PAPER

Effect of Inertial and Kinematic Interaction on Seismic

Behavior of V
ypes of Structures
Various
Types
arious T
Akihiro TOYOOKA, Dr
.Eng.
Dr.Eng.
Manager,
Administration Division
Yoshitaka MURONO, Dr
.Eng.
Dr.Eng.
Laboratory Head,
Earthquake and Structural Engineering Laboratory, Structures Technology Division
Yuta NOGAMI
JR East Consultants Company
Takayoshi NISHIMURA
Researcher,
Earthquake and Structural Engineering Laboratory, Structures Technology Division
The research in this paper studies the effect of the response of upper structure and soil
deformation on the overall behavior of structure through static and dynamic analyses.
Several structures with pile foundations, such as bridge pier, viaduct and isolated bridge,
were assumed to be constructed on a soil of good condition. The soil deposit characters
were selected so that their deformations could be regarded as negligible in the design
standard, whereas their shear velocity and resulting strain would change drastically with
the depth. It was clarified through series of simulations that response of soils significantly affects the moment distributions of piles, regardless of the amount of response of
superstructures. It consequently follows that the soil behavior should be properly considered even under good soil condition.
Keywords
Keywords: inertial interaction, kinematic interaction, response displacement method, dynamic analysis

1. Introduction
It has been clarified that the dynamic behavior of a
bridge pier with deep foundations is affected by both inertial force of structure (inertial interaction) and by
ground deformation (kinematic interaction). Kinematic
interaction, however, has not been necessarily taken into
consideration in a design procedure of Japanese design
standard [1], if a natural period of a layered surface soil
is under 0.5sec. It is partly because deformation of such
a stiff soil is regarded as small enough to be neglected
for assessing foundations behavior. Consequently, structures are designed to ensure damage might be suppressed
to the small extent by reducing an inertial force through
use of base isolations. Nonetheless, the large deformations and momentum responses of foundations constructed on the good conditioned soil might take place,
depending on the layered soil properties and its nonlinear behavior. It follows that the severe damage will occur at foundations and structures, if the soils nonlinear
characteristic does not properly taken into consideration.
Since the nonlinear behavior of free-field soil is very complex, it would be difficult to estimate kinematic interaction in a good accuracy only by using one condition such
as the natural period of the surface soil.
Consequently, this research investigates influence of
inertial and kinematic interactions on the behavior of a

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

bridge pier, a viaduct and an isolated bridge in a good

soil condition through static and dynamic analyses. It
was assumed that those structures had pile foundations
and were constructed in a good soil, where deformation
could be regarded as negligible according to the design
standard. The frame model, representing the behaviors
of free-field soil, piles and surrounding soil and superstructures simultaneously, was employed for characterizing assumed structures, by which both inertial and
kinematic interactions were taken into consideration.
Upon maximum distributions and time histories of the
maximum bending moments with regard to superstructures and piles obtained from simulations, structural
responses were investigated in view of effects of inertial
and kinematic interactions.

2. Evaluation of kinematic interaction by using the

displacement response method
In this section, effects of the free-field soil characters on behavior of structures are investigated in a static
manner, namely, by a displacement response method.
This method has already been widely used in seismic
design of railway structures whose dynamic behavior is
simple enough to be characterized by a single-degree-offreedom system.

93

1500

3250

1100
8400
7000
4000

(a) Bridge pier in the

longitudinal direction

2235

4150
850

850

1400

2300

500
2300

1000
L=19000

3000 1000
1000 3000
8000

2235

2000

Cast-in-place
RC piles

Cast-in-place
RC piles

Cast-in-place
RC piles
1000
L=19000

6500

2000
500

3250

8000

8000
6500

1000
500

1000
500

2500

2500

10320

3000 1000
1000 3000
8000

(b) Bridge pier in the

transverse direction

1000
L=19000

750

5000
6500

750

(c) Rigid frame viaduct

in the transverse direction

Fig. 1 Geometry of the assumed structures (unit:mm)

2.1 T
arget structures
Target

2.2 Procedures for obtaining the maximum response

considering inertial and kinematic interactions

The seismic responses of large section piers and castin-place piles were selected for numerical simulation. The
seismic responses of the structure were calculated in both
longitudinal and transverse directions to the track. A
rigid frame viaduct was chosen as another representative structure, and its seismic response in the transverse
direction was also examined. The diameter and length
of the pile were 1.0m and 19m, respectively. Figure 1
illustrates the geometry of the three assumed structures
in this study. As mentioned above, they were designed
so that their dynamic behavior could be accurately expressed in a simple single-degree-of-freedom model.
Table 1 shows the ground soil layer properties for
each structure, with a natural period of 0.48 s. According to the seismic design code for railway structures, this
soil was classified as type G3 whose deformation is regarded as negligible. The objective of the simulation is
to verify whether such a good soils displacement (kinematic interaction) affects the response of piles or not.
The structures were represented by space frame, and
interaction between surface soil and piles were expressed
by introducing nonlinear springs in between.

