the motion at the base of the superstructure to deviate from the free-field motion, and the piles to be subjected to additional bending, axial and shearing stresses. The bending moments, usually referred to as kinematic ones, may result somewhat important even in the absence of the superstructure. The kinematic interaction between soil and piles has been studied by many researchers (Fan et al., 1991; Gazetas et al., 1992; Kaynia and Mahzooni, 1996; Poulos and Tabesh, 1996; Mylonakis, 2001; Nikolaou et al., 2001; Saitoh, 2005; Cairo and Dente, 2007; Sica et al., 2007; Simonelli and Sica, 2008; Maiorano et al., 2009, and others). In spite of the big effort on such a topic, kinematic interaction is rarely accounted for in practical design. Modern seismic codes have, however, acknowledged the importance of kinematic interaction and demand piles to be designed also accounting for soil deformations arising from the passage of seismic waves. Two main issues should be also addressed by a building code: - when has kinematic interaction to be considered (or, conversely, when can it be neglected)?; - how has kinematic interaction to be analysed?

264

R. Cairo, E. Conte, G. Dente, S. Sica, A.L. Simonelli

At present, the evidence collected is far from providing a definitive answer to the former question, but it is adequate to indicate what has still to be done for this issue. Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-5) suggests that kinematic effects should be taken into account when all the following conditions simultaneously exist: 1) seismicity of the area is moderate or high (specifying that moderate or high-seismicity areas are characterized by a peak ground acceleration agS>0.1g, where ag is the design ground acceleration on type A subsoil and S is the soil factor); 2) subsoil type is D or worse, characterized by sharply different shear moduli between consecutive layers; 3) the importance of the superstructure is of III or IV class (e.g. schools, hospitals, fire stations, power plants, etc). The recent Italian building code (D.M. 14.1.2008) provides quite similar indications concerning the kinematic bending moments in piles. The topic of this paper is to illustrate the key aspects of pile kinematic interaction and to individuate some preliminary elements to be considered for technical codes. 2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 2.1 Overview of existing methods Available methods for the analysis of kinematic soil-pile interaction may be classified into three groups: numerical approaches (FEM, BEM), Winkler methods (BDWF), simplified formulations. The finite element method (Wu and Finn, 1997; Cai et al., 2000; Kimura and Zhang, 2000; Maheshwari et al., 2004) provides a powerful and versatile technique, since some important effects such as soil nonlinearity and heterogeneity may be directly accounted for. Nevertheless, this method is generally very expensive from a computational viewpoint, since it requires suitable boundaries conditions being introduced to simulate the radiation damping effect. In such a context, a more attractive approach is represented by the boundary element technique (Kaynia and Kausel, 1982; Mamoon and Banerjee, 1990; Cairo and Dente, 2007). It only needs the discretization of the interfaces and permits the condition of wave propagation towards infinity to be automatically satisfied. This technique is generally formulated in the frequency domain and, in principle, is valid only under the assumption of material linear behaviour. The methods based on the Winkler foundation model (Novak, 1974; Flores-Berrones and Whitman, 1982; Kavvadas and Gazetas, 1993) prove quite accurate and computationally time saving. They allow nonlinear behaviour of the soil to be easily incorporated if solution is envisaged in the time domain (Boulanger et al., 1999; El Naggar et al., 2005; Maheshwari and Watanabe, 2006; Cairo et al., 2008). According to this method, the pile is modelled as a linearly elastic beam, with length L and diameter d, discretized into segments connected to the surrounding soil by springs and dashpots, which provide the interaction forces in the lateral direction (Figure 1). As a first approximation, the spring stiffness k may be considered to be frequencyindependent and expressed as a multiple of the local soil Youngs modulus Es (Kavvadas and Gazetas, 1993). The dashpot coefficient c represents both material and radiation damping. The latter one may be computed using the analogy with one-dimensional wave propagation in an elastic prismatic rod of semi-infinite extent (Gazetas and Dobry, 1984). For harmonic vertically propagating S-waves, the governing differential equation of the pile response is:

