Effect of Seismic Soil–Pile–Structure Interaction on Mid-

and High-Rise Steel Buildings Resting on a Group

of Pile Foundations
Mohsen Bagheri, S.M.ASCE1; Mehdi Ebadi Jamkhaneh, S.M.ASCE2; and Bijan Samali, Ph.D.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A series of numerical simulations were carried out on two types of superstructures and six types of piled raft foundations to investi-
gate the effects of seismic soil–pile–structure interaction (SSPSI) on the seismic responses of the superstructures. In this research, the effec-
tiveness of a piled raft application was assessed; the pile optimum numbers, locations, and configurations were estimated; and finally, a
comparison was made between the nonlinear structural responses of the obtained two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) models.
Parametric studies were conducted to achieve strategies for optimized designs of piled raft foundations subjected to the low-to-high intensities
of real earthquake records as the input motions. The numerical results represented a reasonable correlation between the shaking intensity rates
(SIRs) and maximum interstory drifts of the structures. It was discovered that the performance levels of the structures on a softened ground
were a function of the area replacement ratios, lengths, diameters, and spaces between the piles; ground motion features; and height/width
ratios of the structures. These important aspects had to be regarded to achieve a reliable design. The aim of this investigation was to ameliorate
the characteristics of a system of long–short combined piled raft foundations based on an understanding of the interaction mechanics. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001222. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Earthquake; Nonlinearity of structure; Soil–pile–structure interaction; Soft soil; Shaking intensity rate (SIR);
Configuration of a piled raft foundation; Long–short combined piled raft foundation.

Introduction
The problem of soil–structure interaction (SSI) in the seismic analy-
sis and design of a structure has become increasingly important
because building structures in seismically active regions without
favorable geotechnical conditions has been sometimes inevitable.
Hence, during the past two decades, numerous analytical formula-
tions have been developed to solve the related complex practical
problems based on linear and elastic SSI (Stewart et al. 1999; Dutta
et al. 2004; Khalil et al. 2007; Tabatabaiefar and Massumi 2010;
Maheshwari and Sarkar 2011). Previous researchers have empha-
sized the significant impacts of seismic soil–pile–structure interac-
tion (SSPSI) on superstructure responses and clarified some of its
aspects. Despite the fact that SSPSI plays a very important role in a
seismic design, its effects have been undermined by most seismic
codes and regulations. Past observations and experiences have
shown alterations of the features of a free-field motion at ground
level and reactions of a structure during an earthquake induced by
soil deformation. In particular, lateral displacements and interstory
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Babol Univ.
of Technology, Babol 47158-14339, Iran (corresponding author). Email:
M.bagheri@stu.nit.ac.ir; bagheri.m@hotmail.com
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan Univ., Semnan
48178-53159, Iran. Email: mehdi.ebadi@semnan.ac.ir; mehdi.ebadi1985@
hotmail.com
3
Professor, Centre for Built Infrastructure Research, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of 24 Technology Sydney (UTS),
Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: bijan.samali@uts.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 22, 2016; approved
on February 27, 2018; published online on June 26, 2018. Discussion pe-
riod open until November 26, 2018; separate discussions must be submit-
ted for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
drifts of unbraced frames in the structures resting on rather soft soils
may be significantly amplified by SSPSI. Regarding a performance-
based design, the performance levels of the frames of a building
may be considerably altered by the amplification of the lateral
deformations triggered by SSPSI, thus endangering the building in-
tegrity and safety.
Literature Review
Investigation of some recent earthquakes (e.g., Christchurch earth-
quake of New Zealand in 2011 and Tohoku-Oki earthquake of
Japan in 2011) revealed the misleading aspect of the fixed-base
assumption and the possibility of unsafe designs, especially for
structures founded on soft soils in the case of ignoring SSPSI
impacts. Structural components have been allowed, by modern seis-
mic designs, to have an inelastic response during a design-level
earthquake. In this regard, some recent experimental simulations
(Georgiadis and Butterfield 1988) and numerical simulations (Inaba
et al. 2000; Krawinkler et al. 2003; Adam et al. 2005; Alavi and
Krawinkler 2004; Dutta et al. 2004; El Ganainy and El Naggar
2009; Hayashi and Takahashi 2004; Karimi and Dashti 2016), as
well as historical case studies (Gazetas and Mylonakis 1998;
Stewart et al. 1999) have concluded that SSI influences the struc-
tural behaviors of unbraced frames in structures subjected to an
earthquake excitation despite the results of the previous studies,
which mainly focused on linear soil–structure responses. On this
basis, soil type (shear-wave velocity < 600 m/s) is one of the most
important parameters. Specifically, soft clay has a significant
impact on the seismic responses of moment-resisting frames
(Veletsos and Meek 1974; Hosseinzadeh et al. 2004). To predict the
seismic response of a rigid structure on soft soil layers, a numerical
model was developed by Rayhani and El Naggar (2008), who
assumed a variety of stiffness components of the soil and structure

© ASCE 04018103-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 interface due to the presence of the soil shear and bulk moduli in the They discovered generally insignificant effects of pile spacing
centrifuge test. They concluded that the presence of a top soft soil ratios on the seismic responses of soil–pile systems. Hokmabadi
within the profile can enhance amplification of the ground motion. et al. (2014) utilized a 3D numerical model to better understand the
Torabi and Rayhani (2014) conducted several numerical analyses SSPSI phenomena of three different structural supports. Their
on the elastic structures and foundations resting on saturated soft
clay. The results of their research demonstrated that slender rigid
structures are greatly susceptible to interaction effects. Galal and
Naimi (2008) and Tabatabaiefar and Fatahi (2014) carried out nu-
merical simulations to assess the behaviors of buildings established
on different soil types that were subjected to earthquakes. Their
studies revealed the necessity of considering SSI effects in the seis-
mic designs of moment-resisting building frames lying on E and D
[AS 1170 (Standards Australia 2007)]. Trifunac et al. (2001), and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Gazetas (2015) described a state-of-the-art method for assessing

SSI impacts on seismic structural responses; yet, only little research
has been performed to study its effects on nonlinear structures since
the introduction of these new approaches.
The realistic simulation of SSPSI behavior is as important as soil
nonlinearity (Bourgeois et al. 2012; Hokmabadi et al. 2014;
Carbonari et al. 2014; Bilotta et al. 2015). According to Cunha et al.
(2001), who studied the design alternatives for a case history of
piled rafts, load distribution between the piles is influenced by rigid-
ity of foundation, pile stiffness, structural stiffness, and the ratio of
pile length to diameter. They suggested that pile loads and contact
pressures tend to decrease and increase with an increase in the raft
thickness and a decrease in the number of piles, respectively,
whereas their maximum values are mainly dependent on the num-
ber of piles and their lengths. Shiming and Gang (1998) conducted
a three-dimensional (3D) linear analysis of SSPSI on two types of
12-story structures supported by two different types of foundations
with and without a pile. The results of their research revealed the
enhanced natural frequencies of the structures induced by an inter-
action between the soil and foundations. Furthermore, pile founda-
tions could lead to a lower increase in the natural period of the struc-
ture as compared to a structure lying on a shallow foundation. Chu
and Truman (2004) investigated the effects of piled foundations and
spacing ratios on SSPSI by using a 3D finite-element (FE) model.

