discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298710436
CITATIONS READS
4 440
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jin Xianlong on 06 November 2017.
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The dynamic response of a seismic soil–pile–structure interaction (SSPSI) system is investigated in this
Received 12 July 2015 paper by conducting nonlinear 3D finite element numerical simulations. Nonlinear behaviors such as
Received in revised form non-reflecting boundary condition and soil–pile–structure interaction modeled by the penalty method
22 October 2015
have been taken into account. An equivalent linear model developed from the ground response analysis
Accepted 7 February 2016
and the modified Drucker–Prager model are separately used for soil ground. A comparison of the two
models shows that the equivalent linear soil model results in an underestimated acceleration response of
Keywords: the structure under this ground shaking and the soil behavior should be considered as a fully-nonlinear
Soil–pile–structure interaction constitutive model in the design process of the SSPSI system. It was also observed that the dynamic
Ground response
response of the system is greatly affected by the nonlinearity of soil–pile interface and is not sensitive to
Equivalent linear
the dilation angle of the soil. Furthermore, the effect of the presence of pile foundations on SSPSI
Drucker–Prager
Seismic response response is also analyzed and discussed.
Penalty method & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
FEM
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.02.005
0267-7261/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
146 C. Luo et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 84 (2016) 145–156
shaking but also too stiff and underdamped under strong ground u€ n , u_ n and un are the acceleration, velocity and displacement
shaking [11]. In addition, Yoshida [22] pointed out that the vectors respectively. Eq. (1) is integrated by an explicit central
equivalent linear method may sometimes underestimate the peak difference integration rule and can be written as follows:
acceleration response under weak ground shaking. In soil–pile–
u€ n ¼ M 1 ½Rn C u_ n F int
n ðun Þ ð2Þ
structure interactions, the typical soil deformation types that
would occur are plastic flow, expansion (dilation) that could occur Velocities and displacements are updated in each time step as
with shear deformation, soil compaction (change in volume) and follows:
soil distortion. Soil behaviors under earthquake show obvious
u_ n þ 1=2 ¼ u_ n 1=2 þ Δt n u€ n ð3Þ
nonlinear properties and a geometric nonlinearity caused by large
strain deformation [23]. Therefore, fully-nonlinear soil modeling is
un þ 1 ¼ un þ Δt n þ 1=2 u_ n þ 1=2 ð4Þ
more appropriate to reflect the dynamic behavior of the SSPSI
system [24,25]. The plastic behavior of soil has been investigated where Δt n ¼ ðΔt n þ Δt n þ 1 Þ=2.
in literatures [26–29]. Byrne et al. [30] discussed the advantages of The explicit integration scheme has a very important advantage
the nonlinear simulations over the equivalent linear method and that it improves the computational efficiency by using diagonal
adopted a fully nonlinear constitutive soil model in the seismic mass matrix because the inversion of mass matrix used in Eq. (2) is
response analysis of the SSPSI system. Moreover, the full non- trivial. One of the disadvantages of the explicit integration pro-
linearity of soil requires that the analysis be carried out using the cedure is the stability of the numerical integration. To achieve
finite element approach. Bentley and Naggar [31] studied the stability, the calculation time step size must be smaller than the
kinematic response of piles using the three-dimensional finite critical time step Δt cr , which is determined by the character length
element program ANSYS, with the soil modeled as an elastic of the element and its material properties. For a finite element
material and an elastic-plastic constitutive model using the mesh of constant strain and rate independent materials, the cri-
Drucker–Prager failure criteria. Cai et al. [6] analyzed the seismic tical time step can be calculated by
response of the structure using a 3D finite element subsystem
Δt cr r min ðle =ce Þ ð5Þ
methodology featuring the associative plasticity-based con- e
stitutive model to simulate the nonlinearity of soil. Kellezi et al. where le is the character length of the element and ce is the wave
[32] investigated the static and dynamic response of a windmill speed in the element.
with piled foundation employing the ABAQUS program and
simulated the soil with both the Mohr–Coulomb(MC) constitutive
2.2. Soil–pile–structure coupling method
model and the Drucker–Prager material model and the study of
sensitivity to dilation angles was carried out as well. Furthermore,
Slippage and separation often occur in the interface between
Mohr–Coulomb yield criterion with non-associated flow rule was
the soil and the structure and the piles during an earthquake. This
used to investigate the role of nonlinearity in the soil behavior
kind of phenomenon in engineering is also known as the contact.
