1

PILE-FOUNDATION RESPONSE VERIFICATIONS AFTER PUBLISHING

THE INDONESIAN NEW SEISMIC CODE SNI 03-1736, 2010
CASE STUDY OF 19-STORY BUILDING AT YOGYAKARTA*)

Widodo Pawirodikromo1), Luthfi Hasan2)

1)
Professor and 2) Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Indonesia, Yoyakarta

ABSTRACT : Verification of pile foundation responses of 19-story building after publishing the Indonesian New Seismic Code
SNI 03-1726, 2010 has been carried out. The pile foundation responses were computed according to sub grade reaction
approach. The soil data were taken from SPT, further assumptions, conversions as well as data composition from
several resources are still needed, especially in determining coefficient of horizontal sub grade reaction of soil (n h).
The 2010 Code causes base shear is 15.26 % higher than those based on SNI 03-1726, 2002 and gives linear effects
to the maximum pile foundation responses. Different to Sugita and Tanimoto (2005), assuming pin head pile cap, it
reduces 16,99 % pile flexural moment but respectively 163.07 % and 53.67 % increase in pile cap horizontal
displacement and soil reaction. Negative pile moment governs for fixed head and positive moment for free head.
Verification also indicated that the pile is definitely safe against both flexural moment and shear action.

Keywords : pile foundation, Seismic Code, coefficient horizontal of sub grade reaction, response spectrum, base
shear, pile-foundation responses, fixity factor, pile resisting capacity

INTRODUCTION by Sugita and Tanimoto (2006) more emphasized on the

Currently, the construction of multi story buildings
at Yogyakarta is growing rapidly including con-
struction of the 19-story building under considerati-
on. Each column is supported by group of  27.5 m
bore piles. The building has been proposed since
several years ago, therefore, the building was
designed based on the SNI 03-1726, 2002. Knowing
that the new seismic Code is under preparation and
the earthquake intensity at Yogyakarta will apparent-
ly increase, the designer used Response Spectrum
one level higher than it should be. Now the new
seismic Code SNI 03-1726, 2010 already published
and served. Presently the building is still under
construction hence curiosity to the pile responses
according to the New Code is essential and has been
carried out through this verification.
Mokwa (1999) conducted intensively research on
the laterally loaded pile and pile groups and indicated
that the pile group fixity factor falls in between free
and fixed head. Researched by Juirnarongrit and
Ashforh (2001) indicated that the pile diameter only
has insignificant effect on the sub-grade reaction of
soil. Analytical and experimental research carried out
effect of hinge pile-cap connection to the pile response.
Field test conducted by Chin at al.(2009) indicated that
the sub-grade reaction of soil in soft ground confirm
with Davidson’s formula. Result of Rollins and
Stenlund (2010) researched indicated that the longer pile
embedded in the pile cap the higher the fixity factor and
the smaller pile horizontal displacement will be.
Pile foundation response verification has been done
and the results are presented in this paper. Verification
started from the change of the seismic base shear
according to the New Code. The pile-foundation
responses were computed according to Sub grade
Reaction Approach (Prakash, 1981; Prakash & Sharma,
1990 and Murthy, 2007). The properties of the soil were
taken from the Standard Penetration Test. However,
assumptions, conversions as well as data compilation
from several resources are still needed, especially in
determining coefficient of horizontal sub grade reaction
of soil (nh). The pile cap fixity factor according to Japan
Seismic Design of Building Foundations (2002) was
used. The fixity factor r = 1, r = 0,5 and r = 0 were
utilized to simulate the possibility maximum pile respon-
ses. The main verification was end up in checking the
flexural moment status of the pile foundation.

*)
Presented at International Conference Pile2013 : State of the Art, Parahyangan Catholic University June 4, 2013