EpI p

4u p z 4

+ mp

2u p t 2

= ( k + ic )(u ff u p )

(1)

Soil-Pile Kinematic Interaction: New Perspectives for EC8 Improvement

265

Seismic free-field motion

Seismic pile motion, Y(z)

Pi, Ei, vi, i Uff(z) Pi, Ei, vi, i Y(z)

k(z) c(z) Vertical shear waves

Figure 1. Beam on Dynamic Winkler Foundation model (BDWF).

where EpIp is the pile flexural rigidity, mp the pile mass per unit length, up is the amplitude of the pile lateral displacement, uff the free-field soil displacement, the circular frequency of the motion, z is the depth, t the time and i=(-1)0.5. Pile response in the time domain is then attained through standard Fourier transformations. Some results obtained using the Winkler approach (BDWF), as proposed by Mylonakis et al. (1997), will be presented in a subsequent section of the paper.
2.2 Approximate methods Closed-form expressions (Dobry and ORourke, 1983; Nikolaou and Gazetas, 1997; Mylonakis, 2001; Nikolaou et al., 2001) are available in literature for approximately computing the maximum steady-state bending moment at the interface between two layers. These approaches have been derived by modelling the pile as a beam on a Winkler foundation and are based on the following simplified assumptions: each soil layer is homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic; the soil is subjected to a uniform static shear stress field; the pile behaves as a linear-elastic semi-infinite beam; the embedded length of the pile in each layer is greater than the so-called active length. This latter is usually expressed by the equation (Randolph, 1981):

Ep La = 1.5d E s

0.25

(2)

The simplified design procedure proposed by Dobry and ORourke (1983) permits to compute the bending moment at the interface between two layers as:
M = 1.86( E p I p ) 3 / 4 (G1 )1 / 4 1 F

(3)

where G1 and 1 are the shear modulus and shear strain in the upper soil layer, respectively; F is a function of the ratio c=(G2/G1)0.25, with G2 being the shear modulus of the lower layer, and expressed by: F= (1 c 4 ) (1 + c 3 ) (1 + c ) ( c 1 + 1 + c + c 2 ) (4)

266

R. Cairo, E. Conte, G. Dente, S. Sica, A.L. Simonelli

An improvement of the Dobry and ORourke (1983) solution has been achieved by Mylonakis (2001). Using more suitable dynamic parameters, the following expression has been derived:
M =2 EpI p p 1 d 1

(5)

in which p indicates the pile peak bending strain and 1 denotes the soil shear strain at the layer interface. The ratio of these parameters represents a sort of strain transmissibility function, which is strongly frequency-dependent. If this aspect is neglected, the strain transmissibility function takes into account only pile-soil interaction effects and is expressed as:

p c 2 c + 1 H1 = 2c 4 d 1 =0

9 / 32 H1 E1 4 . 7 1 c ( c 1 ) 1 Ep d

(6)

where H1 and E1 are the thickness and the Youngs modulus of the upper layer, respectively. The effect of frequency may be introduced in terms of the ratio:
p = 1 p 1 = 0

(7)

which is a function of H1/d, G1/G2, Ep/E1. Nevertheless, in the range of frequencies of interest is generally less than 1.25. A fitted formula has been proposed by Nikolaou et al. (2001) for harmonic excitation. It is based on the maximum shear stress c induced at the layer interface by the free-field motion. The resulting expression is: L M = 0.042 c d d
3 0.30

