Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Nonlinear analysis of 3D seismic interaction of soilpilestructure

systems and application
a,*
Y.X. Cai , P.L. Gould b, C.S. Desai c

a
Metropolitan Engineering and Surveying, St Louis, MO, USA
b
Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA
c
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Received 1 August 1997; accepted 1 August 1998

Abstract

To investigate more precisely the seismic response of interactive soilpilestructure systems, a three-dimensional finite element
subsystem methodology with an advanced plasticity-based constitutive model for soils has been developed. The structure subsystem
is represented by space frame elements while the pilesoil subsystem is idealized as an assemblage of solid elements. By means
of the *-version of the hierarchical single surface (HiSS) modelling approach for cyclic behavior of soft clays, tangent matrices
of the soil properties are formulated with distinct constitutive laws for individual stressstrain regimes such as virgin loading,
unloading, and reloading. A successive-coupling, incremental solution scheme in the time domain is created to take account of both
inertial and kinematic soilpilestructure interactions simultaneously. The seismic inputs can be any combination of three-dimen-
sional motions. The proposed methodology may be used to analyse the seismic responses of structures for different support exci-
tations such as rigid ground motion, interactive pile-foundation motion, and, for long span structures, non-uniform free-field motion.
1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquake/dynamic/seismic; Finite element method; Nonlinear; Nonuniform foundation motion; Plasticity; Soilpilestructure interac-
tion; Successive-coupling scheme; Three-dimensional; Time domain

1. Introduction is due to the division of two distinct disciplines (as prac-

There has been considerable research on dynamic
soilpilestructure interaction and many valuable results
have greatly benefitted practical engineering [1]. How-
ever, most of the earlier studies were carried out in the
frequency domain based on the assumption that the soil
is linear elastic or viscoelastic, and the superstructures
were usually simplified as a block mass or as a series
of lumped masses. Soils were traditionally modelled as
equivalent springs and dash-pots. The springs were usu-
ally assumed to be able to work in their undisturbed
state, even if the soil has been subjected to a destructive
earthquake. Spatial effects of the structure and the foun-
dation could not be evaluated due to the simplifications
in the dimensions of the interactive models. Perhaps it
* Corresponding author at Metropolitan Engineering, 7301 Metro-
politan Boulevard, Barnhart, MO 63012, USA. Tel: 1-314-464-
3860; Fax: 1-314-467-7480; E-mail: metroes@aol.com
tised in the United States), namely geotechnical engin-
eering and structural engineering, that there were few
investigations dealing with the superstructure and the
pile foundation at the same level of detail. Most of the
previous models are inadequate in assessing the seismic
capacity of pile-supported structures when the configur-
ation of the structure is not regular.
To investigate seismic soilpilestructure interaction in a
more realistic manner, a three-dimensional nonlinear finite
element methodology has been developed in this study. By
means of the methodology, the seismic responses of the
structure and the pile foundation can be analysed at the
same level of detail, so that the results of the analysis will
be meaningful for both structure and foundation designs.
The spatial effect of the interactive soilpilestructure
system can be evaluated and the ground motion can be
simulated as realistically as possible. The seismic excitation
can be any combination of the three-dimensional compo-
nents. The methodology is able to solve the structure
response for non-uniform foundation motions, different

0141-0296/00/$ - see front matter 1999 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 0 8 - 4
192 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199