Table 1. Characteristics of the studied frames

Story Bay Total Total

Reference Number Number height width height width
name of stories of bays (m) (m) (m) (m)
S15 15 3 3 4 45 12
S30 30 3 3 4 90 12
Fig. 1. Fifteen-story building structure constructed on (a) a fixed-base
Table 2. Typical sections of 15- and 30-story buildings foundation; (b) a piled raft foundation; and (c) a shallow foundation.

Number of stories Levels Beam section Column section

15 1–3 IPE 300 Box 550
25 Table 3. Major modeling of soft clay properties
4–6 IPE 300 Box 500
20
7–9 IPE 300 Box 450
15 Parameter Value
10–12 IPE 270 Box 400
12 Soil type (AS 1170) Ee
13–15 IPE 270 Box 350
10 Unified classification (USCS) CL
30 1–5 IPE 360 Box 900
30 r ¼ soil density (kPa) 1,470
6–10 IPE 360 Box 800
25 Vs ¼ shear-wave velocity (m/s) 150
11–15 IPE 330 Box 700
20 Gmax ¼ maximum shear modulus (kPa) 33,100
16–20 IPE 330 Box 600
15  ¼ Poisson’s ratio (kPa) 0.4
21–25 IPE 300 Box 500
12 c ¼ cohesion intercept (kPa) 20
26–30 IPE 300 Box 400
10  ¼ friction angle (degrees)
f 12
Plasticity index (PI) 15
Note: IPE beams [European standard universal I beams (I section) with
Reference Rahvar (2006)
parallel flanges].

© ASCE 04018103-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 studies revealed that a floating pile foundation can contribute to the
decrease of lateral displacements due to the reduced rocking com-
ponents as compared to the case of a shallow foundation. Banerjee
et al. (2014) investigated seismic effects on a piled raft foundation
with a fixed head lying on soft clay soils by using centrifuge and nu-
merical model tests and concluded that the pile head and soil mass
had significant impacts on the bending moments for all the piles. In
this research, the key objectives of the numerical parameters studied
and the design approach developed were as follows:
• acquiring a better understanding of the key parameters of soil
type, structure height, and ground motion features affecting
SSI under seismic loads;
• making a comparison between the nonlinear structural responses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• finding SSPSI effects on the seismic design procedures of
regular midrise and high-rise moment-resisting building
frames to ensure the safety and reliability of designing proce-
dures; and
• developing an efficient and economical procedure to control
the seismic responses of structures resting on soft soils by
applying a group of piles with different lengths.
Numerical Simulation
Numerical Method

of the two-dimensional (2D) and 3D models simulating inelastic In this investigation, a rigorous and comprehensive study was
frame structures on soft soils; conducted on the seismic responses of mid- and high-rise

Fig. 2. Relationships between (a) G=Gmax and cyclic shear strain of cohesive soils; and (b) the material damping ratio, cyclic shear strain, and soil
plasticity.

© ASCE 04018103-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 moment-resisting building frames based on SSPSI. Thus, to
achieve accurate outcomes, the structural models representing
the high-rise moment-resisting frames were utilized in relation
to soft clay soils with the properties directly extracted from real
geotechnical studies. Numerical analyses were performed to
investigate the different factors affecting seismic responses,
including configuration, pile length, building height, and ground
motion characteristics. The structural and soil elements were
modeled as inelastic and elastic-plastic continuum materials.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Structure Modeling
To study the different heights of the steel structures, two 15- and
30-story buildings were selected with total heights of 45 and 90 m,
respectively (Table 1). To obtain detailed information on the struc-
tural responses of the buildings, 3D FE models of the structures
were built as the preliminary designs of structural elements using
SAP2000 (Computers and Structures, Inc. 2010). The columns and
beams of the models were box profiles with varying sizes associated

Fig. 3. Cases of analyses used in this study: (a) fixed-base foundation under the bedrock record impact; (b) shallow foundation with regard to a full
SSI; (c) prototype 15-story building supported by a piled raft foundation (L = 10 m); (d) prototype 15-story building supported by a piled raft founda-
tion (L = 28 m); and (e) prototype 15-story building supported by a piled raft foundation combined with varied lengths of a (frictional) pile foundation.

© ASCE 04018103-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 with increases in the heights of the buildings (Table 2). Furthermore,
to have a more realistic simulation of the 15- and 30-story buildings,
the structures were ideally divided into three and five sections of ho-
mogeneous properties, respectively. The gravitational loads were
DL = 6.00 kN/m2 and LL = 2.00 kN/m2, where DL and LL repre-
sented the dead and live loads, respectively. The load-bearing system
was a 3D steel moment frame designed based on AISC 341-05 (AISC
2005). The roof diaphragm was a reinforced concrete slab of 0.25-m
thickness, which was assumed to provide a rigid plane. Piled raft
foundations were selected for all models, and all foundation sys-
tems were assumed to have a boundary area of ðB
B ¼Þ13

13 m.
To accurately investigate the actual behaviors of the structures
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
embedded shallow foundation was represented by the inelastic
eight-node brick elements.
A concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model in Abaqus was uti-
lized to simulate the concrete behaviors in the piles and foundations.
This was a damage model based on continuum plasticity, which
assumed tensile cracking and compressive crushing as the two main
mechanisms of failure for concrete materials. The parameters of
compression and tensile damage were regarded as a linear function
of inelastic strains. The nonlinear behaviors of the steel beams and
columns were simulated based on the Von Mises yield condition
by the use of an isotropic hardening model. For the structural con-
crete used
in
 the design and analysis, the specified compressive
strength fc0 and mass density ð r Þ were assumed to be 32 MPa
and 2,350 kg/m3, respectively. The elastic modulus of concrete

under SSPSI effects, code Abaqus (Simulia 2013) was utilized for
modeling and analyzing the structures. Fig. 1 exhibits the 3D model (E) was computed to be 28,284 MPa based on American Concrete
of the 15-story building on soft clay. The beams and columns of the Institute (ACI) code (ACI 318 Committee 2009). A steel material
frames were capable of exhibiting inelastic behaviors, which were with a yield stress of 280 MPa and tensile strength of 410 MPa
then introduced to the members by using elastic-plastic elements. was adopted in the design. The first and second frequencies of the
Nonlinear shell elements were applied to the floor diaphragms. The
damping matrix was assumed to be of Rayleigh type with 5% of the Table 4. Model’s pile characteristics
material damping for both the structure and original soil materials.
Using the dynamic analysis in this research, a structural damping Property Value
ratio ( j ) of 5% was simulated for both the 15- and 30-story build- Diameter (m) 1.20
ings based on their first- and second-mode frequencies. The model’s Cross-sectional area (m2) 1.13
coefficients of the structures were considered to be a = 0.2649 and Moment of inertia (m4) 1.63
b = 0.0094 for the 15-story building and a = 0.1120 and b = 0.0223 Density (kg/m3) 2,350
for the 30-story building. Poisson’s ratio 0.3
The beam-column structural elements made a two-node linear Ultimate compressive stress (MPa) 32
beam in space, and the FEs with six degrees of freedom per node Ultimate tensile stress (MPa) 3.4
comprised three transitional and three rotational components. The

Fig. 4. (a) Reinforcement layout under footing (a view from above); and (b) enlarged view of the piled raft foundation.