Ep E 1

0.65

Vs 2 V s1

0.50

(8)

where Vs1 and Vs2 are the shear wave velocities in the upper and lower layer, respectively. In order to account for the transient nature of the seismic excitation, the authors have introduced a reduction factor depending on the duration of the accelerograms in terms of the effective number Nc of cycles in the record, the relative frequency characteristics between earthquake and soil deposit, the effective damping of the soil-pile system. Two simplified expressions are given: 0.04 N c + 0.23 = 0.015N c + 0.17 0.2 for T1 T p for T1 T p (9)

where Tp represents the predominant period of the ground motion and T1 the fundamental period of the deposit. A crucial issue in the use of these approximate approaches is the evaluation of the uniform soil shear strain 1 in the upper layer and the maximum shear stress c at the interface. As

Soil-Pile Kinematic Interaction: New Perspectives for EC8 Improvement

267

suggested by Mylonakis (2001), if the seismic peak acceleration amaxs is specified at the soil surface, 1 can be computed using the expression suggested by Seed and Idriss (1982) for liquefaction problems: 1 = (1 0.015H 1 ) 1 H 1 a max s G1 (10)

where, in addition to the soil parameters already defined, the mass density of the upper layer 1 has been introduced. Equivalently, the maximum shear stress c at the interface may be roughly estimated as (Nikolaou and Gazetas, 1997; Nikolaou et al., 2001): c = a max s 1 H 1 In the next section, the accuracy of these simplified approaches will be investigated.
3 MAIN RESULTS

(11)

Several analyses have been performed referring to a fixed-head pile with length L=20 m, diameter d=0.6 m, Youngs modulus Ep=2.5107 kN/m, and mass density p=2.5 Mg/m (Figure 2). The pile is embedded in a two-layered subsoil which is 30 m thick and underlined by a stiffer bedrock. Soil shear stiffness contrast has been changed as a function of the shear wave velocities Vs1 and Vs2 of the two layers, in order to reproduce a subsoil of type D or C (D.M. 14.1.2008). Poissons ratio and mass density of the soil are: s=0.4, s=1.9 Mg/m. The shear wave velocity of the rock is 1200 m/s. The analyses have been performed by adopting 18 Italian accelerograms (Table 1) scaled in amplitude to provide a rock peak acceleration consistent with the seismic zone considered. These records are provided by the database SISMA (Scasserra et al., 2008). In Table 1, the frequency content of the input motion is quantified through the predominant period Tp, corresponding to the maximum spectral acceleration in an acceleration response spectrum (computed for 5% viscous damping) and through the mean period, Tm, as defined by Rathje et al. (1998) on the basis of the Fourier spectrum of the signal. Actually, Tm should provide a better indication of the frequency content of the recordings because it averages the spectrum over the whole period range of amplification.

Figure 2. Reference scheme adopted in the analyses.

268

R. Cairo, E. Conte, G. Dente, S. Sica, A.L. Simonelli

The main results of the whole parametric study, described elsewhere (Sica et al., 2007; Simonelli and Sica, 2008), are reported in the following. It is worth noting that the behaviour of the soil-pile system is assumed to be linearly elastic.

Table 1. Seismic records provided by the database SISMA and used in the analyses.
Label A-TMZ270 A-TMZ000 A-STU270 A-STU000 A-AAL018 E-NCB090 E.NCB000 R-NCB090 J-BCT000 J-BCT090 E-AAL018 B-BCT000 B-BCT090 TRT000 C-NCB000 C-NCB090 R-NC2090 R-NC2000 Station name Tolmezzo-Diga Ambiesta Tolmezzo-Diga Ambiesta Sturno Sturno Assisi-Stallone Nocera Umbra-Biscontini Nocera Umbra-Biscontini Nocera Umbra-Biscontini Borgo-Cerreto Torre Borgo-Cerreto Torre Assisi-Stallone Borgo-Cerreto Torre Borgo-Cerreto Torre Tarcento Nocera Umbra-Biscontini Nocera Umbra-Biscontini Nocera Umbra 2 Nocera Umbra 2 Earthquake Friuli Friuli Campano Lucano Campano Lucano Umbria Marche Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche Umbria Marche Friuli (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Umbria Marche (aftershock) Comp. EW NS EW NS NS EW NS EW NS EW EW NS EW NS NS EW EW NS Date (d/m/y) 6.5.1976 6.5.1976 23.11.1980 23.11.1980 26.9.1997 6.10.1997 6.10.1997 3.4.1998 14.10.1997 14.10.1997 6.10.1997 26.9.1997 26.9.1997 11.9.1976 3.10.1997 3.10.1997 3.4.1998 3.4.1998 Tp (s) 0.64 0.26 0.20 0.38 0.32 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.10 0.16 0.22 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.12 0.18 0.16 Tm (s) 0.500 0.395 0.845 0.661 0.333 0.172 0.165 0.180 0.167 0.208 0.242 0.154 0.198 0.215 0.128 0.154 0.184 0.152

