ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on

seismic isolation retrofit efficiency and the importance of natural
frequency ratio
Edward H. Stehmeyer (III)a, Dimitris C. Rizosb,
a
Structural Engineer, Collins Engineers, Inc., Charleston, S. Carolina, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 300 Main, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

Received 27 November 2006; received in revised form 13 July 2007; accepted 19 July 2007

Abstract

This paper utilizes and expands on existing coupled BEM–FEM (finite element method) methods for the investigation of the effects of
soil structure interaction (SSI) on both an un-retrofitted and seismically isolated typical bridge structure. A simple numerical model of
the bridge and surrounding soil is formulated and excited by an earthquake excitation. Utilizing Newmark’s b FEM solution method
along with the closed form B-spline BIRF method, the structural damped period, composite damping ratio, pier relative displacement,
and base shear demand are monitored. From these results, the effects of SSI on this structure are identified. Additionally, the importance
of the relative rigidity between the soil-foundation system and the bridge structure is also investigated. The results of the studies indicate
that the response of the complete structure system considered is affected by the inclusion of SSI effects. Furthermore, the efficiency of the
isolation measures designed using fixed base conditions is decreased by considering SSI over a certain relative rigidity range that is
quantified using the structure to soil-foundation natural frequency ratio.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dynamic soil structure interaction; Seismic isolation; Isolator efficiency; Bridge seismic retrofit; Natural frequency ratio

1. Introduction When a structure is deemed deficient by current seismic

Along with the evolution of construction practices and
design standards for civil infrastructures, there is a growing
demand for assessment and identification of structural
components that may require replacement or retrofit. One
aspect of design that has necessitated this inquiry is the
introduction of stricter seismic design criteria and ad-
vanced analysis methods for buildings and bridges.
Consequently, the capacity and performance of existing
bridges and buildings that make up the current infra-
structure may not meet the new design criteria. This
realization has spurred a number of seismic evaluation
programs that address current risk to infrastructure
elements and identify potential structures for retrofit.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 803 777 6166; fax: +1 803 777 0670.
E-mail address: rizos@engr.sc.edu (D.C. Rizos).
standards, there are three alternatives for updating the
structure. The inadequate components can either be
completely replaced, strengthened in both capacity and
ductility, or retrofitted so that the structure can withstand
the appropriate earthquake design demand. Frequently,
upgrading the deficient structure with new retrofit technol-
ogy is more economical than complete replacement or
structural component improvement [1]. A popular method
of seismic retrofit is the use of seismic isolation devices
placed between the superstructure (bridge deck or above
stories) and the substructure (columns/bents or founda-
tion). Such devices uncouple the motion of critical
structural components and, the seismic demands on the
existing structure are reduced through the isolator’s natural
action of period elongation, increased damping, and energy
dissipation [2]. It should be noted that the natural period of
the isolated structure tends to be much longer than the
predominant periods of imposed ground motion [3,4].

0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Often, seismic structural design is based on the rigid base
assumption, and interaction with the soil-foundation
system is either ignored or carried out separately, when
in reality these systems are coupled. Ignoring the SSI
effects may lead to erroneous structural assessment and
estimates of seismic demands. Although SSI effects may
not be important for all structures, it has been recognized
that they may have a significant impact on the dynamic
system response, especially in cases involving heavier
structures and soft soil conditions. The impact of
considering SSI effects has been reported in the literature
as, natural period elongation [5,6] and added composite
damping [6,7]. For structures founded on soft soils with
high relative rigidity with respect to the supporting soil,
including SSI effects amplifies the dynamic response of the
system [7,8]. Considering SSI effects in an analysis of
structures with seismic isolation devices, or other period
lengthening devices such as tuned mass dampers, has been
shown to decrease the effectiveness of the retrofit measure
[9].
The difficulty in modeling the complicated soil-founda-
tion-structure system has been the topic of many research
efforts since the mid-1960s. Methods for seismic and
dynamic analysis of soils and structures, including SSI
effects, are based on analytical, experimental and numer-
ical procedures in conjunction with observations of
physical behavior and lessons learned from past events.
The finite element method (FEM), the boundary element
method (BEM), and coupled BEM–FEM are among the
most popular numerical techniques for rigorous modeling
of a soil-foundation-structure system. Literature reviews
on BEM and FEM methods with applications in SSI
analysis have been presented by Beskos [10], among others.
Such methods yield accurate results but tend to be
computationally expensive. Due to this expense further
simplifying assumptions for the modeling of the soil-
foundation-structure system have led to lumped parameter
models and closed form solutions that, while approximate
in nature, have been shown to generate similar accuracy as
rigorous methods [11–13]. The use of rigorous and
simplified numerical models to represent the soil-founda-
tion portion of a complete structural system has been
shown to be accurate, and particularly attractive for use in
BEM–FEM coupled modeling of complete infrastructure
systems including bridges and high speed rail systems
[11,12,14,15].
This work presents a new, simplified, yet accurate,
procedure for the rapid assessment of the effectiveness of
seismic isolation devices when SSI effects are accounted
for. Furthermore, it investigates the importance of SSI
phenomena on the response of seismically isolated bridges.
To this end, the closed form B-spline impulse response
function (BIRF) method introduced by the authors [12] is
coupled with the Newmark’s b FEM procedure to model a
typical bridge structure within the general framework of
the staggered BEM–FEM approach introduced in [14]. The
bridge structure is analyzed under seismic loading and the
Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
effects of SSI are identified. The bridge is then considered
for a seismic isolation retrofit based on a typical fixed base
analysis design procedure [2]. The inclusion of SSI in the
analysis of the retrofitted structure is then used to evaluate
the efficiency of the isolation system. Finally, a parametric
study is conducted to investigate the relationship of relative
rigidity in the complete structural system by studying the
importance of structure to soil natural frequency ratio
through displacement and base shear force demand
comparisons.
2. Numerical solution procedures
In this work, the bridge-foundation-soil system is
modeled using a staggered coupled BEM–FEM approach
as first introduced in [14] and modified herein. In
particular, the bridge and the isolation system, when
present, are modeled using the Newmark’s b FEM method
while the soil-foundation system is modeled by implement-
ing the closed form B-spline BIRF solution method [12]. A
brief overview of each solution method is presented next
followed by the adaptation of the staggered coupled
BEM–FEM approach for use with the closed form
B-spline BIRF solution method.
2.1. FEM and Newmark’s b direct time integration
The FEM method is used in this study for modeling the
bridge structure system. The governing equation of motion
for a multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) system can be
represented in the following semi-discrete form
M€u þ C_u þ Ku ¼ P, (1)
where M, C, and K are the mass, damping, and stiffness
coefficient matrices that are developed based on standard
FEM procedures, u is the displacement vector, and dots
represent derivatives with respect to time. The load vector
P represents all of the transient forces acting on, or applied
to, the system. Eq. (1) can be partitioned with respect to the
degrees of freedom that are free to move (f) and those that
are in contact (c) with the soil-foundation system as
" #( ) " #( )
Mff Mfc u€ f Cff Cfc u_ f
þ
Mcf Mcc u€ c Ccf Ccc u_ c
" #( ) ( )
Kff Kfc uf Pf
þ ¼ . ð2Þ
Kcf Kcc uc Pc
The load vector P can also be expanded further to separate
the contributing excitation components as
( ) ( n )
Pf Pf þ Peqf
P¼ ¼ , (3)
Pc Rc þ Peqc
where the load vector contains nodal forces, Pnf applied
directly to the free nodes of an element, and nodal
equivalent forces, Peq
f , that account for body forces, and
other forces not applied directly to the free nodes. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

