Chapter 8

Analysis Considering Soil–Structure

Interaction

8.1 Soil and Foundation

(1) Ground survey and soil parameter

Soil parameters representing mechanical properties are usually determined by ground
survey or sounding (field test). The laboratory test of sampled soil and the direct use
of the sounding result are two representative methods for parameter determination.
While the former one can determine the soil properties in detail, careful treatment
of soil sampling is important because the sampling influences the result greatly.
Especially, the sampling of sand is difficult and the use of frozen sample may be
preferable. However, the use of the frozen sample is costly and this method is hardly
used in practice. On the other hand, since the frozen sampling of clay is relatively easy,
the uniaxial compressive test and consolidation test are often used for the uniaxial
compressive strength, compressibility, water permeability, etc.
The standard penetration test, the static cone penetration test, the borehole lateral
load test, and the PS velocity logging test are examples of sounding for soil parameter
identification. The standard penetration test (SPT) is the most well-known in situ
dynamic penetration test intended to obtain information on the mechanical properties
of soil. The test deals with a thick-walled sample tube which consists of the diameter
50.8 mm of outside and the diameter 35 mm of inside and has an approximate length
650 mm. This sample tube is driven into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by
giving blows from a slide hammer with a mass of 63.5 kg falling from the position
760 mm above. In the test, the sample tube is to be driven 150 mm into the ground
and then the number of blows required for the tube to penetrate each 150 mm up to
a depth of 450 mm is recorded. The sum of the numbers of blows needed for the
second and third specified penetrations is called the “SPT-value” or the “N-value”.
From the blow count, we can obtain the density of the ground, and it is used in many
empirical geotechnical engineering formulae. For example, the N-value is related to
the relative density and internal friction angle of sand and to the uniaxial compressive
strength qu of clay. Furthermore, it is also usually made to relate the N-value to the
shear wave velocity. However, its accuracy is not high [1, 2].
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 211
H. Takabatake et al., Simplified Dynamic Analysis of High-Rise Buildings,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7185-1_8
212 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

The cone penetration test (CPT) is another test intended to determine the mechan-
ical properties of soils and delineating soil stratigraphy. It was first developed in the
1950s at the Dutch Laboratory for Soil Mechanics in Delft to investigate the prop-
erties of soft soils. Now, the CPT is one of the most used and accepted soil testing
methods. The test method consists of pushing an instrumented cone, with the tip fac-
ing down, into the ground at a controlled rate (controlled between 15 and 25 mm/s
accepted).
The borehole lateral load test is frequently used to find the properties of the hor-
izontal deformation of ground (deformation coefficient, yield pressure and ultimate
pressure), mainly the horizontal constant of the spring in pile foundations, etc.
The suspension PS velocity logging test is a rather new method of measuring phase
velocity profiles of ground. It was developed in the mid-1970s to respond to the need
for a technique that could measure phase velocities of ground in deep boreholes. It was
originally used at the OYO Corporation of Japan. The method obtained acceptance
in Japan in the mid-1980s and was used with other phase velocity measurement
methods to characterize the characteristics of earthquake site response. Since the
early 1990s, its effectiveness was also acknowledged in the U.S., especially among
earthquake engineering researchers. The elapsed time between arrivals of the waves
at the receivers is used to determine the average velocity of a 1-meter-high column
of soil around the borehole. Source to receiver analysis is also performed for quality
assurance. The mechanical parameters of soil, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio
etc., can be obtained from the PS wave velocities.
(2) Modeling of ground
The modeling of soil is different depending on the level of acting loads. Under rela-
tively small loads, such as usual vertical load or horizontal load for checking allow-
able stress, the soil is often assumed to be elastic in evaluating the soil displacement.
On the other hand, the soil is assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic when evaluating
the limit resistance (or capacity) of soil or setting the collapse mechanism of ground.
The effective stress analysis is needed when evaluating the soil settlement during
consolidation and the possibility of soil liquefaction. In these phenomena, the pore
water pressure has to be taken into account.
(3) Footing (shallow foundation)
The shallow foundation (footing) is usually used in small-size buildings regardless of
soil conditions (Fig. 8.1). This foundation is also used in medium-rise buildings when
the ground is relatively not soft. In 1970, some high-rise buildings were constructed
in Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan with this kind of footing because the ground in Shinjuku
is relatively hard. However, the deep basement was employed to stabilize those tall
buildings.
(4) Pile foundation (deep foundation)
In medium-rise or tall buildings, the pile foundation is usually used when the ground
is not hard (Fig. 8.2). In the case where the supporting ground is not deep, the
supporting pile is used. On the other hand, when the supporting ground is deep, the
8.1 Soil and Foundation 213

Fig. 8.1 Footing foundation

Fig. 8.2 Pile foundation

friction pile is used. Recently, the piled raft foundation is sometimes used in the
case where the supporting ground is deep and the settlement of ground around the
building is serious.

8.2 Foundation Response During Earthquake

The foundation response during an earthquake may be characterized as follows:

(1) A structure vibrates during an earthquake. As a result, force and/or energy are
interchanged between the structure and its surrounding soil. This results in a
response of surrounding soil different from the vibration due to the earthquake
motion. Such a response process is called “dynamic soil–structure interaction”.
(2) In investigating, the seismic response of a structure–pile–soil system, a response
caused by the forced displacement of the surface ground is important, especially
in a soft ground. This effect is called “the kinematic response” [3, 4]. The
kinematic response plays a crucial role in the design of piles together with the
inertial response due to the inertial forces from superstructures.
214 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

(3) In the case where the level of the input ground motion is large and the struc-
tural response goes into inelastic range, the surrounding soil experiences large
deformation. In such a case, the plastic response of soil has to be taken into
account. In addition, the dependence of stiffness and damping of soil on the
strain amplitude plays a crucial role in the dynamic response of soil [5].

