846

ARTICLE
Lateral spreading near deep foundations and influence of soil
permeability
Liangcai He, Jose Ramirez, Jinchi Lu, Liang Tang, Ahmed Elgamal, and Kohji Tokimatsu

Abstract: A three-dimensional finite element (FE) model is calibrated based on a large-scale (1g) shake-table experiment. In this
experiment, single piles were subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. The testing configuration, experimental
results, and FE framework are presented and discussed. The presence of piles in this fully saturated ground model caused a
significant reduction in the extent of accumulated lateral soil deformation. In this regard, high shear strains, additional to those
in the free field, occur as the soil moves around the piles in the downslope direction. The associated shear-induced tendency for
dilation increases the effective confinement, and reduces the resulting downslope deformations. As such, an FE parametric study
is undertaken to investigate the effect of soil permeability on this observed liquefaction-induced lateral response. As the
prescribed soil permeability increased (in the silt–sand range), higher levels of ground lateral deformation occured, albeit with
a lower pile head displacement and lateral load. Eventually, high permeability (in the gravels range) precluded the accumulation
of significant excess pore pressure, with low levels of both soil and pile lateral displacement. On this basis, permeability is
highlighted as a critical potentially primary parameter in dictating the effects of liquefaction-induced lateral load on embedded
foundation systems.

Key words: pile foundation, liquefaction, permeability, lateral spreading, shake table.

Résumé : Un modèle d’éléments finis tridimensionnel (EF) est étalonné en fonction d’un essai avec table de vibration à grande
échelle (1g). Dans cet essai, des pieux simples ont été soumis à un étalement latéral induit par la liquéfaction. La configuration
d’essai, des résultats expérimentaux et le cadre EF sont présentés et discutés. La présence de pieux dans ce modèle au sol
complètement saturé entraîne une réduction significative de l’étendue de la déformation latérale du sol accumulée. À cet égard,
des contraintes de cisaillement, complémentaires à celles du champ libre, se produit à mesure que le sol se déplace autour des
pieux dans le sens de la pente. La tendance induite par le cisaillement associé à la dilatation augmente le confinement efficace
et réduit les déformations de la pente. À cet égard, une étude paramétrique EF est entreprise pour étudier l’effet de la perméabilité du
sol observé sur cette réponse latérale induite par liquéfaction. Comme la perméabilité du sol prescrit augmente (dans la plage
limon–sable), des niveaux de déformation latérale au sol se produisent, bien qu’avec un déplacement inférieur de la tête du pieu et une
charge latérale. Finalement, une haute perméabilité (dans la plage de graviers) a empêché l’accumulation excessive significative de la
pression interstitielle, avec de faibles niveaux de déplacement latéral de sol et de pieux. Sur cette base, la perméabilité est soulignée
comme un paramètre primaire potentiellement critique en dictant les effets d’une charge latérale induite par la liquéfaction sur les
systèmes de fondation intégrée. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : fondation sur pieux, liquéfaction, perméabilité, étalement latéral, table de vibraton.

Introduction In recent years, numerous researchers have conducted studies

Case history investigations continue to document pile founda-
tion damage due to liquefaction and lateral flow (e.g., Kishida
1966; Yoshimi and Tokimatsu 1977; Seed et al. 1990; Hamada 1991,
1992, Adachi et al. 1992; Hamada and O’Rourke 1992; Bartlett and
Youd 1992, 1995, Hall and Scott 1995; Hamada et al. 1996; Ishihara
1996, 1997; Matsui and Oda 1996; Tokimatsu et al. 1996; Tokimatsu
and Asaka 1998; Youd et al. 2000; Berrill and Yasuda 2002, Berrill
et al. 2002, Finn and Fujita 2002; Boulanger and Tokimatsu 2006;
He et al. 2009; Ledezma et al. 2012; Cubrinovski et al. 2014; Finn
2015). The observed damage patterns have been a catalyst in driv-
ing research to elucidate the mechanisms by which seismically
induced lateral-spreading affects the embedded pile foundation
system.
to investigate liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and its ef-
fects on pile foundations. Experimental studies have been per-
formed on the dynamic behavior and failure of pile foundations
caused by laterally spreading soils, including centrifuge tests (Liu
and Dobry 1995; Abdoun 1997; Boulanger et al. 1997, 1999; Wilson
et al. 2000; Dobry and Abdoun 2001; Abdoun and Dobry 2002;
Haigh 2002; Haigh and Madabhushi 2002, 2005; Dobry et al. 2003;
Abdoun et al. 2003; Bhattacharya 2003; Imamura et al. 2004;
Brandenberg et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2005; González et al. 2009;
Brandenberg et al. 2007; Knappett and Madabhushi 2009; Armstrong
et al. 2014), shake-table experiments (Tokida et al. 1992; Hamada 2000;
Yasuda et al. 2000; Meneses et al. 2002; Tokimatsu and Suzuki 2004; Yao
et al. 2004; He 2005; Cubrinovski et al. 2006; Suzuki et al. 2007, 2008;

Received 29 March 2016. Accepted 4 January 2017.

L. He. Amec Foster Wheeler, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J. Ramirez. Kleinfelder, 550 West C Street, Suite 1200, San Diego, CA 92101, USA.
J. Lu and A. Elgamal. Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085, USA.
L. Tang. School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China.
K. Tokimatsu. Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Corresponding author: Ahmed Elgamal (email: elgamal@ucsd.edu).
Copyright remains with the author(s) or their institution(s). Permission for reuse (free in most cases) can be obtained from RightsLink.