Figure 3 presents the envelopes of the maximum kinematic bending moments with depth, as computed in the time domain using the Winkler approach by Mylonakis et al. (1997), for each of the selected 18 accelerograms (scaled to the same peak ground acceleration of 0.35g). The thickness of the layers is assumed to be H1=H2=15 m; the shear wave velocities of the upper and the lower layers are Vs1=100 m/s and Vs2=400 m/s, respectively. On the basis of the average shear wave velocity Vs,30=160 m/s, the soil profile under consideration can be classified as type D. The damping ratio of the soil is s=0.10. Three grey zones are also displayed corresponding to the range of reinforced concrete pile yielding moments for typical reinforcements of the cross section (816, 2412 and 1230) and magnitude of the axial force in the pile. For each reinforcement the lower limit of the grey zone represents the cross section yielding moment corresponding to zero axial force while the higher one to an axial force equal to 1200 kN. From the results of this study, the following remarks may be made: - the maximum kinematic bending moment generally occurs at the soil layer interface; - at the soil layer interface, the kinematic bending moment dramatically increases when the shear wave velocity contrast between the bottom and top layer Vs2/Vs1 increases from 2 to 4, for subsoil types D and C; - for subsoil profiles corresponding to class D, the computed kinematic bending moments may be well above the assumed yielding moments of the pile cross section.

Soil-Pile Kinematic Interaction: New Perspectives for EC8 Improvement

269

M kin (KN*m) 0 0 2 4 6
12 24 12 30 8 16

VS1=100 m/s; VS2=400 m/s

200

400

600

800
A-AAL018 A-STU270 ATMZ270 B-BCT090 C-NCB090 E-NCB000 J-BCT000 R-NC2000 R-NCB090

1000
A-STU000 ATMZ000 B-BCT000 C-NCB000 E-AAL108 E-NCB090 J-BCT090 R-NC2090 TRT000

8 z (m) 10 12 14 16 18 20

Figure 3. Kinematic bending moments for two-layer soil profile of type D and with H1=H2=15 m.

3.1 Effect of the frequency content of the earthquake As a further interpretation of the results previously shown, the ratio between the period Tinput of the input motion (in terms of Tp and Tm) and the fundamental period Tsoil of the subsoil in hand (in the specific case, Tsoil=0.62 s) is presented in Figure 4, for all the considered seismic records. It is worth noting that the accelerograms characterized by values of Tp/Tsoil or Tm/Tsoil close to unity provide the higher kinematic moments in Figure 3, due to the occurrence of a resonance phenomenon. This confirms what pointed out by Nikolaou et al. (2001) by frequency domain analyses: maximum effects of kinematic bending in piles occur at the fundamental period of the subsoil. Conversely, all accelerograms having Tp/Tsoil or Tm/Tsoil below 0.5, induce lower kinematic moments in the pile. These results suggest that a critical band of the ratio Tinput/Tsoil in which kinematic effects could be important, may be individuated (Figure 4). This observation could be a possible criterion to select significant records from a database of local seismic events. Therefore, if the acceleration time-histories are provided for a given seismic zone (in addition to the peak ground acceleration), the susceptibility of the site with the associated waveforms to induce significant kinematic bending in piles may be established on the basis of the following criterion: - if the ratio Tinput/Tsoil is external to the critical band, site susceptibility is low, and only inertial interaction should be accounted for; - if the ratio Tinput/Tsoil is internal to the critical band, site susceptibility is high, and kinematic interaction should be analysed in addition to inertial interaction. In the latter case, the analysis tool should be consistent to the one adopted in the design of the overall structure.

