ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Influence of soil–structure interaction on the response of seismically

isolated cable-stayed bridge
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India
Received 23 February 2006; received in revised form 7 March 2007; accepted 24 June 2007

Abstract

Soil conditions have a great deal to do with damage to structures during earthquakes. This paper attempts to assess the influence of
dynamic soil–structure interaction (SSI) on the behavior of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge supported on a rigidly capped vertical
pile groups, which pass through moderately deep, layered soil overlying rigid bedrock. In the present approach, piles closely grouped
together beneath the towers are viewed as a single equivalent upright beam. The soil–pile interaction is idealized as a beam on nonlinear
Winkler foundation using continuously distributed hysteretic springs and viscous dashpots placed in parallel. The hysteretic behavior of
soil springs is idealized using Bouc–Wen model. The cable-stayed bridge is isolated by using high-damping rubber bearings and the
effects of SSI are investigated by performing seismic analysis in time domain using direct integration method. The seismic response of the
isolated cable-stayed bridge with SSI is obtained under bi-directional earthquake excitations (i.e. two horizontal components acting
simultaneously) considering different soil flexibilities. The emphasis has been placed on assessing the significance of nonlinear behavior of
soil that affects the response of the system and identify the circumstances under which it is necessary to include the SSI effects in
the design of seismically isolated bridges. It is observed that the soil surrounding the piles has significant effects on the response of the
isolated bridge and the bearing displacements may be underestimated if the SSI effects are ignored. Inclusion of SSI is found essential for
effective design of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge, specifically when the towers are very much rigid and the soil condition is soft
to medium. Further, it is found that the linear soil model does not lead to accurate prediction of tower base shear response, and nonlinear
soil modeling is essential to reflect dynamic behavior of the soil–pile system properly.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; Soil–structure interaction; Pile group; Nonlinear springs; Earthquake; Isolation system

1. Introduction or reducing inelastic deformations. The main concept in

Significant damage of bridges due to partial or complete
collapse of piers has been observed in every major seismic
event. The 1994 Northridge earthquake, 1995 Kobe earth-
quake and 2001 Gujarat earthquake have demonstrated
that the strength alone would not be sufficient for the
safety of bridges during the earthquake. For the past
several years, the research is focused on finding out more
rational and substantiated solutions for protection of
bridges from severe earthquake attack. Seismic isolation
is a strategy that attempts to reduce the seismic forces to or
near the elastic capacity of the member, thereby eliminating
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 22 2576 7346; fax: +91 22 2576 7302.
E-mail address: bksoneji@iitb.ac.in (B.B. Soneji).
isolation is to reduce the fundamental frequency of
structural vibration to a value lower than the predominant
energy-containing frequencies of earthquake. The other
purpose of an isolation system is to provide means of
energy dissipation, which dissipates the seismic energy
transmitted to the system. The isolation device, which
replaces conventional bridge bearings, decouples the
bridge deck (which alone is responsible for majority of
the tower base shear) from bridge substructure during
earthquakes thereby significantly reducing the deck accel-
eration and consequently the forces transmitted to the
towers or piers.
Though the technique of seismic isolation has been
successfully implemented world wide for buildings and
short to medium span highway bridges [1–4], very limited

0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.06.005

246 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257
amount of work has been done on the use of seismic
isolation for seismic response control of cable-stayed
bridges. Ali and Abdel-Ghaffar [5] investigated the
effectiveness of elastomeric (elastic and hysteretic type
both) bearings for seismic isolation of cable-stayed bridges.
Wesolowsky and Wilson [6] examined the efficacy of using
seismic isolation to favorably influence the seismic response
of cable-stayed bridges subjected to near-field earthquake
ground motions. It is to be noted that in these studies on
isolated cable-stayed bridges, the foundation of the bridge
towers is assumed as rigid (embedded in solid rock) and
there has not been any attempt to investigate the effects of
SSI on the response of the bridges.
In recent years, several cable-stayed bridges have been
constructed on relatively soft ground, which results in a
great demand to evaluate the effects of soil–structure
interaction (SSI) on the seismic behavior of the bridges,
and properly reflect it in their seismic design. During these
years, some studies have been conducted to comprehend the
effects of SSI on the seismic behavior of non-isolated
bridges [7–11]. Also, the studies have been carried out to
investigate the seismic response of isolated reinforced
cement concrete bridges considering SSI [12–14]. These
studies have demonstrated that SSI generally tends to
prolong the natural periods of bridge–foundation–soil
1 1 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
134.00 m
6@
2.75m
Part 1
5.5 m
13.5 m
Part 2
13.5 m
4.7 m Part 3
17.0 m Part 4
Fig. 1. Details of the semi-harp-type cable-stayed bridge model. (a) The bridge model, (b) finite element model of towers, (c) tower–deck connections
(non-isolated) and (d) tower–deck connections (isolated).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
systems, and may significantly affect the internal forces in
structural members and displacement response of bridges.
It has also been recognized that the way in which SSI affects
the seismic behavior of bridges depends on the conditions of
the bridge–foundation–soil system [15], suggesting a neces-
sity to perform many detailed case studies.
In this paper, influence of dynamic SSI on the seismic
response of cable-stayed bridge isolated by elastomeric
bearings is investigated. The soil–pile interaction is
idealized as a beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation
(BNWF) using continuously distributed nonlinear springs
and dashpots. The specific objectives of the study are: (i) to
investigate the influence of flexibility of layered soil on the
response of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge; (ii) to
assess the significance of nonlinearity in soil on the seismic
response of the isolated bridge by comparing the results of
SSI considering and ignoring nonlinearity and (iii) to
identify the circumstances under which it is necessary to
include the SSI effects in the design of seismically isolated
cable-stayed bridges.
2. The cable-stayed bridge model
The bridge model used in this study is the Quincy Bay-
View Bridge crossing the Mississippi River at Quincy, IL.
53.7 m
2 2
Roller support
17 m
274.00 m 134.00 m
z
x
y
Deck Deck
Hinge support Isolator
Tower Tower
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257 247