Can. Geotech. J. 54: 846–861 (2017) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0162 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 18 January 2017.
He et al.
Fig. 1. Test setup and instrumentation, with dimensions shown in metres (He 2005). LVDT, linear variable displacement transducer. [Color
online.]
Fig. 2. Laminar soil container on the shake table (National Research Institute for Earth Science and the Disaster Prevention, NIED, Tsukuba,
Japan). [Color online.]
Tabata et al. 2007; Tokimatsu et al. 2007; Dungca et al. 2006; He
et al. 2009; Motamed et al. 2009, 2013), and full-scale field tests
using controlled blasts (Rollins et al. 2005; Weaver et al. 2005;
Juirnarongrit and Ashford 2006; Ashford et al. 2006). Collectively,
this body of work has been the basis for calibration of useful tools to
estimate liquefaction-induced lateral pressure profiles and to de-
velop pile–spring lateral load assessment approaches (Brandenberg
et al. 2007; Ashford et al. 2011; Franke and Rollins 2012; AASHTO
2014).
Herein, a study concerned with lateral spreading effects on sin-
gle piles embedded in a saturated 5 m high sandy soil stratum is
undertaken. The presented analysis is based on the results of a
conducted 1g shake-table experiment that is outlined below. Of
particular relevance to this specific study are earlier works that
address the issue of lateral loads and the influence of permeability
847
on the overall system response (e.g., González 2005; González
et al. 2009; Chaloulos et al. 2013a, 2013b). In this regard, the exper-
imentally calibrated numerical modeling framework is used to
explore and shed light on these effects within the context of the
conducted experiment.
As reported earlier in He et al. (2009), a series of shake-table
experiments were performed to further investigate pile behavior
in a mildly sloping liquefiable soil (He 2005). This paper is based
on one of these experiments, which will be presented in detail in
the following sections. The experimental results are then em-
ployed to calibrate a finite element (FE) modeling framework.
Response of the piles is closely investigated. Comparison with a
free-field site response model (i.e., soil layer without piles) was
conducted to highlight the pile restraining effects during this test.
A parametric study was further conducted to investigate the in-
Published by NRC Research Press
848 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017

Fig. 3. NIED, Tsukuba, Japan, 5 m high single test pile. [Color online.]

fluence of soil permeability on the liquefaction-induced lateral Fig. 4. Idealized bilinear moment curvature relationship for the
pile response. piles (He 2005). [Color online.]
In the following sections, the experiment is first presented,
along with the numerical simulation results. Based on the numer-
ical simulation results, the soil permeability and the associated
pile restraining mechanisms are discussed. Finally, related recom-
mendations are presented along with concluding remarks.

Shake-table experiment
Figure 1 depicts a schematic of the experiment that is simulated
in this study (He 2005; He et al. 2009). The employed laminar
container is approximately 12 m long, 5.5 m high, and 3.5 m wide.
A picture of this container, mounted on the shake table, is shown
in Fig. 2. As indicated in Fig. 1, the laminar container and ground
surface were inclined at 2° to the horizontal, patterned after
Abdoun et al. (2003) and Dobry et al. (2003), to simulate the pile
response in a mild infinite slope situation. This inclination corre-
sponds to an infinite slope of about 3° in the field upon accounting
for the laminate weight and water table corrections (Ramirez
2009) following the procedure of Taboada (1995).

