Hindawi

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2017, Article ID 4358081, 12 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4358081

Research Article
Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on Seismic Performance of
Long-Span Bridge Tested by Dynamic Substructuring Method

Zhenyun Tang, Hua Ma, Jun Guo, and Zhenbao Li

The Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering, Ministry of Education,
Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Hua Ma; mahua@bjut.edu.cn

Received 9 October 2016; Revised 13 December 2016; Accepted 19 January 2017; Published 8 March 2017

Academic Editor: Salvatore Strano

Copyright © 2017 Zhenyun Tang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Because of the limitations of testing facilities and techniques, the seismic performance of soil-structure interaction (SSI) system can
only be tested in a quite small scale model in laboratory. Especially for long-span bridge, a smaller tested model is required when
SSI phenomenon is considered in the physical test. The scale effect resulting from the small scale model is always coupled with
the dynamic performance, so that the seismic performance of bridge considering SSI effect cannot be uncovered accurately by the
traditional testing method. This paper presented the implementation of real-time dynamic substructuring (RTDS), involving the
combined use of shake table array and computational engines for the seismic simulation of SSI. In RTDS system, the bridge with
soil-foundation system is divided into physical and numerical substructures, in which the bridge is seen as physical substructures
and the remaining part is seen as numerical substructures. The interface response between the physical and numerical substructures
is imposed by shake table and resulting reaction force is fed back to the computational engine. The unique aspect of the method
is to simulate the SSI systems subjected to multisupport excitation in terms of a larger physical model. The substructuring strategy
and the control performance associated with the real-time substructuring testing for SSI were performed. And the influence of SSI
on a long-span bridge was tested by this novel testing method.

1. Introduction structure and soil-foundation systems) under earthquake

In the seismic analysis of a structure founded on ground, the
ground motion passes to the base of structure and then loads
on structure. The response of the foundation system affects
the response of the structure and vice versa, which is called
dynamical soil-structure interaction (SSI). Theoretical results
[1, 2] indicate that SSI is sometimes beneficial and sometimes
detrimental to structural performance. Therefore, the effect
of soil cannot be neglected, because SSI phenomenon is
closely related to its dynamic characteristics [3], especially
the damping [4] of the whole system. To explore the effect
of SSI on the seismic performance of engineering structures,
the finite element methods [5] and theoretical analysis [6] are
often used. However, the uncertainties [7, 8] and boundary
condition [9] existing in SSI system have not been simulated
properly by these methods. At present, experimental evidence
relating to SSI system is scarce. The SSI system is difficult to
be investigated by testing full-size specimen (including both
loading because of the size and power of the testing facil-
ities, especially, for the structures with large spatial extent.
In current testing of SSI, the soil-foundation systems are
replaced by laminar shear box with soil [10–12], and the
structures are usually scaled down to small size (often scaled
to 1/30 or even smaller) or a simple cantilevered mass [10, 11],
which results in the inevitable possibility of size effects. In
addition, time must be scaled, accompanying with frequency
scaled up, in test to provide rapid shaking, often prevented
by the frequency bandwidth of shaking table. SSI plays a
more important role in the seismic performance of long-span
bridge [13]. However, the smaller specimen is required in the
laboratory experiment because of its dimension. As a result,
simplified models are tested at reduced scales making the
interpretation and application of results challenging.
The method of real-time substructuring derived from
hardware-in-the-loop test [14] has been paid close attention
since the first real-time substructuring test was reported by
2 Shock and Vibration
Earthquake
Numerical model
loading
Interface reaction
Figure 1: Generally schematic representation of RTDS using shaking table.
Nakashima et al. [15], which is a method of dynamically
testing a structure without experimentally testing a physical
model of the entire system; instead the structure can be
split into two coupled parts, the region of particular interest,
which is tested experimentally, and the remainder which is
tested numerically. It also received interest in SSI systems.
To simulate the soil medium numerically in a shaking
table substructuring test where the superstructure is tested
experimentally, Konagai et al. [16, 17] used analogue electric
circuits to generate the transient response of both linear
and nonlinear soils. Heath et al. [18] and Wang et al. [19]
investigated an inverted substructuring system by modelling
the superstructure numerically. However, only very simple
soil model and superstructures were adopted in these works.
To simulate the SSI phenomenon with bridge experimentally
using RTDS, further validation is required involving more
complex structures and more complex interactions.
In the research presented in this paper, a framework of
substructuring for SSI system with bridge was established
firstly; after that the control strategies for the real-time
dynamic substructuring testing were analysed. Finally, the
influence of SSI on a long-span bridge was tested through this
novel testing method.
2. Modelling of RTDS Systems
for SSI Simulation
2.1. RTDS Scheme Based on Shaking Table Array. The devel-
opment of advanced computation and control techniques
resulted in the great progress of real-time substructure
[20, 21]. The basis of such tests is to divide the overall
system into experimental test specimen and the numerical
model. Typically the experimental test specimen contains
the area of particular interest which behaves nonlinearly and
uncertainly; the numerical model contains the remainder
of the system which behaves linearly or can be modelled
adequately. These two parts are tested in parallel and in
real-time with information relating to the interface between
the two parts being exchanged between them, allowing the
two parts to emulate the whole system. Figure 1 shows the
generally schematic representation of substructuring used to
emulate dynamics of structures in earthquake engineering.
Interface responses are passed from the numerical model to
shaking table, which reproduces accurately the responses at
the interface of the test specimen. The interface reaction force
Interface response
Shaking table
Interface
Physical model response
measured from test specimen then feed back to the numerical
model.
Importantly, the most significant advantage of real-time
substructuring is that the process is implemented as a time-
stepping routine in real-time, which allows that not only
can the nonlinear and uncertain behaviour of physical sub-
structure be accurately tested, but also the time-dependent
nonlinearity of numerical substructure can be adopted in the
testing. The test method mentioned above supplies a novel
solution for the SSI testing. As known, compared with soil-
foundation system, the behaviour of structure is relatively
easily modelled, especially, the nonlinearity including gap-
ping between the foundations and soil and nonlinear stress-
strain response of the soil, and so on. However, the real
interest in SSI is the response of structure under earthquake
loading; meanwhile, the complexity of structural form and
material, geometrical, and contacting nonlinearity of struc-
ture are also not well described theoretically. Therefore, both
the two kinds of substructuring (soil-foundation system or
structure modelled numerically) for SSI need to be devel-
oped. In this work, the soil-foundation system is treated as
numerical substructure and simulated in computer, while the
bridge seems as the physical substructure and tested in the
laboratory. A diagrammatic representation of RTDS for a
bridge is shown in Figure 2. The emulated SSI system shown
in Figure 2(a) can be tested by the RTDS strategy shown in
Figure 2(b). Unlike other building structures, a single shaking
table is enough to carry out the test; the length of bridge
is quite large, even the scale model is often more than ten
meters long. To overcome this drawback, the shaking table
array composed of multishaking tables was constructed and
used to test the seismic performance of bridge [22]. Therefore,
the shaking table array is adopted to reproduce the interface
response of each bridge pier and foundation.
2.2. Numerical Model of Soil-Foundation System. The ground
motion imposing on superstructure caused by earthquake
includes three portions (as illustrated in Figure 3(a)): the
movement of free-field soil resulting from earthquake (𝑢g ),
the deviation of the foundation movement resulting from
the free-field soil motion (𝑢gs ), and the deformation of
foundation produced by the reaction force from superstruc-
ture (inertia interaction: 𝛿 and 𝜃). This work focuses on
the interaction between soil and structure; consequently,
the foundation movement is identical to the free-field soil
movement (𝑢gs = 0). In the seismic analysis for SSI, the
Shock and Vibration 3

