A new seismic design philosophy is illuminated, taking advantage of soil "failure" to protect the superstructure. Instead of over-designing the foundation to ensure that the loading stemming from the structural inertia can be "safely" transmitted onto the soil (as with conventional capacity design), and then reinforce the superstructure to avoid collapse, why not do exactly the opposite by intentionally under-designing the foundation to act as a "safety valve" ? The need for this "reversal" stems from the uncertainty in predicting the actual earthquake motion, and the necessity of developing new more rational and economically efficient earthquake protection solutions. A simple but realistic bridge structure is used as an example to illustrate the effectiveness of the new approach. Two alternatives are compared : one complying with conventional capacity design, with over-designed foundation so that plastic "hinging" develops in the superstructure; the other following the new design philosophy, with under-designed foundation, "inviting" the plastic "hinge" into the soil. Static "pushover" analyses reveal that the ductility capacity of the new design concept is an order of magnitude larger than of the conventional design: the advantage of "utilising" progressive soil failure. The seismic performance of the two alternatives is investigated through nonlinear dynamic time history analyses, using an ensemble of 29 real accelerograms. It is shown that the performance of both alternatives is totally acceptable for moderate intensity earthquakes, not exceeding the design limits. For large intensity earthquakes, exceeding the design limits, the performance of the new design scheme is proven advantageous, not only avoiding collapse but hardly suffering any inelastic structural deformation. It may however experience increased residual settlement and rotation: a price to pay that must be properly assessed in design.

Several aspects of the seismic response of groups containing nonvertical piles are studied, including the lateral pile-head stiffnesses, the "kinematic" pile deformation, and the "inertial" soil-pile-structure response. A key goal is to explore the conditions under which the presence of batter piles is beneficial, indifferent, or detrimental. Parametric analyses are carried out using three-dimensional finite-element modeling, assuming elastic behavior of soil, piles, and superstructure. The model is first used to obtain the lateral stiffnesses of single batter piles and to show that its results converge to the available solutions from the literature. Then, real accelerograms covering a broad range of frequency characteristics are employed as base excitation of simple fixed-head two-pile group configurations, embedded in homogeneous, inhomogeneous, and layered soil profiles, while supporting very tall or very short structures. Five pile inclinations are considered while the corresponding vertical-pile group results serve as reference. It is found that in purely kinematic seismic loading, batter piles tend to confirm their negative reputation, as had also been found recently for a group subjected to static horizontal ground deformation. However, the total ͑kinematic plus inertial͒ response of structural systems founded on groups of batter piles offers many reasons for optimism. Batter piles may indeed be beneficial ͑or detrimental͒ depending on, among other parameters, the relative size of the overturning moment versus the shear force transmitted onto them from the superstructure.

No abstract