ARTICLE IN PRESS

Inuence of soilstructure interaction on the response of seismically

isolated cable-stayed bridge
B.B. Soneji, R.S. Jangid
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400 076, India

Abstract
Soil conditions have a great deal to do with damage to structures during earthquakes. This paper attempts to assess the inuence of
dynamic soilstructure interaction (SSI) on the behavior of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge supported on a rigidly capped vertical
pile groups, which pass through moderately deep, layered soil overlying rigid bedrock. In the present approach, piles closely grouped
together beneath the towers are viewed as a single equivalent upright beam. The soilpile interaction is idealized as a beam on nonlinear
Winkler foundation using continuously distributed hysteretic springs and viscous dashpots placed in parallel. The hysteretic behavior of
soil springs is idealized using BoucWen model. The cable-stayed bridge is isolated by using high-damping rubber bearings and the
effects of SSI are investigated by performing seismic analysis in time domain using direct integration method. The seismic response of the
isolated cable-stayed bridge with SSI is obtained under bi-directional earthquake excitations (i.e. two horizontal components acting
simultaneously) considering different soil exibilities. The emphasis has been placed on assessing the signicance of nonlinear behavior of
soil that affects the response of the system and identify the circumstances under which it is necessary to include the SSI effects in
the design of seismically isolated bridges. It is observed that the soil surrounding the piles has signicant effects on the response of the
isolated bridge and the bearing displacements may be underestimated if the SSI effects are ignored. Inclusion of SSI is found essential for
effective design of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge, specically when the towers are very much rigid and the soil condition is soft
to medium. Further, it is found that the linear soil model does not lead to accurate prediction of tower base shear response, and nonlinear
soil modeling is essential to reect dynamic behavior of the soilpile system properly.

Keywords: Cable-stayed bridge; Soilstructure interaction; Pile group; Nonlinear springs; Earthquake; Isolation system

1. Introduction
Signicant damage of bridges due to partial or complete
collapse of piers has been observed in every major seismic
event. The 1994 Northridge earthquake, 1995 Kobe earthquake and 2001 Gujarat earthquake have demonstrated
that the strength alone would not be sufcient for the
safety of bridges during the earthquake. For the past
several years, the research is focused on nding out more
rational and substantiated solutions for protection of
bridges from severe earthquake attack. Seismic isolation
is a strategy that attempts to reduce the seismic forces to or
near the elastic capacity of the member, thereby eliminating

or reducing inelastic deformations. The main concept in

isolation is to reduce the fundamental frequency of
structural vibration to a value lower than the predominant
energy-containing frequencies of earthquake. The other
purpose of an isolation system is to provide means of
energy dissipation, which dissipates the seismic energy
transmitted to the system. The isolation device, which
replaces conventional bridge bearings, decouples the
bridge deck (which alone is responsible for majority of
the tower base shear) from bridge substructure during
earthquakes thereby signicantly reducing the deck acceleration and consequently the forces transmitted to the
towers or piers.
Though the technique of seismic isolation has been
successfully implemented world wide for buildings and
short to medium span highway bridges [14], very limited

246

systems, and may signicantly affect the internal forces in

structural members and displacement response of bridges.
It has also been recognized that the way in which SSI affects
the seismic behavior of bridges depends on the conditions of
the bridgefoundationsoil system [15], suggesting a necessity to perform many detailed case studies.
In this paper, inuence of dynamic SSI on the seismic
response of cable-stayed bridge isolated by elastomeric
bearings is investigated. The soilpile interaction is
idealized as a beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation
(BNWF) using continuously distributed nonlinear springs
and dashpots. The specic objectives of the study are: (i) to
investigate the inuence of exibility of layered soil on the
response of seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge; (ii) to
assess the signicance of nonlinearity in soil on the seismic
response of the isolated bridge by comparing the results of
SSI considering and ignoring nonlinearity and (iii) to
identify the circumstances under which it is necessary to
include the SSI effects in the design of seismically isolated
cable-stayed bridges.

amount of work has been done on the use of seismic

isolation for seismic response control of cable-stayed
bridges. Ali and Abdel-Ghaffar [5] investigated the
effectiveness of elastomeric (elastic and hysteretic type
both) bearings for seismic isolation of cable-stayed bridges.
Wesolowsky and Wilson [6] examined the efcacy of using
seismic isolation to favorably inuence the seismic response
of cable-stayed bridges subjected to near-eld earthquake
ground motions. It is to be noted that in these studies on
isolated cable-stayed bridges, the foundation of the bridge
towers is assumed as rigid (embedded in solid rock) and
there has not been any attempt to investigate the effects of
SSI on the response of the bridges.
In recent years, several cable-stayed bridges have been
constructed on relatively soft ground, which results in a
great demand to evaluate the effects of soilstructure
interaction (SSI) on the seismic behavior of the bridges,
and properly reect it in their seismic design. During these
years, some studies have been conducted to comprehend the
effects of SSI on the seismic behavior of non-isolated
bridges [711]. Also, the studies have been carried out to
investigate the seismic response of isolated reinforced
cement concrete bridges considering SSI [1214]. These
studies have demonstrated that SSI generally tends to
prolong the natural periods of bridgefoundationsoil

2. The cable-stayed bridge model

The bridge model used in this study is the Quincy BayView Bridge crossing the Mississippi River at Quincy, IL.