© ASCE 04018103-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 15-story structure were 0.787 and 0.910 Hz, and those of the 30-
story structure were 0.340 and 0.376 Hz, respectively.
Soil Condition
The soil medium beneath a structure greatly affects its seismic
behavior and response, especially for the structures constructed on
soft soils with a shear-wave velocity lower than 600 m/s. Therefore,
to achieve accurate and reliable results, the effects of SSI are
required to be taken into account in the dynamic analyses of the
structures lying on softer soils. In this research, the Mohr-Coulomb
model was used to simulate the soil nonlinear behavior. The failure
envelope corresponded to the shear-yield failure of the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion associated with its yield function of tensile cut-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
maximum cyclic shear strain was recorded for each element and
used to specify the new damping and modulus values by referring to
the backbone curves relating to the ratio of damping and secant
modulus to the amplitude of shear strain.
Some empirical scaling factors could be used when relating
these strains to the model strains. The new values of the damping ra-
tio and shear modulus were then applied to the next step of the nu-
merical analysis. This process was repeated until no further changes
occurred to the properties and structural responses. At this step, the
strain-compatible values of the damping and modulus were
recorded. Using these values, the simulation was supposed to be the
best possible prediction of the real behaviors.
As described by Seed and Idriss (1969), linear properties were

used for each element in an equivalent linear method because they

off. The mechanical features of the soils are mentioned in Table 3.
remained constant under seismic excitations. The values were eval-
As shown in Table 3, the model consisted of a clay layer with a total
uated by the mean level of the dynamic motion; however, this method
thickness of 30 m on the bedrock.
To consider a large strain dynamic effect, the shear modulus at was utilized to capture the soil nonlinearity due to the applications of
each depth was reduced as a function of the fraction of maximum nonlinear backbone curves and trial-and-error approach for finding
shear strain at that depth using the curves provided for the clay. The the strain-compatible values of the damping and modulus.
relationship of the reduction factor of shear modulus and damping ra- The ready-to-use charts (Fig. 2) provided by Sun et al. (1988)
tio with the cyclic shear strain of cohesive soils is illustrated in Fig. 2. were adopted for developing the numerical model of this study and
Soil nonlinear behavior is a key parameter that can significantly estimating the modulus degradation and the damping ratio of cohe-
affect a superstructure response caused by SSI. Our superstructures sive soils in the dynamic analysis. Because different levels of shear
rested on a 30-m deep soft soil of Class Ee. According to Australian strain were induced by each record of earthquake in the soil depos-
Standard AS 1170.4 (Standards Australia 2007), Class Ee soil is a its, the values of the soil damping and modulus were different for
site with a soil depth of more than 10 m and a shear-wave velocity each earthquake when considering the soil nonlinearity (Nguyen
equal to or less than 150 m/s. In this study, the subsoil was a soft et al. 2016).
clayey soil (CL) with a unit weight of 14.42 kN/m3 and shear-wave
velocity of 150 m/s. Soil Partitioning, Boundary Conditions, and
In the equivalent linear method adopted here, a linear analysis Soil–Foundation Interface
was performed with some initial values assumed for the damping
ratio and shear modulus in various regions of the model. Then, the Notably, in large 3D problems, the entire soil medium is required
to be divided into a number of partitions, and this should be done
with great care to rightly put the springs and dashpots in the
Table 5. Pile radius and spacing in the six configurations
model. Each partition was divided into several 3D solid brick ele-
Configuration Number of pile R (m) S (m) h ð%Þ ments with eight nodes. The bottom of the model was rigidly
fixed at the bedrock surface. The vertical side boundaries, where
I, II, III 16 0.6 4 8.04
the dashpots were used, were selected to be of a translational
IV 49 0.3 2 6.15
V 32 0.3 2.4 4.02
type. The earthquake records were utilized at the bedrocks of the
VI 49 0.3 2 6.15
soil–structure systems as the input parameters. Based on the study
conducted by Rayhani and El Naggar (2008), the horizontal dis-
Note: R = pile’s radius; ðSÞ ¼ spacing between two adjacent piles; ð h Þ ¼ tance of the soil lateral boundaries was at least 5 times more than
reinforcement volume fraction. the widths of the structures. Additionally, Rayhani and El Naggar

Table 6. Earthquake data for the parametric analyses

Parameter Northridge(United States) Kobe (Japan) El Centro (United States) Hachinohe (Japan)
Date of occurrence 1994 1995 1940 1968
Magnitude of earthquake (MW ) 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5
Maximum horizontal acceleration (g) 0.843 0.834 0.349 0.231
Predominant period [Tp (s)] 0.36 0.36 0.56 0.22
Significant duration [D595 (s)] 5.32 8.4 24.58 27.79
Time of MHA ½tp (s)] 4.2 8.52 4.1 4.18
PGV=PGA (s) 0.157 0.112 0.102 0.146
Arias intensity (m/s) 5.004 8.389 1.758 0.899
SIR (m/s/s) 1.903 1.407 0.117 0.037
Energy flux (J·m−2·s−1) 8,560.187 7,649.179 2,144.177 2,409.691
Type Near field Near field Far field Far field
Hypocentral distance (km) 9.2 7.4 15.69 14.1
Source: Data from PEER (2012).
Note: SIR = shaking intensity rate; SIR ¼ Iað575Þ =Dð575Þ ; MHA = maximum horizontal acceleration; PGA = peak ground acceleration; PGV = peak
ground velocity.

© ASCE 04018103-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Earthquake ground motions used in this study and Arias intensity time histories of the different earthquake records with their significant
durations.

© ASCE 04018103-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 (2008) recommended a maximum bedrock depth of 30 m to be
used in the numerical analysis because the greatest amplification
occurs within the first 30 m of the soil profile. Therefore, the max-
imum bedrock depth was regarded to be 30 m, whereas the hori-
zontal distance of the soil lateral boundaries was assumed to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Components of the numerical model in Abaqus for the scaled
(a) fixed-base structure; (b) 2D shallow foundation; (c) 3D shallow
foundation; and (d) piled raft foundation.
Fig. 7. Adopted scaled earthquake of Northridge.
© ASCE 04018103-8
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103
60 m (Fig. 3). In the numerical model, the values of the stiffness
properties of the interface used in the simulations of the founda-
tions were calculated using the equation suggested by Whitman
and Richart (1967). Finally, by doing a thorough investigation,
suitable values of the soft clay parameters were found, whereas
they were adequately consistent with those of the measured
structural deformations. The interaction between the soil and
foundation was represented by the normal (kn) and shear (ks)
spring stiffnesses between two planes contacting each other,
which were modeled using a spring system with the shear
strength of the interface defined by the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion. A value of kn = ks = 5,000 kPa/m was chosen for the
soft clay.
Piled Raft Foundation
To reduce the uplift and rocking behavior of the structure during
an earthquake, a piled raft foundation was connected to a group of
concrete piles with the same materials and dimensions as the shal-
low foundation (Fig. 4). The model’s pile characteristics are pre-
sented in Table 4. The elements of pile were modeled with solid
elements, including an elastic-plastic behavior associated with
the yielding criteria to control any possible inelastic behaviors
in the pile elements. The pile elements had rigid connections with
the foundation. C3D8R elements were utilized for the pile. The
reduced integration elements representing the pile were selected
to prevent the shear locking that could occur in the structure sub-
jected to the bending loads defined by the linear elements of full
integration.
Six different configurations (Table 5) were considered regarding
the distribution of the piles, the lengths of which were always kept
fixed and equal to L1 = 28 m and L2 = 10 m, whereas their spacing
ðsÞ and radius ðRÞ varied proportionally. Accordingly, the rein-
forcement volume fraction ð h Þ can be defined as follows:
h ¼ p ðR=sÞ2 (1)
Along with the theoretical studies and practical experiences, a
new type of foundation, called long–short composite piled raft
foundation, has been developed in recent years (Ji et al. 2001; Liu
et al. 2011). In the system of this composite foundation, different
types of piles, including long-rigid, short-rigid, short-semirigid, and
flexible piles, were synthetically utilized. This type of foundation
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Time-history maximum displacement at the different levels of the 15-story model structure under the impact of the Northridge earthquake scaled
for the (a) 2D simulation results; (b) 3D simulation results; and (c) comparison of the 2D and 3D simulation results with those of the shallow foundation.
PGA = peak ground acceleration.

