Soil-Structure Interaction of High-rise

Building Resting on Soft Soil

Mao-guang Yue
State Key Laboratory of Costal and Offshore Engineering
Dalian University of Technology
ymg2004@126.com

Ya-yong Wang
Institute of Earthquake Engineering
China Academy of Building Research
yayongwang@sina.com
ABSTRACT
Taking one real high-rise frame shear-wall structure in Fujian province of China as an
example, the influences of soil-structure interaction on the super-structure are studied with
ABAQUS procedure. The peak response of absolute acceleration, story drift, moments at
beam ends, as well as inner force of columns and shear walls are analyzed under two
orthogonal horizontal directions seismic excitations. Then the influences of field nonlinearity
on seismic response of high-rise building are summarized and the rationality of reduction
factor for soil-structure interaction calculation specified in Chinese seismic code is discussed.
It is concluded that its usually safe for most stories of the high-rise frame shear-wall structure
when the soil-structure interaction considered according to Chinese seismic code; however,
the seismic response of structural member may be amplified in some stories, so it is unsafe in
such regions.
KEYWORDS: Soil-structure interaction; seismic response; field nonlinearity.

INTRODUCTION
Extensive studies on pile-soil-structure interaction have been carried out (Lou, 1999), the
scopes of which include not only theory research but also strong earthquake observations
(Trifunac, 1999 & 2001; Ivanovie, 1999) and shaking table tests (Chen, 2001; Lv, 2002). These
researches indicate that the fundamental period and damping of structures may be prolonged
when soil-structure interaction is considered. So the seismic force and story drift response of
structure can be reduced according to the response spectra advised by Code for Seismic Design
of Buildings (GB 50011-2001, Chinese seismic code for short). Correspondingly the story drift
may be diminished and acceleration amplitude at basement may be smaller than that at adjacent
free-field. Therefore, it is specified in Chinese seismic code that the influences of soil-structure
interaction can be neglected for most cases in building design. Nevertheless, Li (2002) indicates
that soil-structure interaction calculation is close to the specifications of Chinese seismic code
Vol. 13, Bund. D 2

only when structural response dominated by the first mode; but there are large differences when
the influence of higher modes cant be neglected, and even the response may be increased instead
of reduced in some stories (Han, 1992). As a result, specifications of interaction calculation in
Chinese seismic code not always approach to safety.
At present, there still exist many problems in the pile-soil-structure interaction calculation
due to its complexity (Mylonakis, 1997; Carrabba, Finn and Makoto, 1996; Li, 2002):
Although the structure and ground soil adjacent to foundation may work in plastic range
under strong earthquake, most of the present studies are aimed at elastic systems.
Some studies are focusing on the systems elastoplastic response, but the constitutive
relationship of soil is simulated by Mohr-Coulomb model or Drucker-Prager model which is
suitable for monotonic loading simulation, so large errors may be produced for dynamic loading
like earthquake.
Two-dimensional finite element models are employed in most soil-structure interaction
analysis, so the characteristics of multi-dimensional seismic excitation cant be reflected. In the
few analyses with three-dimensional model subjected to multi-component seismic excitation,
simple frame structure or further simplified mass-lumped model is used, so the influences of
structural integrity cant be reflected.
Based on problems mentioned above, taking one real high-rise frame shear-wall structure in
Fujian province as an example, pile-soil-structure interaction is analyzed. First of all, detailed 3-
dimensional finite element model of soil and high-rise building is established with ABAQUS
procedure; then the absolute acceleration response, story drift, moments at beam ends, as well as
the inner force of column and wall are analyzed under bidirectional horizontal seismic
excitations; finally, influences of field nonlinearity on high-rise building are summarized, and the
rationality of reduction factor in interaction calculation of Chinese seismic code is discussed.

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
1. Soil Model
The engineering field lies in an alluvial island of river Jin. According to Chinese seismic
code, the seismic fortification intensity is 7 (peak acceleration in design is 0.15g) and the design
earthquake group belongs to the1
st
group. Site class of the field is III and characteristic period is
0.4s specified by the geological exploration. The overlay soil includes artificial fill, medium sand
(1), silty sand, medium sand (2), silt, cobble gravel, strongly weathered rock and moderately
weathered rock. The principal parameters of soil layers are listed in Table 1. In the overlay soil,
backfilling sand, medium sand and medium-course sand belong to soft ground, so the field is
disadvantage for seismic fortification. In addition, the minimum distance between river bank and
high-rise building to be constructed is only 18m, which cant meet to the provisions of Chinese
seismic code (when lateral expansion or now sliding is possible due to liquefaction, no permanent
buildings should be constructed within 100m of the normal waterline). Therefore, double-row
piles shoring scheme is adopted in the project (Yue, 2009).
Vol. 13, Bund. D 3