53.7 m

134.00 m

274.00 m

Roller support
134.00 m

17 m

z
6@
2.75m

x
Part 1
y

5.5 m
Deck

Deck

Hinge support

Isolator

13.5 m
Part 2
13.5 m
4.7 m

Part 3

17.0 m

Part 4

Tower

Tower

Fig. 1. Details of the semi-harp-type cable-stayed bridge model. (a) The bridge model, (b) nite element model of towers, (c) towerdeck connections
(non-isolated) and (d) towerdeck connections (isolated).

247

The bridge consists of two H-shaped concrete towers,

double plane semi-harp-type cables and a composite
concrete-steel girder bridge deck. The detailed description
of the bridge is given in Wilson and Gravelle [16]. Here, a
simplied lumped mass nite element model of the bridge
developed for the investigation is as shown in Fig. 1(a). The
nite element model of the towers is separately shown in
Fig. 1(b). There are 28 cable members, 14 supporting the
main span and 7 supporting each side spans. The cable
members are spaced at 2.75 m c/c at the upper part of the
towers and equally spaced at the deck level on the side as
well as main spans. The relevant properties of the bridge
deck (for equivalent steel area) and towers are given in
Table 1 while those of the cables are given in Table 2. The
bridge deck is assumed to be a continuous beam rigidly
connected to the towers such that the deck moment will not
be transferred to the tower through the decktower
connection. For implementing seismic isolation, the isolation bearings are placed at each four supports of the deck
replacing conventional bearings (refer Fig. 1(c) and (d)).
The bridge towers are supported on rigidly capped vertical
pile groups passing through moderately deep, layered soil
overlying rigid bedrock. When piles are closely grouped
together, the piles and soil work like a single rigid unit, and
the problem becomes of the group working like a large pier
[17,18]. Hence in present approach, piles closely grouped
together beneath the towers are viewed as a single
equivalent upright beam with second moment of area
about xx-, yy- and zz-axis equal to 82.72, 1057.726 and
189.74 m4; respectively, and cross-sectional area equal to
20.49 m2. The piles are spaced at three pile diameters, and
the properties of the single equivalent beam include group
effects.
It is worth mentioning that a cable-stayed bridge, in
the rigorous sense, behaves nonlinearly when loaded.
However, the research on ambient vibration survey of the

cable-stayed bridge carried out by Wilson and Liu [19] has

demonstrated that a completely linear model was sufcient
to get reasonably accurate results for the Quincy Bay-View
Bridge. Hence, no attempts are made to introduce
nonlinearity into the model in this investigation.
Regarding modeling of the bridge components, the deck
and the tower members are modeled as space frame
elements. The cables are modeled as linear elastic space
truss elements. The stiffness characteristics of an inclined
cable can exhibit a nonlinear behavior caused by cable sag.
This nonlinear behavior can be taken into account by
linearization of the cable stiffness using an equivalent
modulus of elasticity that is less than the true material
modulus [20]. For the analysis of the bridge under
consideration, Wilson and Gravelle [16] found the value
of equivalent modulus essentially equal to the true modulus
of elasticity. Hence, here nonlinearity due to cable sag is
neglected and cables are treated as having a completely
linear forcedeformation relationship described by the true
material modulus of elasticity. Moreover, cables are
assumed to be capable of bearing tension as well as
compression assuming that the pretension in the cables will
take care of the compression induced in the dynamic
analysis.

3. Modeling of the soilpile system

In the last two decades, several numerical and analytical
methods have been developed to compute the dynamic
stiffness and seismic response factors of pile foundations
accounting for soilpile interaction. Most of these methods
assumed linear viscoelastic response of the surrounding
soil. Nevertheless, under moderate and strong seismic
loading, pile foundations undergo signicant displacements
and the behavior of the soilpile system can be nonlinear.