[33]. The Drucker–Prager criterion was used for soil materials in
Contact refers to different subjects or different parts of one subject
the nonlinear response analyses of structure subjected to earth-
that have a common boundary. Contact surfaces are usually
quake excitations [34–36]. Nevertheless, the effects of soil non-
linearity on the dynamic response of the SSPSI system were not
discussed in detail. The elastic-perfectly plastic Drucker–Prager
model for soil using the LS-DYNA program in the seismic analysis
of the SSPSI system has been employed in this paper.
The main goal of our research is to propose a nonlinear three-
dimensional finite element model that is reasonably accurate and,
by comparing it with the equivalent linear model, to see if it is
necessary to use the fully nonlinear method to attain rigorous and
reliable results. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly
introduces the explicit time integration scheme, the soil–pile–
structure coupling method and the nonlinear constitutive model
for soil. In Section 3, the equivalent soil model is determined and Fig. 1. The penalty contact method.
validated by ground response analyses using SHAKE91 and LS-
DYNA program. Section 4 gives a detailed description of the
modeling method used in the paper. In Section 5, comparison
results obtained from numerical simulations are analyzed and
discussed. Section 6 draws some brief conclusions about this
research.
2. Methodology
Table 1
The equivalent shear modulus and damping ratio of each soil layer.
Layer number The equivalent damping ratio The equivalent shear modulus
(%) (kPa)
1 0.036 28,440.9
2 0.074 18,864.84
3 0.084 19,870.32
4 0.114 13,598.01
5 0.103 24,323.19
6 0.089 42,517.71
7 0.099 37,011.47
8 0.064 116,540.7
9 0.067 113,380.6
10 0.109 56,498.75
11 0.111 57,839.4
12 0.117 55,349.63
13 0.139 43,427.43
14 0.143 42,326.19
15 0.095 84,556.61
16 0.122 58,318.21
17 0.085 105,576.1
18 0.076 124,776.1
19 0.077 125,542.1
20 0.073 137,895.3
21 0.071 134,447.9
22 0.013 1,483,906
23 0.013 1,559,078
24 0.012 1,602,793
25 0.008 6,366,773
26 0.008 7,914,839
27 0.008 9,985,982
28 0.007 13,509,168
Fig. 3. Evaluation of model fitting procedures for soil: (a) modulus reduction curve;
(b) damping curve.
Fig. 6. Comparison of acceleration versus time history and corresponding response spectra for SHAKE91 and LS-DYNA at different soil layers: (a) layer 1; (b) layer 10;
(c) layer 25.
Table 3
Mechanical properties and parameters of nonlinear soil.
and the corresponding strain-compatible shear modulus and where M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices respectively; α
damping. The effective shear strain recommended tends to be equal and β are mass-proportional and stiffness-proportional coeffi-
to 65% of the maximum shear strain. A resonant column test and a cients respectively.
cyclic triaxial test are carried out for the soil. The shear modulus Rayleigh damping does provide certain mathematical con-
reduction curves and damping curves that represent the silty clay, veniences and is widely used in dynamic analysis. The Rayleigh
sandy clay and rock respectively are shown in Fig. 3. damping effect illustrated in Fig. 5 shows that the mass proportional
A 40-second Shanghai artificial earthquake time history record damping part significantly damps the modes at low frequencies. The
of acceleration is used as the excitation. The time history of the opposite effect can be seen for the stiffness proportional damping
input motion in ground response analysis is shown in Fig. 4, which
part which dominates in high-frequency applications.
has a peak acceleration of 0.131g and the time interval in the time
In this paper, an appropriate calibration of the damping coef-
history is set to be 0.01 s. The input motion is loaded at the bottom
ficients (Zhang [39]) is adopted as
of bedrock.
After 16 steps of iterative calculation, convergence is achieved α ¼ ξω; β ¼ ξ=ω ð9Þ
for all soil layers and the equivalent shear modulus and damping
ratio are calculated and summarized in Table 1. where ω is usually taken as the first natural frequency ω1 ¼ 2π f 1 .
