Buildings Paper

buildings
Article
Effect of Spacing and Slenderness Ratio of Piles on the Seismic
Behavior of Building Frames
Joseph Antony Visuvasam 1, * and Sembulichampalayam Sennimalai Chandrasekaran 2
1 School of Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India

2 Centre for Disaster Mitigation and Management, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India
* Correspondence: visuvasam.j@vit.ac.in; Tel.: +91-9894264192
Abstract: The general assumption of a rigid base at the bottom of building structures during analysis
and design underestimates the seismic response. Building structures resting on loose sand and soft
clayey soil are vulnerable to earthquake forces. The amplification of ground motion occurs due to the
presence of this loose and soft soil deposit. Moreover, the spacing and slenderness ratio of piles play
a vital role in altering the behavior of the overall soil-foundation-superstructure system. This study
aimed at investigating the effect of soil-pile-structure interaction using 1-g shake-table testing. Free
and forced vibration tests were performed on scaled building frames with either a rigid base or a
flexible base, supported on sandy soil with 50% relative density. A laminar shear box container is
used for an experimental study of soil-pile-structure interaction. The design parameters, such as the
spacing (S = 3D, 5D, 7D, and 9D) and slenderness ratio (L/D = 15, 30, 45, and 60) of the piles, where S,
D and L are spacing, diameter and length of the piles respectively, are considered in the analysis. The
results, in terms of natural frequency, damping, pile-bending moment, story lateral displacement,
and inter-story drift are estimated. From the findings, it is clear that the effects due to pile spacing are
more considerable than the effects due to the slenderness ratio of the piles. The bending moment
in the piles spaced at 3D is increased by 102% compared to the large-spacing (S = 9D) piles. This
Citation: Visuvasam, J.A.;
subsequently amplifies the story lateral displacement by 180% and amplifies the inter-story drift
Chandrasekaran, S.S. Effect of by 167%.
Spacing and Slenderness Ratio of
Piles on the Seismic Behavior of Keywords: shake table testing; pile spacing; slenderness ratio; natural frequency; bending moment;
Building Frames. Buildings 2022, 12, inter-story drift
2050. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12122050
Academic Editor: Silvia Costanzo

1. Introduction
Received: 26 October 2022
Pile foundations are generally used to support bridges, offshore wind turbines, jack-
Accepted: 17 November 2022
eted platforms, transmission towers, high-rise buildings, and the vibratory machines that
Published: 23 November 2022
are used in power plants and petrochemical complexes. Moreover, they are used in coastal
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral regions, where the majority of the sites are covered with weak clays, marine deposits, and
with regard to jurisdictional claims in loose sandy soils [1,2]. These pile foundations are often required to resist lateral loads and
published maps and institutional affil- moments, in addition to axial compressive or tensile forces [3]. The resistance along the hor-
iations. izontal direction depends on the type of the surrounding soil and pile group configuration.
In addition, the behavior of pile groups under lateral dynamic loads is non-linear and com-
plex in nature. According to Reese et al. [4], the behavior of a pile group that is subjected to
dynamic lateral loads is different from that of a single pile. The lateral resistance of the pile
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
group is reduced, due to pile-soil-pile interaction. The bending moment development in
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
closely spaced piles (3D, where D is diameter of pile) is increased by 20%, due to group
This article is an open access article
interaction [5]. Moreover, the various other factors that affect the lateral behavior of pile
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
foundations are the spacing of piles, the number of piles in a group, the configuration of the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
pile group, soil stiffness, flexural rigidity, the slenderness ratio of the piles, and the fixity
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ conditions at the pile head. In addition, the group’s interactions owing to the degradation
4.0/). of soil stiffness increased the bending moment and deflection of the pile group more than
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122050 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 2 of 24
that of single piles subjected to the same average load [6,7]. In a recent study [8], it was
found that the natural frequencies of single and grouped helical piles decreased due to
successive shaking. This results in large soil deformation and a reduction in the stiffness of
the soil-pile system, due to the occurrence of resonant conditions. Therefore, appropriate
consideration is required in an investigation of the analysis and design of piles under
horizontal dynamic actions, taking into account soil-pile-structure interaction (SPSI).
Superstructures are generally assumed to be fixed or rigid for the purposes of seismic
analysis and design. In reality, the soil-foundation system that is present beneath ground
level affects the superstructure response significantly. The behavior of the substructure is
affected by the behavior of the superstructure and vice versa; this phenomenon is called
soil–structure interaction (SSI). Ignoring SSI during seismic analysis means that it cannot
effectively simulate the actual scenario of wave propagation and transfer mechanisms in
the superstructure [9]. According to a previous study [10], the soil–foundation system’s
response increases the natural time-period and ductility demands of the overall system.
Determining the response of structures when taking into account SSI effects also requires
the simulation of both inertial and kinematic interaction. The effects are small for light
and flexible structures that are resting on firm ground. However, the effects are detri-
mental to rigid structures resting on soft soils. Ground motions may increase the spectral
accelerations because of the amplification of the ground acceleration and fault rupture
directivity effects [11]. Previously published research [12–14] suggests that the SSI effects
are considerable when a structure is founded on soft soil and the shear wave velocity is
less than 600 m/s.
The significance of soil-pile-structure interaction to the failure of various structures
was evidenced by post-earthquake investigations detailed by several researchers [15–22].
The majority of buildings and bridges standing during the 1964 Niigata earthquake [18],
the 1985 Mexico earthquake [19], the 1995 Kobe earthquake [20], and the 2001 Bhuj earth-
quake [21] were severely damaged due to the effects of soil-pile-structure interaction.
The superstructures that were supported on soil-pile mediums experienced large lateral
displacements and inter-story drift values [23–26] in comparison with rigid-base super-
structures. The rise in response parameters is due to the amplification of acceleration by
the presence of flexible soil deposits. Moreover, the response of the building depends on
the selection of a suitable soil profile [27], amplification factors, and the target spectrum of
the site [28]. However, the pile group interaction reduces the resistance of the soil medium
by degrading the soil stiffness. This clearly demonstrates the importance of considering the
SPSI in the analysis and design of the overall system when subjected to seismic forces.
Field testing of soil-foundation-structure systems has been carried out over the past
few decades to investigate the significance of SSI. The study included static lateral loading,
cyclic loading, and dynamic loading using various foundations. The primary outcome of
the response parameters of all these studies was the stiffness and damping functions. Static
lateral loads were applied to single and different configurations of pile groups [7,29–36].
Similarly, cyclic lateral loadings [37–44], dynamic lateral loadings [45–48], and small-scale
field testing [49–53] were carried out by various researchers.
The experimental testing of scaled models in geotechnical applications is performed ei-
ther by using shake-table tests or centrifuge tests. These testing results are generally used for
the quantitative prediction of numerical and analytical results. Various researchers [54–56]
have considered the superstructure as a single-degree-of-freedom system for the shake-
table tests. The drawback of such tests is that the superstructure’s flexibility may not be
accounted for and the effect of higher modes would not be considered in the entire soil-
foundation-structure study. In addition, the ignoring of the superstructure in soil-structure
interaction studies may not allow the capture of the inertial force transfer mechanism.
In addition, the soil-foundation system alters the natural time period, which ultimately
changes the spectral acceleration of the building. This results in changes to the base shear
and lateral story displacements. The effects of SSI on a natural time period in terms of low-
to high-rise RC buildings have been proposed in the form of empirical relationships by
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 3 of 24
various researchers [57–59]. Very few researchers [60–63] have considered superstructure
as a building model for shake-table testing and studied the seismic response.
In summary, post-earthquake investigations reveal that the soil-pile-structure interac-
tion influences the superstructure’s behavior detrimentally. In actual practice, ignoring SSI
and SPSI during the analysis and design of the foundation and superstructure may cause
either the underestimation or over-estimation of the response parameters. Over the past few
decades, experimental and numerical investigations were carried out to address the effects
of SSI on the overall soil-foundation-superstructure system. Very limited works [23,60,61]
are available that consider the superstructure in the context of SPSI investigations. Thus,
in this study, a building model for the superstructure is presented that demonstrates the
structure’s characteristics, such as natural frequency, density, and the number of stories in
the prototype superstructure. Furthermore, a laminar shear box is employed to simulate the
free-field behavior of the soil medium. The model pile cap and pile foundations have been
designed to represent the prototype foundations. Design parameters, such as the spacing
and length of the pile foundations, have been varied for the study. Finally, experimental
tests are performed on a rigid-base and soil-pile-supported superstructure, and the results
are compared.
2. Description of Prototype Structural Models

2.1. Superstructure
The considered superstructure for this experimental study is a conventional seven-
story reinforced concrete building frame, with an overall height of 28 m and a base dimen-
sion of 8 m, comprising two spans. The dead loads [64] and imposed load of 4 kN/m2 [65]
are adopted, as per the Indian Standards for buildings. The superstructure is analyzed,
adopting the seismic parameters according to the figures in [66]. The building is assumed to
be located in Vellore city, India; hence, the zone factor (Z) is 0.16. The functional use of the
structure is residential, and the response reduction factor (R) is adopted as 5. The damping
of the building is assumed to be 5%. The soil type is considered to be a medium. The grade
of concrete and grade of reinforcement steel adopted for the design of the superstructure
are M30 and Fe415, respectively. The natural frequency of the fixed-base prototype super-
structure is established to be 0.49 Hz. The building is designed according to a previous
study [67], using the structural analysis programming tool, SAP2000 (version.19.2, CA,
USA) [68].
2.2. Soil
The specific gravity (Gs ) of the sandy soil was estimated in the laboratory using the
Pyconometer method, according to the authors of [69], and was established to be 2.64. The
relative density test was conducted as per [70] and the values of maximum (ρmax ) and
minimum dry density (ρmin ) of the sandy soil are established as 1.77 g/cc and 1.52 g/cc,
respectively. A direct shear test was performed, as per [71], and the value for the angle of
internal friction (φ) of the soil corresponding to the 50% relative density was obtained, at
35◦ . A dry sieve analysis was performed, according to the procedure in [72], to evaluate
the grain-size distribution of the soil. The sandy soil was classified as poorly graded sand
(SP), as per the Indian Standard [63] and Unified Soil classification systems [73]. The
experimental building rested on a pile cap and pile foundations. The grades of concrete
and reinforcement steel used for the design of the pile cap and pile foundations were M25
and Fe415, respectively. The total width of the pile cap in both the x and y directions was
12 m, and the thickness was estimated to be 700 mm. The pile foundations were designed
for 3 × 3 pile group configurations, with various pile lengths (L) of 15D, 30D, 45D, and 60D
and a pile spacing (S) layout of 3D, 5D, 7D, and 9D. The pile foundations were assumed
to be of the floating/friction type, and the design was carried out according to the model
in [74]. The prototype superstructure and the foundations were scaled according to the
scaling law given in Table 1 and Equation (1), in order to obtain the models, and the test
was performed using a shake table.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 4 of 24
Table 1. The parameters used for scaling after Wood et al. [75].
Length (mm) Density (kg/m3 ) Volume (m3 ) Stiffness (N/m) Frequency (Hz)
1/n 1 1/n3 1/n2 n1/2
3. Testing Facilities Used

3.1. Shake Table
Shake tables are generally used to quantify the behavior of soil, foundations, and
structural models subjected to dynamic loading, especially earthquakes. The table is
agitated with the help of hydraulic actuators to simulate the various types of periodic
and transient motions. The shake table available at the Advanced Strength of Materials
laboratory in the Vellore Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, India has a payload capacity
of 1 MT. The base dimension of the shake table platform is 1 m × 1 m. The operating
frequency of the shake table is limited to between 0.05 Hz and 20 Hz. The table can be
excited to a maximum displacement of ± 150 mm. The model structure can be fixed to the
table using M38 bolts.
3.2. Laminar Shear Box Container

