ANIDIS 2017

PISTOIA

On the influence of pile discretization in single pile kinematic analysis using a

boundary element method (BEM) based approach
Stefano Stacula, Nunziante Squegliaa
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale, Largo Lucio Lazzarino, 56122 Pisa.

Keywords: kinematic analysis, bending moment, discretization, boundary element method, pile-soil interaction

ABSTRACT
In high seismicity areas it’s important to consider kinematic effects to properly design pile foundations. Kinematic
effects are due to the interaction between pile and soil deformations induced by seismic waves. One of the effect is
the arise of significant strains in weak soils that induce bending moments on piles. These moments can be
significant in case of presence of high stiffness contrast in a soil deposit. The single pile kinematic interaction
problem is generally solved with beam on dynamic Winkler foundation approaches (BDWF) or using continuous
models (BEM, FEM). In this work it is presented a new BEM-based computer code (KIN SP) where the kinematic
analysis is preceded by a free-field response analysis. The analysis results of this method, in terms of bending
moments at the pile-head and at the interface of a two-layered soil, are influenced by many factors including the
soil-pile interface discretization. Finally, it is shown a parametric study having the aim to suggest the minimum
number of boundary elements to guarantee the accuracy of a BEM solution, for typical pile-soil relative stiffness
values as a function of the pile diameter, the location of the interface of a two-layered soil and of the stiffness
contrast.

SG02-34
 ANIDIS 2017
PISTOIA

On the influence of pile discretization in single pile kinematic analysis using a

boundary element method (BEM) based approach
Stefano Stacula, Nunziante Squegliaa
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale, Largo Lucio Lazzarino, 56122 Pisa.

Keywords: kinematic analysis, bending moment, discretization, boundary element method, pile-soil interaction

ABSTRACT
In high seismicity areas it’s important to consider kinematic effects to properly design pile foundations. Kinematic
effects are due to the interaction between pile and soil deformations induced by seismic waves. One of the effect is
the arise of significant strains in weak soils that induce bending moments on piles. These moments can be
significant in case of presence of high stiffness contrast in a soil deposit. The single pile kinematic interaction
problem is generally solved with beam on dynamic Winkler foundation approaches (BDWF) or using continuous
models (BEM, FEM). In this work it is presented a new BEM-based computer code (KIN SP) where the kinematic
analysis is preceded by a free-field response analysis. The analysis results of this method, in terms of bending
moments at the pile-head and at the interface of a two-layered soil, are influenced by many factors including the
soil-pile interface discretization. Finally, it is shown a parametric study having the aim to suggest the minimum
number of boundary elements to guarantee the accuracy of a BEM solution, for typical pile-soil relative stiffness
values as a function of the pile diameter, the location of the interface of a two-layered soil and of the stiffness
contrast.

head, fixed-head), the thickness and the

mechanical properties of the subsoil layers and by
1 INTRODUCTION the seismic event used as input.

1.1 Description
In seismic areas, piles are commonly designed
to resist to inertial forces due to the
superstructure. Neverthless, it’s important to
consider the kinematic effects to properly
complete the design process of pile foundation.
The arise of kinematic interaction phenomena
are due to the seismically induced deformations
of the soil that interacts with the pile. One of the
main important effect of these deformations is the
arise of significant strains in soft soil that induce
bending moments (kinematic bending moments)
on piles. The research works realized about this
topic have demonstrated that kinematic bending
moments can be responsible for pile damage
especially in case of presence of high stiffness
contrast in a soil deposit profile (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Pile-soil system scheme: two soil layers having a
high stiffness discontinuity.
The internal forces generated as a consequence
of the seismic waves propagation in a pile are
affected by: the pile-soil relative stiffness (Ep⁄Es), In this work a computer code (in the following
the pile slenderness ratio (L/D = length/ called KIN SP) for the single pile kinematic
diameter), the pile-head restraint condition (free- analysis, based on the BEM method, will be