Table 1 Properties of the layered soil deposit

Soil

Thickness
(m)

N value

Soil density
(kN/m3)

Shear velocity
(m/sec)

Sand

2.6

10

18

147

Sand

15

18

168

Clay

15

135

Clay

6.4

10

16

183

Sand

50

20

250

94

2.2.1 Calculation of inertial force (inertial interaction)

Firstly, fundamental features of the selected structures, such as yielding seismic coefficient khy and corresponding natural period T, were obtained from the nonlinear force-displacement curve of the structure. The
curve was calculated by nonlinear static loading analysis. In this analysis, the inertial force applied to the
structural model was gradually increased, and the corresponding displacement was obtained. The expected
response displacement (= m) and corresponding seismic
coefficient of the structure (=kh) due to inertial force were
then obtained by applying the given khy and T to the nonlinear response spectra. The response spectra according
to surface ground property were available in the design
standard. These successive procedures, commonly used
in a seismic design, are summarized in Fig. 2(b). It should
be noted that the obtained response excludes the effect
of kinematic interaction.
2.2.2

Calculation of soil deformation (kinematic

interaction)

Secondly, each surface soil displacement distribution

according to depth was calculated by using a nonlinear
dynamic analysis. As shown in Fig. 2(c), soil layers were
characterized in relation to the soils mass and spring.
The GHE-S model was employed as a nonlinear model of
the spring in order to express the behavior of the soil.
The L2 earthquake Spectrum II motion assuming the
bedrock motion was given to the bottom of the model,
and time histories of the soil displacement at every depth
were obtained. The motion is defined in the seismic design code for railway structures in Japan, representing
the very rare (Level 2) strong inland earthquake (spectrum II) in the bedrock. Although displacement distribution varied over time, the maximum displacement distribution was to be chosen for carrying out the response

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

Seismic coefficient
Response:kh
Yielding:khy

Inertial
force

T = 2

Soils
deformation

M = y

-5

k hy g

Depth(m)

Inertial
force

Surface 0

Yielding displ. y Expected displ. M

khy,T

-10
-15

expected
ductility=

khy

Bedrock -200 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Deformation (m)
Soil deformation against
given earthquake motion

T
(a) Total response including
inertial and kinematic
(soil) interactions

(b) Response due to inertial interaction

(via nonlinear response spectra)

(c) Maximum soil deformation

(via dynamic analysis)

Fig. 2 Procedures for the response displacement method

analysis in a static mannar. In this paper, the distribution of soil layers displacement at the moment that relative displacement between pile head and tip takes its
maxima is regarded as the inducing displacement to the
structures. Figure 2(c) shows the obtained displacement
response of the soil deposit. It is found that the soils
response changes drastically at depths from 7.5m to 12m
from bottom of the footing, and maximum displacement
at ground surface reached 0.3m.
2.2.3 Synthesizing inertial and kinematic interactions
Finally, the overall response of the given structures
considering both inertial and kinematic interactions was
calculated by combining the response obtained in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. The structures total response was
obtained by giving an inertial force corresponding to the
response seismic coefficient kh to the superstructure, while
applying the soil layers displacement distribution to the
foundation via nonlinear springs. The schematic explanation of the procedure is shown in Fig. 2(a). In this

method, it is assumed that the responses due to inertial

force and soil deformation take their maxima simultaneously. Such an event might occur if the structure has a
large nonlinear response. Following this, the response due
to the soil displacement was simply added to that due to
inertial interaction to obtain the total response of the
structure.
2.3 Results and discussions
Table 2 shows the seismic properties of the analyzed
structures obtained from static nonlinear analysis. Table
2 also includes the calculated seismic responses of the
superstructures using nonlinear response spectra. In addition, Figures 3, 4 and 5 show the maximum bending
moment, shear force and curvature distributions of the
piles according to the depth. In these figures, responses
due to inertial force (Case 1) are compared with those
considering both inertial and kinematic interactions
(Case2). It was found from these figures that two different peaks at depths of around 5m and 12m exist in the