from conventionally used free-field motions, which are due the pile foundation subsystem in solving the seismic
to the soilpilestructure interaction. The nonlinear response for the proposed subsystem model, a success-
plasticity of soils is incorporated in the proposed method- ive-coupling incremental solution scheme (S-C scheme)
ology so that the interaction mechanism of the soilpile in the time domain is developed as shown in Fig. 1.
structure system can be evaluated more precisely. The non- Such a successive-coupling incremental procedure can
linearity of the interfaces between piles and the surrounding be repeated until the entire response history is determ-
soil is also considered in the model. ined. When the time step t is small enough, the con-
tinuous response history is well approximated by the dis-
crete step approach. By this solution scheme, the
2. The proposed subsystem model structure will be analysed for the more realistic pile
foundation motions, which are different from conven-
The proposed model is in general a three-dimensional
tionally used free-field motion. The kinematic interaction
nonlinear finite element model which consists of two
and the inertial interaction of the soilpilestructure sys-
subsystems: one is the structure subsystem and the other
tems can be treated simultaneously and the coupling of
is pilefoundation subsystem. The two subsystems are
these two interactions can be treated more reasonably.
connected at the junctions between the pile heads of the
This is an advantage of the proposed methodology.
foundation and the column bases of the structure. The inter-
action of these two subsystems is transmitted through the
motions and the dynamic forces of the pile heads and the
4. Dynamic equations for uneven support
column bases. The constitutive law of the soil medium con-
excitations
sidered in this study will be described by the *-version
of the hierarchical single surface (HiSS) plasticity-based
The unique feature of the proposed structure subsys-
modelling approach for cyclic behavior of soft clay [2,3].
tem model is that the structure may be subjected to non-
The seismic responses of a structure may be very differ-
uniform foundation motion (support excitation) which is
ent from those of a pile foundation. The characteristics of
equivalent to the pile head motion. The non-uniform
damping for buildings are also very different from those
foundation motion will be obtained from the coupling
for pile foundations. If the structure and the pile foundation
kinematicinertial interactions of the soilpilestruc-
are analysed simultaneously in a combined system, diffi-
ture system.
culties in describing the system damping will arise [4]. By
To derive the incremental equations of motion for a
separating the structure and the pile foundation, this
structure subjected to uneven support excitations, the
problem can be alleviated, and the analysis of the structure
principle of superposition is assumed to be valid within
subsystem may be more general. Also, by using a sub-
system model, inconsistencies in the element types selected
for the structure and for the foundation can be avoided so
that the numerical formulation can be simplified.
In addition, the demand on the computer storage space
will be very large, since the three-dimensional model
will produce a large number of active degrees of freedom
(DOF). Suppose that there are n active DOF in the struc-
ture and m in the pile foundation. The size of the pro-
perty matrices for the whole system will be (m n)2,
while the sizes of the matrices for the structure and the
foundation will be n2 and m2, respectively. Obviously (m
n)2 > m2 n2. Although bandwidth or profile methods
can be used to reduce the storage space, the subsystem
approach will still require less storage space than the
whole system approach. Using the subsystem model will
also reduce the dimensions of simultaneous equations to
be solved and thereby enhance the capacity of the com-
puter resource available.