Table 1
Properties of the deck and the towers of the cable-stayed bridge
Part of the
structure
Deck
Tower
Tower
Tower
Tower

part
part
part
part

1
2
3
4

Cross-sectional
area (m2)

Moment of inertia about

zz-axis (m4)

Moment of inertia about

yy-axis (m4)

Moment of inertia about

xx-axis (m4)

Youngs
modulus (MPa)

Mass density
(kg/m3)

0.827
14.120
14.120
17.540
35.390

0.341
28.050
28.050
30.620
32.750

19.760
531.580
670.970
1239.400
1422.420

0.027
15.390
15.390
19.760
27.640

205,000
30,787
30,787
30,787
30,787

7850
2400
2400
2400
2400

Table 2
Properties for the stay cables of the cable-stayed bridge
Cable no.

Cross-sectional area (m2)

Youngs modulus (MPa)

Cable weight (N/m)

1
2
3
4

0.0180
0.0135
0.0107
0.0070

205,000
205,000
205,000
205,000

1765.80
1324.35
1049.67
686.70

248

Highway Bridges issued by Japan Road Association [25].

In the suggested method, reference soil reaction coefcient
k0 is rst computed using Eq. (1), where Es is Youngs
modulus of soil. The soil reaction coefcient per unit area,
kr, is obtained using Eq. (2), where Be is the width of the
foundation perpendicular to the direction considered:
1:2E s
,
30
r
3=4 Be
kr k0
.
30

k0

E s 2G s 1 ms ,

9@ 2.5 m = 22.5 m

5m

2.5 m

cs

10 m

cs
Pile
Nodal mass

5m

ks

1.25 m

(2)

(3)

where Gs is the shear modulus and ms is Poissons ratio for

the soil.
It should be mentioned that, when using Eqs. (1) and (2),
the units of Be and Es must be in centimeters and kg/cm2,
respectively. The horizontal spring coefcients (ks) for each
part of foundation are obtained by multiplying kr by the
area of its surface perpendicular to the excitation direction.
The horizontal spring coefcients are evaluated by taking
the widths of foundation perpendicular to the longitudinal
and transverse directions of the bridge as 21 and 9 m,
respectively. Although it has been recognized that spring
coefcients are frequency dependent, the spring coefcients
computed using the method suggested in Japan Road
Association [25] are frequency independent for practical
use.
The second key parameter for soil is damping. Two
fundamentally different damping phenomena are associated with soil, namely material damping and radiation

ks

ks

(1)

Youngs modulus can be evaluated using the relation

5m

1.25 m

Studies on the nonlinear dynamic response of piles have

been conducted with the nite element method [21]. The
nite element method, which requires discretization of the
pile and the surrounding soil, although powerful, is
computationally very expensive. In contrast, the BNWF
model is a versatile and economical approach. Trochanis
et al. [22] have carried out the most comprehensive study
on the nonlinear response of piles using a BNWF model
utilizing a model of viscoplasticity, better known as the
BoucWen model [23,24], to describe the forcedisplacement relation of distributed nonlinear springs that approximate the soil reaction on the pile. Their study concentrated
on the static and quasi-static (zero-frequency limit) loading
of piles, and for this type of loading it was shown that the
BoucWen model predicts well the response of a variety of
soilpile systems.
Herein, the soilpile interaction is idealized as a BNWF
using continuously distributed nonlinear springs and
viscous dashpots placed in parallel (Fig. 2(a)). The presence
of the damper makes the model very efcient for the
prediction of the pile response under dynamic loads since it
accounts realistically for the energy that radiates outward.
The response of the superstructure is investigated under
three different types of soil surrounding the pile foundation, namely, soft, medium and rm. The soils are
considered in layers of different thickness resting on rock
(Fig. 2(b)), with increasing stiffness and decreasing damping with depth. Assuming that the rigid bedrock is
available at a depth of 25 m, soil springs are distributed
at 2.5 m centers. Thus, the discretization of pile into 11
segments by using 10 springs is enough to achieve sufcient
accuracy in the analysis. The spring coefcients have been
computed by method suggested in Specification for

cs

Fig. 2. Schematic of dynamic BNWF model in layered soil strata. (a) BNWF model and (b) layered soil.

249

damping. Material damping can be thought of as a

measure of the loss of vibration energy resulting primarily
from hysteresis in the soil. The radiation damping is a
measure of energy loss from the structure through
radiation of waves away from the foundation. Expressions
for damping coefcients are available in literature [26,27],
on the basis of which the following simple approximation is
derived [28]:
1=4

cs Qs 6a0

rs V s d 2xs

ks
,
os

(4)

where xs and rs are the damping ratio and mass density of

the soil,
d is the pile diameter, shear wave velocity,
p
V s G s =rs , p
pV s =2d f , df is the thickness of soil
os
layer and a0 os d=V s . The coefcient Qs is given by the
expression

1:25  
3:4
p 0:75
Qs 2 1
.
(5)
p1  ms
4
The dynamic properties of the soils such as shear
modulus, mass density, Poissons ratio, damping ratio,
shear strength, etc. that vary with the depth are given in
Table 3 [29,30].
The force resulting from the nonlinear spring alone is
given by
F s aks q0 1  aks qZ,

(6)

where q0 is the pile deection at the location of the spring, a

is a parameter that controls the post-yielding stiffness, q is
the value of pile deection that initiates yielding in the
spring and Z is a hysteretic dimensionless quantity that is
governed by the following equation:
qZ_ Aq_ 0 bjq_ 0 jZjZjn1  gq_ 0 Z n .

