4th International Conference on

Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

June 25-28, 2007
Paper No. 1385

SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF PILES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL

SPREADING: PARAMETERS AND UNCERTAINTIES
Misko CUBRINOVSKI 1, Kenji ISHIHARA2
ABSTRACT
Soil liquefaction during strong ground shaking results in almost a complete loss of strength and
stiffness in the liquefied soil, and consequent large lateral ground movements. Both cyclic
displacements during the intense ground shaking and development of liquefaction, and especially postliquefaction displacements due to spreading of liquefied soils are damaging for piles. Characteristics
of the liquefied soils and loads on piles are significantly different during the cyclic phase and in the
subsequent lateral spreading phase, and therefore, it is necessary to separately consider these two
phases in the simplified analysis of piles. This paper describes a practical procedure for preliminary
assessment and design of piles subjected to lateral spreading, and addresses key parameters and
uncertainties involved.
Keywords: Analysis, lateral spreading, liquefaction, pile
INTRODUCTION
There are several methods available for analysis of piles in liquefied soils including sophisticated
finite element analysis based on the effective stress principle and simplified methods based on the
pseudo-static approach. A rigorous effective stress analysis permits evaluation of seismic soil-pile
interaction while considering the effects of excess pore pressure and eventual soil liquefaction on the
pile response. Whereas the predictive capacity of such analysis has been verified in many studies, its
application in engineering practice is constrained by two requirements, namely, the required highquality and specific data on the in-situ conditions, physical properties and mechanical behaviour of
soils, and quite high demands on the user regarding the knowledge and understanding both of the
phenomena considered and particular features in the adopted numerical procedure. Provided that the
above requirements are met, however, the effective stress analysis provides an excellent tool for
assessment of the seismic performance of pile foundations in liquefiable soils.
For preliminary assessment and design of piles, however, a simplified analysis may be more
appropriate provided that such analysis can satisfy the following requirements: i) the adopted model
must capture the kinematic mechanism associated with the spreading of liquefied soils; ii) The
analysis should allow us to estimate the inelastic response and damage to piles, and iii) the method
should allow for variations in key parameters and assessment of the uncertainties associated with
lateral spreading. Based on these premises, this paper addresses the use of the pseudo-static analysis of
piles in liquefying soils and focuses in particular on its application to the analysis of piles subjected to
lateral spreading.

Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, Email:
[email protected]
2
Professor, Research and Development Initiative, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan.

GROUND DISPLACEMENTS IN LIQUEFIED SOILS

When analyzing the behaviour of piles in liquefied soils, it is useful to distinguish between two
different phases in the soil-pile interaction: a cyclic phase in the course of the intense ground shaking
and consequent development of liquefaction, and a lateral spreading phase following the liquefaction.
During the cyclic phase, the piles are subjected to cyclic horizontal loads due to ground displacements
(kinematic loads) and inertial loads from the superstructure, and the combination of these oscillatory
kinematic and inertial loads determines the critical load for the integrity of the pile during the shaking.
Lateral spreading, on the other hand, is primarily a post-liquefaction phenomenon that is characterized
by very large unilateral ground displacements and relatively small inertial effects. Thus, the
liquefaction characteristics and lateral loads on piles can be quite different between the cyclic phase
and the subsequent lateral spreading phase.
Cyclic Ground Displacements
In order to illustrate some important features of ground displacements in liquefied soils, observations
from well documented case histories in the 1995 Kobe earthquake are discussed in the following.
Figures 1a and 1b show computed horizontal ground displacements and excess pore water pressures
that developed in an 18 m thick fill deposit during the intense part of the ground shaking in this quake.
This response is representative of the cyclic phase of the free field response of the fill deposits in areas
that were not affected by lateral spreading.

Excess pore water pressure (kPa)

Horizontal displacement (cm)

Several features of the ground response shown in Figure 1 are relevant to the behaviour and analysis
of piles in liquefied soils. First, the cyclic horizontal ground displacements in the course of the strong
shaking are very large with peak values of about 35-40 cm. These displacements correspond to an
average peak shear strain of about 3-4 % throughout the 10-12 m depth of the liquefied layer. Next, it
is important to note that at the time when the ground displacement reached a large value of about 30
cm for the first time since the start of the shaking, i.e. at approximately 5.3 sec, the excess pore water
pressure was well below the effective overburden stress thus indicating that the soil has not fully
60