3. Successive-coupling incremental solution scheme

in the time domain

To take into account simultaneously both kinematic

and inertial interactions of the structure subsystem and Fig. 1. Schematic of SC scheme.
 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199
each incremental time step, provided that the time step
is small enough. For a structure subsystem with n active
DOF and m support DOF, the dynamic equilibrium of
the subsystem due to multiple-support excitations is
obtained by the superposition of the dynamic responses
of the subsystem due to each independent support input.
Considering that the damping force and elastic force
are related to the dynamic (relative) response only and
that active-support DOF inertial-damping coupling terms
may vanish or be neglected [5], the dynamic equilibrium
equations of the structure subsystem subjected to a
movement at the ith DOF of the supports, with all other
support DOFs fixed, may be written as [6]
i rugi) CU
M(U i KUi 0 (1)
where M, C, and K are n n matrices of the mass,
damping, and stiffness of the subsystem, respectively; U
is an n 1 vector of dynamic response of the subsystem;
the subscript i represents ith support DOF; r is a n 1
vector of pseudo-static response influence coefficients,
each of which represents the active nodal displacements
of the subsystem resulting from a unit movement of one
support DOF with all other support DOF fixed; ugi is the
movement of the ith support DOF.
Then, by the principle of superposition, the total
dynamic equilibrium equations of the structure subsys-
tem with all m support DOF having individual motions
can be written as
M(U
i rugi) CU
i KUi 0 (2)
where the summation is taken for i 1 to m. Eq. (2)
can be rewritten as
i rugi) CU
M(U i KUi 0 (3)
or
MRU
MU g CU
KU 0 (4)
where R is the pseudo-static response influence coef-
ficients, an n m matrix, which may be updated at each
time step for a nonlinear structure if necessary; Ug is the
non-uniform support motion, an m 1 vector which is
equivalent to the pile head motion vector Vp.
Incorporating the dynamic equilibrium equations with
the Newmark time integration rule [7], the incremental
equations of motion of the subsystem at time t t can
be derived as
4M 2C
t2
t
K U MRU
g K tU (5)
4tU
M CtU
tU
t support motion cases are different from those for rigid
193
where t is the time step; superscript t indicates the time
t; U are increments of the dynamic response vector U,
so that t+tU tU U.
For nonlinear response of the structure subsystem, Eq.
(5) will be re-constructed by means of the modified
NewtonRaphson iteration scheme. The stiffness matrix
K and the damping matrix C will be replaced by the
corresponding tangent stiffness matrix tK and tangent
damping matrix tC, which will be updated at the begin-
ning of each time step t.
5. Property matrices and support reactions
The stiffness and mass matrices of the structure subsy-
stem may be constructed routinely while the damping
matrix may need to be treated with more consideration.
Based on experimental results and the efficiency of the
applicable mathematical models [8], a tangent formula
of a Rayleigh-type damping may be written as follows:
Ct aM bKt b0K0 (6)
where Ct is the tangent damping matrix; M is the mass
matrix; Kt is the tangent stiffness matrix; K0 is the initial
stiffness matrix; a, b, and b0 are the coefficients related
to the properties of the structure.
For the pseudo-linear case, b 0, while a and b0 can
be found by the following equations.
2ij
a (7)
i j
2
b0 (8)
i j
where is a specified damping ratio; i is the first natu-
ral frequency; j is the highest frequency that contrib-
utes significantly to the response.
For complex structures, it may be difficult to find i
and j since they are dependent on the solution pro-
cedure for large-scale eigenproblems. To search
efficiently for the needed eigenvalues of the complex
system, an iterative scheme with the Lanczos Method for
eigenproblems has been developed. By using the scheme
directly and inversely, i and j can be obtained without
undue computational difficulties.
The calculation of the support reactions for the pro-
posed structure subsystem is different from that of the
rigid-ground model. For a structure subjected to non-uni-
form support motions, the support reactions of the struc-
ture will depend on the total displacements of the active
DOF as well as the relative displacements of the support
DOFs. Therefore, the support forces for non-uniform
194 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199

ground motion cases and should be calculated as fol-
lows:
Fg KguUt KggUg Kgu(U RUg) KggUg (9)
where Fg is an m 1 support force vector, which is
equivalent to the dynamic pile head force vector Fp; Kgu
is an m n matrix which represents the coupling of the
support forces and the motions of the active DOFs; Kgg
is an m m matrix which represents the coupling of
the support forces and the motions of the support DOFs.
For each time step, the support forces Fg will be calcu-
lated and then used as pile head inertial force input for
the pile foundation subsystem. For nonlinear seismic
response of the structure subsystem, the support force-
active DOFs motion coupling matrix Kgu and the support
force-support DOFs motion coupling matrix Kgg will be
updated at the beginning of each time step t.
7. Nonlinear constitutive law of soil
The associative model of the *-version of the HiSS
approach is used here to define the behavior of the soil
for different stressstrain regimes such as virgin loading,
unloading, and reloading. The virgin loading, unloading,
and reloading are identified by using a convex reference
surface (R) passing through the current stress point in
the stress space. R is defined in terms of J1 (the first
invariant of the stress tensor), J2D (the second invariant
of the deviatoric stress tensor), and J3D (the third
invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor) and takes the
same form as the yield function F. When a material point
is yielding, the stress at this point lies on the yield sur-
face or prestress surface F and the reference surface R
coincides with F, (i.e. R F). At this state, loading is
defined as the virgin loading, while at all the other states,
loading is defined as reloading. The stressstrain
relationships for each loading case are shown as follows:

