Article

Optimization of Two Soil–Structure Interaction

Parameters Using Dynamic Centrifuge Tests and an
Analytical Approach
Hyun-Uk Kim 1,2, Jeong-Gon Ha 3, Kil-Wan Ko 2 and Dong-Soo Kim 2,*
1 R&D Strategy and Planning Office, Central Research Institute of Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP),
Daejeon 34101, Korea; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute Science and Technology

(KAIST), Daejeon 34141, Korea; [email protected]

3 Structural Safety & Prognosis Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI),

Daejeon 34057, Korea; [email protected]

* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-42-350-3619

Received: 14 July 2020; Accepted: 31 August 2020; Published: 31 August 2020

Abstract: The response of the structure subjected to an earthquake load is greatly affected by the
properties of the structure and soil so it is very important to accurately determine the characteristics
of the structure and soil for analysis. However, studies on the effective profile depth where soil
properties are determined, have been conducted in the presence of restricted conditions (i.e., surface
foundation, linear soil properties), and without any considerations on damping. In case of the
effective height of structure that affects its rocking behavior, it was only theoretically or empirically
determined. In addition, most previously published studies on soil–structure interaction (SSI)
focused on limited effects and parameters (e.g., rocking behavior, embedment effect, effective
profile depth, spring constant, and damping coefficient) and not on comprehensive SSI parameters.
Furthermore, no detailed validation procedure has been set in place which made it difficult to
validate the SSI parameters. Since the effective height of structure and effective profile depth are the
basis of all the input parameters of SSI analysis, it is important to validate and determine them.
Therefore, in this study, the procedure used to optimize the two SSI parameters was established
based on an analytical approach that considered all the possible SSI parameters that were
investigated from conventional codes and studies and physical model tests. As a result of this study,
the optimum values of the effective height of the structure and effective profile depth were
respectively determined according to (a) the height from the bottom part of the foundation to the
center of the mass of the superstructure, and according to (b) the depth at values equal to four times
the radius of the foundation.

Keywords: effective height; effective profile depth; SSI; analytical approach; centrifuge test

1. Introduction
The dynamic characteristics of the structure depend on the surrounding soil. To estimate an
accurate structural response for seismic design, the soil–structure interaction (SSI) effect has been
considered as the crucial effect for the seismic evaluation of the structure. There have been various
studies on the soil–structure interaction (SSI) effect but the subject of each study was not
comprehensive but limited to specific parameters or phenomena (e.g., spring constant and damping
coefficient [1–6], effective profile depth [7], and rocking behavior [8–11]). With regard to the SSI
analysis, four procedures were introduced in FEMA356 [12]: Linear static procedure (LSP), linear

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113; doi:10.3390/su12177113 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 2 of 19

dynamic procedure (LDP), nonlinear static procedure (NSP), and nonlinear dynamic procedure
(NDP). Among them, the static procedures (i.e., LSP and NSP) have been accepted in various
standards owing to their simplicity and practicality [12–15], and the dynamic procedures (i.e., LDP
and NDP) have been used to either verify the static procedures or to obtain more detailed structural
responses. Even though all the standards mentioned above (i.e., FEMA 356, ATC-40, FEMA 440, and
ASCE 41–13) define the same three types of modes (i.e., structural swaying, foundation swaying, and
rocking), the formula for the soil–spring constant and damping coefficient, and the two SSI
parameters (i.e., the effective height of the structure and effective profile depth) were defined
differently at various standards and studies, including the aforementioned standards [1–4,7,12,14,16–
19]. The two SSI parameters are very important because they determine the dynamic soil properties
and the rocking potential of the soil–structure system (i.e., rocking damping coefficient and moment),
but they have been derived in restricted conditions (i.e., the effective profile depth was determined
based only on considerations of static soil stiffness in surface foundation condition [5,7]) and
theoretically determined (i.e., the effective height was determined based on structural dynamic
theory [3,10,12,13]). In addition, existing standards and prior studies have been limited in view of the
following: (1) Approximate consideration of the nonlinear deformation characteristics of the soil
based on peak ground acceleration [12,14,15,18], (2) determination of damping ratio of soil based only
on radiation damping considerations [14,15,18], and (3) lack of detailed SSI analysis procedure and
SSI parameter validation procedure with physical model tests. Therefore, in this study, the optimum
SSI parameter selection procedure was established using an LDP-based analytical approach and
relevant tests, whereby the SSI effects were comprehensively and appropriately considered (i.e.,
consideration of all the possible SSI parameters for analysis, accurate consideration of soil
nonlinearity using site response analysis, and determination of total soil damping coefficient,
including soil material damping). Finally, two optimum SSI parameters were determined based on a
number of analyses according to the established procedure.

2. Soil–Structure Interaction (SSI) Parameters and Optimum SSI Parameter Selection Procedure
The SSI model is shown in Figure 1. It consists of two lumped masses and , whereby the
distance between the two masses is defined as the effective height ℎ, a set of spring , and dashpot
to represent the dynamic characteristics of the structure, and two sets of springs and dashpots to
simulate the flexibility and damping of the soil. In the case of horizontal excitation, the total absolute
displacement of the can be defined with three deformation modes, and is expressed as =
+ + h∅ + . In this case, is the absolute displacement of the soil, is the relative
displacement between the foundation and the soil, ∅ is the rotation angle of the foundation, ℎ is the
effective height of the structure, and is the relative displacement between the upper structure and
the soil, or the net structural displacement.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 3 of 19

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Three degree-of-freedom (3DOF) idealization of soil–structure system and each
displacement mode: (a) 3DOF idealization for soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis, and (b)
displacement according to each mode.

