EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

Published online 26 May 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.918

Simple formulas for the dynamic stiffness of pile groups

Reza Taherzadeh1 , Didier Clouteau1, , and Regis Cottereau1, 2

MSSMat, Ecole
Centrale Paris, CNRS UMR 8579, Grande Voie des Vignes,
92295 Chatenay-Malabry, France
2 International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering (CIMNE), Universitat Polit`
ecnica de Catalunya,
Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
1 Laboratoire

SUMMARY
Simple formulas are derived for the dynamic stiffness of pile group foundations subjected to horizontal and
rocking dynamic loads. The formulations are based on the construction of a general model of impedance
matrices as the condensation of matrices of mass, damping, and stiffness, and on the identification of
the values of these matrices on an extensive database of numerical experiments computed using coupled
finite elementboundary element models. The formulations obtained can be readily used for the design of
both floating piles on homogeneous half-space and end-bearing piles and are applicable for a wide range
of mechanical and geometrical parameters of the soil and piles, in particular for large pile groups. For
the seismic design of a building, the use of the simple formulas rather than a full computational model
is shown to induce little error on the evaluation of the response spectra and time histories. Copyright q
2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 19 August 2008; Revised 24 December 2008; Accepted 9 March 2009
KEY WORDS:

soil impedance matrix; pile group foundation; design formulas; lumped-parameter models;
hidden variables models

1. INTRODUCTION
Whatever the mode of vibration, the dynamic stiffness of a pile group cannot be computed by
simply adding the stiffnesses of the individual piles. Depending on the mechanical and geometrical
parameters of the soil and piles, the dynamical behavior of each pile can be heavily influenced by
that of its neighbors [1]. Among other phenomena, it is clear that the dynamic resonance of the
soil constrained within a cluster of piles cannot be modeled when the complex dynamic interaction
between these piles is neglected.
The main approach to solve this strongly coupled problem is the use of full numerical models,
taking into account the soil and the piles with equal rigor. This is however a computationally very
Correspondence

to: Didier Clouteau, Laboratoire MSSMat, Ecole

Centrale Paris, CNRS UMR 8579, Grande Voie
des Vignes, 92295 Chatenay-Malabry, France.

E-mail: didier.clouteau@ecp.fr
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1666

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

demanding approach, in particular for large number of piles, and has only been attempted, to the
knowledge of the authors, by Kaynia [2], using the boundary element (BE) method. All other
numerical methods in the literature seem to include some simplifying assumptions. For example,
the axisymetrical finite element (FE) model [3], the ring-pile model [4], or the closely spaced plates
model [5] can be used, when the geometrical layout of the pile group allows for it. The latter two
approaches consist in grouping the piles in concentric circles or soilpile-stripped upright plates,
respectively, both allowing for an easier evaluation of the interaction effects. Another approach
consists in replacing the pile group with a single equivalent upright beam [6]. In any case, these
approaches are not adapted to the needs of civil and structural engineers, who need to design pile
foundations with little recourse to computational tools.
A more interesting approach for the design purposes consists in providing analytical formulas,
whose structure is usually derived from physical considerations, and with tabulized parameters,
depending on the geometrical and mechanical parameters of the soil and piles. The simplest type
of such approaches is based on Winklers spring model for the soil, for which radiation damping
and inertial effects are neglected [79]. A relatively simple method was proposed by Gazetas and
Dobry [10] for estimating the damping characteristics of horizontally loaded single pile in layered
soil. Following Wolfs approach [11] for the modeling of soilstructure interaction (SSI), other
researchers [1217] have replaced the soilpile system by a one degree-of-freedom (DOF) mass,
with a damper and a spring. Inertial effects and radiation damping are therefore taken into account
to some extent, but the general dynamical behavior, and in particular the interaction between the
different piles, is heavily simplified. To improve these models, Dobry and Gazetas [18] proposed
an approximate formulation accounting for the interaction between the piles by modeling the
waves emanating from each excited pile. The additional term is therefore based on the computation
of the propagation of a wave, supposed to be cylindrical, emanating from a single excited pile
in a homogeneous domain. The method was further refined by Gazetas and co-workers [1921]
to attempt to model multiple reflections within the pile group in layered soil. However, a few
attempts have been made at accurately modeling the large pile group foundation, in particular for
the complex frequency dependance of end-bearing pile foundations. (Konagai et al. [6] provide
formulas valid only for sway, Mylonakis and Gazetas [21] provide formulas valid for all movements
but only for a group of nine piles, and Nikolaou et al. [22] provide for kinematic pile bending for
a group of 20 piles).
Despite the significant progress in pile dynamics [23], there is however still a need for simple
engineering procedures for their design, following the example of the code provisions developed
for the seismic design on spread footings [24, 25]. This paper aims at providing such formulas to be
used for both small and large pile groups, as well as for both floating pile groups on homogeneous
half-space and end-bearing pile groups. The novelty of this paper is that the formulas are valid
over a range of parameters larger than the formulas previously available in the literature (see above
references). In particular, they can be used for large numbers of piles. This is made possible by the
use of a very general dynamic model for the representation of stiffness impedance matrices, the
hidden state variable model (Section 3.1). The parameters appearing in this model are then fitted
using an extensive database of full coupled FEBE computations of soilpile systems (Section 3.2).
The sway and rocking of the foundation are accounted for, in a large range of parameters of the
soil and piles, and the formulas are given independently for floating (Section 4.1) and end-bearing
piles (Section 4.2). Further, for the seismic design of a building, the use of the simple formulas
rather than a full computational model is shown to induce little error on the evaluation of the
response spectra and time histories (Section 5).
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

