Australian Journal of Structural Engineering

ISSN: 1328-7982 (Print) 2204-2261 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsen20

Effect of soil-foundation-structure interaction and

pier column non-linearity on seismic response of
bridges supported on shallow foundations

Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary

To cite this article: Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary (2016) Effect of soil-foundation-

structure interaction and pier column non-linearity on seismic response of bridges supported
on shallow foundations, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 17:1, 67-86, DOI:
10.1080/13287982.2015.1116178

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2015.1116178

Published online: 10 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2332

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsen20
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016
VOL. 17, NO. 1, 67–86
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2015.1116178

Effect of soil-foundation-structure interaction and pier column non-linearity

on seismic response of bridges supported on shallow foundations
Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 5969, Safat, Kuwait

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Traditionally, shallow spread footing-type foundations are used for medium span bridges Received 23 December 2014
supported on hard soil and rock strata. Such bridges are modelled with fixed supports and no Accepted 15 September 2015
soil–foundation–structure interaction (SSI) is normally considered. The investigation presented
herein utilized a sub-structuring technique and finite element method (FEM) model for the KEYWORDS
analysis of a four-span bridge designed for five different rock classes and subjected to an Bridge; soil–foundation–
ensemble of actual ground motions. SSI was incorporated through Winkler springs while non- structure interaction; seismic
linear behaviour of reinforced concrete pier column was modelled by an equivalent linear loading; shallow foundation;
model. The results of the study were evaluated to delineate the effect of SSI and pier column rock; reinforced concrete
non-linearity on seismic response parameters of bridges founded on rock. It was found that the pier; FEM model; inelastic
soil–foundation–structure interaction couldn’t be neglected in all cases of rock classes and input response
ground motions. Furthermore, pier column non-linearity influenced bridge displacement and
base shear more significantly than SSI. Impact of foundation rocking was also examined and was
found to be rather insignificant on bridge response parameters due to high rocking impedance
of properly designed bridge foundations.

1. Introduction on a ‘soft’ soil for the pursuit of an analytical solution.

Structures founded on hard soil and rock are tradition-
ally modelled and designed as fixed base with no soil–
foundation–structure interaction (generally termed
as soil–structure interaction (SSI)) (AASHTO 2010).
Shallow spread footings are generally designed as foun-
dations at such sites. Research in the past (Somaini 1984;
Spyrakos 1990; Ciampoli and Pinto 1995; Saadeghvaziri,
Yazdani-Motlagh, and Rashidi 2000; Vlassis and
Spyrakos 2001; Raheem, Hayashikawa, and Hashimoto
2003) have investigated the behaviour of such shal-
low foundations supported bridge system under seis-
mic excitation by treating the supporting soil/rock as
a homogeneous medium and assuming a linear elastic
behaviour of the pier column and the superstructure ele-
ments. Other parametric studies (De Carlo, Dolce, and
Liberatore 2000) included a wide range of properties for
the soil/rock–foundation system and the pier columns in
order to ‘generalize’ the effect of SSI on such structures.
This quest for generalization mostly resulted in wide
deviations from realistic bridge designs and therefore
arrived at some results that were theoretically plausi-
ble, but of no practical significance for the real world
bridge designs. Similarly, Chen and Lai (2003) and Toh,
Pender, and McCully (2011) considered a problem of
shallow bridge foundation subjected to seismic loads
However, it is obvious that such a condition cannot be
allowed in an actual design where a deep foundation
will be utilized for a ‘soft’ soil profile. Ni, Petrini, and
Paolucci (2014) investigated non-linear SSI in a hypo-
thetical bridge resting on dense sand and supported by
circular shallow foundation. This study also highlighted
significance of the ‘soil’ side of the SSI problem as the
selected foundation type (i.e. shallow foundation) was
clearly unsuitable for the soil conditions that would
have practically required the use of a deep foundation
having much more dynamic impedance as compared to
the shallow foundation. Jarernprasert, Bazan-Zurita, and
Bielak (2013) conducted an analytical study for SSI of
simple one lumped mass inelastic structure founded in
soil strata. They concluded that SSI effects became signif-
icant only when the fundamental period of the inelastic
structure was smaller than the dominant period of the
seismic ground motion.
Kawashima and Nagai (2006) analytically investi-
gated the effect of rocking of under-designed shallow
bridge footings in reducing the seismic response and
concluded that even though this deliberate rocking of
the footing may be helpful in reducing the seismic shear
force, but may have detrimental consequences for foot-
ings and bridge displacement. Similar study carried out
by Liu et al. (2013) demonstrated compatible yielding

CONTACT  Muhammad Tariq A. Chaudhary  tariq.chaudhary@ku.edu.kw; mtariqch@hotmail.com

© 2016 Engineers Australia
68    M. T. A. Chaudhary
between soil–foundation and superstructure compo-
nents of a building structure by highlighting the rocking
response of the foundations.
Very limited investigations have focused on identi-
fying SSI in bridges founded on shallow foundations
from field investigations or from analysis of recorded
seismic motions. Chaudhary, Abé, and Fujino (2001a)
employed system identification techniques on a five-
span continuous base-isolated bridge subjected to low
levels of seismic motion (peak ground acceleration
(PGA) varying between 0.01 and 0.03  g) and found
that SSI effect was negligible for the bridge for the
recorded seismic activity. Fraino et al. (2012) reported
preliminary results of their empirical investigation of
soil–structure interaction in 10 instrumented bridges
under a number of recorded earthquakes in California
by comparing the free field seismic acceleration with
the one recorded on top of the bridge foundations. Five
out of the 10 bridges were founded on spread foun-
dations and were subjected to earthquakes with PGA
between 0.006 and 0.077 g. Their conclusion was that
SSI is not always beneficial for all bridges and some-
times it can be extremely detrimental. As the level of
seismic activity recorded in these events is well below
the design threshold, therefore no conclusion of practi-
cal significance can be drawn from these investigations.
Tseng (2001) has echoed that proper analysis of the
field recorded data is the best way of understanding
the SSI effects in bridges. However, the usefulness of
analytical studies cannot be underestimated as these
provide relatively low-cost solutions and cover a wide
range of parameters that cannot be practically covered
in field investigations. Such studies also provide val-
uable clues for augmenting and improving the field
observations and instrumentation as well. Therefore, an
effort was made in this study to investigate the seismic
performance of a class of bridge which was designed
based on the current design practices for foundation
as well as bridge sub-structure components (piers and
abutments).
Previous studies on bridges that included SSI as
well as inelasticity in bridge pier resulted in conflicting
opinion on the role of structural inelasticity on seismic
demand. Ciampoli and Pinto (1995) concluded that SSI
did not have a detrimental effect on ductility demand
of bridges with inelastic piers that are founded on shal-
low foundations in soil strata having maximum shear
modulus of 300 MPa. On the other hand, Mylonakis and
Gazetas (2000) and Gazetas and Mylonakis (2001) had
the opinion that SSI was not always beneficial (specially
in softer soils) and in certain cases it could have adverse
impact on seismic demand for inelastic sub-structure
components. Chaudhary (2004) showed that effect of
SSI in bridges was more strongly influenced by the non-
linear structural properties of bridge sub-structure com-
ponents than by soil properties, kinematic foundation
interaction and frequency dependent foundation imped-
ance based on the study of four base-isolated bridges
that were equipped with strong motion accelerometers.
The purpose of the current study was to investigate
the relative importance of SSI and pier column non-
linearity on the seismic response of simple, straight and
non-skew multi-span bridges of medium span length
by conducting Finite Element Method (FEM) analyti-
cal studies with a broad range of rock–foundation sys-
tem properties that covered all AASHTO rock profiles
and included non-linear behaviour of pier columns.
Influence of shallow foundation rocking on bridge dis-
placement and seismic shear force was also evaluated
for various rock profiles and seismic ground motions.
Results of this research are likely to provide broad guide-
lines to practicing engineers on inclusion of SSI and/or
non-linear modelling of pier columns in the design and
evaluation of such bridges.
Evaluating dynamic impedance of rock–foundation
system to characterize SSI is an involved process that
requires expert knowledge of dynamic soil/rock prop-
erties, seismic wave propagation and interaction of rock
and foundation under dynamic loading. Similarly, incor-
porating the non-linear behaviour of reinforced concrete
pier columns require knowledge of non-linear properties
of concrete and reinforcing steel, non-linear behaviour
of reinforced concrete section and mechanics of the
structural component under combined axial, shear and
flexural loads. Therefore, it is necessary to know the rel-
ative importance of each of them for an efficient design
as well as reliable estimation of structural parameters
through vibration-based system identification for use
in structural health monitoring.
2.  Adopted methodology and assumptions
2.1. Methodology
The study focused on simple multi-span bridges with
no curve and skew and medium span length (30  m)
supported on multiple column piers and founded on
spread footings. Such bridges are the most common type
and are extensively used for elevated urban viaducts.
Shallow foundations were designed in various rock pro-
files according to AASHTO code (AASHTO 2010).
The bridge system was modelled in STAAD V8i
(Bentley Systems, Inc 2015) FEM package and an iter-
ative multi-mode response spectrum analysis method
with equivalent linear properties of non-linear rock–
foundation system and sub-structure components was
conducted. Dynamic impedance of the rock–footing sys-
tem in lateral, vertical and rocking modes was computed
by analytical expressions (Gazetas 1991; Mylonakis,
Nikolaou, and Gazetas 2006). Moment–curvature rela-
tionships for the reinforced concrete pier sections were
used to develop the theoretical load–deflection curves
for use in the non-linear modelling of pier columns.