To obtain detailed structural responses, the equation of motion (EOM) of the soil–structure
system that considers the aforementioned three degree-of-freedom (3DOF) is expressed by Equation
(1) [8,9,20].
ℎ ̈ 0 0 ̇ 0 0
+ ℎ ̈ + 0 0 ̇ + 0 0 =− ̈ + (1)
ℎ ℎ ℎ + ̈ 0 0 ̇ 0 0 ℎ

2.1. Soil–Spring Constants and Damping Coefficients

In the SSI system, the soil–spring constant and damping coefficient represent the characteristics
of the foundation and lower ground, and impose a considerable influence on the system’s response.
Regarding the soil–spring constant and damping coefficient, Wolf [1] and Richart and Lysmer [2]
suggested the use of the frequency-independent spring constant and radiation damping coefficient
formulas that comprised simple parameters. These formulas have been used previously [14,19,21].
Gazetas [3] and Stewart et al. [4] proposed a precise frequency-dependent spring constant and
damping coefficient formula that considered the soil impedance. However, to utilize the formulas, it
is necessary to consider numerous parameters and numerous corrections for each frequency subject
to earthquake loading. In FEMA356 [12], the frequency-independent soil stiffness and correction
factor formulas—that considered the geometry and embedment depth of the rectangular footing in
detail—were presented, but the damping coefficient formula was not presented. Therefore, two types
of simple frequency-independent soil–spring constant and radiation damping coefficient formulas
have been presented in Table 1 (i.e., the formulas suggested by Wolf [1] and Richart and Lysmer [2])
were adopted in this study.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 4 of 19

Table 1. Soil–spring constant and radiation damping coefficient for surface foundation.

Radiation Damping
Spring Constant
Type of Formula Coefficient

Kx (= kh) Kø (= kr) Cx Cø

Wolf [1] 8 8 ∅ 4.6 0.4

FEMA440 [14] 2− 3(1 − ) 2− 1−
Richart and Lysmer [2], 0.3
2(1 + ) √ ∅ 0.576
EPRI [19], ASCE4-16 [21] 1− 1+ ∅

where is the width of the foundation, is the length of the foundation, is the shear modulus
of the soil, is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil, and and are the equivalent radii of the
foundation expressed as / and /3 , respectively. The parameters and are a
function of / , and the values in case of square footing (i.e., / = 1) can be obtained from the
suggested chart, where and are equal to 1 and 0.5, respectively.

2.1.1. Strain-Dependent Soil Properties

Linear SSI analyses (i.e., LSP and LDP) require constant soil properties regardless of depth and
strain, but the actual shear wave velocity of soil ( ) and damping ratio of soil ( ) vary with
depth and strain level. In conventional standards, the reduction factor for is determined and used
to convert the strain dependent to a strain-independent factor, but a reduction factor is expressed
as a function of the peak ground acceleration at the ground surface without considering the frequency
contents of motion and depth. Moreover, there is no correction factor for in the standards
[12,14,15,18]. To overcome the above limitation and to obtain strain-independent and values
(i.e., equivalent and values) accurately during the excitation, one-dimensional equivalent
linear-site-response analyses (SRAs) were performed in this study.

2.1.2. Depth-Dependent Soil Properties and Effective Profile Depth (Z )

Although equivalent and values are converted to their strain-independent forms, they
are still non-uniformly distributed as a function of depth. Therefore, it is necessary to define an
effective profile depth ( ). In this way, depth-independent, equivalent and values have to be
obtained as the average values within a depth . The averaged values of and that consider
can be obtained by Equation (2), as follows,

( ) = , x =
∆ ( ) ∆ (2)
∑ ∑
( ) (x )

where ( ) is the shear wave velocity of the ith soil layer, ( ) is the material damping ratio of the
ith soil layer, and Δ is the thickness of the ith soil layer, respectively. Stewart et al. [7] regarded the
static soil–spring constants obtained from the impedance solutions by Wong and Luco [5] as reference
values, and repeatedly calculated the soil–spring constants at various profile depths. Note that is
0.75 times the radius of the foundation ( ), wherein the residual between the reference and the
calculated value is minimized. In addition to prior research publications, in the recommended
provision of national earthquake hazard reduction program (NEHRP) [16], 4 r and 1.5 r were
proposed as the respective values of for swaying and rocking behaviors, respectively. However,
in previous studies, the embedment effect and damping ratio of soil were not considered. Therefore,
in this study, three types of scenarios of 0.75 r, 2 r, and 4 r, were considered to evaluate the optimum
effective profile depth and necessary considerations (i.e., embedment effect and ), and were
included in the analytical approach for the evaluation of the optimum effective profile depth.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 5 of 19

2.1.3. Embedment Correction for Spring Constant and Radiation Damping Coefficient
When the foundation was embedded, the natural frequency of the soil–structure system
increased owing to an increase in the soil stiffness, and the overall response of the system decreased
owing to an increase in radiation damping [22]. In view of this phenomenon, the formulas of the
correction factor that considered the geometry and embedment depth of the rectangular footing in
detail was presented in FEMA356 [12]. In contrast, Whitman [6] proposed a simple embedment
correction factor (i.e., correction factor for both stiffness and damping) as a function of the
embedment depth ( ), radius of foundation ( ), and Poisson’s ratio ( ) of the soil. Table 2 shows the
correction factor for embedment suggested by Whitman. According to the Whitman’s suggestion, the
damping correction factor was suggested for the radiation damping ratio of the soil but the damping
matrix in Equation (1) needed a damping coefficient ( and ). Therefore, the correction factor
formula was converted to Equation (3) and was used in this study, wherein ( ) and ∅( ) are
expressed as and , respectively.