As the undulation of each soil layer is not large, it is simplified to isotropic stratified soil
with constant thickness in the finite element model. Parameters of all the layers are listed in Table
1, in which shear velocity of strongly weathered rock is greater than 500m/s, therefore it can be
considered as bedrock according to Chinese seismic code. In the model, only soil over strongly
weathered rock layer is simulated. Total depth of model is 27.1m and seismic acceleration is
applied at the bottom of cobble-gravel layer. The soil is simulated by solid element with 1m
length in principal region and refined at near pile region. The element length is increased
gradually far form the principal region, and the maximum length is 6m.
Finite element method is only suitable for finite region analysis, while the foundation soil of
interaction system is a half infinite space. So the soil must be cut off and artificial boundary
should be added to simulate horizontal infinity. Typical artificial boundaries include cutoff
boundary, viscous boundary, penetrate boundary, as well as coupling of finite element and
infinite element (or boundary element). But most of them are only appropriate for analysis in
frequency domain. For real nonlinear problems in time domain, there is no better method except
making the soil boundary as far as possible (Zhuang, 2006). In order to eliminate the influence of
free boundary, about 5 times length of the principal region is extended in horizontal direction
(Chen, 2006). Free boundary condition is adopted in the soil model: vertical free and horizontal
constrained in static analysis step, and then changed to vertical constrained and horizontal free in
time-history analysis step.
Table 1: Layers and principal parameters of the soil
Soil Layers
Depth
(m)
Gravity
(kN/m
3
)
Poissons
Ratio
c
(kPa)

()
Shear Velocity
(m/s)
Elastic
Modulus (Pa)
Artificial fill 1.60 18.5 0.30 25 19.0 118 6.69e7
Medium sand (1) 11.60 18.5 0.30 1.2 28.9 156 1.17e8
Silty sand 16.20 17.9 0.35 11 18.3 130 8.17e7
Medium sand (2) 19.20 19.2 0.30 1.2 28.9 200 2.00e8
Silt 21.10 17.0 0.35 6.5 14.4 130 7.76e7
Cobble gravel 27.10 21.5 0.25 5 40.0 340 6.21e8
Strongly
weathered rock
35.30 20.0 0.20 -- -- 522 9.81e8
Moderately
weathered rock
40.30 26.2 0.20 -- -- 817 3.15e9
The constitutive relationship of soil is very complex with characteristics of significant
nonlinearity, elasto-plasticity, viscoelasticity, shear dilatability, anisotropy and deformation
cumulating. For accurate simulation of the dynamic characteristics, a constitutive model with
viscous-plastic memorial nested yield surface is adopted (proposed by Zhuang, 2006, ZHY model
for short). At the end of any increment, the inverted loading surface, the failure surface and the
initial loading surface which was tangent with the inside of inverted loading surface were
memorized, and dynamic behavior of yield surface was defined by these surfaces. The yield
surface equation of the model is as follow:
( )( ) / 2 0
ij ij ij ij
f p S S k
u u
o o o = + = (1)
In which, k
u
and
u
o are computing factor of the yielding face;
ij
o and S
ij
denote kinematic
hardening parameter and deviatoric stress component respectively.
Vol. 13, Bund. D 4


1 2 3
( ) / 3 p o o o = + + (2)
Relationship between stress and strain is:
2
( )
2 (2 ) ( )
2( )
ij ij
ij kk ij ij t kl kl kl
S
d Bd Gde G H S d
k p
u u
o
o c o o c
o

= +

(3)
B denotes bulk modulus and H
t
represents elastoplastic shear modulus. The relationship of
H
t
, G (shear modulus) and H (plastic hardening modulus) is:

1 1 1
2
t
H G H
= + (4)
If the relationship between stress and strain expressed by hyperbolic curve at load beginning,
then:

2
,max max
(1 / )
t t
H H r r = (5)
Combined equation (4) and (5):

,max max
2
t
H G = (6)
Where, G
max
is the maximum shear modulus which can be determined by in situ wave
velocity method or indoor test.
2. Model of high-rise building
The building to be constructed in the engineering field is a frame shear-wall structure with
total 25 stories and 2-story basement, the total height of aerial part is 90m, and the size of
building plane is 43.2m20.7m. Plane layout of the building is shown in Fig. 1 and the basic
information is listed in Table 2. The primary dimension of beam section is 250mm400mm,
250mm500mm, 250mm600mm; and column dimension is 600mm600mm at lower portion
and 400mm400mm at upper potion; the thickness of shear wall is 400/300mm at bottom and
250/200mm at upper portion. Pile-raft foundation is taken to support the super structure, in which
the bored pile is 800mm in diameter and the raft foundation is 1.5m in thickness. The supporting
layer is moderately weathered rock. As to supporting piles, 0.6~1D (D is pile diameter) of pile
length at top should be inserted to the supporting layer.
According to the information of engineering field and tall building introduced above, a 3-
dimensional finite element model is assembled and displayed in Fig. 2. As completely nonlinear
dynamic analysis with great time consuming will be carried out for soil, the super structure is
considered as elastic. In the model, supporting piles, pile foundation, beam and column of
building are simulated with elastic beam element; retaining wall of bank, raft plate and shear wall
of building are simulated with elastic shell element. In order to discuss the interaction influences
on seismic response of building, two different models are constructed, one of which is system
with pile foundation, soil and super structure (SSI model for short), and the other one is over-
Vol. 13, Bund. D 5

ground portion of building based on rigid foundation hypothesis (NSSI model). The interaction
between supporting pile, soil, retaining wall and basement of structure are simulated with
embedded command, and connections between beam, column, shear wall top and floor are
simulated with Tie command. Because the floor is minor object, the mesh is very course and no
any result outputted in calculation.