1667

The reader interested in a fast use of the formulas can refer directly for a floating pile group
on homogeneous half-space (respectively, an end-bearing pile group) to Table II (respectively,
Table IV) the coefficients of which are to be used in Equations (9) and (8) (respectively, Equations
(14) and (10)). In these equations, both the dynamic stiffness and the frequency are normalized,
as described in Section 2.2.
2. THE IMPEDANCE MATRIX OF A PILE GROUP: DEFINITION AND NOTATIONS
In this section, we introduce the main notations and define the impedance matrix of a pile group.
The normalizations, which will be used throughout the paper, of both the impedance and the
frequency are also introduced.
2.1. Notations
In all formulas, the indices s and p will refer to the soil and the piles, respectively. When
considering two layers of soil, the top layer will still be denoted as s, whereas the bedrock will be
denoted as b. E s , s , G s , and s (respectively, E p , p , G p , p , and E b , b , G b , b ) hence denote
Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, the shear modulus, and the unit mass of the soil (respectively,
of the piles, and of the bedrock). Vs and s (resp., Vb and b ) denote the shear wave velocity and
the hysteretic damping of the soil (resp., of the bedrock). All the piles in a group are supposed
to be identical with a diameter d, a length lp , an inertial moment Ip , and they are separated from
each other by a distance s (see Figure 1). They are rigidly attached to a mass-less square cap
with a half-width B f , which is supposed to have no contact with the soil. Further we define
L 0 = (E p Ip /E s )0.25 , closely related to the critical
pile length defined by several authors [26, 27]
and an equivalent radius for the cap R f = 2B f / .
Two cases will be considered in this paper: (1) floating pile groups on homogeneous half-space
and (2) end-bearing pile groups. In the former case, the soil is a homogeneous half-space, whereas
in the latter case, the soil is composed of a layer of thickness H , resting over a bedrock, in which
the tips of the piles are embedded (lp >H ).
2.2. Impedance matrix
The impedance matrix or dynamic stiffness matrix Z() of a pile group relates the vector of forces
and moments applied on the rigid cap at the top of the piles to the resulting vector of displacements and rotations at the same point. Since the rigid cap is supposed to be square, symmetry

Figure 1. Definition of pile group foundation.

Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1668

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

considerations ensure that the impedance matrix, on the basis of the rigid-body movements of
the pile cap, is not full. More precisely, only the diagonal terms, and the coupling terms between
the sway along one of the axes of symmetry and the rotation around the other one, are non-null.
Besides, the two horizontal axes of symmetry are equivalent, so that the corresponding terms in the
impedance matrix are equal. Hence, only five elements should be considered: horizontal, rocking,
pumping, torsion, and horizontalrocking coupling. Finally, as is usually done in earthquake engineering, we disregard the pumping and torsion terms as less significant, and therefore write the
impedance as


Z h () Z hr ()
Z() =
(1)
Z hr () Z r ()
where Z h (), Z r (), and Z hr () are, respectively, the horizontal, rocking, and coupling elements.
To simplify the comparisons between different soils and/or foundation sizes, it is customary in
foundation design [28, 29] to normalize the impedance matrix by a constant static stiffness matrix
K0 , given here by


0
Gs R f
K0 =
(2)
0
G s R 3f
It is also classical to use a dimensionless frequency a0 = R f /Vs , where  is the circular frequency.
The impedance matrix is finally written as
1/2
1/2
Z(a0 ) = K0 Z(a
0 )K0

(3)

where the tilde symbol refers to normalized quantities.

Note that the imaginary part of the impedance matrix is sometimes plotted in the literature after
a division by . While this is interesting in the simple cases where that imaginary part remains
more or less linear, such as for circular rigid foundations over homogeneous soils, it is not relevant
here, so that custom will not be followed in the plots of this paper.

3. PRINCIPLE OF THE COMPUTATION OF SIMPLE FORMULAS

As described in the introduction, there is a need in engineering for simple formulations of the
impedance matrix of large pile groups. The goal is to avoid using complicated and time-consuming
computational models, while retaining their accuracy. The usual approach to the derivation of these
simple formulations consists in two steps:
1. Choose a structure for the formulation, usually based on physical considerations and simplifying assumptions.
2. Set the values of the parameters for a range of soil and pile group characteristics, usually
provided in a tabulized form.
In the literature (see the introduction for references), the first step is basically a decision of the
designer, which, however, conditions in a large part of the quality of the formulation. We therefore
choose here a more rational approach, in which no specific structure is chosen a priori, and make
use of the so-called hidden variables model of the impedance matrix [30, 31]. The identification
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

1669

of the parameters of the final formulas is then performed by regression from a database of FEBE
computations.
Note that the hidden state variable model that is chosen here might appear more mathematical
than the previous formulations found in the literature. However, remember that this structure is
just an intermediate state that allows to find the final formulas that will eventually be used by
the engineers. In Section 4, we will see some analogies between the formulas proposed, and the
mechanical systems created as sets of springs, dampers, and masses. The main difference with
lumped-parameters models is that, in the case of the hidden state variables model, the equivalent
mechanical model comes out naturally as a consequence of the regression rather than being chosen
a priori.
3.1. The hidden variables model
The construction of the hidden variables model of an impedance matrix is based on the supposition
that, besides the n  physical DOFs on which the impedance is defined (typically the rigid-body
modes of the cap of the pile group), there exist n I additional DOFs that represent some internal
resonance phenomena inside the soil and the pile group. The resonance modes corresponding to
these DOFs cannot be physically identified, as only their influence on the impedance matrix is
observable, thus the DOFs are referred to as hidden or inner.
With respect to the n = n  +n I DOFs, matrices of mass M, damping D, and stiffness K can
then be identified, and the dynamic stiffness matrix S(a0 ) is defined as
S(a0 ) = (Ka02 M)+ia0 C

(4)

The impedance matrix corresponding to the hidden variables model is then the condensation on
the n  physical DOFs of the stiffness matrix S(a0 ). More specifically, introducing the block
decomposition of Equation (4),