Table 2. Correction factor for embedment and corrected soil properties [6].

Corrected Stiffness
Property Mode Correction Factor for Embedment
and Damping Ratio

swaying ( ) = 1 + 0.55(2 − ) ( ) = ∙
stiffness
rocking ( ) ø = 1 + 1.2(1 − ) + 0.2(2 − ) ∅( ) = ∙

swaying = 1 + 1.9(2 − ) / ( ) = ∙
radiation
damping
rocking = 1 + 0.7(1 − ) + 0.6(2 − ) / ( ) = ∙

( ) = ( ) ( ) =2 ( ) ( ) =2 ( ) =

(3)
∅
∅( ) = ∅( ) ∅( ) =2 ∅( ) ∅( ) =2 ∅( ) ∅ =
∅

∅ ∅ ∅

2.1.4. Determination of Soil Damping Based on Radiation and Material Damping Considerations
The total damping coefficient formula consists of the material damping and the radiation
damping coefficients [1,3,19]. Assuming that the structure is rigid ( = ∞) and that the foundation
cannot rock ( = ∞), or is only allowed to rock ( = ∞), the natural frequency of each case follows
= / and = / [1], where and are the total mass and total mass moment of
inertia of the structure, respectively. Equation (4) expresses a form of the total damping coefficient
based on the consideration of the embedment effect. Substituting the natural frequency equation in
each mode in Equation (4) estimates the swaying and rocking total damping coefficients, as listed in
Table 3, wherein and are the respective swaying and rocking material damping
coefficients. The total damping coefficient was expressed as function of and to distinguish
them from the subscripts and of the radiation damping coefficient. Accordingly, the soil–
spring constant was also denoted by and for the swaying and rocking modes.
2
( ) = ( ) + ( ) = ( ) + ( ) (4)
( )
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 6 of 19

Table 3. Soil–spring constant and total damping coefficient formulas based on embedment effect
considerations.

Property Mode Soil–Spring Constant and Damping Coefficient Formula

soil spring swaying (ℎ) ( ) = ( ) = ∙
constant rocking ( ) ( ) = ∅( ) = ∅ ∙ ∅

soil total swaying ( ) = ( ) + ( ) = +2 ( )

damping
coefficient rocking ( ) = ∅( ) + ∅( ) = +2 ∅( )

2.2. Effective Height of Structure ℎ

In the soil–structure system, the effective height (ℎ) of the structure affects its rocking response
of the system. Stewart et al. [17] defined ℎ as the distance from the foundation to the centroid of the
inertial force in relation to the fundamental mode. In FEMA440 [14] and FEMA450 [18], the full height
was considered as the value of ℎ of the one-story structure, and the distance from the foundation to
the center point of the first modal shape was set to ℎ in multistory structures. In the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) training module [19], ℎ was calculated based on the moment equilibrium
to the center of mass of the rigid foundation. According to the recent research by Gavras et al. [10],
the value of ℎ of the footing-flexible column-bridge deck system was defined as the distance from
the base of the footing to the center of the deck. However, a limited number of studies have verified
or validated the optimum effective height of the structure. In this study, three effective heights (ℎ)
were considered to choose the optimum ℎ, whereby the two heights were suggested by conventional
standards, and the other height satisfied the total mass moment of inertia ( ) of the structure. The
three effective heights used in this study adhered to the following order: Height from the bottom of
the foundation to the center of mass of the superstructure (ℎ ) < height compatible to the total
mass moment of inertia of the structure (ℎ ) < height needed to satisfy moment equilibrium
(ℎ ). Additionally, ℎ and ℎ can be obtained as indicated below,
.
ℎ =( − / ) (5)

ℎ = − / g (6)
where is the total mass moment of inertia of the upper, middle, and lower structures, and is
the mass moment of inertia based on the consideration of the effective mass and the geometry of
foundation, is the summation of the moment of the upper, middle, and lower structures, and
is the moment that considers the effective mass and the geometry of the foundation.

2.3. Procedure Used to Identify the Optimum and ℎ of the Structure

Figure 2 summarizes the procedure used to identify the optimum parameter using an analytical
approach and test. The objective of the procedure was the identification of the optimum and ℎ.
As an analytical approach, the time domain SSI analysis by the state space equation (SSE) was
adopted and dynamic centrifuge tests were performed at the 20 g level.

Figure 2. Procedure used to evaluate the optimum and ℎ values of the structure.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 7 of 19

3. Testing and Analysis Programs

3.1. Dynamic Centrifuge Tests

The dynamic centrifuge model tests were performed to obtain the seismic responses of the soil–
structure system and to evaluate the optimum SSI parameters. As depicted in Figure 3b, the
experimental model consists of a soft sandy soil, a shallow foundation, and a Single Degree of
Freedom (SDOF) structure. The beam-type centrifuge facility in the Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology (KAIST) and KAIST Analysis center for Research Advancement (KARA) was
used in this study, and the radius and maximum payload capacity of the facility were 5 m and 240
g·tons, respectively [8]. This facility was equipped with a shaking table that operated in flight
conditions that could generate maximum horizontal acceleration of 40 g in model scale. The
equivalent shear beam (ESB) soil container that consists of 10 aluminum alloy rectangular frames was
mounted on the shaking table. The dynamic performance of the ESB box corresponded to that of
ground motion and it was validated by Lee et al. [23]. The internal dimensions of the ESB box were
0.49 m × 0.49 m × 0.6 m at the model scale, and correspond to the dimensions of 9.8 m × 9.8 m × 12.0
m at the 20 g prototype scale. Figure 3b shows the ESB box soil–structure system mounted on the
shaking table. All the dimensions were expressed in the form of a prototype scale according to the
scaling law of the centrifuge model test [24]. In this study, eight cases (= four structures × two input
motions/structure) of dynamic centrifuge tests were conducted.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Model structures and tested soil–structure system: (a) Model structures for impact hammer
tests, and (b) tested soil–structure system.