Relative displacements between GL-0m and GL-16m

30
0
-30
-60

(a)
0

10
Time (seconds)

15

20

v'

200

GL-15.5 m
150
v'

100

GL-5.5 m

50

(b)

0
0

10
Time (seconds)

15

20

Figure 1. Cyclic ground displacements and excess pore water pressures in a liquefied deposit
(1995 Kobe earthquake)

liquefied yet, at this stage. These large displacements were accompanied with high ground
accelerations of about 0.4 g at the ground surface. This type of behaviour, where large ground
displacements and high accelerations concurrently occur just before or at the time of development of
full liquefaction, has been also observed in shake table experiments, thus highlighting the need to
carefully consider the combination of inertial loads from the superstructure and kinematic loads due to
ground displacements when analyzing the behaviour of piles during the cyclic phase. The magnitude
of these loads depends on a number of factors including the excess pore water pressure build-up,
relative displacements between the soil and the pile, and relative predominant periods of the ground
and superstructure, among others. Clear and simple rules for combining the ground displacements
(kinematic loads) and inertial loads from the superstructure in the simplified pseudo-static analysis
have not been established yet, though some suggestions may be found in Tamura and Tokimatsu
(2005) and Liyanapathirana and Poulos (2005).
Lateral Spreading Displacements
In the 1995 Kobe earthquake, the ground distortion was particularly excessive in the waterfront area
where many quay walls moved several meters towards the sea and lateral spreading occurred in the
backfills that progressed inland as far as 200 m from the revetment line. Ishihara et al. (1997)
investigated the features of movements of the quay walls and ground distortion in the backfills by the
method of ground surveying and summarized the measured displacements in plots depicting the
permanent ground displacement as a function of the distance inland from the waterfront, as shown in
Figure 2. Here, the shaded area shows the range of measured displacements along N-S sections of Port
Island, and the solid line is an approximation for the average displacement. Superimposed in Figure 2
are the cyclic ground displacements in the free field showing that in the zone within a distance of
approximately 50 m from the quay walls, the permanent ground displacements due to lateral spreading
were significantly greater than the cyclic ground displacements. The permanent ground displacements
reached about 1 - 4 m at the quay walls. Since the lateral spreading is basically a post-liquefaction
phenomenon, it is associated with higher excess pore pressures and hence lower stiffness of the
liquefied soils, as compared to its preceding cyclic phase. This feature, together with the unilateral
down-slope or seaward ground movement, results in very large permanent spreading displacements.
Clearly the magnitude and spatial distribution of ground displacements, as well as the stiffness of the
soils undergoing large lateral movements, are quite different between the cyclic phase and lateral
spreading phase, and these differences have to be accounted for in the simplified analysis of piles.
U

Lateral spreading

U (m)

Lateral ground displacement,

Sea

1.5

Uozakihama Pier 211

Mikagehama Tank 101

Measured (N-S)

H-Building

Ishihara et al. (1997)

Fukaehama Building
Mikagehama Tank TA-72
Higashi-Nada Building

0.5

CL-max

= 30-40 cm

0
0

50

100

Distance from the waterfront, L

150

200

(m)

Figure 2. Permanent ground displacements due to lateral spreading (1995 Kobe earthquake)

TYPICAL DAMAGE TO PILES

A large number of pile foundations of buildings, storage tanks and bridge piers located in the
waterfront area of Kobe were damaged in the 1995 Kobe earthquake (Ishihara and Cubrinovski, 1998;
2004; JGS, 1998; Tokimatsu and Asaka, 1998). Detailed field investigations were conducted on
selected piles using a borehole video camera and inclinometers for inspecting the crack distribution
and deformation of the pile respectively throughout the depth of the deposit, as well as by a visual
inspection of the damage to the pile head. By and large, the damage to the piles can be summarized as
follows:
1. Most of the piles suffered largest damage at the pile top and in the zone of the interface
between the liquefied layer and the underlying non-liquefied layer (Figure 3).
2. Piles in the zone of large lateral spreading displacements were consistently damaged at depths
corresponding to the interface between the liquefied layer and the underlying non-liquefied
layer. Since this interface was at large depths where inertial effects from the superstructure are
known to be less significant, this damage can be attributed to the lateral loads arising from the
excessive ground movement due to spreading.
3. Damage at the pile head was encountered both for piles in the free field and piles located
within the lateral spreading zone, near the quay walls. Both inertial loads from the
superstructure and kinematic loads due to lateral ground displacements contributed to the
damage at the pile head.
4. The variation of lateral spreading displacements with the distance from the waterfront shown
in Figure 2 may result in different lateral loads being applied to individual piles, depending on
their position within the pile-group. This in turn may lead to significant cross-interaction
effects and consequent bending deformation and damage to piles in accordance with these
interaction loads from the pile-cap-pile system. In some cases where these pile-group effects
were significant, the piles failed within the liquefied layer or at least several meters below the
pile head.
In addition to the typical damage patterns described above, other less significant damage was
consistently found at various depths for many of the inspected piles thus reflecting the complex
dynamic nature of loads and behaviour of piles in liquefying soils.

