Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Large-scale shaking table test on tall buildings with viscous dampers T

considering pile-soil-structure interaction
⁎
Jinping Yanga, Zheng Lub,c, Peizhen Lib,c,
a
College of Civil Engineering, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou, China
b
Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A series of large-scale shaking table tests of tall buildings with nonlinear viscous dampers on soft soils in pile
Pile-soil-structure interaction group foundations are performed to better understand the effect of the seismic pile-soil-structure interaction
Soil-structure interaction (PSSI) on the dynamic responses of the pile, soil, structure and the performance of the viscous dampers. Two
Shaking table test different models are investigated, including a fixed-base structure with viscous dampers, representing the si-
Viscous dampers
tuation ignoring the soil-structure interaction (SSI) and a structure with viscous dampers supported by 3-by-3
Seismic responses
Soft soil
pile group foundation in soft soil within a shear laminar soil container. The superstructure is a 12-story re-
inforced concrete (RC) frame. The seismic excitations of Shanghai Bedrock waves, 1995 Kobe earthquake and
1999 Chi-Chi earthquake events are selected and used in the shaking table tests. Finally, a three-dimensional
numerical model is developed and verified to be appropriate for capturing the dynamic responses of soil-pile-
structure with viscous dampers. Based on the experimental results, the PSSI system has longer natural periods
and the frequencies decrease more lightly than the fixed-base structure after the tests. In addition, the influences
of PSSI on the frequencies are much greater than the damping ratio. Moreover, by comparing with the fixed-base
conditions, PSSI tends to decrease elastic-plastic inter-story drift of the structure more greatly than the accel-
eration and shear force. However, the overall deformation of the structure may increase due to the obvious and
large rocking and translational components. More interestingly, the hysteretic performance and the efficiency of
viscous dampers on mitigating the structural dynamic responses are reduced by the PSSI effect compared with
the fixed-base models. Consequently, ignoring the SSI effects may result in unrealistic results of the seismic
responses of the superstructure and overstate the performance of the nonlinear viscous dampers. It is of great
importance to consider the seismic SSI effect in the design of viscous dampers and structures.

1. Introduction The viscous damper, a kind of passive velocity-related energy dis-

In recent decades, structural control technology, which is added
supplemental control devices on the structures, has been developed
rapidly and proven to be effective to improve the seismic resistance and
wind resistance of structures [1]. The existing seismic design meth-
odologies of passive, active and semi-active vibration controls at home
and abroad are mostly based on the dynamic characteristics of the
structure. It is well known that the dynamic characteristics of the soil-
structure-interaction (SSI) system are different from the fixed-base
structure due to the increased number of freedoms [2–4]. Moreover, the
performance of structural vibration control is affected by the SSI effect
[5,6]. Consequently, the design codes for vibration controllers based on
fixed-base structure is not proper or suitable for the buildings rested on
soft site with intensive SSI effects.
sipation device, has been increasingly applied to the civil structures to
mitigate the structural dynamic responses subjected to earthquake or
wind. There are extensive studies on the viscous dampers with its be-
havior for control of shock vibrations [7], its limit states and failure
mechanisms [8], its novel types [9] and its design method [10–14]. In
addition, there is relative widely research on the effects of SSI on the
vibration control efficiency of vibration controllers, such as tuned mass
damper (TMD) [15,16], tuned liquid damper (TLD) [17], compliant
liquid column damper (CLCD) [18], tuned liquid column damper
(TLCD) [19], magnetorheological (MR) dampers [20] and shape
memory alloy (SMA) energy dissipating braces [21]. However, few
studies specifically focused on the topic of viscous dampers considering
the SSI effect. Zhao [22] developed a simplified numerical model to
analyze the SSI effect on frame structures with viscoelastic dampers

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Disaster Mitigation for Structures, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
E-mail addresses: jping_yang@haut.edu.cn (J. Yang), luzheng111@tongji.edu.cn (Z. Lu), lipeizh@tongji.edu.cn (P. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110960
Received 14 October 2019; Received in revised form 23 May 2020; Accepted 8 June 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