The bridge consists of two H-shaped concrete towers,
double plane semi-harp-type cables and a composite
concrete-steel girder bridge deck. The detailed description
of the bridge is given in Wilson and Gravelle [16]. Here, a
simplified lumped mass finite element model of the bridge
developed for the investigation is as shown in Fig. 1(a). The
finite element model of the towers is separately shown in
Fig. 1(b). There are 28 cable members, 14 supporting the
main span and 7 supporting each side spans. The cable
members are spaced at 2.75 m c/c at the upper part of the
towers and equally spaced at the deck level on the side as
well as main spans. The relevant properties of the bridge
deck (for equivalent steel area) and towers are given in
Table 1 while those of the cables are given in Table 2. The
bridge deck is assumed to be a continuous beam rigidly
connected to the towers such that the deck moment will not
be transferred to the tower through the deck–tower
connection. For implementing seismic isolation, the isola-
tion bearings are placed at each four supports of the deck
replacing conventional bearings (refer Fig. 1(c) and (d)).
The bridge towers are supported on rigidly capped vertical
pile groups passing through moderately deep, layered soil
overlying rigid bedrock. When piles are closely grouped
together, the piles and soil work like a single rigid unit, and
the problem becomes of the group working like a large pier
[17,18]. Hence in present approach, piles closely grouped
together beneath the towers are viewed as a single
equivalent upright beam with second moment of area
about x–x-, y–y- and z–z-axis equal to 82.72, 1057.726 and
189.74 m4; respectively, and cross-sectional area equal to
20.49 m2. The piles are spaced at three pile diameters, and
the properties of the single equivalent beam include group
effects.
It is worth mentioning that a cable-stayed bridge, in
the rigorous sense, behaves nonlinearly when loaded.
However, the research on ambient vibration survey of the
cable-stayed bridge carried out by Wilson and Liu [19] has
demonstrated that a completely linear model was sufficient
to get reasonably accurate results for the Quincy Bay-View
Bridge. Hence, no attempts are made to introduce
nonlinearity into the model in this investigation.
Regarding modeling of the bridge components, the deck
and the tower members are modeled as space frame
elements. The cables are modeled as linear elastic space
truss elements. The stiffness characteristics of an inclined
cable can exhibit a nonlinear behavior caused by cable sag.
This nonlinear behavior can be taken into account by
linearization of the cable stiffness using an equivalent
modulus of elasticity that is less than the true material
modulus [20]. For the analysis of the bridge under
consideration, Wilson and Gravelle [16] found the value
of equivalent modulus essentially equal to the true modulus
of elasticity. Hence, here nonlinearity due to cable sag is
neglected and cables are treated as having a completely
linear force–deformation relationship described by the true
material modulus of elasticity. Moreover, cables are
assumed to be capable of bearing tension as well as
compression assuming that the pretension in the cables will
take care of the compression induced in the dynamic
analysis.
3. Modeling of the soil–pile system
In the last two decades, several numerical and analytical
methods have been developed to compute the dynamic
stiffness and seismic response factors of pile foundations
accounting for soil–pile interaction. Most of these methods
assumed linear viscoelastic response of the surrounding
soil. Nevertheless, under moderate and strong seismic
loading, pile foundations undergo significant displacements
and the behavior of the soil–pile system can be nonlinear.

