See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257774456

Dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis for complex soil profiles using

unaligned mesh generation and nonlinear modeling approach

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · May 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-013-0135-1

CITATIONS READS

5 397

3 authors, including:

J.H. Park Jinkyo F. Choo

Ajou University Konkuk University
15 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   220 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Use of wasted traffic energy for piezoelectric electricity generation View project

Development of TMPD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinkyo F. Choo on 30 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2013) 17(4):753-762 Structural Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-0135-1
www.springer.com/12205

Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Complex Soil Profiles using

Unaligned Mesh Generation and Nonlinear Modeling Approach
Jang Ho Park*, Jinkyo F. Choo**, and Jeong-Rae Cho***
Received May 8, 2011/Accepted July 26, 2012

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

Even if numerous studies were dedicated to propose soil-structure interaction analysis methods, most of these methods introduce
several assumptions to circumvent the difficulties encountered in modeling and reduce computational efforts. The complex spatial
configuration of the soil-foundation interface or the distribution of the soil medium are often simplified using flat-layered soil profiles
and, the nonlinearity of the soil medium is generally dealt through an equivalent linear model. However, real soil profiles are featured
by complex shapes, inclusion of discontinuities and nonlinear characteristics of soil. Accordingly, this paper presents a soil-structure
interaction analysis method considering the characteristics of the structure, soil-structure interface and complex nonlinear distribution
of the soil that could not be accurately modeled in previous methods. The proposed method adopts unaligned mesh generation and
nonlinear modeling approach to model complex soil profiles. The validity and applicability of the nonlinear soil-structure interaction
analysis method are verified through a numerical example.
Keywords: nonlinear soil-structure interaction, unaligned mesh generation, complex soil profiles, multi-linear model
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction underlying soil. Accordingly, design should consider appropriately

The first years of the 21st century were characterized by a stark
increase of the seismic activities all over the world. Urbanization
is today a global trend requiring efficient exploitation of the
limited urban space, which is dealt by the construction of higher
or longer structures. These circumstances are accompanied with
the lack of desirable soil conditions and emphasize the need to
consider appropriately Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) effects in
order to secure the safety and economic efficiency of the
constructed structures potentially exposed to earthquake events.
During an earthquake, the seismic waves deform the soil
which imposes its motion to the foundation and supported
structure. The so-induced motion of the foundation generates
forces in the superstructure that are transmitted back to the
foundation and underlying soil. Therefore, design should account
not only for the growingly weak soil characteristics of available
urban spaces considering the importance of these large-scale
structures but also for the SSI under seismic loading. SSI has
been recognized as a major factor in the design of structures and
increases in significance as the supporting soil becomes softer
(Pecker et al., 2010). On the other hand, Betti et al. (1993)
reported that the response of the structure to the seismic
excitation may increase or reduce according to the characteristics
of the ground motion and dynamic properties of the structure and
the dynamic characteristics of the structure and soil for the
effective prediction of the structural behavior under seismic
excitation.
Various methods have been developed to implement SSI
analysis during the last 30 years (Wolf, 1985; Park and Antin,
2004; Zerfa and Loret, 2004; Wang et al., 2006; Kausel, 2010).
Diverse modeling techniques and analysis approaches were
proposed and enabled to shorten computational times and
enhance the accuracy owing to the application of numerical
analysis methods. Most of these methods introduce several
assumptions to circumvent the difficulties encountered in
modeling and reduce computational efforts. The complex spatial
configuration of the soil-foundation interface or the distribution
of the soil medium are often simplified using flat-layered soil
profiles and, the nonlinearity of the soil medium is generally
dealt through an equivalent linear model. However, such
simplifications were reported to have non-negligible effect on
the results of the SSI analysis (Simos et al., 2004; Park, 2007).
Accordingly, need is for a method enabling to model synthetically
the characteristics of the structure and the soil-foundation
boundaries as well as the distribution and nonlinear characteristics
of the soil medium.
This paper presents a SSI analysis method considering the
characteristics of the structure, soil-structure interface and complex

*Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil System Engineering, Ajou University Suwon 443-749, Korea (E-mail: jangho@ajou.ac.kr)
**Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Konkuk University Seoul 143-701, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail: jfchoo@konkuk.ac.kr)
***Member, Senior Researcher, Korea Institute of Construction Technology Ilsan 411-712, Korea (E-mail: chojr@kict.re.kr)