rested on pile group foundation. Zhu [23] investigated the effects of Table 2
fluid viscous damper for a cable-stayed bridge under randomly gener- The material information of the prototype structure and tested model.
ated earthquake excitation. Farghaly [24] analyzed two adjacent Items Prototype 1/6 model
buildings connected by viscous dampers with different heights located structure
on stiff, medium and soft soil. It can be obtained from the above re-
Super-structure Story 12 12
search that the efficiency of viscous dampers is lower than those under
H/B 6 6
the fixed-base conditions. Story height (m) 3 0.5
From the recent work, there are few concerns about the SSI effects Total height (m) 36 6
on the viscous dampers due to the lack of experimental data and ana- Plane size (m) 6×6 1×1
lytical model to evaluate the seismic SSI effect on the performance of Material C30 Concrete M8 mixed mortar
Beam size (mm) 300 × 500 50 × 85
the viscous damper, and the dynamic response of pile, soil and super-
Reinforcement 6Φ22 6–45#wires
structure. Consequently, in the present research, large-scale shaking Column size (mm) 500 × 500 85 × 85
table tests and three-dimensional nonlinear numerical analysis on pile- Reinforcement 8Φ22 8–45#wires
soil-structure interaction (PSSI) [25] system of realistic multi-degree-of- Floor thick (mm) 120 20
Reinforcement Φ8@150 16#wires@15
freedom structure with nonlinear viscous dampers located on soft site
Counterweight Wall weight, Determined by
are accomplished to evaluate the seismic PSSI effect on the efficiency of live load calculation
the viscous dampers. Pile Material C30 concrete M8 mixed mortar
This study summarizes and analyzes the results of a series of shaking foundation Pile length (m) 12 2
table tests including a 12-story structure with viscous dampers located Pile size (mm) 450 × 450 75 × 75
Reinforcement 8Φ22 8–45#wires
on a 3-by-3 pile group foundation in a soft site test, and the corre-
Soil Material – sawdust and sand
sponding fixed-base structure with viscous dampers test. The shaking Thick (m) 16.8 2.8
table tests were conducted at the State Key Laboratory of Disaster
Reduction in Civil Engineering, Jiading campus, Tongji University,
China. The main objective is to present how PSSI affects the seismic the physical quantities are scaled using similitude formulas derived
performance of nonlinear viscous dampers. This work also carries out a from the Buckingham π theorem [26,27].
comparative study on the interacting working mechanism of PSSI in As the results of PS and RS shaking table tests have been introduced
pile, soil and structural responses, and the performance of viscous before [28], the numerical and numerical results of PV and RV tests are
dampers, providing a new and comprehensive understanding of the introduced in detail in this present study.
seismic pile-soil-energy dissipation structure interaction.
2.2. Soil boundary conditions and soil characteristics
2. Introduction to shaking table tests
In the SSI shaking table tests, a laminar shear box was designed to
reduce the undesirable boundary effects, as presented in Fig. 1(a). The
2.1. Test design
net size of the shear box is 4500 mm × 3500 mm × 3000 mm
(length × width × height). Each frame of shear box provides lateral
Four cases of large-scale shaking table tests were conducted: 12-
confinement of the soil and the container can deform in a shear manner
story structure supported by pile group foundation on soft soil (PS test),
freely [29].
12-story structure with viscous dampers supported by pile group
The model soil was the mixture of saw powder and medium sand
foundation on soft soil (PV test), fixed-base 12-story structure (RS test)
(with a mix ratio of 1:2.5 in mass) in the PV shaking table test. The soil
and fixed-base 12-story structure with viscous dampers (RV test), as
depth was 2.8 m. Cyclic triaxial tests and dynamic tests were conducted
shown in Table 1.
to obtain the dynamic behavior of the soft model soil. Fig. 2 shows the
The detailed material information of the prototype structure and
typical Gd/ G0 γd and λ γd curves of the soft soil in the tests, where Gd , G0 ,
tested model is shown in Table 2. The photograph of the test model is
λ and γd are the shear modulus, initial shear modulus, damping ratio,
shown in Fig. 1. The superstructure was a 12-story cast-in-place con-
and shear strain, respectively. Nonlinear properties of the soil are
crete frame structure with a single bay and a single span, which had a 3-
clearly observable in the figure.
by-3 pile group foundation. M8 mixed mortar was used as the casting
material in the model test. At the same time of pouring the structure
model, samples of each floor were reserved to test the material prop- 2.3. Design of nonlinear viscous dampers
erties. The mean cube compressive strength (with the samples size
70.7 mm × 70.7 mm × 70.7 mm) and elastic modulus with the sample The nonlinear viscous dampers were designed directly based on the
size (100 mm × 100 mm × 300 mm) were 7.291 MPa and additional damping ratio (0.0923 in the tests) of the viscous dampers to
1.333 × 104 MPa, respectively in the tests. the scale structure rather than a prototype to reduce the error resulting
Employing geometric scaling factor of 1:6, the length, width and from scaling down. The total number of dampers set on the 12-story
height of the model structure are determined to be 1 m, 1 m and 6 m structures was 48 in PV and RV tests (24 in every test) and the damping
respectively. The scaling factors of acceleration, time and damping are exponent was 0.2. The detailed parameters of viscous dampers are
2.665, 0.2501 and 0.0185 respectively in the shaking table test. All of listed in Table 3. The designed and practical connection graph of

Table 1
Test contents.
No Test name Test contents

1 PS Pile length: 2 m, 3 × 3 pile group foundation, 12-story frame superstructure, soft soil layer with a 2.8 m depth
2 RS 12-story fixed-base frame superstructure
3 PV Pile length: 2 m, 3 × 3 pile group foundation, 12-story frame superstructure with viscous dampers, soft soil layer with a 2.8 m depth
4 RV 12-story fixed-base frame superstructure with viscous dampers

Note. P: pile group foundation; R: rigid foundation; S: 12-story superstructure; V: 12-story superstructure with viscous dampers.

2
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Fig. 1. The photo of: (a) PV shaking table tests; (b) RV shaking table test (the right RV model, the middle RS model); (c) elevation of pile foundation; (d) pile number.

Fig. 2. Typical Gd/ G0 γd and λ γd curves of model soil.
viscous dampers are shown in Fig. 3. Each floor of the structure was
equipped with two viscous dampers, connecting by a T shape plate and
double angle steel plate.
Performance experiments were carried out on the designed viscous
dampers to examine the character of the dampers before the shaking
table tests. Cyclic loading tests under the displacement control mode
were conducted on the dampers. In the process of experiment, series
sinusoidal excitations with different amplitudes and frequencies were
applied to the dampers to determine the damping coefficient, exponent
and maximum damping force. The force-velocity and force-displace-
ment responses of the tested dampers are shown in Fig. 4, demon-
strating that the actual parameters of dampers meet the design re-
quirement and the plump hysteresis loop reveals it can provide
adequate hysteretic performance.