3.2. Analytical Approach Based on State Space Equation (SSE)

A time-domain analysis by the State Space Equation (SSE) has been used for the estimation of
the dynamic structural response or system identification [11,25,26], and the analytical approach in
this study was implemented using MATLAB R2014b. Equation (1) can be expressed as Equation (7)
and the equation was converted to continuous-time SSE (Equation (8)), wherein Y in {X} consists of
, , and . The discrete-time SSE of Equation (9) can be constructed by considering the general
solution of Equation (8) and discrete-time interval (Δt). At this point, continuous matrices [A] and [B]
can be easily converted to discrete matrices [Ad] and [Bd] with MATLAB’s c2d command [27–29]. In
the discrete SSE, a sufficiently small-time interval (Δt) setting was required because the constant U in
Δt must be satisfied, and the stability of the system also needs to be secured [29]. Therefore, in this
study, we used Δt = 5 ms.
[ ] ̈ +[ ] ̇ +[ ]{ } = − ̈ { } (7)

̇ 0 ⋮ 0
… = … … … … + … ̈ ⇒ ̇ = [ ]{ } + [ ]{ } (8)
̈ − ⋮ − ̇ − { }
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 8 of 19

{ }=[ ]{ } + [ ]{ } (9)
Based on Equation (9), { }={ ⋮ ̇ } was obtained in a step-by-step manner, and the
relative acceleration response ̈ = { ̈ , ̈ , ̈ } was then calculated according to Equation (10).
Finally, the absolute acceleration response of the superstructure and the foundation { ̈ , ̈ } was
determined based on Equation (11).

̈ = {− ⋮ − }{ ⋮ ̇} + − { } ̈ ={ ̈ ̈ ∅̈} =
(10)
{− ⋮ − }{ ∅ ⋮ ̇ ̇ ∅̇} + − { } ̈

̈
̈ 1 1 ℎ 1
= ̈ + ̈ (11)
̈ 0 1 0 1
∅̈

3.3. Properties of Structure in Tests and Analytical Approach

Four SDOF structural models made of steel were used. Each structural model consisted of (1) a
lumped mass at the top position (i.e., upper structure, ), (2) two thin plates (i.e., middle plates,
) below the lumped mass considered to show shear deformation, and (3) a direct mat foundation
(i.e., lower structure, ) at the bottom. To obtain the characteristics of the structure for the time
domain SSI analyses, impact hammer tests were performed on four structures with the exception of
all the lower structures subject to the fixed-base condition. Accordingly, acceleration time history
(ATH) data were acquired. The natural frequency ( ) of each system was then obtained based on
the fast Fourier transformation (FFT), and the relationship between and added mass ( ( ))
of each model structure was formulated. Finally, the effective lateral stiffness ( ) and effective mass
of the superstructure ( ) were estimated based on the nonlinear curve fitting of the data with the
use of the natural frequency formula of SDOF shown in Figure 3a. As the massless beam was
considered in the 3DOF time domain SSI analysis, was calculated by subtracting the from
the total mass of the structure ( ) that was defined as = + + = + . Given that
the damping ratio of the structure cannot be obtained analytically, it is determined through free
vibration tests [30]. The scaling factor N (prototype/model) is 20 because the centrifugal acceleration
in each test is 20 g. The obtained results are listed in Table 4. The width of the square footing is 2 m,
and the effective radius (= ≒ ) was calculated as 1.135 m.

Table 4. Dimensions and properties of each structural model at the prototype scale.

Structure Models Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4

dimensions (m)

mass of upper structure ( , kg) 1580 3634 5530 7900

mass of middle plates ( , kg) 1991
mass of lower structure ( , kg) 20,856
natural frequency ( , Hz) 3615 2540 2097 1773
effective mass of superstructure ( , kg) 2003 4057 5953 8323
effective mass of foundation. ( , kg) 22,424
effective lateral stiffness ( , N/m) 1,033,191
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 9 of 19

damping ratio ( , %) 1.406 1.674 2.379 2.252

Note: As the mass of the superstructure increases, the natural frequency clearly decreases, but the
tendency of damping ratio increase is unclear.

3.4. Soil Properties and Ground Condition in Tests and Analytical Approaches
Dry silica sand layers were prepared with a relative density ( ) of 55% by using sand rainer.
The properties of silica sand are listed in Table 5, and the profiles are shown in Figure 4a. In this
case, USCS is the unified soil classification, is the median particle size, is the specific gravity,
is the maximum void ratio, is the minimum void ratio, is the dry unit weight of the
soil, is the internal friction angle of the soil, and is the calculated coefficient of the earth
pressure at rest based on Jacky's formula (i.e., =1− ). Kim et al. [31] obtained the − ′
profile by performing in-flight bender element tests on the silica sand with the relative densities of
40% and 80%. In this study, the − profile was obtained by interpolating the results of Kim et al.
[31]. Finally, the − profile was acquired based on the = / relationship. Resonant column
tests were performed with mean effective stress values ′ = 25, 50, and 100 kPa, and the results
were used in one-dimensional equivalent SRAs, as shown in Figure 4b, wherein / − is
the modulus reduction curve of the soil, − is the damping ratio curve of the soil and ′ is
the mean effective stress that can be calculated as (1 + 2 ) /3.