Table 1
Properties of the deck and the towers of the cable-stayed bridge

Part of the Cross-sectional Moment of inertia about Moment of inertia about Moment of inertia about Young’s Mass density
structure area (m2) z–z-axis (m4) y–y-axis (m4) x–x-axis (m4) modulus (MPa) (kg/m3)

Deck 0.827 0.341 19.760 0.027 205,000 7850

Tower part 1 14.120 28.050 531.580 15.390 30,787 2400
Tower part 2 14.120 28.050 670.970 15.390 30,787 2400
Tower part 3 17.540 30.620 1239.400 19.760 30,787 2400
Tower part 4 35.390 32.750 1422.420 27.640 30,787 2400

Table 2
Properties for the stay cables of the cable-stayed bridge

Cable no. Cross-sectional area (m2) Young’s modulus (MPa) Cable weight (N/m)

1 0.0180 205,000 1765.80

2 0.0135 205,000 1324.35
3 0.0107 205,000 1049.67
4 0.0070 205,000 686.70
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
248 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257
Studies on the nonlinear dynamic response of piles have
been conducted with the finite element method [21]. The
finite element method, which requires discretization of the
pile and the surrounding soil, although powerful, is
computationally very expensive. In contrast, the BNWF
model is a versatile and economical approach. Trochanis
et al. [22] have carried out the most comprehensive study
on the nonlinear response of piles using a BNWF model
utilizing a model of viscoplasticity, better known as the
Bouc–Wen model [23,24], to describe the force–displace-
ment relation of distributed nonlinear springs that approx-
imate the soil reaction on the pile. Their study concentrated
on the static and quasi-static (zero-frequency limit) loading
of piles, and for this type of loading it was shown that the
Bouc–Wen model predicts well the response of a variety of
soil–pile systems.
Herein, the soil–pile interaction is idealized as a BNWF
using continuously distributed nonlinear springs and
viscous dashpots placed in parallel (Fig. 2(a)). The presence
of the damper makes the model very efficient for the
prediction of the pile response under dynamic loads since it
accounts realistically for the energy that radiates outward.
The response of the superstructure is investigated under
three different types of soil surrounding the pile founda-
tion, namely, soft, medium and firm. The soils are
considered in layers of different thickness resting on rock
(Fig. 2(b)), with increasing stiffness and decreasing damp-
ing with depth. Assuming that the rigid bedrock is
available at a depth of 25 m, soil springs are distributed
at 2.5 m centers. Thus, the discretization of pile into 11
segments by using 10 springs is enough to achieve sufficient
accuracy in the analysis. The spring coefficients have been
computed by method suggested in Specification for
ks
1.25 m
cs
2.5 m
ks
9@ 2.5 m = 22.5 m
cs
Pile
Nodal mass
ks
1.25 m
cs
Fig. 2. Schematic of dynamic BNWF model in layered soil strata. (a) BNWF model and (b) layered soil.
Highway Bridges issued by Japan Road Association [25].
In the suggested method, reference soil reaction coefficient
k0 is first computed using Eq. (1), where Es is Young’s
modulus of soil. The soil reaction coefficient per unit area,
kr, is obtained using Eq. (2), where Be is the width of the
foundation perpendicular to the direction considered:
1:2E s
k0 ¼ , (1)
30
rffiffiffiffiffi
3=4 Be
kr ¼ k0 . (2)
30
Young’s modulus can be evaluated using the relation
E s ¼ 2G s ð1 þ ms Þ, (3)
where Gs is the shear modulus and ms is Poisson’s ratio for
the soil.
It should be mentioned that, when using Eqs. (1) and (2),
the units of Be and Es must be in centimeters and kg/cm2,
respectively. The horizontal spring coefficients (ks) for each
part of foundation are obtained by multiplying kr by the
area of its surface perpendicular to the excitation direction.
The horizontal spring coefficients are evaluated by taking
the widths of foundation perpendicular to the longitudinal
and transverse directions of the bridge as 21 and 9 m,
respectively. Although it has been recognized that spring
coefficients are frequency dependent, the spring coefficients
computed using the method suggested in Japan Road
Association [25] are frequency independent for practical
use.
The second key parameter for soil is damping. Two
fundamentally different damping phenomena are asso-
ciated with soil, namely material damping and radiation
5m
5m
10 m
5m
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257 249