Published by NRC Research Press

He et al.
Fig. 5. 3D FE model (He 2005). [Color online.]
The soil model consists of a single 5 m thick layer of saturated
sand, constructed using the sedimentation method (sand deposi-
tion in water), and the entire stratum is submerged. Saturated
density was about 1970 kg/m3, and relative density (Dr) was esti-
mated to be in the range of 40%–50% (i.e., corresponding to a
standard penetration test (SPT) blow count (N1)60 in the range of
7–11 according to Sabatini et al. 2002). Kasumigaura sand was used
(Kagawa et al. 2004) with a mean particle diameter of 0.31 mm,
fines content Fc of 3%, and a uniformity coefficient Cu of 3.
The model (Fig. 1) was instrumented with accelerometers and
pore pressure sensors throughout the soil stratum. Displacement
transducers were mounted onto the exterior wall of the laminar
container to measure the overall system lateral displacements.
Two separate steel-pipe piles, aligned in the vertical direction,
were connected to the container floor (Fig. 1), in an attempt to
achieve a fixed base condition as shown in Fig. 3. Each pile had an
outer diameter of 0.318 m (He 2005). However, bending stiffness of
the piles was different, on account of the employed steel pipe wall
thickness (6 mm for the stiff pile and 3 mm for the flexible pile).
Figure 4 shows the idealized nonlinear moment–curvature rela-
tionships of these piles (He 2005). Before construction of the soil
stratum, static pushover tests were conducted on each pile to
measure and document the actual rotational base stiffness. Each
pile was densely instrumented with strain gages, and a displace-
ment transducer was placed at each pile head (Fig. 1).
A 10 s sinusoidal base shaking excitation was imparted along
the slope direction, with a dominant frequency of approximately
2 Hz and an amplitude of about 0.2g. The relevant testing results
will be presented below along with the corresponding computa-
tional counterparts.
Numerical modeling
The FE simulations were conducted using the Pacific Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center (PEER) FE analysis framework
“Open system for earthquake engineering simulation” (OpenSees).
OpenSees is an open source, object-oriented nonlinear FE analysis
framework for simulating seismic response of structural and
geotechnical systems (McKenna et al. 2010; Mazzoni et al. 2006). As
such, three-dimensional pile–ground analyses (Maheshwari et al.
2004, 2005; Wu et al. 2015) are conducted using OpenSees.
Soil constitutive model
A soil constitutive model based on the multi-yield surface plas-
ticity framework (Prevost 1985) was developed and implemented
in OpenSees by Yang et al. (2003). A main objective of this model
was to represent the liquefaction-induced cyclic mobility shear
849
Table 1. Soil model parameters.
Parameter Value
Saturated mass density (kg/m3) 1970
Density multiplier to account for outer laminates own 1.14
weight (Ramirez 2009)
Reference shear modulus (kPa) 33 300
Reference bulk modulus (kPa) 155 300
Reference bulk modulus for dynamics (kPa) 22 200
Friction angle, ␾ (°) 28
Peak shear strain 0.1
Reference pressure (kPa) 80
Pressure dependence coefficient 0.5
Contraction parameter 0.3
Permeability (m/s) 5.0×10−5
strain accumulation mechanism (Parra 1996; Yang 2000; Elgamal
et al. 2003; Yang and Elgamal 2002). In this regard, accumulation
of permanent deviatoric strain was modeled as a distinct phase
within the multi-surface plasticity framework.
This FE framework has been extensively calibrated (Parra 1996;
Yang 2000; Elgamal et al. 2003; Yang et al. 2003) for clean Nevada
sand with a relative density Dr of about 40%. The calibration phase
included the results of monotonic and cyclic laboratory tests
(Arulmoli et al. 1992) and data from dynamic centrifuge-model
simulations for both level and infinite mild sloping ground (Dobry
and Taboada 1994; Dobry et al. 1995).
Finite element model
The soil domain FE model (Fig. 5) is 11.6 m long, 5 m high, and
1.75 m wide (only half of the transverse dimension was meshed
due to symmetry). The mesh was generated and visualized (He
2005) using the pre- and post-processor GID software (http://gid.
cimne.upc.es). For the soil domain, three-dimensional (3D) eight-
node brick elements were used, based on the Chan (1988) u–p
formulation (where u is displacement of the soil skeleton and p is
pore pressure) as implemented in OpenSees (Yang and Elgamal
2002; Elgamal et al. 2009). In addition to the damping from hys-
teresis due to cyclic response, low viscous damping was included
(mass proportional term ␣m = 0.0, and stiffness proportional term
␣k = 0.002) to reduce any potential superfluous noise (Yang and
Elgamal 2002; He 2005; Ramirez 2009).
The two piles were modeled using bilinear (Fig. 4) beam–column
elements. The bending stiffness EI (where E is Young’s modulus
and I is moment of inertia) of the stiff pile was 14 320 kN·m2 and
that of the flexible pile was 7360 kN·m2. The measured rotational
Published by NRC Research Press
850
Fig. 6. Recorded and computed east array excess pore pressure time histories.
stiffness (Kr) at the base of each pile was represented by the exper-
imentally measured values of 18 500 and 8500 kNm/rad, for the
stiff and flexible piles, respectively. Rigid beam–column links,
normal to the pile longitudinal axis (Elgamal et al. 2008), were
used to represent the geometric space occupied by each pile (Fig. 4).
The soil domain brick elements are connected to the pile geometric
configuration at the outer nodes of these rigid links using the
equalDOF constraint in OpenSees for translations only (Law and Lam
2001, Yan 2006, Elgamal et al. 2009).
A special sparse equation solver was used to solve the system of
equations. This sparse solver was developed by Mackay (1992) and
Law and Mackay (1993) and implemented in OpenSees by Peng
(2002). The solver is based on a row-oriented storage technique
that utilizes the spare characteristics of the stiffness matrix (Peng
2002) to facilitate in-core execution of models that require large
computer memory.
The FE matrix equation is integrated in time using a single step
predictor multi-corrector scheme of the Newmark type (with the
parameters ␥ = 0.6 and ␤ = 0.3025). For each time step, the solution
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017
is obtained using the modified Newton–Raphson approach with
Krylov subspace acceleration (Carlson and Miller 1998; Mazzoni
et al. 2006).
The boundary conditions that were imposed on the model were
1. Dynamic excitation was defined as the recorded base accel-
eration.
2. At any given depth, displacement degrees of freedom of the
downslope and upslope boundaries were tied together
(both horizontally and vertically using the penalty method)
to reproduce laminar box boundary effects (Parra 1996).
3. Along the back plane and front symmetry plane (Fig. 5), no
out-of-plane motion was allowed.
4. The soil surface was traction-free, with zero prescribed pore
pressure.
5. The base and lateral boundaries were impervious.
A static application of gravity (model own weight) was per-
formed before seismic excitation. The resulting fluid hydrostatic
Published by NRC Research Press
He et al.
Fig. 7. Recorded and computed east-array acceleration time histories.
pressure and soil stress state served as initial conditions for the
subsequent dynamic analysis. On this basis, the FE model was
calibrated (Table 1) using the measured accelerations, displace-
ments, excess pore pressures, and the pile head displacements
(Ramirez 2009).
FE analysis results
Ground response away from the piles
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the recorded and computed excess
pore pressure and acceleration time histories (east array of Fig. 1).
Excess pore pressure accumulation was rapid, with much of the
stratum liquefied during the first few cycles of shaking. The nu-
merical and experimental excess pore pressures at various depths
were in close agreement, with the main exception at the depth of
4.5 m, where the recorded excess pore pressures lagged behind
those of the upper sensors. Slight fluctuations in the recorded
excess pore pressures were observed, suggesting minor dilative
tendency in the soil response at this location (Zeghal and Elgamal
1994). At shallow depths, the significant decrease in acceleration
due to liquefaction is evident (Fig. 7), and few acceleration spikes