Although the 1D equivalent linear method has successfully The acceleration time histories and the corresponding response
been adopted in the engineering practices, many engineering spectra (damping ratio 0.05) at different layers' surface calculated
problems cannot be simplified to the one- dimensional case but by SHAKE91 and LS-DYNA are compared in Fig. 6. A reasonably
require a soil–pile–structure interaction response analysis in two- good matching between the SHAKE91 and FE equivalent linear
or three-dimensional conditions. Therefore, in the analysis, we analysis was achieved at each soil layer, both in terms of frequency
apply the results obtained by the 1D equivalent linear frequency- response and acceleration time histories. The difference of peek
domain analysis to the three-dimensional finite element approach ground acceleration results produced by the two methods is no
150 C. Luo et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 84 (2016) 145–156
Fig. 10. Time-history displacement results resting on model with equivalent linear soil and nonlinear soil at different points.
σ s ¼ ρc s V t ð11Þ maximum lateral displacements of the structure and the pile are
described in Fig. 9(a) and (b), respectively. In this case, the height at
where ρ, cd , and cs are the material density, material longitudinal and
shear wave velocities of the transmitting media, respectively; V n and the top of the piles is set as zero. It should be noted that the max-
V t are the particle velocities in the normal and tangential directions. imum lateral displacement of each observation point is determined
The boundary at the bottom of the soil foundation is assumed to when the maximum deflection at the top of the structure occurred,
be horizontal and fixed in the vertical direction, while the displace- that is, t¼7.08 s for equivalent linear soil and t¼7.02 s for nonlinear
ment of lateral boundaries is restricted in the normal direction. soil. This method would be more appropriate for reflecting the
structural and pile’s deformations in comparison with the approach
4.4. Consideration of gravity in which the maximum lateral displacements are given when the
peak values in the time history curves of displacement are reached
Study of the contact behaviors in the SSPSI model reveals that [46]. Fig. 10 shows the comparison results of the two soil models for
the slippage of the interface and the frictional force are closely the time–displacement curves of the structure and the pile. As is
related to the normal contact force at the interface. The interaction shown in Fig. 8, point P1 is at the bottom end of the pile and point P2
force is greatly affected by the initial stress produced by gravity is at the top end of the pile; point S1 is in the middle of the structure,
and a significant error might occur if gravity is neglected in the and point S2 is at the top of the structure.
dynamic response analysis. Therefore the initial conditions caused The trend and the values based on the nonlinear soil model are in
by self-weight should be considered in the analysis [45]. The good agreement with the results obtained from the equivalent linear
numerical simulation is performed in the following two stages: soil model. However, it can be noticed that the maximum displace-
First, the bottom boundary of the soil field is fixed and the gravity ments of the nonlinear soil model tend to be 0.8–4.2% smaller than
acceleration slowly increases from 0 m/s2 to 9.8 m/s2. Then the gravity those of the equivalent linear soil model. The equivalent linear
load would be a constant value throughout the process. Thus the stable
method would sometimes leads to larger damping and smaller
state of the soil–pile-structure model under gravity can be obtained.
modulus at high frequencies under ground shaking, which results in
Second, the stresses calculated by the first step are used as the
underestimation of the stiffness of the soil layers [22]. Consequently,
initial state for the second stage analysis and a gravity acceleration of
the maximum displacements of the structure and the pile based on
9.8 m/s2 is applied in the beginning. Once the displacement of the
the equivalent soil model are overestimated under the earthquake.
model reaches a constant value (a static-like condition) and the
The comparison of acceleration records based on the two dif-
transient response of the system disappears, the seismic excitations
are then added and applied to the base rock of the model. ferent soil models is presented in Fig. 11. It can be seen that,
compared with the results obtained from the equivalent linear soil
model, the peek acceleration based on the nonlinear soil model
5. Results and discussion increases by 3–10% in the pile response and 10–16% in the struc-
ture response. This indicates that soil nonlinearity has a great
5.1. Effect of nonlinearity of soil on SSPSI response effect on the structural acceleration response and the equivalent
linear soil model presented in the analysis results in an under-
Comparisons of the 3D numerical predictions between the estimation of the peak acceleration under the ground shaking. This
equivalent linear soil model and the nonlinear soil model for the is also due to that the equivalent linear method computes the
152 C. Luo et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 84 (2016) 145–156
Fig. 11. Time-history acceleration records resting on model with equivalent linear soil and nonlinear soil at different points.
effective strain as a constant fraction of the maximum strain and it Therefore, in this paper, the effect of nonlinearity of the interface is
leads to an underestimation of the equivalent stiffness of the soil. fully analyzed and the explanation of this effect is also presented.