Two models of the bridge were created in the FEM
package: one with fixed base (i.e. no SSI) and the second
with translational and rotational springs representing
the impedance of the rock–footing system. Assuming
linear elastic pier columns, each model of the bridge
system was subjected to a suite of fifteen appropriately
selected ground motions and forces and displacements
in the bridge system were recorded. Stiffness of the
pier column was adjusted for the computed displace-
ment value for use in analysis cases with inelastic pier
columns. Results of the two models were compared to
examine the effect of pier non-linearity and SSI on the
parameters needed in bridge design.
2.2. Assumptions
The multitude of variables involved in the SSI phe-
nomenon requires the use of simplified models that are
capable of capturing the behaviour of the bridge system
without sacrificing accuracy. The following assumptions
were made:
(1) Non-linear behaviour of concrete piers and
rock–footing system were captured by equiva-
lent linear models. The use of equivalent linear
model for the concrete piers was justified based
on the work of Rahai and Nafari (2013) and
Gagnon et al. (2010) who have concluded that
the use of numerically intensive non-linear fibre
model for reinforced concrete columns and
concrete pile foundations does not results in
increased accuracy as compared to equivalent
linear models. Similarly, the use of equivalent
linear model for the rock–footing system was
warranted by the expected low level of strain
in the rock mass under the considered seismic
excitation. This assumption was backed up by
the work of Bolisetti et al. (2014), who compared
equivalent linear and non-linear site response
analysis for rock and soil sites and concluded
that equivalent linear methods gave satisfactory
results for low strain levels. Additionally, Strenk
and Wartman (2011) reported an increase in
the estimation of soil–foundation stiffness and
hence reduced contribution of SSI, while using
non-linear soil models as compared to equiva-
lent linear model.
(2) Radiation damping in the rock–foundation
system was not modelled based on the guide-
lines of AASHTO (2010) and studies of Cofer,
McGuire, and McLean (1994) and Zhang and
Tang (2006) who found this phenomenon to be
of little significance for bridges.
(3) Only inertial interaction was included in the
SSI model as kinematic soil interaction was not
significant (Aviles and Pérez-Rocha 2003).
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   69
(4) The study was limited to bridges with typical
geometry and proportions associated with long
elevated highway viaduct structures for which
the effect of abutments can be neglected for the
interior spans.
(5) Four-span bridges with medium span (30 m)
and no curve or skew were included in the
study. The piers were of equal height as well.
(6) The bridge bearings were of non-isolation type
and were properly designed to preclude any
local failure under service as well as seismic
loading.
3.  Description and modelling of the bridge
system
3.1.  Bridge layout
The bridge included in the study was a four-span bridge
with individual spans of 30  m and a total length of
120 m. The class of bridge studied herein was part of a
long urban viaduct and an interior segment of the via-
duct was analysed. Therefore, the effect of abutments
was neglected in its modelling and design. Deck width
of the selected bridge was 15.6 m representing a typi-
cal four-lane highway bridge. Plan view of the bridge
is shown in Figure 1(a) and the longitudinal elevation
in Figure 1(b). The bridge cross section is shown in
Figure 1(c). The piers consisted of two-column bents.
Cross sectional properties, dimensions, reinforcement
quantity and detailing of the bridge components were
based on representative design of such bridges.
3.2.  Bridge design parameters
The bridge was designed for typical dead load of the
materials used and live load consisting of AASHTO
HL-93 loading. The bridge sub-structure components
and foundations were designed for a moderate seismic
zone with a PGA of 0.2 g.
3.3.  Rock properties and footing design
The AASHTO (2010) code classifies the soil profile in six
types based on shear wave velocity. The six classes of sites
are: Class A, B, C, D, E and F. Site class A is a hard rock
with shear wave velocity greater than 1524 m/s, while
site class E is a soft soil with shear wave velocity less than
183 m/s. Site class F represents very soft, highly plastic
or highly organic soils for which site specific studies are
required. Site classes A and B in the AASHTO code are
the rock profiles, while class C is a ‘soil rock’. Rock site
classes in the AASHTO code were matched to five cor-
responding rock classes as defined in the CSIR classifi-
cation (Bieniawski 1974) for breaking down the large
shear wave velocity (Vs) ranges used for AASHTO site
70    M. T. A. Chaudhary

15.6m

(a) Plan view

30 m 30 m 30 m 30 m

P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5

(b) Longitudinal Elevation

15.6 m

AASHTO Type V
prestressed girders

0.6

1.2 m

2.3 m
9.2 m

2.0 m
11m

0.6m

Varies

Varies, See Table

(c) Transverse Cross-Section View of Pier

Figure 1. Typical arrangement of the bridge.

classes. These rock classes are identified in Table 1 along and

with their salient mechanical properties.
Representative values of unit weight (ρ) and Poisson’s
√
G
Vs = (3)
ratio (ν) for these rock classes were adopted from the 𝜌
literature (Carmichael 1989; Touloukian, Judd, and Roy
1989; Wyllie 1999; Jaeger, Cook, and Zimmerman 2007). Allowable bearing capacity of jointed rock masses is a
Elastic moduli, E, (in GPa) of the jointed rock masses subject of considerable debate. In this study, the factor of
were computed by the relationship given by Serafim and safety (n) as well as allowable bearing capacity (qa) of the
Pereira (1983) as: rock mass was computed based on rock unit weight (γ)
and shear wave velocity (Vs) by the following relation-
E = 10(RMR−10)∕40 (1)
ships proposed by Tezcan, Ozdemir, and Keceli (2009):
where RMR is the Rock Mass Rating found from
n = 2.5 for Vs > 4000 m/s (4a)
the CSIR classification. Shear modulus, G and shear
wave velocity, Vs were computed from the following
relationships:
n = 4.6 − 0.0008Vs for 750 < Vs < 4000 m/s (4b)
E
G=
2(1 + 𝜈) (2) qa = 0.071𝛾Vs ∕n for Vs > 4000 m/s (5a)
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   71

Table 1. Rock profiles used in the study and their mechanical properties.
ρ ν E G Vs n = FOSb qa
Rock class Rock description AASHTO site class RMR a
g/cm 3
GPa GPa m/s (min. 2.5) kN/m2
I Very good A 85 2.9 0.15 74.99 32.60 3353.03 2.50 3816
II Good A 70 2.6 0.20 31.62 13.18 2251.17 2.80 2051
III Fair B 50 2.3 0.25 10.00 4.00 1318.76 3.54 839
IV Poor B 30 2.0 0.30 3.16 1.22 779.83 3.98 385
V Very poor C 17 2.03 0.35 2.02 0.74 600.04 4.00 215
a
RMR: Rock mass rating.
b
FOS: Factor of safety.