Numerous researchers [23,54–56,58,76–85] have reported that a laminar shear box soil
container can effectively capture the free-field response of soil during seismic excitation.
Compared to rigid and flexible soil containers, laminar shear soil containers have been
widely used for various studies [23,54,77] on SSI problems. The selection of the longitudinal,
lateral, and vertical dimensions of the box must be based on the response of soil-structure
systems that are not affected by the deformation that occurs during gravity and lateral load-
ing. According to a previous study [86], the minimum longitudinal and lateral dimensions
of the container should be five times the length along shaking direction and three times
the width of the superstructure, respectively. Similarly, to prevent deformation of the soil,
which can be attributed to the lateral and vertical loading, the container’s minimum height
should be greater than 1.5 to 2 times the length of the pile foundations [87]. Therefore,
based on the available base dimensions of the shake table, the longitudinal, lateral, and
vertical inner dimensions of the soil container were fixed at 900 mm, 600 mm, and 1000 mm,
respectively.
The soil container was made of rectangular aluminum hollow sections with dimensions
of 50 mm × 50 mm. The frames were separated with a gap of 5 mm by using rollers
attached to the bottom of the frames. These rollers are employed to simulate the movement
of soil layers during vibrations. Furthermore, to achieve the frictionless movement of
the aluminum frames during loading, the sidewalls of the frames parallel to the loading
direction were attached with a vertical steel frame using rollers. Indian Standard Angle
sections (ISA) were used to make the vertical frame. This vertical steel frame is used to
hold and position the rectangular aluminum frames before applying seismic excitation.
The vertical frames and the rectangular aluminum frame were attached to the 20 mm-thick
aluminum base plate. Finally, the entire arrangement was fixed to the shake table platform
using six M38 bolts. The container was covered inside it, using a silicon rubber sheet of
the required dimensions to hold the soil. Moreover, it was possible that the seismic waves
passing through the soil medium may have reflected back during vibration. Hence, to
avoid boundary effects when shaking the table, 25 mm-thick polystyrene foam panels were
placed at the ends of the container, which were perpendicular to the loading direction. This
arrangement is similar to those used in previous studies [58,88–90].
3.3. Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System

The performance of the overall SPSI system under seismic loading was obtained using
various measuring instruments. The lateral story displacement of the superstructure was
measured using displacement transducers (Figure 1a). HBM (Hottinger Baldwin Messtech-
nik Gmbh, Darmstadt, Germany) plunger-type displacement transducers (WA-L/200 mm)
The performance of the overall SPSI system under seismic loading was obtained
using various measuring instruments. The lateral story displacement of the
superstructure was measured using displacement transducers (Figure 1a). HBM
(Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik Gmbh, Darmstadt, Germany) plunger-type
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 displacement transducers (WA-L/200 mm) with a nominal sensitivity of 80 mV/V 5 of 24 (0.08
mm) were used. The strain gauges (Figure 1b) were installed along the length of the pile
to obtain the strain that developed at the time of testing. HBM (Hottinger Baldwin
Messtechnik
with a nominalGmbh, Darmstadt,
sensitivity of 80 mV/VGermany)
(0.08 mm) linear (1-LY11-3/120)
were used. strain
The strain gauges gauge
(Figure 1b) with
were installed
normal resistancealong the length
of 120 of the is
± 0.5 ohms pile to obtain
used. The the strain
grid that and
length developed
gaugeatfactor
the time
areof3 mm
andtesting. HBM (Hottinger
2.02, respectively. TheBaldwin Messtechnik
measured values Gmbh, Darmstadt,
were then convertedGermany) linear (1-LY11-
into bending moments.
3/120) strain gauge with normal resistance of 120 ±
All the measuring instruments (displacement transducers and strain length
0.5 ohms is used. The grid gauges)and were
gauge factor are 3 mm and 2.02, respectively. The measured values were then converted into
calibrated before beginning the shake-table testing. Two data acquisition systems, such
bending moments. All the measuring instruments (displacement transducers and strain
as gauges)
the HBM (Hottinger
were calibrated beforeBaldwin
beginning Messtechnik
the shake-table Gmbh,
testing. TwoDarmstadt, Germany)
data acquisition
MX840B-Quantum
systems, such as theXHBM (8 channels) (Figure Messtechnik
(Hottinger Baldwin 1c), and aGmbh, National Instruments
Darmstadt, Germany) system
(c-DAQ 9178, Austin, Texas) (32 channels—see Figure 1d) were utilized
MX840B-Quantum X (8 channels) (Figure 1c), and a National Instruments system (c-DAQ in this testing
program.
9178, Austin, Texas) (32 channels—see Figure 1d) were utilized in this testing program.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 1.1.The
Figure The instrumentation usedforfor
instrumentation used measuring
measuring the structural
the structural response:
response: (a) linear(a) lineardis-
variable variable
displacement
placement transducer, (b) linear strain gauge, (c) data acquisition system MX840B—HBM, and (d) a and
transducer, (b) linear strain gauge, (c) data acquisition system MX840B—HBM,
(d)data
a data acquisition
acquisition system
system mademade by National
by National Instruments.
Instruments.
4. Description of Scaled Models

4.1. Building Model
Scaled models used for experimental investigations should simulate the prototype’s
behavior during the shake-table test. Hence, to achieve a reliable scaled model representing
the prototype’s behavior, appropriate scaling factors are required [19]. Moreover, the
geometric, kinematic, and dynamic similarities of the prototype and scaled models should
be taken into consideration [91]. Considering the limitations of the available shake table and
4.1. Building Model
Scaled models used for experimental investigations should simulate the prototype’s
behavior during the shake-table test. Hence, to achieve a reliable scaled model
representing the prototype’s behavior, appropriate scaling factors are required [19].
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 Moreover, the geometric, kinematic, and dynamic similarities of the prototype 6and of 24
scaled models should be taken into consideration [91]. Considering the limitations of the
available shake table and the laminar soil container specifications, a scaling factor of 1:40
was adoptedsoil
the laminar in the currentspecifications,
container experimentalastudy.scalingThe scaling
factor lawwas
of 1:40 used for theinconversion
adopted the current
ofexperimental
prototype superstructure
study. The scalingand foundations
law used forintothescaled models
conversion of is presented
prototype in Table 1.
superstructure
andAccording
foundations to into
the scaling law recommended
scaled models is presented by the authors
in Table 1. of [75] , the frequency of
the scaled superstructure
According model
to the scaling should be 3.10byHz.
law recommended theThe dimensions
authors of frequency
of [75], the the prototype
of the
building members should
scaled superstructure modelalsoshould
be scaled. In Hz.
be 3.10 addition, the required
The dimensions of scaled stiffnessbuilding
the prototype of the
members
column and should
weight also
of be
thescaled. In addition,
structural model, the requiredwithout
calculated scaled stiffness
the baseof the column
plate, neededandto
weight
be 34.33 of
N/mthe and
structural model,
14.41 kg, calculatedThe
respectively. without thewidth,
length, base plate, neededoftothe
and height be 34.33 N/m
structural
and 14.41
model werekg, respectively.
computed as 200The
mm,length,
200 mm,width, andmm,
and 700 height of the structural
respectively. model were
The calculation for
computed
the as 200 mm,
scale model’s 200 mm, and
dimensions 700 mm,
is given in respectively.
Appendix A. The The
calculation for the
fabricated scale
scaled
model’s dimensions
superstructure model is andgiven
the in Appendix
joint A. shown
details are The fabricated
in Figurescaled
2. superstructure model
and the joint details are shown in Figure 2.
Fabricatedscaled
Figure2.2.Fabricated
Figure scaledsuperstructure
superstructuremodel:
model:(a)
(a)overall
overallview,
view,(b,c)
(b,c)joint
jointdetails.
details.
Themodel
The modelhashasseven
sevensteel
steelplates,
plates, sized
sized 200 mm ××200
200 mm 200mmmm××6 6mm,mm,totorepresent
representthe
the
floors, and four steel plates, sized 700 mm × 22 mm × 2 mm, to represent
floors, and four steel plates, sized 700 mm × 22 mm × 2 mm, to represent the columns. the columns.
Steel-plate grade
Steel-plate grade Fe410,
Fe410,manufactured
manufactured according to Indian
according standards
to Indian [92], with
standards a minimum
[92], with a
yield stress
minimum of 250
yield MPa
stress and MPa
of 250 a minimum tensile strength
and a minimum of 410 MPa,
tensile strength hasMPa,
of 410 beenhas
adopted
been
in the design. A steel plate of dimension 300 mm × 300 mm × 10 mm is placed at the
adopted in the design. A steel plate of dimension 300 mm × 300 mm × 10 mm is placed at
bottom of the model, to act as a base plate. Holes are provided at 100 mm c/c to connect
the bottom of the model, to act as a base plate. Holes are provided at 100 mm c/c to
the unit with a shake table. The steel columns are attached to the plate at the bottom of the
connect the unit with a shake table. The steel columns are attached to the plate at the
model, using M8 bolts. Similarly, the columns and steel floor plates are connected using
bottom of the model, using M8 bolts. Similarly, the columns and steel floor plates are
1.5 mm-diameter stainless steel metal screws with a length of 15 mm. Holes are provided
connected using 1.5 mm-diameter stainless steel metal screws with a length of 15 mm.
at the locations of columns and slab joints.
Holes are provided at the locations of columns and slab joints.
4.2. Soil
The particle size distribution curve of the soil sample used for the scaled model
experimental investigation is given in Figure 3. A poorly graded sandy soil (SP) with a
mean diameter (D50 ) of 0.34 mm is used for the experimental work. According to previous
studies [93,94], the diameter of the model piles must be less than 20 times the effective
grain size diameter, to avoid scale effects. Thus, the required effective grain size to reduce
the scale error must be less than 0.4 mm. In this study, the effective mean diameter used is
0.34 mm, which is less than the required value of 0.4 mm; thus, the error can be minimized.
position, the remaining soil was poured in up to the top of the pile group system.
Moreover, polystyrene foam of 25 mm thickness was positioned at the same time on
either side of the laminar shear box, along the loading direction, to act as absorbent
boundaries. Once the preparation of the soil bed was completed, the model
superstructure was fixed at the pile cap level, using M8 bolts. Later, the displacement
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 transducers were fixed to alternate story levels, comprising the roof (seventh), fifth, third,
7 of 24
and first levels, and ensured a zero reading in the data acquisition system.
Figure 3. Particle
Figure 3. Particle size
size distribution
distribution curve
curve of
of the
the soil
soil employed
employed for
for testing.
testing.
The soil was poured in until it reached the required quantity in the laminar shear box
4.3. Model Foundations
container for a Dr of 50%. Sand of the required weight was calculated and poured inside
Similar
the soil to theinmodel
container variousstructure, the scaling
layers. The thickness lawofiseach
usedsoilto layer
convert
was the75prototype
mm. The pile soil
cap was
bed and first
pile prepared
into the model’s
up to thefoundations.
bottom of the It pile
is necessary
group system.to consider those factors
After aligning that
the entire
affect the scaling
instrumented pileofgroup
model foundations.
and According to
pile cap arrangement a previous
carefully study
in the [19], position,
required these factors
the
are flexural rigidity (EI), slenderness ratio (L/D), relative stiffness, and
remaining soil was poured in up to the top of the pile group system. Moreover, polystyrene the type of yield
mechanism
foam (rigid
of 25 mm or flexible).
thickness was In the present
positioned study,
at the same thetime
flexural rigidity
on either side ofof
the prototype
the laminar
pile foundations
shear box, along the wasloading
scaleddirection,
accordingtotoactEquation
as absorbent(1) [75] as follows:Once the preparation
boundaries.
of the soil bed was completed, the model  EI  p superstructure was fixed at the pile cap level,
4  4.5
using M8 bolts. Later, the displacement transducers n  nwere fixed to alternate story levels, (1)
comprising the roof (seventh), fifth,third, EI m and first levels, and ensured a zero reading in
the data acquisition system.
where L and D are the length and diameter of the pile, respectively, (EI)P and (EI)m are
the Model
4.3. flexural rigidity of the prototype and model pile, respectively, Ep and Em are the
Foundations
elastic modulus
Similar to the of model
the prototype and
structure, model
the scaling pilelawmaterial,
is used respectively,
to convert theIp prototype
and Im arepile the
moments of inertia of the prototype and model pile, respectively,
cap and pile into the model’s foundations. It is necessary to consider those factors that n is the scale factor,
affect the scaling of model foundations. According to a previous study [19], these factors
are flexural rigidity (EI), slenderness ratio (L/D), relative stiffness, and the type of yield
mechanism (rigid or flexible). In the present study, the flexural rigidity of the prototype
pile foundations was scaled according to Equation (1) [75] as follows:
( EI ) p
= n4+α = n4.5 (1)
( EI )m
where L and D are the length and diameter of the pile, respectively, (EI)p and (EI)m are the
flexural rigidity of the prototype and model pile, respectively, Ep and Em are the elastic
modulus of the prototype and model pile material, respectively, Ip and Im are the moments
of inertia of the prototype and model pile, respectively, n is the scale factor, and α is the
factor that depends on small-strain stiffness, which is equal to 0.5 for sand [75].
A total of nine piles with a 3 × 3 pile-group configuration was chosen. The behavior
of the pile under lateral loading is based on the type of yield mechanism. According to
previous research [74], the pile foundations are classified as rigid, intermediate, and flexible
(elastic), based on their rigidity. In the present study, piles are designed to behave in the
intermediate to the flexible range. Previous researchers [54,78,90,95,96] have used various
types of materials, such as aluminum tubes, steel bars, and reinforced concrete to design
pile models. Considering the scaling factor of 1:40 and the criteria of yield mechanism
and the stiffness of piles, the required diameter of an aluminum solid section model pile is
8 mm. Moreover, an aluminum plate of 16 mm thickness with a 300 mm × 300 mm plan
dimension is used for the pile cap. The pile foundations are instrumented, using strain
flexible (elastic), based on their rigidity. In the present study, piles are designed to b
in the intermediate to the flexible range. Previous researchers [54,78,90,95,96] have
various types of materials, such as aluminum tubes, steel bars, and reinforced concr
design pile models. Considering the scaling factor of 1:40 and the criteria of
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 mechanism and the stiffness of piles, the required diameter of an aluminum 8 of 24 solid se
model pile is 8 mm. Moreover, an aluminum plate of 16 mm thickness with a 300
300 mm plan dimension is used for the pile cap. The pile foundations are instrume
gauges fixed atusing strainmiddle
the front, gaugesandfixed
rearat the of
rows front,
pilesmiddle
(Figure and rear numbers
4a). The rows of of
piles (Figure 4a)
strain
numbers of strain gauges (Figure 4b) used for the various lengths of pile
gauges (Figure 4b) used for the various lengths of pile foundations are 4, 5, 7, and 8 for the foundation
4, 5, 7, and 8 for the lengths
lengths of 15D, 30D, 45D, and 60D, respectively.of 15D, 30D, 45D, and 60D, respectively.
Figure 4. Instrumentation details: (a) details