270

R. Cairo, E. Conte, G. Dente, S. Sica, A.L. Simonelli

1.60 1.40 1.20 Tinput/Tsoil 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20

ATMZ000 A-AAL018 ATMZ270 A-STU000 A-STU270 E-AAL108

Tm/Tsoil Tp/Tsoil

critical band

0.00

J-BCT000

E-NCB000

E-NCB090

J-BCT090

C-NCB000

C-NCB090

R-NCB090

R-NC2000

R-NC2090

B-BCT000

B-BCT090

Accelerogramma

Figure 4. Ratio among the predominant period of the input motion and the fundamental period of the soil.

3.2 Kinematic moments computed with simplified methods The simplified methods provided by Dobry and ORourke (1983), Mylonakis (2001), and Nikolaou et al. (2001) have been applied to compute the kinematic moments at the interface of the above specified two-layered subsoil, in order to compare their predictions to those obtained numerically by the BDWF approach of Mylonakis et al. (1997). The formulas by Dobry and ORourke (1983) and Mylonakis (2001) have been applied by adopting both the shear strain at the bottom of the first layer 1 provided by Eq. (10) (Figure 5a) and the value of 1 directly computed with SHAKE (Schnabel et al., 1972) or EERA (Bardet et al., 2000) for each selected accelerogram (Figure 5b). At the same way, the equation derived by Nikolaou et al. (2001) has been applied by adopting both the shear stress at the interface using Eq. (11) as suggested by the authors (Figura 5a), and the value directly provided by EERA (Figura 5b). The formula of Nikolaou et al. (2001) has been applied without introducing any corrective factor . From Figure 5a and 5b, it emerges that if literature closed-form solutions - Dobry and ORourke (1983), Mylonakis (2001), and Nikolaou et al. (2001) - are adopted with the values of 1 and c provided by the simplified approaches, all formulas overestimate the kinematic moments with respect to the values computed numerically by BDWF analyses. Conversely, if 1 or c are derived from a free-field analysis, carried out with SHAKE or EERA, the kinematic moments provided by the literature formulas are quite close to those computed numerically (Figure 5b). Similar results have been obtained also by Maiorano et al. (2009). In short, it seems well-established that it is more suitable to apply the literature formulas for estimating pile kinematic moment at the interface in combination with free-field analyses (with SHAKE or EERA) in order to get the proper value of 1 or c, especially when the interface is quite deep. As well-known, in such case the formula provided by Seed & Idriss (1982) for computing 1 (or, equivalently, c) is no longer reliable.

TRT000

Soil-Pile Kinematic Interaction: New Perspectives for EC8 Improvement

271

1400 1200 Mkin (KN*m)l 1000 800 600 400 200 0 ATMZ000 ATMZ270

a)

Mkin (KN*m) l

Numerical analyses BDWF (D=10%) Nikolaou et al. (2001) Dobry&O'Rourke (1983) Mylonakis (2001)

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

b)

Numerical analyses BDWF (D=10%) Nikolaou et al. (2001) Dobry&O'Rourke (1983) Mylonakis chart (2001)

E-NCB000

E-NCB090

C-NCB000

C-NCB090

R-NCB090

R-NC2000

B-BCT000

B-BCT090

R-NC2090

A-STU000

A-STU270

A-AAL018

E-AAL108

J-BCT000

J-BCT090

TRT000

ATMZ000

A-AAL018

A-STU000

A-STU270

ATMZ270

E-AAL108

J-BCT000

E-NCB000

C-NCB000

C-NCB090

E-NCB090

J-BCT090

R-NCB090

R-NC2000

R-NC2090

B-BCT000

B-BCT090

Earthquake

Earthquake

Figure 5. Kinematic moment at the interface computed with approximate formulas and the BDWF model.