Table 3 2.4. Instrumentation arrangement

The parameters of nonlinear viscous dampers set in PV and
RV tests.
The pile-soil-structure with nonlinear viscous dampers system in PV
Item Parameter test was set up with four kinds of sensors, as shown in Fig. 5(a). Model
141 Linear Accelerometers (started with the letter A), whose stroke
Number 48
Damping coefficient 300
length and resolution were 5 g and infinite (only limited by the output
Cm (kN∙ (s / m)0.2 ) noise), respectively, were arranged at the soil and the superstructure to
Damping exponentα 0.2 measure the acceleration responses under the seismic excitations. Si-
Maximum force (kN ) 0.7 milarly, NS-WY06 Guyed Displacement Meters (started with the letter
D), whose stroke length and resolution were 1 m and 0.03 m, respec-
tively, were used to measure the displacement of the superstructure.
Strain gauges (started with the letter E), whose stroke length and sen-
sitivity coefficient were 20,000 um/m and 2.0 ± 1%, respectively,

3
J. Yang, et al.
Fig. 3. (a) The designed connection graph of viscous dampers; (b) the practical connection graph of viscous dampers in PV test.
were set up along the piles and the viscous dampers to measure the
dynamic responses. BW type pressure gauges (started with the letter P),
whose stroke length and resolution were 0.1 MPa and 0.3F·S, respec-
tively, were set up on the piles to measure the contact pressure between
the piles and surrounding soil. Accelerometers, displacement meters
and strain gauges were also set up in the fixed-base model (RV test), as
shown in Fig. 5(b).
2.5. Shaking table test program
Two recorded natural accelerations, 1995 Kobe earthquake (KB)
and 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (CC), and an artificial wave, Shanghai
bedrock wave (SJ) were selected and put into the models along the x-
direction of the shaking table. Fig. 6 shows the acceleration time-his-
tories and their corresponding Fourier spectra. It can be obtained that
the main spectrum ranges are between 0.5 Hz and 22 Hz, 0 Hz and 5 Hz,
0 and 8 Hz in Shanghai bedrock wave, Kobe earthquake and Chi-Chi
earthquake, respectively. The frequency of the model superstructure in
the tests is mainly low frequency, which is within the frequency range
of the input excitations.
The complete loading sequences performed on the PV shaking table
test are displayed in Table 4. The test process included 6 levels of
seismic excitations noted with SJ1, KB1, CC1 to SJ6, KB6 and CC6 with
increasing peak ground acceleration (PGA) from 0.133 g to 1.333 g
based on the seismic fortification intensity stipulated by the Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings in China. White noise (WN) with a certain
small amplitude was applied to the model before and after put the
excitations to determine the dynamic characteristics of the pile-soil-
structure with viscous dampers. The measured accelerations of A14
point (Fig. 5(a)) in the PV test of each excitation were put into the RV
test correspondingly, since they are regarded as the free field responses
approximately.
Fig. 4. Nonlinear viscous dampers in the performance experiments for: (a) force-velocity relationship; (b) force-displacement relationship.
4
Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960
3. Test phenomena and modal characteristics of the models with
viscous dampers
3.1. Test phenomena of pile-soil-energy dissipation structure system
There were not structural cracks under the minor seismic excitations
in the PV test. With the increasing PGA, the column cracks on the first
floor began to be observed after the KB3 case. However, these cracks
were very small and close to the connection plate, as shown in Fig. 7(a).
After the KB4 excitation, column cracks on the tenth floor were ob-
served, as shown in Fig. 7(b). After the KB5 excitation, cracks at the
beam-column connection on the third floor with crack width approxi-
mately 0.5 mm were caught in Fig. 7(c). Slight concrete crumbling was
observed in the test as shown in Fig. 7(d) after KB6 excitation.
The pile group foundation in PV test was excavated after the test, as
presented in Fig. 8. It can be observed that generally there are more and
dense cracks at the pile top than at the pile tip.
3.2. Test phenomena of the fixed-base energy dissipation structure
In RV test, there were tiny cracks at the column close to the con-
nection plate on the 7th floor after the KB3 case and concrete rumbling
due to construction reasons, as shown in Fig. 9(a). The beams parallel to
the direction of the excited ground motion were the main seismic re-
sistance members. To the structural cracks, firstly, small cracks per-
pendicular to the axial direction of these beams developed at the top,
bottom and ends of the beam. After the SJ4 excitation, cracks were
observed at the beam-column connection on the 3th ~ 10th floor, as
shown in Fig. 9(b). Then with the increase of the PGA and the accu-
mulation of damage, the cracks in the corners of the beam developed
gradually to the neutral surface until they were connected, and the
width of the cracks also increased. After the CC4 excitation, cracks at
the beam-column connection developed in the test as shown in
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Fig. 5. Experiment setups for (a) PV test; (b) RV test.

Fig. 6. (a) The acceleration time-history of the Shanghai bedrock wave; (b) the acceleration time-history of the Kobe earthquake; (c) the acceleration time-history of
the Chi-Chi earthquake; (d) the corresponding Fourier spectrum of the Shanghai bedrock wave; (e) the corresponding Fourier spectrum of the Kobe earthquake; (f)
the corresponding Fourier spectrum of the Chi-Chi earthquake. Note. SJ: Shanghai bedrock wave; KB: Kobe earthquake; CC: Chi-Chi earthquake.