(a) Whole soil-structure system under multisupport excitation

Physical
substructure

Interface responses:
훿,
휃

Reaction force: F, M

Numerical kh , ch
substructure
kr , cr

(b) Substructured system:soil-foundation system represented as numerical substructure

Figure 2: Substructuring system for bridge subject to earthquake excitation.

M
F
훿
ug + ugs

휃

Fd
Foundation

Semi-infinite Kb Cb

ug

(a) Deformation of soil-pile-foundation (b) Time-domain difference model

Figure 3: Numerical model of soil-pile-foundation system.

substructure method is cost-effective, comparing with the
direct integrity approach, in which the behaviour of the soil-
foundation system (see in Figure 3(a)) was described as an
impedance function (also shown in Figure 3(b)):
𝐾h = 𝑘h (𝜔) + 𝑖𝜔𝑐h (𝜔) ,
where 𝑘h is horizontal stiffness, 𝑐h is horizontal damping, 𝜔
is circular frequency, and 𝑖 is imaginary unit. However, the
impedance function is frequency-dependent, which cannot
be used to represent the nonlinear effect of dynamic interac-
tion between soil and structure.
In order to overcome this disadvantage, two main meth-
ods [23–25] were developed to transform the frequency-
dependent impedance function to time-domain: lumped
parameter model approximately fitting to impedance func-
tions using different mass-spring-damping systems and fast
integral algorithms (also referred to as recursive model) based
on the properties of Fourier inverse transform. Nevertheless,
the two methods have their own defects: lumped parameter
model [23, 24] can only fit the actual impedance functions
in narrow frequency band accurately but cannot reflect the
regular component, which corresponds to time-delay effect;
meanwhile, recursive model [25] has intrinsically limitation
at Nyquist frequency; namely, the imaginary part of filter
must be zero at Nyquist frequency.
(1)
So as to take the full advantage of the two models and
make up for their deficiency as well, a time-domain difference
model (TDDM) for soil-foundation system was proposed by
Du and Zhao [26], combining lumped parameter model and
time-domain recursive model, which can take into account
both the singular and regular component of foundation
impedance comprehensively. The mechanical model is shown
in Figure 3(b), where
𝐾𝑏 = 𝑛𝐾𝑠 𝑘1 ,
𝐶𝑏 = 𝑛𝐾𝑠 𝑐1 ,
(2)
𝑛 𝑚
𝐹𝑑 = ∑𝑏𝑖 𝑦𝑏 (𝑡 − 𝑖Δ𝑡) + ∑𝑎𝑖 𝐹𝑑 (𝑡 − 𝑖Δ𝑡)
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
4 Shock and Vibration

Table 1: Parameters of the used TDD model.