The equivalent linear soil model tends to be conservative in the Fig. 12 shows the comparison results of time history accelera-
structural acceleration response estimation under this seismic tions of the pile and the structure based on the models with dif-
excitation. Therefore, in the design process of the SSPSI system, ferent soil–pile interactions, one considering the nonlinearity of
soil behavior should be considered as a nonlinear constitutive soil–pile interface and the other one assuming that the piles are
model, which is taken for granted in the following analyses. perfectly bounded with adjacent soil and the slippage and
separation of the soil and the piles will not be taken into con-
5.2. Effect of nonlinearity of soil–pile interface on SSPSI response sideration. Similar observations of the acceleration response of the
pile and the structure can be obtained in the two models. It can be
The effect of nonlinearity of soil–pile–structure interface on the seen in Table 4 that when the nonlinearity of soil–pile interface is
acceleration response of structure was investigated [19]. It con- considered, the peek acceleration decreases by 1–5% in the pile
cluded that the nonlinearity between the soil and the piles has a response and 6–12% in the structure response compared with the
big effect on the structural response of the SSPSI system. However, results excluding the effect of nonlinear interaction between the
the specific effect of the nonlinear interface was not analyzed. soil and the piles. This can be due to that the soil–pile–structure
C. Luo et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 84 (2016) 145–156 153
Fig. 12. Comparison of acceleration response of pile and structure considering nonlinear soil–pile interface and not considering nonlinear soil–pile interface.
Table 4 developed on either sides of the pile, the contact pressure from
Peak acceleration of pile and structure with different soil–pile interactions and soil at the pile head is lost and becomes zero.
plastic flow rules for soil The peak acceleration at the top of the structure decreases
Point Associative flow rule Non-associative flow rule
more than 10% because of the contact nonlinearity, indicating that
the nonlinearity of soil–pile interface has a great effect on the
Contact interface acc Share nodes acc Contact interface acc (g) dynamic response of the system and is more suitable for simu-
(g) (g) lating the real interactions between the soil and the piles.
P1 0.1926 0.1947 0.1915
P2 0.2714 0.2845 0.2693 5.3. Sensitivity of SSPSI response to soil dilation
S1 0.3227 0.3498 0.3188
S2 0.4407 0.4936 0.4315 The effect of the soil's dilation angle on the dynamic response
of the system is assessed by measuring the peak acceleration of
the pile and the structure for varying dilation angle values ψ , as is
system would be more rigid if there was no slippage and gapping shown in Fig. 14. The result shows that the system is not sensitive
at the pile soil interface. to the dilation angle. The peak accelerations of the pile and the
Experiences from past earthquake observations clearly shows structure with the soil constitutive model adopting the non-
that when a soil–pile–structure system is subjected to seismic associative flow rule (ψ ¼ φ=2) are slightly smaller than the
excitations, the soil around the pile groups may be compressed results obtained following the associative flow rule (ψ ¼ φ).
laterally to the extent that a soil pile gap separation may occur. Table 4 shows that the difference of peak acceleration is 0.5–0.8%
These gap separations between soil and pile have been observed in in the pile response and 1.2–2.1% in the structure response because
the past both in the field and laboratory tests. In 1989 Loma Prieta of the varied dilation angles of the soil. Therefore, the effect of the
soil’s dilation angle can be ignored in the dynamic response ana-
earthquake, the soil pile gap developed along the Struve Slough
lysis of the SSPSI system under the seismic excitation. This is in
crossing [10]. The phenomenon of closing and separation occur
agreement with the analysis of sensitivity to soil’s dilation angle
between the soil and pile groups [19].
using the ABAQUS program [32].
Fig. 13 shows the time history contact pressure of elements
between the pile and its surrounding soil at the points of P1 and 5.4. Pile foundation's effect on SSPSI response
P2. It can be clearly observed that the contact pressure at the top
of the pile does not always exist, suggesting that the nonlinearity In order to determine the effect of the pile foundations on the
of soil–pile interface would lead to the separation and closing of response of the soil, the distribution of maximum lateral dis-
the soil and the pile foundation. As the gap on the interface is placements of the soil based on the model with pile foundations
154 C. Luo et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 84 (2016) 145–156
Fig. 13. Contact pressure versus time history of the elements at points P1 and P2 on the soil–pile interface.