contact forces include support reactions, Rc , as well as and torsion, TðtÞ modes are given in a closed form as
nodal equivalent forces Peqc . For direct time domain vs Dt vs Dt
solutions, the governing equation, Eq. (1), is integrated H x ðtÞ ¼ H y ðtÞ ¼ 2
HðtÞ; V z ðtÞ ¼ V ðtÞ,
directly in time by employing Newmark’s b method. Gw Gw2
vs Dt vs Dt
Applying Newmark’s b method, with a time step dt, the Rx ðtÞ ¼ Ry ðtÞ ¼ RðtÞ; T z ðtÞ ¼ TðtÞ, ð8Þ
governing equation of motion can be cast in a form of Gw4 Gw4
system of algebraic equations that can be solved in an where G and vs represent the shear modulus and shear wave
explicit time marching scheme for the forward step N þ 1 velocity of the soil, w is the foundation width and t ¼ tvs =w
as [16] is a non-dimensional time. The non-dimensional BIRFs are
" #( )Nþ1 ( )Nþ1 ( eq )Nþ1 given in terms of the B-spline support (impulse duration),
Dff Dfc uf ^f
P P^ f Dt, as
¼ þ , (4) 8
Dcf Dcc uc Rc Peq 0:2011
c >
>
>
< Dt t; 0ptpDt;
^ are, respectively, defined as
where D and P HðtÞ ¼ ½ð0:23Þ sinhð9:47ðt  DtÞÞ þ 0:2011
>
>
1 d >
:  coshð9:47ðt  DtÞÞe12:23ðtDtÞ ; Dtot;
D¼Kþ 2
Mþ C, (5)
bdt bdt
    8
Nþ1 1 N 1 N 1 >
> 0:1051
^
P ¼P Nþ1
þM u þ u_ þ  1 u€ N >
< t; 0ptpDt;
bdt2 bdt 2b Dt
      V ðtÞ ¼ ½ð0:239Þ sinhð1:6ðt  DtÞÞ þ 0:1051
g N g dt g >
>
þC u þ  1 u_ N þ  2 u€ N , ð6Þ >
:  coshð1:6ðt  DtÞÞe3:85ðtDtÞ ;
bdt b 2 b Dtot;