Table 5. Properties of silica sand used in this study and ground condition.

General Properties [32] Ground Condition

USCS (mm) (%) ( / ) (°)
SP 0.22 2.65 1.130 0.611 55 14.092 37 0.398

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Vs profile and resonant column test results: (a) Vs–Z relationship and (b) modulus reduction
and damping curves.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 10 of 19

3.5. Input Motions in Tests and analyses

In this study, three input motions were used for tests and analyses: (1) Hachinohe earthquake
motion with abundant low-frequency contents, (2) Northridge earthquake motion with abundant
high-frequency contents, and (3) synthesized motion that consisted of 2, 6, and 10 Hz sinusoidal
waves. Figure 5 is normalized Fourier amplitude spectra showing the frequency characteristics of
each representative input motion. The characteristics of each motion type, including peak ground
acceleration (PGA), are summarized in Table 6, wherein contains every frequency of the Fourier
amplitude spectrum that ranges from 0.25 to 20 Hz (Δ ≤ 0.05 Hz), is the Fourier amplitude, and
the parameter is the reciprocal of the mean period ( ) suggested by Rathje et al. [33] and used
as a representative frequency motion index.
1
= / , = (12)

Base motions were the measured outcrop motions at the outer bottom of the centrifuge test box
and were used to SRAs. Free-field motions (FFMs) were measured as within motions at half the
embedment depth of the foundation (i.e., Z = 0.3 m) and were used for analytical approach (i.e., 3DOF
SSI analyses).

Table 6. Characteristics of base and free-field motions used in this study.

Base Motions Free Field Motions

Case Input Motion
PGA (g) (Hz) PGA (g) (Hz)
structure 1 Hachinohe I 0.112 1.842 0.227 2.268
structure 2 Hachinohe II 0.245 1.685 0.573 2.215
structure 3 Hachinohe III 0.283 1.637 0.585 2.157
structure 4 Hachinohe IV 0.113 1.797 0.193 2.194
Average value 0.188 1.740 0.395 2.209
structure 1 Northridge I 0.119 3.355 0.285 3.564
structure 3 Northridge II 0.315 3.353 0.609 3.166
Average value 0.217 3.354 0.447 3.365
structure 2 Synthesized I 0.188 2.814 0.317 3.394
structure 4 Synthesized II 0.189 2.887 0.345 3.167
Average value 0.189 2.851 0.331 3.281
Note: The mean frequency of each input motion follows the order: Hachinohe < Synthesized < Northridge.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Frequency contents of the motions at base and free field: (a) Hachinohe IV, (b) Northridge
II, and (c) Synthesized I.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 11 of 19

4. Determination of Soil–Spring Constant and Damping Coefficient

4.1. Site-Response Analyses (SRAs) and Strain-Independent Soil Properties

One dimensional equivalent linear SRAs, One of the methods that can be used to obtain the
acceleration response of the soil layer and to obtain the equivalent linear soil properties, were
conducted to obtain strain-independent and values with the program STRATA that was
developed by Kottke and Rathje [34]. Figure 6a shows that the ATHs from SRAs match well those
from the test results at Z = 0.3 m, and Figure 6b,c shows the equivalent and -depth results (i.e.,
the strain-independent depth and -depth relationships) at their final effective shear strain
values.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 6. Equivalent and values obtained by the SRAs: (a) Acceleration time history, (b)
equivalent value, and (c) equivalent value.

4.2. Depth-Independent Soil Properties

Figure 7 shows the variations of and that are converted to their depth-independent forms
using Equation (2), and are based on three types of scenarios. Regarding the effective radius in
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 12 of 19

square footing, = 0.56 B in the swaying mode is similar to = 0.57 B in the rocking mode, and
the effective profile depth is normalized with one effective radius (i.e., = 0.565 B). In
addition, / = 0.75, 2, and 4, correspond to = 0.85, 2.3, and 4.5 m, respectively.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. Variations of strain- and depth-independent and values for the soil for each ground
motion case: (a) Hachinohe, (b) Northridge, and (c) synthesized.

5. Evaluation of Two Optimum SSI Parameters and

5.1. Determination of Analysis CASES considering the SSI Parameters

The soil–spring constant and damping coefficient depend on and as well as on the
foundation conditions (e.g., geometry of foundation, embedded depth, and other subsoil properties)
as follows
 ( ) ( ) = ( , , , , )
 ( ) ( ) = ( , , , , , , )

and are determined by the effective profile depth and determined by the effective
height affects ∅ . Given that ℎ and affect the soil–spring constants and damping coefficients,
the number of the analysis cases were set as follows:
 In the case of the optimum ℎ value: 24 soil-spring constants and damping coefficients = one
formula × eight input motions × three effective heights × one effective profile depth
 In the case of the optimum value: 48 soil-spring constants and damping coefficients = two
formulas × eight input motions × one effective height × three effective profile depths