(a) Arrangement of two stories at bottom

(b) Arrangement of standard story
Figure 1: Diagram of structural arrangement

Vol. 13, Bund. D 6


Table 2: Basic information of the high-rise frame-shear wall structure
Story
No.
Story
Height
(m)
Total
Height
(m)
Strength Grade of
Concrete
Column
Section
(mmmm)
Thickness
of Wall
(mm)
Thickness
of Floor
(mm) Beam Column Wall
B2 3.8 3.8
C35 C40 C40 600600 400/300 120
B1 3.25 7.05
1 3.6 10.65
2 3.6 14.25
3
3.6
17.85
C35 C40 C40 600600 300 120 ~ ~
6 28.65
7
3.6
32.25
C30 C35 C35 600600 250 120 ~ ~
13 53.85
14
3.6
57.45
C25 C30 C30 400400 200 120 ~ ~
25 97.05


(a) Soil (b) Retaining wall (c) Supporting piles

(d) Pile-raft foundation (e) Structure (f) System of pile-soil-foundation-structure
Figure 2: Finite element model of the system

Vol. 13, Bund. D 7

KINETIC EQUATION AND SEISMIC EXCITATION
In the simulation, total 3 analysis steps are set. Gravity load, floor load (dead load and live
load are considered together, 5kN/m
2
for basement and first two stories and 4kN/m
2
for the other
stories) and seismic load are applied in the three sequence steps. As great time consuming, only
30s of the earthquake wave are cut off. As to SSI model, geostatic analysis should be carried out
under gravity load first of all. The balance of ground stress is considered to be reached when
vertical displacement at ground surface is 10
-5
order.
For interaction analysis of pile-soil-structure system, kinetic equation is similar to super structure
analysis except interface interaction must be considered, the equation as follow:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Mu t Cu t Ku t F t + + = (7)
Where ( ) u t and ( ) u t are node acceleration and velocity respectively. M, C, K and F(t) are
systems mass matrix, damping matrix, stiffness matrix and node load vector respectively. They
are matrix or vector integration of pile, soil and member in structure.
The model is excited at two orthogonal directions with a recorded wave and an artificial
wave, the shapes of which excited in X direction of SSI model and NSSI model are shown in Fig.
3. The scale of peak acceleration at ground surface in X and Z direction is 1:0.85. For SSI model,
it is excited at soil bottom, and the frequency components of acceleration response at ground
surface shall be consistent with that of standard spectra. The peak acceleration shall be scaled to
about 0.15g at ground surface in accordance with the fortification intensity of the field. As to
NSSI model, it is excited at structural bottom, and the input wave is acceleration response of the
corresponding free field in SSI model.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
A
c
c
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)

(a) Recorded wave in SSI model (b) Artificial wave in SSI model
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
A
c
c
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
2
)
Time (s)

(c) Recorded wave in NSSI model (d) Artificial wave in NSSI model
Figure 3: Time histories of acceleration excitation in X direction
Vol. 13, Bund. D 8

SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS
In order to study the soil-structure interaction, absolute acceleration, relative story drift,
moments at beam ends, as well as inner force of column and shear wall in the two models are
compared. For convenience, response ratio is defined as below:
Response ratio = (peak response of structure in SSI model) / (peak response of structure in
NSSI model).
1. Natural Vibration Characteristics
For ZHY constitutive relationship model, the hysteretic damping and viscous damping are
introduced in soil model. The hysteretic damping has been implied in the restoring force, and the
viscous damping is considered by Rayleigh damping, which is expressed by equation (8).
[ ] [ ] [ ] C M K o | = + (8)
and are Rayleigh damping factors.
According to the orthogonality between system mode and damping matrix:

2 2
2 2
2( )
2( )
j i i j i j
i j
i i j j
i j
e e ee
o
e e
e e
|
e e

=

(9)
On the assumption of 5% damping for the first two modes, factors of Rayleigh damping are
calculated with equation (9). The first 6 vibration periods and damping factors of the first two
models are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: First 6 natural vibration periods and factors of Rayleigh damping
Model
Natural vibration period (s) Damping factors
1 2 3 4 5 6
SSI 1.87 1.32 0.89 0.61 0.61 0.58 0.1970 0.0123
NSSI 1.79 1.05 0.81 0.53 0.25 0.25 0.2212 0.0105
The fundamental vibration period can also be estimated according to Load code for the
design of building structures (2006), in which empirical formula of RC frame shear-wall
structure is given as below:
Vol. 13, Bund. D 9