(a)

(b)
(a)

(b)

Pile No.2

Pile No.9

Length (m)

Pile top

2.0

2.0

4.0

4.0

6.0

6.0

8.0

8.0

10.0

10.0

12.0

12.0

14.0

14.0

16.0

16.0

Cracks

16.8
18.0
19.2

18.0

45 cm

20.0

Figure 3. Typical damage to piles due to lateral spreading (Tank TA72, 1995 Kobe earthquake)

PSEUDO-STATIC APPROACH FOR SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS

The most frequently encountered soil profile for piles in liquefied deposits consists of three distinct
layers, as illustrated in Figure 4 where the liquefied layer is sandwiched between a non-liquefied crust
layer at the ground surface and non-liquefied base layer. Liquefaction during strong ground shaking
results in almost a complete loss of strength and stiffness of the liquefied soil, and consequent large
lateral ground displacements. As demonstrated in the previous section, particularly large and
damaging for piles are post-liquefaction displacements due to lateral spreading. During spreading, the
non-liquefied surface layer is carried along with the underlying spreading soil, and when driven
against embedded piles, the crust layer is envisioned to exert large lateral loads on the piles. Thus, the
excessive lateral movement of the liquefied soil, lateral loads from the surface layer and significant
stiffness reduction in the liquefied layer, are key features that need to be considered when evaluating
the pile response to lateral spreading.
In light of the liquefaction characteristics and kinematic mechanism as described above, a three-layer
soil model was adopted for a simplified analysis of piles based on the pseudo-static approach, in a
previous study (Cubrinovski and Ishihara, 2004). As indicated in Figure 4, in this model the pile is
represented by a continuous beam while the interaction between the liquefied soil and the pile (p relationship) is specified by an equivalent linear spring (2k2). Here, k2 is the subgrade reaction
coefficient while 2 is a scaling factor representing the degradation of stiffness due to liquefaction and
nonlinear behaviour. In the analysis, the spreading is represented by a horizontal free-field
displacement of the liquefied soil while effects of the surface layer are modelled by an earth pressure
and lateral force at the pile head, as illustrated in Figure 4. Using an iterative procedure based on the
equivalent linear approach, a closed-form solution was developed for evaluating the pile response to
lateral spreading. The analysis permits estimation of the inelastic response and damage to piles, yet it
is based on a simple model that requires a small number of conventional engineering parameters as
input (Figure 5). Needless to say, one may use an FEM beam-spring model instead of the above
closed-form solution and conduct even more rigorous analysis, as compared to the three-layer model,
because it will permit consideration of a multi-layer deposit with different load-deformation
properties. In principle, however, the following discussion applies to the pseudo-static analysis of
piles, in general.
Input parameters of the computational model and adopted load-deformation relationships for the soil
and the pile are shown in Figure 5. The equivalent linear p- relationship for the liquefied layer was
Lateral
Earth force
pressure

Non-liquefied
surface layer

1-max

Liquefied
layer

2 k2

Pile

Non-liquefied
base layer

Free field
displacement
of liquefied soil

Figure 4. Simplified kinematic mechanism of lateral spreading

Hf

Footing

Surface layer

H1
Y

Base layer

Do

2 k2

Pile

Liquefied
layer

H3

k1 p1-max

UG2
M

H2

k 3 p3-max

Figure 5. Characterization of nonlinear behaviour and input parameters of the model