8.3 Foundation Modeling for Horizontal Load

(1) Method using distributed elastic spring

1. Static modeling
A beam model supported by distributed Winkler springs is often used in the design of
piles in soil (Fig. 8.3). This model was proposed by Chang in 1937 and called Chang’s
model. The pile is modeled by a semi-infinite beam and both the displacement and
shear force are assumed to be zero at infinity. On the other hand, at the pile head,
the horizontal force is specified. Furthermore, there are two boundary conditions at
the pile head such that the rotational angle is zero (fixed: the corresponding bending
moment is obtained as a reaction moment) or the bending moment is zero (the
corresponding rotational angle is obtained as the response).
Figure 8.4 shows the dynamic Winkler-type spring model. The damping property
of the Winkler-type soil element is shown in Fig. 8.5. The damping includes the
effects of energy dissipation due to soil elastic–plastic property and energy radiation
into the surrounding soil. For this reason, the damping consists of hysteretic damping
and radiation damping. The damping ratio evaluated in the equivalent linearization
of the free-field ground is substituted into the hysteretic damping term in Fig. 8.5.

Fig. 8.3 Pile subjected to H

horizontal force in GL
semi-infinite ground Q(x)
x y
dx khBydx khBydx

Q(x)+(dQ/dx)dx
B:diameter

kh: Horizontal subgrade

reaction coefficient
8.3 Foundation Modeling for Horizontal Load 215

pile

soil

mass

infinite
element

Winkler spring model

Fig. 8.4 Dynamic Winkler spring model and free-body equilibrium

Fig. 8.5 Hysteretic damping

and radiation damping [9]

2. Dynamic modeling
It is necessary to consider the vibration of free-field ground and the affected vibra-
tion of soil near piles. The theory of wave propagation can be used to model the
former one and the dynamic Winkler-type springs including the damping property
at the imaginary part can be used to simulate the latter one [6–9]. Figure 8.4 shows
the dynamic Winkler-type springs. The governing equation of this model can be
described by

d 4 U (z)
E p Ip + (k x + iωcx − mω2 )U (z) = 0 (8.1)
dz 4

The combination of the hysteretic damping and the radiation damping as shown in
Fig. 8.5 can often be used as a damping model in the dynamic Winkler-type spring.
ωG1 is the fundamental natural circular frequency of the surface ground. Figure 8.5
shows that while the soil does not resist in the frequency smaller than ωG1 , the soil
resists in the frequency larger than ωG1 .
Figure 8.6a, b shows the absolute transfer functions of the bending moment
distribution and the shear force distribution of the models (multi-input continuum
model and single-input finite-element model) shown in Fig. 8.12 [8–10]. It can be
216 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

Fig. 8.6 a Transfer function of bending moment [8], b transfer function of shear force [8]

observed that both models (multi-input continuum model and single-input finite-
element model) correspond well. This supports the validity of both models.
(2) Method using discrete spring
A discrete spring model is sometimes used in the design of piles. In such a case, two
models are employed: (1) The total quantity of horizontal loads in the super building
acts at the pile head (foundation beam effect is considered), (2) the superframe,
foundation beam, piles and soil springs are treated as an overall model (Fig. 8.7).
(3) Response displacement method
In soft soil, the forced deformation by the free-field ground affects the pile response
greatly, in addition, the inertial force from the superstructure. These two effects occur
simultaneously during earthquake and are considered automatically in the overall
model including the building, pile, and soil. In order to evaluate the former effect
simply, it is often used to specify the deformation mode of the free-field ground and
solve the differential equation. The solution provides the pile deformation, pile shear
force, and pile bending moment. This method is called the “response displacement
method”. At the pile tip, the displacement or rotation angle (or bending moment) is
given. On the other hand, at the pile head, the shear force is specified to be zero and
the rotation angle (or bending moment) is specified to be zero.
(4) Method using building–pile–soil interaction model
This method is a method to take into account both the effect of the inertial force
acting on the superstructure (left of Fig. 8.8) and the effect of the forced free-field
ground deformation (right of Fig. 8.8) on the pile response. The simplest method is to
combine the result by the beam theory supported by elastic springs ((1) in Sect. 8.3)
and the result by the response displacement method ((3) in Sect. 8.3). Recently, a
more detailed method is developed such that the design loads are applied on the
8.3 Foundation Modeling for Horizontal Load 217

Fig. 8.7 Discrete soil spring

model

superstructure and the ground motion derived from the free-field ground analysis is
input to the other side of pile in the model shown in (2) in Sect. 8.3.