Figure 4. Instrumentation of the(a)instrumented
details: details of thepile foundations,
instrumented and
pile (b) model and (b)
foundations,
piles with the strain gauges.
piles with the strain gauges.
The displacement
The transducers
displacementare attached atare
transducers theattached
roof (seventh), fifth,
at the roof third andfifth,
(seventh), first
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26 third and
floors of both rigid- and flexible-base structural models. The overall arrangements of the
floors of both rigid- and flexible-base structural models. The overall arrangements
rigid-base and soil-pile-supported models are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
rigid-base and soil-pile-supported models are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectivel
Figure
Figure 5.
5. Shake-table
Shake-table test
test for
for the
the fixed-base
fixed-base structure.
structure.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 9 of 24
Figure 5. Shake-table test for the fixed-base structure.
Shaketable
Figure6.6.Shake
Figure tabletest
testfor
forthe
thesoil-pile-supported
soil-pile-supportedstructure,
structure,using
usingthe
thelaminar
laminarshear
shearbox.
box.
5. Free Vibration Analyses of the Structures

The natural time period (T) or fundamental natural frequency (f ) plays a vital role in
altering the spectral acceleration of the building. Moreover, the time period of a building
with a flexible base increases as the flexibility of the soil-foundation system increases. This
also modifies the energy dissipation capacity (i.e., damping) of the overall system. Hence,
it is important to estimate the natural time period (or natural frequency) and damping of
the soil-foundation-superstructure system.
The natural frequency of the system can be determined using free-vibration analysis.
Any system that starts vibrating after it is subjected to an initial disturbance without any
external force is considered to show free vibration. The natural frequency (f ) and damping
coefficient are the response parameters obtained from the free vibration of the damped
system. The natural frequency (f ) is dependent on mass (m) and stiffness (k). The unit for ‘f ’
is hertz (Hz) or cycles per second (cps).
In a dynamic structural analysis, the damping forces are considered to be proportional
to the amount of velocity [97]. This type of damping is known as viscous damping and
is denoted by ‘c’. The damping coefficient (ξ) of the system can be estimated using the
commonly used approach known as the logarithmic decrement method. The symbol ‘δ’
denotes the logarithmic decrement. The degrading of the motion can be expressed as
a logarithmic decrement from the time-history plot of the free vibration analysis. The
time-history amplitude may be that of either acceleration or displacement. In this study,
the displacement time history is used to compute the damping coefficient. This value
is proportional to the logarithmic decrement. The damping of the system during free
vibration is estimated using Equations (2) and (3) [97,98], as follows:
1
ξ= δ (2)
2π
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 10 of 24
1 X
ξ= ln 1 (3)
2π X2
where X1 is the displacement at the first peak and X2 is the displacement at the second peak.
In the free vibration test, a rope was tied to the roof of the model superstructure.
The vibration was started using an initial displacement, applied by pulling on the rope.
The displacement response of the model was recorded using the LVDT attached to the
roof. First, the test was performed for each structural model by mounting it on the shake
table. Second, the models with 3 × 3 piles made according to various slenderness ratios
and spacings were placed in the soil, then the excitation results were captured. The tests
were repeated three times for each model and the average frequency was estimated. For
instance, the natural frequencies of the fixed-base model were measured for the three trials
as 3.3, 3.04, and 3.24 Hz, respectively. Therefore, the natural frequency of the rigid-base
structure was ascertained to be 3.22 Hz, which agrees closely with the calculated natural
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
frequency of 3.10 Hz. The recorded displacement time history plot of the fixed-base 11 of
and26
soil-pile-supported structures are shown in Figure 7a,b, respectively. The plots clearly
display the decay of the motion.
15 40
Displacement (mm)
10
Displacement (mm)
20
5
0
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 -20
-5
-10 -40
Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

-15 -60
(a) (b)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. The
The free vibration displacement
free vibration displacement response
response of:
of: (a)
(a) the
the fixed-base
fixed-base structure,
structure, and
and (b) the
(b) the
soil-pile-supported model (L = 15D and S = 3D).
soil-pile-supported model (L = 15D and S = 3D).
The values
The valuesofofthethe natural
natural frequency
frequency and damping
and damping ratio
ratio of of the rigid-base
the rigid-base and
and soil-pile-
soil-pile-supported
supported models were models were from
computed computed from these
these results results
and are and in
presented areFigure
presented
7. in
FigureIn 7.
Figure 8, it is shown that the natural frequencies of the soil-pile-supported structures
wereIn Figure
lower than8,those
it is ofshown that the structures.
the rigid-base natural frequencies
The valuesofcorresponding
the soil-pile-supported
to the soil-
pile-supported models also increased as the spacing (from 3D to 9D)values
structures were lower than those of the rigid-base structures. The and the corresponding
length of the
to the
pile soil-pile-supported
foundations (from 15Dmodelsto 60D)also increased
increased. as the spacing
A similar trend in(from 3D toresponse
frequency 9D) andwas the
length of by
obtained thethe
pileauthors
foundations
of [99],(from 15D to 60D)
by increasing increased. Aratio
the slenderness similar trend
of the in frequency
piles. The main
response
reason forwas
this obtained
inference by the an
is that authors
increaseof [99],
in theby increasing
spacing the slenderness
and slenderness ratio ratio
of theofpiles
the
piles. The
makes themain reason
overall for more
system this inference
rigid. A is that an increase
reduction of 16% inin the
the natural
spacing frequency
and slendernessof the
ratio models
SPSI of the piles
withmakes
a pile the overall system
slenderness ratio of more
15Drigid. A reduction
was obtained, of 16% to
compared in that
the natural
with a
frequency
pile of the
slenderness SPSI
ratio models
of 60D. with an
Similarly, a increase
pile slenderness ratio from
in pile spacing of 15D3D towas9D obtained,
increased
the natural to
compared frequency
that with by a21%.pile slenderness ratio of 60D. Similarly, an increase in pile
Moreover,
spacing from 3Dthe to damping
9D increasedratiothe
of the rigid-base
natural and by
frequency soil-pile-supported
21%. structures for
4 varying pile group configurations
20 was
4 estimated. The damping ratio computed 20for a rigid-
Natural Frequency (f in Hz)
base building model was 5.3%, which is very close to the value (5%) that was suggested
3 by [66] for the design15of superstructures. 3 It can be seen from Figure 8 that the 15 soil-pile-
Damping (%)
Damping (%)
supported models experienced higher damping ratio values compared to the rigid-base
model. The damping of the flexible-base model decreased as the natural frequency of the
2 10 2 10
same models increased. This trend is similar to the damping response obtained by the
authors of [100] on soil-pile structure interaction studies. An increase in the damping ratio
1 of 92% for the SPSI models 5 1
concerning a pile with a length of 15D was attained 5 when
compared to that with a pile the length of 60D. Similarly, the increase in pile spacing from
0 3D to 9D decreased the 0 damping by056%. 0
15 30 45 60 3 5 7 9
Slenderness Ratio (L/D) Pile spacing to diameter (S/D)
SPSI-Natural Frequency (f) SPSI-Natural Frequency (f)
Fixed - Natural Frequency (f) Fixed - Natural Frequency (f)
SPSI-Damping (%) SPSI-Damping (%)
to the soil-pile-supported models also increased as the spacing (from 3D to 9D) and the
length of the pile foundations (from 15D to 60D) increased. A similar trend in frequency
response was obtained by the authors of [99], by increasing the slenderness ratio of the
piles. The main reason for this inference is that an increase in the spacing and slenderness
ratio of the piles makes the overall system more rigid. A reduction of 16% in the natural
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 frequency of the SPSI models with a pile slenderness ratio of 15D was obtained, 11 of 24
compared to that with a pile slenderness ratio of 60D. Similarly, an increase in pile
spacing from 3D to 9D increased the natural frequency by 21%.
4 20 4 20

3 15 3 15
Damping (%)
Damping (%)
2 10 2 10
1 5 1 5
0 0 0 0
15 30 45 60 3 5 7 9
Slenderness Ratio (L/D) Pile spacing to diameter (S/D)
SPSI-Natural Frequency (f) SPSI-Natural Frequency (f)
Fixed - Natural Frequency (f) Fixed - Natural Frequency (f)
SPSI-Damping (%) SPSI-Damping (%)
Fixed-Damping (%) Fixed-Damping (%)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 8.8. Comparison
Comparisonof of the
the natural
natural frequency
frequency and
and damping
damping of
of an
an SPSI
SPSI system
system and
and fixed-base
fixed-base
structure: (a) a varying slenderness ratio for the models with S/D = 3, and (b) the varying spacing
structure: (a) a varying slenderness ratio for the models with S/D = 3, and (b) the varying spacing of
of piles for the models, with L/D = 15.
piles for the models, with L/D = 15.
Moreover,
6. Forced the damping
Vibration ratio of the rigid-base and soil-pile-supported structures for
of Structures
varying
Seismic forces are used for thewas
pile group configurations estimated.
forced vibrationThe damping
analysis ratioand
of fixed computed
flexible for a
base-
rigid-base building model was 5.3%, which is very close to the value (5%)
structure models. These earthquake forces can be applied in the form of either transient or that was
suggested by [66] for
periodic functions. the design
Thus, of superstructures.
in this study, It canare
earthquake forces be seen
used from
in theFigure
way of8 periodic
that the
soil-pile-supported models
motion. In order to excite theexperienced higher
shake table and damping
to study ratio values
the seismic responsecompared to the
of the building
rigid-base model. The damping of the flexible-base model decreased as
model, parameters such as operating frequency, table acceleration, and displacement are the natural
necessary. The table acceleration (i.e., ground acceleration) can be estimated from the
spectral acceleration of the superstructure. According to the authors of [66], the spectral
acceleration coefficient (Sa /g) can be calculated using the formula of 1.34/T for the building
wherein the time period (T) lies between 0.55 and 4.00 s and the soil is medium-dense. The
soil conditions considered for the design of the prototype superstructure and foundations
were medium. Hence, a medium-dense sandy soil with a relative density of 50% was
adopted for this study. The natural time period of the seven-story prototype superstructure
of 28 m in height was obtained from the modal analysis, using SAP2000 as 2.04 s (0.49 Hz).
The prototype building has a plan dimension of 8 m × 8 m. Therefore, the value of Sa /g was
computed as 0.67, which can be multiplied with the zone factor to ascertain the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) of the building. The building structure was assumed to be located in
Vellore city, which has a seismic zone factor of 0.16. Thus, considering all these parameters,
the spectral acceleration (Sa ) of the superstructure and peak ground acceleration (PGA)
were computed to be 0.67 g and 0.107 g, respectively. Therefore, in this study, the Bhuj
(2001) earthquake acceleration time history, which has a moment magnitude (Mw ) of 7.7
and a PGA of 0.104 g, was used for the forced vibration analysis. The time-history plot of
the Bhuj ground motion is shown in Figure 9.
As the shake table has operating specifications in terms of displacement (X) and
frequency (f ) for harmonic vibration, the acceleration (a) and constant table displace-
ment of 5 mm were used to find the operating frequency, using the formula from [98],
a = −(2π f )2 X. The value of the operating frequency of the rigid-base structure was as-
certained to be 2.29 Hz. The building model was excited with an operating frequency of
2.29 Hz for a table displacement of 5 mm. The behavior of the superstructure, in terms of
story lateral displacement, and pile foundations, in terms of strain measurements along the
length, were obtained and discussed.
building. The building structure was assumed to be located in Vellore city, which has a
seismic zone factor of 0.16. Thus, considering all these parameters, the spectral
acceleration (Sa) of the superstructure and peak ground acceleration (PGA) were
computed to be 0.67g and 0.107g, respectively. Therefore, in this study, the Bhuj (2001)
earthquake acceleration time history, which has a moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.7 and a
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 12 of 24
PGA of 0.104g, was used for the forced vibration analysis. The time-history plot of the
Bhuj ground motion is shown in Figure 9.
1.5
Earthquake: Bhuj (2001)
1 Station: Ahmedabad, India
Acceleration (m/s2)
Component: 78
0.5
PGA: 0.104 g
0
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 13 of 26
-0.5
-1
Time (Sec)
-1.5
6.1. Pile Bending Moment
Figure
The
Figure 9.
9. Bhuj
Bhuj(2001)
pile (2001)acceleration
bending momenttime
acceleration history.
plays
time an important role in soil-pile-structure interaction,
history.
especially in the pile group. The bending moment profile of the pile along the length can
6.1. Pile
As theBending Moment
be plotted byshake table the
estimating has moment,
operatingusingspecifications
the measured in terms
strainofvalues.
displacement
The variation(X) and of
frequency
strain The (f) for
pile
measured harmonic
bending the vibration,
along moment length of the
plays an acceleration
the important
pile foundation (a) and
role inover constant
time istable
soil-pile-structure
showndisplacement
interaction,
in Figure
of 5 mm
especially
10a,b. were
in
The bending used
the pile to find
group.
moment canthe
The be operating
bending
computedmoment frequency,
usingprofile ofusing
the pile
the simple/pure the formula
along fromcan
the length
bending theory [98],
viabe
2