damping. Material damping can be thought of as a
measure of the loss of vibration energy resulting primarily
from hysteresis in the soil. The radiation damping is a
measure of energy loss from the structure through
radiation of waves away from the foundation. Expressions
for damping coefficients are available in literature [26,27],
on the basis of which the following simple approximation is
derived [28]:
1=4 ks
cs ¼ Qs 6a0 rs V s d þ 2xs , (4)
os
where xs and rs are the damping ratio and mass density of
the soil, d is the pile diameter, shear wave velocity,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V s ¼ G s =rs , p ¼ pV s =2d f , df is the thickness of soil
osffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
layer and a0 ¼ os d=V s . The coefficient Qs is given by the
expression
 1:25  
3:4 p 0:75
Qs ¼ 2 1 þ . (5)
pð1  ms Þ 4 be appropriate at depths where plane strain conditions are
The dynamic properties of the soils such as shear
modulus, mass density, Poisson’s ratio, damping ratio,
shear strength, etc. that vary with the depth are given in
Table 3 [29,30].
The force resulting from the nonlinear spring alone is
given by
F s ¼ aks q0 þ ð1  aÞks qZ, (6)
where q0 is the pile deflection at the location of the spring, a
is a parameter that controls the post-yielding stiffness, q is
the value of pile deflection that initiates yielding in the
spring and Z is a hysteretic dimensionless quantity that is
governed by the following equation:
qZ_ ¼ Aq_ 0 þ bjq_ 0 jZjZjn1  gq_ 0 Z n . (7)
In the above equation b, g, n and A are dimensionless
quantities that control the shape of the hysteretic loop. The
hysteretic model of Eq. (7) was originally proposed by
Bouc [23] for n ¼ 1, and subsequently extended by Wen
[24], and used in random vibration studies of inelastic
systems. It can be easily shown that when A ¼ 1 in Eq. (7),
parameter ks in (6) becomes the small-amplitude elastic
distributed stiffness, and parameter a becomes the ratio of
the post- to pre-yielding stiffness [31]. Based on this
observation, all the subsequent analysis is carried out
taking A and n equal to 1. The other parameters, which
do not affect much the peak response, are kept constant
(i.e. b ¼ g ¼ 0.5). The plastic soil behavior (no hardening)
at large pile deflections indicated that the ultimate post-
yielding stiffness of the soil is zero and, therefore, the
parameter a in Eq. (6) is set equal to zero.
The value of q (pile deflection at which yielding initiates
in the soil spring) in Eq. (7) at depth h is provided by
tðhÞd
qðhÞ ¼ lðhÞ , (8)
ks =S
where S is the spacing between two adjacent springs, t(h) is
the shear strength of the soil at depth h and l(h) is a
dimensionless quantity. Considerable research has been
done to quantify l [32,33]. l values between 9 and 12 may
valid. At shallow depths, plane strain conditions are not
valid due to vertical deformation of the soil during lateral
motion of the pile. Hence, l values of 2 or 3 have been
suggested. The following expression for the variation of l
with depth is recommended [33]:
sz h 6d
lðhÞ ¼ 3 þ þJ ; ho , (9)
tðhÞ d gs =tðhÞ þ J
6d
lðhÞ ¼ 9; hX , (10)
gs =tðhÞ þ J
where sz is the overburden pressure and gs ¼ rs g is the
specific weight of the soil. The value of parameter J in
Eq. (9) must be determined empirically. In the absence of
such data, the recommended value of J ¼ 0.5 may be used.
4. Numerical study with nonlinear soil modeling
The cable-stayed bridge is isolated by using high-
damping rubber bearings and the effects of SSI are
investigated by performing seismic analysis in time domain
using direct integration method. Influence of SSI on the

Table 3
Dynamic properties of different types of layered soils

Depth, h (m) Shear modulus, Gs (MN/m2) Mass density, rs (Mg/m3) Poisson’s ratio (m) Damping ratio (xs) Shear strength, ts (kN/m2)

Soft Medium Firm Soft Medium Firm Soft Medium Firm Soft Medium Firm Soft Medium Firm

0
80 400 900 2 2 2.1 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.07 0.04 0.02 25 50 100
5
125 625 1350 2 2.1 2.1 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.06 0.04 0.02 50 100 150
10
245 1225 2550 2 2.2 2.3 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.05 0.04 0.02 75 150 200
20
550 2750 6500 2.2 2.2 2.5 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.05 0.04 0.02 100 200 300
25
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
250 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257

seismic response of isolated cable-stayed bridge is investi-
gated under the four real strong earthquake ground
motions, namely, (1) 1940 Imperial Valley, (2) 1995 Kobe,
(3) 1989 Loma Prieta and (4) 1994 Northridge earthquakes.
The first one is widely used by the researcher in the past
and the last three represent the strong motion earthquake
records. The peak accelerations of these earthquake
ground motions are shown in Table 4. The specific
components of these ground motions applied in the
longitudinal and transverse directions are also indicated
in Table 4. The displacement and acceleration response
spectra of the above four ground motions for 2% of the
critical damping are shown in Fig. 3. The maximum
ordinates of the spectral acceleration along the longitudinal
direction are 1.302g, 4.12g, 3.55g and 3.24g occurring at
the period of 0.46, 0.35, 0.64 and 0.35 s and along the
transverse directions are 0.955g, 3.559g, 2.215g and 1.967g
occurring at the period of 0.53, 0.39, 0.4 and 0.51 s for
Imperial Valley, Kobe, Loma Prieta and Northridge
earthquakes, respectively. The spectra of these ground
motion indicate that the ground motions are recorded at
hard soil or rock site.
As damping in the structure is very low, 2% damping is
assumed. For the HDRB, damping ratio (xb) is taken equal
to 10%. Previous studies on seismic isolation of cable-
stayed bridges [6,34] have shown that a small amount of
isolation is sufficient to reduce the seismically induced
forces in the bridge. Higher amount of isolation results in
larger displacement of the deck and trade-off to reduction
of the base shear of the towers. Hence, herein the isolation
period is taken equal to 2 s and is kept constant throughout
the study. To evaluate the effects of SSI on the seismic
response of the bridge, the evaluation criteria proposed are
relative displacement in the longitudinal (xb1) and trans-
verse (yb1) directions of the isolators at the abutment,
relative displacement of the isolators in the transverse