SG02-35
presented and validated. Then some results of a hybrid BEM-BDWF approaches (Kampitsis et
parametric study will be discussed, with the aim al., 2013).
to suggest the minimum number of boundary Here below are reported two of the most used
elements to guarantee the accuracy of a BEM simplified formulations to evaluate the pile
solution, for typical pile-soil relative stiffness bending moment induced by the kinematic
values as a function of the pile diameter, the interaction.
location of the interface of a two-layered soil The Dobry and O’Rourke (1983) method assumes
profile and of the stiffness contrast. a linear elastic behaviour for the pile and the soil
deposit and the expressions (1a-1d) are useful to
estimate the maximum bending moment at the
1.2 Literature overview interface between two layers having different
stiffness.
Considering the available technical literature
about the pile kinematic interaction, it can be M  1.86( E p I p ) 3 / 4 (G1 )1 / 4  1 F (1a)
outlined that:
(1  c 4 )(1  c 3 )
- for pile embedded in a layered soil deposit F (1b)
(1  c)(c 1  1  c  c 2 )
the bending moment values along the pile-
shaft increase at the interface between two
G2 1 / 4
adjacent soil-layers having different shear c( ) (1c)
moduli (G); G1
- the bending moment increment is higher
as the mechanical impedance increases; 1 h1
1  a max, s (1d)
- it’s widely accepted by the scientific G1
community that group-effects can be
neglected. Where G1 and G2 are the shear moduli of the
upper and lower soil layers (that can be estimated
Several studies proposed simplified using: G=Vs2); 1 is the shear strain at the upper
formulations and methods to estimate the layer base; 1 is the soil density of the upper
maximum kinematic bending moment at the layer; h1 the upper layer thickness; amax,s is the
interface of a two-layered soil and/or at the pile- maximum acceleration at the ground surface in
head (Castelli and Maugeri, 2009; Dezi et al., free-field conditions.
2010; Dobry and O’Rourke, 1983; Kavvadas and The Nikolaou et al. (2001) method suggests
Gazetas, 1993; Maiorano et al., 2009; Mylonakis, the expressions (2a-2b) to evaluate the bending
2001; Nikolaou et al., 2001; Sica et al., 2011) moment at the interface between two soil layers
using beam on dynamic Winkler foundation having different stiffness in steady-state condition
(BDWF) approaches. with a frequency approximately equal to the
For example in one of the first studies (i.e. natural frequency of the soil deposit.
Kavvedas and Gazetas, 1983), the proposed 0.3 0.65 0.5
L  Ep   Vs 2 
Winkler method was able to reproduce the M  0.042 c D   3
    (2a)
response observed in more rigorous finite element  D  E1   Vs1 
(FEM) analyses, and some analytical expressions
were developed for estimating the stiffness of the  c  a max, s 1h1 (2b)
Winkler springs as a function of the soil elastic
modulus and of some pile-soil dimensionless Where Vs1 and Vs2 are the shear wave velocity
parameters. of the upper and lower soil layer, respectively; E1
On the other hand, some authors proposed is the Young Modulus of the upper layer. The
methods able to study the single pile kinematic expression (2a) is valid when the interface
problem using continuous-based approaches, like between the two soil layers is located at a depth
the boundary element method (BEM) (Liang et greater than the pile active length (La). La can be
al., 2013; Tabesh and Poulos, 2001) and the finite evaluated according to the expression (3)
element method (Bentley and El Naggar, 2000; proposed by Randolph (1981) (that assumes a
De Sanctis et al., 2010; Di Laora et al., 2013; Di linear elastic behaviour for the soil and the pile).
Laora and Rovithis, 2014; Maiorano et al., 2007;
Wu and Finn, 1997a; Wu and Finn, 1997b) or