5
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Table 4 decreases and the damping ratio increases with the increasing number
PV shaking table test program. of white noises due to the nonlinear behavior development of soil, pile
Case Excitation Name Peak Ground Acceleration (g) and superstructure. The model concrete is damaged and cracked with
the increase of the PGA, and the dislocation and collision of the crack
Prototype Model surface play a certain role in energy dissipation, resulting the increase
in the damping of the structure. In the tests, it is obtained that the
1 WN1 – 0.07
2–4 SJ1, KB1, CC1 0.05 0.133 damping ratio in PV test under WN6 case (10.49) is higher than that
5 WN2 – 0.07 under WN7 case (9.25). This result may be due to the fact that the
6–8 SJ2, KB2, CC2 0.1 0.267 dislocation and collision on the concrete crack surface under WN6 are
9 WN3 – 0.07 more obvious than those under WN7 case, leading to larger energy
10–12 SJ3, KB3, CC3 0.2 0.533
dissipation in the SSI system.
13 WN4 – 0.07
14–16 SJ4, KB4, CC4 0.3 0.8 In addition, the model frequency in PV test is generally smaller than
17 WN5 – 0.07 that in RV test, and the damping ratio of the undamaged model in PV
18–20 SJ5, KB5, CC5 0.4 1.066 test is higher than that of RV model (WN1 case) due to the radiation
21 WN6 – 0.07
damping in the soil.
22–24 SJ6, KB6, CC6 0.5 1.333
25 WN7 – 0.07 Moreover, the frequency of PV model decreases 26.24% from
2.02 Hz under WN1 case without applying the excited earthquakes to
Note. WN: White noise; SJ: Shanghai bedrock wave; KB: Kobe earthquake; CC: 1.49 Hz at the end of the tests. While the frequency decrease rate of
Chi-Chi earthquake. fixed-base model is 32.71% in RV test, which is larger than that in the
PSSI system. It indicates that the damage of the model on fixed-base is
Fig. 9(c). Finally, the beam ends were hinged approximately after the more serious than the model considering PSSI, which is consistent with
test with the compressive strength of the structural material greater the test phenomena. It can be obtained from the PS and RS tests that the
than 7.291 MPa (cube compressive strength of the tested samples), and frequencies decrease 62.67% and 68.5% respectively [28]. Conse-
the damage on the bottom floors was more severe than the upper layers. quently, the damage and nonlinear behavior of energy dissipation
After the CC6 excitation, severe concrete crumbing could be caught at structure are less obvious than the frame structures without dampers.
the column on the sixth floor, as shown in Fig. 9(d). The influence of PSSI on the dynamic characteristics of the structure
It is found that the cracks of the fixed-base superstructure were is defined as Equation (1). It can be drawn that the difference ratio of
wider, and developed more quickly by comparing with the cracks in the frequency in the two tests (maximum 24.91%) is larger than the
PSSI system under the same seismic excitation. damping ratio (maximum 13.02%), indicating the greater influence of
PSSI on the frequency of the structure than the damping ratio.
3.3. Dynamic characteristics of the test models with viscous dampers
|PVtest − RVtest|
× 100%
RVtest (1)
The model frequencies and damping ratio in the PV and RV tests are
identified by the improved empirical mode decomposition method [30]
based on the measured accelerations under the excitations of white
noise, as shown in Table 5. It can be seen that the model frequency

Fig. 7. (a) Column cracks on the first floor after KB3 (0.533 g) excitation; (b) column cracks on the tenth floor after KB4 (0.8 g) excitation; (c) beam-end cracks on the
third floor after KB5 (1.066 g) excitation; (d) concrete crumbling on the sixth floor after KB6 (1.333 g) excitation.

6
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Fig. 8. (a) The whole graph of concrete piles after the PV test; (b) cracks on the pile top after the PV test.

4. Experimental results of PSSI system with viscous dampers
4.1. Acceleration magnification factor
In PV test, acceleration magnification factors (AMFs) can be ob-
tained by comparing the peak value of the measured accelerations at
each layer along with the height of soil and the superstructure with that
of the container bottom. Then the corresponding AMFs under different
seismic excitations in PV test are presented in Fig. 10. The following
conclusions could be obtained from the figure.
(1) AMFs of soil are greater than 1 with small PGAs of input excitation
and smaller than 1 with large PGAs, indicating that the soft soil has
an amplification effect under minor earthquakes and isolation effect
under major earthquakes.
(2) AMFs decrease with the increasing PGA of excitations generally.
The reason is that the soil nonlinearity develops and the stiffness of
soft soil decreases with the increasing input motions.
(3) AMFs under the excitation of Shanghai bedrock waves are smaller
than those under Kobe and Chi-Chi earthquakes. The spectral of
Kobe and Chi-Chi earthquakes rich in low frequencies are near the
fundamental frequency of the test model, resulting larger AMFs. On
the other hand, Shanghai bedrock wave has a relatively broad band
in the medium–high frequency region.
4.2. Strain amplitude of the pile
The measured strain contains the strain due to axial force and
bending moment in this shaking table test. Fig. 11 shows the inside and
outside strain amplitude of the pile subjected to various excitations in

Fig. 9. (a) Crack at column on the seventh floor after KB3 (0.533 g) excitation; (b) cracks at beam-column connection on the third floor after SJ4 (0.8 g) excitation;
(c) cracks at beam-column connection on the third floor after CC4 (0.8 g) excitation; (d) concrete crumbling on the sixth floor after CC6 (1.333 g) excitation.

7
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Table 5
Model frequency and damping ratio of PV and RV test.
No Excitation Name PV Test RV Test Differences in two tests (%)

Frequency (Hz) Damping ratio (％) Frequency (Hz) Damping ratio (％) Frequency Damping ratio

1 WN1 2.02 5.50 2.69 5.25 24.91 4.76

2 WN2 1.95 6.62 2.51 7.20 22.31 8.06
3 WN3 1.76 7.48 2.31 8.60 23.81 13.02
4 WN4 1.63 8.76 2.06 9.15 20.87 4.26
5 WN5 1.59 9.67 2.05 9.60 22.44 0.73
6 WN6 1.53 10.49 1.88 10.10 18.62 3.86
7 WN7 1.49 9.25 1.81 10.20 17.68 9.31

Note. WN: white noise; PV: pile-soil-structure with viscous dampers; RV: fixed-base structure with viscous dampers.