MODELING OF LATERALLY LOADED
SINGLE PILE
Laterally loaded piles could be happened on
several cases, for instance because of swelling and
movement of the soil mass, excessive dewatering,
vibrations of pile driven or vibrations of soil mass
under earthquake occurrence. The laterally loaded
piles may also occur because of the occurrence of
inertia force acting at structural mass. Since the piles
are connected to the structural mass, as consequently
the horizontal force transmitted to the pile cap
connection could not be avoided and causes pile-cap
horizontal displacement. The horizontal displacement
of the pile cap accordingly causes a soil-pile interact-
tion in the form of pile response. The soil-pile
interaction is merely take place by the fact that the
soil and pile are considerably elastic materials.
Laterally loaded pile in the soil medium for
instance is presented in Fig.1). The actual soil in the
Qg Mg
Qg
No soil pile- EpIp
cap contact
a)
b)
Figure 1. Winkler modeling of laterally loaded single pile.
Estimation of the soil pile responses can be
carried out by using several approaches and methods.
Under serviceability limit states, a liner elastic
approach of soil-pile response can be used. However,
increasing the loading intensity forward to ultimate
limit states, a non-linier inelastic approach is strongly
recommended. Meanwhile the analytical methods
that commonly used for estimating the soil-pile
response are : 1) Winkler method; 2) p-y method; 3)
elasticity theory method or 4) finite element method.
Linier elastic approach by using Winkler method is
the most widely method used for estima-ting or
2
site may consist of several layers with different soil
types and properties. In the soil-pile response analysis,
however, it is common to transfer layered soils become
homogenously soil media such as presented in Fig.1.b).
Under the horizontal external loads Qg, the pile may
deform and compress to surrounding soil. On the other
hand, there will be reaction of the soil which is depends
on the deformation shape of the pile. When the external
applied load Qg is still relatively small the soil response
may be still in the elastic range. The soil response then
can be mechanically modeled by a series of infinitely
closely spaced elastic springs such as illustrated in
Fig.1.c). This soil mechanical model is commonly
termed as Winkler model and causes deformation of pile
and soil reaction as presented in Fig.1.d). The
deformation of the pile due to external horizontal load Qg
then finally causes a series of soil-pile response. Those
series of soil-pile response commonly are pile horizontal
deflection, pile’s slope, pile flexural moment, pile shear
force and soil horizontal reaction.
Mg Qg Mg
y
p p
kx
nh
nh A
p
p
e) p
px
k y
c) d) yx
analyzing the response of laterally loaded piles
(Joirnarongrit and Ashford , 2005).
In some regulations, a column should be supported
at least by 2-piles. Therefore the case of single pile
supports an important structure is not preferable,
accordingly, the most common structure will be
supported by pile groups. It has been stated by
researchers that the behaviors of the laterally loaded
especially for closely spaced piles are significantly
different than a single isolated pile. The differences are
addressed to rocking stiffness generated by pile arrange-
ment, generated by pile cap also interference effects
between closely spaced of piles (Mokwa, 2004).
 3

MODULUS AND COEFFICIENT OF HORI- Where nh is widely termed as coefficient or constant of

ZONTAL SUB GRADE REACTION horizontal sub-grade reaction of soil.
Coefficient of horizontal sub grade reaction nh is
It can be understood easily that the deflection of defined as ratio between a horizontal pressure per unit
the pile under external horizontal load causes soil area of pile’s vertical side surface and the corresponding
compression stress at one side of the pile. Stress at lateral displacement (Gudmundsdottir, 1981). In further,
one side of the pile not only caused by the the constant of horizontal sub-grade reaction is widely
compressed soil but also initiated by the horizontal used in practical application of analyzing soil-pile
static force of the soil at rest condition. Stress of the foundation response even though still have some limi-
soil due to horizontal pile deflection can be presented tations. The values of constant of horizontal sub-grade
by force per unit area of FL-2. However, in many reaction mostly are determined by empirical value. For
presentations, the stress is presented in unit-width of medium dense sands, among of those values that are
pile and accordingly the unit stress will be FL -1. collected from several sources are presented in Table 1.
Meanwhile, the force generated by pile deflection
and the corresponding soil reaction can be represen- Table 1. Coeff. of horizontal sub-grade reaction
ted by a free body diagram as illustrated in Fig.1.e). No. Coeff. of horizontal Source
When the soil is still in elastic range, this mechanism sub grade reaction
will cause a horizontal displacement of y. Stiffness 1 0.1. s .VTezcan
s
& Ozdemir,
of the soil k, accordingly can be represented by the nh  40. 2011
ratio between force/stress p, and its corresponding SF
displacement y or, 2 nh = 4.4 mN/m3 Anonim, 2006
p ( kg / cm) 3  Chin et al., 2009
k  n h  14. s t / cf
y (cm) 1.35
(1) 4 nh = 60 lb/in3 Reese, 1974
In many literatures stiffness k is also termed as the 5 nh = 4400 kN/m3 Canadian Found.Man.
modulus of the sub-grade reaction of soil. Such as 6 nh = 5200 kN/m3 Phanikanth et el., 2010
illustrated in Fig. 1.e) the elastic stiffness is common 7 nh = 4 MN/m3 Elson, 1983
to be mechanically modeled by using spring with a 8 nh = 5150 kN/m3 Rao, 2011
particular value of spring constant. The value of 9 nh = 4500 kN/m3 Edmon et al.,1980
spring constant within the soil depth is affected by 10 nh = 5000 kN/m3 Song et al., 2004
types of the soil. If kh is stiffness of the soil at pile-
tip with depth h and length of embedded pile is L p DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION OF LATERALLY
then the stiffness of the soil at depth x, k x will be AND AXIALLY LOADED SINGLE PILE
(Prakash, 1981; Chin et al., 2009, Phanikanth et al.,
2010), Horizontal soil reaction in vertically piled is carry on
n
 x  along the pile depth, unless there is liquefied soil at
k x  kh  
particular soil depth. Accordingly, for analytical purpose
 Lp 
  the vertically loaded pile can be modeled such as a
(2) simple horizontal beam-column with equally distributed
Researchers stated that n = 1 is the most appropriate load such as depicted in Fig.2.a). Such as shown in the
value for cohessionless soil, and accordingly Eq.2) figure, the y-axis represents the horizontal deflection of
leads to, the pile, whiles the x-axis represents the depth of the
kh soil. Under the distributed load p(x) and axial load N, the
kx  .x  n h . x
Lp pile will bent and undergoes shear V and flexural
moment M. By taking a piece of pile length dx, then the
(3) free body diagram is illustrated in Fig.2.b).
p(x) p
N N
V M+dM
B o
A N M N
y dx elastic line dy/dx
a) b) V+dV
dx
Figure 2. Beam-column with distributed load and free body diagram
 4