SG02-36
  Ep 
1/ 4
La  1.5  D (3)
 Es  PILE (KIN SP)
The maximum bending moment induced by
the seismic action, is then evaluated with the
expression (4).
M max  M (4)
Where M is given by the expression (2a) and 
is a reduction factor expressed as a function of the
effective number of cycles (Nc) of the
accelerogram.
Usually the Dobry and O’Rourke (1983)
method is more conservative while the Nikolau et
al. (2001) formulation provides bending moment
values closer to the solutions obtained with more
rigorous approaches.
1.3 Pile discretization influence on kinematic
analysis results
In all the available continuous-based methods
(BEM and FEM) the results are sensitive to the
element size. Di Laora et al. (2013) observed that
the computed bending moments tend to increase
with decreasing element size and increasing
accuracy. In particular, they found that an
element size equal to 0.1D was able to provide a
satisfactory accuracy.
Neverthless, in the most of the works
mentioned here and in the previous section, even
if it was recognized the element size influence
and a proper sensitivity analysis was performed
to select the pile element height able to guarantee
the solution accuracy, no general suggestions
have been provided.
For example, in the BEM method proposed by
Tabesh and Poulos (2001) the analyses refer to a
pile with a slenderness ratio (L/D) equal to 20
with a diameter D ranging between 0.3 and 1.5 m,
and the element size was kept constant to 0.75 m
in order to compare their results with those
obtained by Kavvedas and Gazetas (1993).
In the work of Liang et al. (2013) the pile
slenderness ratio was again equal to 20 and it was
considered adequate to use 21 pile segments to
attain a good accuracy, however it wasn’t
properly demonstrated the goodness of this
choice, while Kampitsis et al. (2013) performed
the analyses with their hybrid BDWF-BEM
model discretizing the column pile with beam
elements of 1 m length.
SG02-37
2 BEM-BASED METHOD FOR THE
KINEMATIC ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE
2.1 Model assumptions
The method (computer code: KIN SP, Stacul
et al., 2017) for the single pile kinematic analysis
described here is based on the approach proposed
by Tabesh and Poulos (2001) and the problem is
solved using the boundary element method
(BEM). The kinematic analysis is preceded by a
seismic ground response analysis performed in
the time domain with the computer code ONDA
(Lo Presti et al., 2006), which provides the soil
relative displacements and relative velocities at
the center of each pile block at each time step.
The model assumptions are:
1. the soil deposit has a linear elastic
behaviour (the soil non-linear behaviour is
taken into account in the seismic ground
response analysis performed with
ONDA);
2. the soil elastic moduli are equivalent
moduli corresponding to the secant
moduli at shear strains equal to the 65%
of the maximum shear strains obtained in
the free-field response analysis;
3. the stresses developed between the pile
and the soil act normal to the pile axis;
4. each pile-block is subject to a uniform
horizontal stress;
5. the pile is modelled as a thin strip using
the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and is
discretized in n blocks. The number n is a
user-defined value;
6. the soil displacement induced by a
uniform pressure acting over a pile-block
is computed integrating the Mindlin
equation (Mindlin, 1936).
7. the global equilibrium and the pile-soil
displacements compatibility are imposed.
2.2 The program KIN SP
It is assumed a linear elastic behaviour for the
pile. This assumption results in neglecting the
actual behaviour of reinforced concrete pile
section as the development of cracks, the tension
stiffening effect and the post-yielding or
“inelastic” phase. As observed in Morelli et al.
(2017) the influence of tension stiffening
becomes higher for r.c. piles with diameters lower
than 60 cm and reinforcement ratio lower than
1%. In order to introduce a more advanced
constitutive model for r.c. piles with cyclic
degradation for dynamic analyses the model
proposed by Andreotti and Lai (2017) may be
introduced.
The pile flexibility matrix (H) is obtained
using the elastic beam theory, and each
coefficient of this matrix can be computed using
the expressions (5a-5b) (see Fig.2).
z i3 zi2 ( z j  z i )
hij   if zi  zj
3E p I p 2E p I p
z 3j z 2j ( z i  z j )
hij   if zi > zj
3E p I p 2E p I p
Figure 2. Pile flexibility matrix using the auxiliary restraint
method.
In this way, the incremental horizontal
displacements {y} of the pile-blocks can be
obtained with the expression (6).
{y}   H {Pp }  y 0   0 {z}
Where {Pp} is a column vector, containing
the incremental loads acting at each pile-block,
and equal to {p}(tD) , where {p} is the column
vector of the incremental uniform pressures
acting over each pile-block, t is the height of each
pile-block and D is the pile diameter or the pile
width; y0 and 0 are the unknown incremental
displacement and rotation at the pile-head; {z} is
the column vector containing the depth of the
center of each pile-block.
The soil flexibility matrix (B) is obtained using
the Mindlin solution and each coefficient of this
matrix can be calculated using the expression (7)
(see Fig. 3).
(1   )  3  4 1 2cz 4(1   )(1  2 ) 
bij  
8E s (1   )  R1ij
 