𝑎1 𝑎2 𝑎3 𝑎4 𝑎5 𝑎6 𝑘1 𝑐1
1.198 −0.013 −0.415 −0.127 0.02 0.004 0.659 0.011
𝑏1 𝑏2 𝑏3 𝑏4 𝑏5 𝑏6 — —
−0.681 −0.205 0.433 0.028 −0.029 −0.003 — —

with 𝑛 being numbers of piles, 𝐾𝑠 static stiffness of single 4.0

pile, 𝑘1 normalized stiffness, 𝑐1 normalized damping, 𝐹𝑑 (𝑡) 3.5
pseudo-force, 𝑦𝑏 (𝑡) displacement of foundation, Δ𝑡 integra-
tion time step, and 𝑎𝑖 , 𝑏𝑖 the coefficients of pseudo-force and 3.0
displacement. From (2) we can see that the determination
of parameters 𝑘1 , 𝑐1 , 𝑎𝑖 , 𝑏𝑖 is the key point for the time- 2.5

Kh /9ksh
domain difference model, the best values of which are derived 2.0
using hybrid optimization based on the theory or numerical
solution of impedance function. 1.5
Herein, we assume that the bridge pier is constructed on a
1.0
3 × 3 pile group foundation, and the parameters are as follows:
damping ratio of soil is 0.05, Poisson’s ratio of soil is 0.4, ratio 0.5
of pile spacing and diameter is 5, Young Modulus ratio of pile
to soil is 1000, mass density ratio of pile to soil is 1.42, and 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ratio of pile length and diameter is 15. Normalized by single a0
pile static stiffness, the impedance function of the pile group
foundation can be expressed as Real part (Makris’s result) Real part (TDDM)
Imaginary part (Makris’s result) Imaginary part (TDDM)
𝐾h (𝑎0 ) = 9𝑘sh [𝑘h (𝑎0 ) + 𝑖𝑐h (𝑎0 )] , (3) Figure 4: Normalized dynamic stiffness of pile group foundation
reported by Du and Zhao [34].
where 𝑎0 = 𝜔𝑑/V𝑠 is dimensionless frequency, 𝑘sh is single
pile horizontal static stiffness, V𝑠 is shear wave velocity of soil,
𝑑 is pile diameter. Using the dynamic impedance function
developed by Makris and Gazetas [27, 28] for the pile group impose the interface response calculated from numerical
foundation, the parameters of TDDM were estimated by substructure on the physical substructure through shaking
multiple regression analysis. The evaluated values of all table synchronously, an additional controller is necessary to
parameters for this model are shown in Table 1. The com- cancel the shaking table dynamics.
parative results of the TDDM and Markris’s analytical model Based on TDDM presented in Section 2.2, the emulated
presented in Figure 4 show that TDDM is suitable to represent system shown in Figure 5(a) can be substructured as the
the soil-foundation system in RTDS. RTDS system shown in Figure 5(b). TDDM model represents
the soil-foundation system. The bridge is installed on shaking
3. Control Strategies for RTDS table array, which is used as the transfer system to simulate the
interface acceleration (𝑎𝑛 ). As can be seen in Figure 5(b), the
3.1. RTDS Controller Design. In commonly used RTDS sys- interface acceleration resulted from external excitation (𝑢g )
tem, displacement or force was used to be target signal and reaction force of superstructure (𝑓):
to drive transfer system; however in some SSI systems,
such as sandy soil, the effect of SSI on the acceleration 𝑎𝑛 = 𝐺𝑓𝑟 𝑢g + 𝐺𝑓𝑓 𝑓. (4)
of structure is noticeable, but the effect on displacement
is inconspicuous. In that case, the acceleration of interface From Figure 5(b), the transfer function models for the
cannot be reproduced well by using displacement control. In different parts can be determined.
this work, the acceleration driving was attempted to be used
in the RTDS for SSI of this work. In this RTDS system,
shaking table array was used as the transfer system to 𝐺𝑓𝑟 (𝑠)
produce the interface response of foundation, resulting from
𝑠2 𝑚𝑏
the dynamics of which, the response between physical and = ,
numerical substructure is always asynchronous, even causing 𝑚𝑏 𝑠2 + 𝑛𝑘𝑠ℎ (𝑐1 𝑠 + 𝑘1 + ∑6𝑖=1 𝑏𝑖 𝑧−𝑖 / (1 + ∑6𝑖=1 𝑎𝑖 𝑧−𝑖 ))
the instability, especially for the low damping system [29]. (5)
In standard earthquake testing, the shaking table is driven 𝐺𝑓𝑓 (𝑠)
by a conventional controller, such as PID or three-variable
controller. These controllers cannot give a perfect control. 𝑠2
= ,
Phase lag and magnitude error always exist. In order to 𝑚𝑏 𝑠2 + 𝑛𝑘𝑠ℎ (𝑐1 𝑠 + 𝑘1 + ∑6𝑖=1 𝑏𝑖 𝑧−𝑖 / (1 + ∑6𝑖=1 𝑎𝑖 𝑧−𝑖 ))
Shock and Vibration 5