By considering the equilibrium of forces at-y direc- The differential equation such as presented in Eq.9)
tion then will be found, represents the mathematical expression of vertical pile
dV under horizontal soil response and ignoring the effects of
 Fy  0 , p  
dx vertical axial load. This soil-pile response is subjected to
a horizontal external load Qg applied at the pile cap
(4)
connection point such as shown in Fig.3a). It should be
Where p is soil horizontal reaction, V is shear force.
noted that the pile cap is not definitely contact to the
Taking sum of moment with respect to “o” point,
soil. Mokwa (1999) presen-ted the list of research results
after rearranging and taking assumptions then the
and indicated that the contact of pile cap to the soil could
following relationship is generated,
resisted lateral resistance about 50 % of the total lateral
load resistance of pile group (including pile cap). Since
 Mo  0,  dM  Vdx  dv.dx  Ndy  the lateral load resistance of the pile cap with respect to
1 dM dy the soil sometimes is not clear, therefore, it is common
p.dx 2  0, V N the pile cap is modeled not contact to the soil, such as
2 dx dx
depicted in Fig.1.a). It means that by applying this model
(5) the pile response results will be very conservative.
In the solution of the soil-pile response, several
In which M and N respectively are flexural moment aspects need should be considered : 1) types of soil
and pile axial load. In the curvature discussion of a either cohesive or cohesionless soils; 2) connection
simple beam there is relationship, system either free head (pin), fixed head (fully
d2y restrained) or partially restrained pile to pile-cap
EI  M
dx 2 connection; 3) pile slenderness either short or long pile;
6) 4) level of response either elastic or ultimate response.
By differentiating and substituting these equations, Fig.3.a) shows a fixed head single pile subjected to an
then the differential equation of beam with external horizontal load Qg and is assumed to be installed
distributed and axial load will be, in the homogeneously soil medium. By ignoring the
effects of the axial load, the deferential equation of the
d4y d2y pile response is presented in Eq.9). As mentioned earlier
EI  N p  0
dx 4 dx 2 that Eq.9) is not very easy to solve, since this equation is
(7) typically analytically unsolved of differential equation.
In case of cohesionless soils, it is common to assume Murthy (2007) stated that closed form and finite
that the soil reaction p is linearly increase with soil difference solutions can be made but by assuming that
depth, therefore p = (nh.x).y. Accordingly, Eq.7) leads the coefficient horizontal of sub-grade reaction is
to, constant with soil depth. If the mathematical solution is
difficult, the only best solution is by using numerical
approach. Solution of differential equation of Eq.9) has
d4y d2y been introduced by Reese and Matlock (1956) and have
EI N  (n h .x).y  0
dx 4 dx 2 been presented in elsewhere.
(8) Prakash (1981), Prakash and Sharma (1990), Murthy
Where nh is coefficient of horizontal sub-grade (2002), Murthy (2007) have briefly elaborated the non
reaction of soil and x is depth of soil/point under dimensional solution of differential equation that
consideration. originated introduced by Reese and Matlock (1956).
Most of researchers stated that the analytical solution The first step is to identify all aspects that affects to the
of the differential equation stated in Eq. 8) is not pile displacement at any point y(x) which is expressed in
easily or even not available. To simplify the solution, the form,
it is common to ignored the effect of axial load N,
and accordingly Eq.8) leads to, y(x)  f(x,T,L p ,k x ,E p I p ,Q g ,M g )
d4y (10)
EI  (n h .x).y  0
dx 4
(9) In which T is relative stiffness factor i.e ratio between
pile and soil stiffness, Lp is pile length, kx is modulus of
SOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL sub-grade reaction, Ep and Ip respectively are elastic
EQUATION modulus and moment inertia of pile, Q g and Mg
respectively are horizontal and flexural moment.
 5