Table 2. Foundation stiffness in various modes for the selected rock profiles.
Foundation size (L × B × D) Kv KHx KHz KRx KRz
Rock class (m × m × m) ×10 (kN/m)
7
×10 (kN/m)
7
×10 (kN/m)
7
×10 (kN-m/rad)
8
×10 (kN-m/rad)
9

I 12.6 × 3.2 × 1.75 61.9 61.7 56.6 19.4 15.7

II 12.6 × 3.4 × 1.75 27.1 26.0 23.8 9.43 6.99
III 12.8 × 4.0 × 2.00 9.19–9.38 8.40–8.57 7.71–7.87 4.24–4.33 2.54–2.59
IV 13.2 × 5.0 × 2.25 3.15–3.39 2.72–2.93 2.52–2.71 2.15–2.31 0.97–1.04
V 14.8 × 6.0 × 2.50 2.27–2.55 1.87–2.10 1.73–1.94 2.18–2.45 0.89–1.00

Notes: X-axis: Bridge longitudinal axis (transverse axis of footing). Z-axis: Bridge transverse axis (longitudinal axis of footing). Variation in foundation
stiffness for Rock classes III–V is due to variation in the effective dynamic shear modulus found from 1-D site response analysis for the ground motions
considered in the study.

3.4.  Reinforced concrete columns

qa = 0.1𝛾Vs ∕n for 750 < Vs < 4000 m/s (5b)
Spread footings were designed for the combined axial
and lateral loads as well as overturning moments due to
the seismic forces for each rock class. Frequency inde-
pendent dynamic impedance of these foundations for
various modes of vibration were computed according to
Gazetas (1991) and Mylonakis, Nikolaou, and Gazetas
(2006) and are listed in Table 2. The use of frequen-
cy-independent impedance values for seismic design
of bridges is a well-established practice that causes no
loss in accuracy (Cofer, McGuire, and McLean 1994;
Prakash, Kumar, and Sreerama 1996; Hayashikawa,
Raheem, and Hashimoto 2004).
Use of small strain dynamic shear modulus (G0) is
allowed for the computation of foundation impedance
for foundations on rock for any level of seismic excitation
(ASCE 2000; AASHTO 2010; WSDOT 2013). However,
in the current study, one-dimensional site response anal-
ysis was conducted for the various rock profiles subjected
to the suite of selected ground motions (as discussed
in Section 4) and average reduction in dynamic shear
modulus (G) in the top 30  m depth was determined.
No reduction in G was observed for rock classes IV and
V for any earthquake. However, the following variation
in G in terms of G0 was observed for other rock classes:
Class III: 0.98G0 for earthquake 15; Class II: varying
from 0.98G0 to 0.93G0 for earthquakes 11–15; Class I:
varying from 0.98G0 to 0.89G0 for earthquakes 9–15.
This variation in G resulted in variation in foundation
impedance. Upper and lower bound values of founda-
tion impedance are reported in Table 2 for the pertinent
rock classes. This variation in foundation impedance was
taken into account while conducting the FEM analysis.
Figure 2 presents the typical cross section of the con-
crete piers for the bridge designed for code specified
combinations of dead, live and seismic loads. Concrete
design strength was taken as 27.6 MPa, while yield stress
of reinforcement was 420 MPa.
Theoretical variation in the pier column stiffness for
a given deformation was computed by first finding the
moment curvature (M–φ) relationship for the pier col-
umn section, depicted in Figure 3(a), by conducting a
layer by layer strain compatibility analysis of the cross
section. This M–φ relationship was then used to com-
pute the load–deflection curve for the given bridge pier
column geometry by double integration of the curva-
tures and is presented in Figure 3(b). Secant stiffness of
the pier column, presented in Figure 3(c), was computed
from the load–deflection curve for use in the iterative
equivalent non-linear analysis of the pier column.
4.  Strong motion records used in the study
There has been considerable debate on the selection of
proper intensity measure (IM) when using recorded
time histories for seismic analysis. Different period-
independent IMs like PGA, peak ground velocity and
peak ground displacement and period-dependent IMs
like spectral acceleration, acceleration spectrum inten-
sity, velocity spectrum intensity and Housner intensity
have been investigated. The reader is referred to Avşar
and Özdemir (2013) for an overview and additional ref-
erences on this topic.
In this study, PGA was considered as the IM for its
efficacy in examining the impact on bridge response
parameters based on the research of Padgett, Nielson,
 72    M. T. A. Chaudhary

20 - 32φ and DesRoches (2008) who have concluded PGA to be

a practical and optimal IM for bridges. A suite of fif-
φ19 @ 300 teen (15) actual strong motion records, mostly selected
from the literature for near field earthquakes (Kalkan
and Kwong 2011) and far field earthquakes (NEHRP
18- 32φ 2009), was used to study the impact of various ground

2000 mm
φ22 @300
motions on the response of bridge with and without
φ22 @ 300 SSI and including the non-linear behaviour of the pier
columns. Strong motion records were obtained from
2000 mm (PEER 2014) and are tabulated in Table 3 in an ascend-
ing order with respect to the PGA. Fault normal com-
Figure 2. Typical Cross section of pier column. ponent of the ground motions was used in the study.
The selected ground motions represent a balanced
combination of records with PGA on either side of the
25000
design value of 0.2 g. Ground motions 1–6 represent
examples of design basis earthquakes (DBE) with a
20000
return period of about 500 years (i.e. 10% probability of
exceedance (PE) in 50 years). Ground motions 7–12 are
Moment (kN-m)

15000 representative of a functional evaluation earthquake

(FEE) with a 1000 year return period and a PE of 5%
10000 in 50 years. The last three events can be considered as
the maximum credible earthquakes (MCE) with a PE
5000 of 2% in 50  year (or a return period of 2500  years).
The response spectra for the three groups of strong
0 motions are depicted in Figure 4 along with the 5%
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Curvature (rad/m) damped design spectra for site classes A, B and C for
(a) the design PGA.
2000
1800 5.  FEM Modelling of the bridge system
1600
5.1.  Computational model
1400
Lateral Load (kN)

1200 The 3D computational model of the bridge was made

1000 in STAAD V8i (Bentley Systems, Inc 2015) FEM pack-
800 age as depicted in Figure 5. The bridge superstructure
600 was modelled by two different finite elements. Beam
400 elements with six degrees of freedom were used for
200 modelling the girders and diaphragms, while four node
0 plate elements were employed to represent the bridge
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Pier deflection (mm) deck. Full composite action was assumed between the
(b) girders and the deck slab in the finite element model.
Pier transoms and columns were also modelled with
60000
beam elements. Connection between the bridge super-
50000 structure and the pier transom was through short rigid
links representing non-isolated bearings. The foundation
Stiffness (kN/m)

40000 which connects the two columns was modelled as a rigid

beam to accurately estimate the effect of seismic forces
30000
transferred to footing and rock.
20000 In the sub-structuring method adopted in this
study, the footing–rock system was replaced with five
10000 equivalent boundary springs in the vertical, horizon-
tal and rocking directions as presented in Table 2. The
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 spring corresponding to the torsional component of
Pier deflection (mm) rotation (about Y axis) was not computed and used
(c) as it was almost fixed. These springs were replaced
Figure 3. (a) M–φ relationship, (b) Lateral load vs. pier deflection with a fixed support in the FEM model without the
curve and (c) Pier deflection vs. stiffness curve for the pier SSI effect.
column.
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   73

Table 3. Ground motions used in the study.