Σp
Mp
Bridge
Kp , Cp

Soil
u Inner-loop ap
box
controller Shaking table −
actuator
+
an
Ground f
motion Shaking table RTDS an
controller Mb
actuator
e Cb
Kb
ug
ug ΣN

(a) Emulated system (b) Substructured system

Figure 5: Framework of RTDS for SSI simulation.

where 𝑧 = 𝑒𝑖𝜔Δ𝑡 , Δ𝑡 is integration time step. Normally, the ΣN

achieved value of interface acceleration is not 𝑎𝑛 but 𝑎𝑝 after ug + an
going through shaking table because of its dynamics. That G1
−
leads to the needs of RTDS controller. As reference [30]
mentioned, the shaking table can be approximated to a first- +
order system such that Kr G e
−
𝑎
𝐺𝑠 (𝑠) = , (6)
𝑠+𝑎 MCSEF +
u
G2
where 𝑎 is the product of the time constant and the propor- + ap
tional gain of shaking table. And then the reaction force is Σp
Ke
formulated as

𝑓 = 𝐺𝑓 𝑎𝑝 . (7) Figure 6: MLSC-MCSEF controlled RTDS system.

𝐺𝑓 represents the transfer function of the total shear force (𝑓)

of superstructure from excitation (𝑎𝑝 ), which is determined
by the dynamic parameters. From Figure 5(b), 𝐺𝑓 can be
expressed as
𝐶𝑝 𝑠 + 𝐾𝑝
𝐺𝑓 = , (8)
𝑀𝑝 𝑠2 + 𝐶𝑝 𝑠 + 𝐾𝑝
where M 𝑝 , C𝑝 , and K 𝑝 are the mass, damping, and stiffness
of bridge, respectively.
To formulate the synthesis procedure of RTDS dynamics
and control, a framework of linear substructuring controller
(LSC) [31] together with the minimal control synthesis with
error feedback (MCSEF) algorithm [32] was proposed. To
simplify the LSC for multidegree of freedom system, a mod-
ified linear substructuring controller (MLSC) together with
MCSEF was developed by Guo et al. [33]. As illustrated in
Figure 6, an emulated system is conceptually decomposed
into at least two substructures, Σ𝑛 and Σ𝑝 . For practical cases
Σ𝑛 represents the numerical model and Σ𝑝 represents the
physical model. Control and excitation signals are denoted by
𝑢 and 𝑟, respectively. Here, the RTDS dynamics are rep-
resented by three generalized blocks, 𝐺, constraint; 𝐺1 ,
excitation; and 𝐺2 , transfer system dynamics. 𝐺1 (𝑠) is the
relationship between the displacements of the top of the
foundation (𝑎𝑛𝑟 ) and the ground motion (𝑢g ); 𝐺(𝑠) is the
relationship between the control signals (𝑢) and the accel-
eration of the top of the foundation (𝑎𝑛𝑓 ) from the reaction
force, including the TS dynamics 𝐺𝑠 (𝑠), the reaction force
dynamics 𝐺𝑓 (𝑠), and the numerical substructure dynamics
𝐺𝑓𝑓 (𝑠); 𝐺2 (𝑠) is the TS dynamics; thus
𝐺1 (𝑠) = 𝐺𝑓𝑟 (𝑠) ,
𝐺 (𝑠) = 𝐺𝑠 (𝑠) 𝐺𝑓 (𝑠) 𝐺𝑓𝑓 (𝑠) , (9)
𝐺2 (𝑠) = 𝐺𝑠 (𝑠) .
6 Shock and Vibration
With reference to [31], the error dynamics (𝑒 = 𝑎𝑛 − 𝑎𝑝 ) of an
LSC-controlled DSS can be written as
𝐺 (𝑠) − [𝐺 (𝑠) + 𝐺2 (𝑠)] 𝐾𝑟 (𝑠)
𝐺err (𝑠) = 1 . (10)
1 + [𝐺 (𝑠) + 𝐺2 (𝑠)] 𝐾𝑒
To synchronize the two outputs {𝑎𝑛 , 𝑎𝑝 }, the substructuring
error is expected to equal zero, the numerator of (10) is set
equal to zero, and then
𝐺1 (𝑠)
𝐾𝑟 (𝑠) = . (11)
𝐺 (𝑠) + 𝐺2 (𝑠)
The control signal and adaptive gains of MCSEF in Figure 6
are generated from (12), where {𝛼, 𝛽} are adaptive weights;
the ratio 𝛼 = 10𝛽, which has been shown to work well
empirically [29], is used here. The term 𝑦𝑒 is the output error,
generated directly from 𝑒, according to 𝑦𝑒 (𝑡) = 𝐶𝑒 𝑒(𝑡), where
𝐶𝑒 is selected to ensure a strictly positive real dynamic in the
hyperstability proof for the MCSEF controller [29]; for first-
order control, 𝐶𝑒 is normally defined as [29]: 𝐶𝑒 = 4/𝑡𝑠 , where
𝑡𝑠 is the step response time of the implicit reference model.
𝑢 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑟 (𝑠) 𝑢̈g (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑒 (𝑠) 𝑒 (𝑠) + 𝐾𝑟𝑎 (𝑡) 𝑢̈g (𝑡)
+ 𝐾𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) 𝑒 (𝑡) ,
𝑡
(12)
𝐾𝑟𝑎 (𝑡) = 𝛼 ∫ 𝑦𝑒 (𝑡) 𝑟𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 + 𝛽𝑦𝑒 (𝑡) 𝑟𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡,
0
𝑡
𝐾𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) = 𝛼 ∫ 𝑦𝑒 (𝑡) 𝑒𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 + 𝛽𝑦𝑒 (𝑡) 𝑒𝑇 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡.
0 In this RTDS test, the specimen (see in Figure 9) was taken
3.2. Validation of RTDS Controller Performance. For verifying
the validity of the RTDS for SSI simulation, further tests of
a one-story steel frame including SSI considerations were
performed. The parameters for the soil model are shown in
Table 1, and 𝑘sh = 62600 N/m. The parameters of the physical
substructure are as follows: 𝑀𝑝 = 115 kg, 𝐶𝑝 = 17.67 N/ms,
and 𝐾𝑝 = 7.56 × 104 N/m. The shaking table used here is a
shake table array including nine shaking tables (shown in Fig-
ure 7) from Beijing University of Technology (BJUT), and the
specifications are shown in Table 2. The estimated parameter
of the shaking table used in MLSC design was 𝑎 = 16 Hz. The
acceleration record of El Centro earthquake (NS component
of the 1940 El Centro, Station: 117 El Centro Array #9,
Component 270∘ ) was chosen as the ground motion. Exper-
iment and simulation results are shown in Figure 8, which
demonstrate that the RTDS method emulates dynamic soil-