(7)

In the above equation b, g, n and A are dimensionless

quantities that control the shape of the hysteretic loop. The
hysteretic model of Eq. (7) was originally proposed by
Bouc [23] for n 1, and subsequently extended by Wen
[24], and used in random vibration studies of inelastic
systems. It can be easily shown that when A 1 in Eq. (7),
parameter ks in (6) becomes the small-amplitude elastic

distributed stiffness, and parameter a becomes the ratio of

the post- to pre-yielding stiffness [31]. Based on this
observation, all the subsequent analysis is carried out
taking A and n equal to 1. The other parameters, which
do not affect much the peak response, are kept constant
(i.e. b g 0.5). The plastic soil behavior (no hardening)
at large pile deections indicated that the ultimate postyielding stiffness of the soil is zero and, therefore, the
parameter a in Eq. (6) is set equal to zero.
The value of q (pile deection at which yielding initiates
in the soil spring) in Eq. (7) at depth h is provided by
qh lh

thd
,
ks =S

(8)

where S is the spacing between two adjacent springs, t(h) is

the shear strength of the soil at depth h and l(h) is a
dimensionless quantity. Considerable research has been
done to quantify l [32,33]. l values between 9 and 12 may
be appropriate at depths where plane strain conditions are
valid. At shallow depths, plane strain conditions are not
valid due to vertical deformation of the soil during lateral
motion of the pile. Hence, l values of 2 or 3 have been
suggested. The following expression for the variation of l
with depth is recommended [33]:
lh 3

sz
h
J ;
d
th

lh 9;

hX

ho

6d
,
gs =th J

(9)

6d
,
gs =th J

(10)

where sz is the overburden pressure and gs rs g is the

specic weight of the soil. The value of parameter J in
Eq. (9) must be determined empirically. In the absence of
such data, the recommended value of J 0.5 may be used.
4. Numerical study with nonlinear soil modeling
The cable-stayed bridge is isolated by using highdamping rubber bearings and the effects of SSI are
investigated by performing seismic analysis in time domain
using direct integration method. Inuence of SSI on the

Table 3
Dynamic properties of different types of layered soils
Depth, h (m) Shear modulus, Gs (MN/m2)
Soft

Medium

Firm

Mass density, rs (Mg/m3)

Poissons ratio (m)

Soft

Medium

Firm

Soft Medium Firm Soft Medium Firm Soft

Damping ratio (xs)

Shear strength, ts (kN/m2)

Medium

Firm

0
80

400

900

2.1

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.07 0.04

0.02

25

50

100

125

625

1350

2.1

2.1

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.06 0.04

0.02

50

100

150

245

1225

2550

2.2

2.3

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.05 0.04

0.02

75

150

200

550

2750

6500

2.2

2.2

2.5

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.05 0.04

0.02

100

200

300

5
10
20
25

250

Imperial Valley, Kobe, Loma Prieta and Northridge

earthquakes, respectively. The spectra of these ground
motion indicate that the ground motions are recorded at
hard soil or rock site.
As damping in the structure is very low, 2% damping is
assumed. For the HDRB, damping ratio (xb) is taken equal
to 10%. Previous studies on seismic isolation of cablestayed bridges [6,34] have shown that a small amount of
isolation is sufcient to reduce the seismically induced
forces in the bridge. Higher amount of isolation results in
larger displacement of the deck and trade-off to reduction
of the base shear of the towers. Hence, herein the isolation
period is taken equal to 2 s and is kept constant throughout
the study. To evaluate the effects of SSI on the seismic
response of the bridge, the evaluation criteria proposed are
relative displacement in the longitudinal (xb1) and transverse (yb1) directions of the isolators at the abutment,
relative displacement of the isolators in the transverse

seismic response of isolated cable-stayed bridge is investigated under the four real strong earthquake ground
motions, namely, (1) 1940 Imperial Valley, (2) 1995 Kobe,
(3) 1989 Loma Prieta and (4) 1994 Northridge earthquakes.
The rst one is widely used by the researcher in the past
and the last three represent the strong motion earthquake
records. The peak accelerations of these earthquake
ground motions are shown in Table 4. The specic
components of these ground motions applied in the
longitudinal and transverse directions are also indicated
in Table 4. The displacement and acceleration response
spectra of the above four ground motions for 2% of the
critical damping are shown in Fig. 3. The maximum
ordinates of the spectral acceleration along the longitudinal
direction are 1.302g, 4.12g, 3.55g and 3.24g occurring at
the period of 0.46, 0.35, 0.64 and 0.35 s and along the
transverse directions are 0.955g, 3.559g, 2.215g and 1.967g
occurring at the period of 0.53, 0.39, 0.4 and 0.51 s for