 
S (a0 ) Sc (a0 )
M Mc
C Cc
K K c
2
a0
+ia0
(5)
=
KTc K I
MTc M I
CTc C I
STc (a0 ) S I (a0 )
the impedance matrix is defined as
T
Z(a0 ) = S (a0 )Sc (a0 )S1
I (a0 )Sc (a0 )

(6)

As the hidden variables are not necessarily physical DOFs, but rather state variables in the
background of the physical model, the matrices M, D, and K are really generalized mass, damping
and stiffness matrices and do not correspond a priori with the classical mass, damping and stiffness
matrices, or to those obtained through the application of some modal reduction technique. Another
equivalent form of the hidden variables model can be derived [30], where the hidden parts of the
matrices are diagonal, and with no coupling in mass. In that case, the impedance can be written as
Z(a0 ) = (K a02 M )+ia0 C

n h (ia C +K )(ia C +K )T


0 c
0 c
c
c
=1

(k I a02 m I )+ia0 cI

(7)

where Cc and Kc are the th columns of Cc and Kc , and m I , cI , and k I are the diagonal elements
of M I , C I , and K I .
The main interest of this hidden variables model is its generality. Its structure makes it suitable
for the representation of any type of impedance matrix, provided that an appropriate number of
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

Dynamic stiffness
[N/m]

1670

x 109
2
0
2
4
6
0

4
6
Frequency [Hz]

10

4
6
Frequency [Hz]

10

Damping [N/m]

x 109
8
6
4
2
0
0

Figure 2. FE model (left) of the 49 pile group within a block of soil and comparison of the real (right,
up) and imaginary (right, down) parts of the horizontal impedance computed using the FEBE model
(solid line) and the BE model (dashed line) [36].

hidden variables is used. Note that the numerical identification of the matrices M, C, and K is
entirely performed only from the knowledge of the impedance matrix, and that the number of
hidden variables can be automatically chosen based on a precision criteria for the approximation
of the impedance matrix [3032].
Contrarily to the lumped-parameter models of the impedance matrix [33], in which the identification of the mechanical elements may yield negative values of the springs, dashpots, and/or
masses in the hidden state variable model, the causality and stability of the soil impedance matrix
are directly related to the positivity of M, K, and C. In other words, in comparison with lumpedparameter models, the diagnosis of unphysical models is very natural.
In the next section, the numerical method that is used to derive the reference impedance matrices,
and to identify the parameters of the formulas, is described. The methodology for the identification
of the hidden variables model of a given impedance matrix is also described in Appendix A.
3.2. The reference FEBE model
We suppose, for the reference computations, that both the soil and the piles behave linearly and
that the contact between the piles and the soil is continuous in all directions without any slippage
or gap. The elastodynamic equations are therefore linear. The numerical approach used to derive
the reference results for the calibration of the simple formulations is based on an efficient FEBE
coupling technique that is described in detail in [34, 35] and is briefly recalled below.
The soil is separated into two blocks: one, bounded and containing the piles, which is modeled
by the FE method, and the other, surrounding the previous one, which is modeled by the BE
method (see Figure 2). Within the FE block, the piles are modeled as Bernoulli beam elements.
The two blocks are then assembled using the CraigBampton coupling technique [37], so as to
lower the computational cost, which may reach high levels for large pile groups. This numerical
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1671

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

30

60

20

50

10

40

30
20
10
0
0

Figure 3. Real (left) and imaginary (right) parts of the normalized horizontal impedance matrix for floating
(solid line) and end-bearing (dashed line) pile groups.

model was already validated for stiffness problems taken from the literature (in particular [2]) and
the results are given in [35]. However, these validation results only concerned floating pile groups
on homogeneous half-spaces so that we present here a comparison, on a particular example, of
the FEBE model with the BE approach described in [36].
We therefore consider a 49 pile group embedded in a soil with two layers (see Figure 2). The
piles have Youngs modulus of 25 GPa, a diameter of d = 1.3 m and are separated by s = 2.6 m. The
first layer of soil is H = 9.5 m thick, and is formed of a very soft saturated organic clay with S-wave
velocity Vs = 80 m/s, unit mass s = 1.5 Mg/m3 , and Poissons ratio s = 0.49. The lower layer of
soil is a stiff sand with S-wave velocity Vd = 300 m/s, unit mass d = 2 Mg/m3 , and Poissons
ratio d = 0.4, in which the piles penetrate 6 m. In both layers the hysteretic damping is taken
as s = d = 0.05. As seen in Figure 2, the agreement between the results in the two numerical
approaches is very good.
It should be noted that the frequency dependance of pile groups is particularly sensitive to the
number of piles and to its character of floating or end bearing. The dynamic stiffness of single
piles and pile groups with a small number of piles is nearly independent of frequency [38], while
that of larger pile groups may show large variations with frequency. Likewise, the behavior of
end-bearing pile groups is much more erratic with frequency than that of floating pile groups on
homogeneous half-space. These physical results are retrieved with the FEBE approach and an
example of such a comparison is shown in Figure 3. These results were obtained considering the
sample number 4 in Tables I and III.
It is also interesting to note, in Figure 3 for the end-bearing pile group, that the imaginary
part of the impedance (it is also true for the rocking term, not shown here) presents a small and
almost constant value below some cut off frequency, which is the resonance frequency of the top
layer of soil. Indeed, for very low frequencies, surface waves cannot build up in that top layer
and take energy away from the foundation, so that the radiation damping is very low. Above
that cut off frequency, a large peak can be observed on the imaginary part (with the real part
almost cancelling), indicating a resonance within the soil that tends to soak energy away from the
foundation.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1672