the PV test. The inside strain of the pile means the measured strains
from E2, E4 to E12 and the outside strains from E1, E3 to E11
(Fig. 5(a)). It can be concluded that the strain amplitude at the middle
and tip of the pile is smaller than that at the pile top due to the unig-
nored rotational stiffness of the pile foundation at the pile top. Similarly
with the AMFs, the strain amplitude is smaller under Shanghai bedrock
wave than that under Kobe and Chi-Chi earthquakes with the same
shaking magnitude. More interestingly, the outside strain amplitude is a
little larger than inside strain amplitude, demonstrating that the dy-
namic responses of piles in symmetric system is not symmetric under
seismic loads due to the nonlinear behavior of the pile-soil-structure
system.
5. Seismic responses comparison of PSSI system and fixed-base
structure with viscous dampers
5.1. Acceleration of the superstructure
Fig. 12 presents the comparison of peak accelerations of the su-
perstructure with viscous dampers in the PV test and RV test under the
excitations of SJ1, KB1, CC1 and SJ5, KB5, CC5. It can be drawn that
the changing trend of peak acceleration along the floor is similar in PV
test and RV test. Moreover, the peak accelerations in the fixed-base
model test are generally larger than those in the PSSI system model test
under the same input seismic excitation, demonstrating that the seismic
PSSI effect reduces the acceleration responses of the structure with
nonlinear viscous dampers by comparing with that under the fixed-base
condition. The reason is that the input energy is mostly absorbed by the
fixed-base structure and the nonlinear viscous dampers subjected to
ground excitations, while it is partly absorbed by the structure and the
viscous dampers in PSSI system due to the nonlinear behavior of the
pile group foundation and the isolation feature of the soft soil. Similar
results can be found in other research [27] and in the PS and RS shaking
table tests [28]. The maximum influence of the PSSI effect on the ac-
celeration of structure in PV and RV tests is 39.9%, based on Eq. (1).
5.2. Displacement of the superstructure
It is well known that the structural displacements contain three
parts in the SSI system: the elastic–plastic deformation generated by the
structure itself, the rocking deformation caused by foundation rotation
and the translational deformation caused by the swing at the founda-
tion. Table 6 displays the overall displacement and the three compo-
nents in PV test and the displacement in RV test at the top of the
structure. The overall displacements of structure in the PSSI system
with viscous dampers are demonstrated to be larger than that on fixed-
base structure, especially under great seismic excitations due to the
large and obvious rocking and translational components (amplifies
maximum 2.73 times). This is consistent with other numerical and
experimental studies [31,32].
The elastic deformation of superstructure in the PSSI system is
compared with the displacement of fixed-base structure in this present
study. Fig. 13 reveals the structural peak displacements under the ex-
citations of SJ1, KB1, CC1 and SJ5, KB5, CC5 in the PV and RV tests.
The results show that the peak displacements of the structure subjected
to Kobe and Chi-Chi earthquakes are larger than that Shanghai bedrock
wave with the same PGA. In addition, the peak elastic-plastic dis-
placement in the PSSI test is generally smaller (the maximum PSSI in-
fluence ratio 44.85%) than that in the fixed-base test except under CC1
case.

Fig. 10. Acceleration magnification factors of PV shaking table tests under the excitation of: (a) Shanghai bedrock wave; (b) Kobe earthquake; (c) Chi-Chi earth-
quake.

8
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Fig. 11. The pile strain of PV shaking table tests: (a) inside the pile under Shanghai bedrock wave; (b) inside the pile under Kobe earthquake; (c) inside the pile under
Chi-Chi earthquake; (d) outside the pile under Shanghai bedrock wave; (e) outside the pile under Kobe earthquake; (f) outside the pile under Chi-Chi earthquake.

5.3. Inter-story drift of the superstructure
Some studies have shown that SSI tends to increase the inter-story
drift of the superstructure in comparison with the fixed-base model due
to the rocking component in the PSSI system [28]. However, the elastic
inter-story drift excluding the rocking and translational part is widely
used as an important indicator in the structure and viscous dampers
design, e.g. Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS [33]. Similarly, the elastic-plastic
inter-story drift that is generated by the structure itself in PSSI system is
compared with the fixed-base structural inter-story drift. Fig. 14 shows
the peak inter-story drift of the structure along the floor under the
excitations of SJ1, KB1, CC1 and SJ5, KB5, CC5 in the PV and RV tests.
It can be observed that the structural inter-story drift in PSSI system is
larger than that in the fixed-base test in CC1 case with small PGA.
However, the inter-story drift of PSSI system tends to be smaller than
that on the fixed-base model generally, illustrating that seismic PSSI
tends to decrease the elastic inter-story drift of structure under large
excitations (maximum PSSI influence ratio 50.5%). In addition, it is
proved that the maximal inter-story drift of the station meets the re-
quirement of 1/50 under SJ5, KB5 and CC5 earthquakes according to

Fig. 12. Peak accelerations of PV and RV tests under the excitation of: (a) SJ1 (0.133 g); (b) KB1 (0.133 g); (c) CC1 (0.133 g); (d) SJ5 (1.066 g); (e) KB5 (1.066 g); (f)
CC5 (1.066 g).