It is convenience to decompose total displacement

of pile y by two part i.e yA is the displacement cased y  y A  yB
by lateral force Qg and yB is displacement caused by (11)
moment Mg such as shown in Fig.3.c) and Fig.3.d),
therefore pile cap horizontal displacement y will be,

Mg
Qg y Qg S=dy/dx M =EI d2y/dx2 V = EI d3y/dx3 p = EI d4y/dx4
Mg

y(x) yA yB
x

Lp

EI

a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

Figure 3. A complete solution of laterally loaded pile

Eq.11) can also be presented in the form of,

yA Lp
 f A ( x, T , L p , k s , E p , I p )  Z max maximum depth coefficeinet
Qg T
(12) 17)
yB
 f B ( x, T , L p , k s , E p , I p )
Mg k s .T 4
  ( z ) soil modulus functions
(13) E p .I p
There two functions and six-dimensionless aspects 18)
involved in each function i.e force and length.
Accordingly, can be constructed 4-non dimensional
groups that can be formed in each case, y A. E p .I p
 A y defelction coeff. fo rcase A
Case A : Q g .T3
y A .E p .I p 4
x L p k s .T 19)
3
, , ,
Q g .T T T EI
y B . E p .I p
(14)  B y defelction coeff. for case B
Case B ; M g .T3
y B .E p .I p 4
x L p k s .T 20)
3
, , ,
M g .T T T EI
15) From Eq.19) and Eq.20) can be arranged,
In which, Q g .T 3 M g .T 2
x y x  y A  y B  Ay  By
 Z , depth coefficient E p .I p E p .I p
T
16) 21)

With similar way the following solution for slope,
moment and shear can be written,
Q g .T 2 M g .T
S x  S A  S B  As  Bs
E p .I p E p .I p
22)
M x  M A  M B  Am .Q g .T  B m .M g
23)
Mg
V x  V A  M B  Av .Q g  Bv
T Q g .T 3
24)
A numerical procedure to determine the values of A y,
By, As, Bs, Am, Bm, Av and Bv has been described briefly
by Murthy (2007) and by considering the fixed-head
GROUP EFFECTS AND DEGREE OF FIXITY
OF THE PILE TO PILE-CAP CONNECTION
It has been widely known that the behavior of a
single isolated pile is significantly differs with the
behavior of the closely spaced piles in pile group.
The concept of group efficiency is usually employed.
The group of pile effects not only relate to the
bearing capacity of pile group but also affect to the
coefficient of horizontal sub-grade reaction nh of soil
(Prakash and Sharma, 1990; Anonim, 2006). The
reduction factor for nh as well as for pile group
bearing capacity is directly function of pile spacing.
The degree of fixity of the pile to pile cap
connection may lead to absolutely pinned or
absolutely fixed. Absolute fixed pile to pile cap
connection means that the rocking stiffness of the
soil-pile and pile cap connection will be infinity. This
condition leads to the degree of fixity r is equal to 1
and pile to pile cap connection is absolutely
restrained against rocking mode. The absolutely fixed
head pile consequences to its boundary condition i.e
the pile slope at the fixed point will be equal to zero.
The degree of fixity of this connection is affected by
several parameters. Among of the those parameters
respectively are level of coefficient horizontal sub
grade reaction nh, pile stiffness, pile numbers,
geometry arrangement and spacing of pile, pile-to
pile cap connection, size of pile cap and pile cap
embedment. In general soil can not be categorized as
a rigid material since it has flexibility. Therefore it is
almost impossible to construct the pile foundation in
such way possesses rocking stiffness is equal to
infinity
In other side, by assuming absolutely pined of
the pile to pile cap connection is also not realistic. In
this case the degree of fixity r will be equal to zero
and pile to pile connection is absolutely free to rotate.
This is because, even though pile to pile connection
6
boundary condition, those values have been tabulated
and introduced by Reese and Matlock (1956) as
function of depth coefficient Z. When absolutely
fixed-head is considered, then the pile slope Sz will be
equal to zero. This state becomes a boundary condition
of fixed-head foundation at depth coefficient Z = 0.. By
considering SZ = 0 then ratio of A s and Bs at depth
coefficient Z = 0 can be found. If r is pile cap fixity
factor, then the horizontal pile cap displacement can be
computed by,