− 753 −
 Jang Ho Park, Jinkyo F. Choo, and Jeong-Rae Cho
nonlinear distribution of the soil that were not accurately modeled
in previous studies. The proposed method adopts unaligned
mesh generation and nonlinear modeling approach to model
complex soil profiles. The validity and applicability of the
nonlinear SSI analysis method are verified through a numerical
example. The convenience in modeling any type of soil
complexity provided by the proposed method is believed to be
useful to predict adequately the structural behavior in sites with
complicated soil profiles.
2. Proposed Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis
Method Considering Complex Soil Profiles
Kausel (2010) summarizes concisely the milestones that paved
today’s state-of-the-art of SSI in his review of the early history of
SSI. The author defines remarkably SSI as an interdisciplinary
field of endeavor lying at the intersection of soil and structural
mechanics, soil and structural dynamics, earthquake engineering,
geophysics and geomechanics, material science, computational
and numerical methods, and diverse other technical disciplines.
A review of dedicated literature appears thus to be a tremendous
task. Accordingly, the review is narrowed to recent works done
to model the substratum since this paper focuses on dynamic SSI
considering complex soil profiles.
Numerous studies have been led to represent appropriately
complicated soil profiles in order to achieve precise SSI analysis.
Finite Element Method (FEM) and Boundary Element Method
(BEM) are today considered as the most practicable approaches
for accurate modeling. FEM is suited for inhomogeneous and
anisotropic materials as well as for dealing with the nonlinear
behavior of a body, whereas BEM is more advantageous when
dealing with systems with infinite extension and regions of high
gradient/stress concentration (Soares, 2012). The idea of coupling
BEM and FEM sub-domains or sub-structures has been employed
to many problems in order to use the advantages of both
methods. In such case, boundary elements are adopted to play
the role of transmitting boundary or to model parts of the domain
most suitable to BEM modeling, while standard FEM procedures
are used to assemble the global matrix (Soares et al., 2006;
Elleithy, 2008; von Estorff et al., 2006). However, Çelebi et al.
(2006) stressed that numerical models using FEM and BEM require
relatively complicated formulation and intensive computation to
obtain the exact solution in dynamic SSI problems, which restrict
their application to traditional engineering practice.
On the other hand, Zhodi and Wriggers (2001a, 2001b) proposed
a spatial discretization approach using FEM to mesh the
microstructure of micro-heterogeneous materials. This meshing
known to as the unaligned approach does not require the finite
element boundaries to coincide with material interfaces when
meshing the internal geometry. This enables to introduce
material discontinuities within the finite elements without finite
element distortion arising from the microstructure, which is
critical in terms of computational performance when iterative
solvers are used. Considering that the soil medium is a macro-
− 754 −
heterogeneous material, the application of unaligned mesh
generation to model complex soil profiles appears to be an
attractive solution to avoid ill-conditioned stiffness matrix caused
by finite element distortion and ease the representation of the
various interfaces present between the diverse materials
constituting the underlying soil. In addition, numerous constitutive
models were adopted to consider the nonlinear behavior of the soil
such as elastic-perfectly plastic and elasto-plastic models (Noorzaei
et al., 1995). Among these models, Zhou and Lu (2009) reported
that the elasto-plastic model provides reasonable and practical
results when compared to experimental data.
Accordingly, the method for nonlinear SSI analysis proposed
in this paper combines the unaligned mesh generation and multi-
linear modeling approach enabling to model accurately complicated
soil profiles that could not be simulated in previous methods.
Unaligned mesh generation is adopted for the finite elements to
allow more accurate computation of the stiffness and mass
matrices of elements including discontinuous fields. This choice
enables swift and convenient modeling of the soil-structure
system exhibiting complicated boundary conditions. The
nonlinearity of the soil medium is considered by means of a
multi-linear material model. Such model offers the possibility to
represent synthetically the characteristics of the structure, the
distribution and nonlinear properties of the soil medium and the
complicated interface between the foundations and soil. Since
the proposed method makes use of regular matrices, the
occurrence of singular matrices is avoided. Modeling becomes
convenient through the application of elements that can include
discontinuities and the adoption of the multi-linear model
enables accurate analysis of nonlinear soil-structure interaction.
2.1 Unaligned Mesh Generation
The aligned mesh approach imposes that the element boundaries
coincide with material interfaces leading to the impossibility to
have material discontinuities within the finite elements. This
approach is adopted in ordinary finite element analysis of
structures with various materials. The interface between materials is
used as element boundary to avoid the occurrence of material
discontinuity within an element and obtain ordinary stiffness
matrix. However, modeling becomes difficult and the shape of
the element may turn distorted leading to ill-conditioned stiffness
matrix and possible element instability in the case of complicated
interface between materials.
Besides, the unaligned mesh approach does not require the
finite element boundaries to coincide with material interfaces
when meshing the internal geometry. This enables to introduce
material discontinuities within the finite elements. This approach
is adopted to afford convenient and accurate modeling of the
complex distribution of the soil medium and the complicated
interface between the soil and foundations of the structure. The
basic concept of the unaligned mesh generation is explained
hereafter (Zhodi and Wriggers, 2001a, 2001b; Park, 2007).
The unaligned mesh approach is accompanied inherently with
the integration of discontinuous integrands. Fig. 1 illustrates the
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Complex Soil Profiles using Unaligned Mesh Generation and Nonlinear Modeling Approach

where N is the number of Gaussian quadrature points with m

points lying before the discontinuity at δ ; wi is the weight of the
ith Gaussian quadrature point; and, ζi is the location of the ith
Gaussian quadrature point.
If accurate integration of the continuous point is achieved
using the Gauss quadrature, the error occurring in the integration
of the discontinuous function can be expressed as follows:
1
Error = ∫ –1 F ( ζ ) dζ – ∑ [ C ( ζi ) + D ( δ ) H ( ζi – δ ) ]wi
i=1
N