8.4 Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction

(1) Building model with fixed foundation

Building structures are supported by ground. Since the ground deforms when it
sustains the inertial force from the superstructure during earthquakes, the dynamic
soil–structure interaction usually occurs. However, in the case where the ground is
hard, the interaction effect is not large and may be negligible. In such a case, the free-
field ground motion can be used as a direct input motion to the structure. This model
is called a fixed-base model (Fig. 8.9). It is important to investigate the location of
earthquake motion records (free field or in buildings) when they are used as the input
ground motions.
(2) SR model
The stiffness and damping of a foundation on ground can often be modeled by a
spring and dashpot. When the horizontal and rotational springs and dashpots are
218 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

fixed movement forced displacement

Iner al effect Kinema c effect

(effect by iner al force (effect by forced displacement of
from super-structure) free-field ground)

Low and mid-rise building High-rise building

(sta c design) (dynamic design)

Fig. 8.8 Inertial interaction effect and kinematic interaction effect due to forced deformation of
free-field ground

Fig. 8.9 Fixed-base model

u g (t )
8.4 Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction 219

Fig. 8.10 SR model

u g (t ) cH cR

kH kR

modeled in this scenario, this model is called the SR model (Fig. 8.10). For footing,
the stiffness and damping of the foundation mat are evaluated in this modeling. On
the other hand, for pile foundation, the sum of horizontal stiffnesses of pile heads
and the sum of the multiplication of vertical stiffnesses of pile heads and the distance
from the centerline are evaluated as the horizontal and rotational stiffnesses. The
damping is the same. The SR model is the simplest model for describing the dynamic
soil–structure interaction. Due to its high reliability and usage, this model is often
used in the actual structural design of buildings. When the building is buried in the
ground, the interaction term exists. In addition, when the building has basement, a
model called the buried SR model is sometimes employed (Fig. 8.11).
(3) Building–pile–soil interaction model
In dealing with an overall model including a building, pile, and ground, the location
of specification of input ground motions (or control points) should be determined
carefully. The first case is the model where the free-field ground motions are analyzed
first by the wave propagation theory and those motions are input to the end points
of interaction springs and dashpots connected to piles as shown in the upper left
of Fig. 8.12. The second model is the model where the overall model including a
building, pile, and ground is modeled by the FEM model, etc., and the ground motion
defined at the engineering bedrock is input at the bottom of this overall model as
220 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

m
IR
c
u g (t ) * *
k * *
h
c HH cHR cRH cRR
m0

* *
I R0
k HH k HR * *
k RR
e k RH

r0

Fig. 8.11 Buried SR model

shown in the upper right of Fig. 8.12. In this case, the viscous boundaries have to
be put at the bottom of the model to represent the wave radiation into lower ground.
The wave radiation into horizontal direction can often expressed by the damping in
the interaction springs. Recently, a more complete model as shown in the lower part
of Fig. 8.12 is introduced to express more detailed behavior of such complicated
building–pile–soil interaction phenomenon. In this model, the viscous boundaries at
the bottom of the free-field surface ground and the pile group effect have to be taken
into account properly.
(4) Other classification of conventional methods for estimating seismic pile
response
For the practical seismic design of piles, simple and rather accurate methods for
predicting the pile response is important. To evaluate the bending moment in a pile,
both effects, i.e., the forced displacement of a free-field ground (action 1) and the
effect of the inertial force from a superstructure (action 2), have to be considered in
an appropriate manner. However, these two effects have different characteristics and
it seems difficult to include these in a simple way keeping a reasonable accuracy. In
the current design practice, the following two methods are representative ones.
(Direct method)
The direct method is the most popular method. An overall structure–pile–soil system
is used in this method. A spring or a finite-element system is introduced to model
the soil resistance mechanism around a pile. The spring model can be concluded
to be practical after its accuracy is guaranteed through the comparison with other
methods (a continuum model, a finite-element system or physical experiment). In this
method, the earthquake ground motion is given at the engineering bedrock. Although
the finite-element method is flexible enough from its wide applicability to various
situations, it is also true that it has the following issues to be resolved for practical
design application.
(i) Three-dimensional modeling of soil and pile elements needs tremendous
amount of computational load and memory resources.
8.4 Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction 221

One-dimensional wave
Total model
propaga on theory

soil spring:
viscous boundary group pile effect

Fig. 8.12 Dynamic Winkler spring model, simplified FEM model [8] and building–pile–soil overall
model

(ii) Deformation or displacement compatibility between pile elements and soil is

difficult to satisfy depending on the finite elements used for both objects (soil
and pile elements). To satisfy this requirement, special finite elements have to
be selected. For example, a cubic displacement in pile elements and a linear
displacement in soil elements are used in the program “FLUSH”. This incom-
patibility results in the deformation gap.
(Substructure method)
The substructure method is another practical method. In this method, the free-field
ground motion is analyzed first to the engineering bedrock input motion and the
222 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