EQ Record ID Seismic event Year Station Magnitude PGA (g) Fault distance (km) Vs (m/s)
Group 1 (DBE) 1 Edgecomb, NZ 1987 Maraenui Primary School 6.6 0.036 69 425
2 Irpinia, Italy 1980 Calitri 6.9 0.14 17 600
3 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999 CHY015 7.6 0.183 38.1 229
4 Spitak- Armenia 1988 Gukasian 6.77 0.205 24 275
5 Kobe, Japan 1995 Shin Osaka 6.9 0.21 19 256
6 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999 Ambarli 7.51 0.23 69.6 175
Group 2 (FEE) 7 San Fernando 1971 Castaic – Old Ridge Route 6.61 0.266 23 450
8 Landers 1992 Joshua Tree 7.28 0.28 11 379
9 Dinar, Turkey 1995 Dinar 6.4 0.30 3.4 220
10 Tabas, Iran 1978 Dayhook 7.35 0.328 13.9 660
11 Imperial Valley 1940 Elcentro 6.9 0.36 17 310
12 Loma Prieta 1989 Gilroy Array #2 6.93 0.40 11 271
Group 3 (MCE) 13 Northridge-01 1994 Beverly Hills – 14145 Mulhol 6.69 0.43 17 356
14 Duzce, Turkey 1999 Duzce 7.14 0.52 6.6 276
15 Kobe, Japan 1995 Takatori 6.9 0.64 1.5 256

2 computed for the maximum elastic displacement deter-

EQ Records 1 -6 mined from the corresponding analysis case of linear
1.6
Site Class C elastic pier columns. It is to be noted that computing
Site Class B
1.2 Site Class A resources intensive distributed plasticity model like fibre
Sa (g)

model was not employed as Gagnon et al. (2010) and

0.8
Rahai and Nafari (2013) had demonstrated that use of
0.4 such model deviates little from the response computed
based on equivalent linear model. This observation is
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 particularly true for bridges supported on firm soils and
Time Period (sec) rock.

2
EQ Records 7 -12
5.3.  Overall scheme of FEM analysis
1.6
FEM analysis of the bridge model was conducted for
1.2 the suite of 15 selected ground motions for two basic
Sa (g)

0.8 conditions, i.e. linear elastic pier columns and non-linear

pier columns. For each of the two pier column condi-
0.4 tions, six boundary conditions were investigated. One
0 boundary condition was with a fixed foundation, i.e. no
0 1 2 3 4 5 SSI and the remaining five represented boundary condi-
Time Period (sec) tions with SSI with varying values of the soil–foundation
springs corresponding to the five different rock profiles
2
as described earlier.
EQ Records 13 -15
1.6 Figure 6 presents the overall scheme adopted for con-
1.2 ducting the FEM analysis. The steps in the scheme are
Sa (g)

explained in the following:

0.8

0.4
0
0 1 2 3
Time Period (sec)
Figure 4.  Acceleration spectra of three groups of selected
ground motions along with design spectra for AASHTO site
classes A, B and C.
5.2.  Modelling pier non-linearity
Non-linear behaviour of the pier columns was cap-
tured by employing equivalent linear stiffness of the
pier columns computed from load–displacement and
displacement–stiffness curves of the columns as outlined
in Section 3.4. Reduction in pier column stiffness was
(1) Step 1: First of all, the fixed base model was
run for a selected ground motion with linear
4 5 elastic pier and the following parameters were
recorded from the analysis output: (i) modal
properties, (ii) bridge displacements, (iii) seis-
mic base shear, (iv) acceleration time history
and peak structure acceleration and (v) dis-
placement time history and peak displacement
of pier.
(2) Step 2: Based on the computed pier displace-
ment, equivalent non-linear stiffness of the pier
columns was determined from the theoretical
displacement–stiffness curve of the columns
from Figure 3(c).
(3) Step 3: The finite element model was run
with equivalent non-linear stiffness of the
74    M. T. A. Chaudhary
Figure 5. Wire frame FEM model of the bridge with soil–pile system represented by spring elements.
pier columns and the same parameters were
recorded.
(4) Step 4: The fixed base was replaced with soil–
foundation springs for each of the five rock
profiles and steps 1–3 were repeated for each
combination of soil–foundation arrangement
and elastic and inelastic pier columns.
(5) Step 5: Steps 1–4 were repeated for the next
selected ground motion and the process was
continued until all ground motions were
utilized.
Altogether 180 FEM analysis were conducted for
all cases of pier elasticity, soil–foundation systems and
ground motion records. Results of these analyses are
presented in the next sections.
6.  Results of FEM analysis
6.1.  Variation of bridge response parameters with
PGA
Variation in bridge response parameters, i.e. maximum
deck acceleration, maximum deck displacement and
maximum column shear for elastic and inelastic pier
cases is presented in Figures 7–9, respectively, for various
cases of boundary conditions. A general increasing trend
was observed for these parameters with increasing PGA.
In Figure 9, code-based seismic shear forces were
computed according to the AASHTO procedure in
which PGA was taken as the acceleration coefficient,
A, and the time period of the bridge, T, was taken as
the first modal period from the results of FEM analy-
sis. Average modal participation for the first mode was
more than 75% for the analysis performed in the study.
Therefore, only the first modal period was used for shear
force calculations (Şadan, Petrini, and Calvi 2013).
6.2.  Effect of SSI on bridge response parameters
Effect of SSI on bridge response parameters was studied
by taking a ratio of the parameter for analysis cases with
SSI and with fixed base (i.e. no SSI).
6.2.1.  Effect on bridge deck acceleration
Effect of SSI on bridge deck acceleration for the elastic
and inelastic pier cases is depicted in Figure 10 and it
can be observed that SSI generally increased the deck
acceleration by a maximum factor of 1.1 for both elastic
and inelastic pier cases. Some deamplification was also
observed for certain ground motions with a maximum
value of 0.90. Maximum amplification/deamplification
was noted for the weakest rock (i.e. rock class V) for both
types of piers as depicted in the 3D graphs including
PGA, Vs and amplification ratio.
6.2.2.  Effect on bridge deck displacement
Figure 11 presents the effect of SSI on maximum bridge
deck displacement as compared to the fixed base model.
It was observed that SSI increased the bridge deck dis-
placement for nearly all cases of ground motions and
rock profiles with a maximum factor of 1.25. No clear
trend in the increase of bridge displacement ratio was
noted due to SSI with increase in PGA. However, max-
imum amplification in bridge deck displacement was
noted to increase with a decrease in shear wave velocity
(i.e. weaker rock profiles) for both elastic and inelastic
pier columns as shown in the 3D graphs.
6.2.3.  Effect on column shear force
Effect of SSI on column shear force as compared to the
fixed base case is presented in Figure 12. The column
shear force ratio (SSI/fixed base) varied between 0.88
and 1.19 indicating deamplification as well as amplifica-
tion due to the SSI effect. No clear trend in the SSI effect
with respect to PGA was observed as in certain cases SSI
increased the column shear force for certain earthquake
motions for elastic pier case, but decreased it for the
inelastic pier case and vice versa. It can be observed from
the 3D graphs that the column shear force showed an
increasing trend for weaker rock profiles for both elastic
and inelastic pier columns.
6.3.  Effect of pier column non-linearity on bridge
parameters
6.3.1.  Bridge deck acceleration
Figure 13 presents the ratio of bridge deck acceleration
for inelastic pier and elastic pier. There was a wide scatter
in this ratio from 0.81 to 1.56. However, the variation was
between 0.8 and 1.2 within the design earthquake range.
Ratio of more than one indicated that the bridge deck
acceleration increased with the inclusion of non-linear
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   75

Select Ground
motion

Output (Elastic Fixed base

Elastic Pier
Pier) model (no SSI)

Pier column
Pier
displacement-stiffness
displcement
displacemen curve

Equivalent
non-linear pier
column stiffness

Output Fixed base

(Inelastic Pier) model (no SSI)

Output (Elastic SSI model - ith

Elastic Pier
Pier) case

Pier column
Pier
displacement-stiffness
displcement
displacemen curve

Equivalent
non-linear pier
column stiffness

Output SSI Model - ith

(Inelastic Pier) case

Rock
Next Soil No Rockcases
All soil cases
case finished

Yes

All ground
Next ground No
motions
motion
finished

Yes
Finish

Figure 6. Schematic outline of the FEM analysis procedure.