where b and g are constants associated with Newmark’s b 8

method. In order to solve this system of equations, we
assume that the displacement of the contact (c) degrees of
freedom, uc , is known at the forward step N þ 1 either
explicitly or as computed or predicted by the BEM method,
as in the next section. Consequently, the only unknowns in
Eq. (4) are the displacement at the free degrees of freedom,
uf and the reaction forces, Rc which are computed in a
single step as
( )Nþ1 " # 8( )Nþ1 8 eq 9Nþ1
uf Dff 0 1 < P ^f < P^ f =
¼ þ
Rc Dcf I : 0 : Peqc
;
" # 9 These closed form solutions have demonstrated equivalent
Dfc = accuracy and versatility for direct time domain modeling of
 fuc gNþ1 ,
Dcc ;
where I is the identity matrix.
2.2. Closed form B-spline BIRF solution method
The supporting soil-foundation system is modeled using
the closed form B-spline impulse response function (BIRF)
method for rigid surface square foundations resting on
homogeneous elastic soils, as reported by the authors [12].
The BIRF represents the time history of the displacement
of the soil-foundation system when the foundation is
excited by transient impulse forces and moments of
B-spline polynomial modulation and duration Dt. Due to
symmetries, four primary modes of vibration are consid-
ered, i.e., the horizontal, vertical, rocking, and torsion,
while the coupling modes are negligible for this class of
problems and ignored in this study. The corresponding
BIRFs for the horizontal, HðtÞ, vertical, V ðtÞ, rocking RðtÞ,
>
> 1:082
>
< Dt t; 0ptpDt;
RðtÞ ¼ ½1:082 cosð3:18ðt  DtÞÞ þ ð0:365Þ
>
>
>
:  sinð3:18ðt  DtÞÞe2:61ðtDtÞ ; Dtot;
8
> 1:016
>
>
< Dt t; 0ptpDt;
TðtÞ ¼ ½1:016 cosð2:47ðt  DtÞÞ þ ð0:269Þ
>
>
>
:  sinð2:47ðt  DtÞÞe2:89ðtDtÞ ;
Dtot:
(9)
ð7Þ dynamic SSI problems with rigid surface foundations as
compared to more rigorous boundary element and finite
element methods. Computational efficiency is gained
through the implementation of these closed form solutions
in place of the rigorous evaluation of the BIRF for
different foundation sizes and soil types. Each of the
BIRFs can be thought of as the response of a lumped
parameter model associated to a vibration mode of the soil-
foundation system. The computational effort is similar to
the implementation of lumped parameter models. The
closed form BIRF solution method has several advantages
over the usual lumped parameter models. They have shown
better accuracy than frequency independent lumped para-
meter models, and are less complex than frequency
dependent models. The closed form solutions are also
appropriate for direct time domain analysis and therefore
suitable for non-linear analysis of the structure. The
method accommodates any time step suitable for the
specific soil type considered and has no limitation on the
type, duration, and frequency of loading since the BIRF

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

captures the dependency on frequency implicitly. Further

details and validation studies for these closed form BIRF
solutions have been reported by the authors in [12].
These closed form BIRF solutions are used within the
B-spline impulse response technique as reported in [14] to
obtain the three translations and three rotations, uRF , of
the Rigid Foundation system to arbitrary loading, PRF ðtÞ,
as
X
N þ1
uN
RF ¼ ðBIRFÞn PNnþ2
RF , (10)
n¼1

where BIRF represents any of the six responses indicated in

Eq. (8) and superscripts indicate the time step at which
quantities are evaluated. This expression represents the
response of the six degrees of freedom in contact with the
structure and is coupled to the response of the structure,
Eq. (7), as discussed in the next section. While the response
of the free field of the soil-foundation system is not
explicitly calculated here, its influence on the soil-founda-
tion system response is inherently accounted for in the
closed form BIRF solutions.
2.3. Staggered coupled closed form BIRF–FEM method
Since the soil-foundation-structure system is physically
coupled, their governing equations cannot be solved
independently of one another. The coupled BEM–FEM
staggered solution approach developed by Rizos et al. [14]
is adapted herein by incorporating the closed form BIRF
solutions in place of the B-spline BIRF BEM. In following
with the original scheme, the structure is modeled by the
FEM method, the soil-foundation system is modeled by the
closed form BIRF solutions and the coupling of the two
domains is performed at the contact nodes (c) on the
structure-foundation level by enforcing equilibrium and
compatibility conditions in a staggered time marching
scheme as shown in Fig. 1(a). The solution process begins
with the FEM solver (Eq. (7)) at point A shown in
Fig. 1(a). Any combination of prescribed structure initial
displacements, initial velocities, nodal forces, nodal
equivalent forces, or prescribed support displacements are
applied on the structure. The contact node values are
assumed known at this step and are kept fixed in space
during the current time step. The FEM solver, (Eq. (7)), is
activated to compute the solution at time ðN þ 1Þdt,
depicted in Fig. 1(a) as point B. The FEM solver then
provides the contact node resultant force to the BIRF
Solver (Eq. (10)) by enforcing equilibrium, at the contact
nodes, i.e., Rc ¼ PRF . This equilibrium establishes the
influence of the structure on the soil-foundation system.
The closed form BIRF Solver then computes the new nodal
values (e.g. displacements) at the contact nodes, uRF
(Eq. (10)), for time ðN þ 1Þdt, in response to the structure
behavior, depicted as point D in Fig. 1(a). This completes
the calculations at the current time step N þ 1. Subse-
quently, the closed form BIRF solver, through compat-
Fig. 1. Coupled closed form BIRF–FEM: (a) staggered time solution
scheme and (b) solution flowchart.
ibility of displacements, uc ¼ uRF provides the contact
nodal values for use by the FEM solver at the forward time
ðN þ 2Þdt, depicted as point E in Fig. 1(a). It should be
noted that all inertia contributions, such as structural and
foundation mass, are accounted for in the FEM model.
A computation flowchart is provided in Fig. 1(b).
3. Modeling aspects
The modeling details of the bridge pier and deck, seismic
isolators, soil-foundation system and the time history
analysis method used in this work are discussed next. The
physical model represents the transverse cross-section of a
typical bridge structure as shown in Fig. 2(a). The structure
system consists of three major components, i.e., the
superstructure, the pier, and the seismic isolation device(s).
The following sections introduce the details of each
component and discuss the development of the associated
numerical models that are suitable for the proposed SSI
analysis methods.
3.1. Description of bridge structure
The bridge has a reinforced concrete pier with a circular
cross-section of diameter d ¼ 5 ft (1.524 m). The gross
section properties are used in this example and cracking is
not considered. The height of the column is L ¼ 30 ft
(9.144 m). A cross-section of the bridge deck is assumed
from which the tributary lumped mass over the pier is
assumed to be M deck ¼ 2614:13 lb s2 =in ð46; 704:8 kg s2 =mÞ
as shown in Fig. 2(b). Also shown in Fig. 2(b), the bridge
pier is modeled using a 2 node 3-D prismatic beam finite
element. The modulus of elasticity is assumed to be E c ¼
3122018:6 psi (21525.56 MPa) for normal weight concrete
and the Poisson’s ratio is n ¼ 0:15. The cross-sectional area