plotted by estimating
. The
a   2f (4),X as follows:
Equation the
value moment,
of the using
operatingthe measured
frequency strain
of values.
the The
rigid-base variation
structure of strain
was
measured along
ascertained to be the2.29length
Hz. The of building
the pile foundation
model wasover time
excited is shown
with in Figure
an operating 10a,b. The
frequency of
bending moment can be computed
2.29 Hz for a table displacement of 5 M using
mm. 
the
The E   
simple/pure
behavior I of bending
the theory
superstructure, via Equation
in terms (4),
of
as follows:
 (4)
story lateral displacement, and pile foundations, y
−E × ε × I in terms of strain measurements along
the length, were obtained and discussed. M= (4)
where M = bending moment; E = elastic modulus y of the pile material; ε = measured
strain;
whereIM = moment
= bending ofmoment;
inertia; yE= =distance from the of
elastic modulus neutral
the pile axis to the extreme
material; fiber of
ε = measured the
strain;
cross-section.
I = moment ofThe elastic
inertia; y =modulus
distance of fromthethepileneutral
material axis(aluminum)
to the extreme is ascertained
fiber of the to be
cross-
70,000
section.MPa.
The Theelasticsample
modulusrecord of the
of the pilestrain measured
material (aluminum) in theis pile foundation
ascertained to beat the level
70,000 MPa.
of 0.21
The L from
sample the top
record is plotted
of the in Figurein10a.
strain measured It can
the pile be seen from
foundation at theFigure
level of10b0.21that the
L from
maximum strain is measured at a level of 0.21 L from the top.
the top is plotted in Figure 10a. It can be seen from Figure 10b that the maximum strain is
measured at a level of 0.21 L from the top.
0.06L 0.21L 0.35L 0.50L
0.0006 0.67L 0.83L 1.0L
0.0006
Measured strain
0.0003
Measured strain
0.0003
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
-0.0003 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.0003
-0.0006
Time (Sec) -0.0006
Time (Sec)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure10.
10.Typical
Typical strain measurements in
strain measurements inthe
thepile:
pile:(a)
(a)atatthe
thelevel
level
of of
0.210.21 L from
L from thethe
top top
(L =(L = 60D
60D and
and S = 3D), and (b) at all levels for the model, where L = 60D
S = 3D), and (b) at all levels for the model, where L = 60D and S = 3D. and S = 3D.
The
The estimated bendingmoment
estimated bending momentprofileprofileof of
thethe
pilepile
alongalong its length
its length for thefor themiddle,
front, front,
middle, and rear row piles are plotted in Figure 11. This shows that
and rear row piles are plotted in Figure 11. This shows that the pile experienced thethe pile experienced
the maximum
maximum bending
bending moment
moment at theatlevel
the level
of 0.21ofL 0.21
fromLthe from
topthe topfront
in the in the
andfront
rear and
row rear
piles.
row piles. Similarly,
Similarly, the bending themoment
bendingprofile
moment alsoprofile
remained alsotheremained the same.the
same. However, However,
middle-rowthe
middle-row
pile attainedpile
theattained
maximum the value
maximum at thevalue
level atof the
0.35level of 0.35L
L from from
the pile theThe
top. pilemaximum
top. The
maximum bendingevaluated
bending moment moment forevaluated
the front, formiddle,
the front,
andmiddle,
rear rowandpilesrear
arerow piles are
882 N-mm, 882
822 N-
N-mm,
mm, and 822989
N-mm,
N-mm, and 989 N-mm,This
respectively. respectively. This clearly that
clearly demonstrates demonstrates that
the effect of the effect
pile-soil-pile
of pile-soil-pile
interaction causesinteraction causes
the stiffness the stiffness
degradation of soildegradation of soilincreases
and, consequently, and, consequently,
the bending
moment the
increases in the front and
bending rear row
moment piles.
in the front and rear row piles.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1
Buildings
Buildings 2022,
2022, 12,
12, x2050
FOR PEER REVIEW 1413ofof 26
24
Bending moment (N-mm)
-200 100 400 700 1000
0 (N-mm)
Bending moment
-200 100 400 700 1000
0
Normalized depth (Z/L)

0.2

0.2 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.8 Front Pile

Middle pile
Back pile
0.8 1 Front Pile
Middle pile
Back pile moment profile of the piles for slenderness L = 60D and spacing S = 3D.
Figure 11. Bending
1
Figure 11.
Figure 11. Bending Moreover,
Bending moment
moment profilethe
profile effect
of the
of the pilesoffor
piles pile
for slenderness
slenderness
slenderness (L/D)
L == 60D
60D andon
and the bending
spacing
spacing 3D. moment value
SS ==3D.
investigated. The bending moment profile over the length of the pile for various le
Moreover,
Moreover,ofthe the effect
15D, 30D,
effect of45D,
of pile and
pile slenderness
60D for the
slenderness (L/D)
(L/D) on the
the bending
pile-to-pile
on bending moment
spacingmoment values
of 3D is values
plottedwaswas
in Figure 12
investigated.
investigated. The The bending
maximum
bendingvalue moment
moment profile
attained over
forover
profile the L/Dthe length
the =length of
15 is 495 the
N-mm
of the pile for
pile at various
forthe level of
various lengths
0.25L from the
lengths
of 15D,
of 15D, 30D,
30D, 45D,
45D, and
theand 60D
pile.60D for
It isfor thefrom
clear
the pile-to-pile
the bending
pile-to-pile spacing
moment
spacing of 3D
of 3Dprofile
is plotted
is plotted in
plotin Figure
for 12a. The
the slenderness
Figure 12a. The ratio o
maximum
maximum value value attained
15attained
that thefor for
pilesthe L/D
thebehave =
L/D = 15 15
as is is 495
a short
495 N-mmN-mm at the
rigid component. level
at the level ofThe of 0.25 L
bending
0.25L from
from the the
toptop
moment ofof the pil
the pile. It is clear from the bending moment profile plot for the slenderness ratio of L/Dof
of the pile. It is clear
increased from as the
the bending
slendernessmoment ratio profile plot
increased. for
This the slenderness
response is ratio
similar =to the dy
L/D = 15 that the piles
15 that the pilesbending behave
behave as moment as a short
profile
a short rigid rigid component.
reported by
component. The
The[90,99].
bending bending
The
moment moment
maximum of the
of thebending piles
piles alsomoment
also increased
increased as theas the
computed slenderness
slenderness for piles
ratioratio
withincreased.
slenderness
increased. This
This response
ratios
response L/D is is=similar
similar
30, 45,toto
and the60
the dynamic
were 572 N-mm
dynamic
bending moment N-mm,profile reported
andreported
881 N-mm, by [90,99]. The
respectively. maximum bending
Thus, it canbendingbe inferredmoment values
from values
the bending m
bending moment profile by [90,99]. The maximum moment
computed for piles with slenderness ratios L/D = 30, 45, and 60 were 572 N-mm, 780 N-mm,
computed for piles plots with
that the piles started
slenderness ratiosbehaving
L/D = 30, as 45,
flexible
and components
60 were 572 when N-mm, the780
slendernes
and 881 N-mm, respectively. Thus, it can be inferred from the bending moment plots that
increased.
N-mm, and 881 N-mm, respectively. Thus, it can be inferred from the bending moment
the piles started behaving as flexible components when the slenderness ratio increased.
plots that the piles started behaving as flexible components when the slenderness ratio
increased. Bending moment (N-mm) Bending moment (N-mm)
-500 0 500 1000 0 200 400 600