Fig. 14. Comparison of acceleration response of pile and structure in model with
soil dilation angle ψ ¼ φ=2 and ψ ¼ φ.
Fig. 16. Contours of displacements of the middle structure in X direction: (a) model without pile foundations; (b) model with pile foundations (m).
soil and structure during the interaction between the soil and [11] Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B. Assessment of soil–pile–structure interac-
the piles. tion influencing seismic response of mid-rise buildings sitting on floating pile
foundations. Comput Geotech 2014;55:172–86.
[12] Kojima K, Fujita K, Takewaki I. Unified analysis of kinematic and inertial
Further research will be conducted to deal with seismic exci- earthquake pile responses via single-input response spectrum method. Soil
tations with different amplitudes and directions. The results pre- Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;Vol.63:36–55.
[13] Maheshwari BK, Emani PK. Three-dimensional nonlinear seismic analysis of
sented in this paper provide a global understanding of this SSPSI pile groups using FE-CIFECM coupling in a hybrid domain and hiss plasticity
system under seismic loading and offer useful data and references model. Int J Geomech 2015;15.
[14] Schnabel P, Bolton Seed H, Lysmer J. Modification of seismograph records for
for the seismic design of the SSPSI system in the future.
effects of local soil conditions. Bull Seism Soc Am 1972;62:1649–64.
[15] Ching J-Y, Glaser SD. 1D time-domain solution for seismic ground motion
prediction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2001;127(1):36–47.
Acknowledgment [16] Takewaki I. Response spectrum method for nonlinear surface ground analysis.
Int J Adv Struct Eng 2004;7(6):503–14.
[17] Choi JS, Yun CB, Kim JM. Earthquake response analysis of the Hualien soil-
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from structure interaction system based on updated soil properties using forced
vibration test data. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2001;30:1–26.
the National 863 High Technology Research and Development
[18] Kim Y-S, Roesset JM. Effect of nonlinear soil behavior on inelastic seismic
Program of China (2012AA01A307) and the National Natural Sci- response of a structure. Int J Geomech 2004;4:104–14.
ence Foundation of China (51475287). We would also like to thank [19] Lu XL, Li PZ, Chen B, Chen YQ. Computer simulation of the dynamic layered
soil-pile-structure interaction system. Can Geotech J 2005;42:742–51.
the State Key Laboratory Mechanical System and Vibration [20] Pitilakis D, Clouteau D. Equivalent linear substructure approximation of soil-
(Shanghai Jiao Tong University) and the Shanghai Nuclear Engi- foundation-structure interaction: model presentation and validation. Bull
Earthq Eng 2010;8:257–82.
neering Research and Design Institute. [21] Chau K, Yang X. Nonlinear interaction of soil–pile in horizontal vibration. J Eng
Mech 2005;131:847–58.
[22] Yoshida N, Kobayashi S, Suetomi I, Miura K. Equivalent linear method con-
sidering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2002;22:205–22.
References [23] Allotey N, El Naggar MH. An investigation into the Winkler modeling of the
cyclic response of rigid footings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28:44–57.
[1] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soil-pile- [24] Soneji BB, Jangid RS. Influence of soil-structure interaction on the response of
structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28:245–57.
1999;125:750–9. [25] Fatahi B, Tabatabaiefar SHR. Fully nonlinear versus equivalent linear compu-
[2] Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai C-F, Seed HB. FLUSH: a computer program for tation method for seismic analysis of midrise buildings on soft soils. Int J
approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems. Report/No. Geomech 2014;14.
EERC 75–30. Berkeley: University of California; 1975 Earthquake Engineering [26] Perdok U. Advances in soil dynamics, in: advances in soil dynamics mono-
Research Center. graph committee. 2. J Terramech, 43. St. Joseph, USA: ASAE; 2006. p. 259–62.