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Fig. 2. (a) Physical model of the transverse cross-section of a typical
bridge structure and (b) soil-foundation-structure numerical model
including a lumped parameter equivalent linear isolator numerical model.
is A ¼ 2827:4 in2 ð1:824 m2 Þ, the moment of inertia is I ¼
6:36  105 in4 ð0:265 m4 Þ, and the polar moment of Inertia
is J ¼ 12:72  105 in4 ð0:529 m4 Þ. The mass matrix, M is
assumed diagonal and considers inertia effects in the
translational degrees of freedom only. The damping
coefficient matrix, C, is determined based on Rayleigh
damping as
C ¼ a0 M þ a1 K, (11)
with a critical damping ratio, x of 5% and a0 ¼ 0:9267 and
a1 ¼ 0:0024 based on the target frequencies of 1:0ons and
2:0ons where ons ¼ 6:95 cycles=s is the natural frequency of
the structure assuming rigid base conditions [17].
3.2. Seismic isolator models
Seismic isolators have been modeled in a variety of
different ways including early representations as soft
stories for base isolation of buildings [18], simple shear
springs [3], inelastic truss elements [19], and have even been
developed for use in complex finite element procedures
[20,21]. Often, the non-linear nature of an isolator is
Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
5
modeled as an ‘‘equivalent’’ linear system with optimal
stiffness and damping that is indicative of the average
stiffness variability and dissipation characteristics of the
bearing. In particular, typical modeling of isolators is
usually represented by either an equivalent linear or
bilinear model as shown in Fig. 2(b) to account for the
load displacement behavior of various types of isolation
bearings [22,23]. This type of model has enabled several
research efforts on the effectiveness of bridge isolation
retrofits with bi-directional excitations [22] and the effects
of pier and deck flexibility on the response of isolated
bridges [23]. In this work an equivalent linear stiffness and
damping model is utilized to represent a high damping
laminated rubber (HDLR) isolator with stiffness, K iso , and
equivalent damping ratio, xiso as shown in Fig. 2(b). The
equivalent damping ratio, xiso is the area formed by the
hysteresis loop of the load deformation behavior of
the isolator, or can be determined via manufacturer testing
[2]. The seismic isolation device implemented in this study
is a 3-D linearized model consisting of two nodes
connecting the top of the pier to the mass of the deck
with only translational degrees of freedom at each end, and
lumped mass and damping as illustrated in Fig. 2(b).
The transverse direction horizontal natural period, T n
and frequency, ons of the un-isolated structure are T n ¼
0:9 s and ons ¼ 6:95 cycles=s, respectively. Two isolators,
‘‘Iso. Dev. #1’’ and ‘‘Iso. Dev. #2’’ are selected so that
values of 2.0 and 3.0 s for the target natural period of
vibration, T n target , for the isolated structure are obtained.
The effective horizontal stiffness of the isolated structure is
calculated as [2]
 2
2p
K eff ¼ M deck . (12)
T n target
As can be seen from Fig. 2(b), the isolator and pier models
are connected in series, therefore the effective stiffness of
the isolation system, K iso , can be calculated as
K eff K beam
K iso ¼ . (13)
ðK beam  K eff Þ
For T n target ¼ 2:0 s, the total bearing horizontal effective
stiffness is K Iso Dev 1 ¼ 32; 332:3 lb=in ð5662:25 k N=mÞ, and
for T n target ¼ 3:0 s, K Iso Dev 2 ¼ 12; 598 lb=in ð2206:25 k N=mÞ.
Typical values of elastomeric isolator horizontal stiffness for
bridge structures are on the order of 5833.33–11,667.67 lb/in
(1021.57–2043.32 k N/m) [2]. Therefore, for the target period
of 2.0 s (Iso. Dev. #1), the resulting isolator is slightly stiffer
than the typical range. For the target period of 3.0 s, Iso. Dev.
#2 is on the softer end of the range of typical values for a 2
bearing retrofit. This analysis is conducted to provide insight
into the effectiveness of such retrofit measures when including
SSI effects. Note that the value of K Iso Dev# used in the
following analysis for bearing horizontal stiffness is the
lumped or total stiffness of the proposed isolators. This value
should be divided by the number of isolators to obtain a
discrete value of horizontal stiffness for the design of each
bearing.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