Bending moment (N-mm)
0 Bending moment
0 (N-mm)
-500 0 500 1000 0 200 400 600

0 -0.2 0 0.2
-0.2 -0.4 0.2 0.4
L/D=1 0.6
-0.4 -0.6 0.4 S/D=3
5
S/D=5
-0.8 L/D=1 L/D=3
0.6 0.8
-0.6 S/D=3 S/D=7
5 0
S/D=5 S/D=9
-1 L/D=3 0.8 1
-0.8 S/D=7
0
(a) (b)
S/D=9
-1 1
Figure 12. BendingFigure 12. Bending
moment profile: moment
(a) effectprofile: (a) effect of of
of the slenderness thethe
slenderness of the Spile
pile for spacing for and
= 3D, spacing S = 3
(a) (b) effect (b)
(b) effect of spacing of the of spacing
piles of the piles for
for a slenderness a slenderness
value of L = 30D.value of L = 30D.
Figure 12. Bending moment profile: (a) effect of the slenderness of the pile for spacing S = 3D, and
Furthermore,
(b) effect the
of spacing of bending
piles formoment
Furthermore,
the profile
the bending
a slenderness over
value ofthe
momentL =pile length over
profile
30D. for various pilelength
the pile spacings, for variou
ranging from 3D to 9D, for
spacings, a pilefrom
ranging slenderness
3D to 9D, value
for aofpile
30D, is plotted and
slenderness valueis of
shown
30D, inis plotted
Figure 12b. The
Furthermore, highest
shown value 12b.
theinbending
Figure of the bending
The
moment profilemoment
highest value
over ofthe(573
thepileN-mm)
bending
length occurs
moment at(573
theN-mm)
for various piles
pile occurs
modeled with
spacings, ranginga spacing
piles
from 3Dof to
modeled 3D, compared
with
9D, a piletoslenderness
a spacing
for other
of 3D,spacing
comparedpiles.
value The
ofto30D, maximum
other
is spacing values
piles.is The max
plotted and
estimated for the piles with spacings of 5D, 7D, and 9D are 386
shown in Figure 12b. The highest value of the bending moment (573 N-mm) occurs atN-mm,
values estimated for the piles with spacings of 5D, N-mm,
7D, and 318
9D N-mm,
are 386 and
the 318 N
283 N-mm, respectively.
piles modeled and with283 It can be inferred
N-mm, respectively.
a spacing of 3D, comparedfrom the
It canto bending
beother
inferred moment
from piles.
spacing profile
the bendingplot for the
moment profile p
The maximum
scenarios
values of thethe
estimated various
for thespacings
scenarios
pilesof that
the
with the piles
various
spacings ofexperience
spacings
5D, 7D,that higher
and the values
9Dpiles
are of bending
experience
386 N-mm, moment
higher
318 N-mm,values of be
as the spacing
and 283 N-mm,momentof the piles decreases.
as theItspacing
respectively. This is because
of the piles
can be inferred from of the
decreases.
the bendinggroup action
Thismoment
is becauseof piles, which
of theplot
profile group
for action o
reduces
the the lateral
scenarios of theresistance due to the
various spacings degradation
that of soil stiffness.
the piles experience higher The reduction
values in soil
of bending
stiffness as
moment makes the slender
the spacing of thepile (L/D
piles = 60) more
decreases. Thisflexible,
is because with
of higher
the groupvalues of bending
action of piles,
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 26
which reduces the lateral resistance due to the degradation of soil stiffness. The reduction
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 14 of 24
in soil stiffness makes the slender pile (L/D = 60) more flexible, with higher values of
bending moment. Although the pile failure depends on the flexural behavior in such a
case, this may result in larger inelastic deformation due to the development of
moment. Although
second-order bendingthemoments.
pile failure depends
A similar on of
type theresponse
flexural isbehavior
observed inin
such
the afailure
case, this
of a
may result in larger inelastic deformation due to the development of second-order
bridge resting on pile foundations during the 1964 Niigata earthquake [18]. In summary, bending
moments.
the bending A moment
similar type of of
value response is observed
piles with an L/D = in 60the failure
attains of ahigher
a 78% bridgevalue
resting on that
than pile
foundations during the 1964 Niigata earthquake [18]. In summary, the bending
of piles with L/D = 15. The bending moment values of closely spaced piles with S/D = 3 moment
value
reach of piles102%
values an L/D than
with higher = 60 attains
those ofa the
78%large
higher valuepiles
spacing than with
that of
S/Dpiles with L/D = 15.
= 9D.
The bending moment values of closely spaced piles with S/D = 3 reach values 102% higher
than thoseLateral
6.2. Story large spacing piles with S/D = 9D.
of theDisplacement
Soil-pile-structure
6.2. Story interaction may significantly amplify the lateral story
Lateral Displacement
displacements of buildings, especially in those resting on soft soils and with closely
Soil-pile-structure interaction may significantly amplify the lateral story displace-
spaced pile foundations. Thus, a parametric study was conducted to evaluate the seismic
ments of buildings, especially in those resting on soft soils and with closely spaced pile
behavior of rigid-base and flexible-base building frames. The seismic response parameter
foundations. Thus, a parametric study was conducted to evaluate the seismic behavior
of rigid-base
of the superstructure, in terms
and flexible-base of story
building lateral
frames. Thedisplacement (X) was
seismic response chosenofand
parameter the
estimated. The sample records of the displacement time history obtained at the roof
superstructure, in terms of story lateral displacement (X) was chosen and estimated. The level
and other
sample flooroflevels
records of the rigid-base
the displacement superstructure
time history obtained atare shown
the roof inand
level Figure
other13a,b,
floor
respectively.
levels of the rigid-base superstructure are shown in Figure 13a,b, respectively.
(a) (b)
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Typical
Typicalexperimental
experimentaltime-history
time-history displacement
displacement results
results of the
of the fixed-base
fixed-base structure:
structure: (a)
(a) only
only at roof level, and (b) comparison of the displacements with other
at roof level, and (b) comparison of the displacements with other floors. floors.
The profile
The profileofof thethe maximum
maximum storystory
laterallateral displacement
displacement of rigid-base
of rigid-base and soil-pile-and
soil-pile-supported superstructures resting on shorter piles (L = 15D)
supported superstructures resting on shorter piles (L = 15D) over story levels is plotted over story levels is
plotted
and andin
shown shown
Figurein14a.
Figure
The14a.
plotThe plotthat
shows shows that the soil-pile-supported
the soil-pile-supported structures structures
attained
attainedvalues
higher higherofvalues of story
story lateral lateral displacement
displacement than in thethan in the rigid-base
rigid-base structure.structure.
It is obviousIt is
obvious
that that the decrease
the decrease in the
in the natural natural frequency
frequency of the flexible-base
of the flexible-base models caused models caused an
an increase in
increase
story in story displacement.
displacement. Moreover, theMoreover, the displacement
displacement values
values are high inare
thehigh
case in of the case of
structures
structures
resting resting on pile
on 3D-spaced 3D-spaced pile foundations.
foundations. The maximum Thestory
maximum story displacement
displacement of 36.5 mm was of
36.5 mm was
obtained obtained
for the 3D-spaced for the 3D-spaced pile-supported
pile-supported structural models. structural models.
The results The results
clearly reveal
clearly
that thereveal
lateralthat the lateral
resistance resistance
offered offered
by closely spacedby (3D)
closely
pilespaced (3D) pile
foundations foundations
is reduced due to is
the degradation
reduced due to theof soil stiffness because
degradation of soil of group interaction
stiffness because of effects. In addition,effects.
group interaction the story In
lateral displacement
addition, values displacement
the story lateral of soil-pile-supported
values of structures (XSPSI ) were structures
soil-pile-supported normalized(Xwith SPSI)
rigid-base values
were normalized with (X RB rigid-base values (XRB); the plot is shown in Figure 14b. It canthe
); the plot is shown in Figure 14b. It can be seen that the ratio of be
story response parameter
seen that the ratio of the story increased
responsegradually
parameter fromincreased
the top togradually
the ground fromstory
the level.
top toThe the
maximum
ground story normalized
level. Theratio of XSPSI
maximum /XRB valueratio
normalized was ofcomputed
XSPSI/XRB for
valueall was
structural
computed models.for
The results reveal
all structural that the
models. Themaximum XSPSI /X
results reveal RB value
that of 3.48 was
the maximum attained
XSPSI in closely
/XRB value of 3.48 spaced
was
pile-supported
attained in closely models.
spaced pile-supported models.
Similar to the impact of pile spacing on the seismic behavior of flexible-base structural
models, the effect of pile slenderness was also studied. The plot of the maximum story
displacement of rigid-base and flexible-base structures, supported on closely spaced pile
foundations (3D), according to story level is shown in Figure 15a. The story displacement
of a flexible-base structure supported on piles of varying slenderness, such as 15D, 30D,
45D, and 60D, was obtained and compared with the rigid-base model. It is clear that the
structure resting on flexible piles (60D) experienced higher values of story displacements,
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 15 of 24
with a maximum of 40.3 mm at the roof. The variation of XSPSI /XRB values over story
level was also plotted and is shown in Figure 15b. As expected, the higher values were
observed for longer pile-supported structural models, with a maximum of 4.38 at the
lower stories. The results obtained for story displacement and the XSPSI /XRB values of
soil-pile-supported structures exhibit a similar trend, as observed in the numerical results
presented in a previous paper [101]. From the reported findings, it is clear that pile group
configuration has a considerable influence on structural story displacement. However, the
impact of the pile slenderness ratio on story displacement was less than that of the spacing
of piles for the same response parameter. In summary, the building models resting on piles
of L/D = 60 attained 26% more lateral story displacement than those resting on16piles
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 26of
L/D = 15. Similarly, the models resting on closely spaced piles (3D) experienced 180% more
lateral displacement than those resting on widely spaced piles (9D).
7 7
6 6
5 5
Storey level
Storey level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-40 -20 0 20 40 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Storey lateral displacement (mm)

XSPSI/XRB
Rigid base (-) Rigid base (+)
SPSI(-) 3D SPSI (+) 3D SPSI(-) 3D SPSI (+) 3D
SPSI (-) 5D SPSI (+) 5D SPSI (-) 5D SPSI (+) 5D
SPSI (-) 9D SPSI (+) 9D
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure14.14. Effect ofthe
Effect of theS/D
S/Dratio
ratio
on on (a) story
(a) story lateral
lateral displacement,
displacement, and (b)and (b)/XXSPSI
XSPSI /XRB of the
RB of the soil-pile-
soil-pile-supported structural models, compared to the rigid-base structural model.
supported structural models, compared to the rigid-base structural model.
6.3. Similar to Drift

Inter-Story the impact of pile spacing on the seismic behavior of flexible-base
structural models, the
The inter-story drifteffect of pile
ratio (IDR) slenderness
is the was value
dimensionless also that
studied. The plottheoflateral
characterizes the
maximum story displacement of rigid-base and flexible-base structures,
displacement of the story levels, with respect to the corresponding story height. This supported onis
closely spaced pile foundations (3D), according to story level is shown
the ratio of the difference between the lateral displacements of two adjacent story levels, in Figure 15a. The
story displacement
according of a flexible-base
to the corresponding storystructure
height. supported on piles of varying slenderness,
such as According to previous studies [102,103], and
15D, 30D, 45D, and 60D, was obtained compared with
the permissible value theofrigid-base
IDR of the model.
super-
Itstructure
is clear that
is 4%thefor
structure restinglevel
the collapse on flexible piles (60D)
performance. experienced
Similarly, for thehigher valueslevel
life safety of
story displacements,
performance of the with a maximum
structure, the same of value
40.3 mm at the roof.
is limited The However,
to 1.5%. variation of IS X1893
SPSI/X[66]
RB
values
recommendsover story level wasvalue
a permissible also plotted
of 0.4% and is elastic
for the showndesign
in Figure 15b. Asframes.
of building expected, the
Various
higher
researchersvalues were observed
[23,60,61] for longer
have conducted pile-supported
experimental works on structural
the effect ofmodels,
SPSI on the with a
earth-
maximum of 4.38 at the lower stories. The results obtained for story displacement
quake response of buildings resting on clay. It was found that superstructures supported by and the
Xpile
SPSI/X RB values ofexperienced
foundations soil-pile-supported
higher IDR structures exhibit a to
values compared similar trend,models.
rigid-base as observed
However,in
the
thenumerical
IDR values results
of most presented in a previous
of the models exceededpaper [101].
the life From
safety the reported
performance findings,
level. Similaritto
isthe
clear that pile
previous group
studies, theconfiguration
IDR values of has a considerable
a superstructure influence
resting on structural
on friction story
pile foundations
surrounded by
displacement. sandy soil
However, theare quantified
impact of theinpile
theslenderness
present study.ratioTheoneffects of the spacing
story displacement
was less than that of the spacing of piles for the same response parameter. In summary,
the building models resting on piles of L/D = 60 attained 26% more lateral story
displacement than those resting on piles of L/D = 15. Similarly, the models resting on
closely spaced piles (3D) experienced 180% more lateral displacement than those resting
on widely spaced piles (9D).
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 16 of 24
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26