3 2 3
0.25 0.53 10 / T H B

= + (10)
H and B are the height and width of the building respectively.
So that T=0.25+0.5390
2
10
-3
/20.7
-1/3
=1.81s. The estimated period is very close to the result
of NSSI model. So the finite element model is reasonable. The data in table 3 indicate that natural
period will be prolonged when the field effect is considered, and the period can be increased by
one more times for high modes especially. Therefore more modes are attributed to the response of
SSI model.
2. Horizontal Absolute Acceleration Response
Distributions of peak horizontal acceleration and acceleration response ratio along the
structural height are presented in Fig. 4, from which we can conclude:
o Peak acceleration variation of super structure in X and Z direction is not in coincidence.
Acceleration distributions in X-direction have a clear S shape, that is, value of acceleration
increased gradually in the lower 12 stories and decreased in the 12
th
~19
th
stories and then
increased in the rest stories. The acceleration reaches its minimum at the 19
th
story and reaches its
maximum at the top of structure. Acceleration in Z-direction shows no much changes below the
15
th
story (slightly decrease from the 10
th
to the 15
th
story), but increased gradually in stories
above 15. Acceleration in Z-direction reaches its maximum at the top of structure.
o Acceleration response in the upper floors is no longer comply with the scale (1:0.85) of
which at ground surface, and in some floors the acceleration in X direction is even higher than
that in Z direction especially for recorded wave excitation.
o Variation of acceleration along the structural height of SSI model is similar to that of
NSSI model. Acceleration response at floors has a trend of degrading except several stories (the
19
th
and 20
th
stories for recorded wave). When field nonlinearity is considered, distributions of
acceleration along the structural height become more uniform.
o Fig. 4(c) shows that peak acceleration response in super-structure is not always amplified.
The acceleration response ratio is usually lower than 1 (0.55-0.9) except the 19
th
and 20
th
stories
when excited by recorded wave.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SSI, X-direction
SSI, Z-direction
NSSI, X-direction
NSSI, Z-direction
Acceleration (m/s
2
)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SSI, X-direction
SSI, Z-direction
NSSI, X-direction
NSSI, Z-direction
Acceleration (m/s
2
)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Recorded wave
in X-direction
Recorded wave
in X-direction
Artificial wave
in X-direction
Artificial wave
in Z-direction
Acceleration Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Recorded wave excitation (b) Artificial wave excitation (c) Acceleration response ratio
Figure 4: Distributions of peak horizontal acceleration and acceleration response ratio
Vol. 13, Bund. D 10

3. Story Drift Response
Distributions of peak story drift and story drift response ratio along the structural height are
presented in Fig. 5. It is shown that:
o Peak story drift variation of super structure in X-direction is not coincident with that in Z-
direction. Distributions of story drift in X-direction are W-shaped while they nearly increase
along the structural height in Z-direction.
o The story drift reaches its maximum at the 20
th
story. The maximal value in X and Z
direction is 9.1mm and 14.4mm respectively for NSSI model, and the corresponding term is
7.5mm and 4.2mm for SSI model.
o When the effects of field nonlinearity are considered, story drifts will not always decrease
compared with that of NSSI model. Such as the 8
th
~15
th
stories in X-direction and the lower 10
stories in Z-direction for recorded wave, and the lower 6 stories in Z-direction for artificial wave.
o Similar to the acceleration response, distributions of story drift along the structural height
also become more uniform when the field nonlinearity is considered. Interaction of pile-soil-
structure has a clear peak-reduction effect.
o Fig. 5(c) shows that story drift response ratio of super-structure in X-direction has a W-
shaped distribution while it has no much changes in Z-direction except the 2 bottom stories
(much greater than 1). Story drift ratio in Z-direction is higher than one in the middle of structure
height, about from the 10
th
story to the 14
th
story. The story drift response ratio reaches to its
maximum at the 5
th
story, which is 0.68.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SSI, X-direction
SSI, Z-direction
NSSI, X-direction
NSSI, Z-direction
Story Drift (mm)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SSI, X-direction
SSI, Z-direction
NSSI, X-direction
NSSI, Z-direction
Story Drift (mm)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Recorded wave
in X-direction
Recorded wave
in Z-direction
Artificial wave
in X-direction
Artificial wave
in Z-direction
Drift Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Recorded wave excitation (b) Artificial wave excitation (c) Story drift response ratio
Figure 5: Distributions of peak story drift and drift ratio
4. Moment Response at Beam Ends
The beam moment response is analyzed in this section. Beam-1 and beam-2 marked with red
in Fig. 1 are taken as example, which lie in X and Z direction respectively. Distributions of peak
moment response and moment response ratio at beam ends along the structural height are
displayed in Fig. 6. It is indicated that:
Vol. 13, Bund. D 11