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

4. COMPUTATION OF SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR PILE GROUPS

In this section, we present the derivation of the simple formulas in the cases of the floating pile
groups on homogeneous half-space and end-bearing pile groups and using the ideas discussed
above. Depending on the type of pile group and on the type of element of the impedance matrix,
more or less hidden variables are necessary to describe its behavior, and, correspondingly, more
or less parameters are needed in the formulas.
4.1. Floating pile groups
We first consider the floating pile groups embedded in a homogeneous half-space. In that case,
the variation of the dynamic stiffness with the frequency is rather smooth, as seen in Figures 4
and 5. More precisely, the dynamic stiffness always has a parabolic variation, while the damping
coefficient is approximately linear. The parabolic decrease of the real part seems to indicate that
a mass remains entrapped between the piles and vibrates in-phase with the cap.
The hidden variables model predicts in all cases in the database (described in Table I) a twoDOFs system, one for the sway and one for the rocking, and with no hidden variables. Note that
the coupling term is negligible. In Figure 6, a schematic drawing of a system corresponding to
such impedance is presented. The superstructure is subjected to the seismic horizontal force f s .
The elements of the normalized impedance can therefore be written as
Z h (a0 ) = (kh a02 m h )+ia0 ch
Z r (a0 ) = (kr a02 m r )+ia0 cr
Z sr (a0 ) = 0

(8)

where the values of kh , ch , m h , kr , cr , and m r depend on the case considered. Remember that the
definition of the normalized frequency a0 is given in Section 2.2 and that the normalized values in
these formulas (8) must be scaled by the static stiffness to yield the actual value of the impedance
matrix, as described in Section 2.2.
10

50

40

30
20
10
0
0

Figure 4. Real (left) and imaginary (right) parts of the horizontal impedance matrix for different pile
separations: s/d = 2 (solid line), s/d = 2.5 (dashed line), and s/d = 3.5 (soliddashed lines). The figures
correspond to a 1515 pile group with E p /E s = 300 and R f /lp = 1.1.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1673

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

20

60

10

50

40
30
20
10
0
0

Figure 5. Real (left) and imaginary (right) parts of the rocking term of the dynamic stiffness matrix
for different pile separations: R f /lp = 0.7 (solid line), R f /lp = 0.65 (dashed line), and R f /lp = 0.55
(soliddashed lines). The figures correspond to a 1414 pile group with E p /E s = 375 and s/d = 2.

Table I. The database of soilpile group systems used to derive the simple formulations for floating pile
groups on homogeneous half-space.

Sample
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Piles
(Dimensionless)

Ep
(GPa)

88
1111
1616
1313
1313
1313
1515
1515
1515
1818
1818
1818
1616
1616
1616

30
30
30
40
30
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30

d
(m)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.3
1
0.7
1
1
1
1
1
1

Es
(GPa)

Bf
(m)

lp
(m)

s
(m)

Vs
(m/s)

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.08

15
20
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
15
15
15

18
18
18
24
24
24
18
18
18
14
14
14
28
20
14

3.3
3.3
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.0
2.0
2.0

140
140
140
130
130
130
130
130
130
60
130
140
130
130
130

The range of parameters is 250 E p /E s 1500, 2s/dp 3.6, and 0.55 R f /lp 2 and constant hysteric
damping s = 0.05.

In previous works, the leading parameters for this type of pile groups were identified to be the
ratio of Youngs moduli E p /E s and the normalized separation of the piles s/d [2, 39], or the factor
L 0 = (E p Ip /E s )0.25 related to the active pile length [26, 27, 40]. We decide here to use as leading
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1674

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

Figure 6. A schematic drawing of a simple model for floating pile group.

Table II. Coefficients for the horizontal and rocking elements of the
impedance of a floating pile groups on homogeneous half-space.
 = 0

Rf
lp

1 


L 0 2
s

kh
ch
m h
kr
cr
2 /4
m r = m h leq

0

1

2

R (%)

6.8
5
0.4
8
5
0.7

0
0
0
0.6
0.5
1

0.3
0.5
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.4

80
90
86
83
72
96

parameters the normalized radius of the foundation R f /lp and a normalized active pile length ratio
L 0 /s. We therefore provide equations of the parameters  {kh , ch , m h , kr , cr , m r } in the form

R f 1 L 0 2
(9)
 = 0
lp
s
with the values of 0 , 1 , and 2 being provided for each of the parameters. A multiple regression
analysis was then conducted with respect to the two quantities R f /lp and L 0 /s, and lead to the
values described in Table II. The regression coefficient R is also indicated in the same table to
provide an indicator of the accuracy of the regression analysis.
In general terms, the formulas in Table II corroborate the observed results that, for short
separations between the piles and for weak soils, both normalized dynamic stiffness and damping
increase. Note that, as indicated by the zeros in Table II, the influence of the ratio R f /lp on the
horizontal impedance is negligible, while it is rather important for the rocking term. Besides the
uniform presentation in Table II, the reader may also find an expanded, non-normalized version
of the same formulas in Appendix B for easier reading.
4.2. End-bearing pile groups
We then consider end-bearing pile groups. As stated earlier, their dynamical behavior is much
more complicated than that of floating pile groups on homogeneous half-space. The structure of
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1675

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

Table III. The database of soilpile group systems used to derive the simple formulations
for end-bearing pile groups.
Samples
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Piles
(Dimensionless)

Ep
(GPa)

88
1111
1616
1313
1313
1313
1515
1818
1818
1414
1414
1414
1313
1313
1313

30
30
30
40
30
20
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

d
(m)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Es
(GPa)

Bf
(m)

lp
(m)

H
(m)

Vs
(m/s)

Vb
(m/s)

s
(m)