3.3 An alternative simplified approach Recently, Cairo et al. (2009) have suggested an alternative procedure that may be promptly used in current practice. This procedure (that is fully analytical) is very simple to use and needs only two parameters for defining the seismic motion: the peak ground acceleration and the mean period of the excitation. The former is directly provided by the code; the latter may be assumed on the basis of some suitable regression equations available in the literature (Rathje et al., 2004; Ausilio et al., 2007). In the proposed procedure, Eq. (8) by Nikolaou et al. (2001) has been considered the most suitable, and a corrective factor has been introduced. This latter is defined as the ratio of the maximum pile bending moment in the time domain, calculated using the BEM approach developed by Cairo and Dente (2007), to the kinematic moment obtained by Eq. (8), in which the peak ground acceleration is computed by site response analyses. The results of Figure 6 show the factor , calculated with reference to the case-studies previously documented, versus the ratio T1/Tm of the fundamental period of the soil deposit to the mean period of the seismic excitation. A linear relationship between and T1/Tm can be obtained with reference to the 95th percentile of the distribution. This line is described by the following expression:

= 1.31 0.20

T1 Tm

(12)

This relation may be considered to evaluate the expected maximum bending moment. As a first approximation (Mylonakis, 2001) the fundamental period of the deposit may be evaluated by the equation:
T1 = 4H 1 V s1

(13)

where H1 and Vs1 are the first layer thickness and shear wave velocity, respectively. Therefore, the maximum pile bending moment Mkin at the interface between two soil layers may be computed by: M kin = M with and M provided by Eq. (12) and Eq. (8), respectively. (14)

TRT000

272

R. Cairo, E. Conte, G. Dente, S. Sica, A.L. Simonelli

As an example, this procedure has been applied to a case-study proposed by Nikolaou and Gazetas (1997) and recalled by Cairo and Dente (2007). A concrete pile is embedded 9.5 m into a top layer of soft clay and 6 m into a deep layer of dense sand. The shear wave velocities for the upper and lower layers are 80 and 330 m/s, respectively. The soil deposit is 30 m thick and rests on a rigid bedrock. The pile has Ep=25 GPa, d=1.3m, L=15.5 m, p=2.5 Mg/m3. Two actual accelerograms, scaled to 0.10g peak acceleration, have been used as excitation at the rock level. In Figure 7 the results obtained by Eq. (14) are compared with the envelopes of the peak moments computed by Nikolaou and Gazetas (1997) and by Cairo and Dente (2007) using different methods. As can be seen, the agreement between the results is quite satisfactory.
1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 1 2 T 1/T m 3 4 5

Figure 6. Corrective factor as a function of the ratio of the fundamental period T1 of the soil deposit to the mean period Tm of the earthquakes.
M (MNm) 1 M (MNm) 2

0 0

2 0

JMA, Kobe 4 z (m) z (m) 4

Anderson, Loma Prieta

12

12

this study Cairo and Dente (2007) Nikolaou and Gazetas (1997)

16

16

Figure 7. Envelopes of time-domain moments in a pile and peak kinematic moments at the interface.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In the paper some of the results from a comprehensive parametric study performed on a single fixed-head pile, embedded in two-layered soil deposits, have been illustrated. The analyses have been carried out using the Winkler-type model provided by Mylonakis et al. (1997), the

