1

Numerical Modeling of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction during

Earthquakes
Delong Zuo

Abstract
The developing history of numerical modeling of dynamic soil-structure
interaction was reviewed, with emphasis given to the parallel development of
the direct method and the substructure method. Formulation of a model
developed with the substructure method was discussed in detail. Future
development in the modeling of soil structure interaction was anticipated and
possible challenges were suggested.
Key Words: Soil-Structure Interaction, Direct Method, Substructure Method,
Time Domain Analysis, Frequency Domain Analysis

Introduction
During the last couple of decades, it has been well recognized that the soil on
which a structure is constructed may interact dynamically with the structure
during earthquakes, especially when the soil is relatively soft and the structure is
stiff. This kind of dynamic soil-structure interaction can sometimes modify
significantly the stresses and deflections of the whole structural system from the
values that could have been developed if the structure were constructed on a
rigid foundation. Two important characteristics that distinguish the dynamic
soil-structure interaction system from other general dynamic structural systems
are the unbounded nature and the nonlinearity of the soil medium. Generally,
when establishing numerical dynamic soil-structure interaction models, the
following problems should be taken into account:
1. radiation of dynamic energy into the unbounded soil;
2. the hysteretic nature of soil damping;
2
3. separation of the soil from the structure;
4. possibility of soil Liquefaction under seismic loads; and
5. other inherent nonlinearities of the soil and the structure.
However, due to the complexity of dynamic soil-structure interaction,
numerical modeling of this phenomenon still remains a challenge. There still
exist many difficulties to cover in one model all the problems listed above.
Current models usually stress one or several of these problems.

Developing History and Classification of Numerical Models
Modeling and analysis of dynamic soil-structure interaction during
earthquakes initiated with the Finite Element Method in the 1960s. They have
gone through various stages, but always in two distinct directions, that is, the
substructure method and the direct method, depending on the modeling method
for the soil around the structure. In the substructure method, the soil-structure
system is divided into two substructures: a structure that may include a portion
of nonlinear soil adjacent to it and the unbounded soil. The unbounded soil
region is usually represented by an impedance matrix, which may be attached to
the dynamic stiffness matrix of the structure. In the direct method, the structure
and the soil adjacent to it are modeled directly.
For a long time, modeling of dynamic soil structure-interaction was carried out
in the frequency domain, which restricted the analysis of the soil-structure
system to be linear. Nonlinearity of the soil was taken into account only in an
approximate manner through equivalent linear analysis procedure in which
dynamic soil parameters were adjusted in accordance with the peak or the
average strain during iterative solutions of the system in frequency domain,
whereas the structure had to be assumed to be linear.
[1]
To address this problem,
the direct method went into the time domain, using well-established procedure
of structural dynamics. But, at this stage, the direct method still could not model
the energy radiation effect, whereas the substructure method, which remained in
3
the frequency domain, could model this phenomenon very well. In response,
there began in the direct method the development of transmitting boundaries,
such as the early viscous boundary(Fig. 1a) proposed by Lysmer, J. etc.
[2]
and
then the various kinds of consistent boundaries(Fig. 1b). The general purpose
of these transmitting boundaries is to avoid the reflection of waves emanating
from the structure and the adjacent soil. Some more recent transmitting
boundaries are frequency dependent and made the direct method enter the
frequency domain again and ready to model the hysteretic nature of soil
damping.
On the other side, the substructure method incorporated with it the rapid
developing Boundary Element Method, with which theoretically any type of
geometrical boundary conditions can be simulated in both frequency domain
and time domain by discrete modeling of the soil-structure interface. At this
stage, the analysis of the unbounded soil region was carried out by discretized
Greens Function,
[3]
whereas the soil adjacent to the structure was treated as a
part of the structure with Finite Element Modeling.
More recent research of dynamic soil-structure modeling tends to be
concentrated in the time domain, not only because the problem of nonlinearity
can be better simulated in the time domain than in the frequency domain, but
also that the typical structural analyst is not accustomed to working in the
frequency domain; his natural approach is to consider the sequence of
(a) (b)
Fig. 1 Schematic Representation of Viscous Boundary and Consistent Boundary
[1]
4
developments from one time to the nextthat is to apply the time domain
concept.
[4]
At the same time, the concept of discretizing the soil-structure
interface has been strengthened. Fig. 2 shows a typical model of the direct
method and a typical model of the substructure method.
[1]
Both models consist of
an irregular soil zone and a regular soil zone divided by a so-called Interaction
Horizon, through which the seismic input motion is applied. The counter part
of the Interaction Horizon in the direct method and the substructure method
are the transmitting boundaries and the irregular-regular soil interface
respectively. In both methods, the irregular soil zone is modeled with Finite
Element Method and material and geometric nonlinearities are considered,
whereas the regular soil zone is usually taken as linear. The main difference
between this two models is that the transmitting boundaries of the direct method
should be uncoupled both in time and space, which leads to approximate
expressions for the boundaries, while in the substructure method, the dynamic
stiffness matrix of the unbounded regular soil zone can be obtained rigorously in
the frequency domain using convolution theorem of Fourier Transform. The
location of the interaction horizon in both methods is very important. Research
has been performed in this field to provide references.
[5]