y  A y  0.93. r .B y E p .I p
25)
The pile slope, the flexural moment, the shear force
and the soil reaction can be computed with similar way.
can be constructed as a pin connection but the pile cap
that buried in the soil still have rocking stiffness.
Therefore the real degree of fixity of the foundation will
be lied between r = 0 – 1. Anonim (2002) discussed the
fixity ratio of the pile to pile-cap connection that can be
estimated by,
n h .D
4
4EpI p 26)
r  2 Mo
Qg
Where nh is the coefficient of horizontal sub grade
reaction of soil, D is diameter of pile, E p is elastic
modulus of pile material, Ip is moment inertia of pile, Mo
is flexural moment acting on the pile head and Q g is the
external horizontal force acting at the pile head. The
value of fixity ratio ones is highly dependent on the
embedment length of the confined pile reinforcement in
the pile cap. Rollins and Stenlund (2010) stated that the
pile performance due to seismic or any type of lateral
force is highly dependent on the embedment length and
connection type. In some Codes, the embedment length
L should be greater than 2 ft or 2-3 pile diameters such
as illustrated in Fig.4.b). The connection details such as
shown in Fig.4.c) may reach a failure state due to
inadequate connection.
THE NEW INDONESIAN SEISMIC CODE 03-1726,
2010 AND PILE FOUNDATION VERIFICATION
The superseded Indonesian Seismic Code 02-1726
was officially published in 2002. One of the reason why
the 2002 Code need to updated is that the seismic map in
2002 Code was determined by compiling of several
seismic hazards map from several researchers. The
seismic hazard map accordingly becomes unrealistic and
weak in term of scientific reason. In the 2002 Seismic
Code, Indonesia was divided by 6-seismic regions,
accompanied by its response spectrum. The response

spectrums consider 3-types of soil i.e soft, medium
and hard/dense soil. Because of the development of
science and technology, data availability following
the recent several earthquakes and considering the
development of International Codes, therefore, the
2002 Indonesian seismic Code need to be developed.
In the 2010 Indonesian Seismic Code, there are
several choices in determining level of risk, not only
10 % probability of exceedence during 50 years
building life time, but considering several risk levels
i.e 2 % risk during 50 years and 10 % during 100
years. However, in the 2010 Indonesian Seismic
Code there is no seismic region classification such as
in the 2002 Code. In addition the Code does not
accompanied by Design Response Spectrum, the
spectrum should be constructed individually.
Apparently, the acceleration response spectrum at
Yogyakarta region will significantly increase,
following the 27th May 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake.
However, the structural fundamental period of
structure also significantly different. These
conditions become the main reason why the pile-
foundations of the 19-storey Building Hotel at
Yogyakarta which is now under construction needs to
be verified.
VERIFICATION METHOD
Time and Place
Verification of the soil-pile responses is carrying out
during the construction of the building under
considera-tion. The building is located at Yogyakarta
on the medium level soil type. The verification in
term of case study is carrying out, since the
earthquake activity and intensity at Yogyakarta region
is likely increase following the M = 6.2, 27 th May
2006 earthquake. Currently the New Seismic Loading
Code 03-1726, 2010 is being published, meanwhile
the building is still under Construction. The building
is constructed in the transition period.
Data Collection
a)
7
The 19-story building located at Yogyakarta is used for
case study. The group of 3-bore piles with 1 m diameter
and ± 27.5 m pile length are constructed to support of
each column. Amount of data are required mainly came
from the document of Building Structural Design,
Technical Drawing and Soil Test Data. The N SPT
distribution test result within the soil depth is presented
in Fig.4.a). The building plan, building section,
foundation design, material properties and the loading
Code are among the important required data for
verification. The concrete compressive strength f’c = 30
MPa and the reinfor-cing steel yield strength f y = 390
MPa are used. Since the building was design several
years ago, therefore, the strength demand according to
the Seismic Loading Code 03-1726, 2002 was used.
Such mentioned before, knowing that the New Seismic
Code are being prepared and the earthquake intensity of
Yogyakarta apparently will increase, then the designer
used Spectrum Response 1-level higher than it should
be.
Method of Verification
Verification was started by constructing the Response
Spectrum according to the New Seismic Code 03-1726,
2010. The obtained 2010 spectrum then to be compared
with the 2002 response spectrum i.e that has been used
by the building designer. The base shear force acting
beneath of the building according to the New and
Superseded Code then can be computed and compared.
The base shear according to an Equivalent Static Load
was used instead of the base shear based computed from
response spectrum analysis. This is because the base
shear obtained from the earlier approach is considerably
greater than the latter one.
Pile response foundation response verification was
carried out starting from comparing the pile horizontal
displacement, pile’s slope, flexural moment, shear force
and soil response according to sub-grade reaction
method such as describe earlier based on the New and
Superseded Code. In addition the effects of pile to pile-
cap fixity factor to the pile foundation responses were
also presented. The verification was end up by checking
the pile reinforcement adequacy to resist the axial and
flexural moment.
L=2ft or 2D
b) D c) D