Soil-Pile Kinematic Interaction: New Perspectives for EC8 Improvement

273

BEM formulation developed by Cairo and Dente (2007), and some simplified closed-form expressions available in the specific literature for evaluating, in an approximate manner, the maximum kinematic moment in the pile at the interface between two soil layers. Italian seismic records have been used as input motion for the numerical analyses. From the obtained results, the following conclusions may be drawn: - in high seismicity zones and especially for subsoil type D, kinematic bending moments may be very high depending on the stiffness contrast between consecutive layers; - the maximum effects of kinematic pile bending generally occur for input motions having the fundamental period close to that of the subsoil; - the simplified methods here examined (Dobry and ORourke, 1983; Mylonakis, 2001; Nikolaou et al., 2001) tend to predict conservative moments at the subsoil interface, especially when the interface is deep. In such case it is better their use in combination with free-field response analyses to get predictions closer to the ones obtained from more rigorous approaches. On the basis of these observations, a simple criterion has been suggested to roughly estimate site susceptibility to induce significant kinematic bending in piles, and a simplified procedure for crudely evaluating kinematic moment has been presented. Yet, caution is required before proposing suggestions to be incorporated into seismic building codes. The theoretical evidence derived from the analysis needs to be extended to a wider selection of schemes, and to be compared with further experimental evidence.
5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work presented in this paper is part of the ReLUIS Research Project Innovative methods for the design of geotechnical systems, promoted and funded by the Department of Civil Protection (DPC) of the Italian Government and coordinated by the AGI (Italian Geotechnical Association). The contribution of the Italian Ministry of University, through the research project Seismic response of pile foundations and seismic slope stability (PRIN 2007) is also acknowledge.
6 REFERENCES
Ausilio E., Costanzo A., Silvestri F., Tropeano G. (2009). Valutazione della stabilit sismica di pendii naturali mediante un approccio semplificato agli spostamenti, XIII Convegno ANIDIS, LIngegneria Sismica in Italia, Bologna (in Italian; in press). Bardet J.P., Ichii K., Lin C.H. (2000). EERA: A computer program for equivalent-linear earthquake site response analyses of layered soil deposits, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California. Boulanger R.W., Curras C.J., Kutter B.L., Wilson D.W., Abghari A. (1999). Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 125, ASCE, 125: 750-759. Cai Y.X., Gould, P.L. Desai C.S. (2000). Nonlinear analysis of 3-D seismic interaction of soil-pilestructure systems and application, Engineering Structures, 22: 191-199. Cairo R., Conte E., Cosimo V.A., Dente G. (2009). Analisi dellinterazione cinematica palo-terreno, XIII Convegno ANIDIS, LIngegneria Sismica in Italia, Bologna (in Italian; in press). Cairo R., Conte E., Dente G. (2008). Nonlinear seismic response of single piles, Seismic Engng. Conf. commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake (MERCEA08), Reggio Calabria, AIP, Melville, N.Y., Vol. 1, pp. 602-609.