= D(δ) (1 – δ) – ∑ wi
i = m+1
(5)
N N

≤ D(δ) ∑ wi – ∑ wi
i=m i = m+1

Fig. 1. Integration of a Discontinuous Function: (a) Decomposition
of a Function with Discontinuity, (b) Integration of the Step
Function at Gauss Quadrature Points
decomposition of a function F(ζ) with discontinuity at ζ = δ into a
continuous function C(ζ) and the unit step function D ( δ ) H ( ζ – δ )
as expressed in Eq. (1) for a one-dimensional reference element.
F(ζ ) = C(ζ ) + D(δ ) H(ζ – δ)
where ζ is the local coordinate inside the element; and, D(δ) =
F(δ) – C(δ).
Integrating the discontinuous real function F(ζ) over a given
domain leads to:
1 1
∫ –1 F ( ζ )dζ = ∫ –1 [ C ( ζ ) + D ( δ ) H ( ζ – δ ) ]dζ
≤ D ( δ ) ⋅ max wi ⋅ max ζi – ζi + 1
Accordingly, the error bound of the discontinuous function
produced by the Gauss quadrature is determined by the
maximum possible distance, ζi – ζi + 1 , between two adjacent
Gauss sampling points in the interval [–1 , 1] and the maximum
Gaussian quadrature weight, max wi . The maximum values of
wi and (ζi – ζi+1) are respectively 1.93N−0.795 and 2.6N−1.02 leading
to the error bound expressed in Eq. (6).
Error bound = D ( δ ) ⋅ max wi ⋅ max ζi – ζi + 1 ≈ 5.07N
–1.82
(6)
As shown in Eq. (6), a larger number of Gaussian quadrature
points, N, will decrease the error bound in the numerical
integration. Therefore, the selection of an adequate number of
Gaussian points will result in satisfactory approximate for the
integration of the discontinuous function. This numerical integration
method for discontinuous functions can also be applied for the
computation of the mass and stiffness matrices of a three-
dimensional finite element. Accordingly, this numerical integration
method by using a larger number of Gauss sampling points can
be exploited for the accurate computation of the mass and
(1) stiffness matrices of three-dimensional finite elements including
discontinuities. Note that the conventional Gauss rule should be
applied for elements without material discontinuities while the
oversampling procedure should be used only to integrate
accurately quantities with discontinuities in order to improve the
convenience of modeling (Fig. 2).
(2)

The application of the Gauss quadrature rule on the continuous

function C(ζ) and step function D ( δ ) H ( ζ – δ ) in Eq. (2) gives:
N
1
∫ –1 C ( ζ ) dζ ≈ ∑ C ( ζi )wi (3)
i=1
N
1
∫ –1 D ( δ ) H ( ζ – δ ) dζ ≈ ∑ D ( δ ) H ( ζi – δ )wi
i=1
m N
(4)
Fig. 2. Gauss Sampling Model in a Solid Composed of Two Differ-
≈ D ( δ ) ∑ 0 ⋅ wi + D ( δ ) ∑ 1 ⋅ wi ent Materials
i=1 i = m+1