and length of pile foundations on the IDR values of rigid- and flexible-base buildings are
estimated and compared.
7 7
6 6
5 5
Storey level
Storey level
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Storey lateral displacement (mm) XSPSI/XRB
Rigid base (-) Rigid base (+) SPSI (-) 15D SPSI (+) 15D
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Effect of the L/D ratio on: (a) story lateral displacement, and (b) the XSPSI/XRB of the
Figure 15. Effect of the L/D ratio on: (a) story lateral displacement, and (b) the XSPSI /XRB of the
6.3. Inter-Story Driftbuilding, which has a natural frequency of 0.49 Hz, was designed for an
The prototype
The
elastic inter-story
limit drift ratiodrift.
of 0.4% inter-story (IDR)However,
is the dimensionless
the values of IDR value that characterizes
increased to a maximum the
of 7%, which is far moreof the
thanstory
thelevels, with respect
permissible limit ofto 4%, thecorresponding
correspondingtostory height.
the collapse
This
state isperformance
the ratio of the difference
level, between the
as per FEMA373 lateral
[102]. displacements
This is because the of two adjacent
building story
becomes
levels, according
more flexible, duetotothethecorresponding
effects of SPSI. story height. it can be seen from Figures 16 and 17
Moreover,
that the IDR corresponding
According to previous tostudies
the fixed base is within
[102,103], the collapse
the permissible level.ofAlthough
value IDR of the
rigid-base building
superstructure is 4%exceeded the life safety
for the collapse level performance
performance.level, the collapse
Similarly, for theoflife
thesafety
building is
level
prevented.
performance However, the IDR corresponding
of the structure, the same value to flexible-base
is limited to models exceeded IS
1.5%. However, the1893
collapse
[66]
state performance
recommends level. Thevalue
a permissible storyoflateral
0.4% displacement
for the elasticofdesign the building is the frames.
of building sum of
ground displacement
Various (table displacement),
researchers [23,60,61] have conducted the rocking component
experimental works ofonthethe
pileeffect
cap, and the
of SPSI
rotational component of the superstructure. The difference
on the earthquake response of buildings resting on clay. It was found that in the uniformity of the IDR
profile in both the
superstructures left and right
supported by pilesides may be due
foundations to the effects
experienced of the
higher IDR rocking
valuescomponent
compared
of the pile cap. The non-uniform rocking of the foundation
to rigid-base models. However, the IDR values of most of the models exceeded (pile cap) modified the the
overall
life
safety performance of the superstructure
level. Similar to themodels. previous In addition,
studies, the the story
IDR displacement
values of a
of the rigid-baseresting
superstructure and SPSI on models
frictionagrees well with thesurrounded
pile foundations response obtained by sandyby the
soilother
are
researchers [62].
quantified in the present study. The effects of the spacing and length of pile foundations
on theTheIDR IDR values
values of soil-pile-supported
of rigid- and flexible-basestructures
buildings are are higher
estimated than andthecompared.
fixed base and
exceeded
The prototype building, which has a natural frequency of 0.49 Hz, wasprofile
the maximum permissible value of 4% given by [102,103]. The of IDR
designed for
values of fixed-base and soil-pile-supported structures resting
an elastic limit of 0.4% inter-story drift. However, the values of IDR increased to a on shorter pile foundations
(L = 15D) over
maximum story
of 7%, levels
which is of
farvarying
more than spacing to diameter limit
the permissible ratio (S/D)
of 4%,iscorresponding
shown in Figure to 16a.
the
The structures supported by closely spaced pile foundations
collapse state performance level, as per FEMA373 [102]. This is because the building (3D) attained maximum IDR
values
becomes of more
7% at flexible,
1/3 of the building
due height.of
to the effects Similarly, the ratiositofcan
SPSI. Moreover, IDR bevalues of flexible-base
seen from Figures 16
structures for the varying S/D ratios to the IDR values of the
and 17 that the IDR corresponding to the fixed base is within the collapse level. Although rigid-base structure were
the rigid-base building exceeded the life safety performance level, the collapse of The
estimated, and the profile is plotted in Figure 15b for the varying spacing of piles. the
maximum normalized ratio IDR /IDRRB values are observed in the upper and lower
building is prevented. However, SPSI the IDR corresponding to flexible-base models exceeded
story levels. The structure with 3D spacing piles experienced a higher normalized ratio
the collapse state performance level. The story lateral displacement of the building is the
sum of ground displacement (table displacement), the rocking component of the pile cap,
and the rotational component of the superstructure. The difference in the uniformity of
the IDR profile in both the left and right sides may be due to the effects of the rocking
foundations (L = 15D) over story levels of varying spacing to diameter ratio (S/D) is
shown in Figure 16a. The structures supported by closely spaced pile foundations (3D)
attained maximum IDR values of 7% at 1/3 of the building height. Similarly, the ratios of
IDR values of flexible-base structures for the varying S/D ratios to the IDR values of the
rigid-base structure were estimated, and the profile is plotted in Figure 15b for the
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 varying spacing of piles. The maximum normalized ratio IDRSPSI/IDRRB values are 17 of 24
observed in the upper and lower story levels. The structure with 3D spacing piles
experienced a higher normalized ratio IDRSPSI/IDRRB, with a value of 3.67 at the upper
story level. The results clearly illustrate the effects of the spacing of piles on
IDRSPSI /IDRRB, with a value of 3.67 at the upper story level. The results clearly illustrate
superstructure performance levels.
the effects of the spacing of piles on superstructure performance levels.
7 7
6 6
5 5
Storey level
4 4
Storey level
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Inter-storey drift IDRSPSI/IDRRB
Rigid base (-) Rigid base (+) SPSI(-) 3D SPSI (+) 3D

SPSI(-) 3D SPSI (+) 3D
CL REVIEW
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER CL(+) 19 of 26
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Effect of S/D ratio on (a) inter-story drift ratio and (b) IDRSPSI/IDRRB of
Figure 16. Effect
considerable of S/D ratio
influence on on (a)IDR
the inter-story
valuesdrift
of and (b) IDRSPSI /IDR
ratiosuperstructure, of soil-pile-supported
soil-pile-supported structural models compared to the
a rigid-base the RB
pile
structural model. spacing effect is
structural models compared to a rigid-base structural model.
significant.
7 The variation of the profile of IDR values of the fixed-base
7
and soil-pile-supported
structures resting on closely spaced pile foundations (S = 3D) over story levels is shown
in Figure
6 17a. The structures supported by longer pile 6
foundations (L = 60D) attained
maximum IDR values of 7.7% at 1/3 of the building height. Similarly, the ratios of the
IDR5 values of flexible-base structures for the varying L/D 5 ratios to the IDR values of the
rigid-base structure are estimated, and the relevant graph is shown in Figure 17b. The
Storey level
model
4 with a 60D length of pile foundations experienced 4 a higher normalized ratio
Storey level
IDRSPSI/IDRRB with a value of 4.21 at the upper-story level. The results clearly illustrate
the3 effects of the slenderness ratio of pile foundations3 on superstructure performance
levels. Although both the pile-design parameters (spacing and slenderness ratio) have
2 2
1 1
0 0
-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Inter-storey drift
IDRSPSI/IDRRB
Rigid base (-) Rigid base (+)
CL CL(+)
(a) (b)
Figure 17. Effect
Effectofofthethe
L/DL/D
ratioratio onthe
on (a) (a)inter-story
the inter-story drift
drift ratio ratio
and and (b)/IDR
(b) IDR IDRSPSI/IDRRB of
Figure 17. SPSI RB of soil-pile-
soil-pile-supported structural models, compared to a fixed-base structure.
supported structural models, compared to a fixed-base structure.
Based on the results, the building models resting on slender piles with L/D = 60
experienced 46% more inter-story drift values than those of the models resting on short
rigid piles, with L/D = 15. Similarly, the models resting on closely spaced piles (3D)
attained 167% more inter-story drift values than in the models resting on widely spaced
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 18 of 24
The variation of the profile of IDR values of the fixed-base and soil-pile-supported
structures resting on closely spaced pile foundations (S = 3D) over story levels is shown
in Figure 17a. The structures supported by longer pile foundations (L = 60D) attained
maximum IDR values of 7.7% at 1/3 of the building height. Similarly, the ratios of the IDR
values of flexible-base structures for the varying L/D ratios to the IDR values of the rigid-
base structure are estimated, and the relevant graph is shown in Figure 17b. The model
with a 60D length of pile foundations experienced a higher normalized ratio IDRSPSI /IDRRB
with a value of 4.21 at the upper-story level. The results clearly illustrate the effects of the
slenderness ratio of pile foundations on superstructure performance levels. Although both
the pile-design parameters (spacing and slenderness ratio) have considerable influence on
the IDR values of the superstructure, the pile spacing effect is significant.
Based on the results, the building models resting on slender piles with L/D = 60
experienced 46% more inter-story drift values than those of the models resting on short
rigid piles, with L/D = 15. Similarly, the models resting on closely spaced piles (3D) attained
167% more inter-story drift values than in the models resting on widely spaced piles (9D).
7. Discussion
The main purpose of this study is to quantify the effects of soil-pile-structure interac-
tion on the seismic behavior of buildings resting on sand. An experimental study using
a shake table was performed on rigid-base and flexible-base seven-story scaled building
models. With a flexible base, the building models were resting on a pile foundation em-
bedded in sandy soil, with a relative density of 50%. The pile foundations were designed
for a 3 × 3 group with a pile cap. A parametric study on the varying pile spacing (3D, 5D,
7D, and 9D) and varying slenderness ratios of the piles (15, 30, 45, and 60) was carried
out. As the spectral acceleration of the superstructure building depends on time period,
the type of soil, and damping, a free vibration analysis was performed. The results of
natural frequency and damping were computed and discussed. Since the natural frequency
and damping values vary considerably due to the effects of pile spacing and pile length,
proper care must be taken during the analysis and design of a superstructure. Otherwise,
the behavior of the structure becomes affected detrimentally when the modified natural
frequency of the system (due to the effects of SPSI) matches with the dominant frequency of
the ground motion. In addition, the damping values of the SPSI models increased heavily
when compared to the rigid-base models. This is because of a system that becomes more
flexible, considering the SPSI effects. It will thus increase the lateral displacement of the
superstructure, which will ultimately result in unacceptable serviceability requirements.
Moreover, a forced vibration analysis in the form of periodic motion was conducted
on both rigid-base and flexible-base models. The behavior of the pile foundations and
superstructure was captured in the form of pile strain and story lateral displacements. Con-
sidering the type of pile as either rigid or flexible is one of the most significant parameters
for the analysis and design of piles. However, such soil-foundation effects are ignored in
terms of the overall response of the superstructure system during the design phase. The
degradation of soil stiffness arises due to the group interaction effects occurring when
the piles are designed to be closely spaced and slender. This makes the pile foundation
more flexible and results in a higher bending moment. It also increases the pile’s inelastic
deformation, which finally amplifies the story’s lateral displacement and inter-story drift
of the superstructure. Therefore, proper consideration should be given to the soil-structure
interaction effects during the analysis and design phases.
8. Conclusions
The results of experiments conducted on a rigid model and soil-pile-supported su-
perstructures have been discussed. The effects of spacing and the slenderness of pile
foundations on natural frequency, damping, pile bending moment, story lateral displace-
ment, and inter-story drift ratio were illustrated. The effects of pile design parameters on
the ratios of XSPSI /XRB and IDRSPSI /IDRRB were computed, and the results are reported
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 19 of 24
herein. Based on an experimental study of the seismic behavior of soil-pile-supported

superstructure models, the following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The natural frequency values of the flexible-base models increased compared to the
rigid-base models. The pile slenderness ratio and spacing have great effects on the
natural frequency of the soil-pile-supported models. The natural frequency of SPSI
models with a pile length of 15D was reduced by 16%, compared to those of the
model with a pile length of 60D. Similarly, the increase in pile spacing from 3D to 9D
increased the natural frequency by 21%.
2. Similarly, the damping values of the SPSI models decreased compared to those of the
fixed-base models. The damping of the flexible-base models with a pile length of 15D
increased by 92%, in comparison to that of the model with a pile length of 60D. The
rigidity at the base of the model also increased when the spacing between the piles
was large (S = 9D). This decreased the value of damping by 56% compared to that of
the model with closely spaced piles (S = 3D). This increase in damping in shorter pile
models may alter the inelastic deformation of the superstructure.
3. The pile bending moment due to the dynamic lateral loading increased by 78% for the
model with L/D = 60, in comparison to that of the model with L/D = 15. This is due
to the fact that the piles started behaving as flexible components when the slenderness
ratio increased. Similarly, the group action of the piles reduced the lateral resistance
due to the degradation of soil stiffness for closely spaced pile models. Therefore, we
saw a rise in pile bending moment by 102% for the structure resting on closely spaced
piles (3D), compared to that of the model with large spacing (9D).
4. The seismic response of the superstructure was significantly influenced by the behav-
ior of the soil-foundation system. The higher value of story lateral displacement was
attained with the model resting on closely spaced (S = 3D) slender piles (L = 60D).
The corresponding ratio of story displacement of the SPSI model compared to the
rigid-base model (XSPSI /XRB ) was estimated to be 4.38. This demonstrates the sig-
nificance of considering the soil-pile-structure interaction during the analysis and
design stages.
5. Moreover, the increase in the slenderness ratio and decrease in pile spacing increased
the story lateral displacement considerably. The value of the superstructure story
lateral displacement increased by 26% for the model supported by piles of L/D = 60,
compared to that of the model with piles of L/D = 15. Similarly, reducing the spacing
of the piles to 3D increased the lateral story displacement by 180%. This is due to the
increase in pile bending moment, the decrease in natural frequency, and the increase
in the damping of the system.
6. Inter-story drift (IDR) is one of the most important design parameters for the limit
state design of serviceability. The ratio of IDR values for the flexible base (model
with S/D = 3 and L/D = 60) compared to the rigid base was computed to be 4.21.
Furthermore, the model with the closely spaced piles (S/D = 3) experienced an IDR
value of 167% more than that of the model with an S/D = 9. The increase in slenderness
ratio to L/D = 60 also increased the IDR value by 46%, compared to that of the model
with L/D = 15.
7. As an increase or decrease in natural frequency may alter the spectral acceleration
and resulting base shear, it is important to consider the SPSI effects in the design
parameters. Moreover, the spacing and slenderness ratio of piles play a vital role
in the seismic behavior of building frames. The closely spaced slender pile group
model becomes more flexible due to soil degradation and the flexural behavior of
piles. Therefore, proper consideration must be given to the design parameters, such
as the time period, damping, soil properties, and foundation details during the design
process of superstructures. However, soil-pile-structure interaction effects should be
incorporated in building design to eliminate the under/overestimation of the forces
at work in the design.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 20 of 24
The obtained results clearly illustrate the importance of soil-structure interaction

during the analysis and design of foundations and buildings. Moreover, the pile slen-
derness ratio and pile spacing have considerable effects on the seismic behavior of the
soil-foundation-superstructure system. This alters the overall response of the system signif-
icantly. In addition, the study can be extended by varying the design parameters, such as
the soil relative density, soil type, layered soil deposits, the number of piles in the group,
and the pile group arrangement.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.A.V. and S.S.C.; methodology, J.A.V.; investigation,