Table 4
Peak ground acceleration of various earthquake ground motions
Earthquake

Imperial Valley, 1940

Kobe, 1995
Loma Prieta, 1989
Northridge, 1994

Recording station

El Centro
Japan Meteorological Agency
Los Gatos Presentation Center
Sylmar Converter Station

Applied in longitudinal direction of the bridge

Applied in transverse direction of the bridge

Component

PGA (g)

Component

PGA (g)

N00E
N00E
N00E
N00E

0.348
0.834
0.570
0.843

N90E
N90E
N90E
N90E

0.214
0.629
0.607
0.600

Spectral displacement (m)

Note: PGA peak ground acceleration.

Imperial Valley, 1940

Kobe, 1995
Lomba Prieta, 1989
Northridge, 1994

1.2

Dampling = 2%

0.8

0.4

0.0

Spectral acceleration (m)

Logitudinal

Transverse

4
3
2
1
0
0

2
Time period (s)

Time period (s)

Fig. 3. Displacement and acceleration spectra of four earthquake ground motions applied in the longitudinal and transverse directions of the bridge.

251

direction at the decktower junction (yb2), absolute

acceleration of the deck in the longitudinal direction at
the left abutment x d and base shear response of the
towers along longitudinal (Vx) and transverse (Vy) directions at the left tower normalized to the weight of the deck,
Wd. Because of the symmetrical structure with antisymmetry earthquake loading about vertical axis of
symmetry, the results at the symmetrical nodes of the
structure are found similar in magnitude and direction.
Hence, results of the response quantities are presented for
left half part of the bridge.
Results of time history analyses under 1940 Imperial
Valley earthquake ground motion along longitudinal
direction are presented in Figs. 46 for soft, medium and
rm soil, respectively. The results obtained with and
without SSI are plotted in the same graphs for comparison
purpose. The trend of the results indicates that there is not
much variation in acceleration and base shear response
with the type of soil considered. However, for the soft soil
strata, little increase in bearing displacement is observed
and the response reduces as soil becomes stiffer. Time
history plots under 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake
ground motion along transverse direction are presented
in Figs. 79 for soft, medium and rm soil, respectively. It
is observed that in transverse direction the deck acceleration and tower base shear found to be increased for soft
soil, and the responses reduce as the soil becomes stiffer.
However, increase in displacement response of the isolator
at the abutment is insignicant when SSI is considered. The
dynamic forcedisplacement loops in longitudinal as well
as transverse directions for the soil spring near pile head

under the 1995 Kobe earthquake ground motions are

presented in Fig. 10. It is to be noted that for the soft soil
strata, the displacement response is large and spring force
is less. As the soil stiffness increases, the inclination of the
loop also increases with increase in spring force and
reduction in displacement as expected. Thus, the plots
indicate that, by using the BoucWen model for hysteresis
systems, the nonlinear behavior of soil strata is adequately
captured.
The peak values of the response quantities under
different earthquake ground motions are presented in
Table 5. It can be observed from the table that the response
quantities other than tower base shear in transverse
direction are not much affected by the SSI consideration.
Since the deck is isolated from the tower, the increase in
displacement response due to SSI is little and is in the range
of 320% in the longitudinal direction, and 313% in the
transverse direction with soft soil strata. With the rm soil
strata, the increase in displacement response of the deck
reduces to 10%. Also, it can be observed that, for all the
earthquakes except Kobe, 1995, the displacement response
of the isolator decreases as the soil stiffness increases. This
is in agreement with the trend in displacement spectra of
the earthquake ground motions (Fig. 3). Further, it is to be
noted from Table 5 that the base shear response of the
tower along longitudinal direction is not much inuenced
by the consideration of SSI. The reason behind this could
be explained with the help of earthquake acceleration
spectra presented in Fig. 3. The time period of the xed
base tower (i.e. without SSI) along the longitudinal
direction comes out to be around 1.7 s and the inclusion

Without SSI
With SSI

xd (g)

0.2
0.0
-0.2

Vx /Wd

0.15

0.00

-0.15

xb1 (m)

0.15
0.00
-0.15
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)
Fig. 4. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the longitudinal direction of the bridge for soft soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

252

Without SSI
With SSI

xd (g)

0.2
0.0
-0.2

Vx /Wd

0.15

0.00

-0.15

xb1 (m)

0.15
0.00
-0.15
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)
Fig. 5. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the longitudinal direction of the bridge for medium soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

Without SSI
With SSI

xd (g)

0.2
0.0
-0.2

Vx /Wd

0.15

0.00

-0.15

xb1 (m)

0.15
0.00
-0.15
0

10

15

20

25

30

Time (s)
Fig. 6. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the longitudinal direction of the bridge for rm soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

of SSI further makes it more exible. Thus, the time period

of the tower with SSI consideration falls in the zone
of more or less steady spectral acceleration resulting
in insignicant inuence on the base shear response.