R2ij R23ij

R2ij  z  c 
 incremental displacements ({y}={s}) the
The incremental horizontal displacements {s}
of the soil can be obtained with the expression
(8).
{s}  B{Ps }  {x} (8)
(5a)
(5b)
Figure 3. Mindlin solution scheme.
Where {Ps} is a column vector, containing
the incremental loads acting at each pile-soil
interface, and equal to {ps}(tD), where {ps} is
the column vector of the incremental uniform
pressures acting over each pile-soil interface, t is
the height of each pile-block and D is the pile
diameter or the pile width; {x} is the column
vector of the incremental soil displacements
obtained in the ground response analysis using
ONDA.
The relationship between {Pp} and {Ps} is
expressed by the equation (9).
{Pp }  {Ps }  M k {y}  C k [{y}  {x}] (9)
Where Mk is the diagonal mass matrix of the
(6) pile; Ck is the diagonal damping matrix; {y} and
{y} are the column vector of the incremental
accelerations and of the incremental velocities at
the pile interface, respectively; {x} is the
column vector of the incremental soil velocities
obtained in the free-field analysis with ONDA.
The elements of the damping matrix are
computed using the expression 5sVsDt as
proposed by Kaynia (1988) for radiation damping
in his Winkler method, in which s is the soil
mass density, Vs is the soil shear-wave velocity,
and D is the pile diameter. The adoption of these
coefficients is justified by the fact that they are
rather conservative and are also frequency
independent (Tabesh and Poulos, 2001).
Combining equation (9) with equation (6) and
(7) imposing the compatibility between pile and soil
expression (10) is obtained:
 H [{Ps }  M {y}  C ({y}  {x})]  y 0 
SG02-38
 0 {z}  B{Ps }  {x} (10) accelerometric archive. The results obtained with
KIN SP were realized considering a number of
This system is solved using the Newmark- boundary elements equal to 100, on the basis of
method. In this way, the incremental acceleration the parametric study presented in the section 4.
and the incremental velocity are defined by the
expressions (11) and (12). 3.2 Reference soil deposit and pile properties
4 4 The validation of the computer code KIN SP
{y}  {y}  { y}  2{ y} (11)
t 2
t has been realized on a simplified two-layered soil
profile, having a total thickness of 30 m and
2 overlying a bedrock with a shear wave velocity
{y}  {y}  2{ y} (12) equal to 1200 m/s and a unit weight of 22 kN/m3.
t
The shear wave velocities of the upper and lower
Where {y} and {y} are the column vector of soil layers were kept equal to 100 m/s and 400
the velocity and of the acceleration at the end of m/s, respectively, while the soil unit weight, the
the previous time step, respectively, and t is the
Poisson’s ratio and the thickness for both the
time step. It’s then possible to substitute {y}
and {y} in the equation (10) with the layers were considered equal to 19 kN/m3, =0.4
expressions (11) and (12), and as final and h = 15 m (corresponding to a subsoil type D
substitution: {y}={s}=B{Ps}+{x}. The according to EN-1998-1 (2005)).
compatibility equations are finally written in this The pile had the following properties: diameter
form: D = 0.60m, length L = 20 m, elastic modulus Ep =
30 GPa. The pile head has been considered fixed
 4 2 
 B  H  t 2 HMB  t HCB  y 0   0 {z}{Ps } against the rotation. In Fig. 4 is summarized the
  reference model adopted.
 4 2 
   2 HM  HC  1{x}  HC{x} 
  t  t 