© ASCE 04018103-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04018103-10
Fig. 8. (Continued.)

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. (Continued.)
has been successfully used in most coastal cities that have been eco-
nomically developed.
The working mechanism of the composite piled raft foundation
is discussed in this paper. Considering a long pile arrangement with
a short pile interval, three models were developed.
In the long–short composite piled raft foundations, long piles
were mainly used to transfer the loads from the piles to the deep
ground to alleviate the deformations of the compressive soil
layers, protect the short flexible piles, and prevent the soil from
protuberating while working with short piles. According to the
different physicomechanical properties of soils, short piles have
two functions:
1. They are utilized to increase the bearing capacity of the soft
soil layer under a foundation when the layer is thick.
2. If there are two ideal bearing strata under the basis, long
and short piles can stand on them, respectively, so that the
bearing capacities of the strata can be brought into full
play. Moreover, in the latter case, short and long piles are
mainly used to reinforce the bearing capacity of the foun-
dation and reduce the settlement, respectively. Meanwhile,
the working loads of the foundation treatments can be low-
ered based on the premise that the design requirements
have been satisfied.
During an earthquake, pile deformation is different from soil de-
formation because of the differences in their material properties.
Slipping or gapping may occur at the interface between the pile and
soil. The contact between them is involved in several complex me-
chanical problems, including deformation discontinuity, deforma-
tion nonlinearity, and large deformation.
This study aimed at improving the features of long–short com-
posite piled raft foundation systems based on a better understanding
of their interaction mechanics.
Selection of Earthquake Records
Each model was subjected to four ground motion records selected
from the strong motion database of the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER 2012). A range of intensities,
durations, and frequency contents were covered by selecting the
© ASCE 04018103-11
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103
ground motions to enable a comprehensive evaluation of SSI on the
softened ground. The characteristics of earthquakes displayed in
Table 6 are the maximum absolute values for each ground motion.
The two near-field earthquakes of Kobe (1995) and Northridge
(1994) and the two far-field earthquakes of El Centro (1940) and
Hachinohe (1968) were selected and utilized in the time-history
analyses (Fig. 5).
In this research, the significant duration (Trifunac and Brady
1975), defined as the time interval between two given percentages
of Arias intensity (Arias 1970), was chosen to obtain the strong-
motion duration of a single ground motion component. This favor-
able feature makes the significant duration one of the most frequent
definitions applied by seismologists and earthquake engineers. It is
well known that several intensity parameters can provide the char-
acteristic destructiveness of a ground motion. Arias intensity (Ia) is
a seismic index related to energy that reflects the content of a ground
motion in the form of total energy as defined by Arias.
To complete this section and make a worthwhile contribution,
variations of Arias intensity and some related sentences were added
to Fig. 5. The ground motion energy is represented by the Arias in-
tensity (Ia) index in units of L/T (Arias 1970), which can be defined
over the time period of 0 – T as follows:
ð
p T 2
Ia ðT Þ ¼ a ðtÞdt (2)
2g 0
where a = value of the measured acceleration; and g = gravitational
acceleration.
Being dependent on the intensity, frequency content, and dura-
tion of motion of an earthquake, the Arias intensity rate roughly rep-
resents the rate of an earthquake energy buildup. This rate can be
quantified by the shaking intensity rate (SIR) as follows:
SIR ¼ Iað575Þ =Dð575Þ (3)
where Ia(5–75) = variations in Arias intensity between 5 and 75% of its
total value, which is almost linear in such tests, and D5–75 = its corre-
sponding time duration. To better capture the major part of the ground
motion, D5–75 is often used by seismologists rather than D5–95.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Comparison between the maximum lateral displacement of the structure obtained from shaking-table tests and the 3D numerical predictions
for (a) the fixed-base; and (b) the piled raft foundations under the impacts of the scaled earthquake of Northridge.

Fig. 10. Comparison of the 2D and 3D maximum lateral displacements of the fixed-base and shallow foundations of the 15-story models under the
impacts of the different recorded earthquakes of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

© ASCE 04018103-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 Comparison of Numerical Simulations with Results of
Shaking-Table Experiments
In this section, to calibrate and verify the developed numerical
model in Abaqus and evaluate its capability of simulating SSI and
SSPSI, shaking-table tests were conducted (Hokmabadi et al. 2014;
Tabatabaiefar et al. 2014) and their results were then used (Fig. 6).
A rigid connection was considered between the columns and floors.
A thorough investigation was performed on the different values of
kn = 45,000 and ks = 500 kPa/m as the parameters selected for soft
clay to find the ones most congruent with those of the measured
structural deformations in the shaking-table tests. In the 3D simula-
tions, the soil and foundations were modeled with eight-node brick
elements, whereas modeling of the columns was done with 3D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
maintained in the model by adopting the geometric similitude. This
could ensure replication of the relative spacing of the pile group and
interaction of the consequent group at the model scale under the
impact of the Northridge earthquake (1994) (Fig. 7). Thus, regard-
ing the geometric scaling factor of 1:30 in this research, the model’s
piles reached a diameter (d) of 40 mm and L/d ratio of 25. The flex-
ural stiffnesses of the piles (EI) and the maximum shear modulus
(Gmax) of the soil mix were 96.6 N.m2 and 1,776 kPa, respectively.
The pile elements were modeled with the beam elements while tak-
ing into account an elastic behavior for the pile elements. The pile
elements were connected rigidly with the foundation. The elements
of B31 were positioned at the center of the pile and connected to the
nodes at the pile perimeter with suitable kinematic constraints to be

beam elements to achieve an elastic–perfectly plastic behavior.
Nonlinear shell elements were applied to the floor diaphragms. In
contrast, in the 2D simulations, the columns and beams were mod-
elled using 2D beam elements, and the soil and foundations were
modeled based on four-node shell elements. The overall length-to-
diameter ratio of pile and relative contact surface area were
used to model the complete geometry of the pile. The results of this
experimental study were applied to calibrate and verify the devel-
oped 2D and 3D numerical models (Fig. 8). The results demon-
strated a good agreement of the calculated response with that of its
experimental counterpart. Accordingly, the scaled 15-story struc-
ture models with the three different types of foundations (i.e., a

Fig. 11. Comparison of the 2D and 3D maximum lateral displacements of the fixed-base and shallow foundations for the 30-story model under the
impacts of the different recorded earthquakes of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe, based on the numerical analyses.