obtained free-field ground motion is given to the structure–pile system. In this

method, it is intended to superpose the response called “kinematic response” result-
ing from the forced displacement at the free-field ground and the response called
“inertial response” resulting from the inertial force in a superstructure. Two different
methods were proposed in the substructure method, referred to as the static method
and the dynamic method. The static method is the method such that the forced dis-
placement by the free-field ground and the inertial force from the superstructure are
given statically. It should be reminded that, although the static method is a simple
and practical method, it has the following drawbacks.
(i) Estimation difficulty in the displacement distribution of the free-field ground:
The displacement profile is generally constructed in terms of the lowest mode
and higher mode effects are not reflected appropriately. Furthermore, the ampli-
tude of the displacement profile must be evaluated by using some different
methods.
(ii) Estimation complication in the inertial force to be applied to piles: The accurate
estimation of inertial forces may be possible through a more detailed model.
Although the simple but well-calibrated sway-rocking model is often used, the
input motion must be evaluated as one including the surface soil amplifica-
tion. This modeling of surface soil amplification and the response spectrum
definition at the ground surface needs a tremendous amount of tasks.
(iii) Unclear principle and uncertainty in the superposition of the abovementioned
kinematic and inertial responses: The simple sum of those two effects is usually
employed as a conservative estimation. However, there is no guarantee on the
accuracy (or degree of redundancy to the true value). From recent research, it
was made clear that the relation of the fundamental natural period of the surface
ground and that of the building plays a key role.
As example ground models, consider two models (Ground A and B). Ground A
is a representative example of soft ground and Ground B is a representative example
of harder ground. The soil physical properties and their layer thicknesses of both
grounds are presented in Fig. 8.13. Together with the shear wave velocity, the depth
of the surface ground is also a key factor for evaluating the dynamical property of the
ground, e.g., the natural frequency of the surface ground. The depth of the surface
ground of Ground A is larger than that of Ground B. Therefore, Ground A is softer
than Ground B. It is known that a soil layer of the shear wave velocity around or
larger than 400 m/s is called “engineering bedrock” in Japan. This concept is often
used for defining the design ground motion irrespective of the property of the surface
ground.
Figures 8.14 and 8.15 show the pile shear force and bending moment distributions
in piles of 1.0, 1.5 m due to the kinematic interaction under the damage-level ground
motions (Level 1) for Ground A and Ground B, respectively [11]. To evaluate only
the kinematic interaction, the masses of building and foundation are assumed to be
zero.
Figures 8.16 and 8.17 show the pile shear force and bending moment distributions
in pile of 1.5 m due to both the kinematic interaction and inertial interaction under
8.4 Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction 223

Fig. 8.13 Example of soft GL- 0

sand
ground (Ground A) and hard Ground A
ground (Ground B) 5
sand
10
clay

Depth (m)
15

20 clay

25
sand
30
clay
35
clay Engineering Bedrock
40
0 100 200 300 400 500
shear wave velocity (m/s)

GL- 0
Ground B
5 clay

10
Depth (m)

15

20 sand

25

30
clay
35 Engineering Bedrock

40
0 100 200 300 400 500
shear wave velocity (m/s)

the damage-level ground motions (Level 1) for Ground A and Ground B, respec-
tively [11]. It can be observed that while the kinematic interaction effect and inertial
interaction effect are superposed in an increasing manner in Ground B, the kinematic
interaction effect and inertial interaction effect are combined in a decreasing manner
partially in Ground A. This phenomenon indicates that the SRSS method often used
in the evaluation of the kinematic interaction effect and inertial interaction effect is
not always effective.
(Comparison with recorded data during an earthquake)
To investigate the validity and accuracy of the Winkler-type soil element model used
here, modeling has been conducted for an actual building supported by piles. The
schematic diagram of the building–pile system located in Yokohama, Japan is shown
in Fig. 8.18. The main structure of this building is a steel frame of twelve stories. This
building is supported by twenty cast-in-place reinforced concrete piles. These piles
are 35 m long and 1.7 m in diameter. A finite-element model has been introduced
as shown in Fig. 8.12 and the peak response of bending strains of piles has been
224 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

Groud model A : pile diameter=1.0m Groud model A : pile diameter=1.0m

0 0

5 5

10 10
depth(m)

15 15

depth(m)
20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

0 4
5 10 5 5 5 5 5 5
1 10 1.5 10 2 10 2.5 10 3 10 3.5 10 0 5 10 5 1 10 6 1.5 106 2 10 6 2.5 106
Shear force (N) Bending moment (Nm)

Groud model A : pile diameter=1.5m Groud model A : pile diameter=1.5m

0 0

5 5

10 10
depth(m)

15 15
depth(m)

20 20

25 25

30 30

35 35

0 5 10 4 5 5 5 5 5
1 10 1.5 10 2 10 2.5 10 3 10 3.5 10 5
0 5 10 5 1 10 6 1.5 106 2 10 6 2.5 106
Shear force (N) Bending moment (Nm)

Fig. 8.14 Pile shear force and bending moment distributions in piles of 1.0, 1.5 m due to the
kinematic interaction under damage-level ground motions (Level 1) for Ground A [11]

compared. The Winkler-type soil element is included in this finite-element model.

Only one difference is the shape functions for the free-field ground and piles. A
linear shape function has been introduced for the free-field ground and a cubic shape
function for the piles. Figure 8.19a presents the comparison of the peak pile bending
strain computed by using the analytical model including the present Winkler-type
soil element with that recorded during an earthquake in 1992. The soil is assumed to
be elastic. On the other hand, Fig. 8.19b illustrates the comparison of the peak pile
bending strain in which the soil is treated as nonlinear and the equivalent linear model
is used. This figure demonstrates that the present model provides a good agreement
near the pile head. This fact supports the validity of the present continuum model
including the Winkler-type soil element. Both the inertial and kinematic effects are
contained in this bending strain. It may be concluded that both the inertial and
8.4 Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction 225

Groud model B : pile diameter=1.0m Groud model B : pile diameter=1.0m

0
0

4 4

8 8
depth(m)

depth(m)
12 12

16 16

20 20

24 24

28 28
0 2 10 4 4 10 4 6 10 4 8 10 4 1 10 5 1.2 105 1.4 105 0 2 10 5 4 10 5 6 10 5 8 10 5 1 10 6
Shear force (N) Bending moment (Nm)

Groud model B : pile diameter=1.5m Groud model B : pile diameter=1.5m

0 0

4 4

8 8
depth(m)

depth(m)

12 12

16 16

20 20

24 24

28 28
0 2 10 4 4 10 4 6 10 4 8 10 4 1 10 5 1.2 105 1.4 105 0 2 10 5 4 10 5 6 10 5 8 10 5 1 10 6
Shear force (N) Bending moment (Nm)