Table 4
Peak ground acceleration of various earthquake ground motions

Earthquake Recording station Applied in longitudinal direction of the bridge Applied in transverse direction of the bridge

Component PGA (g) Component PGA (g)

Imperial Valley, 1940 El Centro N00E 0.348 N90E 0.214

Kobe, 1995 Japan Meteorological Agency N00E 0.834 N90E 0.629
Loma Prieta, 1989 Los Gatos Presentation Center N00E 0.570 N90E 0.607
Northridge, 1994 Sylmar Converter Station N00E 0.843 N90E 0.600

Note: PGA ¼ peak ground acceleration.

Imperial Valley, 1940

Dampling = 2%
1.2 Kobe, 1995
Spectral displacement (m)

Lomba Prieta, 1989

Northridge, 1994

0.8

0.4

0.0

Logitudinal Transverse
4
Spectral acceleration (m)

0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time period (s) Time period (s)

Fig. 3. Displacement and acceleration spectra of four earthquake ground motions applied in the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257
direction at the deck–tower junction (yb2), absolute
acceleration of the deck in the longitudinal direction at
the left abutment ðx€ d Þ and base shear response of the
towers along longitudinal (Vx) and transverse (Vy) direc-
tions at the left tower normalized to the weight of the deck,
Wd. Because of the symmetrical structure with anti-
symmetry earthquake loading about vertical axis of
symmetry, the results at the symmetrical nodes of the
structure are found similar in magnitude and direction.
Hence, results of the response quantities are presented for
left half part of the bridge.
Results of time history analyses under 1940 Imperial
Valley earthquake ground motion along longitudinal
direction are presented in Figs. 4–6 for soft, medium and
firm soil, respectively. The results obtained with and
without SSI are plotted in the same graphs for comparison
purpose. The trend of the results indicates that there is not
much variation in acceleration and base shear response
with the type of soil considered. However, for the soft soil
strata, little increase in bearing displacement is observed
and the response reduces as soil becomes stiffer. Time
history plots under 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake
ground motion along transverse direction are presented
in Figs. 7–9 for soft, medium and firm soil, respectively. It
is observed that in transverse direction the deck accelera-
tion and tower base shear found to be increased for soft
soil, and the responses reduce as the soil becomes stiffer.
However, increase in displacement response of the isolator
at the abutment is insignificant when SSI is considered. The
dynamic force–displacement loops in longitudinal as well
as transverse directions for the soil spring near pile head
0.2
xd (g)
0.0
-0.2
0.15
Vx /Wd
0.00
-0.15
0.15
xb1 (m)
0.00
-0.15
0 5
Fig. 4. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the longitudinal direction of the bridge for soft soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.
251
under the 1995 Kobe earthquake ground motions are
presented in Fig. 10. It is to be noted that for the soft soil
strata, the displacement response is large and spring force
is less. As the soil stiffness increases, the inclination of the
loop also increases with increase in spring force and
reduction in displacement as expected. Thus, the plots
indicate that, by using the Bouc–Wen model for hysteresis
systems, the nonlinear behavior of soil strata is adequately
captured.
The peak values of the response quantities under
different earthquake ground motions are presented in
Table 5. It can be observed from the table that the response
quantities other than tower base shear in transverse
direction are not much affected by the SSI consideration.
Since the deck is isolated from the tower, the increase in
displacement response due to SSI is little and is in the range
of 3–20% in the longitudinal direction, and 3–13% in the
transverse direction with soft soil strata. With the firm soil
strata, the increase in displacement response of the deck
reduces to 10%. Also, it can be observed that, for all the
earthquakes except Kobe, 1995, the displacement response
of the isolator decreases as the soil stiffness increases. This
is in agreement with the trend in displacement spectra of
the earthquake ground motions (Fig. 3). Further, it is to be
noted from Table 5 that the base shear response of the
tower along longitudinal direction is not much influenced
by the consideration of SSI. The reason behind this could
be explained with the help of earthquake acceleration
spectra presented in Fig. 3. The time period of the fixed
base tower (i.e. without SSI) along the longitudinal
direction comes out to be around 1.7 s and the inclusion
Without SSI
With SSI
10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
252 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257