© ASCE 04018103-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 fixed-base structure involved in a situation without SSI, a structure Comparison of Results of the 2D and 3D Models
with a shallow foundation, and a structure supported by a piled raft
In this section, the structural responses for the different heights
foundation) were numerically simulated, and their computed results
(H = 45 and 90 m) of the 2D and 3D 15- and 30-story structures
were compared with those of the experimental measurements (Figs.
established on soft soil were calculated and compared with each
8 and 9). The 3D nonlinear model was developed for the different
other. Computation of maximum lateral displacement for all sto-
phenomena discovered in the SSPSI experimental study (Hokmabadi
ries of the buildings corresponding to the soft soil during the four
et al. 2014) to provide further understanding of SSPSI effects on the
mentioned earthquakes was done based on both conditions with
seismic responses of the superstructures. The acceptably accurate
and without SSI. The predicted interstory drifts of Models S15
simulation of the behaviors of the mentioned soil–pile–structure sys-
tem became possible by using the desired numerical model, which and S30 for the two cases showing the significance of SSI influ-
can be a suitable and rational tool for conducting further future studies ence on the seismic responses of the structures are presented in
on SSPSI effects. Figs. 10 and 11. According to Figs. 10 and 11, the near-field
earthquakes generated more lateral deflections in the structures
compared to the far-field earthquakes of low intensities due to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Results and Discussion their higher inertial forces.

In general, SSI tended to amplify the lateral deflections of the
The results of this study revealed crucial aspects that can contribute superstructures. Based on the 2D numerical predictions, Fig. 10
to the engineers in their geotechnical and structural designs of such demonstrates that the maximum horizontal deflections of the struc-
superstructures. ture supported by the shallow foundation increased by nearly 5 and

Fig. 12. 3D numerical predictions of the maximum lateral displacement of the 15-story model structure under the impacts of the following records:
(a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

© ASCE 04018103-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 3.5 times greater than those of the fixed-base structure during the
Northridge and Kobe events, respectively. However, in the 3D nu-
merical results, the maximum horizontal deflections of the former
structure were 8 and 3.5 times greater than those of the latter struc-
ture in the mentioned events.
The 2D and 3D curves showed a marginal difference of less than
5% for the maximum lateral displacement deviations in the far-field
earthquakes, thus indicating a negligible difference between the
results of the 2D and 3D models. For instance, under the effect of
the El Centro earthquake of 1940, the maximum lateral deflections
at the top of the fixed-base and shallow foundations of the 15-story
model were measured to be approximately 125 mm. Despite the dis-
parity, both models provided reasonable accuracy of predictions for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in Fig. 11. The displacements were generally predicted for
both structures with similar trends. Nevertheless, during the
far-field earthquakes, the maximum difference between the
fixed-base and shallow foundations caused by the H/W ratio
enhancement of the building amplified the SSI-induced shear
stress. In addition, the significance of the displacement mecha-
nisms was expected to depend on the excitation, soil, and
structure properties.
Effects of Some Key Parameters on the Numerical
Modeling of Seismic Responses
To study SSPSI effects on the seismic responses of the superstruc-

the high-rise building responses because the deviation was limited
to 5%.
The horizontal displacements of Model S30 resting on soil
Class Ee as evidenced by the effect of the height/width (H/W)
ratio of the building on the lateral deformations are displayed
tures, a series of numerical simulations were conducted. According
to Figs. 3 and 4, six types of foundations were regarded for each
case. Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of utilizing a piled raft
and estimate the required optimum number, locations, and configu-
rations of the piles. Hence, some parametric studies were carried

Fig. 13. 3D numerical predictions of the maximum lateral displacement of the 30-story model structure under the effects of the following records:
(a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

© ASCE 04018103-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. The model’s contours of the plastic strain distribution with a pile length of 28 m at different times during the different earthquakes:
(a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

Fig. 15. Plastic strain distribution of the piled raft foundation with a full length of 28 m in the 15-story model during the Northridge earthquake.

© ASCE 04018103-16 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Contours of the stress distribution of the long–short pile composite foundation in the 15-story model during the Northridge earthquake:
(a) Model III; (b) Model IV; (c) Model V; and (d) Model VI. The duration of 6.5 s corresponds to the beginning of shaking.

© ASCE 04018103-17 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 out to obtain the strategies for an optimized design of the pile raft
foundation during the earthquakes.
Seismic Demand Analysis
Characteristics of the ground motion could influence the other parame-
ters, such as pile performance and structural H/W ratio, that affected
the deformation mechanisms in turn. Due to its longer duration and
slower rate of buildup energy, Kobe, rather than Northridge, earth-
quake motions were selected. These motions had nearly a similar peak
ground acceleration (PGA). As shown in Table 6, the significant dura-
tions (D5–95) of the Northridge and Kobe events were almost 5 and 8 s,
respectively, whereas their corresponding Arias intensities were 5 and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and 1.58 times larger than those of the Northridge earthquake, respec-
tively, the structures showed less deformation during the Kobe earth-
quake. Even more deficient values resulted from the simpler measures
of ground motion, including PGA and peak ground velocity (PGV)
(Karimi and Dashti 2016). Alternatively, the seismic demand identi-
fied in this study could be better defined by the ground SIR via the
combined effects of shaking intensity, frequency content, and dura-
tion. As was expected, much larger SIR values could lead to an
increase in the displacements of both superstructures (Figs. 12 and 13).
Figs. 14 and 15 display a tendency for the strain distributions
beneath the superstructures before and after the strong shaking of
various earthquakes. During the robust motion, the ground motion
energy was adequately intense to use the whole capacity of the piled

8.4 m/s, respectively. As exhibited in Figs. 12 and 13, both structures raft foundation and cause additional large inelastic displacements of
were involved in smaller lateral deflections during the Kobe earth- the structures.
quake, although they deformed for a longer period of time. Although Figs. 14–16 portray the yielding zones experienced in both the
Arias intensity and the significant duration of Kobe event were 1.67 soil and pile elements computed by the finite-element analysis

Fig. 17. Maximum lateral deflections of the fixed-base and shallow foundations and the 15-story structure supported by a pile foundation with differ-
ent models under the earthquake excitations of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

© ASCE 04018103-18 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 (FEA). Notably, soil plastification simultaneously initiated in the
proximities of the pile head and raft at small strain levels, whereas it
progressively extended to greater depths with the increasing ampli-
tudes of the earthquakes.
Fig. 15 depicts the typical examples of the dynamic soil plastic
strain distributions calculated around the pile prior to and following
the strong ground motion (t  4.5 s). The results related to the
Northridge earthquake with a PGA of 0.835g highlighted the impacts
of soil strength, pile configuration, and shaking motion features on
the soil yielding around the long–short pile composite foundation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
This observation can be ascribed to the higher plastic strains that
accumulated in the pile around the long–short pile composite foun-
dation with a higher Arias intensity, thus making the effects of the
earthquake characteristics more evident.
Pile Length and Building Height
The impacts of the pile lengths and heights of the buildings on their
seismic responses are exhibited in Figs. 12 and 13. For instance, the
maximum displacements of the 15-story Model Structure I

Fig. 18. Maximum lateral deflections of the fixed-base and shallow foundations and the 30-story structure supported by a pile foundation with differ-
ent models under the earthquake motions of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