5.2. Quantification of Differences between Test and Analysis Results

To evaluate the differences in phase, amplitude, frequency contents, and amplification
characteristics between the test and analysis results, the mean squared errors (MSEs) for ATH and
response spectrum (RS) of each superstructure were obtained in the forms of and ,
respectively, and their sums (i.e., ∑ ) were used to comprehensively evaluate the conformity of
the analysis to the test results. In Equations (13) to (15), ( ) and ( ) were the acceleration
responses of the test and analysis at a certain time t = k, and ( ) and ( ) were the spectral
acceleration values of the test and analyses at a certain frequency f = j, respectively. When the value
of ∑ is small, the overall agreement between the test and analysis results is better.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 13 of 19

1
= ( ( ) − ( )) (13)

1
= ( ( ) − ( )) (14)

= + (15)

5.3. Evaluation of the Optimum h

To evaluate the optimum effective height (ℎ), 24 analyses were conducted in total (i.e., 24 cases
= four structures × two input motions/structure × three effective heights), where / = 4 (i.e., =
4.5 m). The Richart and Lysmer formula was considered for the analyses. In each case, the minimum
h value corresponds to the base to case, and the maximum h value to the moment equilibrium
case. As ℎ changes, and ℎ also changes in all the analysis cases. The analysis cases are
summarized in Table 7, wherein no case matched the and ℎ condition simultaneously. The
shaded area denoted the case matching of each property of the prototype structure (i.e., or ℎ).

Table 7. Analysis cases for the evaluation of the optimum ℎ value.

Input Motion/PGA ( ·
Structure Condition of ( ) ( · )
( ) )
base to 4.260 47.072 8.531
structure Hachinohe I/0.227
Mass Moment of Inertia compatible 4.561 52.388 9.134
1 Northridge I/0.285
moment equilibrium 5.499 71.276 11.011
base to 4.390 88.909 17.808
structure Hachinohe II/0.573
Mass Moment of Inertia compatible 4.530 93.979 18.377
2 Synthesized I/0.317
moment equilibrium 4.988 111.653 20.234
base to 4.510 131.806 26.846
structure Hachinohe III/0.585
Mass Moment of Inertia compatible 4.601 136.745 27.388
3 Northridge II/0.609
moment equilibrium 4.909 154.172 29.221
base to 4.660 191.46 38.783
Structure Hachinohe IV/0.193
Mass Moment of Inertia compatible 4.724 196.448 39.315
4 Synthesized II/0.345
moment equilibrium 4.938 213.642 41.094

Figure 8 shows the ATHs and ∑MSE values of the test and analysis results. According to the
results of the analysis, as h increases, ∑MSE increases. Based on the tendency and calculation result
of ∑MSE , ∑MSE at ℎ yielded a minimum error of 0.106 on average, ∑MSE at h
yielded an error of 0.127 on average, and ∑MSE at ℎ yielded the greatest error of 0.229 on
average. Given that ∑MSE at ℎ was estimated to be lower than that at full height, ℎ
was considered as the optimum effective height.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 14 of 19

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. Differences between tests and analyses, and acceleration time history (ATHs) of all tested
cases: (a) ∑MSE values comparisons of test and analysis data, (b) ATH at ℎ , and (c) ATH at
ℎ .

5.4. Evaluation of the Optimum Effective Profile Depth

In the evaluation of the optimum effective profile depth ( ), 48 analyses were conducted in total
(i.e., 48 cases = four structures × two input motions/structure × three effective profile depths × two
types of formulas), wherein the embedment correction factor suggested by Whitman [6] and
ℎ was used in common. The analysis cases are summarized in Table 8.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 15 of 19

Table 8. Analysis cases used to evaluate the optimum value.

Structure Input Motions/PGA (g) h (m) (m) Formulas on k and C of Soil

Hachinohe I/0.227
structure 1 4.26
Northridge I/0.285
Wolf [1]
Hachinohe II/0.573 Richart and Lysmer [2]
structure 2 4.39
Synthesized I/0.317 0.85 (0.75 r)
2.3 (2 r)
Hachinohe III/0.585 4.5 (4 r) embedment correction factor –
structure 3 4.51
Northridge II/0.609 Whitman [6]

Hachinohe IV/0.193
structure 4 4.66
Synthesized II/0.345

Figure 9 shows the ∑MSE value of each analysis case, and Table 9 lists the maximum
acceleration responses of the superstructure, wherein the shaded areas represent the analysis cases
that best match the test results (i.e., the case with the minimum ∑MSE ). Although two analysis cases
(i.e., structure 3-Northridge II and structure 4-Synthesized II) show that the maximum acceleration
responses were smaller than those of the corresponding test results, the differences were not
considerable. Specifically, the maximum acceleration responses of the conducted analyses were
93.2% and 99.0% compared with those of the corresponding test results. The average values of ∑MSE
in the case at which Wolf's formula was used was 0.098, and the average value of ∑MSE in the case
at which Richart and Lysmer’s formula was used was 0.106. Thus, the difference of ∑MSE between
the results of the two formulas was not significant. In terms of the maximum acceleration response,
the results generated by Richart and Lysmer’s formula were found to be 0.8–12.4% more conservative
than those obtained based on Wolf's formula, as listed in Table 9. In terms of the input motion, the
average value of ∑MSE was 0.137 for the Hachinohe motion, 0.124 for Northridge motion, and 0.045
for synthesized motion. These findings show that the analysis results based on the use of the seismic
wave were associated with a larger error compared with that obtained based on the analysis with the
use of synthesized motion. In all the tested cases, the acceleration response of the superstructure at
/r = 0.75 yielded a higher discrepancy between tests and analysis outcomes (i.e., the maximum
∑MSE value in all the cases of /r = 0.75 was 2.403) but the responses at /r = 4 showed good
agreement (i.e., maximum ∑MSE in all the cases of /r = 4 was 0.425).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 9. Difference between tests and analyses at each case: (a) Structure 1, (b) structure 2, (c)
structure 3, and (d) structure 4.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 16 of 19

Table 9. Comparison of test and analysis results in terms of maximum acceleration response at .