J.A.V.; resources, J.A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.V.; writing—review and editing,
S.S.C.; supervision, S.S.C.; project administration, S.S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: All data have been provided in the corresponding chapters of the paper.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Vellore Institute of Technology for providing
materials and instruments and also for the use of its laboratory facilities.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Scaling Calculations:
Length:
Scaled model length = (1/n) × Prototype length
Where, n = 40
Width of prototype building—8m
Width of scaled model—8 m × (1/n) = 8000 × 1/40 = 200 mm
Length of prototype building—8 m

Length of scaled model—8 m × (1/n) = 8000 × 1/40 = 200 mm
Height of prototype building—28 m

Height of scaled model—28 m × (1/n) = 28,000 × 1/40 = 700 mm
Storey Height of prototype building—4 m

Storey Height of scaled model—4 m × (1/n) = 4000 × 1/40 = 100 mm
Volume:
Volume of scaled model = Volume of prototype × (1/n3 )
Volume of prototype = 8 m × 8 m × 28 m = 1792 m3 .
Therefore, volume of scaled model = 1792/403 = 0.028 m3 (0.2 × 0.2 × 0.7)
Stiffness:
Stiffness of the column of scaled model = Stiffness of the column of prototype × (1/n2 )
Stiffness of the prototype column = 12EI/L3
Where, E = Elastic modulus of concrete = 25,000 MPa
I = Moment of Inertia = BD3 /12 = 500 × 5003 /12 = 5.21 × 109 mm4
L = 4000 mm
Stiffness of the one prototype column = 24,422 N-mm
Total stiffness of the storey = 9 × 24,422 = 219,797 N-mm
Therefore, stiffness of one scaled model = 219,797/4 = 54,949 N–mm = 54,949 × (1/402 ) =
34.33 N-mm
Thus, dimension of scaled model column = 12EI/L3 = 34.33
E = Elastic modulus of steel = 2 × 105 N/mm2 .
L = 100 mm
I = bt3 /12
Thickness of column = 2 mm
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 21 of 24
Therefore, required width of column, 12EI/L3 = 12 × 2 × 105 × b × (23 /12)/1003 = 34.33

So, b = 21.46 = 22 mm.
Adopt, 22 mm × 2 mm size column for scaled model.
Density:
Scaled model = 1 × Prototype
Density of prototype = Weight of the building/volume = 9048 kN/(8 m × 8 m × 28 m) =
5.05 kN/m3 = 515 kg/m3 .
Therefore, required weight of scaled model = Density × volume = 515 × (0.2 × 0.2 × 0.7) =
14.4 kg.
Moreover, adopt 6 mm thickness slab for all storeys.