Figure 4. Distribution of N SPT test within soil depth and pile to pile cap connection.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Design Response Spectrum and Fundamental
Period of Structure
The comparison of design response spectrum
according to the New Seismic Loading Code and its
superseded is presented in Fig.5.a). Meanwhile the
increase in spectral acceleration within period under
consideration is presented in Fig.5.b). The figure
shows that spectral acceleration according to the New
Code even 101.9 % higher than according to the Old
Code at T = 0.095 sec, 38.2 % higher in the period
between T = 0.20 – 47 sec and 9.2 % higher in the
period T > 0.60 sec. Increasing the acceleration
spectrum is suspected to affect the structural
response.
a)
8
Figure 5. Design spectrum response and increase in
spectrum response
Increase in acceleration spectrum has a tendency to
increase in the seismic strength demand. However,
seismic strength demand is still affected by the
fundamental period of structure. Comparison of the
fundamental period of structure T according to the New
Code and according to the Old Code (Paz, 1994) is
depicted in Fig.6.a). The fundamental period of
structure T according to the New Code is 12.75 % -
43.53 % higher than according to Old Code ranging for
building height 12 – 60m. Significantly increase in
period T at New Code may be caused by considering the
elastic response spectrum where at high ground
acceleration the building columns may have started to
crack.
New Code
Old Code
a)

b)
Figure 6. Fundamental period of structure and
constant horizontal of sub-grade reaction
Based on the increase in acceleration response
spectrum and fundamental period of structure such as
discussed above, it is found that the base shear V of
building under consideration according to the New
Code 2010 is 15.26 % higher than base shear
computed based on the Old Code 2002. Increasing
the base shear V in further will be used for
verification the pile foundation response. Meanwhile,
the coefficient horizontal of sub-grade reaction n h
based on several sources is presented in Fig.6.b). The
figure shows that the value of nh relatively varies
a)
e)
9
ranging from 0.373 – 0.64 kg/cm 3 with average 0.473
kg/cm3. In this verification, the value coefficient of
horizontal sub grade reaction nh = 75 lb/in3  0.467
kg/cm3 was used. This value is still relatively closed to
the average of nh = 0.473kg/cm3.
Effects of Publishing New Code to the Pile
Foundation Responses
It has been stated before that the considered pile
foundation responses in this verification respectively are
the horizontal pile cap displacement, pile’ slope, flexural
moment, shear force and soil reaction. Those pile
foundation responses are computed by developing Eq.
21) to Eq. 24) by assuming the pile cap is restrained
against rotation (fixed head) and applying the boundary
condition. The pile cap horizontal displacement, pile
slope and pile moment are presented in Fig.7.a), Fig.7.b)
and Fig.7.c). Based on
Eq.25) it was found that the fixity factor of the pile head
r = 0.628. Pile foundation responses presented at
Fig.7.a) though Fig.7.f) are computed based on the fixity
factor r = 0.625. This pile head fixity factor still
confirms with the results of pile tests as reported by
Mokwa (1999).
b) c)
f)

Figure 7. Pile foundation response, horizontal displacement, slope, moment, shear force and soil-reaction
As presented in Fig.5.b) that even though the
response spectrum according to the New Code is
extensively higher than the Old Code (especially for
short period), but the fundamental period of structure
is also increase following with. Accordingly, the
base shear according to SNI 03-1726 2010 is 15.26 %
higher than those based on SNI 03-1726, 2002.
Increase in the base shear has a meaning increase in
the external horizontal load which is acting in the pile
cap. Effects of increasing the horizontal load in the
pile cap causes increase in all pile foundation
responses such as clearly shown in Fig.7.a) through
Fig.7.f). Increasing the base shear gives linear effects
to the maximum pile responses, implies that the
maximum pile-cap horizontal displacement, slope,
flexural moment, shear force, soil-response based on
the New Code are 15.26 % higher than according to
the superseded Code.
It also shows in Fig.7.b) that the pile slope S is not
equal to zero. This is because the pile cap is not
assumed perfectly restrained against rotation or not
a)
10
modeled as a fixed head pile cap. It has been sated
before that the pile cap is modeled as partially restrained
with fixity factor r = 0.625, it means that the pile cap is
modeled between pin and fixed head. Based on this
fixity factor the maximum pile flexural moment and the
maximum shear force are take place at the pile to pile
cap connection.
Effects of Degree of Fixity to Pile Responses
The degree of pile cap fixity in pile foundation, in
general, is not easily determined. A number of variables
should be clearly/definitely included. Among of those
variables are type and quality of pile to pile connection,
size of pile cap, degree of pile embedment to pile cap,
pile cap embedment in the soil, pile distance, geometry
arrangement of piles as well as properties of pile
materials and soils.
A number of uncertainties could happen in each
variable, therefore, the exact value of pile cap fixity will
be very difficult to determine precisely. Assumptions to
b) c)
 11

d) e)