274

R. Cairo, E. Conte, G. Dente, S. Sica, A.L. Simonelli

Cairo R., Dente G. (2007). Kinematic interaction analysis of piles in layered soils, ISSMGE-ERTC 12 Workshop Geotechnical Aspects of EC8, Madrid, Ptron Editore, Bologna, paper No. 13. D.M. 14.1.2008 del Ministero delle Infrastrutture. Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni. S.O. n. 30 alla G.U. del 4.2.2008, No. 29. Dobry R., ORourke M.J. (1983). Discussion on Seismic response of end-bearing piles by FloresBerrones R. and Whitman R.V., Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 109. El Naggar M.H., Shayanfar M.A., Kimiaei M., Aghakouchak A.A. (2005). Simplified BNWF model for nonlinear seismic response analysis of offshore piles with nonlinear input ground motion analysis, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 42: 365-380. EN 1998-5. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles, Belgium. Fan K., Gazetas, G., Kaynia, A., Kausel, E., Ahmad, S. (1991). Kinematic seismic response of single pile and pile groups, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(12): 1860-1879. Flores-Berrones R., Whitman R.V. (1982). Seismic response of end-bearing piles, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 108(4): 554-569. Gazetas G., Dobry R. (1984). Simple radiation damping model for piles and footings, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 110(6): 937-956. Gazetas G., Fan K., Tazoh T., Shimizu K., Kavvadas M., Makris N. (1992). Seismic pile-group-structure interaction, Piles under dynamic loads, Geotechnical special publication No. 34, ASCE: 56-93. Kavvadas M., Gazetas G.. (1993). Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head piles in layered soil, Gotechnique, 43(2): 207-222. Kaynia A.M., Kausel, E. (1982). Dynamic behavior of pile groups, 2nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Methods in Offshore Piling, Austin, Texas, pp. 509-532. Kaynia A.M., Mahzooni S. (1996). Forces in pile foundations under seismic loading, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 122(1): 46-53. Kimura M., Zhang F. (2000). Seismic evaluation of pile foundations with three different methods based on 3D elasto-plastic finite element analysis, Soils and Foundations, 40: 113-132. Maheshwari B.K., Truman K.Z., El Naggar M.H., Gould P.L. (2004). Three-dimensional finite element nonlinear dynamic analysis of pile groups for lateral transient and seismic excitations, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 41: 118-133. Maheshwari B.K., Watanabe H. (2006). Nonlinear dynamic behavior of pile foundations: effects of separation at the soil-pile interface, Soils and Foundations, 46: 437-448. Maiorano R.M.S., de Sanctis L., Aversa S., Mandolini A. (2009). Kinematic response analysis of piled foundations under seismic excitation, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(5): 571-584. Mamoon S.M., Banerjee P.K. (1990). Response of piles and pile groups to travelling SH waves, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 19(4): 597-610. Mylonakis G. (2001). Simplified model for seismic pile bending at soil layer interfaces, Soils and Foundations, 41(4): 47-58. Mylonakis G., Nikolaou A., Gazetas G. (1997). Soil-pile-bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part 1: soft soil, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26: 337-359. Nikolaou A., Gazetas G. (1997). Seismic design procedure for kinematically stressed piles, Seismic behaviour of ground and geotechnical structures, Seco & Pinto (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, 253-260. Nikolaou S., Mylonakis G., Gazetas G., Tazoh T. (2001). Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis and field measurements, Gotechnique, 51(5): 425-440. Novak M. (1974). Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 11: 574591. Poulos H.G., Tabesh A. (1996). Seismic response of pile foundations Some important factors, 11th WCEE, Acapulco, paper No. 2085. Randolph M.F. (1981). The response of flexible piles to lateral loading, Gotechnique, 31(2): 247-259. Rathje M., Abrahamson N.A., Bray J.D. (1998). Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 124(2): 150-159.

Soil-Pile Kinematic Interaction: New Perspectives for EC8 Improvement

275

Rathje M., Faraj F., Russell S., Bray J.D. (2004). Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 20(1): 119-144. Saitoh M. (2005). Fixed-head pile bending by kinematic interaction and criteria for its minimization at optimal pile radius, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 131(10): 1243-1251. Scasserra G., Lanzo G., Stewart J.P., DElia B. (2008). SISMA (Site of Italian Strong-Motion Accelerograms): a web-database of ground motion recordings for engineering applications, Seismic Engng. Conf. commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake, Reggio Calabria, AIP, Melville, N.Y., Vol. 2, pp. 1649-1656; http://sisma.dsg.uniroma1.it. Schnabel P.B., Lysmer J., Seed H.B. (1972). SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, Report No. EERC 72-12 Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California. Seed H.B., Idriss I.M. (1982). Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California. Sica S., Mylonakis G., Simonelli A.L. (2007). Kinematic bending of piles: analysis vs. code provisions, 4th Inter. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Greece, paper No. 1674. Simonelli A.L., Sica S. (2008). Fondazioni profonde sotto azioni sismiche, Opere Geotecniche in Condizioni Sismiche, Ptron Editore, Bologna, Italy, Chapter 11, pp. 309-334 (in Italian). Wu G., Finn W.D.L. (1997). Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the time domain, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(1): 44-52.