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.06

15
20
30
20
20
20
37
32
32
26
26
26
26
26
26

16
16
16
22
22
22
20
20
20
26
20
16
18
18
18

14
14
14
20
20
20
18
18
18
24
18
14
16
16
16

140
140
140
130
130
130
200
90
140
130
130
130
110
110
110

830
830
830
620
620
620
780
440
700
1000
1000
1000
620
620
620

3.3
3.3
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
4.3
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.6

The range of parameters is 125 E p /E s 750, 2.8s/dp 4.4, 1 R f /H 2.1, and 3Vb /Vs 8 and constant
hysteretic damping s = 0.05.

the approximation for the impedance matrix is therefore difficult to guess a priori and we use the
hidden variables model in a very general setting. Note that, as the coupling term is negligible in
the cases considered, the hidden variables model was identified independently on the horizontal
and rocking terms of the impedance matrix.
The identification of the hidden variables model for all the cases in the database described
in Table IV suggests the consideration of three hidden variables for the sway and none for the
rocking. Besides, no coupling in the stiffness for the first hidden variable and no coupling in the
damping for the two others seemed to be necessary. The chosen structure for the end-bearing pile
groups is therefore written as a special case of Equation (7) for the hidden variables model
Z h (a0 ) = (kh a02 m h )+ia0 ch +

k32

(k3 a02 m 3 )+ia0 c3

a02 c12

(k1 a02 m 1 )+ia0 c1

k22

(k2 a02 m 2 )+ia0 c2

(10)

Z r (a0 ) = (kr a02 m r )+ia0 cr

Z sr (a0 ) = 0
and represented as a set of masses, springs, and dampers in Figure 7. In these formulas, the static
stiffness coefficient is k0 = kh k2 k3 . The previous observation for the coupling with the hidden
variables can be translated in Figure 7 by the fact that the mass m 1 is linked to the foundation by
a dashpot, whereas the masses m 2 and m 3 are linked to it through springs. This fact arises from
the presence of the cut off frequency of the top layer of soil, which was discussed in Section 3.2.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1676

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

Table IV. Coefficients for the horizontal and rocking elements of the impedance
of an end-bearing pile group.
 = 0

Rf
H

1 

 

L 0 2 b Vb 3
s
s Vs

k0 = kh k2 k3
ch = c0 + c1
m h = m 0
k1
c1
m 1
k2
c2
m 2
k3
c3
m 3
kr
cr
2 /4
m r = m 0 leq

0
10
1
0.5
2.6
1.9
1.4
1.25
0.04
0.08
16.1
3
0.6
15
17
1.6

1
0.5
0.5
1
1
1.5
1
0.35
0
1
3
2
1
0.5
0.5
1.5

2
0.35
0.5
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
1

3
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5

R (%)
93
60
82
65
75
80
60
62
80
75
70
75
98
95
90

Figure 7. A schematic drawing of a simple model for end-bearing pile group.

More physical remarks can be made in the different frequency ranges defined by the resonance
frequencies a0 of the masses m representing the hidden variables. In the low-frequency range
(a0  a01 ), a first-order expansion gives
Z h (a0 ) = k0 +ia0 (ch + c2 + c3 )

(11)

It is worth noticing that the slope of the imaginary part c0 + c1 + c2 + c3 is not small since it allows
to quickly reach the level of the
hysteretical damping. In the range of resonance of mass m 1
(a0 a01  2
1 a01 , with
= c /(2 k m )), and supposing that all the resonance frequencies are
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

far enough from each other (a0 a02  2

2 a02 and a0 a03  2
3 a03 ), one has


2
2
a02
a03
k3 2
Z h (a0 ) = kh + k1 k2 2
a02 a02
a03 a02


2

2
2
2
a02
a03

+ia0 ch c1 + c2
+ c3
2
2
2
a02 a0
a03 a02

1677

(12)

which means that around a01 , the mass m 1 has the same displacement as the foundation, so that
there is no damping contribution from c1 . For a0  a02 , masses m 2 and m 3 are also linked to the
foundation, but the dashpots c2 and c3 introduce some damping. The equivalent slope around a01
tends to c0 + c2 + c3 = eq /a01 , which is actually small as expected to model the sole hysteretical
damping eq . Usually, c1  a01 eq . In the range of resonance of the mass m 2 (an equivalent formula
can be derived for mass m 3 ), a large imaginary part is brought on by k /2
, which corresponds
to the peaks observed in Figure 3. Finally, at high frequency (a0  a03 ), one has


c12
2
Z h (a0 ) = kh
a0 m h +ia0 ch
(13)
m 1
which classically corresponds to all the masses m 1 , m 2 , and m 3 being fixed. One can see c1 as
the radiative damping that occurs only above a01 since for this frequency we have shown that
the damping is only eq /a01 . Thus, this model reproduces the cut off frequency at the resonance
frequency of the layer.
Once the structure of the approximation has been decided, a multiple regression analysis is
performed on the same leading parameters as before, plus the ratio (b Vb )/(s Vs ) to yield the
formulas presented in Table IV. Note that several coefficients appear as zeros in the table, which
means that the parameters modeled do not have any influence on the formula. Note also that, as
before, the formulas are presented in a non-normalized manner in Appendix B for easier reading.
The general formulas for the parameters are

R f 1 L 0 2 b Vb 3
 = 0
(14)
H
s
s Vs
It is particularly interesting to note that although the formulas were derived from rather mathematical considerations (the hidden variables model and a regression analysis), they yield a very good
evaluation of the resonance frequenciesof the soil layer. Indeed, the first fundamental frequency
of the soil layer s01 = 2Vs /(4H ) and k1 /m 1 = 1.4Vs /H (see Appendix B for non-normalized
formulas) coincides. Likewise, the second fundamental frequency of the soil layer s02 = 6Vs /(4H )

is very well approximated by the third resonance of the simple model k3 /m 3 = 5.1Vs /H .
5. IMPACT OF THE FORMULAS ON THE EVALUATION OF DESIGN QUANTITIES
In this last section, we discuss the accuracy of the proposed formulas on two practical cases.
More particularly, the accuracy of the predicted transfer functions, spectral acceleration on top
of a building, and relative displacement between the top and bottom of the building, using the
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1678