Variation of peak moment along the structural height in SSI model is similar to that in NSSI
model. Peak moment distribution of beam-1 is W-shaped while inverted W-shape is for beam-2,
in which breaks with small amplitude appears in the 14
th
and 23
rd
stories.
The nonlinear response of filed can generally reduce the moment response at beam ends, and
clear peak-reduction effect is displayed in beam-1.
Moment ratio at beam ends may greater than one in lower stories. The maximum value of
which is 1.26, and the corresponding minimum value is about 0.7.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SSIRecorded
wave, end-1
SSIRecorded
wave, end-2
NSSIRecorded
wave, end-1
NSSIRecorded
wave, end-2
SSIArtificial
wave, end-1
SSIArtificial
wave, end-2
NSSIArtificial
wave, end-1
NSSIArtificial
wave, end-2

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Peak moment of beam-1 (b) Peak moment of beam-2
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Moment Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
Recorded wave,
end-1
Recorded wave,
end-2
Artificial wave,
end-1
Artificial wave,
end-2

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Recorded wave,
end-1
Recorded wave,
end-2
Artificial wave,
end-1
Artificial wave,
end-2
Moment Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(c) Moment ratio of beam-1 (d) Moment ratio of beam-2
Figure 6: Distributions of peak moment and moment ratio at beam ends
5. Inner Force of Column
In the following portion, seismic response of column will be introduced, which include axial
force, shear force and moment at column end. The analysis objects are corner column, side
column and interior column lined out with pink in Fig. 1. According to variation of response ratio
of axial force, shear force and moment, influences of field nonlinearity on the seismic response of
column is analyzed.
(1) Axial force response of column
Distributions of peak axial force and axial force response ratio for the three kinds of column
are presented in Fig. 7. It is shown that:
Vol. 13, Bund. D 12

o The axial force is nearly reduced linearly along with the structural height.
o The influence of interaction on axial force response of side column and interior column
can be neglected as the axial force ratios of the columns are approximate to one in all through the
structural height.
o The influences of interaction on axial force response of corner column are more
significant. Compared with NSSI model, the peak axial force of corner column is not always
diminished in SSI model. The peak axial force of corner column is amplified in the lower 7
stories but diminished in the other stories. The maximum and minimum value of axial force ratio
is 1.12 and 0.88 respectively.
o When the interaction of pile-soil-structure is considered, the peak axial force distributions
of column along the structural height become more uniform.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Axial Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Axial Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Peak axial force of corner column (b) Peak axial force of side column
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Axial Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Recorded wave,
corner column
Recorded wave,
side column
Recorded wave,
inner column
Artificial wave,
corner column
Artificial wave,
side column
Artificial wave,
inner column
Axial Force Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(c) Peak axial force of interior column (d) Axial force response ratio
Figure 7: Distributions of peak axial force and axial force ratio at column end
(2) Shear force response at column end
Distributions of peak shear force and shear force response ratio for the three kinds of column
are presented in Fig. 8. It is concluded that shear force at column end is increased in turns from
corner column, side column to interior column, except for few stories in structural bottom. The
shear force distributions have two sharp breaks in the 7
th
and 14
th
story, especially near the 14
th

story. Such breaks are resulted from changes of concrete strength grade or cross-sections of
column, which are listed in Table 2. Compared with concrete strength changes assigned in the 7
th

story, both of the concrete strength and cross section are changed in the 14
th
story, so larger
Vol. 13, Bund. D 13

breaks appeared in this story. Influences of field nonlinearity on shear force reaction in X-
direction are more significant than that in Z-direction. When the interactions of soil-structure are
considered, distributions of shear force reaction at X-direction along structural height become
more uniform except interior column in the 14
th
story when excited by recorded wave. Peak shear
force reaction in Z-direction of side (or interior) column in SSI model is nearly superposed on
that of NSSI model.
Distributions of shear force response ratio in X-direction have a shape of >. The ratio
changes in a large scope (0.71~1.25), which is greater than one in the 10
th
~15
th
stories. Shear
force response ratio under artificial wave excitation changes in a relatively small scope, which is
less than one except bottom stories.
Distributions of shear force response ratio in Z-direction have a shape of L. The ratio is
greater than one in lower 7 stories, and the maximum value is 1.25 appeared in corner column
when excited by recorded wave. In stories over 7, the shear force response ratio for side column
and interior column is approximate to one, which indicates that influences of soil-structure
interaction are negligible. On the other hand, response ratio for corner column is obviously
smaller than one in stories above 7, and the minimum ratio is 0.84 for artificial wave excitation.
In general, when the field nonlinearity is considered, shear force response of column is not
always decreased compared with that in NSSI model. Shear force of middle stories in X-direction
and bottom stories in Z-direction may be amplified. Regions where material strength or column
section changed will become weak layers.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500
Shear Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500
Recorded wave, SSI, corner column
Recorded wave, NSSI, corner column
Artificial wave, SSI, corner column
Artificial wave, NSSI, corner column
Recorded wave, SSI, side column
Recorded wave, NSSI, side column
Artificial wave, SSI, side column
Artificial wave, NSSI, side column
Recorded wave, SSI, inner column
Recorded wave, NSSI, inner column
Artificial wave, SSI, inner column
Artificial wave, NSSI, inner column
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Shear Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Peak shear force at X-direction (b) Peak shear force at Z-direction
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Shear Force Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Recorded wave,
corner column
Recorded wave,
side column
Recorded wave,
inner column
Artificial wave,
corner column
Artificial wave,
side column
Artificial wave,
inner column