Figure 8. Effects of fixity factor to pile-foundation response

the value of pile cap fixity factor is often to be carried

out. The assumption of fixity factor r = 1, r = 0.5
and r = 0 are considered in this verification and its
a)
effect on the pile-foundation are presented in Fig. 8.a)
through Fig. 8.e). When r = 1 (fixed head) the pile
slope at pile head is equal to zero such as shown in
Fig. 8.a) and Fig. 8.b). In addition, fixed head
assumption causes maximum moment occur at the
pile cap connection as shown in Fig. 8.c). It is shown
in Fig. 8.a), Fig. 8.b) and Fig.8.e) that the higher the
pile to pile cap fixity factor, the lower the pile cap
horizontal displacement, pile slope and soil reaction
will be. This is because the higher the pile cap fixity
factor the stiffer the system and the lower the
displacement accordingly. In addition, decrease in the
pile cap fixity factor causes decrease the negative
moment at pile cap connection and increase the b)
positive moment at the soil medium. When fixity
factor decrease from r = 1 to r = 0, the negative
moment decrease from 42.3 tm to 0.0 tm, in the Figure 9. . Effects of the fixity factor to the pile
contrary the maximum positive moment increase maximum response
from 11.48 tm to 35.13 tm. As obviously shown at ponses. As clearly shown in Fig. 9.a), the pile head
Fig.8.d) the shear force acting at the pile is horizontal displacement increase linearly with fixity
independent to the value of fixity factor. factor decrease, implies that the free head pile undergoes
larger horizontal displacement than the fixed head with
Effects of Fixity Factor to the Max. Responses the reason similar as stated before. Free head pile also
experiences higher pile slope as compared to the fixed
It is necessary to identify the effects of gradually head. However, since the pile slope is quite small so that
decrease in fixity factor r to the maximum pile res- increase in pile slope is not clearly shown in Fig. 9.a).
Fig.9.b) is presenting the effects of decreasing in
pile cap fixity factor to the soil reaction and pile
moment. As shown in the figure, the soil reaction tends
to increase when the pile cap fixity factor decreases.

The higher the pile slope due to lower value of pile
cap fixity factor the higher the soil reaction
apparently. When the pile cap fixity factor r ≥ 0.60,
the negative moments at the pile cap connection are
govern, while when fixity factor r < 0.60 the pile
positive moments at the soil medium are govern.
Again this result is matching with the principle of
structural mechanics i.e the negative moment will
occur at the fixed end, while when simple beam
model is adopted the positive moment will occur in
the middle part of the member.
Pile Resisting Capacity
The main verification in this paper is basically
based on the previous results. As presented in Fig,7.a)
the maximum horizontal pile cap displacement
according to The 2010 Code is 0.808 cm, meanwhile
the inflection point is located at -9.78 m. If it is
assumed that the pile displacement pattern is linear,
the pile drift ratio dr = 1.5(0.808/978).100 = 0.124 %.
By doing so, the shear strength generated by pile
concrete is equal to zero, accordingly, all of shear
force would be resisted by spirally shear
reinforcement. With spiral shear reinforcement D13
is used, then the required spiral spacing would be s =
30.72 cm, actually spiral shear reinforcement D13-
100 is used. Based those verification implies that the
concrete pile reinforcements are definitely safe
against flexural moment and shear action.
The 2010 Code
The 2002 Code
Figure 10. Mn and Pn diagram for concrete pile
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Implication of the publishing the Indonesian
Seismic Code 02-1736, 2010 to the pile foundation
12
This pile drift ratio is still much lower than 0.5 % that is
the common limit drift ratio for elastic range. In addition
the external shear force acting at pile cap connection is
11.625 tf and for conservatively estimation is assumed
100 % resisted by pile (is assumed no pile cap resisting
force). With diameter of pile is 1.0 m, then the shear
stress will be c = 2.47 kg/cm2 << 1.2.f’c = 67.04
kc/cm2. Therefore the pile is safe against the shear force.
The moment resisting of the concrete pile is very
important to be verified. The nominal axial load acting
on the concrete pile Pn = 631.38 tf. Meanwhile accor-
ding to The 2010 and 2002 Codes, the maximum nomi-
nal flexural moment respectively are Mn1 = 73.32 tfm
and Mn2 = 65.88 tfm. If those forces to be plotted in the
equivalent Mn-Pn diagram for concrete pile, the result is
illustrated in Fig.10). It is clearly shown in the figure
that the flexural moment capacity of the concrete pile is
much higher than the required nominal axial Load Pn and
required nominal moment Mn. A conservative
assumption was also taken i.e by assuming formation of
pile plastic hinge occur at pile to pile cap connection.
responses of 19 storey building has been carried out.
Accordingly, the following conclusions can be drawn,
1. The response spectrum computed the 2010
Code is higher than spectrum from the 2002
Code especially for low period of structure,
2. Based on the medium soil condition at
Yogyakarta, publishing the 2010 Seismic Code
caused increase in seismic base shear by 15.26
% with respect to the 2002 Code. Linear effects
to the pile cap horizontal displacement, pile
slope, flexural moment, shear force and soil
reaction was found,
3. Shifting pile to pile cap connection from fixed
to free head caused increase pile head
horizontal displacement by 163.1%, decrease in
absolute pile moment by 16.99 % and increase
in soil reaction by 53.67 %.
4. Based on several items of verification, the pile
foundations are definitely safe against external
load effects such as horizontal force, flexural
moment, shear force and pile drift ratio.
Acknowledgements
The verification of pile vibration responses of 19-story
building hotel was carried out by the permission of the
Director of PT Saraswanti Indoland Develop-ment
Yogyakarta, Drs Bogat Agus Riyono M.Sc.Akt. The
project is widely open for any activities mainly due to
his open mind for the development of science and
technology purposes. Accordingly, truly great
appreciation and special thank are addressed to Mr.
Bogat because of his authorization.