14 14

12
Elastic pier 12
Inelastic pier
Bridge deck accel. (m/s2)

Bridge deck accel. (m/s2)

10 10

8 8
Fixed Fixed
6 Class I 6 Class I
Class II Class II
4 Class III 4
Class III
Class IV 2 Class IV
2
Class V Class V
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
PGA (g) PGA (g)

Figure 7. Maximum bridge deck acceleration for the selected ground motions.

behaviour of pier. On the other hand, a value of less decreased the bridge deck acceleration. However, a trend
than one was indicative that inclusion of pier inelasticity can be observed in the data for the used earthquake
76    M. T. A. Chaudhary

200 220

180 Fixed 200 Inelastic pier

Elastic pier

Bridge deck disp. (mm)

Bridge deck disp. (mm)
160 Class I 180
Class II 160
Fixed
140
Class III 140 Class I
120 Class IV 120 Class II
100 Class V 100 Class III
80 80 Class IV
60 60 Class V
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

PGA (g) PGA (g)

Figure 8. Variation in the maximum bridge deck displacement for the selected ground motions.

6000 6000 Fixed Class I

Column shear force (kN)

Class II Class III
Elastic pier
Column shear force (kN)

5000 5000 Class IV Class V

Fixed_code Max_SSI_Code
4000 4000

3000 3000

2000 2000
Fixed Class I
Class II Class III
Inelastic pier
1000 Class IV Class V
1000
Fixed_Code Max_SSI_Code
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
PGA (g) PGA (g)

Figure 9. Variation in the maximum pier column shear force for the selected ground motions.

records; i.e. pier inelasticity increased the bridge deck (1.42–1.36 Hz) for earthquake ground motions 7–12 and
acceleration as PGA increased. 0.76–0.8 s (1.35–1.25 Hz) for earthquake motions 13–15
for the considered boundary conditions of fixed base
6.3.2.  Bridge deck displacement to SSI in class V rock. It is to be noted that the struc-
Effect of pier column non-linearity on the bridge deck tural period was not dependent on earthquake ground
displacement is presented in Figure 14. A clear trend of motions for bridge with elastic piers.
increasing displacement ratio with respect to PGA was The dominant period (and frequency) of the earth-
observed. The displacement ratio had a maximum value quake ground motions 1–6 was between 0.3 and 0.8 s
of 1.92 for the MCE and a maximum value of 1.6 for the (3.33–1.25 Hz), between 0.2 and 0.7 s (5 and 1.43 Hz)
design level earthquake. for earthquakes 7–12 and between 0.2 and 1.2 s (5 and
0.83 Hz) for earthquakes 13–15 as depicted in Figure 4.
6.3.3.  Column shear force It was observed that the first modal period of the
Effect of pier column inelasticity on the column shear bridge was within the dominant period range of earth-
force is depicted in Figure 15. There was a considera- quake motions 1–6 and 13–15 for both elastic and
ble scatter in the data points similar to the case for SSI inelastic bridge pier cases. Whereas, the first modal
effect as shown in Figure 12. No trend was observed of period was outside the dominant period of earth-
a decrease in column shear force as a function of PGA quake motions 7–12 for the inelastic pier case. This
for the data points. could be the reason for the observed de-amplification
(or de-resonance) in bridge displacement and seis-
6.4.  Effect of ground motion frequency content on mic shear force for these ground motions as noted
bridge response in Figures 7–9, 14, and 15. Gazetas and Mylonakis
(2001) had also reported similar observations for
The response of the bridge was dominated by the first some of the cases in their study.
mode with modal period (and frequency) varying
between 0.61 s (1.65 Hz) and 0.62 s (1.61 Hz) for bound-
ary conditions varying between fixed base and SSI in 6.5.  Various components of bridge deck
class V rock for bridge with elastic pier columns for the displacement and column shear
considered ground motions. However, for the inelastic 6.5.1.  Methodology of computations
pier column cases, variation in the first modal period The total bridge deck displacement and column shear
(and frequency) was from 0.61 to 0.7 s (1.65–1.42 Hz) consisted of three components: (i) elastic part, (ii) con-
for earthquake motions 1–6, between 0.71 and 0.74  s tribution of SSI and (iii) effect of pier inelasticity. These
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   77

1.2 1.2 Fixed Class I

Accel. Ratio (SSI/Fixed) Elastic pier Fixed Class I
Inelastic pier Class II Class III

Accel. Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

Class II Class III Class IV Class V
1.1 Class IV Class V 1.1

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
PGA (g) PGA (g)

SSI/Fixed Accel. Ratio-Elastic Pier

Accl. Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.09
1.07
1.05
1.03
1.01
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.036
0.14
0.183
0.205
0.21
0.23
0.266
0.28

600
0.3

780
0.328

1320
0.36

0.4

2250
0.43

3350
0.52

5000
0.64
SSI/Fixed Accel. Ratio-Inelastic Pier
Accl. Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.09
1.07
1.05
1.03
1.01
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.036
0.14
0.183
0.205
0.21
0.23
0.266
0.28

600
0.3

780
0.328

1320
0.36

0.4

2250
0.43

3350
0.52

5000
0.64

Figure 10. Effect of SSI on bridge acceleration.

three components were inferred from the results of the from the SSI case with elastic pier and the fixed base
FEM analysis as follows: model with elastic pier.
Taking example of total bridge deck displacement,
the three components were computed as:
elastic pier elastic pier
𝛿SSI = 𝛿SSI − 𝛿fixed base (7)
6.5.1.1. Elastic deformation.  Elastic deformation
was taken as the deformation found from the fixed base 6.5.1.3.  Effect of pier inelasticity
model with elastic pier. Effect of pier inelasticity was inferred from the results of
SSI case with inelastic pier and SSI case with elastic pier.
elastic pier
𝛿elastic = 𝛿fixed base (6) Contribution of these components to the total displace-
inelastic pier elastic pier
𝛿pier inelasticity = 𝛿SSI − 𝛿SSI (8)
6.5.1.2.  Contribution of SSI
Contribution of SSI to bridge displacement was com- ment and total column shear force is summarized in
puted from the difference between displacements found Figures 16 and 17, respectively.
78    M. T. A. Chaudhary

1.3 1.3

Disp. Ratio (SSI/Fixed) 1.2 1.2

Disp. Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.1 1.1

1 1

0.9 Fixed Class I 0.9

Class II Class III Fixed Class I
Class IV Class V Class II Class III
0.8 Elastic pier 0.8 Inelastic pier Class IV Class V
0.7 0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
PGA (g) PGA (g)

SSI/Fixed Disp. Ratio - Elastic Pier

Disp. Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.036
0.14
0.183
0.205
0.21
0.23
0.266
0.28

600
0.3

780
0.328

1320
0.36

0.4

2250
0.43

3350
0.52

5000
0.64
SSI/Fixed Disp. Ratio - Inelastic Pier
Disp. Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.3
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
0.95
0.036
0.14
0.183
0.205
0.21
0.23
0.266
0.28

600
0.3

780
0.328

1320
0.35

0.36

2250
0.4

3350
0.43

5000
0.64

Figure 11. Effect of SSI on bridge deck displacement.

6.5.2.  Observations and discussions (3) SSI had a maximum contribution of 10% in a

The following observations were made with reference few of the ground motions for relatively weaker
to Figures 16 and 17. rock profiles. Its contribution was less than 5%
for majority of the cases.
6.5.2.1.  Bridge displacement (Figure 16) (4) Effect of pier inelasticity was not insignifi-
cant to be ignored in the modelling of this
(1) Contribution of the elastic component of defor-
class of bridges for seismic loading. In fact,
mation was the largest varying from 100% for
pier inelasticity effect was more significant
small ground motions to more than 80% for
than the SSI effect for this class of bridges
design ground motions and reducing to about
for most cases of rock classes and ground
60% for extreme ground motions.
motions.
(2) Effect of pier inelasticity had more contribution
to the overall deformation as compared to SSI
for most of the ground motions. The contribu- 6.5.2.2.  Pier column shear force (Figure 17)
tion of this component to overall displacement
(1) Elastic component of column seismic shear
varied from 20 to 45% for most of the ground
force varied between 70 and 95% for various
motions.
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   79

1.3 1.3
Fixed Class I
Col. shear force Ratio (SSI/Fixed)
Fixed Class I

Col. shear force Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

Elastic pier Class II Class III Inelastic pier Class II Class III
1.2 Class IV Class V 1.2 Class IV Class V

1.1 1.1

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

PGA (g) PGA (g)

SSI/Fixed Shear Force Ratio - Elastic Pier

Shear Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05

0.95
0.036
0.14
0.183
0.205
0.21
0.23
0.266
0.28

600
0.3

780
0.328

1320
0.36

0.4

2250
0.43

3350
0.52

SSI/Fixed Shear Force Ratio - Inelastic Pier 5000

0.64
Shear Ratio (SSI/Fixed)

1.2

1.15

1.1

1.05

0.95
0.036
0.14
0.183
0.205
0.21
0.23
0.266
0.28

600
0.3

780
0.328

1320
0.36

0.4

2250
0.43

3350
0.52

5000
0.64

Figure 12. Effect of SSI on column shear force.