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Shear Force Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(c) Shear force ratio at X-direction (d) Shear force ratio at Z-direction
Figure 8: Distributions of peak shear force and shear force ratio at column end
Vol. 13, Bund. D 14

(3) Moment response at column end
Fig. 9 shows the distributions of peak moment at column end and moment response ratio
along the structural height.
It is indicated in Fig. 9 (a-c) that distributions of peak moment in X-direction are clearly C-
shaped, that is, peak moment is larger in bottom and top stories than in middle stories. As the
changes of material strength or cross-section, slight breaks appeared in the 7
th
and 14
th
story.
Compared with corner and side column, peak moment in interior column is much higher.
Distributions of peak moment in Z-direction have a lean W shape shown in Fig. 9 (d-f).
The peak moment of column in middle stories and bottom stories is greater than that in top
stories. Contributed to the whiplash effect, moment in the top of structure is increased suddenly.
In Z-direction, moment reaction in corner column is greater than that of side column and interior
column. When field nonlinearity is considered, distributions of peak moment along the structural
height become more even, so interaction of soil-structure has a peak-reduction effect evidently.
The moment ratio distributions in X-direction along the structural height are W-shaped
approximately. Nearly all the moment ratio in X-direction is lower than one except the top and
bottom stories. Moment ratios of corner column and side column in X-direction have a sudden
increase in the 5
th
story, and the maximum value reaches to 1.74. The minimum moment ratio in
X-direction is 0.59 which appears in the interior column.
As to moment ratio in Z-direction, it is greater than one in bottom stories for corner column
and side column, and so is it in stories of 6-8, 13-16 and 23-25 for interior column, while it is
lower than 1 for other cases. The maximum and minimum ratio at Z-direction is 1.32 and 0.63
respectively.
In brief, column moment is not surely diminished in through the structural height when field
nonlinearity is considered, and the peak moment can be increased by 70% especially for corner
column and side column in bottom stories.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.


(a) Moment of corner column at
X-direction
(b) Moment of side column at
X-direction
(c) Moment of interior column
at X-direction
Vol. 13, Bund. D 15

0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.


0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Moment Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Recorded wave,
corner column
Recorded wave,
side column
Recorded wave,
inner column
Artificial wave,
corner column
Artificial wave,
side column
Artificial wave,
inner column

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Moment Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(g) Moment response ratio at X-direction (h) Moment response ratio at Z-direction
Figure 9: Distributions of peak moment and moment ratio at column end
6. Inner Force of Shear Wall
The shear force of two pieces of wall (W1 and W2 shown in Fig. 1) will be analyzed in this
section, where W1 is in X-direction and W2 is in Z-direction. According to the inner force
comparisons between the two models, the influences of field nonlinearity on seismic
response of shear wall are analyzed. Here, the inner force means force per unit width in
plane.
(1) Axial force response of shear wall
Fig. 10 displays the distributions of peak axial force and axial force response ratio of the two
pieces of wall. It can be concluded from the Figure:
o Axial force of the shear wall nearly decreases along with the structural height except the
bottom stories.
o As for the model of rigid foundation assumption, the axial force reaches its maximum at
the bottom story. When soil-structure interaction is considered, the corresponding maximum
value appears in the 3
rd
story. Axial force in the first and second story is diminished in SSI model
because the number of shear wall in the two bottom stories is more than that in above stories.
o The overall axial force response ratio of W1 is less than one except the 23
rd
story (the
ratio is 1.08) when excited by recorded wave. The ratio of W1 reduces quickly below the 3
rd

story, and the minimum value is 0.51.
(d) Moment of corner column at
Z-direction
(e) Moment of side column at Z-
direction
(f) Moment of interior column at
Z-direction
Vol. 13, Bund. D 16