9
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Table 6 obtained based on the strain gauges along the dampers. High-frequency
Maximum displacement components at the top of the structure including SSI interferences (larger than 40 Hz) were filtered effectively from the
effect and maximum displacement of fixed-base structure (mm). strain data due to the test noise and limited sensitivity of the strain
Case Displacement components with SSI effect (PV test) Displacement gauges. In practice, measurement errors and uncertainties are un-
of fixed-base avoidable in the data obtained from the tests [34]. The force-dis-
Translational Rocking Elastic- Overall case (RV test) placement relationship of nonlinear viscous dampers on the 8th floor in
component component plastic displacement
PV and RV tests under different PGA levels is shown in Fig. 16. It can be
component
seen that the maximum force generated by viscous dampers and the
SJ1 1.63 2.75 3.81 7.46 3.98 hysteretic dissipation energy of viscous dampers increase with the in-
SJ5 9.20 15.47 20.55 39.14 33.39 creasing PGA of the input excitations. In addition, the damping force of
KB1 3.84 6.43 8.30 15.50 12.43
viscous dampers is larger under the seismic excitation of Chi-Chi
KB5 23.17 36.46 43.09 85.90 76.91
CC1 2.560 8.69 11.43 26.25 9.60 earthquakes than that of Shanghai bedrock wave. Moreover, the
CC5 32.44 97.80 59.75 161.24 84.68 damping force of viscous dampers is larger, and the area of hysteretic
curves are fuller in the RV test than in PV test under the seismic ex-
citations with the same PGA, obviously indicating that the damping
Code for Seismic Design of Buildings in China. force and the hysteretic performance of the nonlinear viscous dampers
are reduced by a certain degree owing to seismic SSI effect.
5.4. Story shear force of the superstructure The mean seismic reduction rates of acceleration, displacement,
inter-story drift and story shear force are 20.09%, 12.03%, 40.48% and
Fig. 15 presents the peak story shear force of the structure along the 28.86% in RV tests under SJ5 case (by comparing with RS tests), with
floor under the excitations of SJ1, KB1, CC1 and SJ5, KB5, CC5 in the those 12.79%, 8.61%, 30.84% and 12.36% in PV tests (by comparing
PV and RV tests. It can be drawn from the figure that the peak story with PS tests), indicating that the efficiency of viscous dampers is de-
shear force on the base floor is the largest. Moreover, the structure graded by seismic PSSI. Moreover, the influence degree of PSSI effect on
excluding PSSI experiences larger story shear force response than the the seismic reduction rates of viscous dampers are 36.34%, 28.43%,
structure in the PSSI system under the same excitation. This implies that 23.81% and 57.17% for the structural responses of acceleration, dis-
the story shear force of the structure is reduced by SSI effect (maximum placement, inter-story drift and story shear force, respectively.
PSSI influence ratio 39.9%), which is consistent with the acceleration
response discussed in Section 5.1 and the reducing base shear of the
structure supported by the floating pile foundation in other research 6. Numerical modeling
[29].
6.1. Simulation method
5.5. Force-displacement performance of the viscous dampers
In addition to the experimental investigations and analysis, a proper
The hysteretic behaviors of nonlinear viscous dampers under the numerical simulation method was established based on ANSYS software
seismic excitations are of great concern in the shaking table tests. The [35] to evaluate the dynamic time-history analyses of the shaking table
inter-story drift is obtained through the displacement meters on each test model of pile-soil-structure with viscous dampers.
floor in PV and RV tests, and the damping force of viscous dampers is In the three-dimensional finite element model, the columns and

Fig. 13. Peak displacement of PV and RV tests under the excitation of: (a) SJ1 (0.133 g); (b) KB1 (0.133 g); (c) CC1 (0.133 g); (d) SJ5 (1.066 g); (e) KB5 (1.066 g); (f)
CC5 (1.066 g).

10
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Fig. 14. Peak inter-story drift angle of PV and RV tests under the excitation of: (a) SJ1 (0.133 g); (b) KB1 (0.133 g); (c) CC1 (0.133 g); (d) SJ5 (1.066 g); (e) KB5
(1.066 g); (f) CC5 (1.066 g).

Fig. 15. Peak story shear force of PV and RV tests under the excitation of: (a) SJ1 (0.133 g); (b) KB1 (0.133 g); (c) CC1 (0.133 g); (d) SJ5 (1.066 g); (e) KB5 (1.066 g);
(f) CC5 (1.066 g).

beams in the superstructure and the piles adopted BEAM188. SOLID45
element was used to model the soil and foundation. The floor of the
structure was modeled as the SHELL63 element. The contact element
was considered in this model to simulate the contact phenomena and
behavior between the soil and piles. An equivalent linear model was
developed and incorporated into the ANSYS program using the para-
meter design language of ANSYS to realize the nonlinear simulation of
soils [36]. In addition, the constitutive model of superstructure was
implemented by bilinear kinematic hardening model, where the stiff-
ness of the material after yielding was taken as 1/10 of the initial
stiffness. The nonlinear viscous dampers were simulated by the
Combin37 element to simulate the nonlinear viscous dampers, and the
additional damping provided by the viscous damper were obtained by
adjusting the function of damper’s speed.

11
J. Yang, et al.
Fig. 16. Force-displacement relationship of nonlinear viscous dampers on the eighth floor under the excitation of: (a) SJ3 case in PV test; (b) SJ3 case in RV test; (c)
SJ5 case in PV test; (d) SJ5 case in RV test; (e) CC5 case in PV test; (f) CC5 case in RV test.
In SSI systems, the damping of each material, such as soil and
concrete frame superstructure, was loaded to the simulation models
separately. The generally known Rayleigh damping as shown in
Equation (1) and (2) were applied to the model.
C = αM + βK
ξi = α /2ωi + βωi /2
where M and K are mass matrix and stiffness matrix respectively. ξi and
ωi are the damping ratio and natural frequency (circular frequency) of
the i th-order mode shape, respectively. The soil damping ratio is itera-
tively determined from the λ γd curves (Fig. 2) based on the material
tests and the damping ratio of the superstructure can be consulted to
the modal identification results as shown in Table 5.
6.2. Comparison of numerical and experimental results
Fig. 17 compares numerically predicted accelerations with those
measured in the shaking table tests within the soil layers (A5 point), at
the bottom of structure (A26 point) and at the top of the structure (A38
point). And the corresponding Fourier spectrum of acceleration re-
sponse is presented in Fig. 18. The frequency responses shown in the
Fourier spectrums agree well with each other, especially for the inter-
esting low frequencies (e.g. less than 10 Hz). The fundamental fre-
quency of the soil and structure at around 5 Hz and 2 Hz respectively
are calculated correctly by the numerical model.
Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960
Table 7 displays the relative errors of the numerical simulation and
experimental recorded acceleration time-histories. It indicates that the
numerical results are generally agreeing with the experimental results,
both for the peak response and for the root-mean-square (r.m.s) re-
sponse, with the maximum errors within 30%. It should be noticed that
(2)
the simulation for SSI system, the numerical model is considered to be
rational and appropriate for reproducing the response of the model
(3)
structure with the maximum acceleration error about 30% [2,37], be-
cause the soil behaves in a nonlinear way and the stiffness of soil varies
with time and strain level constantly [2]. Consequently, the effective-
ness and reliability of the proposed numerical simulation method is
verified, indicating that it can reasonably predict the response of the
pile-soil-structure with viscous dampers system.
7. Conclusions
A series of large-scale shaking table tests were performed on the
structure with viscous dampers supported by the pile group foundation
on soft site and the corresponding fixed-base structures. Performance
experiments were carried out on the designed nonlinear viscous dam-
pers. Furthermore, a comprehensive comparison with the PSSI system
and the fixed-base model was conducted on the dynamic responses of
the structures and the dissipation capacity of viscous dampers. Finally,
a nonlinear 3D numerical model based on ANSYS software was pre-
sented and verified to be rational for reproducing the response of the
model structure with viscous dampers. The following are several
12
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