© ASCE 04018103-19 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 subjected to Northridge and Hachinohe earthquakes were 416 and
434 mm, respectively, whereas their corresponding values for
Model II were 1,090 and 482 mm, respectively. Similar trends were
observed in the other models as represented in Figs. 12 and 13.
SSPSI effects on a particular configuration are magnified by slender
buildings and soft soils. In a taller structure, the greater cyclic shear
stress and moment may lead to the intensification of shear stress and
subsequent deformation triggered by SSI. From Fig. 13, it can be
deduced that lateral displacements would be sufficiently enhanced
by increasing a building height on a soft soil, especially during a
strong earthquake. Therefore, a piled raft foundation alone cannot
provide the required safety factors, and thus, its level of perform-
ance should be increased by adding piles and changing their config-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
urations, as well as the embedment depths of structures. To study
the effectiveness of a new method for designing the most economi-
cal and efficient piled raft foundation, an improved understanding
of SSPSI mechanisms is required.
Configurations of Piled Raft Foundations
Based on the aforementioned discussion, the results of the 3D nu-
merical predictions for the maximum lateral deflections of the 15-
story structure supported by the fixed-base, shallow, and several
types of piled raft foundations are presented and compared in
Fig. 17. To examine the effects of the pile optimum number, loca-
tion, and configuration, six cases were considered. Compared to the
shallow foundation used in our study, our desired piled raft under-
went a lower lateral displacement mainly due to the enhanced
ground stiffness caused by the existence of stiff pile elements in the
soft soil, which consequently affected the whole system’s dynamic
properties. After evaluation, Model III was predicted to be the opti-
mum design based on the piled raft foundation. This was generally
a function of area replacement ratio, length, diameter, and space
between the piles. In brief, similar patterns of responses were
achieved for the different piled raft configurations by comparing
Models IV, V, and VI during the Northridge event. Based on the
Fig. 19. Comparison of the simulation models representing the variations of maximum lateral displacement versus number of stories during the
Northridge earthquake.
© ASCE 04018103-20
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103
mentioned parametric studies, it was concluded that increasing a
certain number of piles in some circumstances can ameliorate the
foundation performance. As demonstrated by Fig. 17, an almost lin-
ear displacement distribution occurred along the building height for
all piled raft systems, whereas nonlinear responses were obtained in
the other cases of fixed-base and shallow foundations. According to
Dimitra (2010), a hinge can be developed below the footing by
allowing mobilization of failure mechanisms at the foundation
level, thus restraining the loading transmission to the superstructure
and consequently isolating it from the ground motion. Therefore,
the superstructure failure can be avoided as it remains elastic during
severe seismic loading. The nonlinearity effects of a pile group can
be the reason for the linear response of a tall building during ground
motions.
The maximum lateral deflection of Model III was enhanced by
22, 28, and 60% on the 3rd, 7th, and 15th levels, respectively, com-
pared to those of the fixed-base structure. These values decreased to
65, 63, and 56% as compared to the results of the shallow founda-
tion (Figs. 18 and 19). The other piled raft foundations mostly fol-
lowed the aforementioned trends.
Evaluation of Performance Levels of Proposed Models
Performance level is defined as the state of a structure after being
subjected to a certain level of hazard. According to FEMA 273
(FEMA 1997), the maximum interstory drift of <1.5% is classified
as life-safe level of performance. As shown in Fig. 20, Model III
experienced fewer interstory drifts compared to the structure sup-
ported by the shallow foundation. For instance, the maximum inter-
story drift recorded for the fixed-base structure was 1.28%, whereas
its corresponding values for Model III and the shallow foundation
were 1.67 and 4.38%, respectively. In other words, the 30 and
242% enhancements of the recorded interstory drifts were induced
by SSPSI and SSI effects, respectively. Therefore, the performance
level of a structure is affected by SSPSI in such a way that may shift
from a life-safe to a near-collapse or even a collapse level. Hence, it
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 20. Interstory drifts of the fixed-base and shallow foundations and the 15-story structure supported by a pile foundation with different pile
lengths under the earthquake excitations of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

is mainly concluded that the proposed system has some advantages
over a typical piled raft foundation in seismic zones, such as provid-
ing a cost-effective construction process and a nonlinear response
during strong motions.
According to Fig. 21, the seismic behaviors of the frames
founded on the piled raft and shallow foundations may be strenu-
ously influenced by the structure height and should be thus
assessed through a robust procedure in the soil–pile–structure
foundation system. Moreover, the maximum drifts obtained from
Models I and II were close to that of the fixed-base foundation,
whereas the difference between them increased to 30% at the
higher levels of the building. Based on SSPSI, the interstory
drifts were profoundly augmented to change the performance
level of the structure from a life-safe to a near-collapse status at
higher levels, especially higher than the 21st story. For example,
the maximum interstory drift recorded for the fixed-base struc-
ture was 0.50%, whereas its corresponding values for Model III
and the shallow foundation were 1.57 and 2.35%, respectively.
According to Fig. 19, an excessively conservative design will be
achieved through the fixed-base assumption. This is while its per-
formance level remains within the life-safe limit based on SSPSI
(e.g., for the case of Hachinohe earthquake). Therefore, large dis-
placements were produced with further softening of the soft soil.
It can be concluded that the prediction of damage levels for a soil–
structure system undergoing a lateral load-carrying mechanism
based on the structural and nonstructural elements may be under- or

© ASCE 04018103-21 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 21. Interstory drifts of the fixed-base and shallow foundations and the 30-story structure supported by a pile foundation with different pile
lengths under the earthquake motions of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

overestimated if the real deformability of a soil–pile system is
ignored during an earthquake.
Shear Forces Developed in the Columns
The results of the dynamic FEA with the full effects of SSI and
SSPSI on the 15- and 30-story buildings revealed that the base
shears in the cases of a shallow foundation were much smaller than
those of the fixed-base cases.
To investigate the impact of the length of a pile foundation on
the seismic energy amount absorbed by the structures during the
earthquakes, a comparison was made between the structural shear
forces resulting from the 3D numerical models in different cases.
Shear forces generally originate from the relative movement
between the slabs and columns in a structure during an earthquake.
To specify the maximum shear force at each level during the time-
history analysis, the shear forces generated in every column were
summed up at that level at each time increment to finally yield a
total number of 16 columns.
The results obtained for all the earthquakes are displayed in
Fig. 22. It should be noted that a gradual enhancement was gener-
ally achieved in the maximum total shear force when an increase
of 10–28 m was applied to the pile length. For instance, the base
shear force under the El Centro earthquake was 61% greater for

© ASCE 04018103-22 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 22. Total maximum shear forces of the fixed-base and shallow foundations and the 15-story structure supported by a pile foundation with differ-
ent pile lengths under the earthquake motions of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

the pile model of 28-m length than for the 10-m-long piles.
Similarly, the base shears under the Northridge earthquake exci-
tation were 24% greater for the foundations with 28-m-long piles
than for those with 10-m-long piles. These values indicated that a
pile length affects the total shear force absorbed by a structure
during an earthquake because longer piles absorb extra energy
due to their larger contact surface areas with the surrounding
soil.
Fig. 22 shows that SSPSI had a significant impact on the way
shear forces were distributed along the superstructures. Therefore,
the declining amounts and trends of the shear forces are evidenced
to be induced by SSPSI.
For example, a reduction of 38% occurred to the maximum
shear force experienced in the first level of the 15-story super-
structure supported by the piled raft foundation under the influ-
ence of the Northridge earthquake of 1994 as compared to the
fixed-based structure, whereas almost no decrease (less than
10%) was experienced for the shear force generated in the sev-
enth level. In fact, the system’s dynamic features of natural fre-
quency and damping were actually altered by the SSI depending
on the foundation type. As a result, the higher responses of the
structures were caused by the input excitations contributing to
fluctuations in the distribution of shear forces along the super-
structures. Therefore, when considering the interaction between