o The axial force response ratio of W2 in the overall structural height is less than or
approximate to one. It is slightly greater than one of W2 between the 2
nd
~6
th
stories, and the peak
value is 1.05 and 0.67 respectively.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Axial Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Axial Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Recorded wave,
shear wall-1
Recorded wave,
shear wall-2
Artificial wave,
shear wall-1
Artificial wave,
shear wall-2
Axial Force Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Peak axial force of W1 (b) Peak axial force of W2 (c) Axial force response ratio
Figure 10: Distributions of peak axial force and axial force ratio of shear wall
(2) Shear force response of wall
Fig. 11 is the distributions of peak shear force and shear force response ratio along the
structural height of shear wall. It is indicated that:
o Great differences of shear force distributions exist in the two orthogonal directions.
Except for several stories at bottom, the peak shear force of W1 nearly increases along the
structural height while that of W2 is W-shaped.
o The shear force in the two bottom stories changes greatly for the number of shear wall
increasing. As to the NSSI model, the peak shear force reaches its maximum at the bottom story.
When soil-structure interaction is considered, the corresponding maximum value appears in the
3
rd
story.
o The shear force response ratio of W1 is less than one except the 3
rd
story (the ratio is
1.16) when excited by recorded wave. The ratio of W1 is reduced quickly below the 3
rd
story, and
the minimum value is 0.24.
o The shear force response ratio of W2 is less than one except the 23
rd
story (the ratio is
1.14) when excited by recorded wave, and the minimum value is 0.30.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Shear Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100 150 200 250
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Shear Force (kN)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Recorded wave,
shear wall-1
Recorded wave,
shear wall-2
Artificial wave,
shear wall-1
Artificial wave,
shear wall-2
Shear Force Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Peak shear force of W1 (b) Peak shear force of W2 (c) Shear force response ratio
Figure 11: Distributions of peak shear force and shear force ratio of shear wall
Vol. 13, Bund. D 17

(3) Moment response of wall
Fig. 12 displays the distributions of peak moment and moment response ratio along with the
structural height of shear wall. It is indicated that:
o As the number of shear wall increased at bottom stories, peak moment response changes
greatly. Distributions of moment peak along structural height have a W shape approximately
except the two bottom stories.
o Peak moment distributions near the 7
th
and the 14
th
story have a certain breaks as material
strength or section dimension changes.
o In general, influences of field nonlinearity on moment response of shear wall are not
serious. The moment response ratio at bottom and mid-upper stories may larger than one while it
is lower than one in stories of 5-14.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1 2 3 4
Recorded wave, SSI
Recorded wave, NSSI
Artificial wave, SSI
Artificial wave, NSSI
Moment (kN.m)
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Recorded wave,
Shear wall-1
Recorded wave,
Shear wall-2
Artificial wave,
Shear wall-1
Artificial wave,
Shear wall-2
Moment Ratio
S
t
o
r
y

N
o
.

(a) Peak moment of W1 (b) Peak moment of W2 (c) Moment response ratio
Figure 12: Distributions of peak moment and moment response ratio of shear wall
In short, the inner force of shear wall is not surely diminished in through structural height
when soil-structural interaction is considered. The inner force response ratio may obviously
greater than one in some structural position. In regions where material strength, section
dimension or shear wall numbers changed, the inner force distributions of member may have
sudden breaks, so we must be cautious in design.
7. Discussion of the Results
(1) Simplification of Chinese seismic code on interaction calculation
It is very complex of pile-soil-structure interaction calculation and there exist many
influencing factors. In simplification, it is specified in Chinese seismic code (2001) that the soil-
structure interaction may be ignored generally in seismic computation. For tall buildings in
intensity 8 or 9, which lie in Site-class III or with box type or a relatively rigid raft foundation,
the influences of soil-structure interaction can be considered when the fundamental period of
structure is within the scope of 1.2~5 times of the characteristic period of site. The story drift can
be calculated according to the reduced story shear force. For structures with height/width ratio
less than 3, the reduction factor of horizontal seismic shear of each floor may be determined by
the following equation:
Vol. 13, Bund. D 18


0.9
1
1
T
T T

| |
=
|
+ A
\ .
(11)
Where: is seismic shear reduction factor considering the soil-structure interaction; T
1
is the
fundamental period of structure with rigid base assumption; T is the additional period after
considering the soil-structure interaction.
For structures with height/width ratio not less than 3, the seismic shear of the structural
bottom may be reduced according to equation (11), but no reduction at the top. In middle floors,
the seismic shear may be reduced according to the linear interpolation values.
(2) Comparison of calculated results with Chinese seismic code
The height/width ratio of structure in this paper is greater than 3, and the fundamental
periods of NSSI model and SSI model are 1.79s and 1.87s respectively. According to Chinese
seismic code, the reduction factor at bottom is = (1.79/1.87)
0.9
=0.96, and no reduction at the
top. In middle floors, the value shall be linearly interpolated.
Compared the soil-structure interaction calculation in this research with specifications in
Chinese seismic code, it is shown that:
o Moment at beam ends, inner force of column and shear wall have much reduction in some
floors when interaction is considered and sometimes it is much less than 0.96, so specifications in
Chinese seismic code approach to safety in such region.
o The seismic response of structural member may be amplified in some stories when the
interaction is considered, so the reduction in these stories is not safe.
o Interaction influences on corner column, side column and interior column is different, so
it is not suitable to take the same reduction factor.
o Interaction influences on story drift and shear force is different, so single reduction factor
adopted in Chinese seismic code is irrational.
o Under bidirectional seismic excitation, interaction influences on member force in the two
directions are different, so the larger reduction factor should be adopted.
o In stories where material strength or member section changed, the seismic force response
is very complex. Those stories may become weak layer when soil-structure interaction is
considered, so it must be cautious in design.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, the influences of soil-structure interaction on seismic response of structure are
analyzed taking one real project as an example.
In conclusion, it is usually safe for seismic design according to Chinese seismic code in most
stories of the high-rise frame-shear wall structures with considering soil-structure interaction.
Vol. 13, Bund. D 19