adopted in order to simplify the modelling of the highly nonlinear behaviour of liquefied soils
undergoing spreading and to allow parametric evaluation of the effects of this parameter. In the
analysis of a given pile, it is envisioned that 2 will serve as a parameter that will be varied over a
relevant range of values, thus permitting evaluation of the pile response by assuming different
properties of the liquefied soil. On the other hand, bilinear p- relationships and a tri-linear momentcurvature relationship (M-) were adopted for modelling the nonlinear behaviour of the non-liquefied
soil layers and the pile respectively. Note that p1-max defines the ultimate lateral pressure that can be
applied by the crust layer to the pile. In cases when the relative displacements between the soil and the
pile are very large, it would be necessary to limit the maximum pressure that the liquefied soil can
apply to the pile. The undrained strength or steady state strength would be one obvious choice in the
definition of the ultimate pressure from the liquefied soil. This modification of the original model is
indicated with a dashed line in the p- relationship for the liquefied soil in Figure 5.
KEY PARAMETERS AND UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED
The analysis of piles in liquefying soils is burdened by unknowns and uncertainties associated with
liquefaction and lateral spreading in particular. Thus, it is very difficult to estimate the strength and
stiffness properties of liquefied soils or predict the magnitude and spatial distribution of lateral
spreading displacements. One of the key aspects of the simplified analysis is therefore to properly
address these uncertainties.
Lateral Ground Displacements
The lateral displacement of the spreading soil (UG2) can be evaluated using empirical correlations for
ground displacements of lateral spreads (Ishihara et al., 1997; Tokimatsu and Asaka, 1998; Hamada et
al., 2001; Youd et al., 2002). It is important to recognize, however, that in most cases it would be very
difficult to make a reliable prediction for the spreading displacements. This difficulty is well
illustrated in Figure 2 where a large scatter in the ground displacements is seen, even for a single
earthquake event and generally similar ground conditions. In this context, Youd et al. (2002)
suggested the use of a factor of 2 for the displacements predicted with their empirical model, in order
to cover the expected range of variation in the spreading displacements.

Cyclic ground displacements can be estimated more accurately by means of an effective stress
analysis, but this combination of an advanced analysis being used for the definition of the input in a
simplified analysis is not consistent or practical. For this reason, it seems more appropriate to estimate
the peak cyclic displacements for the simplified analysis by using simplified charts correlating the
maximum cyclic shear strain that will develop in the liquefied layer with the cyclic stress ration and
SPT blow count, as suggested by Tokimatsu and Asaka (1998), for example. The horizontal cyclic
displacement profile can be then easily obtained by integrating the shear strains throughout the depth
of the liquefied layer. In both cases of cyclic displacements and spreading displacements, the lateral
ground displacement that is used as an input in the simplified analysis of piles is a free field ground
displacement which is unaffected by the pile foundation.
Crust Layer
The lateral load from the unliquefied crust layer may often be the critical load for the integrity of the
pile because of its large magnitude and unfavourable position as a top-heavy load acting above a
laterally unsupported portion of the pile in the liquefied soil. For the adopted bilinear p- relationship
for the crust layer shown in Figure 5, the key input parameter is the ultimate lateral pressure, p1-max.
The ultimate soil pressure from the surface layer per unit width of the pile can be estimated using a
simplified expression such as, p1-max = u pp, where pp(z1) is the Rankine passive pressure while u is a
scaling factor to account for the difference in the lateral pressure between a single pile and an
equivalent wall. Figure 6 shows the variation of u with the relative displacement observed in a
benchmark lateral spreading experiment on full-size piles (Cubrinovski et al., 2006) with the
maximum lateral pressure on the single pile being about 4.5 times the Rankine passive pressure. Data
from other experimental studies, shown in Figure 7, also indicate quite large values for the parameter
u, clearly indicating that very large lateral loads can be applied by the crust layer to the pile. Here, it
is important to distinguish between two types of loading conditions, namely, active pile loading and
passive pile loading. In the case of active pile loading, the horizontal force at the pile is the causative
load for the pile deformation, as shown in Figure 8a; in this case, the mobilized earth pressure
provides the resisting force. In the case of passive pile loading, on the other hand, the mobilized
pressure from the crust layer provides the driving force for the pile deformation, as illustrated in
Figure 8b. Note that the two sets of experimental data on passive piles yield a value of u = 4.5. The
test data used by Broms (1964) yielded mostly values of u = 3 6, and Broms adopted the lowerbound value of u = 3 as a conservative estimate for active piles. This value has been adopted in many
design codes for active loading on piles, but may be unconservative for passive piles.