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 755 −

 Jang Ho Park, Jinkyo F. Choo, and Jeong-Rae Cho
2.2 Multi-linear Model
Generally, the dynamic behavioral characteristics of the soil
medium depend significantly on the value of the shear strain. For
shear strain smaller than 10−3, the dynamic properties of the soil
medium exhibit linear elastic behavior. When this strain exceeds
10−3, these characteristics turn onto nonlinear plastic behavior.
Among the dynamic properties of the soil medium, the shear
elastic modulus shows large reduction with the increase of the
shear strain larger than 10−3. In addition, the damping coefficient
of the soil medium tends to increase sensitively for shear strain
larger than 10−3. Accordingly, the shear elastic modulus and
damping coefficient of the soil medium exhibiting nonlinear
properties should be adequately reflected in the soil-structure
interaction analysis.
The numerical analysis methods commonly adopted to solve
nonlinear problems are the Newton-Raphson method, the modified
Newton-Raphson method, the arc-length method, the bilinear
model and the multi-linear model (Bathe, 1996). The Newton-
Raphson method subdivides the given domain into several
increments and performs iterative computation on each increment
until satisfaction of the equilibrium conditions. Accordingly, the
Newton-Raphson method requires large computational efforts.
The modified Newton-Raphson method or quasi-linearization
method was developed to alleviate the computational effort of
the conventional Newton-Raphson method to a certain extent in
the case of small nonlinearity by updating the tangential modulus
whenever starting a new iteration increment. The bilinear model
requires the elastic modulus, the tangential modulus and the
yield stress. This model can be used for problems with small
strains and alternating loads. However, this model is inadequate
to represent accurately the nonlinear properties of the soil
medium. The multi-linear model extends the bilinear model by
using multi-linear stress-strain relation (Fig. 3).
This paper adopts the multi-linear model considering the
efficiency of analysis to account for the nonlinearity of the soil
medium and overcome the disadvantages inherent to the
Newton-Raphson method and bilinear model when applied to
nonlinear dynamic soil-structure interaction problems.
2.3 Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Methods
As mentioned earlier, Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) constitutes
an important issue that may alter the dynamic characteristics of
the structure especially when massive structures are built on soft
soil. The nature and scale of interaction depend not only on the
Fig. 3. Bilinear and Multi-linear Stress-strain Models
− 756 −
properties of the soil like its shear modulus but also on the
characteristics of the structure such as its mass. In SSI problems,
the ability to predict the coupled behavior of the soil and
structure is critical and requires thus to provide combined soil
and structure models. However soil models involve complicated
analysis due to their unbounded nature while structure models
are well-founded in the literature. The main difficulty in modeling
the soil arises from the propagating wave characteristics in the soil
medium. There are two types of soil nonlinearity: primary
nonlinearity caused by the nonlinear nature of the soil medium
and secondary nonlinearity due to the stresses provoked by
structural oscillations, which may become important for heavy
structures. The methods adopted for the analysis of soil-structure
interaction can be divided into direct methods and substructure
methods according to the manner by which the soil is introduced
in the analysis (Wolf, 1985).
In this paper, the widely adopted direct method is used to
improve the accuracy and computational efficiency of the
analysis since the responses of the soil and structure are
determined simultaneously by analyzing the idealized soil-
structure system in a single step. Fig. 4 illustrates the finite
element model of a soil-structure system applying the direct
method. The equation of motion of the soil-structure system
subjected to ground motion can be expressed as follows using
the idealized formulation (Park, 2007).
Mu·· + Cu· + Ku = –M u·· bs + f (7)
where M, C and K are respectively the mass, damping and
stiffness matrices of the structure-soil system; u is the nodal
displacement; u·· bs represents the ground acceleration at the bedrock;
and, f is the load applied on the transmitting boundary.
The boundary condition of the soil is also a critical factor
influencing directly the analytical results. Here, the Lysmer-
Kuhlemeyer transmitting-absorbing boundary condition consisting
of viscous dashpots is applied to model the lateral and base
conditions for the soil domain as shown in Fig. 5 (Lysmer and
Kuhlemeyer, 1969). The Lysmer-Kuhlemeyer boundary is used
to limit spurious wave reflections at the soil mesh boundary since
the wave energy travelling from the structure site is never
reflected back into the computational domain. At each node of
the boundary, a tangential dashpot absorbing the shear wave
energy is installed together with a normal dashpot absorbing the
Fig. 4. Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Model
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Complex Soil Profiles using Unaligned Mesh Generation and Nonlinear Modeling Approach

Fig. 5. Lysmer-Kuhlemeyer Viscous Boundary Condition

compressive P-wave energy. The damping coefficients of the Fig. 6. Normalized Acceleration Time History of North-South Com-
dashpots are obtained using the following formulae: ponent of El Centro Earthquake

ct = A ρ vs (8)
cn = A ρ vp (9) The nonlinear SSI analysis method proposed in this paper is
applied to a three-dimensional 7-story building with 1 underground
where ρ is the density of the soil; A is the effective area; and, vs
story located on a soil medium constituted by 3 soil layers
and vp are respectively the velocities of the shear wave (S-
having irregular profiles and different material properties to
velocity) and compression wave (P-velocity) of the soil. Generally,
examine the effects of complicated soil profiles with nonlinear
the boundary effect reduces as the soil medium becomes larger.
properties and the characteristics of the structure on the soil-
structure interaction. In order to verify the accuracy of the
3. Application of the Proposed SSI Analysis Method
proposed method, a total of 3 building models are considered
Considering Irregular Soil Layers
where the properties of the building such as the mass and inter-
story stiffness are varied as listed in Table 1. Building model 1 is
3.1 Modeling of Structure and Soil Profiles
the original building. Model 2 has the same mass but with the
The analysis of the seismic risk for a structure requires the
stiffness multiplied by 2. Model 3 has the mass doubled with the
assessment of both the rate of occurrence of future seismic
stiffness larger by 4 times than model 1. A typical damping
ground motions and the resulting response of the structure
coefficient of 0.02 is adopted for the structures.
caused by these ground motions. These two issues are often
The underlying soil medium is composed of 3 layers. The
linked using an intensity measure such as spectral acceleration.
material properties of each soil layer are listed in Table 2. Fig. 7
The spectral acceleration (Sa) is the most commonly used
plots the multi-linear curve adopted to model the nonlinear soil
intensity measure for the analysis of buildings. The value of Sa
represents the maximum acceleration experienced by a building,
as modeled by linear oscillator having the same natural period of
Table 2. Properties of the Layers of Soil Model
vibration as the building subjected to seismic excitation (Baker
Density Shear modulus Poisson’s Damping
and Cornell, 2006). Accordingly, the results are represented in Layer
(kg/m3) (kPa) ratio ratio
terms of the spectral acceleration for the building subjected to an Top (0~13.33 m) 1,800 113,000 0.35 0.10
artificial earthquake applied at the bedrock. Fig. 6 plots the Middle
1,900 475,000 0.30 0.04
normalized acceleration time history of the North-South component (13.33~26.67 m)
of El Centro earthquake. For the purposes of the numerical Bottom
2,000 1,070,000 0.25 0.02
simulation, the PGA is scaled to values of 0.2 g, 0.3 g and 0.4 g. (26.67~40.0 m)