7.1. Virgin loading

6. Foundation subsystem
Under the virgin loading, the incremental stressstrain
The foundation subsystem, which is composed of piles relationship is expressed as
and the surrounding soils, is idealized as an assemblage
of eight-node hexahedral elements. Pile elements may dij CVL
ijkldkl (10)
be treated as linear or nonlinear, depending on the
refinement of the model. To take the nonlinearity of the where
interface of the soil and piles into account, a modified
thin-layer finite element is developed to simulate defor- CeijnmnFnmnFopCeopkl
ijkl Cijkl
CVL e
mation modes of bonding, slipping, separation, and (11)
HVL nFrsCerstunFtu
rebonding of the interfaces. The thin layer is represented
by an eight-node solid isoparametric element with a
where Cijkl is the constitutive stiffness tensor. Superscript
HiSS constitutive law which is the same as that used for
e denotes elastic quantities and superscript VL denotes
the soil material [6].
quantities associated with virgin loading. The tensor
The soils considered in this study are clays, similar to
nFij represents the unit normals to the yield surface F.
a marine clay from Sabine, TX, USA. This clay has
HVL is the virgin plastic modulus which can be found
already been studied thoroughly by both experimental
from the consistency condition in the theory of plas-
and numerical methods [2]. The strength of the clay is
ticity as
assumed to be governed by the effective stresses in the
soil skeleton, and the strains in the clay are approximated
F
as those of the soil skeleton. Therefore, the finite element
formulation for the soil is based on the stressstrain ps ps nFkk

HVL (12)
relationship of the soil skeleton. The constitutive law of F F 1 v 3
2
the soil skeleton is described by an advanced plasticity- mn mn
based model, the *-version of the HiSS modelling
approach for cyclic behavior of soft clays. where F is the yield surface of the soil
Since the Sabine clay has been studied with the
associative model of the *-version of the HiSS
approach, the associative model is employed in the
study. The basic feature of the associative model is that
F
J2D
Pa2
ps
J1
Pa
n

J1
Pa
2
(13)

the yield function or the loading function itself is

assumed to be the same as the potential function of the and ps is the hardening function
plasticity analysis. This feature will make the constitut-
ive tensor symmetric and create symmetric stiffness h1
ps (14)
matrices in the finite element procedures. hv2
 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199 195

J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor, ij; J2D is the based on the stress condition of the soil at the point. The
second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor; Pa is the stresses in the soil elements are derived from the strains
atmospheric pressure; n, , h1, h2 are material parameters of the soil at the last converged step, which are, in turn,
which can be determined by the test data of the clay; v obtained using the finite element displacement method.
is the trajectory of volumetric plastic strains. To locate a computed stress point in the stress space
of the soil, a modified elastic-predictorplastic-corrector
7.2. Unloading method has been constructed to trace the trajectory of
the variable yield surface of the soil. The major steps of
When the clay experiences unloading, the constitutive the method may be briefly summarized as follows:
stiffness tensor is assumed to be the elastic tensor, since First, an elastic stress tensor is computed as a predic-
laboratory tests on the clay showed that the unloading tor of the soil stress, with the assumption that the strains
response was essentially elastic. obtained in the preceding step are all elastic. Second, the
HiSS constitutive model is used to find the plastic cor-
7.3. Reloading rector for the predicted stresses. Third, the predicted
stress tensor is corrected using the strain decomposition
For the reloading, the corresponding incremental technique with the plastic corrector. Fourth, the cor-
stressstrain relationship is given by rected stresses are checked with the HiSS model. If con-
vergence is not reached, the corrected stresses are then
dij CRL
ijkldkl (15) considered as predicted stresses and steps 2 to 4 are
repeated until the constitutive law is satisfied with the
in which corrected stress tensor.
By comparing the stresses of each Gauss point with
CeijnmnRnmnRopCeopkl the yield surface and checking the direction of the
ijkl Cijkl
CRL e
(16)
HRL nRrsCerstunRtu incremental stress normals, the stress condition of the
point will be determined as virgin loading, unloading, or
and where nRij is the unit normal tensor for the reference reloading. The corresponding constitutive stiffness ten-
surface R; HRL is the plastic modulus for reloading. For sors are then constructed for the individual load cases.
the Sabine clay,