However, seismic response of structural member may be amplified in some stories, so it is unsafe
in such regions. Under bidirectional horizontal seismic excitations, the larger reduction factor
shall be taken as the influences of field nonlinearity on seismic response at the two directions are
different. The reduction factors have great differences for different terms of structural response
and the variation along the structural height is also not linear, therefore, constant or linear
interpolated reduction factor specified in Chinese seismic code is irrational. In addition,
influences of soil-structure interaction on members in different position are diverse, so different
reduction factors shall be adopted in member seismic design.
It can be concluded in this research that the soil-structure interactions is very complex.
Extensive studies are still needed to ascertain a rational reduction factor. It may be not safe for
some members and stories purely reduced according to the existing Chinese seismic code.
Therefore, finite element analysis and shaking table test are advised to carry out for important
high-rise buildings or very complex structures, so that it is clear on the seismic force in which
stories or members can be reduced and where should be strengthened.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their thanks to the financial supports from Key Seismic
Technique Research and Demonstration of Large and Important Buildings, Sub-topics of
Eleventh Five-Year National Scientific Support Plan (No. 20070106110141014). We also
greatly thanks to the support from Innovation Group of Education Ministry (IRT0518) and
Zhuang Haiyang of Nanjing University of Technology for supplying the constitutive relationship
model of soil.
REFERENCE
1. Lou M.L., Wu J.N. Seismic response analysis of pile foundation structure system.
China Civil Engineering Journal 1999; 32(5): 56-61.
2. Trifunac M.D., Hao T.Y. 7-story reinforced concrete building in Van Nuys,
California: Photographs of the damage from the 1994 Northbridge earthquake.
Report CE 01-05, July, 2001, Los Angeles, California.
3. Trifunac M.D., Ivanovie S.S., Todorovska M.I. Instrumented 7-story reinforced
concrete building in Van Nuys, California: Description of the damage from the 1994
Northbridge earthquake and strong motion data. Report CE 99-02, July, 1999, Los
Angeles, California.
4. Ivanovie S.S., Trifunac M.D., Novikova E.I. etc. Instrumented 7-story reinforced
concrete building in Van Nuys, California: Ambient vibration surveys following the
damage from the 1994 Northbridge earthquake. Report CE 99-03, July, 1999, Los
Angeles, California.
5. Chen Y.Q., Lv X.L. and Li P.Z. et al. Shaking table testing for layered soil-
foundation -structure interaction system. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering
Vibration 2001; 21(3): 104-112.
6. Lv X.L., Chen Y.Q. Study on effect of soil-structure interaction by shaking table test.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2002; 22(2): 42-48.
Vol. 13, Bund. D 20

7. Lou M.L., Wang W.J. and Ma H.C. et al. Study on soil-pile-structure interaction
system by shaking table model test. Journal of Tongji University 2001; 29(7): 763-
768.
8. Code for seismic design of buildings GB 50011-2001. Beijing: China Architecture &
Building Press, 2001.
9. Li Y.M., Sun G.F. and Wang S.T. et al. Dynamic interaction of pile-soil-frame
structure. Journal of Building Structures 2002; 23(1): 75-81.
10. Han Y.C., Vaziri H. Dynamic response of pile groups under lateral loading. Soil
Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering 1992; 11: 87-99.
11. Mylonakis G., Nikolaou A., Gazetas George. Soil-pile-bridge seismic interaction:
kinematic inertial effects. Part I: soft soil. Earthquake engineering and structure
dynamics, 1997; 26: 337-359.
12. Carrabba P., Maugeri M. Nonlinear effects during dynamic loading on piles. Proc. of
the 11
th
WCCE, Acapulco, Mexico.
13. Finn W.D.L., Wu G. Nonlinear seismic analysis of pile foundations. Proc. of the 11
th

WCCE, Acapulco, Mexico.
14. Makoto K. Study on nonlinear dynamic analysis method of pile subjected to ground
motion. Proc. of the 11
th
WCCE, Acapulco, Mexico.
15. Yue M.G., Wang Y.Y. and Lv Z.L. et al. Analysis on seismic stability of bank in
engineering field. Building Structure; (accepted).
16. Zhang H.Y. Study on nonlinear dynamic soil-underground structure interaction and
its large-size shaking table test. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Technology, 2006.
17. Chen C.B., Lou M.L. and Tao S.F. Discussions on two-dimensional finite element
analysis of seismic response. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention 2006;
1(4): 292-301.
18. Load code for the design of building structures GB 50009-2001. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press, 2006.


2009 ejge