The total horizontal damping coefficient for the isolator,
ciso , can then be computed for an assumed value of the
equivalent damping ratio for the isolator as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ciso ¼ xiso 2 K iso  M deck . (14)
In this work, it has been assumed that xiso ¼ 15%, which is
representative of an HDLR isolator [2]. The deck mass,
M deck , is used in the calculation since the isolation system
de-couples it from the bridge pier. Once all quantities are
known, simple superposition of the matrices for stiffness,
mass, and damping of the isolator into the global structural
matrix for the isolated structure is preformed.
3.3. Soil-foundation closed form BIRF simplified models
The closed form BIRF models used within this work
represent the soil-foundation system response as an
equivalent simplified numerical model for each soil-
foundation vibration mode as shown in Fig. 3(a). While
this representation is an approximation, it has been shown
to produce accurate soil-foundation system responses in
the time and frequency domain [11,12]. In this study, the
closed form BIRF solutions presented in Eqs. (8) and (9) are
utilized. The properties of the non-dimensional equivalent
SDOF systems for a rigid soil-foundation system are listed in
Table 1 [12]. In particular, the non-dimensional natural
frequency, on RF and damping ratio, xRF of the rigid square
surface foundation system are presented for the horizontal,
HðtÞ, vertical, V ðtÞ, rocking, RðtÞ, and torsion, TðtÞ modes
of vibration. Using a consistent de-normalization method as
was used for the closed form BIRF solutions, it can be shown
that, for a particular soil with shear modulus, G s , and density,
r, and a square foundation of width w, the equivalent
dimensional natural frequency of the rigid soil-foundation
system is calculated as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Gs
on RF ¼ on RF . (15)
rw2

Fig. 3. (a) Simplified lumped parameter numerical model incorporating the closed form BIRF solutions and equivalent linear isolator model and (b) the
measured relative pier displacement in the numerical model.

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

Table 1
Non-dimensional equivalent SDOF properties for the soil-foundation system [12]

Parameter Mode

Horizontal H Vertical V Rocking R Twist T

Natural frequency, on RF 7.74 3.5 4.1138 3.8

Damping ratio, xRF 1.58 1.1 0.6343 0.76

Table 2
Soils considered and their respective properties

Soila # Density r ðSlugs=in3 Þ Soil shear modulus G s (psi) Soil shear wave velocity vs Horizontal model equivalent
ðkg=m3 Þ (MPa) (in/s) (cm/s) soil natural frequency on soil
(cycles/s)

1 0.000153 (0.097) 750.02 (5.17) 2214.07 (5623.75) 142.81

2 0.000142 (0.0897) 1687.54 (11.64) 3447.33 (8756.24) 222.35
3 0.000167 (0.106) 2000.00 (13.79) 3460.64 (8790.04) 223.21
4 0.000172 (0.108) 2437.56 (16.81) 3764.55 (9561.98) 242.81
5 0.000177 (0.111) 4500.00 (31.03) 5042.19 (12807.19) 325.22
6 0.000181 (0.114) 6562.66 (45.25) 6021.44 (15294.49) 388.38
7 0.000192 (0.121) 8900.00 (61.36) 6808.39 (17293.35) 439.14
8 0.000202 (0.127) 11250.28 (77.57) 7462.87 (18955.73) 481.36
a
Poisson’s ratio ¼ 13.

It should be noted that in this work, that since the structure is
not changed, the foundation side width, w is also kept
constant and w ¼ 120 in (3.048 m). Eight soils are considered
for use in the parametric SSI studies of this work that range
from soft (soil 1) to stiff media (soil 8) with properties and
calculated equivalent horizontal dimensional natural frequen-
cies listed in Table 2.
3.4. Time history analysis
The complete soil-foundation-bridge model is subjected
to seismic loading time history records from the Imperial
Valley, El Centro 1940 E-W component. Through time
history analysis, the impact of SSI on the structural
response for isolated and non-isolated conditions is then
quantified using rigid base analysis of the structure as a
baseline. To this end, the acceleration time history vector
for the Imperial Valley, El Centro 1940 E-W component,
aðtÞ was used along with the superstructure lumped mass,
M deck , to obtain an equivalent force time history vector
PðtÞ as
PðtÞ ¼ M deck aðtÞ.
This force time history was applied to the lumped mass at
the superstructure level for all comparative studies as
shown in Fig. 3(a). During these studies, the maximum
relative top of pier displacement, D, as shown measured in
Fig. 3(b), base shear responses, composite damping ratio,
xn , and damped period of vibration, T D , were monitored.
The composite damping ratio of the system was calculated
via a logarithmic decrement formulation under the
assumption of a small damping ratio with measurements
taken in the free vibration phase of the system response
and reflects the coupled behavior of the soil-foundation-
structure system [17].
4. Analysis results and discussion
This section presents the analysis results and discusses
the importance of SSI effects on the efficiency of seismic
isolation systems. To this end, the concept of the relative
natural frequency ratio between the structure and the soil-
foundation system is introduced.
4.1. Effects of SSI on the structure without seismic isolation
A time history analysis was performed using a rigid base
assumption and the proposed coupled closed form
BIRF–FEM method to account for SSI effects. Figs. 4(a)–(e)
show the time history of the horizontal displacement of the
top of pier relative to the foundation for a structure
without seismic isolation. Five analysis cases including
rigid base analysis, and SSI analysis using soils 6, 4, 2 and 1
are considered, respectively. It is observed that the SSI
(16)
effects are more pronounced for softer soils (soil 1) and less
significant for stiffer soils (soil 6). In particular, the effects
of SSI on this structure are: (i) increased maximum relative
pier displacement, (ii) increased number of significant
cycles of large amplitude displacement, and (iii) significant
lengthening of the damped structural period of vibration
for softer soils.
In order to quantify the lengthening of the damped
structural period for un-isolated and isolated structures,
the normalized damped period ratio ðT D =T DRB Þ is plotted