R
J2D
Pa2
r
J1
Pa
n

J1
Pa
2
(17)
9. Incremental equations of motion and boundary
conditions

HRL HVL
I1 H I2 r1 1
VL
ps
r
r2
(18)
The derivation of the dynamic equilibrium equations
for the foundation subsystem is based on the assumption
that the dissipation of seismic energy through inelastic
R deformation tends to overshadow the dissipation of the

n1 energy through viscous damping [9]. Therefore, the
r r n2 ps nFkk

H VL
(19) velocity-related damping terms in the dynamic equilib-
I1
R R 1 ps v 3 rium equations are neglected. The equations of motion
2
ij ij derived with this assumption will yield conservative
n1 1
results for the response.
ps

n2n2
ps By means of Newmarks rule and the modified New-
HI2
VL
(20) tonRaphson iteration procedure [7], the incremental
3(n 2) v
equations of motion for the foundation at time t t
can be expressed as follows:
where r1 and r2 are the interpolation parameters for

reloading and can be found from the test data for the
clay. The value of r is obtained by setting R 0 and 4M t
K V(k) R
t t t t
F(k 1) (21)
substituting current stresses into the equation for R. t2

8. Derivation of the constitutive stiffness tensors

M 4(t tV(k 1) tV) 4tV
t2

t
tV
At the beginning of each time step of the seismic where, tK is the tangential stiffness matrix of the foun-
response history, the constitutive stiffness tensor C*ijkl is dation at time t; M is the mass matrix of the foundation;
determined for each Gauss point of the soil elements t is time step; t+tR are the externally applied nodal
196 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199
dynamic loads, including both basement rock excitation
and pile head forces; t+tF are nodal forces due to the
element stresses; V, V, and V are nodal dynamic dis-
placement, velocity, and acceleration, respectively; k is
the iteration step; V(k) is the increment of V at the kth
iteration. Therefore, the nodal dynamic displacements at
the kth iteration of time step t t are t+tV(k) t+tV(k1)
V(k).
Two types of foundation boundaries are considered in
this study as follows: Type 1. The boundary coincides
with the interface of the soil body and bedrock, provided
that the soil layer is not too deep. Then the outer domain
may be treated as a rigid half-space [10]. Type 2. The
bedrock is far away from the pile foundation. For this
case, a hybrid approach using finite elements, with the
repeatable nodes method as suggested by Prevost [11]
and a recently developed dynamic infinite element [12],
can be constructed to deal with the infinite boundary
problem.
10. Computerization of the proposed finite element
procedure and its verification
A comprehensive fortran program has been
developed to implement the proposed three-dimensional
nonlinear finite element subsystem methodology [6]. The
program consists of more than 70 fundamental subrout-
ines which can be grouped as several major functional
modules such as data acquisition and equation profile
module, seismic analysis module, foundation subsystem
module, structure subsystem module, eigenvalue search-
ing module, and equation solution module, etc. These
modules can be modified or changed as desired. There-
fore, it is possible to update the program with pro-
gression of the research.
A modified NewtonRaphson iteration approach is
employed to solve the nonlinear finite element equations
of motion. Considering the nonlinearity of the soil model
used in the proposed methodology, three types of con-
vergence criteria are used simultaneously to check the
convergence of the iteration. These are the displacement
criterion, the out-of-balance load criterion, and the
internal energy criterion. A profile or skyline single array
storage scheme is adopted to save the memory space
needed in the storage of the matrices. An active column
profile (skyline) solution algorithm is employed in the
equation solution module to solve the equations
efficiently. This solution algorithm is based upon the
Crout method of Gauss elimination. The use of this
method with an active column profile storage scheme
leads to a very compact program where it is very easy
to use vector dot product routines to effect the triangular
decomposition and forward reduction. This compu-
tational advantage is very important to modern com-
puters which are vector oriented. Another attractive
advantage of the active column profile solution scheme
is that it allows for the inclusion of a re-solve capability
(i.e. new load increments for the iteration loops) without
any significant additional programming effort. Use of the
re-solve capability can substantially reduce costs for ana-
lysing subsequent load increments in the iteration sol-
ution procedure for nonlinear dynamic analysis.
To verify the numerical correctness of the computer
program developed based on the proposed methodology,
an example of a space frame structure is analysed by
both the proposed program and a renowned commercial
software package. Since the seismic analysis capacity in
the time domain is not yet available in most popularly
used commercial software, the analysis of the example
structure is focused on the frequency response of the
structure. The commercial software chosen for the veri-
fication is seisab developed by Imbsen and Associates,
Inc., CA, USA [13]. seisab is sponsored by the US
Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration and extensively used for the seismic
structural analysis of bridges.
The verification example is a three-span reinforced
concrete bridge with fixed base [6]. The frequency
analysis performed by seisab shows that the fundamen-
tal period of the example structure is 0.099 s. The funda-
mental period found by the proposed program is 0.097
s, almost same as that from seisab. Since the value of
a structures fundamental period is dependent on the
modelling of the distribution of the stiffness and masses
of the structure, the comparison of the results indicates
that the proposed program is reliable. The close agree-
ment of the computational values also denotes that the
numerical procedures used in the proposed model is
trustworthy.
11. Three-dimensional nonlinear seismic responses