P
Measured resultant pressure
=
P
Rankine passive pressure
p

It is important to note in Figure 6 that a large relative displacement of nearly 20 cm was needed to
mobilize the ultimate lateral pressure from the crust layer. This relative displacement u at which pu is

6
5
4
3

Steel pile
PHC pile

1
0

20
40
60
80
Relative displacement between soil and pile,
= U (z) - U (z)
(cm)
g

Figure 6. Ratio of lateral pressure from the crust layer on a single pile and Rankine passive
pressure measured in full-size test using large-scale shake table

Rankine passive pressure

Meyerhof (1981)
Prasad (1999)
Broms (1964)

Passive piles

6
5

Passive piles
4

Poulos (1995)
Cubrinovski et al. (2006)

Active piles

Single piles in sand

Measured ultimate pressure

u =

2
1

30

35

40

Angle of internal friction,

45

50

(degree)

Figure 7. Ratio of ultimate pressure from the crust layer on a single pile and Rankine passive
pressure obtained in experimental studies

(a) Active pile loading

Lateral
load

(b) Passive pile loading

Ground
displacement

. .. . .. . . . . . .
. . . . . .. . .. . .
..

. .. . . . . .
..
.
Movement
of soil

. . .. .
. . ..
.. . .. . . . .

. . . ...
. . . . .. . .
. . .. . . .
.

Movement
of soil

Passive
earth pressure

Passive
earth pressure

Figure 8. Schematic illustration of lateral loading of piles: (a) Active-pile-loading; (b) Passivepile-loading
mobilized depends on the relative density of the sand, as illustrated by the experimental data
summarized in Figure 9. Here H denotes the height of the model wall or pile cap used in the test. It is
evident that for dense sands with Dr = 70 % to 80 %, the ultimate pressure was mobilized at a relative
displacement of about u = 0.02H to 0.08H and that larger movement was needed to mobilize the
passive pressure in loose sand. Rollins (2002) suggested that the presence of a low strength layer
below the surface layer may increase the required deflection to mobilize the passive pressure, and this
appears to be a relevant observation for a crust layer overlying liquefied soils.

Summary of experiments
from 5 studies (Rollins, 2002)
Fang (2002)
Cubrinovski et al. (2006)

u / H

0.2

0.1

u(max)

u(min)

30

40

50
60
70
80
Relative density, D (%)

90

Figure 9. Relative displacement required to fully mobilize the passive pressure as function of the
relative density of sand: summary of data from experimental studies

0.1
Stiffness degradation factor,

Range of
values

0.05

0.01

Best fit
value
2

Steel pile
0.001
0

20
40
60
Ground displacement at top of liquefied layer

80
(cm)

Figure 10. Degradation of stiffness in a liquefied layer undergoing lateral spreading observed in
full-size test on piles (Cubrinovski et al., 2006)
Liquefied Layer
The factor 2, which specifies the reduction of stiffness due to liquefaction and nonlinear behaviour
(2k2), is affected by a number of factors including the density of sand, excess pore pressures,
magnitude and rate of ground displacements, and drainage conditions. Typically, 2 takes values in the
range between 1/50 and 1/10 for cyclic liquefaction and between 1/1000 and 1/50 in the case of lateral
spreading. The values of 2 back-calculated from full-size tests on piles (Cubrinovski et al., 2006) are
shown in Figure 10 as a function of lateral ground displacement, illustrating that 2 is not a constant,
but rather it varies in the course of lateral spreading.
The equivalent linear p- relationship for the pile, defined by the degraded stiffness 2k2, can be easily
extended to a bilinear p- relationship by using the undrained or steady state strength of the soil in the
definition of the ultimate lateral pressure from the liquefied soils. The empirical correlation between
the undrained strength and SPT blow count proposed by Seed and Harder (1991) can be used for
approximating the undrained strength in these calculations.
Stiff vs. Flexible Pile Behaviour
When piles are subjected to large lateral ground displacements, they generally behave either as
flexible or stiff piles. Flexible piles follow the ground movement, and hence, the relative displacement
between the pile and the soil is relatively small, as shown in Figure 11. Thus, the ultimate lateral
pressures from the crust layer and liquefied may never be mobilized in the case of flexible piles. The
magnitude of ground displacement, on the other hand, is the key parameter controlling the pile
response since it practically defines the maximum deflection of the pile.