may be observed as the stratum transitioned into the liquefied
state (Zeghal and Elgamal 1994; Iai et al. 1995).
851
The experimental and computed laminar container displace-
ments are presented in Fig. 8. Lateral displacement is seen to
increase with each cycle of applied excitation. Ultimately, a max-
imum displacement of approximately 0.4 m was reached at the
ground surface after 10 s of shaking.
Overall, the agreement between the recorded and computed
response is deemed adequate for the purposes of this study. At the
depth of about 4.5 m, the lower recorded excess pore pressure and
displacement (Figs. 6 and 8) may potentially be due to: (i) presence
of a somewhat denser soil stratum near the container base, and
(or) (ii) the container laminates at this great depth being some-
what constrained in terms of free slippage.
Pile response
Figure 9 compares the experimental and computed time histo-
ries of the pile head displacement. In general, the numerical flex-
ible pile head displacement closely matched the experimental
response. For the stiff pile, there was close agreement between the
numerical and experimental pile head displacements during the
first few cycles. After that, the experimental response shows a
mild reduction in the pile head displacement, which is not matched
numerically. This might be a consequence of softening behavior re-
Published by NRC Research Press
852
Fig. 8. Recorded and computed laminar container displacements.
sulting from the formation of a plastic hinge near the pile base (doc-
umented by photos after the test), a mechanism that is only crudely
replicated by the idealized bilinear moment–curvature numerical
response (Fig. 4). Whereas it might be possible to make improve-
ments in the numerical model results, it was constructive not to add
complexity and to proceed with the parametric study investigations
presented below.
Effect of changing soil permeability (k)
Brief background
Generally, permeability plays a primary role in accommodating
the tendency for shear-induced soil volume change (Yang and
Elgamal 2002). Deformation of the liquefied soil, particularly in
the vicinity of a pile foundation is associated with additional high
shear strains (Fig. 10) and related tendency for volume change.
As such, the resulting lateral foundation loads might be highly
influenced by this soil parameter. As pointed out by Dungca et al.
(2004, 2006) and Chaloulos et al. (2013a, 2013b), for low-permeability
scenarios, the liquefied soil will provide stiffer and stronger lateral
resistance, due to the associated tendency for dilative response
(and associated excess pore pressure reduction). Documented ex-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017
perimental response of this mechanism, mainly for the level
ground scenario, is included in the works of Wilson et al. (2000),
Haigh and Madabhushi (2002), Tokimatsu and (Suzuki 2004),
Rollins et al. (2005), and Ubilla et al. (2011).
Computational parametric study
To further explore this permeability-related mechanism, addi-
tional numerical analyses (Ramirez 2009) were conducted by vary-
ing the soil permeability coefficient (k). Along with the presented
benchmark computed scenario (k = 5.0 × 10−5 m/s) the most signif-
icant cases studied (Ramirez 2009) were those with higher perme-
ability (i.e., k = 5.0 × 10−4, 5.0 × 10−3, and 5.0 × 10−2 m/s). Simulations
with lower permeability were also conducted, but these cases
followed the general trend that was observed in the benchmark
case.
Figure 11 compares time histories of the east-array excess pore
pressure for these four permeability cases. Overall, it may be ob-
served that, the higher the permeability, the lower the attained
excess pore pressure at greater depths. The soil with the highest
permeability (5.0 × 10−2 m/s) did not liquefy, experiencing only
some relatively minor excess pore pressure.
Published by NRC Research Press
He et al.
Fig. 9. Recorded and computed pile head displacements.
Fig. 10. Schematic view of shear mechanism in soil stratum (side view shear) and additional shear strain field in the vicinity of the pile
(plan-view shear). [Colour online.]
Figure 12 compares the excess pore pressure time histories
along the stiff pile (Fig. 1) on the upslope and downslope sides.
In the vicinity of the pile, instants of excess pore pressure
reduction abound (Fig. 12), due to the high shear strain field
(Fig. 10), and the associated tendency for soil dilation. Such
reduction in excess pore pressure is significantly muted by the
increased soil permeability, and is virtually absent in the k =
5.0 × 10−3 m/s scenario (with no liquefaction occurring for the
k = 5.0 × 10−2 m/s case).
Similarly, Fig. 13 presents the excess pore pressure time his-
tories along the upslope and downslope sides of the flexible
pile. The response characteristics are similar to those observed
for the stiff pile of Fig. 12. However, the amplitudes are gener-
ally lower, in the vicinity of this more compliant flexible pile,
853
with associated reduction in the horizontal-plane shear strain
of Fig. 10.
Figure 14a displays the soil container displacement after 10 s of
shaking. In the liquefied cases, as the permeability increased, the
ground displacement is observed to increase. This response mech-
anism is motivated by the lower attained shear strength resulting
from the reduced tendency for negative excess pore pressure (in-
creased effective confinement), particularly in the vicinity of the
piles (Figs. 12 and 13). Ultimately, the continued increase in per-
meability (k = 5.0 × 10−2 m/s) eventually precluded the onset of
liquefaction, resulting in a highly diminished permanent ground
displacement profile (Fig. 14a).
Figure 14b shows the corresponding stiff pile bending moment
profile. Obviously, the lowest moments were associated with the
Published by NRC Research Press
854
Fig. 11. Influence of permeability on east array excess pore pressures.
highest permeability case that precluded liquefaction and re-
sulted in the least permanent ground deformation. However, for
the cases in which the stratum liquefied, the correlation between
ground deformation and pile moment suggests that (Fig. 14) (i) low
permeability resulted in the highest moment profile, and the low-
est ground surface deformation, and (ii) as permeability increased,
ground surface permanent deformation increased, with a corre-
sponding decrease in the pile moment profile. This inverse corre-
lation between level of ground surface deformation and imposed
pile load is directly related to the effect of permeability on the
liquefied soil shear-induced dilative response mechanism. In this
regard, higher permeability reduces the shear-induced dilative
tendency effects, resulting in an overall weaker soil that more easily
undergoes lateral permanent deformation; thus promoting down-
slope flow around the pile and reducing the imposed lateral load.
Pile restraining effect on lateral deformations
The above discussion as relates to the pile–ground shear-
induced dilative tendency mechanism, suggests that the piles may
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017
hinder the downslope accumulation of ground deformations. To
assess the extent of this pile restraining effect, an additional nu-
merical simulation of the benchmark model was conducted with-
out inclusion of the piles (essentially representing a free-field
scenario). The resulting excess pore pressures and acceleration
(Fig. 15) were similar to those of the benchmark east array re-
sponse of Figs. 6 and 7. However, displacement in the absence of
piles (Fig. 15) was significantly larger than the corresponding ex-
perimental values, in excess of 1.8 m at the ground surface, com-
pared to the 0.4 m of Fig. 8. This large contrast in accumulated
displacement should be taken only as being indicative of the pos-
sible restraining effects in a large scale deployment of such piles,
with the soil container essentially constituting a sort of periodic
boundary condition (Law and Lam 2001).
Discussion
In this lateral spreading scenario, the influence of permeability
stems from the soil dilative tendency due to the large accumulated
Published by NRC Research Press
 He et al.
Fig. 12. Influence of permeability on excess pore pressure time histories along the stiff pile.
Published by NRC Research Press