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

a f
6.0 3.0
Rigid Base Analysis 2.5 Iso. Dev. #2 Rigid Base Analysis
5.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
Displacement (in)

Displacement (in)
3.0 1.0
2.0 0.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0 -2.5
-4.0 -3.0
-5.0 -3.5

b g
6.0 3.0
SSI - Soil 6 2.5 Iso. Dev. #2 SSI - Soil 6
5.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
Displacement (in)

Displacement (in)
3.0 1.0
2.0 0.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0 -2.5
-4.0 -3.0
-5.0 -3.5
c h
6.0 3.0
SSI - Soil 4 2.5 Iso. Dev. #2 SSI - Soil 4
5.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
Displacement (in)
Displacement (in)

3.0 1.0
2.0 0.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0 -2.5
-4.0 -3.0
-5.0 -3.5

d i
6.0 3.0
SSI - Soil 2 2.5 Iso. Dev. #2 SSI - Soil 2
5.0
4.0 2.0
1.5
Displacement (in)

3.0
Displacement (in)

1.0
2.0 0.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-2.0 -1.5
-2.0
-3.0 -2.5
-4.0 -3.0
-5.0 -3.5
e j
6.0 3.0
SSI - Soil 1 2.5 Iso. Dev. #2 SSI - Soil 1
5.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
Displacement (in)
Displacement (in)

3.0 1.0
2.0 0.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 -0.5
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0
-3.0 -2.5
-4.0 -3.0
-5.0 -3.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 4. Top of the pier relative horizontal response to El Centro 1940 for rigid base and varying soil conditions: (a)–(e) no seismic isolation and (f)–(j)
Isolation Device #2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

versus the soil shear modulus, Gs , for the cases of rigid base also interesting to note that the composite damping ratio of
ðT DRB Þ and SSI ðT D Þ analysis in Fig. 5(a). This plot shows the isolated systems is lower than the rigid base analysis
the large lengthening of the period of the structure for case indicating some counteraction of the composite
‘‘softer’’ soils for both types of structures. The trend, as damping for isolated structures on softer soils.
mentioned earlier, is to lengthen the period for less stiff
soils and to converge to the natural period of the structure 4.2. Efficiency of isolation retrofit considering SSI
under rigid base analysis for stiffer soils. The normalized
composite damping ratio, xn =xn RB , is also plotted in The isolated bridge shown in Fig. 3(a) is subjected to the
Fig. 5(a) for the SSI analysis and illustrates the higher same equivalent force time history from El Centro 1940 for
damping ratio for softer soils that eventually approaches two different seismic isolation retrofits (Iso. Dev. #1 & #2).
the rigid base damping ratio for stiffer soils in un-isolated Rigid base analysis of the seismically isolated structures is
structures. This higher value of composite damping ratio is performed and the relative horizontal displacement of the
attributed to the added radiation damping that is present top of the pier is monitored. The combined effects of
when the stiffness of the soil is included in the analysis. It is considering SSI along with seismic isolation of the two

4.5 4.5
No Isolation - Normalized Period Ratio

Normalized Composite Damping Ratio n /nRB

Normalized Damped Period Ratio TD / TDRB

4 Iso. Dev. #1 - Normalized Period Ratio 4

3.5 Iso. Dev. #2 - Normalized Period Ratio 3.5

No Isolation - Normalized Composite Damping Ratio
3 3
Iso. Dev. #1- Normalized Composite Damping Ratio
2.5 Iso. Dev. #2 - Normalized Composite Damping Ratio 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 Rigid Base Analysis 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Shear Modulus, G (psi)

7
No Iso. Dev.
Rigid Base Iso. Dev. #1
Pier Relative Maximum Displacement (in)

6 Iso. Dev. #2

No Iso. Dev.
5 SSI Iso. Dev. #1
Iso. Dev. #2
4

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Shear Modulus, G (psi)

Fig. 5. Structural response SSI effects when subjected to El Centro 1940 including: (a) normalized damped period ratio and normalized composite
damping ratio and (b) pier relative maximum displacement.