Analysis Results ( )
Richart and Lysmer’s
Test Wolf’s Formula
Structure Input Motion Formula
( )
/r = /r = /r =
/r = 0.75 /r = 2 /r = 4
0.75 2 4
Hachinohe I 0.685 0.885 0.785 0.694 0.941 0.812 0.707
structure 1
Northridge I 1.088 1.163 1.400 1.124 1.255 1.490 1.136
Hachinohe II 1.454 1.304 1.725 1.772 1.352 1.798 1.803
structure 2
Synthesized I 1.100 1.707 1.383 1.173 1.919 1.449 1.213
Hachinohe III 1.039 1.189 1.088 1.149 1.221 1.108 1.180
structure 3
Northridge II 1.150 0.991 1.040 1.072 0.999 1.051 1.097
Hachinohe IV 0.521 0.469 0.517 0.515 0.488 0.529 0.526
structure 4
Synthesized II 0.702 0.540 0.589 0.687 0.562 0.603 0.695

Figure 10 shows the variations of the ATHs and RS of the superstructure during Hachinohe
motion. The tendency to increase or decrease the maximum acceleration of the superstructure as the
effective profile depth increases is unclear, but as the effective profile depth increases, ∑MSE clearly
decreases, thus yielding the lowest value at /r = 4. Therefore, based on all the results in this study,
it can be concluded that 4 r is the optimum effective profile depth.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 17 of 19

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10. Acceleration time histories and response spectra from tests and analyses: (a) ATHs at /r
= 0.75, (b) ATHs at /r = 4, and (c) RS at /r = 4.

6. Conclusions
In this study, dynamic centrifuge tests and LDP-based analyses (i.e., time domain SSI analyses
by SSE) were performed to evaluate the optimum effective height and effective profile depth
conditions proposed in the conventional standards and prior research publications. Four structures
and three ground motions were used in the centrifuge tests, and three effective heights and three
effective profile depth conditions were considered as the SSI analysis cases in addition to the
aforementioned test conditions. The main results of this research are summarized as follows.
1. In this study, the applicability of the SSI parameters suggested by various standards and studies
was discussed, and the optimum SSI parameter selection procedure that a) comprehensively
considered the SSI parameters, b) adopted an analytical approach and a physical model test, was
suggested. Based on the established procedure, the optimum values of two controversial SSI
parameters (i.e., the effective height and effective profile depth) were determined
 Unlike the conventional standards that apply a simplified reduction factor for the initial
shear wave velocity profile and do not apply any corrections in initial damping ratio profile,
one dimensional equivalent linear site response analyses were performed to accurately
obtain the equivalent strain-independent shear wave velocity ( ) and damping ratio ( ) of
the soil. The equivalent and values that varied with depth obtained herein were
converted to depth independent and values based on considerations of the effective
profile depth ( ).
 Unlike the conventional research efforts that ignored soil material damping and indirectly
determined soil damping based on the effective period lengthening ratio, the total soil
damping was obtained directly by the addition of soil material damping to soil radiation
damping. In addition, the stiffness and total damping of soil were determined based on
embedded foundation conditions.
 Unlike the conventional SDOF SSI analysis that was based on the RS, this study adopted a
3DOF time domain SSI analysis based on structural translation, foundation translation, and
rocking behavior considerations to accurately obtain structural responses.
2. The effective height of the structure affected the rocking behavior of the soil–structure system
(i.e., ℎ and ∅ ). In this study, applicability of the following three effective height scenarios
were evaluated based on the following test and analysis results: 1) Height from the bottom of
the foundation to the center of the mass of the superstructure, and 2) height compatible to the
total mass moment of inertia, and 3) height to satisfy moment equilibrium. As the effective
height increased within the effective height range used in the analysis, the differences between
test and analysis results increased. Consequently, in all the cases, the height from the bottom of
the foundation to the center of the mass of the superstructure was the optimum effective height
with the lowest ∑MSE value.
3. The optimum effective profile depth ( ) was determined. This was used to average the dynamic
soil property that varied as a function of depth. Three scenarios were considered in the analyses:
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 18 of 19

1) /r = 0.75, 2) /r = 2, and 3) /r = 4. As a result, 4 r was found to be the optimum effective

profile depth with the lowest difference between the test and analysis results. In addition, the
results associated with earthquake motions yielded higher errors than those of synthesized
motions that consisted of sinusoidal waves at the frequencies of 2, 6, and 10 Hz. The maximum
acceleration responses by Richart and Lysmer's formula was more conservative than those
obtained with Wolf's formula.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, H.-U.K. and D.S.K.; formal analysis, H.-U.K.;
investigation, H.-U.K.; resources, D.S.K. and J.-G.H.; data curation, H.-U.K. and J.-G.H.; validation, J.-G.H., K.-
W.K. and D.S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.-U.K.; writing—review and editing, J.-G.H. and K.-W.K.;
supervision, D.S.K.; project administration, D.S.K.; funding acquisition, D.S.K. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research was funded by Korea Construction Engineering and Transport Development
Collaboratory Management Institute (KOCED), Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)
and KAIST Analysis center for Research Advancement (KARA) .