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

x 1013
Real part [N/m]

Real part [N/m]

x 1010
1
0

2
3
Frequency [Hz]

2
1
0

1
0
0

2
3
Frequency [Hz]

2
3
Frequency [Hz]

x 1013

Imaginary part
[N.m]

Imaginary part
[N.m]

x 1010

Frequency [Hz]

2
1
0
0

Figure 8. Comparison between the real (up) and imaginary (down) parts of the horizontal (left) and
rocking (right) elements of the impedance matrix for a 1010 end-bearing pile group computed using
the simplified formulas (10) (dashed line) and the FEBE model (solid line).

proposed formulas, is demonstrated. In a second test, we compare the accuracy of our proposed
formula with another one from the literature.
5.1. Case 1
For this validation, a 1010 end-bearing pile group is used, with piles with dp = 1 m, lp = 22 m,
s = 5 m, and connected by a 1.1 m thick, rigid, cap with B f = 25 m. The mechanical properties of
the piles are E p = 30 GPa, p = 0.25, and p = 2500 kg/m3 . This pile group stands in H = 20 m thick
soil layer with properties E s = 60 MPa, s = 0.4, and s = 1750 kg/m3 . The mechanical properties
of the underlying half-space are E b = 1.5 GPa and b = 0.3 and b = 2000 kg/m3 . The real and
imaginary parts of the impedance are shown on Figure 8, both as computed using the numerical
FEBE model, and using the simple formulas of Equation (10). The agreement between the two
approaches is good, in particular for the shaking term, considering the important variability in the
frequency. Note that the pile group considered here was not used for the regression analysis that
determined the parameters in Table IV.
We now turn to the observation of the accuracy of the proposed formulations for the estimation of
engineering quantities of interest. We therefore consider a 60 m high building (20 floors), with floors
of 22.5 m22.5 m, and 6 columns6 columns. The slab weight per unit area is 500 kg/m2 and the
characteristics of the beams and columns are, respectively, E I = 5.1 MN m2 and E I = 1 MN m2 .
We first consider the estimation of transfer functions in two different cases: (1) using the entire,
66, impedance matrix computed from the FEBE model, and considering both the kinematic
and inertial interaction and (2) using only the horizontal and rocking elements of the impedance
matrix computed with the proposed formula (10) and neglecting the kinematic interaction. For
both cases, the displacement field is decomposed on a basis, which contains the rigid-body modes
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1679

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

of the building (lm ), which coincide with those of the foundation and the flexible modes of the
building on a rigid basis (/n ):
 
L


(15)
u(, x) = cm ()lm (x)+ n ()/n (x) = [c a]
m
n
U
where L is the matrix of the rigid-body modes of the structure and U is the matrix of the eigenmodes
of the structure clamped at its base. The response of the structure, taking into account SSI, is then
computed using the following formula:






 
 
Z() 0
0 0
M
M
()
c()
Z()c
0


+(1+2i)
2
(16)
=
0
0
0 K
0
M
I
a()
where the diagonal matrix K contains the squares of the lowest circular frequencies of the structure
on fixed base and I is the identity matrix arising from the orthogonality of the eigenmodes with
respect to the mass matrix.  stands for the rigid-body modes and  for the eigenmodes on fixed
base, while c0 is the kinematic interaction. The differences between the two models with respect
to this formulation are the impedance matrix Z() and the kinematic interaction factor takes equal
to Du i () with D having null components but a unitary for the sway term. Besides, it is worth
noticing that the simplified model does not correspond to the physical model sketched on Figure 7
subjected to an uniform acceleration ai . Indeed, inertial forces are not applied on mass m 1 , m 2 ,
and m 3 since these masses are in the soil and have their inertial forces already balanced in the soil.
s = 1.55 Hz and f s = 4.6 Hz. Assuming
The resonance frequencies of the soil are computed at f 01
02
a horizontal harmonic base motion at the bedrock, the horizontal transfer function at the free
surface and at the top of the building are represented in Figure 9. It clearly shows the effect of the
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

2
3
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 9. Transfer function at ground surface free field (solid line) of the structure without SSI (dashed
line), and of the structure with SSI (dasheddotted line), all computed with the FEBE approach, and
transfer function of the structure with SSI computed with the proposed formulas (dotted line). The figures
correspond to a structure resting on a 1010 end-bearing pile group.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1680

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

Acceleration
[m/s2]

12

16

Time [s]
Acceleration
[m/s2]

3
0

Spectral acceleration [m/s2]

10
0

8
6
4
2
0
0

8
Time [s]

12

16

8
Frequncy [Hz]

12

16

Figure 10. Ground acceleration (left) and 5%-damped response spectra (right) recorded in Aegion (Greece)
in 1995 (top and solid line), and in Friuli (Italy) in 1976 (bottom and dashed line).

8
Spectral acceleration [m/s2]

Spectral acceleration [m/s2]

10

7.5

2.5

0
0

4
6
Frequency [Hz]

10

4
6
Frequency [Hz]

10

Figure 11. Comparison of the acceleration response spectra at the top of the building for the
Friuli earthquake (left) and the Aegion earthquake (right) using the complete FEBE model
(solid line) and the simple formulation (dashed line). The figures correspond to a structure
resting on a 1010 end-bearing pile group.