Fig. 8.15 Pile shear force and bending moment distributions in piles of 1.0, 1.5 m due to the
kinematic interaction under damage-level ground motions (Level 1) for Ground B [11]

kinematic effects exist almost in the same magnitude. It may also be supposed that
the group effect of multiple piles is relatively small in this case.
As for the combination of the inertial interaction effect and the kinematic inter-
action effect, there are some discussions. Tokimatsu et al. proposed a rule that the
summation of absolute values of the inertial interaction effect and the kinematic
interaction effect gives a good estimate when the fundamental natural period of the
building is shorter than the fundamental natural period of ground and the SRSS
is good in the reverse range [4]. Takewaki et al. proposed the overall FEM model
as shown in Fig. 8.12 and an efficient and accurate response spectrum method for
combining both effects [8, 10].
226 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

0 0

5 5

10 10
depth(m)

depth(m)
15 15

20 20

25 25

30 30
kinematic only kinematic only
35 inertial+kinematic 35 inertial+kinematic

0 5 10 4 1 10 5 1.5 105 2 105 2.5 10 5 0 1 105 2 105 3 105 4 105 5 105 6 105 7 105 8 105
Shear force (N) Bending moment (Nm)

Fig. 8.16 Pile shear force and bending moment distributions in pile of 1.5 m due to both the
kinematic interaction and inertial interaction under the damage-level ground motions (Level 1) for
Ground A [11]

0 0

4 4

8 8
depth(m)

depth(m)

12 12

16 16

20 20

24 24
kinematic only kinematic only
inertial+kinematic inertial+kinematic
28 28
0 5 10 4 1 10 5 1.5 10 5 2 10 5 2.5 105 0 1 10 5 2 10 5 3 10 5 4 10 5 5 10 5 6 10 5 7 10 5 8 10 5
Shear force (N) Bending moment (Nm)

Fig. 8.17 Pile shear force and bending moment distributions in pile of 1.5 m due to both the
kinematic interaction and inertial interaction under the damage-level ground motions (Level 1) for
Ground B [11]
8.4 Dynamic Soil–Structure Interaction 227

Fig. 8.18 Twelve-story steel office building with pile foundation [8]

Computed (present) Computed (strain compatible)

Measured corner pile Computed (kinematic only)
Measured center pile Measured corner pile
Measured center pile
(a) 0 (b) 0 strain
elastic
compatible
B1
10 10
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

20 20
pile

30 30

40 40

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Peak pile bending strain (x10-5) Peak pile bending strain (x10-5)

Fig. 8.19 Recorded pile strain and the corresponding value due to response spectrum method during
earthquake [8], a Soil is assumed to be elastic, b soil is assumed to be nonlinear and equivalent
linearization is used
228 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

8.5 Ground Motion Amplification Through Surface

Ground

(1) Outcropping engineering bedrock surface motion and one-dimensional

wave propagation theory

In the usual case, the ground consists of multiple soil layers. Especially the surface
ground is rather soft compared to the deeper soil. When the deeper soil has the
shear wave velocity larger than 400 m/s, the deeper ground is called the engineering
bedrock. In the wave propagation theory, when the wave can propagate from the
shallow layer into the deeper layer, the property of the shallow layer influences
the motions at the top of the deeper layer. In the earthquake-resistant design, it is
desirable to define the design earthquake ground motion at the top of the engineering
bedrock. For this purpose, the concept of outcropping motion is introduced (see
Fig. 8.20). Therefore, the amplitude of outcropping motion is double of the incident
wave amplitude.
Dual-level design earthquake ground motions are considered. One is the damage-
limit-level design earthquake and the other is the safety-limit level design earth-
quake which was introduced in the revised Japanese earthquake-resistant design
code (2000). These earthquake motions are prescribed at the engineering bedrock
surface as outcropping motions, i.e., the assumption of nonexistence of the surface
ground. The acceleration response spectra for 5% damping ratio for these dual-level
earthquake input motions are shown in Fig. 8.21.
Consider a horizontally layered ground model, as shown in Fig. 8.22. This ground
consists of N − 1 horizontal soil layers and lies on semi-infinite homogeneous ground.
This semi-infinite homogeneous ground with stiffness larger than the surface soil is
called engineering bedrock. The design earthquake is defined at the uppermost level
of the engineering bedrock in the form of the design acceleration response spectrum
for outcropping motion. This treatment accords with the recent Japanese seismic-
resistant design code (June, 2000). This uppermost level of the engineering bedrock
is called the engineering bedrock surface. The soil layer numbering starts at the
ground surface and the engineering bedrock is the N-th layer. Although the incident
wave to buildings is not vertical in general, it is true that the incident wave near the
surface is almost vertical due to Snell’s law. SHAKE program based on the one-
dimensional wave propagation theory and the equivalent linearization method was

Fig. 8.20 Outcropping GL

motion and within motion at
engineering bedrock surface Surface ground (Remove of surface ground)

different response Outcropping surface of

engineering bedrock

Engineering bedrock
8.5 Ground Motion Amplification Through Surface Ground 229

Fig. 8.21 Two-level design 10

acceleration response spectra damping ratio=0.05

acceleration response spectrum(m/s )

2
at engineering bedrock
surface in Japanese seismic 8
design code (2000) [16]
(Reprinted from [16],
6
Copyright 2002, with
permission from Elsevier)
safety limit
4