1.6
Accel. Ratio (Inelastic/Elastic pier)

Fixed Class I
1.5
Class II Class III
motions and increased it in rest of the cases.
1.4
Class IV Class V This observation was contrary to the bridge
1.3
2
R = 0.193 displacement which increased for almost all
1.2 R = 0.439

1.1
ground motions when SSI and pier inelas-
1 ticity was included. This difference could be
0.9 attributed to the frequency content of each
0.8 motion and its interaction with the bridge–
0.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
rock–foundation system as discussed in
PGA (g) Section 6.4.
(3) Contribution of SSI in increasing or decreas-
Figure 13.  Effect of pier column inelasticity on bridge deck ing the column shear force was observed in five
acceleration. ground motion and its value ranges from 3 to
15%.
rock profiles and ground motions, making it the (4) Negative contribution to shear force from
largest component in total shear force. SSI or pier inelasticity in Figure 17 meant a
(2) SSI and pier inelasticity decreased the elas- reduction in the magnitude of the shear force
tic shear force for nearly half of the ground and hence it was a beneficial effect.
80    M. T. A. Chaudhary

2.4 of pier inelasticity increased correspondingly. It is thus

Fixed Class I
2.2
concluded that the rocking response of bridges founded
Disp. Rao (Inelasc/Elasc pier)
Class II Class III
2
Class IV Class V on properly designed spread footings on rock has a min-
1.8
imal contribution to the overall bridge displacement and
2
R = 0.391
R = 0.625
1.6
1.4
seismic shear force which is dominated by the elastic
1.2 response and inelasticity in the pier columns. Therefore,
1 any attempt to rely on rocking motion of the foundation
0.8 to reduce the seismic demand should take this fact into
0.6 account that inelastic deformations will occur in the
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
PGA (g)
bridge pier before rocking of the footing is realized in
bridges that are designed according to the current codes,
Figure 14.  Bridge deck displacement ratio for inelastic and standards and design practices.
elastic piers.

6.6.  Relative significance of pier inelasticity and

1.5 SSI for bridge response parameters
Col. shear force Rao (Inelasc/Elasc pier)

Fixed Class I
1.4
Class II Class III
1.3 In order to answer the question that when SSI can be
Class IV Class V
1.2 neglected for computation of bridge displacement and
1.1 seismic shear force in the pier column, it was assumed
1 that the analyses cases that included SSI and pier column
0.9 2
R = 0.001
inelasticity resulted in the ‘most accurate’ values of the
0.8
R = 0.032
bridge response parameters. Results of other three cases,
0.7 viz. (i) fixed base with inelastic pier columns, (ii) SSI
0.6 with elastic pier columns and (iii) fixed base with elastic
0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
pier column were compared with the ‘most accurate’ case
PGA (g) (i.e. SSI with inelastic pier columns) by plotting the fol-
lowing ratios for bridge displacement and pier column
Figure 15. Effect of pier inelasticity on pier column shear force. shear force in Figures 19 and 20, respectively:
inelastic pier inelastic pier
𝛿SSI VSSI
(5) Pier inelasticity had a significant contribution in & (9a)
inelastic pier inelastic pier
10 ground motions with a contribution ranging 𝛿fixed base Vfixed base
from 3 to 27%.
(6) Similar to the bridge displacement, it was con-
cluded that pier inelasticity significantly con- inelastic pier inelastic pier
𝛿SSI VSSI
tributed to the column shear force and it should & (9b)
elastic pier elastic pier
not be neglected in the modelling of this class 𝛿SSI VSSI
of bridges.

inelastic pier inelastic pier

6.5.2.3.  Contribution of foundation rocking to 𝛿SSI VSSI
bridge response parameters.  Using the procedure elastic pier
& elastic pier (9c)
𝛿fixed base Vfixed base
of Chaudhary, Abé and Fujino (2001b) contribution
of the rocking component of foundation compliance Based on the common engineering practice, it was
(compliance is inverse of impedance) was computed decided that SSI effect could be neglected for a case if
from its share in the resultant compliance and it was the value of the above ratios lied within ±10% of unity.
found to vary between 16 and 27% for bridge foundations The following observations were made from examina-
used in the current study. Contribution of foundation tion of Figure 19 regarding bridge displacements:
rocking to overall bridge displacement and seismic shear
force is presented in Figure 18 and was computed based (1) The displacement ratio was within the accept-
on its share in resultant foundation compliance and able range of 0.9–1.1 for all of the fixed base cases
overall share of SSI to bridge response as computed in of inelastic pier column model (Equation (9a))
Section 6.5.1 and depicted in Figures 16 and 17. for rock classes I to III for all seismic ground
It was observed in Figure 18 that the maximum con- motions. Therefore, SSI can be neglected for
tribution of foundation rocking to total absolute bridge this case.
displacement was 3.5% while it was 2.7% for seismic (2) The displacement ratio was outside the accept-
shear force. The contribution of foundation rocking able range for the fixed base cases of inelastic
generally decreased with increasing PGA as the share pier column model (Equation (9a)) for rock
 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   81

200 100%
Pier Inelasticity

% contribution to bridge disp.

180 90%
SSI

Bridge deck disp. (mm)

160 80%
Elastic
140 70%
120 60%
Rock 100 50%
80 40%
Class I 60 30%
40 20%
20 10%
0 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

200 100%
Pier Inelasticity

% contribution to bridge disp.

180
SSI
Bridge deck disp. (mm)

80%
160 Elastic
140
60%
120

Rock 100 40%

80
Class II 60
20%

40
0%
20
0 -20%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

200 100%
Pier Inelasticity

% contribution to bridge disp

180
SSI
Bridge deck disp. (mm)

80%
160
Elastic
140
60%
Rock 120
100 40%
Class 80
20%
III 60
40
0%
20
0 -20%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

220 100%
Pier Inelasticity
% contribution to bridge disp.

200
SSI
Bridge deck disp. (mm)

180 80%
Elastic
160
60%
140
Rock 120
40%
Class 100
80
20%
IV 60
40 0%
20
0 -20%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

220 100%
Pier Inelasticity
% contribution to bridge disp.

200 90%
SSI
Bridge deck disp. (mm)

180 80%
Elastic
160 70%
140
60%
120
Rock 100
50%
40%
Class V 80
30%
60
40 20%
20 10%
0 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

Figure 16. Contribution of elastic, SSI and pier inelasticity components to total bridge displacement for various rock profiles.

classes IV and V for six seismic ground motions ground motions. This means that ignoring the
(i.e. 40% of the data points). Therefore, SSI can pier column inelasticity induces considerable
be neglected for these cases based on engineer- error in the computations of bridge displace-
ing judgment. However, it is preferred that SSI ments; whether SSI is included or neglected.
should be included for these rock profiles.
Similarly, the following observations were made by
(3) The displacement ratio was more than 1.1 for
examining Figure 20 regarding the relative significance
both cases of elastic pier (i.e. Equation (9b) with
of pier column inelasticity and SSI on seismic shear force
SSI and Equation (9c) with fixed base) for all
in the pier columns:
rock profiles for more than 90% of the seismic
82    M. T. A. Chaudhary

% contribution to col. shear force

6000 100%
Pier Inelasticity
5000

Column shear force (kN)

SSI 80%
4000 Elastic
60%
3000
40%
Rock 2000
20%
Class I 1000
0%
0

-1000 -20%

-2000 -40%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

% contribution to col. shear force

6000 100%
Pier Inelasticity
Column shear force (kN)

5000 SSI 80%

4000 Elastic
60%
3000
40%
Rock 2000
20%
Class II 1000
0%
0

-1000 -20%

-2000 -40%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

6000 6000
Pier Inelasticity Pier Inelasticity
5000 5000
Column shear force (kN)

Column shear force (kN)

SSI SSI
4000 Elastic 4000 Elastic

3000 3000

Rock 2000 2000

Class III 1000 1000

0 0

-1000 -1000

-2000 -2000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID
% contribution to col. shear force

6000 100%
Pier Inelasticity
Column shear force (kN)

5000 SSI 80%

4000 Elastic
60%
3000
40%
Rock 2000
20%
Class IV 1000
0%
0

-1000 -20%

-2000 -40%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID
% contribution to col. shear force

6000 100%
Pier Inelasticity
Column shear force (kN)

5000 SSI 80%

4000 Elastic
60%
3000
40%
Rock 2000
20%
Class V 1000
0%
0

-1000 -20%

-2000 -40%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

Figure 17. Contribution of elastic, SSI and pier inelasticity components to total column shear force for various soil profiles.