SSI, as well as the ability of the formulas (10) to compute the resonance frequency of the coupled
system (the peaks of the dotted and dashdotted lines in Figure 9 coincide almost exactly).
We then consider two real recordings of earthquakes, with different frequency contents (see
Figure 10) and peak ground accelerations at about 0.3 g. In Figure 11 a comparison is given in the
spectral acceleration on top of the building computed in the two cases considered earlier of the
FEBE model supposing inertial and kinematic interaction and the simple formulas (10) neglecting
the kinematic interaction. In Figure (12), a comparison is given in the time histories of the relative
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1681

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

0.03
Relative displacement [m]

Relative displacement [m]

0.12
0.08
0.04
0

12
18
Time [s]

24

0.02
0.01
0

30

12

18

24

30

Time [s]

Figure 12. Comparison of the relative displacements between the top and the base of the
building for the Friuli earthquake (left) and the Aegion earthquake (right), using the complete
FEBE model (solid line) and the simple formulation (dashed line). The figures correspond to
a structure resting on a 1010 end-bearing pile group.
x 109
2.5

2
Damping [N/m]

Dynamic stiffness [N/m]

x 109
3

1
0

1.5
1
0.5
0

2
3
4
Frequency [Hz]

2
3
4
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 13. Real (left) and imaginary (right) parts of the horizontal impedance matrix for a 36 end-bearing
pile group computed using the simplified formulas (10) (solid line) and BE solution (dashed line) and
simplified analytical solution of [21, 36] (dotted line).

displacements between the top and the base of the building. In both figures, the agreement between
the two approaches is very good.
5.2. Case 2
In this example, we compare our simplified formulations (10) for the impedance of the endbearing pile group introduced in Section 3.2 with the simplified formulas proposed in [21, 36].
We use an equivalent of R f = 8 m, because the formulas in Table IV are proposed for a circular
or square foundation. Figure 13 shows this comparison along with the value of the BE solution.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1682

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

Our formulas seem to behave at least as well as the previously available one. Remember that its
range of application, in particular in terms of the numbers of piles, is much larger.
6. CONCLUSION
Simple formulations have been derived for the dynamic stiffness matrices of pile group foundations
subjected to horizontal and rocking dynamic loads. These formulations were found using a large
database of impedance matrices computed using a FEBE model. They can be readily employed for
the design of large foundations on piles and are shown to yield very accurate values of the estimated
quantities of interest for building design. The formulations have been derived both for floating
pile groups on homogeneous half-space and end-bearing pile groups in a homogenous stratum.
They can be used for large pile groups (n50), as well as for a large range of mechanical and
geometrical parameters of the soil and the piles. They provide a first step toward code provisions
specifically focused on pile footings.
APPENDIX A
In this appendix, the practical methodology for the construction of the reduced matrix S(a0 ) =
Ka02 M+ia0 C is introduced. Three main steps are identified:
The impedance of the FEBE model is computed. More specially a set of values {Z(a0l )} of
the impedance matrix at a finite number of frequencies (a0l )1l  L is computed.
The set of values {Z(a0l )} is interpolated to yield a matrix-valued rational function in the
form a0 N(a0 )/q(a0 ), which approximates the behavior of the impedance matrix {Z(a0 )} of
the model. The function a0 N(a0 ) is a matrix-valued polynomial in (ia0 ), and the function
a0 q(a0 ) is a scalar polynomial in (ia0 ). Many methods can be used to achieve that goal.
The identification of the matrices K, C, and M from the polynomials a0 N(a0 ) and a0
q(a0 ) is then performed. This step does not involve any approximation and is further detailed
in [32].
APPENDIX B
In this appendix, we present an extended version of the formulas presented in Tables II and IV in
a non-normalized form.
For the case of the floating pile groups on homogeneous half-space the coefficients appearing
in the non-normalized version of Equation (8) are

0.3
L0
kh = 6.8G s R f
s

G s R 2f L 0
(B1)
ch = 5
Vs
s

1.6
3 L0
m h = 0.4s R f
s
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

1683

and

kr = 8G s R 3f

cr = 5

lp
Rf

G s R 3f 
Vs

0.6

0.2

R f lp

L0
s

0.4

m r = 0.7G s R 4f lp

L0
s

0.4

L0
s

(B2)

The notations are defined in Section 2.1, and the range of parameters is 250E p /E s 1500,
2s/dp 3.6, 0.55R f /lp 2, 0.55L 0 /s1.05 and constant hysteric damping s = 0.05.
For the case of end-bearing pile groups, the coefficients appearing in the non-normalized version
of Equation (10) are

k0 = kh k2 k3 = 10G s R f

ch = c0 +c1 =

Rf
H

0.5

G s R 2f

Vs

L0
s

0.35

H L 0 b Vb
R f s s Vs

(B3)

m h = 12 s H R 2f
k1 = 2.6G s

c1 = 1.9

R 2f
H

G s R 2f 
Vs

HRf

1.5

(B4)

m 1 = 1.4s R 2f H

0.35

k2 = 1.25G s R f

Rf
H

c2 = 0.04G s R 2f

b Vb
s Vs2


m 2 = 0.08s R 2f
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

s
H
L0

s
L0


s
L0

b Vb
s Vs

(B5)

b Vb
s Vs

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

1684

R. TAHERZADEH, D. CLOUTEAU AND R. COTTEREAU

R 4f

k3 = 16.1G s

H3

3 

s Vs
b Vb

s Vs 1.5
b Vb


R 4f L 0 3 s Vs
m 3 = 0.6s 1
s
b Vb
H
4
Gs R f
c3 = 3
Vs H 2

and

L0
s

L0
s

(B6)

R f L 0 b Vb
H s s Vs


G s R 4f L 0 2 R f s Vs
cr = 17
Vs
s
H b Vb

 Vs
4 L0
m r = 1.6s R f
Rf H s
s
b Vb
kr =

15G s R 3f

(B7)