4  (13)
 t HM  2 HC { y}  2 HM { y}

The system (13) is expressed as function of

n+2 unknowns: the n incremental loads acting at
each pile-soil interface and the unknown
incremental displacement and rotation at the pile-
head y0 and 0. The system (13) is defined by
n equations, the other 2 equations required are the
global translational and rotational equilibrium
equations. The system is solved at each time step
and the results are plotted in terms of the
envelope of the maximum bending moments
along the pile shaft.
Figure 4. Reference model used for the KIN SP validation.
3 VALIDATION OF KIN SP
3.3 Analysis results
3.1 Introduction
A preliminary ground response analysis was
The validation has been realized comparing
performed using the computer code ONDA.
the kinematic analysis results, in terms of bending
The acceleration time histories used in this
moments envelope, obtained using KIN SP with
work (identified by the codes: A-TMZ000, A-
those computed by Aversa et al. (2009) using the
STU270, E-NCB090) have been selected from
finite element code VERSAT-P3D (Wu, 2006).
the database ITACA (Luzi et al., 2016), the
Both the simulations were performed considering
motions have been scaled to values of ar equal to
a simplified soil deposit described in the
0.35g (Fig.5, Fig.6 and Fig. 7) and have been
following section, using the same acceleration
applied to the base of the soil deposit model.
time histories selected on the italian

SG02-39
Figure 5. Acceleration time history – A-TMZ000 (scaled at
0.35 g)
Figure 6. Acceleration time history – A-STU270 (scaled at
0.35 g)
Figure 7. Acceleration time history – E-NCB090 (scaled at
0.35 g)
The free-field response was computed in time
domain considering linear elastic conditions and a
soil damping s equal to 10%.
The analysis with KIN SP was performed
using as input data the free-field relative
displacements and velocities computed with
ONDA.
SG02-40
Figure 8. Comparison between KIN SP and VERSAT-P3D
results (input motion: A-TMZ000)
Figure 9. Comparison between KIN SP and VERSAT-P3D
results (input motion: A-STU270)
Figure 10. Comparison between KIN SP and VERSAT-
P3D results (input motion: E-NCB090)
The analysis results have been compared, in
terms of bending envelope, with those obtained
by Aversa et al. (2009) using the quasi-3D finite
element computer program VERSAT-P3D. It can
be observed (Fig. 8, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10) a good
agreement between the results computed using
these two different methods.
4 INFLUENCE OF THE PILE In Fig. 11, as example, are reported the results
DISCRETIZATION IN BEM-BASED obtained with KIN SP in terms of maximum
KINEMATIC ANALYSIS bending moments at the pile-head and at the
interface between the two-layered soil for a pile
diameter equal to 0.60 m and a stiffness contrast
As introduced in section 1.3 the analysis Vs1/Vs2 equal to 1/4 using the input motion A-
results of BEM based approaches (like KIN SP), TMZ000.
in terms of bending moments at the pile-head and
at the interface of a two-layered soil, are
influenced by many factors including the
discretization of the problem domain. Here are
presented some results of a parametric study
having the aim to suggest the minimum number
of boundary elements to guarantee the accuracy
of a BEM solution, for typical pile-soil relative
stiffness values as a function of the pile diameter,
the location of the interface of a two-layered soil
profile and of the stiffness contrast.
The parametric study has been realized on a
simplified two-layered soil profile, having a total
thickness of 30 m and overlying a bedrock with a
shear wave velocity equal to 1200 m/s and a unit
weight of 22 kN/m3. The soil unit weight and the
Poisson’s ratio for both the layers were
considered equal to 19 kN/m3 and =0.4,
respectively, while the shear wave velocities and
the layers thickness are summarized in Table 1.
The pile had the following properties: length L Figure 11. Computed maximum kinematic bending
= 20 m, elastic modulus Ep = 25 GPa. The pile moments as a function of the boundary elements number.
head was fixed, and two pile diameter values
were used (D1 = 0.6 m and D2 = 1.0 m). It has been noted that these plots are fitted by
hyperbolic curves. This statement can be
Table 1. Subsoil conditions adopted in the parametric study. confirmed looking at Fig. 12, where the same
Vs1 Vs2 h1 h2 data are plotted using along the x-axis the number
[m/s] [m/s] [m] [m] of boundary elements (n) and along the y-axis the
100 200 5 25 ratio between n and the computed moment (M).
100 200 10 20 This fact permits to evaluate, for each analysis
100 200 15 15
case, the coefficients a and b of the hyperbolic
100 400 5 25
100 400 10 20 law rewritten in the following terms (14).
100 400 15 15 n
 a  bn (14)
M
All the kinematic analyses were preceded by a
ground response analysis using the computer The value assumed by 1/b represents a limit
code ONDA. value of the maximum bending moment (Mlim)
The acceleration time histories in Fig. 5, Fig.6 related with a specific analysis case (see Fig. 11)
and Fig.7 have been applied to the base of the soil for a number of boundary elements that tends to
deposit model. The free-field response was infinity.
computed in time domain considering linear
elastic conditions and a soil damping s equal to
10%.
Each analysis has been repeated, using KIN
SP, considering the following number of
boundary elements: 12, 20, 40, 60, 100, 200.