3.5% Contribution of Fdn. Rocking to Total Displ. 3.0% Contribution of Fdn. Rocking to Col. Shear

3.0% Class I Class II 2.0%

Class III Class IV
2.5%
1.0%
% Contribution

Class V
% Contribution

2.0%
0.0%
1.5%
-1.0% Class I Class II
1.0%
Class III Class IV
0.5% -2.0%
Class V
0.0% -3.0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

Figure 18. Contribution of foundation rocking to bridge displacement and column shear.

 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   83

(a) 2
(b) 2
Rock Class II
Rock Class I
1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

Disp. Ratio
Disp. Ratio

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

(c) 2
Rock Class III
(d) 2.2 Rock Class IV
2
1.8

1.8
1.6
Disp. Ratio

Disp. Ratio
1.6
1.4
1.4

1.2
1.2

1
1

0.8 0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

(e) 2.2
Rock Class V
2

1.8
Disp. Ratio

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID

Figure 19. Displacement ratio for various rock profiles, boundary conditions and pier elasticity.

(1) The column shear force ratio was between 0.9 means that ignoring pier column inelasticity
and 1.1 for the fixed base cases of inelastic pier induces considerable error in the computa-
column model (Equation (9a)) for rock classes tions of pier column shear force; whether SSI
I–III for all seismic ground motions. Therefore, is included or neglected.
SSI can be neglected for these cases.
(2) The column shear force ratio is outside the 0.9–
1.1 range for the fixed base cases of inelastic pier
7. Conclusions
column model (Equation (9a)) for rock classes
IV and V for five seismic ground motions (i.e. The following conclusions are drawn from this study:
33% of the data points). Therefore, SSI can be
(1) 
Pier column inelasticity contributed signif-
neglected for these cases based on engineer-
icantly to the bridge acceleration, displace-
ing judgment. However, it is preferred that SSI
ment and column shear force whether SSI was
should be included for these rock profiles.
included or neglected. Therefore, pier column
(3) The shear force ratio was outside the accept-
inelasticity should not be neglected in the seis-
able range for the cases of elastic pier with SSI
mic design/evaluation of simple, straight and
(Equation (9b)) and fixed base (Equation (9c))
non-skew bridges with shallow foundations
for all rock profiles for more than 65 and 75% of
founded on hard soil and rock. This finding is
the seismic ground motions, respectively. This
84    M. T. A. Chaudhary

(a) 1.4
Rock Class I
(b) 1.4
Rock Class II
1.3 1.3

1.2 1.2

Col. Shear Force Ratio

Col. Shear Force Ratio

1.1 1.1

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

1.4 1.4
(c) Rock Class III (d) Rock Class IV
1.3 1.3

1.2 1.2

Col. Shear Force Ratio

Col. Shear Force Ratio

1.1 1.1

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

EQ Record ID EQ Record ID

1.4
(e) Rock Class V
1.3

1.2
Col. Shear Force Ratio

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EQ Record ID

Figure 20. Pier column shear force ratio for various soil profiles, boundary conditions and pier elasticity.

in line with the conclusions of Ciampoli and (4) Ratio of bridge response parameters (accel-
Pinto (1995). eration, deck displacement and column shear
(2) SSI effect was moderately significant for dis- force) for SSI and fixed base cases as well as ine-
placement and shear force of bridge footings lastic and elastic pier column cases did not show
founded in class IV and V rock profiles. SSI any clear dependence on PGA except for the
should not be ignored in these rock profiles, ratio of inelastic to elastic pier column displace-
contrary to the recommendations of AASHTO ment which exhibited a moderate correlation.
(2010) and Ciampoli and Pinto (1995). However, (5) Foundation rocking was found to contrib-
SSI can be neglected for shallow foundations in ute very little to overall bridge displacement
class I–III rock profiles. (maximum 3.1%) and seismic shear force (max-
(3) Bridge deck displacement and pier column imum 2.9%). Therefore, the designer should rest
shear force were affected more by pier column assured that a properly designed shallow bridge
inelasticity than SSI. Therefore, more attention foundation for the class of bridges investigated
needs to be focused on including the effect of herein will not ‘rock’ during seismic excitation.
pier column inelasticity in design than SSI for (6) Based on the results for rock class IV and V, it
the class of bridges founded on shallow rock can be anticipated that SSI effect will become
foundations. pronounced for medium span bridges with