conclusions drawn from this study, which may help understand the
rational seismic performance of buildings and viscous dampers.

(1) The frequency of the fixed-base structure with viscous dampers

decreases more greatly than that in the PSSI system after the tests,
with the frequency decreasing rates being 32.71% and 26.24% for
the two systems, respectively. The influence rate of PSSI on the
frequencies in the two tests (maximum 33.17%) is larger than the
damping ratio (maximum 14.97%).
(2) Compared with the fixed-base condition, PSSI lightens the struc-
tural peak acceleration (maximum 39.9%), story shear force
(maximum 39.9%) and some elastic inter-story drift (maximum
50.5%). However, it amplifies the overall displacement of the su-
perstructure (maximum 2.73 times) due to the large components of
rocking and translational deformation.
(3) Peak force generated by the viscous dampers and the dissipation
capacity are degraded by the seismic PSSI effect. Moreover, the
influences of the PSSI effect on the seismic reduction rates of vis-
cous dampers are 36.34%, 28.43%, 23.81% and 57.17% for the
structural responses of acceleration, displacement, inter-story drift
and story shear force, respectively.

The experimental results verify that the seismic PSSI effect lightens
the acceleration and elastic deformation of the structure. However, it
may amplify the overall deformation of the structure obviously and
degrade the performance of the nonlinear viscous dampers.
Consequently, it is of great importance to include dynamic PSSI effect in
the performance based seismic design of viscous dampers and struc-
tures.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The co-authors of manuscript “Large-scale shaking table test on tall

Fig. 17. Calculated (solid line) and measured (dashed line) acceleration re-
buildings with viscous dampers considering pile-soil-structure interac-
sponse: (a) at the point A5 under SJ1 case; (b) at the point A26 under SJ1 case; tion” declare no conflict of interest.
(c) at the point A38 under SJ1 case; (d) at the point A38 under SJ5 case. Note: C
is the calculated results; T is the shaking table test results.

Fig. 18. Calculated (solid line) and measured (dashed line) Fourier spectrum of acceleration response: (a) at the point A5 under SJ1 case; (b) at the point A26 under
SJ1 case; (c) at the point A38 under SJ1 case; (d) at the point A38 under SJ5 case.

13
J. Yang, et al. Engineering Structures 220 (2020) 110960

Table 7
Relative error of the numerical and experimental recorded acceleration time-histories.
Location Case Root-mean-square (m/s2) Peak (m/s2)

Experimental Numerical Relative error (%) Experimental Numerical Relative error (%)