Total weight of the fabricated scaled model = Column weight + slab weight
Where, column weight = No. of column × L × B × t × density
= 4 × 0.7 (m) × 0.022 (m) × 0.002 (m) ×
7850 kg/m3 = 0.97 kg
= No. of slabs × B × L × t × 7850 = 7 × 0.2 ×
Slab weight
0.2 × 0.006 × 7850
= 13.2 kg
Total weight of the scaled model = 0.97 + 13.2 = 14.17 kg, which is nearer to the required weight
(14.4 kg).
Frequency:
Frequency of prototype = 0.49 Hz
Frequency of fixed base scaled model = 0.49 Hz × Scale factor (n1/2 ) = 0.49 × 400.5 = 3.10 Hz
References
1. Boominathan, A.; Ayothiraman, R. Dynamic behaviour of laterally loaded model piles in clay. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng.
2005, 158, 207–215. [CrossRef]
2. Boominathan, A.; Ayothiraman, R. An experimental study on static and dynamic bending behaviour of piles in soft clay. Geotech.
Geol. Eng. 2007, 25, 177–189. [CrossRef]
3. Poulos, H.G.; Davis, E.H. Pile Foundation Analysis and Design; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 1980.
4. Reese, L.C.; Isenhower, W.M.; Wang, S.T. Analysis and Design of Shallow and Deep Foundations, 1st ed.; Wiley: New York, NY,
USA, 2005. [CrossRef]
5. Chandrasekaran, S.S.; Boominathan, A.; Dodagoudar, G.R. Group Interaction Effects on Laterally Loaded Piles in Clay. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2010, 136, 573–582. [CrossRef]
6. Brown, D.A.; Lymon, C.R.; O’Neill, M.W. Cyclic Lateral Loading of a Large-Scale Pile Group. J. Geotech. Eng. 1987, 113, 1326–1343.
[CrossRef]
7. Rollins, K.M.; Peterson, K.T.; Weaver, T.J. Lateral Load Behavior of Full-Scale Pile Group in Clay. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998,
124, 468–478. [CrossRef]
8. Fayez, A.F.; El Naggar, M.H.; Cerato, A.B.; Elgamal, A. Correction to: Assessment of SSI Effects on Stiffness of Single and Grouped
Helical Piles in Dry Sand from Large Shake Table Tests. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 20, 3619. [CrossRef]
9. Wolf, J.P. Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1985.
10. Mylonakis, G.; Gazetas, G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental? J. Earthq. Eng. 2000, 4, 277–301. [CrossRef]
11. Somerville, P.G. The amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity in near fault ground motions. In Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics III; Dakoulas, P., Yegian, M.K., Holtz, R.D., Eds.; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1998.
12. Gazetas, G.; Mylonakis, G. ‘Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction: New evidence and emerging issues’. In Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics III; Dakoulas, P., Yegian, M.K., Holtz, R.D., Eds.; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1998; Volume 2,
pp. 1119–1174.
13. Veletsos, A.S.; Meek, J.W. Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1974, 3, 121–138.
[CrossRef]
14. Tabatabaiefar, H.R.; Massumi, A. A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting
building frames under influence of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 30, 1259–1267. [CrossRef]
15. Horii, K. General Report on the Niigata Earthquake; Part 3: Highway Bridges; Tokyo Electrical Engineering College Press: Tokyo,
Japan, 1968; pp. 431–450.
16. Towhata, I. Photographs and Motion Picture of the Niigata City Immediately after the 1964 earthquake (CD). Jpn. Geotech. Soc.
1999, 17.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 22 of 24
17. Kerciku, A.A.; Bhattacharya, S.; Lubkowski, Z.A.; Burd, H.J. Failure of Showa Bridge during the 1964 Niigatta Earthquake. In
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, 12–17 October 2008.
18. Dash, S.R.; Bhattacharya, S. Mechanism of failure of three pile-supported structures during three different earthquakes. In
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
19. Meymand, P.J. Shaking Table Scale Model Tests of Nonlinear Soil-Pile-Superstructure Interaction in Soft Clay. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1998.
20. Mylonakis, G.; Gazetas, G.; Nikolaou, S.; Michaelides, O. The role of soil on the collapse of 18 piers of the Hanshin Expressway
in the Kobe earthquake. In Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand,
30 January–4 February 2000.
21. Dash, S.R.; Govindaraju, L.; Bhattacharya, S. A case study of damages of the Kandla Port and Customs Office tower supported on
a mat–pile foundation in liquefied soils under the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 29, 333–346. [CrossRef]
22. Smyrou, E.; Tasiopoulou, P.; Bal, I.E.; Gazetas, G. Ground Motions versus Geotechnical and Structural Damage in the February
2011 Christchurch Earthquake. Seism. Res. Lett. 2011, 82, 882–892. [CrossRef]
23. Hokmabadi, A.S.; Fatahi, B.; Samali, B. Assessment of soil–pile–structure interaction influencing seismic response of mid-rise
buildings sitting on floating pile foundations. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 55, 172–186. [CrossRef]
24. Hokmabadi, A.S.; Fatahi, B. Influence of Foundation Type on Seismic Performance of Buildings Considering Soil–Structure
Interaction. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 2016, 16, 1550043. [CrossRef]
25. Van Nguyen, Q.; Fatahi, B.; Hokmabadi, A.S. Influence of Size and Load-Bearing Mechanism of Piles on Seismic Performance of
Buildings Considering Soil–Pile–Structure Interaction. Int. J. Géoméch. 2017, 17, 04017007. [CrossRef]
26. Askouni, P.K.; Karabalis, D.L. The Modification of the Estimated Seismic Behaviour of R/C Low-Rise Buildings Due to SSI.
Buildings 2022, 12, 975. [CrossRef]
27. Mori, F.; Mendicelli, A.; Moscatelli, M.; Romagnoli, G.; Peronace, E.; Naso, G. A new Vs30 map for Italy based on the seismic
microzonation dataset. Eng. Geol. 2020, 275, 105745. [CrossRef]
28. Ruggieri, S.; Calò, M.; Cardellicchio, A.; Uva, G. Analytical-mechanical based framework for seismic overall fragility analysis of
existing RC buildings in town compartments. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022, 1–38. [CrossRef]
29. Alizadeh, M.; Davisson, M.T. Lateral Load Tests on Piles-Arkansas River Project. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 1970, 96, 1583–1604.
[CrossRef]
30. Matlock, H. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Offshore Technology
Conference 1, Houston, TX, USA, 21 April 1970; Volume 1204, pp. 577–594.
31. Reese, L.C.; Cox, W.R.; Coop, F.D. Field testing and Analysis of laterally loaded piles in stiff clay. In Proceedings of the VII Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 4 May 1975; Volume 2, pp. 672–690.
32. Reese, L.C.; Welch, R.C. Lateral Loading of Deep Foundations in Stiff Clay. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1975, 101, 633–649. [CrossRef]
33. Kim, J.B.; Brungraber, R.J. Full-Scale Lateral Load Tests of Pile Groups. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 1976, 102, 87–105. [CrossRef]
34. Ruesta, P.F.; Townsend, F.C. Evaluation of Laterally Loaded Pile Group at Roosevelt Bridge. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997,
123, 1153–1161. [CrossRef]
35. Rollins, K.M.; Sparks, A. Lateral Resistance of Full-Scale Pile Cap with Gravel Backfill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002,
128, 711–723. [CrossRef]
36. Richards, P.W.; Rollins, K.M.; Stenlund, T.E. Experimental Testing of Pile-to-Cap Connections for Embedded Pipe Piles. J. Bridg.
Eng. 2011, 16, 286–294. [CrossRef]
37. Franke, E. Principles for test loading of large bored piles by horizontal loads. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Russia, 6–11 August 1973; Volume 2, pp. 97–104.
38. Meimon, Y.; Baguelin, F.; Jezequel, J.F. Pile group behavior under long time lateral monotonic and cyclic loading. In Proceedings
of the Third International conference on Numerical methods in Offshore Piling, Nantes, France, 21–22 May 1986; pp. 285–302.
39. Brown, D.A.; Clark, M.; Reese, L.C. Lateral Load Behavior of Pile Group in Sand. J. Geotech. Eng. 1988, 114, 1261–1276. [CrossRef]
40. Dunnavant, T.W.; Michael, W.O. Experimental P-y Model for Submerged, Stiff Clay. J. Geotech. Eng. 1989, 115, 95–114. [CrossRef]
41. Chai, Y.H.; Hutchinson, T.C. Flexural Strength and Ductility of Extended Pile-Shafts. II: Experimental Study. J. Struct. Eng. 2002,
128, 595–602. [CrossRef]
42. Rollins, K.M.; Olsen, K.G.; Jensen, D.H.; Garrett, B.H.; Olsen, R.J.; Egbert, J.J. Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group Behavior:
Analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006, 132, 1272–1283. [CrossRef]
43. Rollins, K.M.; Olsen, R.J.; Elbert, J.J.; Jensen, D.H.; Olsen, K.G.; Garrett, B.H. Pile Spacing Effects on Lateral Pile Group Behavior:
Load Tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006, 132, 1262–1271. [CrossRef]
44. Tuladhar, R.; Maki, T.; Mutsuyosi, H. Cyclic behavior of laterally loaded concrete piles embedded into cohesive soil. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2007, 37, 43–59. [CrossRef]
45. Ting, J.M. Full-Scale Cyclic Dynamic Lateral Pile Responses. J. Geotech. Eng. 1987, 113, 30–45. [CrossRef]
46. Blaney, G.W.; O’Neill, M.W. Procedures for Prediction of Dynamic Lateral Pile Group Response in Clay from Single Pile Tests.
Geotech. Test. J. 1991, 14, 3. [CrossRef]
47. Blaney, G.W.; O’Neill, M.W. Dynamic Lateral Response of a Pile Group in Clay. Geotech. Test. J. 1989, 12, 22. [CrossRef]
48. Han, Y.; Vaziri, H. Dynamic response of pile groups under lateral loading. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 1992, 11, 87–99. [CrossRef]
49. Novak, M.F.; Grigg, R. Dynamic experiments with small pile foundations. Can. Geotech. J. 1976, 13, 372–385. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 23 of 24
50. El Shamouby, B.; Novak, M. Dynamic Experiments with Group of Piles. J. Geotech. Eng. 1984, 110, 719–737. [CrossRef]
51. Hassini, S.; Woods, R.D. Dynamic experiments with model pile foundations. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2–15 September 1989; pp. 1135–1138.
52. El-Marsafawi, H.; Han, Y.C.; Novak, M. Dynamic Experiments on Two Pile Groups. J. Geotech. Eng. 1992, 118, 576–592. [CrossRef]
53. Burr, J.P.; Pender, M.J.; Lankin, T.J. Dynamic Response of Laterally Excited Pile Groups. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1997, 123, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
54. Chau, K.T.; Shen, C.Y.; Guo, X. Nonlinear seismic soil–pile–structure interactions: Shaking table tests and FEM analyses. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2009, 29, 300–310. [CrossRef]
55. Ishimura, K.; Ohtsuki, A.; Yokoyama, K.; Koyangi, Y. Sway rocking model for simulating nonlinear response of sandy deposit
with structure. In Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 19–24 July 1992;
pp. 1897–1903.
56. Pitilakis, D.; Dietz, M.; Wood, D.M.; Clouteau, D.; Modaressi, A. Numerical simulation of dynamic soil–structure interaction in
shaking table testing. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2008, 28, 453–467. [CrossRef]
57. Pan, T.-C.; Goh, K.; Megawati, K. Empirical relationships between natural vibration period and height of buildings in Singapore.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2013, 43, 449–465. [CrossRef]
58. Ruggieri, S.; Andrea, F.; Uva, G. A New Approach to Predict the Fundamental Period of Vibration for Newly-designed Reinforced
Concrete Buildings. J. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 26, 6943–6968. [CrossRef]
59. Hatzigeorgiou, G.D.; Kanapitsas, G. Evaluation of fundamental period of low-rise and mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2013, 42, 1599–1616. [CrossRef]
60. Hokmabadi, A.S.; Fatahi, B.; Samali, B. Physical Modeling of Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction for Buildings on Soft Soils.
Int. J. Géoméch. 2015, 15, 04014046. [CrossRef]
61. Tabatabaiefar, H.R.; Fatahi, B.; Ghabraie, K.; Zhou, W. Evaluation of numerical procedures to determine seismic response of
structures under influence of soil-structure interaction. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2015, 56, 27–47. [CrossRef]
62. El Hoseny, M.; Ma, J.; Dawoud, W.; Forcellini, D. The role of soil structure interaction (SSI) on seismic response of tall buildings
with variable embedded depths by experimental and numerical approaches. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 164, 107583. [CrossRef]
63. Patil, G.; Choudhury, D.; Mondal, A. Three-Dimensional Soil–Foundation–Superstructure Interaction Analysis of Nuclear
Building Supported by Combined Piled–Raft System. Int. J. Géoméch. 2021, 21, 04021029. [CrossRef]
64. IS 875-Part 1; Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures—Dead Loads—Unit
Weights of Building Materials and Stored Materials. Reaffirmed (2018); Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1987.
65. IS 875-Part 2; Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures—Imposed Loads.
Reaffirmed (2018); Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1987.
66. IS 1893-Part 1; Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures—General Provisions and Buildings. Bureau of Indian
Standards: New Delhi, India, 2016.
67. IS 456; Plain and Reinforced Concrete—Code of Practice. Reaffirmed (2005); Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2000.
68. SAP2000, Computer Software; Computers and Structures: California, CA, USA, 2019.
69. IS 2720-Part 3; Methods of Tests for Soils—Determination of Specific Gravity—Fine Grained Soils. Sec 1—Reaffirmed (2016);
Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1980.
70. IS 2720-Part 14; Determination of Density Index (Relative Density) of Cohesionless Soils. Reaffirmed (2020); Bureau of Indian
Standards: New Delhi, India, 1983.
71. IS 2720-Part 13; Direct Shear Test. Reaffirmed (2016); Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 1986.
72. IS 2720-Part 4; Methods of Tests for Soils—Grain Size Analysis. Reaffirmed (2020); Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi,
India, 1985.
73. D2487-17; Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
74. IS 2911-Part 1/Sec 2; Design and Construction of Pile Foundations—Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi,
India, 2010.
75. Wood, D.M.; Crewe, A.; Taylor, C. Shaking table testing of geotechnical models. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2002, 2, 1–13.
[CrossRef]
76. Gazetas, G. Vibrational characteristics of soil deposits with variable wave velocity. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Géoméch. 1982,
6, 1–20. [CrossRef]
77. Taylor, C.A.; Dar, A.R.; Crewe, A.J. Shaking Table modelling of seismic geotechnical problems. In Proceedings of the 10th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineers, Vienna, Austria, 28 August–2 September 1995; pp. 441–446.
78. Tao, X.; Kagawa, T.; Minowa, C.; Abe, A. Verification of dynamic soil-pile interaction. In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics III; Dakoulas, P., Yegian, M.K., Holtz, R.D., Eds.; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1998; pp. 1199–1210.
79. Jakrapiyanun, W. Physical Modelling of Dynamics Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction using a Laminar Container. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of California, San Diego, CA, USA, 2002.
80. Prasad, S.; Towhata, I.; Chandradhara, G.; Nanjundaswamy, P. Shaking table tests in earthquake geotechnical engineering. Curr.
Sci. 2004, 87, 1398–1404.
Buildings 2022, 12, 2050 24 of 24
81. Tang, L.; Ling, X.; Xu, P.; Gao, X.; Wang, D. Shake table test of soil-pile groups-bridge structure interaction in liquefiable ground.
Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2010, 9, 39–50. [CrossRef]
82. Chen, J.; Shi, X.; Li, J. Shaking table test of utility tunnel under non-uniform earthquake wave excitation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2010, 30, 1400–1416. [CrossRef]
83. Lee, C.-J.; Wei, Y.C.; Kuo, Y.C. Boundary effects of a laminar container in centrifuge shaking table tests. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2012, 34, 37–51. [CrossRef]
84. Massimino, M.R.; Maugeri, M. Physical modelling of shaking table tests on dynamic soil–foundation interaction and numerical
and analytical simulation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 49, 1–18. [CrossRef]
85. Kumar, M.; Mishra, S.S. Study of seismic response characteristics of building frame models using shake table test and considering
soil–structure interaction. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 20, 409–419. [CrossRef]
86. Kramer, S.L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996.
87. Kumar, A.; Choudhary, D.; Katzenbach, R. Effect of Earthquake on Combined Pile–Raft Foundation. Int. J. Géoméch. 2016, 16,
04016013. [CrossRef]
88. Gohl, W.B.; Finn, W.D.L. Seismic response of single piles in shaking table studies. In Proceedings of the 5th Canadian Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 6–8 July 1987; pp. 435–444.
89. Valsangkar, A.; Dawe, J.; Mita, K. Shake Table Studies of Seismic Response of Single Partially Supported Piles; University of Toronto:
Toronto, ON, Canada, 1991; pp. 327–334. [CrossRef]
90. Chandrasekaran, S.S.; Boominathan, A.; Dodagoudar, G.R. Dynamic Response of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Clay. J. Earthq.
Eng. 2012, 17, 33–53. [CrossRef]
91. Sulaeman, N. The Use of Lightweight Concrete Piles for Deep Foundation on Soft Soils. Ph.D. Thesis, University in Tun Hussein
Onn, Johor, Malaysia, 2010.
92. IS 2062; Hot Rolled Medium and High Tensile Structural Steel—Specification. Bureau of Indian Standards: New Delhi, India, 2011.
93. Salgado, R. The mechanics of cone penetration: Contributions from experimental and theoretical studies. In Geotechnical and
Geophysical Site Characterization 4 (ISC-4); CRC Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 131–135. [CrossRef]
94. Memar, M.; Zomorodian, S.M.A.; Vakili, A.M. Effect of pile cross-section shape on pile group behaviour under lateral loading in
sand. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2020, 20, 308–319. [CrossRef]
95. Bao, Y.; Ye, G.; Ye, B.; Zhang, F. Seismic evaluation of soil–foundation–superstructure system considering geometry and material
nonlinearities of both soils and structures. Soils Found. 2012, 52, 257–278. [CrossRef]
96. Kanaujia, V.K.; Ayothiraman, R.; Matsagar, V.A. Influence of superstructure flexibility on seismic response of pile foundation in
sand. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012.
97. Paz, M. Structural Dynamics—Theory and Computation; CBS Publishers and Distributers Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2004.
98. Holzner, S. Physics for Dummies; Wiley Publishing, Inc.: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2006.
99. Boominathan, A.; Ayothiraman, R. Measurement and Analysis of Horizontal Vibration Response of Pile Foundations. Shock Vib.
2007, 14, 89–106. [CrossRef]
100. Durante, M.G.; Di Sarno, L.; Mylonakis, G.; Taylor, C.A.; Simonelli, A.L. Soil-pile-structure interaction: Experimental outcomes
from shaking table tests. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015, 45, 1041–1061. [CrossRef]
101. Visuvasam, J.; Chandrasekaran, S.S. Effect of soil–pile–structure interaction on seismic behaviour of RC building frames. Innov.
Infrastruct. Solut. 2019, 4, 45. [CrossRef]
102. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures; American
Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2017.
103. Council, Building Seismic Safety. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings: Prepared for the Building Seismic Safety
Council; FEMA: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.

Buildings Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buildings Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

buildings

1 School of Civil Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, India

Academic Editor: Silvia Costanzo

Buildings 2022, 12, 2050. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122050 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

2. Description of Prototype Structural Models

3. Testing Facilities Used

3.2. Laminar Shear Box Container

3.3. Instrumentation and Data Acquisition System

4. Description of Scaled Models

Figure 4. Instrumentation details: (a) details

Figure 5. Shake-table test for the fixed-base structure.

5. Free Vibration Analyses of the Structures

Time (Sec) Time (Sec)

Natural Frequency (f in Hz)

Normalized depth (Z/L)

Normalized depth (Z/L)

0.6 0.8 Front Pile

-500 0 500 1000 0 200 400 600

Normalized depth (Z/L)

-500 0 500 1000 0 200 400 600

Normalized depth (Z/L)

-0.2 -0.4 0.2 0.4

Storey lateral displacement (mm)

6.3. Similar to Drift

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26

Inter-storey drift IDRSPSI/IDRRB

Rigid base (-) Rigid base (+) SPSI(-) 3D SPSI (+) 3D

herein. Based on an experimental study of the seismic behavior of soil-pile-supported

The obtained results clearly illustrate the importance of soil-structure interaction

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.A.V. and S.S.C.; methodology, J.A.V.; investigation,

Length of prototype building—8 m

Height of prototype building—28 m

Storey Height of prototype building—4 m

Therefore, required width of column, 12EI/L3 = 12 × 2 × 105 × b × (23 /12)/1003 = 34.33

Moreover, adopt 6 mm thickness slab for all storeys.

You might also like