Without SSI
0.2 With SSI

xd (g)
0.0

-0.2

0.15
Vx /Wd

0.00

-0.15

0.15
xb1 (m)

0.00

-0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Fig. 5. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the longitudinal direction of the bridge for medium soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

Without SSI
0.2 With SSI
xd (g)

0.0

-0.2

0.15
Vx /Wd

0.00

-0.15

0.15
xb1 (m)

0.00

-0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Fig. 6. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the longitudinal direction of the bridge for firm soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

of SSI further makes it more flexible. Thus, the time period However, the tower base shear in the transverse direction
of the tower with SSI consideration falls in the zone is greatly affected by the type of soil strata considered.
of more or less steady spectral acceleration resulting The increase in the tower base shear is about 30–65%
in insignificant influence on the base shear response. for soft site, and gradually approaches to the values
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257 253

Without SSI
0.15 With SSI

yd / (g)
0.00

-0.15

0.25
Vy / Wd

0.00

-0.25

0.05
yb1 (m)

0.00

-0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the transverse direction of the bridge for soft soil under Imperial
Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

Without SSI
0.15 With SSI
yd (g)

0.00

-0.15

0.25
V y / Wd

0.00

-0.25

0.05
yb1 (m)

0.00

-0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the transverse direction of the bridge for medium soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

of the base shear without SSI consideration as the stiffness of acceleration spectra (Fig. 3). When SSI is considered,
of the soil increases. This happens because the time the tower becomes little flexible and the time period
period of tower when fixed base is considered comes out falls in the peak range of the acceleration spectra, which
to be equal to 0.25 s, which falls in the left side of the peak makes the base shear response to increase significantly.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
254 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257

Without SSI
0.15 With SSI

yd (g)
0.00

-0.15

0.25
V y / Wd

0.00

-0.25

0.05
yb1 (m)

0.00

-0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Fig. 9. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the transverse direction of the bridge for firm soil under Imperial
Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

0.50 Longitudinal 0.50 Longitudinal 0.50 Longitudinal

Soft soil Medium soil Firm soil

0.25 0.25 0.25

Fs / Wd

0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.25 -0.25 -0.25

-0.50 -0.50 -0.50

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

0.50 Transverse 0.50 Transverse 0.50 Transverse

Soft soil Medium soil Firm soil

0.25 0.25 0.25

Fs / Wd

0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.25 -0.25 -0.25

-0.50 -0.50 -0.50

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
Displacement (m) Displacement (m) Displacement (m)

Fig. 10. Dynamic force–displacement loops of nonlinear soil spring under the Kobe, 1995, earthquake motion.

As the soil stiffness increases, the tower base shear in 5. Numerical study with linear soil modeling
transverse direction approaches to the value of shear
without considering the SSI effects (i.e. the fixed base In the practical design of bridges, when it becomes
tower case). necessary to conduct dynamic response analysis of bridges,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257 255

Table 5
Peak response quantity under different earthquake motions with nonlinear SSI

Earthquake Response quantity Without SSI Soft soil % Difference Medium soil % Difference Firm soil % Difference

Imperial Valley, 1940 Vx/Wd 0.176 0.168 4.55 0.150 14.77 0.159 9.66
Vy/Wd 0.275 0.456 65.82 0.366 33.09 0.315 14.55
xb1 (mm) 174.628 212.071 21.44 197.776 13.26 192.900 10.46
yb1 (mm) 68.749 70.718 2.86 69.399 0.95 69.054 0.44
yb2 (mm) 203.702 208.905 2.55 207.463 1.85 204.650 0.47
Kobe, 1995 Vx/Wd 0.434 0.439 1.15 0.41 5.53 0.435 0.23
Vy/Wd 0.618 0.860 39.16 0.706 14.24 0.665 7.61
xb1 (mm) 357.114 347.062 2.81 350.737 1.79 353.185 1.10
yb1 (mm) 135.634 153.212 12.96 147.437 8.70 142.874 5.34
yb2 (mm) 236.828 251.418 6.16 259.283 9.48 260.683 10.07
Loma Prieta, 1989 Vx/Wd 0.446 0.483 8.30 0.455 2.02 0.450 0.90
Vy/Wd 0.535 0.832 55.51 0.771 44.11 0.638 19.25
xb1 (mm) 611.689 682.528 11.58 655.544 7.17 643.274 5.16
yb1 (mm) 119.201 125.630 5.39 121.778 2.16 121.975 2.33
yb2 (mm) 209.731 199.954 4.66 213.848 1.96 217.586 3.75
Northridge, 1994 Vx/Wd 0.644 0.605 6.06 0.628 2.48 0.635 1.40
Vy/Wd 0.715 0.958 33.99 0.841 17.62 0.701 1.96
xb1 (mm) 565.568 606.726 7.28 593.451 4.93 587.680 3.91
yb1 (mm) 147.744 156.171 5.70 159.439 7.92 154.949 4.88
yb2 (mm) 416.184 430.049 3.33 437.847 5.21 427.620 2.75