However, the tower base shear in the transverse direction

is greatly affected by the type of soil strata considered.
The increase in the tower base shear is about 3065%
for soft site, and gradually approaches to the values

253

Without SSI
With SSI

yd / (g)

0.15
0.00
-0.15

Vy / Wd

0.25
0.00
-0.25

yb1 (m)

0.05
0.00
-0.05
0

10

15
Time (s)

20

25

30

Fig. 7. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the transverse direction of the bridge for soft soil under Imperial
Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

Without SSI
With SSI

yd (g)

0.15
0.00
-0.15

V y / Wd

0.25
0.00
-0.25

yb1 (m)

0.05
0.00
-0.05
0

10

15
Time (s)

20

25

30

Fig. 8. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the transverse direction of the bridge for medium soil under
Imperial Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

of the base shear without SSI consideration as the stiffness

of the soil increases. This happens because the time
period of tower when xed base is considered comes out
to be equal to 0.25 s, which falls in the left side of the peak

of acceleration spectra (Fig. 3). When SSI is considered,

the tower becomes little exible and the time period
falls in the peak range of the acceleration spectra, which
makes the base shear response to increase signicantly.

254
Without SSI
With SSI

yd (g)

0.15
0.00
-0.15

V y / Wd

0.25
0.00
-0.25

yb1 (m)

0.05
0.00
-0.05
0

10

15
Time (s)

20

25

30

Fig. 9. Time variation of deck acceleration, tower base shear and bearing displacement in the transverse direction of the bridge for rm soil under Imperial
Valley, 1940, earthquake motion.

Fs / Wd

0.50

Longitudinal
Soft soil

0.50

0.50

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

-0.25

-0.25

-0.25

-0.50

-0.50

-0.50

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

0.50

Transverse
Soft soil

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

0.50

Transverse
Medium soil

0.50
0.25

0.00

0.00

-0.25

-0.25

-0.25

-0.50

-0.50

-0.50

0.00

0.00

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

Displacement (m)

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

Displacement (m)

Longitudinal
Firm soil

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

0.25

0.25
Fs / Wd

Longitudinal
Medium soil

Transverse
Firm soil

-0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

Displacement (m)

Fig. 10. Dynamic forcedisplacement loops of nonlinear soil spring under the Kobe, 1995, earthquake motion.

As the soil stiffness increases, the tower base shear in

transverse direction approaches to the value of shear
without considering the SSI effects (i.e. the xed base
tower case).

5. Numerical study with linear soil modeling

In the practical design of bridges, when it becomes
necessary to conduct dynamic response analysis of bridges,

255
Table 5
Peak response quantity under different earthquake motions with nonlinear SSI
Earthquake

Response quantity

Without SSI

Soft soil

% Difference

Medium soil

% Difference

Firm soil

% Difference

Imperial Valley, 1940

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.176
0.275
174.628
68.749
203.702

0.168
0.456
212.071
70.718
208.905

4.55
65.82
21.44
2.86
2.55

0.150
0.366
197.776
69.399
207.463

14.77
33.09
13.26
0.95
1.85

0.159
0.315
192.900
69.054
204.650

9.66
14.55
10.46
0.44
0.47

Kobe, 1995

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.434
0.618
357.114
135.634
236.828

0.439
0.860
347.062
153.212
251.418

1.15
39.16
2.81
12.96
6.16

0.41
0.706
350.737
147.437
259.283

5.53
14.24
1.79
8.70
9.48

0.435
0.665
353.185
142.874
260.683

0.23
7.61
1.10
5.34
10.07

Loma Prieta, 1989

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.446
0.535
611.689
119.201
209.731

0.483
0.832
682.528
125.630
199.954

8.30
55.51
11.58
5.39
4.66

0.455
0.771
655.544
121.778
213.848

2.02
44.11
7.17
2.16
1.96

0.450
0.638
643.274
121.975
217.586

0.90
19.25
5.16
2.33
3.75

Northridge, 1994

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.644
0.715
565.568
147.744
416.184