shallow foundations supported by soil pro-
files (i.e. AASHTO site classes C, D and E).
Therefore, use of shallow foundations for
bridges in these soil profiles should include
SSI as noted by Gazetas and Mylonakis (2001).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
AASHTO. 2010. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials.
ASCE. 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356. Reston, VA:
American Society of Civil Engineers, 518 pp.
Aviles, J., and L. E. Pérez-Rocha. 2003. “Soil–Structure
Interaction in Yielding Systems.” Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics 32 (11): 1749–1771.
Avşar, Ö., and G. Özdemir. 2013. “Response of Seismic-
isolated Bridges in Relation to Intensity Measures of
Ordinary and Pulselike Ground Motions.” Journal of
Bridge Engineering 18 (3): 250–260.
Bentley Systems, Inc. 2015. STAAD V8i, 3D Structural
Analysis and Design Engineering Software. Exton, PA.
Bieniawski, Z. T. 1974. “Geomechanics Classification of Rock
Masses and Its Application in Tunnelling.” Proceedings of
the 3rd International Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM,
Denver, 2 (2): 27–32.
Bolisetti, C., A. S. Whittaker, H. B. Mason, I. Almufti, and
M. Willford. 2014. “Equivalent Linear and Nonlinear Site
Response Analysis for Design and Risk Assessment of
Safety-related Nuclear Structures.” Nuclear Engineering
and Design 275: 107–121.
Carmichael, R. S. 1989. Practical Handbook of Physical
Properties of Rocks and Minerals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, 741 pp.
Chaudhary, M. T. A. 2004. “Influence of Pier Stiffness
Degradation on Soil–Structure Interaction in Base-isolated
Bridges.” Journal of Bridge Engineering 9 (3): 287–296.
Chaudhary, M. T. A., M. Abé, and Y. Fujino. 2001a.
“Performance Evaluation of Base-isolated Yama-agé
Bridge with High Damping Rubber Bearings Using
Recorded Seismic Data.” Engineering Structures 23 (8):
902–910.
Chaudhary, M. T. A., M. Abé, and Y. Fujino. 2001b.
“Identification of Soil–Structure Interaction Effect in Base-
isolated Bridges from Earthquake Records.” Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 21 (8): 713–725.
Chen, X. C., and Y. M. Lai. 2003. “Seismic Response of Bridge
Piers on Elasto-plastic Winkler Foundation Allowed to
Uplift.” Journal of Sound and Vibration 266 (5): 957–965.
Ciampoli, M., and P. Pinto. 1995. “Effects of Soil–Structure
Interaction on Inelastic Seismic Response of Bridge Piers.”
Journal of Structural Engineering 121 (5): 806–814.
Cofer, W. F., J. W. McGuire, and D. I. McLean. 1994. Analytical
Modeling of Foundations for Seismic Analysis of Bridges.
Report Prepared for Washington State Transportation
Commission, Report No. WA-RD- 328.1. Olympia, WA.
De Carlo, G., M. Dolce, and D. Liberatore. 2000. “Influence
of Soil–Structure Interaction on the Seismic Response of
Bridge Piers.” In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering   85
on Earthquake Engineering, 1–8. Upper Hut, New Zealand:
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Fraino, M., C. E. Ventura, W. D. Liam Finn, and M. Taiebat.
2012. “Seismic Soil–Structure Interaction Effects in
Instrumented Bridges.” In Proceedings of the 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–10. Lisbon,
Portugal: Portuguese Association for Earthquake
Engineering.
Gagnon, D., P. Léger, R. Tremblay, and V. Latendresse.
2010. “Pile Foundation Modeling for Seismic Analysis
of Highway Bridges Located in Eastern North America.”
In 17th Seminar on Advances in Research on Structures
in Quebec, 21-1–21-10, Quebec City, Canada. Accessed
February 1, 2014. http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/
portal/Librairie/Publications/fr/ministere/recherche/17e_
colloque/11_mai_15h30.pdf
Gazetas, G. 1991. “Formulas and Charts for Impedances
of Surface and Embedded Foundations.” Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 117 (9): 1363–1381.
Gazetas, G., and G. Mylonakis. 2001. “Soil–Structure
Interaction Effects on Elastic and Inelastic Structures.”
In Fourth International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics.
Symposium in Honor of Professor WD Liam Finn, 1–13.
Paper No. SOAP 2, San Diego, California, University of
Missouri-Rolla.
Hayashikawa, T., S. E. A. Raheem, and I. Hashimoto. 2004.
“Nonlinear Seismic Response of Soil–Foundation–
Structure Interaction Model of Cable-stayed Bridges
Tower.” In Proceedings of 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, 1–12. Paper No. 3045,
Vancouver, Canada: Canadian Association for Earthquake
Engineering.
Jaeger, J. C., N. G. Cook, and R. Zimmerman. 2007.
Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. 4th ed. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, 488 pp.
Jarernprasert, S., E. Bazan-Zurita, and J. Bielak. 2013.
“Seismic Soil–Structure Interaction Response of Inelastic
Structures.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 47:
132–143.
Kalkan, E., and N. S. Kwong. 2011. “Assessment of Modal-
pushover-based Scaling Procedure for Nonlinear Response
History Analysis of Ordinary Standard Bridges.” Journal of
Bridge Engineering 17 (2): 272–288.
Kawashima, K., and T. Nagai. 2006. “Effectiveness of Rocking
Seismic Isolation on Bridges.” In 4th International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–10. Paper No.
86, Taipei, Taiwan: National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering of Taiwan.
Liu, W., T. Hutchinson, B. Kutter, M. Hakhamaneshi,
M. Aschheim, and S. Kunnath. 2013. “Demonstration
of Compatible Yielding between Soil–Foundation and
Superstructure Components.” Journal of Structural
Engineering 139 (Special Issue: NEES 2: Advances in
Earthquake Engineering): 1408–1420.
Mylonakis, G., S. Nikolaou, and G. Gazetas. 2006. “Footings
under Seismic Loading: Analysis and Design Issues with
Emphasis on Bridge Foundations.” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 26 (9): 824–853.
Mylonakis, G., and G. Gazetas. 2000. “Seismic Soil–Structure
Interaction: Beneficial or Detrimental?” Journal of
Earthquake Engineering 4 (3): 277–301.
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program)
2009. FEMA P695: Recommended Methodology for
Quantification of Building System Performance and
Response Parameters. Redwood City, CA: Applied
Technology Council.
86    M. T. A. Chaudhary
Ni, P., L. Petrini, and R. Paolucci. 2014. “Direct Displacement-
based Assessment with Nonlinear Soil–Structure
Interaction for Multi-span Reinforced Concrete Bridges.”
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 10 (9): 1211–1227.
Padgett, J. E., B. G. Nielson, and R. DesRoches. 2008.
“Selection of Optimal Intensity Measures in Probabilistic
Seismic Demand Models of Highway Bridge Portfolios.”
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 37 (5):
711–725.
PEER. 2014. “PEER Ground Motion Database.” Accessed
June 2014. http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_
motion_database
Prakash, S., S. Kumar, and K. Sreerama. 1996. “Pile–Soil
Pile Interaction Effects under Earthquake Loadings.”
In Proceedings of 11th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Paper No. 359, Acapulco, Mexico. pp. p1–8,
Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Sismica and Pergamon,
Oxford, UK.
Rahai, A., and S. F. Nafari. 2013. “A Comparison between
Lumped and Distributed Plasticity Approaches in
the Pushover Analysis Results of a PC Frame Bridge.”
International Journal of Civil Engineering 11 (4): 217–225.
Raheem, S. E. A., T. Hayashikawa, and I. Hashimoto. 2003.
“Effects of Soil–Foundation–Superstructure Interaction
on Seismic Response of Cable-stayed Bridges Tower
with Spread Footing Foundation.” Journal of Structural
Engineering 49 (2): 475–486.
Saadeghvaziri, M. A., A. R. Yazdani-Motlagh, and S.
Rashidi. 2000. “Effects of Soil–Structure Interaction on
Longitudinal Seismic Response of MSSS Bridges.” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 20 (1–4): 231–242.
Şadan, O. B., L. Petrini, and G. M. Calvi. 2013. “Direct
Displacement-based Seismic Assessment Procedure for
Multi-span Reinforced Concrete Bridges with Single-
column Piers.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 42 (7): 1031–1051.
Serafim, J. L., and J. P. Pereira. 1983. “Considerations of the
Geomechanics Classification of Bieniawski.” In Proceedings
of the International Symposium of Engineering Geology and
Underground Construction, 1133–1144. Lisbon: Sociedade
Portuguesa de Geotecnica.
Somaini, D. R. 1984. “Parametric Study on Soil–Structure
Interaction of Bridges with Shallow Foundations.” In:
Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. Vol. 3, 785–792. San Francisco, CA. Published
by Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Oakland,
CA and Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle, NJ.
Spyrakos, C. C. 1990. “Assessment of SSI on the Longitudinal
Seismic Response of Short Span Bridges.” Engineering
Structures 12 (1): 60–66.
Strenk, P. M., and J. Wartman. 2011. “Comparison of Dynamic
Response from Equivalent-linear and Cyclic Non-linear
Model of Hysteretic Soil Behavior.” In Continuum and
Distinct Element Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics
2011, Paper 9–01, edited by D. P. Sainsbury, R. D. Hart, C.
L. Detournay, and M. J. Nelson, 1–12. Minneapolis, MN,
USA: Itasca Consulting Group.
Tezcan, S. S., Z. Ozdemir, and A. Keceli. 2009. “Seismic
Technique to Determine the Allowable Bearing Pressure
for Shallow Foundations in Soils and Rocks.” Acta
Geophysica 57 (2): 400–412.
Toh, J. C. W., M. J. Pender, and R. McCully. 2011.
“Implications of Soil Variability for Performance Based
Shallow Foundation Design.” In Proceedings of 9th Pacific
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 14–16. Upper
Hut, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering.
Touloukian, Y. S., W. R. Judd, and R. F. Roy, eds. 1989.
Physical Properties of Rocks and Minerals. Vol. 2. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 548 pp.
Tseng, W. S. 2001. “Ground/Structure Interaction
Assessment.” In Instrumental Systems for Diagnostics
of Seismic Response of Bridges and Dams, edited by
C. M. Johnson, 71–76. Richmond, CA: Consortium of
Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems
(COSMOS). Publication No. CP-2001/01.
Vlassis, A. G., and C. C. Spyrakos. 2001. “Seismically Isolated
Bridge Piers on Shallow Soil Stratum with Soil–Structure
Interaction.” Computers & Structures 79 (32): 2847–2861.
WSDOT. 2013. Geotechnical Design Manual, M 46-03.09.
Tumwater, WA: Washington State Department of
Transportation, 194 pp.
Wyllie, D. C. 1999. Foundations on Rock. New York:
Routledge, 401 pp.
Zhang, J., and Y. Tang. 2006. “Evaluating Radiation Damping
of Shallow Foundations on Nonlinear Soil Medium for
Soil–Structure Interaction Analysis of Bridges.” In US-
Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop, Seattle, WA.