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
isolated bridge models is investigated next using the same
excitation while monitoring the relative pier horizontal
displacement.
Figs. 4(f)–(j) show the results of the relative pier
displacements retrofitted with Iso. Dev. #2 as compared
to the rigid base analysis results for soils 6, 4, 2 and 1,
respectively. SSI effects can be seen in the response
amplification of the pier for the softer soils 1, 2 and 4. It
is interesting to note that the pier relative displacement
increases drastically compared to the displacements of rigid
base analysis. When SSI is considered, a period shift is
noticeable for each of the soils with the softest soil (soil 1)
having the most pronounced elongation. Also, for these
soils the composite damping ratio appears to be very small,
suggesting that SSI effects counteract the damping
characteristics of the isolation system. It should also be
noted that as the soil gets stiffer (soil 6), the effects of SSI
are less significant in the response of the isolator, but still
tend to amplify the response of the pier by approximately
40%. Fig. 5(b) illustrates the effects of SSI on the isolated
structures by graphing the top of pier relative maximum
displacement versus the soil shear modulus, G s , for isolated
and un-isolated cases utilizing rigid base and SSI analysis.
While both isolators reduce the demand on the pier under
rigid base conditions, the consideration of SSI for this
particular isolation retrofit scheme lessens the effectiveness
of the isolator to reduce the demands on the bridge pier for
softer soils when a base isolation design is performed based
on rigid base analysis. Similar results were obtained for the
retrofit with Iso. Dev. #1 [11].
4.3. Importance of relative natural frequency ratio
Often SSI effects are identified as important for massive
structures on soft soils. The bridge structure chosen in this
study is relatively light when compared to a nuclear energy
facility; however, SSI effects are important for a range of
soil conditions. Therefore, focusing exclusively on a
structure’s stiffness or mass appears to be insufficient to
judge the importance of SSI on a structure. Rather, the
assessment of the relative rigidity quantified through a
natural frequency ratio of the structure to the soil is
proposed in this work to generalize the importance of SSI
effects and their effect on the effectiveness of isolation
retrofit.
The bridge shown in Fig. 3(a) is once again subjected to
a sinusoidal load of the form
PðtÞ ¼ P0 sinðOtÞ,
where P0 is the amplitude, and O is the frequency of the
excitation. In this study, a 10,000 pound (4535.9 kg)
amplitude sin wave with frequencies proportional to the
un-isolated structure natural period, ons and isolated (Iso.
Dev. #2) structure natural period, onsI are assumed. In
particular, excitation frequencies of O ¼ 0:5ons , 1:0ons ,
1:5ons , and 1:0onsI are applied to the numerical model, the
response is calculated as discussed previously, and the top
Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
of pier relative displacement and base shear maximum
responses are monitored. The properties of the structure
and foundation are kept constant and only the shear
modulus of the soil, Gs , and density, r, varies. The natural
frequency ratio, FR adopted in this study is calculated as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ons K H structure =M deck
FR ¼ ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , (18)
on RF Gs
on RF
rw2
where K H structure is the horizontal stiffness of the pier
represented by the 3-D FEM beam element. The values of
FR used ranged from 0.007 to 0.168 where the lower ratio
indicates a very stiff soil, whereas, the larger ratio
represents a very soft soil condition. Fig. 6(a) shows the
maximum horizontal displacements of the pier during the
frequency ratio study for the retrofitted and non-isolated
structures. As can be seen from this figure, the effects of
SSI are present in the form of period elongation. Since the
period is inversely proportional to the frequency of the
structure, the application of a sinusoidal load below the
resonant natural frequency of the structure considering
rigid base conditions produces larger displacement de-
mands on the pier. Both the application of 0:5ons and
1:0onsI cause this increase in maximum relative displace-
ment since they are most likely closer to the natural
frequency of the structure when SSI effects are taken into
account. Another important observation from Fig. 6(a) is
that the efficiency of Iso. Dev. #2 varies over the natural
frequency ratio range studied. The isolation retrofit is only
effective for the first portion of the frequency ratio range.
The pier displacement demands are actually increased for
the isolated structure above FR ¼ 0:05520:065 for all of
the excitation frequencies investigated as indicated by the
dotted circles in the figure. This figure also demonstrates
that the inclusion of SSI along with isolation tends to
reduce the effectiveness of the isolation scheme for
moderate to soft soil conditions for this structure using
the rigid base isolation retrofit design. Similarly, in Fig.
6(b) the base shear demand on the pier is illustrated over
the same natural frequency ratio range for the various
harmonic excitations. The isolation retrofit is effective in
the lower natural frequency ratio range while becoming
ineffective after FR ¼ 0:7520:9. Based on these results, it is
recommended that an evaluation of the effects of SSI on
seismically isolated structures should be performed and
incorporated into the design process for seismic isolation
retrofit of structures. While these effects may not be
(17) important for every structure, care should be exercised for
structures above the natural frequency ratio ranges
identified.
5. Conclusions
A new simplified, yet accurate, procedure for the rapid
assessment of the effectiveness of seismic isolation devices
including SSI phenomena on the response of seismically
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11

3.5
No Iso. Dev. Iso. Dev. #2

Pier Relative Maximum Horizontal Amplitude (in)

 = 0.5 ns  = 0.5 ns
3.0  = 1.0 ns  = 1.0 ns
 = 1.5 ns  = 1.5 ns
 = 1.0 ns-I  = 1.0 ns-I
2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Natural Frequency Ratio (Structure/Soil)

1400
No Iso. Dev. Iso. Dev. #2
 = 0.5 ns  = 0.5 ns
1200
 = 1.0 ns  = 1.0 ns
 = 1.5 ns  = 1.5 ns
 = 1.0 ns-I  = 1.0 ns-I
1000
Max Base Shear (lb)