0.605
0.958
606.726
156.171
430.049

6.06
33.99
7.28
5.70
3.33

0.628
0.841
593.451
159.439
437.847

2.48
17.62
4.93
7.92
5.21

0.635
0.701
587.680
154.949
427.620

1.40
1.96
3.91
4.88
2.75

Table 6
Peak response quantity under different earthquake motions with linear SSI
Earthquake

Response quantity

Without SSI

Soft soil

% Difference

Medium soil

% Difference

Firm soil

% Difference

Imperial Valley, 1940

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.176
0.275
174.628
68.749
203.702

0.176
0.475
212.398
70.621
210.77

0.00
72.73
21.63
2.72
3.47

0.159
0.449
198.056
67.722
213.459

9.66
63.27
13.42
1.49
4.79

0.168
0.422
193.22
67.468
206.223

4.55
53.45
10.65
1.86
1.24

Kobe, 1995

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.434
0.618
357.114
135.634
236.828

0.449
0.869
347.762
153.396
252.032

3.46
40.61
2.62
13.10
6.42

0.415
0.744
351.234
147.719
264.561

4.38
20.39
1.65
8.91
11.71

0.447
0.876
353.664
142.65
271.884

3.00
41.75
0.97
5.17
14.80

Loma Prieta, 1989

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.446
0.535
611.689
119.201
209.731

0.491
0.844
683.516
126.113
199.724

10.02
57.76
11.74
5.80
4.77

0.464
0.895
657.174
125.367
217.232

4.04
67.29
7.44
5.17
3.58

0.452
0.879
644.927
124.194
224.567

1.35
64.30
5.43
4.19
7.07

Northridge, 1994

Vx/Wd
Vy/Wd
xb1 (mm)
yb1 (mm)
yb2 (mm)

0.644
0.715
565.568
147.744
416.184

0.611
0.968
606.206
156.723
429.829

5.12
35.38
7.19
6.08
3.28

0.667
0.886
594.594
163.987
450.099

3.57
23.92
5.13
10.99
8.15

0.673
0.885
588.857
154.294
427.617

4.50
23.78
4.12
4.43
2.75

the soil is modeled with linear spring and dashpot system.

Hence, here in this study, it has been tried to investigate the
effectiveness of linear soil model in seismic response of
isolated cable-stayed bridge. The peak values of the
response quantities assuming completely linear soil model
are presented in Table 6. Similar to the nonlinear case, here
also the response quantity found affected the most is the
tower base shear in the transverse direction. The results

show that no convergence (i.e. approaching the response

with SSI to that of without SSI) in base shear response is
observed with increase in soil stiffness. To visualize the
difference in results obtained with the linear and nonlinear
soil models, the tower base shear in longitudinal and
transverse directions for rm soil are plotted in Fig. 11 in
the form of bar chart for all the four earthquakes. The
numbers on x-axis show the sequence of earthquakes

256

Without SSI
Nonlinear SSI
Linear SSI

0.60

0.8

0.6
Vy / Wd

Vx / Wd

0.45

0.30

0.15

0.00

0.4

0.2

2
3
Earthquake

0.0

3
Earthquake

Fig. 11. Comparison of tower base shear with linear and nonlinear soil models.

considered in this study. The large difference between the

results with nonlinear and linear soil models specically for
shear in transverse direction indicates that the consideration of nonlinearity in soil is essential to predict accurate
results.

(5) Inclusion of SSI is essential for effective design of

seismically isolated cable-stayed bridge, specically
when the towers are very much rigid and the soil
condition is soft to medium.

6. Conclusions

References

Inuence of SSI on seismic response of isolated cablestayed bridge has been investigated under bi-directional
earthquake excitations. The deck of the bridge is isolated
from the towers by using conventional high-damping
rubber bearings. Three types of layered soil strata, namely,
soft, medium and rm, have been considered for the study.
The soilpile interaction is idealized as a BNWF using
continuously distributed nonlinear springs and viscous
dashpots placed in parallel, and BoucWen model is used
to model hysteretic behavior of the soil. From the trends of
the results of the present study, following conclusions may
be drawn:
(1) For soft soil condition, the bearing displacement may
be underestimated if SSI is ignored, especially in the
longitudinal direction. However, no signicant increase
takes place in deck displacement in transverse direction.
(2) The tower base shear response in the longitudinal
direction is not much affected irrespective of the soil
types.
(3) Signicant inuence of soilpile interaction is observed
on tower base shear response in the transverse
direction. The response is much higher as compared
to that of the bridge with xed tower base when the soil
is soft to medium. As the stiffness of the soil strata
increases the effect of SSI diminishes.
(4) Analyzing the structure assuming linear soil model does
not lead to accurate prediction of tower base shear
response, and nonlinear soil modeling is essential to
reect dynamic behavior of the soilpile system
properly.