REFERENCES
1. Anonim, 2002, Seismic Design of Building
Foundation in Japan, International Institute of
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering,
Japan
2. Anonim, 2006, Code of Practice for
Foundations, The Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region, Geo
Publication No.1
3. Anonim, 2011, LRFD Steel Girder Super
Structure Design Example : Pile Foundation
Design example Design Step, US Department
of Transportation. Federal Highway
Administration
4. Chin T.Y, Sew G.S, Chung F.C, 2009,
Interpretation of Sub grade Reaction from
Lateral Load Tests on Spun Piles in Soft
Ground,
5. Elson W.K, 1983, Design of Laterally Loaded
Piles, CIRIA Report 103, Brighton
Polytechnic
6. Gudmundsdottir B, 1981, Laterally Loaded
Piles, Master Thesis Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada
7. Juirnarongrit T, Ashford S.A, 2005, Effects of
Pile Diameter on the Modulus of Sub grade
Reaction, Report No. SSRP-2001/22,
University of California, San Diego.
8. Kameswara Rao, N.S.W, 2011, Foundation
design : Theory and Practice, John Wiley and
Sons
9. Edmonds F.D, Carr A.J, Goldsmith P.R, North
P.J, Wood J.H, Preston R.L, 1980, Seismic
Design of Bridges : Section 4 : Bridge
Foundation, NZSEE
10. Mokwa R.L, 1999, Investigation of the
Resistance of Pile Cap to Lateral Loading,
PhD Theses Department of Civil Engineering,
13
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
11. Murthy V.N.S, 2002, Geotechnical Engineering:
Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation, CRC Press.
12. Murthy V.N.S, 2007, Advanced Foundation
Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Series,
CBS Publishers and Distributions, Bangalore,
India
13. Paz M, 1994, International Handbook of
Earthquake Engineering, Codes, Programs and
Examples, Chapman & Hall.
14. Phanikanth V.S, Choudhury D, Redhy G.R, 2010,
Response of Single Pile Under lateral Load in
Cohesionless Soils, EJGE Vol. 15
15. Prakash S, 1981, Soil Dynamics, McGraw Hill
Book Company, New York
16. Prakash S, Sharma H.D, 1990, Pile Foundations
in Engineering Practice, John Wiley Interscience,
New York
17. Reese L.C, Cox W.R, Koop F.D, 1974, Analysis
of laterally Loaded Piles in Sands, Proceeding 6th
Annual Technology Conference, Houston Texas
18. Rollins K.M, Stenlund TE, 2010, Lateraly Loaded
Pile Cap Connection, Report No. UT 10.16, Utah
Department of Transportation Research Division
19. Song ST, Chai Y.H, Hale T.H, 2004, Limit State
analysis of Foxed Head Concrete Piles Under
Lateral Loads, 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada
August 1-6
20. Sugita H, Tanimoto S, 2006, Seismic
Performance of Bridge Foundation with Hinge at
Pile Head, Public Work Research Institute, Japan
21. Tokida K, Aizawa K, Tamura K ,1990,
Attenuation of Ground Strains During
Earthquake Base on Dense Array, Eighth Japan
Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, pp.
313-318.