As a second example, a two-storey reinforced concrete
space frame shown in Fig. 2 with an end-bearing con-
crete pile foundation has been used to study the seismic
response of pile-supported structures [6]. The cross-sec-
Fig. 2. Outline of the example structure and pile foundation.
 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199
tional areas of the columns, girders, and piles are 0.4,
0.5, and 0.6 m2, respectively. The floor mass of the frame
is distributed to the surrounding frame girders using the
two-way slab principle of design. The dimensions, stiff-
ness, and mass of the frame are all symmetric about the
longitudinal (X) and transverse (Z) axes of the frame.
The soil used in the study is assumed to be Sabine clay
of Texas, with a bulk modulus of 24536 kPa and a Pois-
sons ratio of 0.42.
Space frame members of the concrete superstructure
are represented by two-node beam-column elements with
six degrees-of-freedom at each node. Eight-node hexa-
hedral elements are employed to model the piles and the
soil media of the pile foundation. The interfaces of the
soil and piles are simulated by thin-layer elements,
which are a type of eight-node solid isoparametric
element [14].
The boundary of the foundation is assumed to be the
interface of the soil body and bedrock. The digitized
ground motion data obtained at the San Francisco Inter-
national Airport from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,
CSMIP serial no. 1752 [15], has been selected as the
bedrock motion input for the preliminary example. The
horizontal acceleration and displacement data are used
as the bedrock motion along the longitudinal axis (X
axis) of the frame.
The preliminary results show that the interactive foun-
dation motion, i.e. the non-uniform pile head motion,
deviates significantly from the bedrock motion which is
the uniform seismic input. The magnitude of the pile
head motion along the longitudinal (X) axis has been
amplified due to the plastic nature of the soft clay. The
output of the pile head motion also reveals an interesting
phenomenon: that although the bedrock input is horizon-
tal there are some vertical accelerations on the pile heads
(column bases). For the whole frame, the upward and
downward accelerations appear to balance each other.
However, for each column, vertical vibration will occur.
These results indicate that the structure may respond
both horizontally and vertically even if the bedrock input
is only horizontal as shown in Fig. 3. The deviation of
the pile foundation motion from the bedrock motion
should be carefully considered in the seismic analysis of
pile-supported structures.
The space frame structure is in general subjected to
three-dimensional forces and couples. Even though the
interactive soilpilestructure system and bedrock
motion are symmetrical, there are still some torsional
moments acting on each column base (pile head) despite
that the resultant of the torsional moments of all column
bases is zero. It is believed that these torsional moments
are due to the spatial distribution of the mass of the
structure and may change with the variation of the mass
distribution. In addition to the longitudinal moments and
torsional moments, there are also transverse moments
which may cause biaxial bending in the columns. For
197
columns with a weak bending axis in the cross-section,
biaxial bending may need to be considered in the seismic
design. The space frame is also acted upon by three
components of the dynamic forces, i.e. the longitudinal
shears, transverse shears, and vertical (axial) forces. To
evaluate the seismic response of pile-supported struc-
tures properly, the effects of vertical vibration may not
be negligible even though the seismic excitation is
assumed to be horizontal.
To investigate the spatial effects of pile-supported
structures, a two-dimensional plane frame derived from
the space frame studied has been analysed with the inter-
active approach for the same uniform bedrock input. The
floor mass is distributed uniformly to the longitudinal
girders, and the pile foundation conditions are the same
as those for the space frame. The results in Fig. 4 show
that the longitudinal shear force at the base of the plane
frame (the 2D model), which is the major component
considered in current seismic design, is very close to
that of the space frame (the 3D model). However the
transverse torsional moments in the plane frame (the 2D
model) are essentially zero and do not approach those
of the space frame (the 3D model) shown in Fig. 5. This
indicates that even for a symmetric structure subjected
to symmetric excitation, a simplified symmetric model
may not be able to include all important aspects of the
seismic response of pile-supported structures. In the case
of a torsionally flexible structure, this may be significant
for design.
12. Potential application of the proposed model
The proposed computerized methodology may be
used as an auxiliary approach for the seismic capacity
evaluation of interactive soilpilestructure systems.
Since the proposed methodology is a general three-
dimensional model, the structurefoundation system
may be any type of configuration and the bedrock
(ground) motion may be any combination of the three
components of the seismic excitation. If a structure has
multiple types of foundations, e.g. some columns are
supported by piles while other columns rest on rock, the
proposed model can still be used to analyse the response
of the structure.
For some important structures, the critical seismic
response may be found through a series of simulations
with different earthquake ground motion data acting
along different directions. Each element of the structure
foundation system may be evaluated through the
response histories, such as the dynamic forces and dis-
placements of the element. The analysis outputs from
the interactive model and from the rigid ground model
may provide the reference envelope of the possible seis-
mic response of the structurefoundation system. The
most efficient seismic design may be derived based on
198 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199