855
 856
Fig. 13. Influence of permeability on excess pore pressure time histories along the flexible pile.
Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017

He et al.
Fig. 14. Influence of permeability on (a) laminar container displacement profile at 10 s and (b) stiff pile moment profile at 10 s.
downslope shear strains. This mechanism is particularly pro-
nounced in the vicinity of inclusions (the piles in this study)
whereby the soil experiences added shear strains as it moves
around the piles towards the downslope direction (Fig. 10).
In the cases studied, a marked decrease in pile moments was
noted for permeability values k of about 5 × 10−3 m/s and larger.
Based roughly on the classic relationship between permeability
and grain size (Hazen 1892), this corresponds to a soil D10 (soil
particle diameter at which 10% of the mass of a soil specimen is
finer) of about 0.5 mm or more. When applicable in practice, this
observation may be used to modify the pile lateral load estimates
of the conventional liquefaction p–y spring modeling approaches
(e.g., AASHTO 2014).
857
A main factor that contributes to the effectiveness of this mech-
anism is soil relative density, Dr, where higher values lead to a
greater tendency for shear-induced volume change (Elgamal et al.
1998, 2005). In this paper, Dr was in the range of 40%–50% (i.e.,
(N1)60 in the range of 7–11). In general, the mechanism will be more
pronounced in denser soil situations (i.e., not for very loose soils),
with Dr above 30% or so ((N1)60 above 4).
Other concerns include drainage path (e.g., soil stratum height),
geometric size–configuration of the inclusion and its lateral stiff-
ness, and the rate at which soil deformation takes place (partially
influenced by the characteristics of the input excitation and the
prevailing driving static shear stress). At this point, further efforts
are needed to more closely address these issues.
Published by NRC Research Press
 858
Fig. 15. Numerical response of ground system (without piles), compared with recorded experimental data (with piles): (a) acceleration and (b) displacement.
Published by NRC Research Press

Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017

He et al.
Conclusions
A three-dimensional nonlinear dynamic FE analysis was con-
ducted to simulate a shake-table experiment exploring the response
of piles subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. In this
effort, a solid–fluid fully coupled formulation was used with a soil
constitutive model based on a multi-surface plasticity framework.
Using the calibrated numerical model, a parametric liquefaction
study was performed focusing mainly on the impact of permeability
on the resulting system response. This impact is of particular signif-
icance in view of the high shear strains, additional to that of the free
field, that occur as the soil moves around the piles in the downslope
direction.
The main findings from this study are
1. In the conducted experiment and analyses, additional large
shear strains occurred as the soil moved around the piles to-
wards the downslope direction. The associated shear-induced
dilative tendency had a restraining effect on the ground
response, thus significantly reducing the permanent lateral
laminar container deformations.
2. Increasing the soil permeability weakened the dilative tendency–
induced instants of regain in soil shear stiffness and strength,
increasing the free-field displacements, and decreasing the
pile displacements–moments. In the investigated scenario,
permeability values corresponding to a soil D10 of about 0.5 mm
and larger were quite effective in achieving this outcome.
3. Additional experimental data, along with related numerical
analyses, are needed to further explore the complex patterns
of liquefaction-induced pile–soil response, as dictated by perme-
ability and its variation. Scenarios of interest include (i) stratified
soil profiles; (ii) pile foundations of different diameter, stiffness,
and geometric configuration; and (iii) level of static driving shear
stress, and its relationship to the level of imparted additional soil
inertial loads.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER) Lifeline Program, and the
National Science Foundation (award number CMMI-1201195). The
mildly inclined laminar container test configuration was patterned
after earlier centrifuge studies conducted by Ricardo Dobry and
Tarek Abdoun at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Under the
oversight of Kohji Tokimatsu, the experiments using the large lam-
inar container were conducted at the National Research Institute for
Earth Science and the Disaster Prevention (NIED) laboratory in Tsu-
kuba, Japan (in conjunction with Akio Abe and Masayoshi Sato).
References
AASHTO. 2014. Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design. 2nd ed.
AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
Abdoun, T. 1997. Modeling of seismically induced lateral spreading of multi-
layered soil and its effect on pile foundations. Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Poly-
technic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Abdoun, T., and Dobry, R. 2002. Evaluation of pile foundation response to lateral
spreading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22(9-12): 1051–1058.
doi:10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00130-6.
Abdoun, T., Dobry, R., O’Rourke, T.D., and Goh, S.H. 2003. Pile response to lateral
spreads: centrifuge modeling. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental En-
gineering, 129(10): 869–878. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:10(869).
Adachi, T., Iwai, S., Yasui, M., and Sato, Y. 1992. Settlement and inclination of
reinforced concrete buildings in Dagupan City due to liquefaction during the
1990 Philippine Earthquake. In Proceedings, 10th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 147–152.
Armstrong, R.J., Boulanger, R.W., and Beaty, M.H. 2014. Equivalent static analy-
sis of piled bridge abutments affected by earthquake-induced liquefaction.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(8). doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001152.
Arulmoli, K., Muraleetharan, K.K., Hossain, M.M., and Fruth, L.S. 1992. VELACS:
Verification of liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing
program. The Earth Technology Corporation, Irvine, Calif. Soil Data Report,
Project No. 90-0562.
Ashford, S.A., Juirnarongrit, T., Sugano, T., and Hamada, M. 2006. Soil-pile re-
859
sponse to blast-induced lateral spreading. I: field test. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(2): 152–162. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2006)132:2(152).
Ashford, S.A., Boulanger, R.W., and Brandenberg, S.J. 2011. Recommended de-
sign practice for pile foundations in laterally spreading ground. Pacific Earth-
quake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
PEER Rep. No. 2011/04.
Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L. 1992. Case histories of lateral spreads caused by the
1964 Alaska earthquake. In Case studies of liquefaction and lifeline perfor-
mance during past earthquakes, United States Case Studies. Vol. 2, pp. 2-1 to
2-127.
Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L. 1995. Empirical prediction of liquefaction-induced
lateral spread. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 121(4): 316–329. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:4(316).
Berrill, J.B., and Yasuda, S. 2002. Liquefaction and piled foundations: some issues.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 6(1): 1–41. doi:10.1080/13632460209350431.
Berrill, J.B., Christensen, S.A., Keenan, R.P., Okada, W., and Pettinga, J.R. 2002.
Case study of lateral spreading forces on a piled foundation. Géotechnique,
51: 501–517. doi:10.1680/geot.2001.51.6.501.
Bhattacharya, S. 2003. Pile instability during earthquake liquefaction. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Boulanger, R.W., and Tokimatsu, K. (Editors). 2006. Seismic performance and
simulation of pile foundations in liquefied and laterally spreading ground.
Geotechnical Special Publication 145. ASCE.
Boulanger, R.W., Wilson, D.W., Kutter, B.L., and Abghari, A. 1997. Soil-pile-
superstructure interaction in liquefiable sand. Transportation Research Re-
cord, 1569: 55–64.
Boulanger, R.W., Curras, C.J., Kutter, B.L., Wilson, D.W., and Abghari, A. 1999.
Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(9): 750–759. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(750).
Brandenberg, S.J., Boulanger, R.W., Kutter, B.L., and Chang, D. 2005. Behavior of
pile foundations in laterally spreading ground during centrifuge tests. Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(11): 1378–1391.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1378).
Brandenberg, S.J., Boulanger, R.W., Kutter, B.L., and Chang, D. 2007. Static push-
over analyses of pile groups in liquefied and laterally spreading ground in
centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 133(9): 1055–1066. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:9(1055).
Carlson, N., and Miller, K. 1998. Design and application of a gradient-weighted
moving finite element code. I: In one dimension. SIAM Journal on Scientific
Computing, 19(3): 728–765. doi:10.1137/S106482759426955X.
Chaloulos, Y.K., Bouckovalas, G.D., and Karamitros, D.K. 2013a. Analysis of liq-
uefaction effects on ultimate pile reaction to lateral spreading. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 140(3). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001047.
Chaloulos, Y.K., Bouckovalas, G.D., and Karamitros, D.K. 2013b. Pile response in
submerged lateral spreads: common pitfalls of numerical and physical mod-
eling techniques. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 55: 275–287.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.09.009.
Chan, A.H.C. 1988. A unified finite element solution to static and dynamic prob-
lems in geomechanics. Ph.D. thesis. University College of Swansea, UK.
Chang, D., Boulanger, R.W., Kutter, B.L., and Brandenberg, S.J. 2005. Experimen-
tal observations of inertial and lateral spreading loads on pile groups during
earthquakes. In Proceedings, Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, Austin, Tex.,
24-26 January. Geotechnical Special Publication 133. ASCE. 130-142, GRI-18.
Cubrinovski, M., Kokusho, T., and Ishihara, K. 2006. Interpretation from large-
scale shake table tests on piles undergoing lateral spreading in liquefied
soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26(2–4): 275–286. doi:10.
1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.018.
Cubrinovski, M., Taylor, M., Robinson, K., Winkley, A., Hughes, M., Haskell, J.,
Bradley, B., Bray, J., O’Rourke, T., and Wotherspoon, L. 2014. Key factors in
the liquefaction-induced damage to buildings and infrastructure in
Christchurch: Preliminary findings. In Proceedings of the NZSEE Conference,
Aotea Centre, Auckland, New Zealand, 21–23 March.
Dobry, R., and Abdoun, T. 2001. Recent studies on seismic centrifuge modeling
of liquefaction and its effect on deep foundations. State-of-the-Art Report
(SOAP3). In Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, Calif.,
26–31 March. Vol. 2.
Dobry, R., and Taboada, V.M. 1994. Possible lessons from VELACS model No. 2
results. In Proceedings, International Conference on Verification of Numeri-
cal Procedures for the Analysis of Soil Liquefaction Problems. Edited by