Table 1. Properties of the Building Model

Building model 1 Building model 2 Building model 3
Floor Level (m) Stiffness Mass Stiffness Mass Stiffness Mass
(kN/m) (kg) (kN/m) (kg) (kN/m) (kg)
7 22.5 – 1050000 – 2100000 – 4200000
6 19.0 7820000 1050000 7820000 2100000 31280000 4200000
5 15.5 8540000 1150000 8540000 2300000 34160000 4600000
4 12.0 9020000 1150000 9020000 2300000 36080000 4600000
3 8.5 9890000 1150000 9890000 2300000 39560000 4600000
2 4.5 10200000 1150000 10200000 2300000 40800000 4600000
1 0.0 7280000 1390000 7280000 2780000 29120000 5560000
B1 -3.5 ∞ 1750000 ∞ 2500000 ∞ 5000000

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 757 −

 Jang Ho Park, Jinkyo F. Choo, and Jeong-Rae Cho

Fig. 7.Multi-linear Model of the Nonlinear Soil Medium

medium. Various complex soil profiles with the boundary

conditions summarized in Table 3 are considered. In Table 3,
boundary 1 and boundary 2 designate the boundaries between
the top and middle layers and the middle and bottom layers,
respectively, and soil model nn corresponds to the case where the
soil medium is simplified using flat-layered soil profiles as
generally done in field. Fig. 8 illustrates the profiles of soil
models mm and pm.
As shown in Fig. 8, the soil medium has dimensions of 100 ×
100 × 40 m, which covers a domain sufficient to implement soil-
structure analysis. The soil medium is modeled using 2,880
(= 24 × 12 × 10) rectangular solid elements. During the numerical
integration, a total of 1,331 (= 11 × 11 × 11) Gaussian sampling
points are adopted in the case of meshes with material
discontinuity and 27 (= 3 × 3 × 3) Gaussian sampling points are
used for ordinary meshes. The number of sampling points was Fig. 8. Shapes of Soil Profile for Soil Models mm and pm: (a) Soil
determined to increase the accuracy of analysis and minimize Model mm, (b) Soil Model pm
computational efforts.

3.2 Verification of the Validity of the Proposed SSI Analysis
The validity of the proposed nonlinear SSI analysis method is
verified comparatively using building model 1 and the flat-
layered model nn. The first model adopts the unaligned mesh
approach including the material discontinuity within the elements,
and the second model is generated using the aligned mesh
approach in which the boundaries of the element are set along
the surface of material discontinuity as described in Fig. 2.
Analysis is performed using the El Centro earthquake data with
PGA of 0.2 g (Fig. 6).
Since the spectral acceleration, Sa, is a representative response
indicating the maximum acceleration experienced by a building,
as modeled by linear oscillator having the same natural period of
vibration as the building subjected to seismic excitation (Baker

Table 3. Boundary Conditions of Soil Profile Models

Soil model Boundary 1 Boundary 2
πx 1 πz πx 1 πz
mm y = –3cos ------ + --- sin ------ –13.333 y = – 3cos ------ + --- sin ------ – 26.667
50 2 20 50 2 20

πx πz πx 1 πz
mp y = –3cos ------ + sin ------ – 13.333 y = 3cos ------ + --- sin ------ – 26.667
50 20 50 2 20

πx 1 πz πx 1 πz
pm y = 3cos ------ + --- sin ------ – 13.333 y = –3cos ------ + --- sin ------ –26.667
50 2 20 50 2 20

πx 1 πz πx 1 πz
pp y = 3cos ------ + --- sin ------ – 13.333 y = 3cos ------ + --- sin ------ – 26.667
50 2 20 50 2 20
nn y = –13.333 y = –26.667

− 758 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Complex Soil Profiles using Unaligned Mesh Generation and Nonlinear Modeling Approach

between the obtained peak values reaches merely 0.33%, which

confirms the validity of the proposed SSI analysis method.
Therefore, the method can be applied to soil media presenting
more than two material properties.