The notations are defined in Section 2.1, and the range of parameters is 125E p /E s 750,
2.8s/dp 4.4, 1R f /H 2.1, 4.1b Vb /(s Vs )11, 0.45L 0 /s0.8 and constant hysteretic
damping s = 0.05.
REFERENCES
1. Wolf JP. Foundation Analysis using Simple Physical Model. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
2. Kaynia AM. Dynamic stiffness and seismic response of pile groups. Research Report R82-03, Masshachussetts
Institute of Technology, 1982.
3. Waas G, Hartmann HG. Seismic analysis of pile foundations including soilpilesoil interaction. Proceedings of
the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, July 1984; 555562.
4. Takemiya H. Ring-pile analysis for a grouped pile foundation subjected to base motion. Structural
Engineering/Earthquake Engineering 1986; 3(1):195202.
5. Ohira A, Tazoh T, Dewa T, Shimizu K, Shimada M. Observation of earthquake response behaviours of foundations
piles for road bridge. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, vol. 3,
July 1984; 577584.
6. Konagai K, Ahsan R, Maruyama D. Simple expression of the dynamic stiffness of grouped piles in sway motion.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2000; 4(3):355376.
7. Crouse CB, Cheang L. Dynamic testing and analysis of pile group foundation. In Dynamic Response of Pile
FoundationsExperiment, Analysis and Observation, Nogami T (ed.). ASCE: New York, 1987; 7998.
8. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G. SoilPile-Bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part
I: soft soil. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26(3):337359.
9. Hutchinson TC, Chai YH, Boulanger RW, Idriss IM. Inelastic seismic response of extended pile-shaft-supported
bridge structures. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(4):10571080.
10. Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1984;
110(1):2034.
11. Wolf JP. SoilStructure Interaction Analysis in Time Domain. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
12. Levine MB, Scott RF. Dynamic response verification of simplified bridge-foundation model. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 1989; 115(2):12461260.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

SIMPLE FORMULAS FOR THE DYNAMIC STIFFNESS

1685

13. Spyrakos CC. Assessment of SSI on the longitudinal seismic response of short span bridges. Engineering
Structures 1990; 12(1):6066.
14. Harada T, Yamashita N, Sakanashi K. Theoretical study on fundamental period and damping ratio of bridge
pier-foundation system. Proceedings of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers 1994; 489(127):227234.
15. Chaudhary MS, Parakash S. Dynamic soil structure interaction for bridge abutment on piles. Geotechnical Special
Publication 1998; 2:12471258.
16. Spyrakos CC, Loannidis G. Seismic behavior of a post-tensioned integral bridge including soilstructure interaction
(SSI). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2003; 23(1):5363.
17. Tongaonkar NP, Jangid RS. Seismic response of isolated bridges with soilstructure interaction. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 2003; 23(4):287302.
18. Dobry R, Gazetas G. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating pile groups. Geotechnique
1988; 38(4):557574.
19. Gazetas G, Makris N. Dynamic pilesoilpile interaction. Part I: analysis of axial vibration. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1991; 20(2):115132.
20. Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pilesoilpile interaction. Part II: lateral and seismic response. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992; 21(2):145162.
21. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Lateral vibration and internal forces of grouped piles in layered soil. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering (ASCE) 1999; 125(1):1625.
22. Nikolaou S, Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Tazoh T. Kinematic pile bending during earthquake: analysis and field
measurement. Geotechnique 2001; 51(5):425440.
23. Pender M. Aseismic pile foundation design analysis. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering 1993; 26(1):4960.
24. ATC. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations of Buildings: Cooperative Effort with the
Design Profession, Building Code Interests and the Research Community, Washington, DC, 1978.
25. NEHRP, National Earthquake Hazards Blackuction Program. Recommended Provisions for the Development of
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Washington, DC, NEHRP, 1997.
26. Randolph M. Response of flexible piles to lateral loading. Geotechnique 1981; 31(2):247259.
27. Poulos HG, Hull TS. The role of analytical geomechanics in foundation engineering. Foundation Engineering:
Current Principles and Practices (ASCE) 1989; 2:15781606.
28. Gazetas G. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
1983; 2(1):242.
29. Sieffert JG, Cevaer F. Handbook of Impedance Functions. Surface Foundations Editions Ouest-France: France,
1992.
30. Cottereau R, Clouteau D, Soize C. Construction of a probabilistic model for impedance matrices. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2007; 196(1720):22522268.
31. Cottereau R, Clouteau D, Soize C. Probabilistic impedance of foundation: impact of the seismic design on
uncertain soils. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37(6):899918.
32. Cottereau R. Probabilistic models of impedance matrices. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Centrale Paris, France, 2006.
Available from: http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00132950/en/.
33. Wolf JP. Consistent lumped-parameter models for unbounded soil: physical representation. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1991; 20(1):1232.
34. Clouteau D, Taherzadeh R. Soil, pile group and building interactions under seismic loading. Proceedings of the
1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, September 2006. In
CDROM.
35. Taherzadeh R, Clouteau D, Cottereau R. Identification of the essential parameters for the lateral impedance of
large pile groups. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering,
Thessaloniki, Greece, June 2007. In CDROM.
36. Gazetas G, Hess P, Zinn R, Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A. Seismic response of a large pile group. Proceedings of
the 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paris, September 1998. In CDROM.
37. Craig RJ, Bampton M. Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA Journal 1968; 6(7):13131319.
38. Miura K, Kaynia AM, Masuda K, Kitamura E, Seto Y. Dynamic behaviour of pile foundations in homogeneous
and non-homogeneous media. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23(2):183192.
39. Gazetas G. Seismic response of end-bearing single piles. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 1984; 3(2):8293.
40. Poulos HG. Behavior of laterally loaded piles: part IIgroup piles. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division (ASCE) 1971; 97(SM5):733751.
Copyright q

2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2009; 38:16651685

DOI: 10.1002/eqe