SG02-41
 Figure 13. Error vs n° of elements, D=0.6m, Vs1/Vs2 = 1/2
Figure 12. Relationship between n/M and n for the data
presented in Fig.11.

The Mlim hasn’t been considered as an exact

solution but rather as a limit value for the
maximum bending moment.
Finally, the expression (15) was adopted in
order to provide an estimate of the analysis result
errors due to the discretization.
M lim  M computed
Err (%)  100 (15)
M lim
In Fig.13, Fig. 14, Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 are Figure 14. Error vs n° of elements, D=0.6m, Vs1/Vs2 = 1/4
plotted some results of the parametric study,
representing the error (defined in the expression
15) in the estimation of the bending moments at
the pile-head and at the interface of the two-
layered soil using the input motion A-TMZ000.
Observing the parametric analysis results the
following remarks can be drawn:

1. for a given number of boundary elements

the analysis error decrease increasing the
pile diameter;
2. the error is bigger for higher stiffness
contrast;
Figure 15. Error vs n° of elements, D=1.0m, Vs1/Vs2 = 1/2
3. the error in the evaluation of the
maximum bending moments is lower
when the interface between the two layers
is located at higher depth;
4. in general for typical pile diameters and
pile-soil relative stiffness a boundary
element size lower than 0.33D m can
guarantee an error less than 5-10% in the
evaluation of the maximum bending
moments at the pile-head and at the
interface of a two-layered soil.