2
damage limit
S A = 1.024/T
0.16 0.64
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
natural period(s)

developed at the University of California, Berkeley by Seed and Lysmer’s group

[5]. In the revised Japanese seismic-resistant design code (2000), Gs coefficient
was introduced to express the amplification of the surface ground. However, in the
structural design of tall and base-isolated buildings in Japan, the SHAKE program
or similar are used in order to transform the input ground motion at the engineering
bedrock surface into the motion at the bottom of the building.
(2) Strain amplitude dependence of soil properties
Figure 8.23 shows the wave propagation from the earthquake fault to the ground
surface. It is known that although the earthquake wave starting from the fault goes
into the earthquake bedrock and engineering bedrock with an inclined input angle,
it tends to approach to the vertical direction because of the gradually decreasing
stiffness properties of soil toward the ground surface. Therefore, the one-dimensional
wave propagation theory plays an important role in such a case. For the purpose of
describing the nonlinear behavior of the soil, a well-known equivalent linear model is
used. The dependency of the soil properties on the strain level is shown in Fig. 8.24.
In the small strain range, 10−5 –10−6 , the stiffness reduction is very small and the
damping is also small. On the other hand, in the large strain range, 10−3 –10−4 , the
stiffness reduction becomes larger and the damping also becomes larger. Instead of
the evaluation of the maximum soil shear strain in the equivalent linear model by
the time-history analysis, a response spectrum method is employed. In that response
spectrum method, a method including complex eigenvalue analysis is used for the
sake of taking into account the nonproportional damping characteristics of the soil
model. It is noted that, while Fig. 8.24 is the figure given in Japanese code in 2000,
a new one using Hardin-Drnevich (HD) model is provided in the new code in 2015.
(3) Simplified method using response spectrum method
One-dimensional wave propagation theory combined with the equivalent lineariza-
tion method (SHAKE) can predict the accelerations and strains in ground. However,
230 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

Coordinate
System Propagation Ground surface
Layer No. u1 Direction Properties

x1 G1 β1 ρ1 h1
u2

x2
strain
(mid-point of layer)
evaluation

um

m xm G m β m ρm hm
um +1

xm + 1 Gm+1 βm+1 ρm+1 hm + 1

m +1

Engineering bedrock surface

uN

GN βN ρ N hN =
N xN
incident wave reflected wave

Fig. 8.22 Horizontally layered soil model used for one-dimensional wave propagation theory [16]
(Reprinted from [16], Copyright 2002, with permission from Elsevier)

ground motion

soil property
source
characteristics
initiating point rupture propagation
fault element
propagation
characteristics
wave propagation

fault

Fig. 8.23 Wave propagation from earthquake fault to ground surface

8.5 Ground Motion Amplification Through Surface Ground 231

Fig. 8.24 Soil nonlinearity 1.2 0.4

0
stiffness reduction ratio G/G
with respect to strain 0.35
1 stiffness
amplitude [9] of clay damping ratio 0.3

damping ratio β
0.8 of sand
stiffness 0.25
0.6 of sand 0.2
damping ratio
of clay 0.15
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.05
0 0
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1
10 10 10 10 10 10
shear strain

Fig. 8.25 Simplified Vs, β (at low strain level)

method of evaluation of soil
properties by response modeling by 1-D FEM
spectrum method [17]

complex eigenvalue analysis

modal superposition of mean peak

shear strain γ max

evaluation of effective shear strain

γeff =0.65γ max

evaluation of G/G 0 and β

No
convergence check of γeff , G/G0 and β
Yes
end

it is necessary to generate artificial ground motions or use recorded ground motions.

A simpler, but rather reliable method is the response spectrum method for the engi-
neering bedrock surface [9, 12, 13]. The flow chart of the nonlinear surface ground
analysis using this method is shown in Fig. 8.25. The solid lines in Fig. 8.26 show
the soil shear modulus ratios after convergence to the initial one for both ground
models A and B, shown in Fig. 8.13. These are evaluated for the damage-limit level
by means of the proposed response spectrum method. The broken lines in Fig. 8.26
indicate the corresponding ones by means of the SHAKE program. The SHAKE
program was applied for one simulated motion. Figure 8.27 shows the comparison
of the damping ratios after convergence between the two methods applied for both
ground models A and B and for the damage-limit level. It can be observed that these
two methods correspond fairly well.
232 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

Fig. 8.26 Stiffness reduction of soil under damage-limit ground motion [9]

Damping ratio Damping ratio

Fig. 8.27 Damping ratio of soil under damage-limit ground motion [9]

8.6 Response of Super Tall Building During Long-Period

Ground Motion in Terms of Deep Ground Information

A historical observation was made during 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earth-
quake. A severe shaking was caused in a 55-story super high-rise building in Osaka
as shown in Fig. 8.28. It should be reminded that Osaka is located approximately
800 km far from the epicenter (about 600 km from the boundary of the fault region)
and the recorded JMA instrumental intensity was 3 in Osaka [14, 15].
Such recording of severe shaking in high-rise buildings may be performed for
the first time in the world. The height of the building is 256 m (the tallest level
in Osaka district) and the fundamental natural periods are T 1 = 5.8 s in the long-
8.6 Response of Super Tall Building During Long-Period … 233

Fig. 8.28 Earthquake records at 250 m tall building in Osaka during 2011 off the Pacific Coast
of Tohoku earthquake [14] (Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [14],
Copyright (2013))