Input
Motion
Regular
Soil Zone
Transmitting
Boundary
(Interaction
Horizon)
Irregular
Soil Zone
Irregular
Soil Zone
Interaction
Horizon
Regular
Soil Zone
Input
Motion
(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Models of the Direct Method and the Substructure Method
[1]
5
It should be pointed out that numerical modeling of dynamic soil-structure
interaction is still in its course of development. There are still no standard
numerical models available. The various current models are no longer restricted
only in the time or the frequency domain alone. Techniques used to establish
numerical models are not restricted to be finite element method or boundary
element method. On the contrary, all these are always incorporated with one and
another,
[6][7]
and some new analysis techniques have been introduced into the
problem, such as the infinite element method.
[8][9]
To demonstrate the
formulation of numerical model of dynamic soil-structure interaction, a model
developed in the 1980s is discussed in detail in the next section, because many
later models, though all have their different features, are based on this typical
model.

Example Numerical Model of Soil-Structure Interaction
Fig. 3 shows a model developed in the 1980s, which used the substructure
method and was formulated in the time domain. In the model, the line joining
the nodes whose variables have subscript b separates the unbounded soil region
and the region consists of the structure and its adjacent soil (Variables of this
region have subscript s). The structure and the adjacent soil in this model are
modeled nonlinearly, whereas the unbounded soil region is treated as linear.






b
s
Structure
Adjacent Soil
Unbounded Soil
Fig. 3 A typical Model of Substructure Method
6
The free field (the virgin soil before the construction of the structure, denoted
by superscript f) in the model can be treated as the superposition of the
excavated soil (denoted by superscript g) and the excavation (denoted by
superscript e)(Fig. 4). Although the soil adjacent to the structure will exhibit
nonlinear behavior in the interaction analysis, the calculation is based on the
free-field motion determined for linear soil. The time domain dynamic stiffness
matrix )] ( [ t S
f
bb
of the free field contains the forces needed to give the free field soil
unit-impulse displacements. It is given as the inverse Fourier-Transform of the
dynamic stiffness matrix )] ( [
f
bb
S in the frequency domain:

d e S t S
t i f
bb
f
bb
)] ( [
2
1
)] ( [

(1)







When the excavation is taken into account, the time domain dynamic stiffness
matrix )] ( [ t S
g
bb
of the excavated soil can also be acquired by a formula similar to
(1), with the superscripts being changed to g.
The expression of the dynamic stiffness matrix in the frequency domain
( )] ( [
g
bb
S ) can be determined using several different methods, including the
boundary element method,
[1]
the infinite element method,
[8]
and the Greens
Function.
[3]
f g
b
f
bb
f
b
S u
g
bb
g
b
S u
e
e
bb
S
Fig. 4 Reference Soil System
7
With the dynamic stiffness given, the basic equation of motion in the time
domain can be formulated as:

'

'

'

'

1
]
1

t
g
b
g
bb
t
t
b
g
bb b
s
t
b
t
s
bb bs
sb ss
d u t S
d u t S t P
t P
t u
t u
M M
M M
0
0
} ) ( )]{ ( [
} 0 {
} ) ( )]{ ( [
} 0 {
} ) ( {
} ) ( {
} ) ( {
} ) ( {
] [ ] [
] [ ] [

& &
& &
(2)
In the equation, ) (t u
t
denotes the vector of the total displacement;
) (t u
g
b
represents the so-called scattering motion; [] is the Mass matrix and {} is
the vector of the nonlinear internal forces of the system consisted of the structure
and the adjacent soil. The interaction forces acting on the boundary nodes are
equal to the convolution integral of the dynamic stiffness matrix )] ( [ t S
g
bb
and the
displacement relative to the ground.
d u u t S t R
g
b
t
b
t
g
bb b
}) ) ( { } ) ( )]({ ( [ } ) ( {
0

(3)
Material damping of the soil is very important to the analysis of the whole
dynamic soil-structure interaction system. It has been discovered that different
damping models used in the numerical soil-structure interaction models usually
bring very different results.
[7]
Since identification of the soil damping is still a
difficult problem, linear visco-elastic damping models, such as the Voigt Model
(Fig 5a) and the Three-Parameter Kelvin model, (Fig. 5b) are generally adopted.
In these two models, material damping is introduced by using a complex
material constant E
*
.