Figure 16. Error vs n° of elements, D=1.0m, Vs1/Vs2 = 1/4

SG02-42
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this work it was presented a BEM-based
computer code (called KIN SP) able to analyse
the single pile kinematic problem. The proposed
method was validated comparing the results with
those obtained using a quasi-3D finite element
code.
The attention was then focused on the
influence of discretization on BEM analysis
results, in terms of bending moments at the pile-
head and at the interface of a two-layered soil.
A parametric study was carried out, using the
developed code, KIN SP, with the aim to suggest
the minimum number of boundary elements to
guarantee the accuracy of a kinematic analysis
using BEM methods.
The parametric analyses suggest that for
typical pile diameters and pile-soil relative
stiffness a boundary element size lower than
0.33D can guarantee a reasonable error in the
evaluation of the maximum bending moments.
On the basis of the parametric study shown here,
it can be outlined that the results obtained using
BEM methods and presented on previously
developed works can be affected by an
underestimation of the maximum bending
moments at the pile-head and at the interface of a
two-layered soil ranging between the 20 and 50%
if the typical discretization with 21 elements was
considered.
REFERENCES
Andreotti, G., and Lai, C. G. 2017. A nonlinear constitutive
model for beam elements with cyclic degradation and
damage assessment for advanced dynamic analyses of
geotechnical problems. Part I: theoretical formulation.
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-17.
Aversa, S., de Sanctis, L. and Maiorano, R.M.S., 2009.
Approccio semplificato per la valutazione dei momenti
di interazione cinematica nei pali di fondazione sotto
azioni sismiche. XIII Convegno ANIDIS, Bologna. (in
italian)
Bentley, K. J., El Naggar, M. H., 2000. Numerical analysis
of kinematic response of single piles. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 37(6), 1368-1382.
Castelli, F., Maugeri, M., 2009. Simplified approach for the
seismic response of a pile foundation. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
135(10), 1440-1451.
Dezi, F., Carbonari, S., and Leoni, G., 2010. Kinematic
bending moments in pile foundations. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 30(3), 119-132.
De Sanctis, L., Maiorano, R., and Aversa, S., 2010. A
method for assessing kinematic bending moments at the
pile head. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 39(10), 1133-1154.
SG02-43
Di Laora, R., Mylonakis, G., and Mandolini, A., 2013.
Pile‐head kinematic bending in layered soil. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 42(3), 319-337.
Di Laora, R., Rovithis, E., 2014. Kinematic bending of
fixed-head piles in nonhomogeneous soil. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
141(4), 04014126.
Dobry, R., O'Rourke, M. J., 1983. Discussion of “Seismic
Response Of End-bearing Piles” by Raul Flores-
Berrones and Robert V. Whitman (April, 1982). Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 109(5), 778-781.
EN-1998-1, 2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance-Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings.
Kampitsis, A. E., Sapountzakis, E. J., Giannakos, S. K., and
Gerolymos, N. A., 2013. Seismic soil–pile–structure
kinematic and inertial interaction—A new beam
approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
55, 211-224.
Kavvadas, M., Gazetas, G., 1993. Kinematic seismic
response and bending of free-head piles in layered soil.
Geotechnique, 43(2), 207-222.
Kaynia, A. M., 1988. Dynamic interaction of single piles
under lateral and seismic loads. Esteghlal J. Engrg., 6,
5–26 (in Persian).
Liang, F., Chen, H., and Guo, W. D., 2013. Simplified
boundary element method for kinematic response of
single piles in two-layer soil. Journal of Applied
Mathematics, 2013. Article ID 241482, 12 pages.
Lo Presti D.C.F., Lai C. and Puci I., 2006. ONDA:
Computer Code for Nonlinear Seismic Response
Analyses of Soil Deposits, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132(2), 223-236.
Luzi L, Pacor F, Puglia R (2016). Italian Accelerometric
Archive v 2.1. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile
Nazionale. doi: 10.13127/ITACA/2.1.
Maiorano, R. M. S., Aversa, S., and Wu, G., 2007. Effects
of soil non-linearity on bending moments in piles due to
seismic kinematic interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece (pp. 25-28).
Maiorano, R. M. S., de Sanctis, L., Aversa, S., and
Mandolini, A., 2009. Kinematic response analysis of
piled foundations under seismic excitation. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 46(5), 571-584.
Mindlin, R. D., 1936. Force at a point in the interior of a
semi‐infinite solid. Physics, 7(5), 195-202.
Morelli, F., Amico, C., Salvatore, W., Squeglia, N., Stacul,
S. 2017. Influence of Tension Stiffening on the Flexural
Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Circular Sections.
Materials 10(6):669. doi:10.3390/ma10060669
Mylonakis, G., 2001. Simplified model for seismic pile
bending at soil layer interfaces. Soils and Foundations,
41(4), 47-58.
Nikolaou S., Mylonakis G., Gazetas G., Tazoh T., 2001.
Kinematic pile bending during earthquakes: analysis
and fields measurements. Géotechnique, 51(5), 425-
440.
Randolph M.F., 1981. The response of flexible piles to
lateral loading. Géotechnique, 31, 247-259.
Sica, S., Mylonakis, G., and Simonelli, A. L., 2011.
Transient kinematic pile bending in two-layer soil. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31(7), 891-905.
Stacul, S., Lo Presti, D., Squeglia, N., 2017. KIN SP
(KINematic interaction analysis of Single Pile): KIN SP
 1.0 User’s Manual Version 1.0. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.15632.61444
Tabesh, A., and Poulos H., 2001. Pseudostatic approach for
seismic analysis of single piles. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(9), 757-765.
Wu, G., 2006. VERSA T-P3D: Quasi-3D dynamic finite
element analysis of single piles and pile groups. Version
2006. 2000-2006 Wutec Geotechnical International
Canada, 2006.
Wu, G., Finn, W. L., 1997a. Dynamic elastic analysis of
pile foundations using finite element method in the
frequency domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
34(1), 34-43.
Wu, G., Finn, W. L., 1997b. Dynamic nonlinear analysis of
pile foundations using finite element method in the time
domain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 34(1), 44-52.

SG02-44