K. Arulanandan and R.F. Scott. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 2,
pp. 1341–1352.
Dobry, R., Taboada, V.M., and Liu, L. 1995. Centrifuge modeling of liquefaction
effects during earthquakes. Keynote Lecture. In Proceedings, 1st International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (IS-Tokyo). Edited by
K. Ishihara. Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Vol. 3, pp. 1291–1324.
Dobry, R., Abdoun, T., O’Rourke, T.D., and Goh, S.H. 2003. Single piles in lateral
spreads: Field bending moment evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, 129(10): 879–889. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2003)129:10(879).
Published by NRC Research Press
860
Dungca, J.R., Kuwano, J., Saruwatari, T., Izawa, J., Suzuki, H., and Tokimatsu, K.
2004. Shaking table tests on the lateral response of a pile buried in liquefied
sand. In Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering. Elsevier Science, Berkeley, Calif. Vol. 2, pp. 471–477.
Dungca, J.R., Kuwano, J., Takahashi, A., Saruwatari, T., Izawa, J., Suzuki, H., and
Tokimatsu, K. 2006. Shake table tests on the lateral response of a pile buried
in liquefied sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26: 287–295.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.02.021.
Elgamal, A.-W., Dobry, R., Parra, E., and Yang, Z. 1998. Soil Dilation and Shear
Deformations During Liquefaction. In Proceedings, 4th International Confer-
ence on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Mo.,
8–15 March. Edited by S. Prakash. pp. 1238–1259,
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Parra, E., and Ragheb, A. 2003. Modeling of cyclic mobility
in saturated cohesionless soils. International Journal of Plasticity, 19(6): 883–
905. doi:10.1016/S0749-6419(02)00010-4.
Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Lai, T., Kutter, B.L., and Wilson, D.W. 2005. Dynamic
response of saturated dense sand in laminated centrifuge container. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(5): 598–609. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:5(598).
Elgamal, A., Yan, L., Yang, Z., and Conte, J.P. 2008. Three-dimensional seismic
response of Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. Journal of
Structural Engineering, 134(7): 1165–1176. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)
134:7(1165).
Elgamal, A., Lu, J., and Forcellini, D. 2009. Mitigation of liquefaction-induced
lateral deformation in a sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical sim-
ulation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(11):
1672–1682. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000137.
Finn, W.D.L. 2015. 1st Ishihara Lecture: An overview of the behavior of pile
foundations in liquefiable and non-liquefiable soils during earthquake exci-
tation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 68: 69–77. doi:10.1016/j.
soildyn.2014.09.009.
Finn, W.D.L., and Fujita, N. 2002. Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic analysis and
design issues. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 22: 731–742. doi:
10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00094-5.
Franke, K.W., and Rollins, K.M. 2012. Simplified hybrid p-y spring model for
liquefied soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
139(4): 564–576. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000750.
González, L. 2005. Centrifuge modeling of permeability and pinning reinforce-
ment effects on pile response to lateral spreading. Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
González, L., Abdoun, T., and Dobry, R. 2009. Effect of Soil Permeability on
Centrifuge Modeling of Pile Response to Lateral Spreading. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135(1): 62–73. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:1(62).
Haigh, S.K. 2002. Effects of liquefaction on pile foundations in sloping ground.
Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University.
Haigh, S.K., and Madabhushi, S.P.G. 2002. Centrifuge modelling of lateral
spreading past pile foundations. In Proceedings, International Conference on
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, July.
Haigh, S.K., and Madabhushi, S.P.G. 2005. The effects of pile flexibility on pile-
loading in laterally spreading slopes. In Seismic performance and simulation
of pile foundations in liquefied and laterally spreading ground. ASCE Special
Publication 145. ASCE. pp. 24–37. doi:10.1061/40822(184)3.
Hall, J.R., and Scott, R.F. 1995. Evaluation of bridge damage in the 1990 Luzon
and 1991 Costa Rica earthquakes. Task H-6 Report to Caltrans and the City
and County of Los Angeles, on the characteristics of earthquake ground
motion for seismic design. Southern California Earthquake Center.
Hamada, M. 1991. Damage to piles by liquefaction-induced ground displace-
ments. In Proceedings, 3rd U.S. Conference Lifeline Earthquake Engineering.
ASCE, Los Angeles. pp. 1172–1181.
Hamada, M. 1992. Large ground deformations and their effects on lifelines: 1964
Niigata earthquake. Edited by M. Hamada and T.D. O’Rourke. National Center
for Earthquake Engineering Research. Technical Rep NCEER-92-0001. 3-1 to
3-123.
Hamada, M. 2000. Performance of foundations against liquefaction-induced per-
manent ground displacement. In Proceedings, 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. No. 1754.
Hamada, M., and O’Rourke, T. (Editors). 1992. Case studies of liquefaction and
lifeline performance during past earthquakes. National Center for Earth-
quake Engineering Research, Buffalo, N.Y. Japanese Case Studies Technical
Rep NCEER-92-0001.
Hamada, M., Wakamatsu, K., and Ando, T. 1996. Liquefaction-induced ground
deformation and its causes damage during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earth-
quake. In Proceedings, 6th Japan-U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant
Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction,
Tech. Rep. NCEER-96-0012, Edited by M. Hamada and T.D. O’Rourke. Vol. 11,
pp. 137–152.
Hazen, A. 1892. Some physical properties of sands and gravels, with special
reference to their use in filtration. 24th Annual Rep., Massachusetts State
Board of Health, Publ. Doc. No. 34, pp. 539–556.
He, L. 2005. Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and its effects on pile foun-
dations. Ph.D. thesis. University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
He, L., Elgamal, A., Abdoun, T., Abe, A., Dobry, R., Hamada, M., Meneses, J.,
Sato, M., Shantz, T., and Tokimatsu, K. 2009. Liquefaction-induced lateral
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 54, 2017
load on pile in a medium Dr sand layer. Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
13(7): 916–938. doi:10.1080/13632460903038607.
Iai, S., Morita, T., Kameoka, T., Matsunaga, Y., and Abiko, K. 1995. Response of a
dense sand deposit during the 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake. Soils and Foun-
dations, 35: 115–131. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.35.115.
Imamura, S., Hagiwara, T., Tsukamoto, Y., and Ishihara, K. 2004. Response of pile
groups against seismically induced lateral flow in centrifuge model tests.
Soils and Foundations, 44(3): 39–55. doi:10.3208/sandf.44.3_39.
Ishihara, K. 1996. Soil behavior in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford University
Press, 350.
Ishihara, K. 1997. Terzaghi Oration: Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe earth-
quake. In Proceedings, ICSMFE, Hamburg. pp. 2047–2073.
Juirnarongrit, T., and Ashford, S. 2006. Soil-pile response to blast-induced lateral
spreading. II: analysis and assessment of the p-y method. Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(2): 163–172. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2006)132:2(163).
Kagawa, T., Sato, M., Minowa, C., Abe, A., and Tazoh, T. 2004. Centrifuge simu-
lations of large-scale shaking table tests: case studies. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(7): 663–672. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2004)130:7(663).
Kishida, H. 1966. Damage to reinforced concrete buildings in Niigata city with
special reference to foundation engineering. Soils and Foundations, 6(1):
71–88. doi:10.3208/sandf1960.6.71.
Knappett, J.A., and Madabhushi, S.P.G. 2009. Influence of axial load on lateral
pile response in liquefiable soils. Part I: physical modelling. Géotechnique,
59(7): 571–581. doi:10.1680/geot.8.009.3749.
Law, H., and Lam, I. 2001. Application of periodic boundary for large pile group.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10): 889–
892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(889).
Law, K.H., and Mackay, D.R. 1993. A parallel row-oriented sparse solution method
for finite element structural analysis. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering, 36(17): 2895–2919. doi:10.1002/nme.1620361704.
Ledezma, C., Hutchinson, T., Ashford, S.A., Moss, R., Arduino, P., Bray, J.D.,
Olson, S., Hashash, Y.M.A., Verdugo, R., et al. 2012. Effects of ground failure
on bridges, roads, and railroads. Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1): S119–S143. doi:
10.1193/1.4000024.
Liu, L., and Dobry, R. 1995. Effect of liquefaction on lateral response of piles by
centrifuge model tests. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Re-
search (NCEER) Bulletin, 9(1): 7–11.