(a) Viogt Model (b) Three-Parameter Kelvin Model
Fig. 5 Linear Visco-Elastic Damping Models
8
In the Voigt Model:
) 2 1 (
*
i E E + (4)
In the Three-Parameter Kelvin Model:

i
i
E E

+
+

1
2 1
*
(5)
In both models, E is the Youngs medullas of the unbounded soil, and is the
damping ratio. Material damping of the soil is not introduced into the soil-
structure interaction system implicitly, but by replacing the Youngs medullas E
in the dynamic soil stiffness matrix with E
*
.
Another important factor that affects the analysis of this numerical model is
the constitutive model of the soil adjacent to the structure. In the 1980s, when
this model was established, the nonlinear elastic soil constitutive laws were
generally adopted.

Future Prospects and Recommendations
Because of the reasons stated ahead, future numerical models of dynamic soil
structure interaction are likely to continue to be concentrated in the time domain.
And direct method may become more attractive to researchers and engineers
because it can consider the nonlinearity of the unbounded soil as long as
sufficiently accurate transmitting boundaries can be developed.
[4]
However,
resulting transmitting boundaries may not be as simple as attaching certain
masses, springs and dashpots directly to the interaction horizon and may come
up with sophisticated coupling both in time and space.
[10]
The substructure
method, on the other hand, with its clear concept and rigorous formulation, will
also continue to develop.
Although current research are focused on such places as the interaction
horizon, the unbounded soil and so on, future research may pay more attention
to the soil adjacent to the structure, since it is this region that is in consistent
dynamic contact with the vibrating structure. Such behavior of the soil as its
9
separation from the structure foundation may change the behavior of the whole
system drastically. To address this problem, new forms of finite elements have
been developed to model the soil-structure interface, such as the Goodman
Contact Element and the Thin Layer Element. It can be foreseen that more work
will be done in this area.
One other important phenomenon associated with soil-structure interaction is
the liquefaction of the soil adjacent to the structure. On the one hand, it is very
hard to judge when and where exactly soil liquefaction will occur during soil-
structure interaction in earthquakes. On the other hand, once the soil liquefies, it
will become so soft that the supporting force of the structure will be totally lost,
which is a very difficult situation to model. There has been some research done
to address the problem of pure soil liquefaction, but little work has been done to
introduce this issue into the numerical model of dynamic soil-structure
interaction. Apparently, there should be and will be more research carried out in
this field.
In one word, since numerical modeling of dynamic soil structure is still at its
developing stage, future models will consider more affecting factors. And only
this way, can more accurate results be achieved.

Conclusion
Dynamic soil-structure interaction is an important part that should be
included in the seismic analysis when the structures are stiff and the soil is soft.
Numerical models using the substructure method are very rigorously formulated
but may not be able to consider some of the nonlinear properties of the system,
whereas the models using the direct methods can take the nonlinearities of the
unbounded soil into consideration but approximate transmitting boundaries
have to be included. In both methods, damping from the soil is very important.
Developments of both methods are now concentrated in the time domain and
may continue to be in the future. More study should be carried out to understand
10
and model the phenomena of soil-structure separation and soil liquefaction
better. Currently, if nonlinearity of the far field soil is not an important issue in
the analysis, the substructure method is more practical; otherwise, the direct
method is more desirable.


References:
[1] M. Nuray Aydinoglu, Development of Analytical Techniques in Soil-structure
Interaction, Developments in Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, 1992
[2] lysmer, J., Kuhlemeyer, R.L. Finite Model for Infinite Media, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, V 95, pp. 377-392, 1969
[3] Wolf, J. P. and Oberbhuber, P., Non-linear Soil-structure Interaction Analysis
Using Greens Function of Soil in the Time Domain, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, v 13 n 2, pp. 213-223 , Mar-Apr 1985
[4] Wolf, J. P., Soil-structure Interaction in Time Domain, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1988
[5] Wolf, J.P. a Comparison of Time-Domain Transmitting Boundaries, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, V 14, pp.655-673, 1986
[6] Bernal, Dionisio and Youssef, Akram, A Hybrid Time Frequency Domain
Formaulation for Nonlinear Soil-structure Interaction, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, v27, pp.673-685, 1998
[7] Yazdchi, M., Khalili, N. and Valliappan, S. Dynamic Soil-structure Interaction
Analysis Via Coupled Finite-Element-Boundary-Element Method, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, v18, pp.499-517, 1999
[8] Doo-Kie Kim and Chung-Bang Yun, Time Domain Soil-structure Interaction
Analysis in Two-Dimensional Medium Based on Analytical Frequency-dependent
Infinite Elements, International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, v
47, pp.1241-1261, 2000
11
[9] Xiong Zhang, J.L. Wegner and J.B. Haddow, Three Dimensional Dynamic Soil-
structure Interaction Analysis in the Time Domain, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, v 28, pp. 1501-1524, 1999
[10] Wolf, J. P. Consistent Lumped-Parameter Models for Unbounded Soil: Frequency
Independent Stiffness, Damping and Mass Matrix, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, v 20, pp. 33-42, 1991