Fig. 8.29 Velocity response

spectrum (horizontal, 229:
NS, 319: EW) [14]
(Reprinted by permission
from Springer Nature:
Springer Nature [14],
Copyright (2013))

span direction and 5.3 s in the short-span direction. Afterward, it was found that the
natural periods of the building were longer than the design values resulting from
the effect of modeling of the building as a pile–ground system and the damage to
nonstructural components (partition walls) etc. As observed in Fig. 8.29, the level of
velocity response spectra of ground motions observed in the first floor is almost the
same as that at the Shinjuku K-NET station in Tokyo. After the analysis of recording
in this building, it was found that the top-story overall displacements are about 1.4 m
(short-span direction) and 0.9 m (long-span direction).
Figure 8.28 shows the acceleration and velocity at the first floor level of this
building and the top-story displacement recorded or numerically integrated into this
building. Furthermore, the shear wave velocity distribution of the ground under this
234 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

Fig. 8.30 Shear wave

velocity distribution in deep
ground [14] (Reprinted by
permission from Springer
Nature: Springer Nature
[14], Copyright (2013))

building is shown in Fig. 8.30. It can be observed from Fig. 8.28 that an evident
resonance occurs during eight cycles approximately (fundamental natural period
of ground = 4H/V s = 4 × 1.6/1.0 = 6.4 s). Although the definition of resonance is
vague, it may be defined as the coincidence between the period of an input motion and
the structure natural period and the related clear monotonic amplification. The phe-
nomenon of “monotonic” is important in the resonant case. It appears from Fig. 8.28
that the velocity wave has constant amplitude during 180–240 s and the corresponding
response amplification is monotonic. If the building fundamental natural period does
not match with the predominant period of the input motion, the response amplifica-
tion to the input with constant amplitude is not increasing monotonically but found to
be constant. The fundamental natural period of this building was evaluated by using
the transfer function between the top floor and the ground floor. It was demonstrated
afterward that the fundamental natural period of this building just coincides with the
predominant period of the shaking at the ground floor. As stated before, it seems that
such surprising observation has never been reported so far in super high-rise buildings
all over the world. This implies the inevitable necessity of considering long-period,
long-duration ground motions in the earthquake-resistant design of super high-rise
buildings with the natural period longer than several seconds in megacities even if
the site is far from the epicenter.
Analyzing the effect of deep ground beneath buildings is important in the inves-
tigation of long-period, long-duration ground motions. A ground model as shown
in Fig. 8.31 is considered which consists of a surface ground with uniform property
8.6 Response of Super Tall Building During Long-Period … 235

Fig. 8.31 Input energy analysis considering earthquake occurrence mechanism [15] (Reprinted
from [15], Copyright 2015, with permission from Elsevier)

(for example GL-0 m–GL-20 m), an engineering bedrock with uniform property
(for example GL-20 m–GL-120 m) and a deep ground (for example GL-120 m–GL-
1600 m). Only one-dimensional wave propagation in the vertical direction is con-
sidered because the principal purpose is to present a new method for evaluating the
upper bound of input energy to the SR model under the consideration of uncertainties
of shallow and deep ground properties. Figure 8.32 shows the estimated upper bound
of the input energy from the earthquake input to the SR model on shallow and deep
grounds with uncertainties subjected to a certain input at the earthquake bedrock.
The discussion on the fault region of the expected Tokai, Tonankai and Nankai
event is also active and it is estimated that the fault region is closer to this building
236 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

1.5 107
High-rise building proposed upper bound

input energy (J)

at Osaka south port realization
7
1 10
Effect of property uncertainty
in deep ground
5 10 6

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
natural period (s)

Fig. 8.32 Upper bound of earthquake input energy [15] (Reprinted from [15], Copyright 2015,
with permission from Elsevier)

60
60

50 50

40 40
story number

story number

30 30

20 20

EW without damper EW without damper

10 EW damper double 10
EW damper double
NS without damper NS without damper
NS dampe double NS damper double
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
maximum story displacement (mm) maximum interstory drift (mm)
(a) Maximum horizontal displacement (b) Maximum interstory drift

Fig. 8.33 Maximum horizontal displacement and inter-story drift of assumed 60-story building in
Shinjuku during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake [18] (Reprinted from [18],
Copyright 2011, with permission from Elsevier)

(about 160 km from the boundary of the fault region). The ground motion of intensity
of several times larger than that during 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku earthquake
may be induced during that event if the estimation is based on the assumption that
body waves are predominant outside of the Osaka basin. However, the nonlinearity
of surface ground and other factors may reduce the amplification degree. It may be
appropriate to say that further investigation will be necessary. The seismic retrofit
using hysteretic steel dampers, oil dampers, and friction dampers is being planned.
Figure 8.33 presents the maximum overall story displacements and inter-story
drifts in an assumed 60-story building of the fundamental natural period T1 = 5.92 s
without or with high-hardness rubber dampers to ground motion at Shinjuku station
(TKY007) (frame response is assumed to be elastic–plastic, “4 dampers per story”
corresponds to “damper double”). It should be remarked that, regardless of the fact
8.6 Response of Super Tall Building During Long-Period … 237

that Shinjuku in Tokyo is located only 200–300 km far from the epicenter, the ampli-
tude of long-period ground motions was not so large. This may result from the fact
that its foundation ground is rather hard compared to Osaka and Tokyo bay areas.
Nonlinear analyses have been performed in this investigation. It can be observed that
high-hardness rubber dampers as innovative passive control devices are effective for
the reduction of displacements.