© ASCE 04018103-23 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 the structures and the soil, longer piles did not necessarily pro-
vide a safer design under strong ground motions.
According to Fig. 23, maximum reduction in the basic shear
force was related to the shallow foundation. By increasing the
structure height from 15 to 30 stories in this foundation, a slight
decline was observed in the basic shear percentage compared to
that of the fixed-base foundation in the Northridge and Kobe
earthquakes. In other words, application of shorter piles (10 m)
would lead to a structural behavior more similar to that of a shal-
low foundation. In addition, when 28-m piles were utilized, the
basic shear force on the mentioned foundation reached its mini-
mum amount as compared to the fixed-base foundation. The
shear forces in the near- and far-field earthquakes were 12 and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
6%, respectively. Also, average reductions of 24 and 13% were
observed for the different configurations of pile installation by
using the proposed and other methods due to the pile exposures
to the near- and far-field earthquakes, respectively.
The results of the maximum total shear forces for all earthquakes
are represented in Tables 7 and 8. Note that a gradual enhancement
generally occurred to the shear forces when the lengths of the piles
increased from 10 to 28 m. These values revealed that a longer pile
affects the total shear force absorbed by a structure during an earth-
quake due to its larger contact surface area with the surrounding soil
and consequent absorbance of extra energy.
It is generally concluded that an optimal shear-force distribution
and movement of level can be obtained throughout a structure by

Fig. 23. Total maximum shear forces of the fixed-base and shallow foundations and the 30-story structure supported by a pile foundation with various
pile lengths under the earthquake excitations of (a) Northridge; (b) Kobe; (c) El Centro; and (d) Hachinohe.

© ASCE 04018103-24 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 Table 7. Summary of the maximum shear forces computed in numerical simulations for the fixed-base, shallow foundation, and pile raft cases under the
influence of various earthquakes in the 15-story model

Earthquake Fixed base Shallow foundation I II III IV V VI

Northridge 406 198.8 354 230.7 316.1 304.4 290.4 312.2
Kobe 357.7 195 322 217.4 274.7 287.57 267.2 259.7
EL Centro 212 151.1 197 163.4 179.7 186.6 183 177
Hachinohe 133.8 98.4 124 106 114.4 122.1 113.4 120.2

Table 8. Maximum shear force distributions in numerical simulations for the fixed-base, shallow foundation, and pile raft cases under the influence of vari-
ous earthquakes in the 30-story model

Earthquake Fixed base Shallow foundation I II III IV V VI

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Northridge 798 410 691 462.2 586 624.7 648.3 552

Kobe 710 392.3 627.7 438.2 542 574.1 553 523.4
EL Centro 421.4 302.2 402.1 325.1 359 364.2 352.2 382.9
Hachinohe 273 201 258.2 218.5 240 238.1 248.5 252

Fig. 24. Percentages of shear-force reduction in the fixed-base and shallow foundations and (a) 15-story; and (b) 30-story structures supported by a
pile foundation with varied pile lengths under all mentioned earthquake motions.

making proper changes in the pile length, diameter, and configura-
tion (Tables 7 and 8; Fig. 24).
Concluding Remarks
A series of 3D FEAs were conducted to investigate the impacts of
the governing parameters on several systems of long–short compos-
ite piled raft foundations resting on a soft clay stratum. The three
earthquake features Arias intensity, amplitude, and duration were
applied to various configurations, pile lengths and diameters, and
structure heights. All three factors were found to have significant
effects on the responses of the superstructures subjected to the dif-
ferent earthquakes. Analyses of the piled raft foundation systems
with detailed modeling of the piles and superstructures revealed the
significant impacts of SSPSI and pile configuration on the seismic
responses of the superstructures, and thus, such systems are highly
recommended to be used in soft soils.
In this research, the 2D and 3D models were utilized to analyze
the typical cases. After making a comparison between the 2D and
3D models, their maximum lateral displacements in the fixed-base
foundation were found to be similar, whereas those of the shallow
foundation were seen to be dependent on the earthquake intensity.
Maximum lateral displacements in the 2D and 3D models were
almost the same in the high-intensity cases; however, significantly
different values were obtained with low intensities. As was
expected, much larger values of SIR led to augmented displace-
ments of both superstructures based on the ground motions consid-
ered. The numerical results were indicative of a reasonable correla-
tion between the parameter of SIR and the maximum interstory
drifts of the structures.
Accordingly, SSPSI can affect and change the performance lev-
els of structures. A deeper understanding of SSPSI mechanisms is
needed to study the effectiveness of this new approach to long–short
composite piled raft foundations, and to see if it is an efficient and
economical solution to piled rafts. It is mainly concluded that the
proposed system has the advantages of having a cost-effective con-
struction process and exploiting nonlinear responses during strong
motions in seismic zones as compared to the typical long–short
composite piled raft foundations. SSPSI was discovered to have sig-
nificant effects on the way the shear forces were distributed along
the superstructures. The amounts and trends of the shear forces