800

600

400

200

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Natural Frequency Ratio (Structure/Soil)

Fig. 6. Frequency ratio study: (a) pier relative maximum horizontal displacement and (b) maximum pier base shear for isolated and un-isolated cases by
varying the soil shear modulus under harmonic loading.

isolated bridges was presented in this work. To this end, a creased composite damping ratio for the isolated soil-
closed form BIRF model is implemented for use in coupled foundation-structure systems. All of these identified effects
soil-foundation-structure dynamic SSI analysis. Coupled are amplified for softer soils such as silty sands, and less
closed form BIRF–FEM numerical models of a physical pronounced for moderate to very stiff soils. The effects of
problem were subjected to an equivalent force time history considering SSI in the analysis of seismically isolated
from the acceleration record of El Centro 1940. Rigid base structures are shown to reduce the effectiveness of the
analysis was used as a baseline to illustrate the effects of isolation system of reducing the demands on the isolated
considering SSI. The numerical model was also analyzed in structure for moderate to soft soils. Also the importance of
an isolated and un-isolated form in order to investigate the relative rigidity of the complete soil-foundation-structure
effects of SSI on the effectiveness of seismic isolation system is investigated through the use of the natural
retrofit schemes. For the physical model considered, overall frequency ratio of the structure to the soil-foundation
SSI effects have been identified as (i) elongation of damped system. The isolation systems are shown to be effective for
period of vibration, (ii) increased relative pier displace- relatively low natural frequency ratios (stiffer soils) while
ments, (iii) increased composite damping ratio for the un- ineffective for frequency ratios for moderate to soft soils. A
isolated soil-foundation-structure systems, and (iv) de- recommendation based on the results of this work was

Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 E.H. Stehmeyer, D.C. Rizos / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
suggested such that an evaluation of the effects of SSI on
seismically isolated structures should be performed and
incorporated into the design process for seismic isolation
retrofit of structures.
References
[1] Imbsen RA. Use of isolation for seismic retrofitting bridges. J Bridge
Eng 2001;6(6):425–38.
[2] Priestly MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retrofit of
bridges. New York: Wiley; 1996.
[3] Kikuchi M, Aiken ID. An analytical hysteresis model for elastomeric
seismic isolation bearings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:
215–31.
[4] Nagarajaiah S, Ferrell K. Stability of elastomeric seismic isolation
bearings. J Struct Eng 1999;125(9):946–54.
[5] Zheng J, Takeda T. Effects of soil-structure interaction on seismic
response of PC cable-stayed bridge. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
1995;14:427–37.
[6] Crouse CB, McGuire J. Energy dissipation in soil-structure interac-
tion. Earthquake Spectra 2001;17(2):235–59.
[7] Vlassis AG, Spyrakos CC. Seismically isolated bridge piers on
shallow soil stratum with soil-structure interaction. Comput Struct
2001;79:2847–61.
[8] Tongaonkar NP, Jangid RS. Seismic response of isolated bridges with
soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2003;23:287–302.
[9] Menglin L, Jingning W. Effects of soil-structure interaction on
structural vibration control. In: Wolf JP, et al., editors. Dynamic soil
structure interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998. p. 189–202.
[10] Beskos DE. Boundary element methods in dynamic analysis: Part II
1986–1996. ASME Appl Mech Rev 1997;50(3):149–97.
Please cite this article as: Stehmeyer EH, Rizos DC. Considering dynamic soil structure interaction (SSI) effects on seismic isolation retrofit efficiency
and the importance of natural frequency.... Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng (2007), doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.07.008
[11] Stehmeyer III EH. Computational simulations of linear soil-founda-
tion-structure systems under dynamic and seismic loading. MS thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of South Carolina; 2003.
[12] Stehmeyer III EH, Rizos DC. B-spline impulse response functions
(BIRF) for transient SSI analysis of rigid foundations. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Eng 2006;26:421–34.
[13] Wolf JP. Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[14] Rizos DC, Wang Z. Coupled BEM–FEM solutions for direct time
domain soil-structure interaction analysis. Eng Anal Boundary Elem
2002;26:877–88.
[15] O’Brien J, Rizos DC. A 3D BEM–FEM methodology for simulation
of high speed train induced vibrations. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2005;25:289–301.
[16] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall;
1996.
[17] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory & applications to
earthquake engineering. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 2001.
[18] Luco JE, Wong HL, Mita A. Active control of the seismic response of
structures by combined use of base isolation and absorbing
boundaries. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21:525–41.
[19] Savange I, Eddy JC, Orsolimi GI. Seismic analysis and base isolation
retrofit of a steel truss vertical lift bridge. Comput Struct
1999;72:317–27.
[20] Abrahamson E, Mitchell S. Seismic response modification device
elements for bridge structures development and verification. Comput
Struct 2003;81:463–7.
[21] Ali HM, Abdel-Ghaffar AM. Modeling of rubber and lead passive-
control bearings for seismic analysis. J Struct Eng 1995;121(7):
1134–44.
[22] Jangid RS. Seismic response of isolated bridges. J Bridge Eng
2004;9(2):156–66.
[23] Kunde MC, Jangid RS. Effects of pier and deck flexibility on the
seismic response of isolated bridges. J Bridge Eng 2006;11(1):109–21.