Mackay, D.R. 1992. Solution methods for static and dynamic structural analysis
on distributed memory computers. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Maheshwari, B.K., Truman, K.Z., El Naggar, M.H., and Gould, P.L. 2004. 3D non-
linear analysis for seismic soil-pile-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 24(4): 343–356. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.01.001.
Maheshwari, B.K., Truman, K.Z., Gould, P.L., and El Naggar, M.H. 2005. Three-
dimensional nonlinear seismic analysis of single piles using FEM: effects of
plasticity of soil. International Journal of Geomechanics, 5(1): 35–44. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:1(35).
Matsui, T., and Oda, K. 1996. Foundation damage of structures. Special Issue of
Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society. pp. 189–200.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., and Fenves, G.L. 2006. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation user manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center, University of California, Berkeley.
McKenna, F., Scott, M., and Fenves, G. 2010. Nonlinear finite-element analysis
software architecture using object composition. Journal of Computing in
Civil Engineering, 24(1): 95–107. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000002.
Meneses, J., Hamada, M., Kurita, M., and Elgamal, A. 2002. Soil-pile interaction
under liquefied sand flow in 1g shake table tests. In Proceedings, Interna-
tional Conference on Advances and New Challenges in Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research, Harbin and Hong Kong, China, 15–20 August.
Motamed, R., Towhata, I., Honda, T., Yasuda, S., Tabata, K., and Nakazawa, H.
2009. Behavior of pile group behind a sheet pile quay wall subjected to
liquefaction-induced large ground deformation observed in shaking test in
E-Defense project. Soils and Foundations, 49(3): 459–476. doi:10.3208/sandf.
49.459.
Motamed, R., Towhata, I., Honda, T., Tabata, K., and Abe, A. 2013. Pile group
response to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading: E-Defense large shake
table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 51: 35–46. doi:10.1016/
j.soildyn.2013.04.007.
Parra, E. 1996. Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deforma-
tion including cyclic mobility and dilation response in soil systems. Ph.D.
thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Peng, J. 2002. An Internet-enabled software framework for the collaborative
development of a structural analysis program. Ph.D. thesis, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Prevost, J.H. 1985. A simple plasticity theory for frictional cohesionless soils.
International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 4(1):
9–17. doi:10.1016/0261-7277(85)90030-0.
Ramirez, J.M. 2009. Influence of soil permeability on liquefaction-induced lat-
eral pile response. M.S. thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego, Calif.
Rollins, K.M., Gerber, T.M., Lane, J.D., and Ashford, S. 2005. Lateral resistance of
a full-scale pile group in liquefied sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
Published by NRC Research Press
He et al.
vironmental Engineering, 131(1): 115–125. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)
131:1(115).
Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., and Zettler, T.E. 2002.
Geotechnical engineering circular no. 5: evaluation of soil and rock proper-
ties (No. FHWA-IF-02-034).
Seed, R.B., Dickenson, S.E., Riemer, M.F., Bray, J.D., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., Idriss, I.M.,
Kayen, R.E., Kropp, A., Harder, L.F., Jr., and Power, M.S. 1990. Preliminary
report on the principal geotechnical aspects of the October 17, 1989, Loma
Prieta earthquake. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley. Report No. UCB/EERC-90/05.
Suzuki, H., Tokimatsu, K., Sato, M., and Tabata, K. 2007. Soil-pile-structure in-
teraction during multi-dimensional shaking through physical model tests
using E-Defense facility. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on Urban Earthquake Engineering, 5–6 March. Tokyo Institute of Technol-
ogy. pp. 841–848.
Suzuki, H., Tokimatsu, K., Sato, M., and Tabata, K. 2008. Soil-pile-structure in-
teraction in liquefiable ground through multi-dimensional shaking table
tests using e-defense facility. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October.
Tabata, K., Sato, M., Tokimatsu, K., Suzuki, H., and Tokuyama, H. 2007.
E-Defense shaking table test of model ground with a quay wall on
liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. In Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, 5–6 March. Tokyo In-
stitute of Technology. pp. 825–832.
Taboada, V.M. 1995. Centrifuge modeling of earthquake-induced lateral spread-
ing in sand using a laminar box. Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Rens-
selaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.
Tokida, K., Matsumoto, H., and Iwasaki, H. 1992. Experimental study of drag
action of piles in ground flowing by liquefaction. In Proceedings of 4th Japan-
U.S. Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and
Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction, SUNY Buffalo, N.Y. Vol. 1 of NCEER92-
0019.
Tokimatsu, K., and Asaka, Y. 1998. Effects of liquefaction-induced ground dis-
placements on pile performance in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake.
Soils and Foundations, Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17,
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Tokyo, Japan. No. 2, pp. 163–178.
Tokimatsu, K., and Suzuki, H. 2004. Pore water pressure response around pile
and its effects on p-y behavior during soil liquefaction. Soils and Founda-
tions, 44(6): 101–110. doi:10.3208/sandf.44.6_101.
Tokimatsu, K., Mizuno, H., and Kakurai, M. 1996. Building damage associated
with geotechnical problems. Soils and Foundations, 52: 956–971. [Special
issue.]
Tokimatsu, K., Suzuki, H., Tabata, K., and Sato, M. 2007. Three-dimensional
shaking table tests on soil-pile-structure models using E-Defense facility. In
861
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechni-
cal Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 25–28 June. Paper no. I529.
Ubilla, J., Abdoun, T., and Dobry, R. 2011. Centrifuge scaling laws of pile response
to lateral spreading. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotech-
nics, 11(1): 2–22. [March.] doi:10.1680/ijpmg.2011.11.1.2.
Weaver, T.J., Ashford, S., and Rollins, K. 2005. Response of 0.6 m cast-in-steel-
shell pile in liquefied soil under lateral loading. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(1): 94–102. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2005)131:1(94).
Wilson, D.W., Boulanger, R.W., and Kutter, B.L. 2000. Observed seismic lateral
resistance of liquefying sand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 126(10): 898–906. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:10(898).
Wu, G., Finn, W.L., and Dowling, J. 2015. Quasi-3D analysis: Validation by full 3D
analysis and field tests on single piles and pile groups. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 78: 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.07.006.
Yan, L. 2006. Sensor data analysis and information extraction for structural
health monitoring. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, Uni-
versity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
Yang, Z. 2000. Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dila-
tion and liquefaction. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, N.Y.
Yang, Z., and Elgamal, A. 2002. Influence of permeability on liquefaction-induced
shear deformation. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(7): 720–729. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:7(720).
Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., and Parra, E. 2003. A computational model for cyclic
mobility and associated shear deformation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, 129(12): 1119–1127. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2003)129:12(1119).
Yao, S., Kobayashi, K., Yoshida, N., and Matsuo, H. 2004. Interactive behavior of
soil–pile-superstructure system in transient state to liquefaction by means of
large shake table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(5):
397–409. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2003.12.003.
Yasuda, S., Ishihara, K., Morimoto, I., Orense, R., Ikeda, M., and Tamura, S. 2000.
Large-scale shaking table tests on pile foundations in liquefied ground. In
Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New
Zealand. Vol. 1, p. 474.
Yoshimi, Y.K., and Tokimatsu, K. 1977. Settlement of buildings on saturated sand
duringearthquakes.SoilsandFoundations,17(1):23–38.doi:10.3208/sandf1972.
17.23.
Youd, T.L., Bardet, J.P., and Bray, J.D. 2000. Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake
of August 17, 1999 reconnaissance report. Earthquake Spectra, 16.
Zeghal, M., and Elgamal, A.W. 1994. Analysis of site liquefaction using earth-
quake records. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(6): 996–1017. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:6(996).
Published by NRC Research Press
Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.