structure interaction effectively. That means the MLSC-
MCSEF controller compensated the dynamics of shaking
table successfully.
4. The Effect of SSI on Seismic Performance of
a Long-Span Bridge
4.1. Test Design. The dynamic response of a large-span bridge
with the considerations of SSI subjected to earthquake excita-
tion was tested using RTDS method developed in this work.
Table 2: Specifications of shake table array in BJUT.
Table size 1 m × 1 m (𝑋/𝑌), B600 (𝑍)
Operation mode 𝑋/𝑌/𝑍
Maximum specimen mass 5 ton
Velocity ±80 cm/s
Frequency of operation 0.1∼50 Hz
Table mass 1 ton
Number 9
Displacement ±7.5 cm
Acceleration (full load) ±1.5 g (𝑋/𝑌), 0.8 g (𝑍)
Control mode TVC
Figure 7: Shake table array in BJUT.
as physical substructure. The parameters of this specimen are
mass 4500 kg, length 13.84 m, and height 1.2 m. The time-
domain difference model described in Section 2 was chosen
as numerical substructure. The parameters of soil model are
listed in Table 1. And the Young modulus of pile is 113.4 Gpa,
the density of soil is 2000 kg/m3 , and diameter of pile is 0.4 m.
The photo of the specimen is shown in Figure 10. Herein, four
shaking tables are used to produce the interface response of
each foundation under piper. The acceleration record of El
Centro (See in Figure 11(a)) and Wenchuan earthquake (See
in Figure 11(b)) was chosen as the ground motion.
Before conducting RTDS test, a conventional shaking
table test with white noise excitation was carried on to
identify the dynamic parameters of the physical substructure.
The Fourier spectrums of the acceleration measured at pier2
were shown in Figure 12. As can be seen, the frequencies of the
first and second mode were 4.76 Hz and 9.58 Hz, and the
first mode is the dominated mode. For the design of MLSC
controller in this test, the physical substructure still can be
treated as a single degree-of-freedom system. The damping
ratio of the first mode obtained from Figure 12 is 2.6%.
4.2. Effect of SSI on the Response of the Long-Span Bridge. To
evaluate the effect of SSI on the dynamic response of long-
span bridge, the soft soil-foundation system with the shear
wave velocity V𝑠 = 100 m/s, 200 m/s, and 400 m/s was tested
using the MLSC-MCSEF controlled RTDS. For comparison,
Shock and Vibration
Acc. (m2 /s)
0
−1
−2
0 1 2 3
Simulation
Testing
Figure 8: Acceleration of physical substructure measured from the RTDS for one-story frame.
3.68 m
Pier1 Pier2
Table1 Table2
Figure 9: Dimensions of specimen.
Figure 10: Photo of specimen.
the hard soil-foundation system was also tested using the
conventional shaking table test without the consideration of
SSI.
In the experiment, the MLSC-MCSEF strategy was
adopted. Figure 13 displayed the desired and achieved accel-
eration of shaking table in the form of synchronization sub-
plots. It was seen that MLSC-MCSEF supplied an acceptable
accuracy for RTDS-SSI test.
The tested results of acceleration and strain response
excited by Wenchuan earthquake were presented in Figures
14(a) and 14(b), respectively. As can be seen from Figure 14,
the SSI effect enlarged the dynamic response of bridge when
the shear wave velocity of soil is 400 m/s and 200 m/s. The
amplification ratios of acceleration for V𝑠 = 400 m/s and
200 m/s were around 45% and 30%, respectively, while the
corresponding value of strain was around 106% and 86%.
However, when the shear wave velocity of soil is too low (e.g.,
V𝑠 = 100 m/s), the SSI effect reduced the dynamic response of
bridge in this case. The acceleration and strain were both
reduced to 50% of hard soil case (V𝑠 = infinity). The clear
evidence can be obtained from the acceleration measured on
7
4 5 6 7 8 9
Time (sec.)
6.48 m 3.68 m
Pier3 Pier4
1.2 m
ug Table3 Table4
the shaking table shown in Figure 15. Compared with the
hard soil case (V𝑠 = infinity), the excitation imposed on the
bridge was changed significantly by soil. Generally, the high
frequency components of the seismic wave were filtered by
soil, while the low frequency components were amplified. The
can be seen clearly from the time history (see Figure 15(a))
and Fourier spectrum (see Figure 15(b)). In the hard soil case,
the seismic wave used in this test has abundant components
from 4 Hz to 16 Hz. After considering SSI, the components
of the frequency more than 10 Hz were lessened, and the
components of the frequency less than 8 Hz were enhanced
in the cases of V𝑠 = 400 m/s and 200 m/s. However, the com-
ponents of the low and high frequency were both filtered in
the case of V𝑠 = 100 m/s. In this case, the soil is too soft and
equivalent to an isolator. When V𝑠 = 400 m/s and 200 m/s, the
amplified components were close to the frequency of the first
mode of the bridge; hence, the acceleration and the strain of
the bridge were enlarged.
Table 3 summarized the maximum strain at the bottom of
Pier2 and Pier3 measured from El Centro and Wenchuan
earthquake. It can be seen that Pier2 and Pier3 gave the
8 Shock and Vibration