Table 6
Peak response quantity under different earthquake motions with linear SSI

Earthquake Response quantity Without SSI Soft soil % Difference Medium soil % Difference Firm soil % Difference

Imperial Valley, 1940 Vx/Wd 0.176 0.176 0.00 0.159 9.66 0.168 4.55
Vy/Wd 0.275 0.475 72.73 0.449 63.27 0.422 53.45
xb1 (mm) 174.628 212.398 21.63 198.056 13.42 193.22 10.65
yb1 (mm) 68.749 70.621 2.72 67.722 1.49 67.468 1.86
yb2 (mm) 203.702 210.77 3.47 213.459 4.79 206.223 1.24
Kobe, 1995 Vx/Wd 0.434 0.449 3.46 0.415 4.38 0.447 3.00
Vy/Wd 0.618 0.869 40.61 0.744 20.39 0.876 41.75
xb1 (mm) 357.114 347.762 2.62 351.234 1.65 353.664 0.97
yb1 (mm) 135.634 153.396 13.10 147.719 8.91 142.65 5.17
yb2 (mm) 236.828 252.032 6.42 264.561 11.71 271.884 14.80
Loma Prieta, 1989 Vx/Wd 0.446 0.491 10.02 0.464 4.04 0.452 1.35
Vy/Wd 0.535 0.844 57.76 0.895 67.29 0.879 64.30
xb1 (mm) 611.689 683.516 11.74 657.174 7.44 644.927 5.43
yb1 (mm) 119.201 126.113 5.80 125.367 5.17 124.194 4.19
yb2 (mm) 209.731 199.724 4.77 217.232 3.58 224.567 7.07
Northridge, 1994 Vx/Wd 0.644 0.611 5.12 0.667 3.57 0.673 4.50
Vy/Wd 0.715 0.968 35.38 0.886 23.92 0.885 23.78
xb1 (mm) 565.568 606.206 7.19 594.594 5.13 588.857 4.12
yb1 (mm) 147.744 156.723 6.08 163.987 10.99 154.294 4.43
yb2 (mm) 416.184 429.829 3.28 450.099 8.15 427.617 2.75