Horizontal displacement
(cm)

100
80

Flexible pile

60
40
Yielding

20
0

45

50

Applied ground
displacement

Failure

Stiff pile
55

60

Time (sec)

65

70

Figure 11. Measured lateral displacements of stiff and flexible piles during spreading

Crust layer

UG(1)

UG(k)

UG(n)

Liquefied
layer

Base layer

Figure 12. Piles in a group subjected to lateral spreading displacements in waterfront area
Stiff piles show strong lateral resistance and do not follow the ground movement. Consequently, the
relative displacement between the pile and spreading soil is very large, and the ultimate lateral soil
pressures are applied by the crust layer and liquefied layer to the pile. Hence, for stiff piles, the
ultimate soil pressure is the key parameter in the analysis while the magnitude of ground displacement
is not critically important. Note that in the above discussion we refer to the relative stiffness of the pile
and the soil, and that the stiffness degradation parameter affects the relative stiffness of the pile. The
pile response is most sensitive to variation in when it changes the behaviour from flexible to stiff
pile behaviour and vice versa.
Pile-Group Effects
Piles in a group are almost invariably rigidly connected at the pile head, and therefore, when subjected
to lateral loads, all piles will share nearly identical horizontal displacements at the pile head. During
lateral spreading of liquefied soils in a waterfront area, each of the piles will be subjected to a different
lateral load from the surrounding soils, depending upon its particular location within the group and the
spatial distribution of the spreading displacements (Figure 12). Consequently, both the interaction
force at the pile head and the lateral soil pressure along the length of the pile will be different for each
pile, thus leading to a development of distinct patterns of deformation and stresses along the length of
individual piles in the group. These pile-group effects can be easily captured by a simplified method of
analysis using a single pile model (Cubrinovski and Ishihara, 2005).
The second influence of the pile-group regarding its effects on the magnitude and distribution of
ground displacements, stiffness characteristics of spreading soils and ultimate soil pressure, is more
difficult to quantify. Experimental data on these effects for piles in liquefiable soils is scarce and not
conclusive. Figure 13 illustrates a clear tendency for reduction in the ultimate lateral soil pressure with
increasing number of piles within the group, as compared to that of an individual pile. These data are
for pile spacing of 2.5-3 diameters, and include both active and passive piles, though the trend is
basically derived from active piles. Further evidence for the pile-group effects on key parameters
controlling the pile response in liquefying soils such as UG2, 2 and p1-max discussed herein is urgently
needed.
SUMMARIZED PROCEDURE FOR PSEUDO-STATIC ANALYSIS
The proposed practical procedure for preliminary assessment and design of piles subjected to lateral
spreading can be summarized in the following steps:

1.5
1

p (single pile)

Active piles
Meyerhof (1982)
McVay (1995)
Brown (1988)
Ruesta 1997)
Passive piles
Pan (2002)
Poulos (1995)

d = 2.5D or 3D

p (pile in group)

2.5

0.5
3x3

4x4
group

10
15
Number of piles
Figure 13. Pile-group effects on the ultimate lateral soil pressure
1. The magnitude of lateral spreading displacement can be estimated using empirical correlations
for ground surface displacements of lateral spreads. In view of the uncertainties involved in
the assessment of these displacements, a range of values needs to be considered. It is practical
to assume a cosine distribution for the ground displacement within the liquefied soil and that
the surface layer will move together with the top of the liquefied soil.
2. Initial stiffness in all p- relationships can be defined based on empirical correlations between
the subgrade reaction coefficient and SPT blow count or elastic moduli. This stiffness should
then be degraded in order to account for the effects of nonlinearity and large relative
displacements that are required to fully mobilize the lateral soil pressure.
3. Stiffness degradation of liquefied soils is generally in the range between 1/50 and 1/10 for
cyclic liquefaction and 1/1000 to 1/50 for lateral spreading.
4. Ultimate lateral pressure from the crust layer can be approximated as being 4.5 times the
Rankine passive pressure. The undrained or steady state strength can be used, on the other
hand, for the ultimate lateral pressure from the liquefied soil.
5. A static analysis in which the pile is subjected to ground displacements defined in step 2, and
adopted stiffness degradation in step 4, is performed and pile displacements and bending
moments are obtained. The analysis should be repeated while parametrically varying the
magnitude of applied ground displacement and stiffness degradation in the liquefied soil.
6. Pile group effects should be eventually considered including cross interaction among the piles
within the group through the pile-cap-pile system, and effects on key parameters controlling
the pile response such as the stiffness of the liquefied soils, and the magnitude and spatial
distribution of spreading displacements.
CONCLUSIONS
Lateral ground displacements of liquefied soils can be quite large during the intense shaking or cyclic
phase of loading and especially during the post-liquefaction lateral spreading phase. Since the
properties of liquefied soils and loads on piles can be remarkably different during the cyclic phase and
subsequent spreading phase, it is necessary to separately consider these two phases in the simplified
analysis of piles. When evaluating the pile response during the cyclic phase it is important to consider
a relevant combination of kinematic loads due to cyclic ground displacements and inertial loads from
the superstructure. In the case of lateral spreading, the uncertainties associated with the spreading of
liquefied soils, and in particular, the magnitude and the spatial distribution of spreading displacements,
and stiffness degradation of liquefied soils need to be carefully considered. The lateral load from a
non-liquefiable crust layer at the ground surface may often be the critical load for the integrity of piles
subjected to lateral spreading, and therefore, special attention needs to be given to the modelling of the
surface layer and its effects on the pile response. Cross-interaction effects may be significant for pile
foundations near the waterfront area, where individual piles within the group are subjected to variable