3.3 Results of SSI Analysis

The proposed nonlinear SSI analysis method is applied for the
analysis of the different structures and complex soil profiles
listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Analysis is performed using the
North-South component of El Centro earthquake with PGAs of
Fig. 9. Comparison of Spectral Accelerations at Ground Level for 0.2 g, 0.3 g and 0.4 g. Here also, the spectral acceleration, Sa, is
Model nn using Unaligned and Aligned Meshes adopted for comparison between the considered five soil profile
models and the results are arranged in Table 4 for PGAs of 0.3 g
and 0.4 g.
and Cornell, 2006), comparison is done using Sa. Fig. 9 plots the For building model 1, the maximum spectral acceleration at
response spectra of model nn using aligned and unaligned mesh ground level of soil profile model nn appears to be the largest but
approaches. It can be seen that both approaches provide results the difference with the other soil profiles remains smaller than
that are in good agreement. In both cases, the maximum spectral 1.5%. For building model 3, this difference increases to reach
acceleration occurs at frequency of 2.45 Hz and the difference maximum 11.1% (Fig. 10). Reminding that model nn represents
the case simplifying the soil medium by means of flat-layered
Table 4. Maximum Spectral Accelerations (Sa) at Ground Level and boundaries, the results indicate that such simplification may
Top of the Structure according to Building and Soil Model provide rather conservative analysis results.
Soil
Max. Sa
Frequency Max. Sa at Frequency However, the observation of the maximum spectral acceleration
Building PGA at ground at ground level for building model 2 shows a different pattern. In
model (Hz) bldg. top (Hz)
level
mm 14.46 g 2.45 33.03 g 2.45
this case, soil model nn does not exhibit the largest value. The
mp 14.40 g 2.45 32.86 g 2.45
difference in the maximum spectral acceleration between soil
0.3 g pm 14.49 g 2.48 34.47 g 2.49 profiles nn and pp reaches 30.1% in the case of a PGA of 0.2 g
pp 14.43 g 2.48 34.15 g 2.49
nn 14.58 g 2.45 33.25 g 2.45
Model 1
mm 19.19 g 2.45 43.70 g 2.45
mp 19.09 g 2.45 43.50 g 2.45
0.4 g pm 19.30 g 2.48 45.84 g 2.49
pp 19.11 g 2.48 45.43 g 2.49
nn 19.34 g 2.45 44.10 g 2.45
mm 13.10 g 2.65 20.06 g 2.67
mp 12.96 g 2.65 19.84 g 2.67
0.3 g pm 9.95 g 2.81 16.16 g 2.87
pp 9.83 g 2.91 16.00 g 2.87
nn 12.79 g 2.66 19.57 g 2.66
Model 2 Fig. 10. Comparison of Spectral Accelerations at Ground Level for
mm 17.16 g 2.65 26.97 g 2.65
mp 17.44 g 2.65 26.69 g 2.65 Building Model 3 (PGA 0.3 g)
0.4 g pm 13.31 g 2.74 21.47 g 2.87
pp 13.13 g 2.79 21.28 g 2.87
nn 17.23 g 2.65 26.35 g 2.66
mm 19.15 g 2.12 24.78 g 2.12
mp 19.03 g 2.12 24.63 g 2.12
0.3 g pm 17.50 g 2.16 22.91 g 2.16
pp 17.28 g 2.16 22.61 g 2.16
nn 19.19 g 2.12 24.85 g 2.13
Model 3
mm 25.54 g 2.12 33.04 g 2.12
mp 25.41 g 2.12 32.86 g 2.12
0.4 g pm 23.60 g 2.16 30.87 g 2.16
pp 23.30 g 2.16 30.48 g 2.16
Fig. 11. Comparison of Spectral Accelerations at Ground Level for
nn 25.59 g 2.12 33.11 g 2.13 Building Model 2 (PGA 0.3 g)