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

Acc. (g)
Acc. (g)

0 0

−0.05 −0.05

−0.1 −0.1

−0.15 −0.15

−0.2 −0.2
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
(a) El Centro (b) Wenchuan

Figure 11: Seismic wave used in the test.

×10−4
3.5
4.76 Hz
3
Fourier spectrum (g·s)

2.5

1.5

1
9.58 Hz
0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 12: Flourier spectrum of the acceleration at the top of pier2.

0.25

0.15

0.05
ap (g)

−0.05

−0.15

−0.25
−0.25 −0.15 −0.05 0.05 0.15 0.25
an (g)

Figure 13: Control performance of the table below pier2.

Shock and Vibration 9

s = infinity s = infinity
1 800

0.5 400

Strain (
휇
휀)
Acc. (g)

0 0

−0.5 −400

−1 −800
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
s = 400 m/s s = 400 m/s
1 800

0.5 400

Strain (
휇
휀)
Acc. (g)

0 0

−0.5 −400

−1 −800
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
s = 200 m/s s = 200 m/s
1 800

0.5 400
Strain (
휇
휀)
Acc. (g)

0 0

−0.5 −400

−1 −800
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
s = 100 m/s s = 100 m/s
1 800

0.5 400
Strain (
휇
휀)
Acc. (g)

0 0

−0.5 −400

−1 −800
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)
(a) Acceleration at the top of pier2 (b) Strain at the bottom of pier2

Figure 14: Dynamic response of bridge.

Table 3: Maximum strain at the bottom of Pier2 and Pier3. excitation when V𝑠 = 200 m/s and 400 m/s. This resulted
V𝑠 (m/s) Infinity 400 200 100
from the frequency characteristics of the two excitations. The
Flourier spectrum plotted in Figure 16 demonstrated that El
Pier2 (𝜇𝜀) 269 559 601 272
El Centro Centro excitation (see Figure 16(a)) has different frequency
Pier3 (𝜇𝜀) 193 416 505 216 components with Wenchuan excitation (see Figure 16(b)). It
Pier2 (𝜇𝜀) 345 710 643 185 showed that the characteristics of excitation determined the
Wenchuan
Pier3 (𝜇𝜀) 289 725 513 118 response of bridge together with the soil properties in SSI
system.