[1] Buckle IG, Mayes RL. Seismic isolation: history, applications and
performancea world review. Earthquake Spectra 1990;6:161201.
[2] Dicleli M. Seismic design of lifeline bridge using hybrid seismic
isolation. J Bridge Eng ASCE 2002;7:94103.
[3] Kunde MC, Jangid RS. Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: a stateof-the-art review. Electron J Struct Eng 2003;3:14070.
[4] Dicleli M, Mansour MY. Seismic retrotting of highway bridges in
Illinois using friction pendulum seismic isolation bearings and
modeling procedures. Eng Struct 2003;25:113956.
[5] Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Seismic energy dissipation for cablestayed bridges using passive devices. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
1994;23:87793.
[6] Wesolowsky MJ, Wilson JC. Seismic isolation of cable-stayed bridges
for near-eld ground motions. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2003;
32:210726.
[7] Takemiya H, Kai S. Seismic analysis of a multi span continuous
elevated bridge on deep pile foundations. Proc Jpn Soc Civ Eng
1983;332:110.
[8] Spyrakos CC. Assessment of SSI on the longitudinal seismic response
of short span bridges. Eng Struct 1990;12:606.
[9] Zheng J, Takeda T. Effects of soilstructure interaction on seismic
response of PC cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 1995;
14:42737.
[10] Makris N, Gazetas G, Delis E. Dynamic soilpilefoundationstructure interaction: records and predictions. Geotechnique 1996;46:
3350.
[11] Saadeghvaziri MA, Yazdani-Motlagh AR, Rashidi S. Effects of
soilstructure interaction on longitudinal seismic response of MSSS
bridges. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2000;20:23142.
[12] Chaudhary MTA, Abe M, Fujino Y. Identication of soilstructure
interaction effect in base-isolated bridges from earthquake records.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2001;21:71325.
[13] Tongaonkar NP, Jangid RS. Seismic response of isolated bridges with
soilstructure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23:
287302.
[14] Dicleli M, Albhaisi S, Mansour MY. Static soilstructure effects in
seismic isolated bridges. Pract Period Struct Des Constr ASCE 2005;
10:2232.

257
[15] Kawano K, Furukawa K. Random seismic response analysis of soil
cable-stayed bridge interaction. In: Proceedings of the 9th WCEE,
vol. 6, 1988. p. 495500.
[16] Wilson JC, Gravelle W. Modelling of a cable-stayed bridge for
dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20:70721.
[17] Zeevaert L. Foundation engineering for difcult subsoil conditions.
New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1973.
[18] Konagai K, Yin Y, Murono Y. Single beam analogy for describing
soilpile group interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23:21321.
[19] Wilson JC, Liu T. Ambient vibration measurements on a cable-stayed
bridge. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1991;20:72347.
[20] Ernst HJ. Der e-modul von seilen unter berucksichtigung des
durchhanges. Bauingenieur 1965;40:525 [in German].
[21] Angelides D, Roesset JM. Nonlinear lateral dynamic stiffness of piles.
J Geotech Eng ASCE 1981;107:144360.
[22] Trochanis A, Bielak J, Christiano P. Simplied model for analysis of
one or two piles. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991;117:44866.
[23] Bouc R. Modele mathematique d0 hysteresis. Acustica 1971;21:1625
[in French].
[24] Wen YK. Method for random vibration for hysteretic systems. J Eng
Mech Div ASCE 1976;102:24963.
[25] Japan Road Association. Specication for highway bridges. 1990.

[26] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J

Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1984;110:2040.
[27] Roesset JM, Angelides D. Dynamic stiffness of piles. In: Numerical
methods in offshore piling. London, UK: Institute of Civil Engineers;
1989. p. 7580.
[28] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pilesoilpile interaction. Part II:
lateral and seismic response. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21:
14562.
[29] Wolf JP. Dynamic soilstructure interaction. USA: Prentice-Hall;
1985.
[30] Kaniraj SR. Design aids in soil mechanics and foundation engineering. India: Tata McGraw-Hill; 1988.
[31] Constantinou MC, Adnane MA. Evaluation of two models for
yielding systems. Report to NSF, Department of Civil Engineering,
Drexel University, PA, 1987.
[32] Broms BB. Lateral resistance of piles in cohesive soils. J Soil Mech
Found Div 1964;90:2763.
[33] Matlock H. Correlation for design of laterally loaded piles in soft
clay. In: Proceedings of the 2nd annual offshore technology
conference, Houston, Paper No. OTC 1204, 1970. p. 57794.
[34] Soneji BB, Jangid RS. Effectiveness of seismic isolation for cablestayed bridges. Int J Struct Stability Dyn 2006;6:7796.