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 759 −

 Jang Ho Park, Jinkyo F. Choo, and Jeong-Rae Cho

Table 5. Comparison of Maximum Spectral Accelerations Obtained

using Linear and Multi-linear Analyses
Linear analysis Multi-linear analysis
Soil Max. Sa at Max. Sa
Building PGA Frequency
model ground Frequency at ground
(Hz) (Hz)
level level
pp 9.48 g 2.50 9.56 g 2.49
0.2 g
nn 10.30 g 2.47 9.82 g 2.45
pp 14.22 g 2.51 14.34 g 2.48
Model 1 0.3 g
nn 15.45 g 2.47 14.58 g 2.47
pp 18.96 g 2.50 19.11 g 2.48
0.4 g
Fig. 12. Comparison of Spectral Accelerations at Top of Building nn 20.60 g 2.47 19.34 g 2.45
Model 2 (PGA 0.4 g) pp 6.55 g 2.91 6.53 g 2.82
0.2 g
nn 7.76 g 2.69 8.42 g 2.66
pp 9.82 g 2.91 9.83 g 2.81
Model 2 0.3 g
and 31.2% for PGA of 0.4 g. The largest difference in the nn 11.65 g 2.69 12.79 g 2.66
maximum spectral acceleration appears between soil profiles pp 13.10 g 2.91 13.13 g 2.79
0.4 g
mm and pp with a value of 33.3% for building model 2 subjected nn 15.53 g 2.67 17.23 g 2.65
to the seismic event with PGA of 0.3 g (Fig. 11). pp 9.98 g 2.17 11.365 g 2.16
0.2 g
Accordingly, it can be concluded that the response of the nn 12.99 g 2.15 12.85 g 2.12
structure is sensitive to the adopted soil profile model. This pp 14.98 g 2.17 17.28 g 2.16
Model 3 0.3 g
shows the importance to provide an accurate model of the soil nn 19.49 g 2.15 19.19 g 2.12
medium. pp 19.97 g 2.17 23.30 g 2.16
0.4 g
In view of the results, the structural response appears to be not nn 25.99 g 2.15 25.59 g 2.12
only sensitive to the adopted soil model but also to the structural
characteristics. However, rather than finding a general trend, the
structural response shows unpredictable features due to the soil-
structure interaction. Therefore, in the case of important structures
such as high-rise buildings, underestimating the structural response
may be potentially disastrous and requires thorough dynamic
analysis considering the characteristics of both soil medium and
structure. For example, the acceleration response at the top of
building model 2 under PGA of 0.4 g exhibits a difference of
maximum 26.7% according to the adopted soil profile (Fig. 12).
The selection of the soil profile appears thus to have also
significant influence on the analysis results. In fact, the determination
Fig. 13. Comparison of Spectral Accelerations at Ground Level of
of the soil profile is based on the results of boring conducted at Building Model 3 according to the Adopted Material Model
regular spots in the site. Therefore, establishing a soil profile (PGA 0.2 g)
model reflecting accurately the actual soil profile is of critical
importance during the design process. In order to examine the
effect of the soil profile model on the structural response, a model. For the same soil profile nn, the consideration of a multi-
comparison between the soil models is meaningful. This implies linear material model results in a difference ranging from 4.65%
that the inaccurate modeling of the soil profile may have to 5.6% according to the applied PGA compared to the linear
disastrous effect on the safety of the structure or may lead to material model.
excessive and cost-inefficient design. However, for building models 2 and 3, the difference in the
Table 5 compares the results of the analyses considering soil spectral accelerations at ground level becomes tremendous. For
models nn and pp when the soil is modeled simply using the building model 3, a comparison of the difference in the spectral
equivalent stiffness (linear analysis), as often done in practice, accelerations using the same profile pp reveals that the linear and
and using a multi-linear model (multi-linear analysis) as multi-linear analyses lead to responses differing by 13.8% for
proposed in this study. Here also, the results are compared in PGA of 0.2 g, 15.4% for PGA of 0.3 g, and 16.7% for PGA of
terms of the spectral accelerations at ground level and top of the 0.4 g (Fig. 13).
structure. Moreover, the consideration of both multi-linear material
From the results in Table 5, the original building (building model and complex soil profile, that is soil model pp and multi-
model 1) does show slight difference with respect to the choice linear material model versus soil model nn and linear material
of the soil model in terms of the adopted soil profile and material model, leads to a difference exceeding 28% for all the adopted