5. Conclusions
similar conclusion. Whereas almost the same reduction
ratio was measured from El Centro excitation when V𝑠 = The purpose of this work is to establish a potential test-
100 m/s, the amplification ratio is smaller than Wenchuan ing method for the simulation of soil-structure interaction
10 Shock and Vibration

s = infinity ×10−3 s = infinity

0.3 2

0.15

Fourier spec.
Acc. (g)

0 1

−0.15

−0.3 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec.) Frequency (Hz)
s = 400 m/s ×10−3 s = 400 m/s
0.3 2

0.15

Fourier spec.
Acc. (g)

0 1

−0.15

−0.3 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec.) Frequency (Hz)
s = 200 m/s ×10−3 s = 200 m/s
0.3 2

0.15
Fourier spec.
Acc. (g)

0 1

−0.15

−0.3 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec.) Frequency (Hz)
s = 100 m/s ×10−3 s = 100 m/s
0.3 2

0.15
Fourier spec.
Acc. (g)

0 1

−0.15

−0.3 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec.) Frequency (Hz)
(a) Time history (b) Fourier spectrum

Figure 15: Acceleration response of the table below pier2.

based on real-time dynamic substructuring (RTDS), testing
bridge experimentally and modelling the remainder part
numerically, which make the long-span bridge testing with
consideration of SSI possible. The “size effect” resulting from
the scaled model in whole system tests because of the size
and power of the testing facilities is weakened; meanwhile
the nonlinear dynamics of the SSI system can be investigated
using this method. The feasibility of this method has been
verified experimentally.
The influence of SSI on a long-span bridge was tested
through RTDS method. The SSI effect enlarged the dynamic
response of bridge when the shear wave velocity of soil is
400 m/s and 200 m/s, while the SSI effect reduced the
dynamic response of bridge when the shear wave velocity of
soil is too low (e.g., V𝑠 = 100 m/s). In other words, the medium
soft soil-foundation may be detrimental to the seismic
performance of bridge, and the soft soil may be beneficial
to the seismic performance based on the test results of this
work.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the
National Science Foundation of China, Grant no. 51608016,
Shock and Vibration
×10−4
3.5
3 1.2
Fourier spectrum (g·s)
2.5
2 0.8
1.5
1 0.4
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Frequency (Hz)
(a) El Centro
Figure 16: Flourier spectrum of the seismic wave used in the test.
and the support of the Beijing Natural Science Foundation
(8164050) in the pursuance of this work.
References
[1] J. P. Wolf, Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1985.
[2] G. Mylonakis and G. Gazetas, “Seismic soil-structure interac-
tion: beneficial or detrimental?” Journal of Earthquake Engi-
neering, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 277–301, 2000.
[3] M.-L. Lou, W.-J. Wang, H.-C. Ma, and T. Zhu, “Study on soil-
pile-structure interaction system by shaking table model test,”
Journal of Tongji University, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 763–768, 2001.
[4] Z. Zhang, C. Cho, X. Lü, and M. Lou, “Shaking table tests of
the damping behavior of SSI systems,” China Civil Engineering
Journal, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 100–104, 2010 (Chinese).
[5] A. Bárcena and L. Esteva, “Influence of dynamic soil-structure
interaction on the nonlinear response and seismic reliability
of multistorey systems,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 327–346, 2007.
[6] H. Matinmanesh and M. S. Asheghabadi, “Seismic analysis on
soil-structure interaction of buildings over sandy soil,” Procedia
Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 1737–1743, 2011.
[7] D. Gilles, G. McClure, and L. E. Chouinard, “Uncertainty
in fundamental period estimates leads to inaccurate design
seismic loads,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 38,
no. 8, pp. 870–880, 2011.
[8] F. Mirzaie, M. Mahsuli, and M. A. Ghannad, “Probabilistic
analysis of soil-structure interaction effects on the seismic per-
formance of structures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics, 2016.
[9] X. Gao, X.-Z. Ling, L. Tang, and P.-J. Xu, “Soil-pile-bridge
structure interaction in liquefying ground using shake table
testing,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 31, no.
7, pp. 1009–1017, 2011.
[10] Y. Chen, X. Lu, P. Li, and B. Chen, “Comparative study on
the dynamic soil-structure interaction system with various soils
11
×10−4
1.4
Fourier spectrum (g·s)
1
0.6
0.2
25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency (Hz)
(b) Wenchuan
by using shaking table model tests,” China Civil Engineering
Journal, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 57–64, 2006.
[11] D. Pitilakis, M. Dietz, D. M. Wood, D. Clouteau, and A.
Modaressi, “Numerical simulation of dynamic soil-structure
interaction in shaking table testing,” Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 453–467, 2008.
[12] K. T. Chau, C. Y. Shen, and X. Guo, “Nonlinear seismic soil-pile-
structure interactions: Shaking table tests and FEM analyses,”
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.
300–310, 2009.
[13] L. Tang, X. Ling, P. Xu, X. Gao, and D. Wang, “Shake table test
of soil-pile groups-bridge structure interaction in liquefiable
ground,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration,
vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 2010.
[14] A. Collina, A. Facchinetti, F. Fossati, and F. Resta, “Hardware
in the loop test-rig for identification and control application on
high speed pantographs,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 11, no. 3-4,
pp. 445–456, 2004.
[15] M. Nakashima, H. Kato, and E. Takaoka, “Development of
real−time pseudo dynamic testing,” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 79–92, 1992.
[16] K. Konagai and T. Nogami, “Analog circuit to simulate dynamic
soil-structure interaction in shake table test,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 279–287, 1998.
[17] K. Konagai and R. Ahsan, “Simulation of nonlinear soil-
structure interaction on a shaking table,” Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31–51, 2002.
[18] A. Heath, A. P. Darby, and J. Bawcombe, “Substructure testing
for dynamic soil-structure interaction,” in Proceedings of the
2nd British Geotechnical Association International Conference on
Foundations (ICOF ’08), pp. 1213–1224, Watford, UK, June 2008.
[19] Q. Wang, J.-T. Wang, F. Jin, F.-D. Chi, and C.-H. Zhang,
“Real-time dynamic hybrid testing for soil-structure interaction
analysis,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, vol. 31, no.
12, pp. 1690–1702, 2011.
[20] M. I. Wallace, D. J. Wagg, and S. A. Neild, “An adaptive
polynomial based forward prediction algorithm for multi-
actuator real-time dynamic substructuring,” Proceedings of The
12 Shock and Vibration

Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical, Physical and

Engineering Sciences, vol. 461, no. 2064, pp. 3807–3826, 2005.
[21] J. Y. Tu, P. Y. Lin, D. P. Stoten, and G. Li, “Testing of dynamically
substructured, base-isolated systems using adaptive control
techniques,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 661–681, 2010.
[22] X. Li, D.-Y. Zhang, W.-M. Yan, Y.-J. Chen, and W.-C. Xie,
“Shake-table test for a typical curved bridge: wave passage and
local site Effects,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 1–14, 2015.
[23] J. Lysmer and F. E. Richart, “Dynamic response of footings to
vertical loading,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, vol. 95, no.
4, pp. 65–91, 1969.
[24] W.-H. Wu and W.-H. Lee, “Systematic lumped-parameter mod-
els for foundations based on polynomial-fraction approxima-
tion,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 31,
no. 7, pp. 1383–1412, 2002.
[25] E. Şafak, “Time-domain representation of frequency-depend-
ent foundation impedance functions,” Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 65–70, 2006.
[26] X. L. Du and M. Zhao, “Stability and identification for rational
approximation of frequency response function of unbounded
soil,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 39,
no. 2, pp. 165–186, 2010.
[27] N. Makris and G. Gazetas, “Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction.
Part II: lateral and seismic response,” Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 145–162, 1992.
[28] N. Makris and G. Gazetas, “Displacement phase differences in
a harmonically oscillating pile,” Geotechnique, vol. 43, no. 1, pp.
135–150, 1993.
[29] D. P. Stoten, C. N. Lim, and S. A. Neild, “Assessment of
controller strategies for real-time dynamic substructuring of
a lightly damped system,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers. Part I: Journal of Systems and Control
Engineering, vol. 221, no. 2, pp. 235–250, 2007.
[30] S. A. Neild, D. P. Stoten, D. Drury, and D. J. Wagg, “Control
issues relating to real-time substructuring experiments using a
shaking table,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-
ics, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 1171–1192, 2005.
[31] D. P. Stoten and R. A. Hyde, “Adaptive control of dynamically
substructured systems: the single-input single-output case,”
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part I:
Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, vol. 220, no. 2, pp.
63–79, 2006.
[32] D. P. Stoten, J. Y. Tu, and G. Li, “Synthesis and control of
generalized dynamically substructured systems,” Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part I: Journal of Systems
and Control Engineering, vol. 223, no. 3, pp. 371–392, 2009.
[33] J. Guo, Z. Tang, S. Chen, and Z. Li, “Control strategy for
the substructuring testing systems to simulate soil-structure
interaction,” Smart Structures and Systems, vol. 18, no. 6, pp.
1169–1188, 2016.
[34] X. L. Du and J. F. Zhao, “Time domain analysis procedure
accounting for frequency dependent of foundation impedance,”
in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Structural
Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Toronto, Canada, August
2007.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

https://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Chemical Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014