8.7 Rod Theory Considering Dynamic Soil–Structure

Interaction

The dynamic soil–structure interaction was explained in the previous sections. In

this section, the procedure of including the dynamic soil–structure interaction in the
rod theory of tall buildings.
Figure 8.34 shows two procedures of including the dynamic soil–structure inter-
action in the rod theory of tall buildings.
The first one is the simplest one and aims to insert the horizontal (swaying)
and rotational (rocking) springs at the bottom of the rod (bar) representing the tall
building. In this case, it is necessary to model properly the pile–soil system into two
springs. The change of the boundary conditions is required here. Since the effect of
the dynamic soil–structure interaction, i.e., the difference of the motion at the free-
field ground and the motion at the bottom of the building, is not significant in tall
buildings, it is sufficient to input the ground motion at the free field (Fig. 8.35a) into
the swaying spring. When the building is buried into the ground, the ground motion
at the bottom level of the building (Fig. 8.35b) can be used as the input motion. The

Fig. 8.34 Two procedures of including dynamic soil–structure interaction in rod theory of tall
building
238 8 Analysis Considering Soil–Structure Interaction

Embedded
underground

Foundation surface u g (t ) = GS × u g 0 (t )

u g 0 (t )

(a) Amplification from eng. (b) Amplification from eng. (c) Amplification from eng.
bedrock to ground bedrock to foundation bedrock to ground
surface (SHAKE) surface (SHAKE) surface (simple procedure)

Fig. 8.35 Amplification of ground motion from engineering bedrock surface to free-field ground
surface or bottom of buried building: a To free-field ground surface (SHAKE), b to bottom of buried
building (SHAKE), c to free-field ground surface (Gs coefficient)

ground surface motion at the free-field ground and the ground motion at the bottom
level of the building can be obtained by using the one-dimensional wave propagation
theory and the equivalent linearization method explained in Sect. 8.5. This procedure
is often used in the safety evaluation of tall buildings in Japan.
The second one is to model the superstructure and the pile–soil system into the rods
with different properties and solve the total rod system. In this case, it is necessary to
add the connection springs between the free-field ground and the pile–soil system.
The selection of such connection springs may be an important task. In this model, the
force flow from the super building to the pile–soil system can be treated in detail and
it may be possible to design the foundation beam appropriately. It should be noted
that the input ground motion amplified in the surface ground has to be input to the
swaying spring. This motion can be obtained explained in the first procedure.
A simple method to evaluate the surface ground amplification is to use Gs coef-
ficient introduced in the new seismic-resistant design code (2000) (Fig. 8.35c).
Although Gs is essentially frequency dependent, the frequency-independent model-
ing may be possible in tall buildings under long-period ground motions.
References 239

References

1. Architectural Institute of Japan: Recommendations for design of building foundations (1988)

(in Japanese)
2. Architectural Institute of Japan: Recommendations for design of building foundations (2001)
(in Japanese)
3. Architectural Institute of Japan: An introduction to dynamic soil-structure interaction (1996)
(in Japanese)
4. Architectural Institute of Japan: Seismic response analysis and design of buildings considering
dynamic soil-structure interaction (2006) (in Japanese)
5. P.B. Schnabel, J. Lysmer, H.B. Seed, SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response
analysis of horizontally layered sites, A computer program distributed by NISEE/Computer
Applications (Berkeley, 1972)
6. G. Gazetas, R. Dobry, Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE
110(1), 20–40 (1984)
7. M. Kavvadas, G. Gazetas, Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head piles in layered
soil. Geotech. 43(2), 207–222 (1993)
8. I. Takewaki, A. Doi, M. Tsuji, K. Uetani, Seismic stiffness design of pile-supported building
structures using dynamic Winkler-type spring models. J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ 571, 45–52
(2003) (in Japanese)
9. I. Takewaki, K. Ohfuchi, M. Yamazaki, Earthquake energy input to structure-pile-soil systems.
J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ 583, 39–46 (2004) (in Japanese)
10. T. Nakamura, I. Takewaki, Y. Shimano, Stiffness solution to a hybrid inverse seismic strain
problem of a building frame-pile-soil system. J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ 440, 43–56 (1992)
(in Japanese)
11. A. Kishida, Earthquake response characteristics of building structures and building-ground
unified design considering soil uncertainty and pile group effect. Thesis of Doctor of Eng.,
Kyoto University, 2008 (in Japanese)
12. K. Miura, K. Koyamada, M. Iiba, Response spectrum method for evaluating nonlinear ampli-
fication of surface strata. J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ 539, 57–62 (2001) (in Japanese)
13. T. Yamauchi, T. Iwasaki, M. Motosaka, Evaluation of non-linear soil amplification charac-
teristics using modal analysis. Summaries of Technical Papers in Annual Meeting (Kanto)
(Architectural Institute of Japan, 2001), pp. 781–782 (in Japanese)
14. I. Takewaki, A. Moustafa, K. Fujita, Improving the Earthquake Resilience of Buildings: The
Worst Case Approach (Springer, London, 2012)
15. M. Taniguchi, I. Takewaki, Bound of earthquake input energy to building structure considering
shallow and deep ground uncertainties. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 77, 267–273 (2015)
16. I. Takewaki, N. Fujii, K. Uetani, Nonlinear surface ground analysis via statistical approach.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22(6), 499–509 (2002)
17. I. Takewaki, M. Yamazaki, Chapter 4 Modeling of soil and foundation, in first step of building
structural design—From fundamentals to applications (Architectural Institute of Japan, 2007)
(in Japanese)
18. I. Takewaki, S. Murakami, K. Fujita, S. Yoshitomi, M. Tsuji, The 2011 off the Pacific coast
of Tohoku earthquake and response of high-rise buildings under long-period ground motions.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 31(11), 1511–1528 (2011)