− 760 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis for Complex Soil Profiles using Unaligned Mesh Generation and Nonlinear Modeling Approach
PGAs in the case of building model 2, and reaches a maximum
of 31.5% in the case of building model 1.
Following the traditional practice simplifying the soil medium
using a linear material model through the application of the
equivalent elastic modulus and using flat-layered soil profile
may provide erroneous estimation of the acceleration responses
experienced by the structure. This erroneous estimation is likely
to mislead the designer and have large impact on the economic
efficiency and safety of the structure at hand.
4. Conclusions
This paper presented a soil-structure interaction analysis method
considering the characteristics of the structure, soil-structure
interface and complex nonlinear distribution of the soil that
could not be accurately modeled in previous studies. The
proposed method adopted unaligned mesh generation and
nonlinear modeling approach to model complex soil profiles.
The method pertains to the class of direct method to improve the
accuracy and computational efficiency of the analysis since the
responses of the soil and structure are determined simultaneously
by analyzing the idealized soil-structure system in a single step.
Unaligned mesh generation was adopted for the finite elements
to allow more accurate computation of the stiffness and mass
matrices of elements including discontinuities. This choice
enabled swift and convenient modeling of the soil-structure
system exhibiting complicated boundary conditions. The
nonlinearity of the soil medium was considered by means of
multi-linear model. Such model offered the possibility to
represent synthetically the characteristics of the structure, the
distribution and nonlinear properties of the soil medium and the
complicated interface between the foundations and soil. Since
the proposed method makes use of regular matrices, the
occurrence of singular matrices was avoided.
The validity and applicability of the nonlinear soil-structure
interaction analysis method were verified through a numerical
example considering various building conditions and complex
soil profiles. The results for the considered example showed that
the simplification modeling the soil medium by flat-layered
profiles may underestimate the spectral acceleration at ground
level by more than 31%. In addition, the difference between the
soil profile models was seen to reach a significant value of
33.33%. From the results, the appropriate selection of the soil
profile appeared to have decisive influence on the analysis
results since inaccurate modeling of the soil profile may have
disastrous effect on the safety of the structure or may lead to
excessive and cost-inefficient design.
The simplicity of modeling and minimization of computational
efforts provided by the proposed method are believed to be
useful in sites with complicated soil profiles for which
oversimplified modeling was performed to date. Further studies
will consider the case of building with piles built on soft soil with
complicated profiles and the case of the presence of large
boulder or other materials inside the soil medium.
Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from a Strategic Research
Project (Development of design and construction system technology
for hybrid cable stayed bridge) funded by the Korea Institute of
Construction Technology.
References
Baker, J. W. and Cornell, A. (2006). “Which spectral acceleration are
you using?.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 293-312.
Bathe, K. (1996). Finite element procedures, Prentice-Hall Inc.
Betti, R., Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M., and Niazy, A. S. (1993). “Kinematic
soil-structure interaction for long-span cable-supported bridge.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 22, No. 5,
pp. 415-430.
Çelebi, E., Firat, S., and Çankaya, I. (2006). “The evaluation of impedance
functions in the analysis of foundations vibrations using boundary
element method.” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 173,
No. 1, pp. 636-667.
Elleithy, W. (2008). “Analysis of problems in elasto-plasticity via an
adaptive FEM-BEM coupling method.” Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 197, No. 45, pp. 3687-
3701.
Kausel, E. (2010). “Early history of soil-structure interaction.” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 822-
832.
Lysmer, J. and Kuhlemeyer, R. L. (1969). “Finite dynamic model for
infinite media.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 95,
No. EM4, pp. 859-877.
Noorzaei, J., Viladkar, M. N., and Godbole, P. N. (1995). “Influence of
strain hardening on soil-structure interaction of framed structures.”
Computers & Structures, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 789-795.
Park, J. (2007). “Dynamic analysis of soil-pile-structure interaction
considering a complex soil profile.” Journal of Korean Society of
Safety, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 50-56.
Park, S. and Antin, N. (2004). “A discontinuous Galerkin method for
seismic soil-structure interaction analysis in the time domain.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp. 285-293.
Pecker, A. and Chatzigogos, C. T. (2010). “Nonlinear soil structure
interaction: Impact on the seismic response structures.” In: Earthquake
Engineering in Europe, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake
Engineering, Eds.: M. Garevski, A. Ansal, Heidelberg: Springer, Vol.
17, pp. 79-103.
Simos, N. and Costantino, C. J. (2004). “Soil spatial variability effect on
soil structure interaction studies: Enveloping uncertainties in structural
response.” Proc. Third UJNR Workshop on Soil-Structure Interaction,
California, USA, March 2004, pp. 29-30.
Soares, D. Jr. (2012). “FEM-BEM iterative coupling procedures to
analyze interactive wave propagation models: fluid-fluid, solid-solid
and fluid-solid analyses.” Coupled Systems Mechanics, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 19-37.
Soares, D. Jr. and Mansur, W. J. (2006). “Dynamic analysis of fluid-soil-
structure interaction problems by the boundary element method.”
Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 219, No. 2, pp. 498-512.
von Estorff, O. and Hagen, C. (2006). “Iterative coupling of FEM and
BEM in 3D transient elastodynamics.” Engineering Analysis with
Boundary Elements, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 611-622.
− 761 −
 Jang Ho Park, Jinkyo F. Choo, and Jeong-Rae Cho

Wang, G., Chen, L., and Song, C. (2006). “Finite-infinite element for dynamic
analysis of axisymmetrically saturated composite foundations.”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol.
67, No. 7, pp. 916-932.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil structure interaction, Prentice-Hall Inc.
Zerfa, Z. and Loret, B. (2004). “A viscous boundary for transient
analyses of saturated porous media.” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 89-110.
Zohdi, T. I. and Wriggers, P. (2001). “Computational micro-macro
material testing.” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering,
Vol. 8, pp. 132-228.
Zhodi, T. I. and Wriggers, P. (2001). “Aspects of the computational
testing of the mechanical properties of microheterogeneous material
samples.” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
Vol. 50, No. 11, pp. 2573-2599.
Zhou, A. and Lu, T. (2009). “Elasto-plastic constitutive model of soil-
structure interface in consideration of strain softening and dilation.”
Acta Mechanica Solida Sinica, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 171-179.

− 762 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

View publication stats