the soil is modeled with linear spring and dashpot system.
Hence, here in this study, it has been tried to investigate the
effectiveness of linear soil model in seismic response of
isolated cable-stayed bridge. The peak values of the
response quantities assuming completely linear soil model
are presented in Table 6. Similar to the nonlinear case, here
also the response quantity found affected the most is the
tower base shear in the transverse direction. The results
show that no convergence (i.e. approaching the response
with SSI to that of without SSI) in base shear response is
observed with increase in soil stiffness. To visualize the
difference in results obtained with the linear and nonlinear
soil models, the tower base shear in longitudinal and
transverse directions for firm soil are plotted in Fig. 11 in
the form of bar chart for all the four earthquakes. The
numbers on x-axis show the sequence of earthquakes
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
256 B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257
Without SSI
Nonlinear SSI
0.60
Linear SSI
Vx / Wd 0.45
Vy / Wd
0.30
0.15
0.00
1 2 3 4
Earthquake
Fig. 11. Comparison of tower base shear with linear and nonlinear soil models.
considered in this study. The large difference between the
results with nonlinear and linear soil models specifically for
shear in transverse direction indicates that the considera-
tion of nonlinearity in soil is essential to predict accurate
results.
6. Conclusions
Influence of SSI on seismic response of isolated cable-
stayed bridge has been investigated under bi-directional
earthquake excitations. The deck of the bridge is isolated
from the towers by using conventional high-damping
rubber bearings. Three types of layered soil strata, namely,
soft, medium and firm, have been considered for the study.
The soil–pile interaction is idealized as a BNWF using
continuously distributed nonlinear springs and viscous
dashpots placed in parallel, and Bouc–Wen model is used
to model hysteretic behavior of the soil. From the trends of
the results of the present study, following conclusions may
be drawn:
(1) For soft soil condition, the bearing displacement may
be underestimated if SSI is ignored, especially in the
longitudinal direction. However, no significant increase
takes place in deck displacement in transverse direction.
(2) The tower base shear response in the longitudinal
direction is not much affected irrespective of the soil
types.
(3) Significant influence of soil–pile interaction is observed
on tower base shear response in the transverse
direction. The response is much higher as compared
to that of the bridge with fixed tower base when the soil
is soft to medium. As the stiffness of the soil strata
increases the effect of SSI diminishes.
(4) Analyzing the structure assuming linear soil model does
not lead to accurate prediction of tower base shear
response, and nonlinear soil modeling is essential to
reflect dynamic behavior of the soil–pile system
properly.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1 2 3 4
Earthquake
(5) Inclusion of SSI is essential for effective design of
seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge, specifically
when the towers are very much rigid and the soil
condition is soft to medium.
References
[1] Buckle IG, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: history, applications and
performance—a world review. Earthquake Spectra 1990;6:161–201.
[2] Dicleli M. Seismic design of lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic
isolation. J Bridge Eng ASCE 2002;7:94–103.
[3] Kunde MC, Jangid RS. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: a state-
of-the-art review. Electron J Struct Eng 2003;3:140–70.
[4] Dicleli M, Mansour MY. Seismic retrofitting of highway bridges in
Illinois using friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings and
modeling procedures. Eng Struct 2003;25:1139–56.
[5] Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Seismic energy dissipation for cable-
stayed bridges using passive devices. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
1994;23:877–93.
[6] Wesolowsky MJ, Wilson JC. Seismic isolation of cable-stayed bridges
for near-field ground motions. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2003;
32:2107–26.
[7] Takemiya H, Kai S. Seismic analysis of a multi span continuous
elevated bridge on deep pile foundations. Proc Jpn Soc Civ Eng
1983;332:1–10.
[8] Spyrakos CC. Assessment of SSI on the longitudinal seismic response
of short span bridges. Eng Struct 1990;12:60–6.
[9] Zheng J, Takeda T. Effects of soil–structure interaction on seismic
response of PC cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 1995;
14:427–37.
[10] Makris N, Gazetas G, Delis E. Dynamic soil–pile–foundation–struc-
ture interaction: records and predictions. Géotechnique 1996;46:
33–50.
[11] Saadeghvaziri MA, Yazdani-Motlagh AR, Rashidi S. Effects of
soil–structure interaction on longitudinal seismic response of MSSS
bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2000;20:231–42.
[12] Chaudhary MTA, Abé M, Fujino Y. Identification of soil–structure
interaction effect in base-isolated bridges from earthquake records.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2001;21:713–25.
[13] Tongaonkar NP, Jangid RS. Seismic response of isolated bridges with
soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23:
287–302.
[14] Dicleli M, Albhaisi S, Mansour MY. Static soil–structure effects in
seismic isolated bridges. Pract Period Struct Des Constr ASCE 2005;
10:22–32.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28 (2008) 245–257
[15] Kawano K, Furukawa K. Random seismic response analysis of soil
cable-stayed bridge interaction. In: Proceedings of the 9th WCEE,
vol. 6, 1988. p. 495–500.
[16] Wilson JC, Gravelle W. Modelling of a cable-stayed bridge for
dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20:707–21.
[17] Zeevaert L. Foundation engineering for difficult subsoil conditions.
New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1973.
[18] Konagai K, Yin Y, Murono Y. Single beam analogy for describing
soil–pile group interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23:213–21.
[19] Wilson JC, Liu T. Ambient vibration measurements on a cable-stayed
bridge. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20:723–47.
[20] Ernst HJ. Der e-modul von seilen unter berücksichtigung des
durchhanges. Bauingenieur 1965;40:52–5 [in German].
[21] Angelides D, Roesset JM. Nonlinear lateral dynamic stiffness of piles.
J Geotech Eng ASCE 1981;107:1443–60.
[22] Trochanis A, Bielak J, Christiano P. Simplified model for analysis of
one or two piles. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991;117:448–66.
[23] Bouc R. Modele mathematique d0 hysteresis. Acustica 1971;21:16–25
[in French].
[24] Wen YK. Method for random vibration for hysteretic systems. J Eng
Mech Div ASCE 1976;102:249–63.
[25] Japan Road Association. Specification for highway bridges. 1990.
257
[26] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J
Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1984;110:20–40.
[27] Roesset JM, Angelides D. Dynamic stiffness of piles. In: Numerical
methods in offshore piling. London, UK: Institute of Civil Engineers;
1989. p. 75–80.
[28] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pile–soil–pile interaction. Part II:
lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21:
145–62.
[29] Wolf JP. Dynamic soil–structure interaction. USA: Prentice-Hall;
1985.
[30] Kaniraj SR. Design aids in soil mechanics and foundation engineer-
ing. India: Tata McGraw-Hill; 1988.
[31] Constantinou MC, Adnane MA. Evaluation of two models for
yielding systems. Report to NSF, Department of Civil Engineering,
Drexel University, PA, 1987.
[32] Broms BB. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. J Soil Mech
Found Div 1964;90:27–63.
[33] Matlock H. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft
clay. In: Proceedings of the 2nd annual offshore technology
conference, Houston, Paper No. OTC 1204, 1970. p. 577–94.
[34] Soneji BB, Jangid RS. Effectiveness of seismic isolation for cable-
stayed bridges. Int J Struct Stability Dyn 2006;6:77–96.