[3] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded [27] Shahrour I, Khoshnoudian F, Sadek M, Mroueh H. Elastoplastic analysis of the
foundations. J Geotech Eng 1992;117:1363–81. seismic response of tunnels in soft soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
[4] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pile-soil-pile interaction, part II: lateral and 2010;25:478–82.
seismic response. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21:145–62. [28] Chehade FH, Sadek M, Bachir D. Numerical study of piles group under seismic
[5] Guin J, Banerjee PK. Coupled soil-pile-structure interaction analysis under loading in frictinal soil-inclination effect. Open J Earthq Res 2014;03(01):7.
seismic excitation. J Struct Eng—ASCE 1998;124:434–44. [29] Mayoral JM, Castañon E, Sarmiento N. Seismic response of high plasticity clays
[6] Cai YX, Gould PL, Desai CS. Nonlinear analysis of 3D seismic interaction of soil- during extreme events. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;77:203–7.
pile-structure systems and application. Eng Struct 2000;22:191–9. [30] Byrne PM. Naesgaard E. Seid-Karbasi M. Analysis and design of earth struc-
[7] Curras CJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Wilson DW. Dynamic experiments and tures to resist seismic soil liquefaction, In: Proceedings of the 59th Canadian
analyses of a pile-group-supported structure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng geotechnical conference & 7th joint CGS/IAH-CNC groundwater specialty
2001;127:585–96. conference, Vancouver, Canada, (2006) pp. 1–24.
[8] Nikolaou S, Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Tazoh T. Kinematic pile bending during [31] Bentley KJ, Naggar MHE. Numerical analysis of kinematic response of single
earthquakes: analysis and field measurements. Geotechnique 2001;51(5):425–40. piles. Can Geotech J 2000;37:1368–82.
[9] Maheshwari BK, Truman KZ, El Naggar MH, Gould PL. Three-dimensional [32] Kellezi L., Hansen P., Static and dynamic analysis of an offshore mono-pile windmill
nonlinear analysis for seismic soil–pile-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq foundation, in: Proceedings of the BGA international conference on foundations:
Eng 2004;24:343–56. innovations, observations, design and practice, Dundee, 2003, pp. 401–10.
[10] Chau KT, Shen CY, Guo X. Nonlinear seismic soil-pile-structure interactions: [33] Ghorbani A, Hasanzadehshooiili H, Ghamari E, Medzvieckas J. Comprehensive
Shaking table tests and FEM analyses. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29:300–10. three dimensional finite element analysis, parametric study and sensitivity
156 C. Luo et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 84 (2016) 145–156
analysis on the seismic performance of soil–micropile-superstructure inter- [41] Hallquist J. LS-DYNA keyword manual, Version 950. Livermore, California,
action. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;58:21–36. USA: Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 1999.
[34] Bayraktar A, Altunisik AC, Ozcan M. Safety assessment of structures for near- [42] Kunar RR, Rodriguez Ovejero L. A model with non-reflecting boundaries for
field blast-induced ground excitations using operational modal analysis. Soil use in explicit soil-structure interaction analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
Dyn Earthq Eng 2012;39:23–36. 1980;8(4):361–74.
[35] Bayraktar A, Kartal ME. Linear and nonlinear response of concrete slab on CFR [43] Nakamura N. Nonlinear response analyses of a soil–structure interaction
dam during earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:990–1003. system using transformed energy transmitting boundary in the time domain.
[36] Yue Q, Ang AHS. Nonlinear response and reliability analysis of tunnels under Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29(5):799–808.
strong earthquakes. Struct Infrastruct E 2015:1–13. [44] Cohen P.C.J.M. In: Belytschko T., Hughes T.J.R., (Eds.), Computational methods
[37] Trochanis AM, Bielak J, Christiano P. Three-dimensional nonlinear study of for transient analysis. 1983, Elsevier Science.
piles. J Geotech Eng 1991;117(3):429–47. [45] Yazdchi M, Khalili N, Valliappan S. Dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis
[38] Halquist JO. LS-DYNA keyword user's manual version 971[J]. Livermore, CA: via coupled finite-element-boundary-element method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2007. 1999;18:499–517.
[39] Zhang kexu Xj. Soil dynamics. Beijing: Earthquake press; 1989. [46] Hokmabadi AS, Fatahi B, Samali B. Recording inter-storey drifts of structures in
[40] Bolisetti C. Site response, soil-structure interaction and structure-soil- time-history approach for seismic design of building frames. Aust J Struct Eng
structure interaction for performance assessment of buildings and nuclear 2012;13.
structures, in, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo. State
University of New York; 2014.