Fig. 3. Deviation of ground accelerations.

Fig. 4. Comparison of longitudinal shear (2D vs. 3D). Fig. 5. Comparison of torsional moments (2D vs. 3D).

a comprehensive comparison of the design plans with
different distributions of the mass and the stiffness of
the system.
The proposed model is capable of dealing with non-
uniform ground motion problems. This capability may
benefit the study of the out-of-phase response of long-
span structures such as highway bridges. The investi-
gations of recent earthquakes, such as the 1994
Northridge Earthquake in California and the 1995 Kobe
Earthquake in Japan, show that out-of-phase vibration of
the bridges is one of the major causes of bridge damage
and collapse. Most current analysis methods used in the
seismic design of highway bridges are based on an
assumption that all of the foundations of the entire
bridge are subjected to an identical ground motion. This
may be adequate for bridges with short lengths. How-
ever, for bridges with long spans or long lengths, the
foundations of the bridges will experience different
ground motions due to the time-varying propagation of
the seismic waves. The out-of-phase vibration of a
bridge due to differences in the motions of the foun-
dation elements may impart some critical effects to the
bridge, such as separation of the expansion joints, unac-
ceptable movement of the deck relative to the bearings,
unexpected concentration of the dynamic stresses on the
structural components of the bridge, etc. The proposed
 Y.X. Cai et al. / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 191199
model may be incorporated into the study of the seismic
effects of the out-of-phase response of bridges and other
long-span structures. The foundation motions may be
simulated using recorded seismic motion data with dif-
ferent assumptions of the wave velocities. The bridges
or other structures can then be solved for non-uniform
ground motions and the impact of the out-of-phase
response can be properly evaluated.
13. Conclusions
In order to investigate seismic soilpilestructure
interaction effects more precisely, a three-dimensional
nonlinear interactive finite element subsystem method-
ology has been developed. The interactive soilpile
structure system is modelled as two subsystems: one is
the structure subsystem and the other is the foundation
subsystem. A successive-coupling incremental solution
scheme in the time domain is created to account for both
inertial and kinematic soilpilestructure interactions
simultaneously.
By means of the *-version of the HiSS modelling
approach for cyclic behavior of soft clays, tangent matr-
ices of the soil properties are formulated with distinct
constitutive laws for individual stressstrain regimes
such as virgin loading, unloading, and reloading. If the
loading conditions exceed the allowable range, the soil
will fail. Therefore, the soil is simulated more realisti-
cally in the proposed model.
The seismic inputs can be any combination of three-
dimensional motions. Therefore, the ground motion
input can be assumed to act along any direction in the
considered space. Structures can be solved for uneven
support excitations, as opposed to conventionally used
uniform free-field motions, which arise due to the travel-
ling seismic waves.
A comprehensive computer program has been
developed to implement the proposed methodology. The
program can be used to perform seismic analyses for
the interactive soilpilestructure system, for structures
subjected to uniform (rigid) ground motions, and for
long-span structures subjected to non-uniform free-