ground displacements. Effects of group interaction on key parameters controlling the pile response
need to be considered in perhaps reducing the severity of the ground movement effects. Based on
these premises, a practical procedure for preliminary assessment and design of piles subjected to
lateral spreading has been proposed.
REFERENCES
Broms B. (1964). Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils. J Soil Mech and Found Engng,
ASCE; 90(SM3):123-156.
Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (2004). Simplified method for analysis of piles undergoing lateral
spreading in liquefied soils, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 44, No. 25: 119-133.
Cubrinovski, M., and Ishihara, K. (2005). Assessment of pile group response to lateral spreading by
single pile analysis. ASCE Geotechnical special publication, 145: 242-254.
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, Vol. 26: 275-286.
Feng Y-S, Ho Y-C, Chen T-J. (2002) Passive earth pressure with critical state concept. J Geotech
Geoenv Engng, ASCE; 128(8): 651-659.
Hamada, M., Wakamatsu, K., Shimamura, K. and Nire, T. (2001). A study on the evaluation of
horizontal displacement of liquefied ground, Proc. 26th JSCE Earthq. Engrg. Symp.: 649-652 (in
Japanese).
Ishihara, K, Yoshida, K. and Kato, M. (1997). Characteristics of lateral spreading in liquefied deposits
during the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji earthquake, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1: 2355.
Ishihara, K. and Cubrinovski, M. (1998). Performance of large-diameter piles subjected to lateral
spreading of liquefied soils, Keynote Lecture, Proc. 13th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conf.,
Taipei: 1-14.
Ishihara, K. and Cubrinovski, M. (2004). Case studies of pile foundations undergoing lateral spreading
in liquefied deposits, State of the art paper, Fifth Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical
Engineering, New York, CD-ROM.
Japanese Geotechnical Society (1998). Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17 1995
Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, September 1998.
Liyanapathirana, D.S. and Poulos, H.G. (2005). Pseudostatic approach for seismic analysis of piles in
liquefying soil. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No.
12: 1480-1487.
Meyerhof GG, Mathur SK, Valsangkar AJ. (1981). Lateral resistance and deflection of rigid walls and
piles in layered soils. Can Geotech J; 18:159-170.
Prasad YVSN, Chari TR. (1999). Lateral capacity of model rigid piles in cohesionless soils. Soils and
Foundations, 39(2): 21-29.
Poulos HG, Chen LT, Hull TS. (1995). Model tests on single piles subjected to lateral soil movement.
Soils and Foundations; 35(4): 85-92.
Rollins KM, Sparks A. (2002). Lateral resistance of full-scale pile cap with gravel backfill. J Geotech
Geoenv Engng, ASCE; 128(9): 711-723.
Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F. (1991). SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure generation and
undrained residual strength, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium Proc., Vol. 2: 351-376.
Tamura, S. and Tokimatsu, K. (2005). Seismic earth pressure acting on embedded footing based on
large-scale shaking table tests, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 145: 83-96.
Tokimatsu, K. and Asaka, Y. (1998). Effects of liquefaction-induced ground displacements on pile
performance in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake, Special Issue of Soils and Foundations,
September 1998: 163-177.
Youd, T.L., Hansen, M.C. and Bartlett, F.S. (2002). Revised multilinear regression equations for
prediction of lateral spread displacement, ASCE J. of Geotech. and Geoenvironmental Engrg., Vol.
128, No. 12: 1007-1017.