A5 SJ1 0.33 0.32 3.03 1.91 1.66 13.09

A26 SJ1 0.42 0.43 2.38 2.23 2.06 7.61
A38 SJ1 0.42 0.36 14.29 2.38 1.70 28.57
A38 SJ5 1.52 1.86 22.37 7.41 9.38 26.59

Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of
China (Grant No. 2018YFC0705602), the National Natural Science
Foundation of China, China (Grant No. 51978524), the Science and
Technology Research Project of Henan Province Office of Education,
China (Grant No. 20A560009) and the School Research Fund for the
Doctoral Program, China (Grant No. 31401223).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110960.
References
[1] Li H, Wang J. Experimental investigation of the seismic control of a nonlinear soil-
structure system using MR dampers. Smart Mater Struct 2011;20(8). https://doi.
org/10.1088/0964-1726/20/8/085026.
[2] Pitilakis D, Dietz M, Wood DM, Clouteau D, Modaressi A. Numerical simulation of
dynamic soil-structure interaction in shaking table testing. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2008;28(6):453–67.
[3] Veletsos AS, Meek JW. Dynamic behavior of building-foundation systems.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2010;3(2):121–38.
[4] Durante MG, Di Sarno L, Mylonakis G, Taylor CA, Simonelli AL. Soil-pile-structure
interaction: experimental outcomes from shaking table tests. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2016;45(7):1041–61.
[5] Sarlak A, Saeedmonir H, Gheyratmand C. Experimental study on using uniform
tuned liquid column damper for structural control of buildings resting on loose soil.
Int J Eng 2018;31(7):1028–37.
[6] Zhuang HY, Fu JS, Yu Xu, Chen S, Cai XH. Earthquake responses of a base-isolated
structure on a multi-layered soft soil foundation by using shaking table tests. Eng
Struct 2019;179:79–91.
[7] Narkhede DI, Sinha R. Behavior of nonlinear fluid viscous dampers for control of
shock vibrations. J Sound Vib 2014;333(1):80–98.
[8] Miyamoto HK, Gilani ASJ, Wada A, Ariyaratana C. Limit states and failure me-
chanisms of viscous dampers and the implications for large earthquakes. Earthquake
Eng Struct Dyn 2010;39(11):1279–97.
[9] Naeem A, Kim J. Seismic performance evaluation of a spring viscous damper cable
system. Eng Struct 2018;176:455–67.
[10] Zhou Y, Lu XL, Weng DG, Zhang RF. A practical design method for reinforced
concrete structures with viscous dampers. Eng Struct 2012;39:187–98.
[11] Javanbakht M, Cheng SH, Ghrib F. Refined damper design formula for a cable
equipped with a positive or negative stiffness damper. Structural Control & Health
Monitoring 2018;25(10). https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2236.
[12] Pollini N, Lavan O, Amir O. Optimization-based minimum-cost seismic retrofitting
of hysteretic frames with nonlinear fluid viscous dampers. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2018;47(15):2985–3005.
[13] De Domenico D, Ricciardi G. Earthquake protection of structures with nonlinear
viscous dampers optimized through an energy-based stochastic approach. Eng
Struct 2019;17:523–39.
[14] Su C, Li BM, Chen TC, Dai XH. Stochastic optimal design of nonlinear viscous
dampers for large-scale structures subjected to non-stationary seismic excitations
based on dimension-reduced explicit method. Eng Struct 2018;175:217–30.
[15] Jabary RN, Madabhushi SPG. Structure-soil-structure interaction effects on struc-
tures retrofitted with tuned mass dampers. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2017;100:301–15.
[16] Jabary RN, Madabhushi GSP. Tuned mass damper positioning effects on the seismic
response of a Soil-MDOF-Structure system. J Earthquake Eng 2018;22(2):281–302.
[17] Ghosh A, Basu B. Effect of soil interaction on the performance of liquid column
dampers for seismic applications. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2005;34(11):1375–89.
[18] Ghosh RK, Ghosh AD. Soil interaction effects on the performance of compliant li-
quid column damper for seismic vibration control of short period structures. Struct
Eng Mech 2008;28(1):89–105.
[19] Buckley T, Watson P, Cahill P, Jaksic V, Pakrashi V. Mitigating the structural vi-
brations of wind turbines using tuned liquid column damper considering soil-
structure interaction. Renew Energy 2018;120:322–41.
[20] Amini F, Bitaraf M, Nasab MSE, Javidan MM. Impacts of soil-structure interaction
on the structural control of nonlinear systems using adaptive control approach. Eng
Struct 2018;157:1–13.
[21] Sharabash AM, Andrawes BO. Application of shape memory alloy dampers in the
seismic control of cable-stayed bridges. Eng Struct 2009;31(2):607–16.
[22] Zhao XF, Wang SG, Du DS, Liu WQ. Simplified analysis of frame structures with
viscoelastic dampers considering the effect of soil-structure interaction. Earthquake
Eng Eng Vibrat 2017;16(1):199–217.
[23] Zhu J, Zhang W, Zheng KF, Li HG. Seismic design of a long-span cable-stayed bridge
with fluid viscous dampers. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, 2016, 21(1): UNSP 04015006.
[24] Farghaly AA. Seismic analysis of 3-D two adjacent buildings connected by viscous
dampers with effect of underneath different soil kinds. Smart Struct Syst
2015;15(5):1293–309.
[25] Kampitsis AE, Giannakos S, Gerolymos N, Sapountzakis EJ. Soil-pile interaction
considering structural yielding: Numerical modeling and experimental validation.
Eng Struct 2015;99:319–33.
[26] Li PZ, Yang JP, Lu Z, Lu XL. Responses of liquefiable soils in pile group foundations
of tall buildings from shaking table tests. J Asian Arch Build Eng 2016;15(2):311–8.
[27] Li PZ, Yang JP, Lu Z. Shaking table test and theoretical analysis of the pile-soil-
structure interaction at a liquefiable site. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2018;27(15).
https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1513.
[28] Yang JP, Lu Z, Li PZ. Large-scale shaking table test on pile-soil-structure interaction
on soft soils. The. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2019;28(18). https://doi.org/10.
1002/tal.1679.
[29] Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B. Assessment of soil-pile-structure interaction
influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile founda-
tions. Comput Geotech 2014;55:172–86.
[30] Yang JP, Li PZ, Yang YF, Xu D. An improved EMD method for modal identification
and a combined static-dynamic method for damage detection. J Sound Vib
2018;420:242–60.
[31] Guin J, Banerjee PK. Coupled soil-pile-structure interaction analysis under seismic
excitation. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE 1998;124(4):434–44.
[32] Ma XH, Cheng YM, Au SK, Cai YQ, et al. Rocking vibration of a rigid strip footing on
saturated soil. Comput Geotech 2009;36(6):928–33.
[33] Di Sarno L, Elnashai AS, Nethercot DA. Seismic response of stainless steel braced
frames. J Constr Steel Res 2008;64(7–8):914–25.
[34] Qiao PZ, Lu K, Lestari W. A combined static/dynamic technique for damage de-
tection of laminated composite plates. Exp Mech 2008;48(1):17–35.
[35] Ge Q, Xiong F, Xie LW, Chen J, et al. Dynamic interaction of soil-Structure cluster.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2019;123:16–30.
[36] Li PZ, Liu ST, Lu Z, Yang JP. Numerical analysis of a shaking table test on dynamic
structure-soil-structure interaction under earthquake excitations. Struct Des Tall
Special Build 2017;26(15). https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1382.
[37] Deng YH, Dashti S, Hushmand A, Davis C, Hushmand B. Seismic response of un-
derground reservoir structures in sand: Evaluation of Class-C and C1numerical si-
mulations using centrifuge experiments. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2016;85:202–16.

14