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Korea Construction Engineering and Transport
Development Collaboratory Management Institute (KOCED), Korea Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology (KAIST) and KAIST Analysis center for Research Advancement (KARA).

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wolf, J. Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1985; Section 3.4
Introductory example, pp. 38–50.
2. Richart, F.; Hall, J.; Woods, R. Vibrations of Soils and Foundations; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA,
1970.
3. Gazetas, G. Foundation Engineering Handbook, 2nd Ed.; Fang, H.Y. Ed.; Springer science business media:
New York, USA, 1991; Chapter 15 Foundation vibrations.
4. Stewart, J.; Seed, R.; Fenves, G. PEER-98/07: Empirical Evaluation of Inertial Soil Structure Interaction; Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1998.
5. Wong, H.; Luco, J. Tables of impedance functions for square foundations on layered media. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 1985, 4, 64–81.
6. Whitman, R. Soil Publications No-300: Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction: A State-of-the-Art Review;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1972.
7. Stewart, J.; Kim, S.; Bielak, J.; Dobry, R.; Power, M. Revisions to soil-structure interaction procedures in
NEHRP design provisions. Earthq. Spectra 2003, 19, 677–696.
8. Kim, D.; Lee, S.; Kim, D.; Choo, Y.; Park, H. Rocking effect of a mat foundation on the earthquake response
of structures. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2015, 141, 10:04014085.
9. Ko, K.; Ha, J.; Park, H.; Kim, D. Comparison between cyclic and dynamic rocking behavior for embedded
shallow foundation using centrifuge tests. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 5171–5193.
10. Gavras, A.; Kutter, B.; Hakhamaneshi, M.; Gajan, S.; Tsatsis, A.; Sharma, K.; Kohno, T.; Deng, L.;
Anastasopoulos, I.; Gazetas, G. Database of rocking shallow foundation performance: Dynamic shaking.
Earthq. Spectra 2020, 36, 960–982.
11. Kim, D.; Park, H.; Kim, D.; Lee, H. Nonlinear system identification on shallow foundation using Extended
Kalman Filter. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 128, 105857.
12. FEMA. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356); Federal Emergency
Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
13. ATC. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC-40); Applied Technology Council: Redwood
City, CA, USA, 1996.
14. FEMA. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA 440); Federal Emergency
Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
15. ASCE. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-13); American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 2014; Chapter 8 Foundations and Geologic Site Hazards.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 7113 19 of 19

16. BSSC. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulation for New Buildings and Other Structures; Federal
Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
17. Stewart, J.; Fenves, G.; Seed, R. Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction in Buildings. I: Analytical Methods. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1999, 125, 26–37.
18. BSSC. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA
450-1 2003 edition); Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
19. EPRI. 1010808: Engineering Technical Training Modules for Nuclear Plant Engineers-Civil/Structural Series
Module #5-Soil Structure Interaction; EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2005.
20. Mikami, A.; Sawada, T. Time-domain identification system of dynamic soil-structure interaction. In
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 1-
6, 2004; Paper No. 747.
21. ASCE. Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures (ASCE 4-16); American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 2017; Chapter 5 Soil-Structure Interaction modeling and analysis, p.24.
22. Chowdhury, I.; Dasgupta, S. Dynamics of Structure and Foundation-A Unified Approach 2. APPLICATIONS;
Taylor & Francis Ltd.: London, UK, 2009; Chapter 2, Analysis and design of machine foundation—2.4 Effect
of embedment on foundation.
23. Lee, S.; Choo, Y.; Kim, D. Performance of an equivalent shear beam (ESB) model container for dynamic
geotechnical centrifuge tests. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 44, 102–114.
24. Taylor, R. Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology; Taylor & Francis Ltd.: London, UK, 1995; Centrifuge in
modeling: Principle and scale effects, pp. 19–33.
25. Chang, S.; Kim, D.; Kim, D.; Kang, K. Earthquake Response Reduction of Building Structures Using
Learning-Based Lattice Pattern Active Controller. J. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 16, 317–328.
26. Nica, G.; Calofir, V.; Corâci, I. A State Space Formulation for the Evaluation of the Pounding Forces During
Earthquake. Math. Model. Civ. Eng. 2018, 14, 37–49.
27. Karris, S. Introduction to Simulink with Engineering Applications; Orchard Publications: Fremont, CA, USA,
2006; pp. 5–12, Chapter 5 The Discrete Blocks Library.
28. Kalechman, M. Practical MATLAB Basics for Engineers; Taylor & Francis Group LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
2009; pp. 474–481, Chapter 7 Polynomials and Calculus, a Numerical and Symbolic Approach.
29. Ross, P. The handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
1996; Section V Engineering Tools, 55 MATLAB in systems and controls.
30. Chopra, A. Dynamics of Structures; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2007; Section 2.2.4 Free
Vibration Tests.
31. Kim, J.; Choo, Y.; Kim, D. Correlation between the Shear-Wave Velocity and Tip Resistance of Quartz Sand
in a Centrifuge. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2017, 143, 04017083.
32. Cho, H.; Kim, N.; Park, H.; Kim, D. Settlement Prediction of Footings Using VS. Applied Sciences 2017, 7,
1105.
33. Rathje, E.; Abrahamson, N.; Bray, J. Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1998, 124, 150–159.
34. Kottke, A.; Rathje, E. PEER-2008/10: Technical Manual for Strata; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).