field motions.
Preliminary results of the study show that with the
plasticity-based soil model, the motion of the pile foun-
dation deviates significantly from the bedrock motion.
This departure from the ground motion should not be
overlooked in evaluating the seismic kinematic response
of pile-supported structures. The study also shows that
the pile heads are generally subjected to three-dimen-
sional forces/couples, despite the apparent symmetry of
the bedrock motion and the configuration of the struc-
ture. The combination of all six components of the
199
internal forces/couples may be critical in evaluating the
seismic capacity of pile-supported structures. If a struc-
ture which is symmetric in configuration and is subjected
to symmetric ground motion is furthermore not tor-
sionally flexible, the simplified two-dimensional model
may be used for the seismic analysis. However, for non-
symmetric structures, the general three-dimensional
model should be used.
Although the proposed methodology is not presently
complete in all aspects, it is intended as a worthy effort
to implement new approaches for dealing with the seis-
mic interaction of soilpilestructure systems within
state-of-the-art computer capabilities. This study is the
first of its type to analyse both the structure and the pile
foundation at the same level of detail.
References
[1] Novak, M. Piles under dynamic loads. In: Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geo-
technology, Engineering and Soil Dynamics, vol. III. St Louis,
March 1991:25073.
[2] Desai CS, Wathugala GW. Constitutive model for cyclic behavior
of clays. II: Applications. J Geotech Engrg, ASCE
1993;119(4):73048.
[3] Wathugala GW, Desai CS. Constitutive model for cyclic behavior
of clays. I: Theory. J Geotech Engrg, ASCE 1993;119(4):71429.
[4] Clough RW, Mojtahedi S. Earthquake response analysis consider-
ing non-proportional damping. Earthq Engrg Struct Dyn
1976;4:48996.
[5] Clough, RW, Penzien, J. Dynamics of structures. New York:
McGrawHill Book Co., 1975.
[6] Cai, YX. Three-dimensional nonlinear analysis of seismic soil
pilestructure interaction and its application. Doctoral dissertation
presented to the Washington University, St Louis (MO, USA),
1995.
[7] Bathe, KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis.
Englewood Cliffs (NJ): PrenticeHall, Inc., 1982.
[8] Leger P, Dussault S. Seismic-energy dissipation in MDOF struc-
tures. J Struct Engrg, ASCE 1992;118(5):125169.
[9] Anderson, JC. Dynamic response of buildings. In: Naeim F. edi-
tor. The seismic design handbook. New York (NY): Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, 1989:1138.
[10] Roesset, JM, Kausel, E. Dynamic soil structure interaction. In:
Desai CS editor. Numerical methods in geomechanics, vol. I.
ASCE, Blacksburg, VA, 1976:319.
[11] Prevost, JH. Personal conversation at Eighth ICCMAG, Morgan-
town (West Virginia, USA), 1994.
[12] Zhao C, Valliappan S. A dynamic infinite element for three-
dimensional infinite-domain wave problems. Int J Num Meth
Engrg 1993;36:256780.
[13] Imbsen, R. seisabSEISmic Analysis of Bridges. Imbsen
Association, Inc., Sacramento, CA, 1994.
[14] Sharma KG, Desai CS. Analysis and implementation of thin-layer
element for interfaces and joints. J Engrg Mech, ASCE
1992;118(12):244262.
[15] CSMIP. California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program,
Strong-Motion Data Tapes, serial no. 1752, LOMAPRIETA89-
INTERIM2. Sacramento (California): California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Office of Strong
Motion Studies, 1990.