Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 5009–5025 | Cite as

Influence of Inherent Soil Variability on Seismic Response of Structure Supported on Pile Foundation

  • Diptesh Chanda
  • Rajib SahaEmail author
  • Sumanta Haldar
Research Article - Civil Engineering


Traditional seismic design is limited to fixed base assumption of superstructure. Such perception proved to be misleading from the post facto analysis of different failure case studies. In addition, inherent variability of soil parameters may lead to a considerable effect on seismic response of foundation and superstructure elements. Incorporation of shear strength variability of soil along with dynamic soil structure interaction phenomenon may result in increased or decreased transmitted shear to the pile as compared to fixed base shear which may lead to unsafe or over-safe pile design. The present study assesses the influence of shear strength variability of soil on seismic response of pile foundation considering soil nonlinearity. Probabilistic analysis is performed by Monte Carlo simulation technique. The study infers that variability of shear strength parameters of soil has significant effect on response of pile embedded in clay, while such effect is marginal in sandy soil. However, it is also observed that adoption of different pile–soil interaction modeling contributes variability in probabilistic response of pile. Finally, a case study shows the importance of shear strength variability of soil on increase in percentage of steel requirement in pile foundation.


Soil–structure interaction Inherent variability Monte Carlo simulation Fundamental lateral period Nonlinear analysis Modeling uncertainty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Applied Technology Council: Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations of Buildings: A Cooperative Effort with the Design Profession, Building Code Interests and the Research Community. National Bureau of Standards, Supt. of Docs, Washington (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    FEMA 356: Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Washington, DC (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eurocode 8-Part 1: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Commission of the European Communities and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), UK (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Japan Road Association (JSCE): Earthquake resistant design codes in Japan—1996 Seismic Design Specifications of Highway Bridges, Japan (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saha, R.; Dutta, S.C.; Haldar, S.: Seismic response of soil–pile foundation–structure system. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21(2), 144–164 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phoon, K.K.; Kulhawy, F.H.: Characterization of geotechnical variability. Can. Geotech. J. 36, 210–238 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papaioannou, I.; Straub, D.: Reliability updating in geotechnical engineering including spatial variability of soil. Comput. Geotech. 42, 44–51 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang, Y.; Cao, Z.: Expanded reliability-based design of piles in spatially variable soil using efficient Monte Carlo simulations. Soils Found. 53(6), 820–834 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Das, B.; Saha, R.; Haldar, S.: Effect of in-situ variability of soil on seismic design of piled raft supported structure incorporating dynamic soil–structure–interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 84, 251–68 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Das, B.; Saha, R.; Haldar, S.: Probabilistic Seismic Design of Soil–Pile Raft–Superstructure System. Geotechnical Special Publication, IFCEE (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pender, M.J.: A seismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 26, No.1 (1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boulanger, R.W.; Curras, C.J.; Kutter, B.L.; Wilson, W.D.; Abghari, A.A.: Seismic soil–pile–structure interaction experiments and analyses. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 125(9), 750–759 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curras, J.C.; Boulanger, W.R.; Kutter, B.L.; Wilson, D.W.: Dynamic experiments and analysis of a pile-group-supported structure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 127(7), 585–596 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    API: Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design, pp. 75–81 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans, Jr. L.T.; Duncan, G.M.: Simplified analysis of laterally loaded piles. Rep.No.UCB/GT/82-04, University of California, Berkeley, California (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matlock, H.: Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. In: Proceedings of 2nd Annual Offshore Technology Conference, vol. 1, pp. 577-594 (1970)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Offshore Standard: DNV-OS-J101. Design of offshore wind turbine (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yashinsky, M.: The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Highway Systems. Professional Paper 1552-B, USGS, Washington (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ghosh, B.; Lubkowski, Z.: Modeling dynamic soil structure interaction under seismic loads. In: S. Bhattacharjee (ed.) Design of Foundations in Seismic Areas: Principles and Applications, pp. 118–198. IIT Kanpur, NICEE, India (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haldar, S.; Babu, G.L.S.: Effect of soil spatial variability on the response of laterally loaded pile in undrained clay. Comput. Geotech. 35, 537–547 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mazzoni, S.; Mckenna, F.; Scott, M.H.; Gregory, L.; Fenvas.: OpenSees, Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation User Command-Language Manual. (2007)
  22. 22.
    Chopra, A.K.: Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clough, W.R.; Penzien, J.: Dynamics of Structures, vol. 3. Computers & Structures, Berkeley (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dutta, S.C.; Bhattacharya, K.; Roy, R.: Effect of flexibility of foundations on its seismic stress distribution. J. Earthq. Eng. 13, 22–49 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haldar, S.; Basu, D.: Response of Euler–Bernoulli beam on spatially random elastic soil. Comput. Geotech. 50, 110–128 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    SP 16: Design Aids for reinforced concrete to IS: 456-1978, Bureau of Indian Standards (1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology: Soil–Structure Interaction for Building Structures. U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    IS: Part I, 2016. Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of structures. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, India (1893)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    IS: 2911 (Part 1/Sec 2): Indian Standard Code of Practice for Design and Construction of Pile Foundation: Part 1: Concrete Piles, Section 2 Bored Cast In-Situ Concrete Piles. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of Technology AgartalaJiraniaIndia
  2. 2.School of InfrastructureIndian Institute of Technology BhubaneswarJatniIndia

Personalised recommendations