© ASCE 04018103-25 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103

 were seen to be reduced by SSPSI. Thus, it is concluded that shear
force and movement of level can be altered by changing a pile diam-
eter, length, and configuration to consequently achieve an optimal
distribution of shear forces throughout a structure.
SSPSI is generally dealt with in geotechnical earthquake engi-
neering, although the components of such an interaction may vary
from site to site. The results presented in this article can contribute
to relevant engineers in designing safe and economical structures
based on long–short composite piled raft foundation systems.
Future studies can be performed to further examine the seismic
responses and plastic deformations of such systems for more so-
phisticated superstructures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
ACI 318 Committee. 2009. Building code requirements for structural concrete
and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
Adam, M., N. Chouw, and O. Von Estorff. 2005. “Significance of soft local
site in altering the non-uniform ground motions and the building
response.” Al-Azhar Univ. Eng. J. 8 (1): 154–169.
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2005. Seismic provisions
for structural steel buildings. AISC 341-05. Chicago: American Institute
of Steel Construction.
Alavi, B., and H. Krawinkler. 2004. “Behavior of moment-resisting frame
structures subjected to near-fault ground motions.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 33 (6): 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.369.
Arias, A. 1970. “A measure of earthquake intensity.” Seismic design in nu-
clear power plants, 438–483. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Banerjee, S., S. H. Goh, and F. H. Lee. 2014. “Earthquake-induced bending
moment in fixed-head piles in soft clay.” Geotechnique. 64 (6): 431–
446. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.12.P.195.
Bilotta, E., L. D. Sanctis, R. Di Laora, A. D’Onofrio, and F. Silvestri. 2015.
“Importance of seismic site response and soil–structure interaction in
dynamic behaviour of a tall building.” Geotechnique. 65 (5): 391–400.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP.15.P.016.
Bourgeois, E., P. de Buhan, and G. Hassen. 2012. “Settlement analysis of
piled-raft foundations by means of a multiphase model accounting for
soil-pile interactions.” Comput. Geotech. 46: 26–38. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compgeo.2012.05.015.
Carbonari, S., F. Dezi, F. Gara, and G. Leoni. 2014. “Seismic response of rein-
forced concrete frames on monopile foundations.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 67: 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.012.
Chu, D., and K. Z. Truman. 2004. “Effects of pile foundation configurations
in seismic soil-pile-structure interaction.” In Proc., 13th World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1551. Vancouver, BC, Canada: 13th
WCEEE Secretariat.
Computers and Structures, Inc. 2010. SAP2000 v.14 analysis reference
manual. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures, Inc.
Cunha, R. P., H. G. Poulos, and J. C. Small. 2001. “Investigation of design
alternatives for a piled raft case history.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
127 (8): 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:
8(635).
Dimitra, B. 2010. “3(2)-D seismic response of pier foundation piles:
Towards a new design concept.” Athens, Greece: National Technical
Univ. of Athens.
Dutta, S. C., K. Bhattacharya, and R. Roy. 2004. “Response of low-rise
buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil–structure
interaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (12): 893–914. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.07.001.
El Ganainy, H., and M. H. El Naggar. 2009. “Seismic performance of three-
dimensional frame structures with underground stories.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 29 (9): 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
.2009.02.003.
FEMA. 1997. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of build-
ings. FEMA 273. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Galal, K., and M. Naimi. 2008. “Effect of soil conditions on the response of
reinforced concrete tall structures to near-fault earthquakes.” Struct. Des.
Tall Special Build. 17 (3): 541–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.365.
© ASCE 04018103-26
Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103
Gazetas, G. 2015. “4th Ishihara lecture: Soil–foundation–structure systems
beyond conventional seismic failure thresholds.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 68: 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.012.
Gazetas, G., and G. Mylonakis. 1998. “Seismic soil-structure interaction:
New evidence and emerging issues.” In Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, 1119–1174. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Georgiadis, M., and R. Butterfield. 1988. “Displacements of footings on
sand under eccentric and inclined loads.” Can. Geotech. J. 25 (2): 199–
212. https://doi.org/10.1139/t88-024.
Hayashi, Y., and I. Takahashi. 2004. “Soil-structure interaction effects
on building response in recent earthquakes.” In Proc., Third UJNR
Workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction. Boulder, CO: United States–
Japan Natural Resources (UJNR).
Hokmabadi, A. S., B. Fatahi, and B. Samali. 2014. “Assessment of soil–
pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise
buildings sitting on floating pile foundations.” Comput. Geotech. 55:
172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2013.08.011.
Hosseinzadeh, N. A., F. Nateghi-Alahi, and F. Behnamfar. 2004. “Shake ta-
ble study of soil-structure interaction effects on seismic response of ad-
jacent buildings.” Comput. Methods Eng. 22 (2): 51–71.
Inaba, T., H. Dohi, K. Okuta, T. Sato, and H. Akagi. 2000. “Nonlinear
response of surface soil and NTT building due to soil–structure interac-
tion during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu (Kobe) earthquake.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 20 (5–8): 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267
-7261(00)00062-2.
Ji, M. A., Z. Donggang, and Z. Zhang. 2001. “Design of the composite foun-
dation with long-short piles.” Geotech. Eng. Tech. 2: 86–91.
Karimi, Z., and S. Dashti. 2016. “Numerical and centrifuge modeling of
seismic soil–foundation–structure interaction on liquefiable ground.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (1): 4015061. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001346.
Khalil, L., M. Sadek, and I. Shahrour. 2007. “Influence of the soil–structure
interaction on the fundamental period of buildings.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 36 (15): 2445–2453. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.738.
Krawinkler, H., R. Medina, and B. Alavi. 2003. “Seismic drift and ductility
demands and their dependence on ground motions.” Eng. Struct. 25 (5):
637–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00174-8.
Liu, P., G. H. Yang, and Y. C. Zhang. 2011. “Design method of long-short-
pile composite foundation base on tangent modulus in situ loading test
curve.” Adv. Mater. Res. 243–249: 2314–2323. https://doi.org/10.4028
/www.scientific.net/AMR.243-249.2314.
Maheshwari, B. K., and R. Sarkar. 2011. “Seismic behavior of soil-
pile-structure interaction in liquefiable soils: Parametric study.” Int.
J. Geomech. 11 (4): 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM
.1943-5622.0000087.
Nguyen, Q. V., B. Fatahi, and A. S. Hokmabadi. 2016. “The effects of foun-
dation size on the seismic performance of buildings considering the soil-
foundation-structure interaction.” Struct. Eng. Mech. 58 (6): 1045–
1075. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2016.58.6.1045.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center). 2012. PEER
ground motion database. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Rahvar. 2006. Geotechnical investigations and foundation design report of
Kooh-e-Noor commercial building. Final Rep. P. O., 1–69. Tehran,
Iran: Rahvar Pty, Ltd.
Rayhani, M. H., and M. H. El Naggar. 2008. “Numerical modeling of
seismic response of rigid foundation on soft soil.” Int. J. Geomech.
8 (6): 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2008)8:
6(336).
Seed, B. H., and I. M. Idriss. 1969. “Influence of soil conditions on ground
motions during earthquakes.” J. Soil Mech. Found Div. 95 (1): 99–137.
Shiming, W., and G. Gang. 1998. “Dynamic soil-structure interaction for
high-rise buildings.” Dev. Geotech. Eng. 83 (C): 203–216.
Simulia. 2013. Abaqus 6.13-1 user’s manual. Pawtucket, RI: Hibbit,
Karlsson & Sorenson.
Standards Australia. 2007. Structural design actions. Part 4: Earthquake
actions in Australia. AS 1170.4. Sydney, Australia.
Stewart, J. P., G. L. Fenves, and R. B. Seed. 1999. “Seismic soil-structure inter-
action in buildings. I: Analytical methods.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
125 (1): 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241 (1999)125:1(26).
Int. J. Geomech.
 Sun, J., R. Golesorkhi, and H. B. Seed. 1988. Dynamic moduli and damping
ratios for cohesive soils. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-88/15. Berkeley, CA:
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Tabatabaiefar, H. R., and B. Fatahi. 2014. “Idealisation of soil–structure
system to determine inelastic seismic response of mid-rise building
frames.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 66: 339–351. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.soildyn.2014.08.007.
Tabatabaiefar, S. H. R., B. Fatahi, and B. Samali. 2014. “Numerical and ex-
perimental investigations on seismic response of building frames under
influence of soil-structure interaction.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 17 (1): 109–
130. https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.17.1.109.
Tabatabaiefar, H. R., and A. Massumi. 2010. “A simplified method to deter-
mine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting build-
ing frames under influence of soil–structure interaction.” Soil Dyn.
Earthquake Eng. 30 (11): 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Madan Mohan Malaviya on 08/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Torabi, H., and M. T. Rayhani. 2014. “Three dimensional finite element
modeling of seismic soil–structure interaction in soft soil.” Comput.
Geotech. 60, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.03.014.
Trifunac, M. D., and A. G. Brady. 1975. “A study on the duration of
strong earthquake ground motion.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 65 (3):
581–626.
Trifunac, M. D., M. I. Todorovska, T.-Y. Hao, and H. Storage. 2001. “Full-
scale experimental studies of soil-structure interaction: A review.” In
Proc., 2nd U.S.-Japan Workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction. Boulder,
CO: United States–Japan Natural Resources (UJNR).
Veletsos, A. S., and J. W. Meek. 1974. “Dynamic behaviour of building-
foundation systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 3 (2): 121–138.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290030203.
Whitman, R. V., and F. E. Richart. 1967. “Design procedures for
dynamically loaded foundations.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 93 (6):

.2010.05.008. 169–193.

© ASCE 04018103-27 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2018, 18(9): 04018103