Table 2 Properties and seismic responses obtained for the assumed structures
Unit

Pier
(transverse)

Pier
(longitudinal)

Rigid frame
viaduct
(transverse)

(kN)

8030

8750

1885

at yielding

0.68

0.41

0.60

at maximum
response

0.78

0.46

0.75

at yielding

(mm)

105.0

154.0

70.0

(mm)

332.0

491.0

187.0

(s)

0.95

1.02

0.68

Weight of superstructure

Seismic
coefficient

Displacement

at maximum
response

Equivalent natural period

of structure
Natural period of surface soil

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

(s)

0.48

95

2.3.1 Piles responses (in the 10m to the bottom of the

footing)
Figure 3 shows the maximum responses of the piles
in the transverse direction to the track. This figure reveals that responses considering both inertial force and
soil deformation (Case 2) were almost identical to those
only due to inertial force (Case 1). Since the inertial force
was obtained by multiplying the weight by the response
seismic coefficient of the superstructure, large mass and
seismic coefficient shown in Table 2 produced a relatively
larger inertial force which dominates the overall momentum and shear force responses. It follows that the soil
deformation was less effective against the total response
in this case. In case of maximum curvature distribution,
however, significantly large response was found in Fig.
3 due to the yielding of the pile.
The maximum responses of the same pier in the longitudinal direction to the track (Fig. 4), on the contrary,
moment distribution of Case 1 was relatively smaller
than that of Case 2. Although the properties of the surface ground and piles in Fig. 4 were the same as those of
Fig. 3, the response seismic coefficient in the longitudinal direction to the track was much smaller than that in
the transverse direction (see Table 2). Since the section
of the pier was rectangular as illustrated in Fig. 1(a)
and Fig. 1(b), the section areas, moment of inertias and
resulting seismic coefficients were different according
to the direction of motion. In fact, the inertial force of
superstructure in the longitudinal direction was reduced
by 40% compared to that in the transverse direction. It
consequently follows that, unlike the structure discussed
in Fig. 3, both inertial and kinematic interactions affected the total response of the pile in Fig. 4.
Figure 5 shows the piles maximum responses for
rigid frame viaduct in transverse direction to the track.
The figure illustrates that the maximum moment distri-

Depth from bottom of footing(m)

Only inertial force (Case 1)

Inertial & kinematic interactions (Case 2)

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

-10

-15

-15

-15

-20
-20
0 500 1000 1500 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
0
1000 2000
Max. moment (kN-m) Max. shear force (kN) Max. curvature (1/m)

-20

Only inertial force (Case 1)

Depth from bottom of footing(m)

distribution of the piles maximum responses. The causes

of these peaks are closely investigated below through
separate discussion of the responses for areas down to
10m from the bottom of the footing and those deeper than
10m.

Inertial & kinematic interactions (Case 2)

-5

-5

-5

-10

-10

-10

-15

-15

-15

-20
-20
0 500 1000 1500 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
0 1000 2000
Max. moment (kN-m) Max. shear force (kN) Max. curvature(1/m)

-20

Fig. 4 Maximum response distributions of pile

(bridge pier
pier,, longitudinal direction to the track)
bution in Case 2 was totally different from that in Case
1, as kinematic interaction is relatively dominant in the
total response. It is quite similar to Fig. 4 because weight
of the rigid frame viaduct was 80% less than that of the
pier structure (see Table 2), and inertial force was
smaller accordingly.
It is concluded from the discussions above that even
for the same surface ground property and earthquake
cause different response of foundation in accordance with
the characteristics of the superstructure and direction
of motion. It consequently follows that consideration of
both inertial and kinematic interactions is indispensable
for obtaining the foundations response in a good accuracy.
2.3.2 Piles responses (at positions deeper than 10m)
Figures 3, 4 and 5 show that the effect of inertial
force (Case 1) is negligible at depths beyond 10m, unlike
for shallow area discussed in section 2.3.1. These results
agree with the past research that response of piles is
affected by an inertial interaction only in areas close to
the ground surface, down to approximately 10m in this
simulation. However, in Case 2, significantly large moments and shear forces were observed at depths of around
10 to 12 m in all simulations. Since the inertial force
was less effective against the response of pile in deeper
areas, those responses were caused by the deformation
of the surface soil. In fact, locations of these peaks correspond to the depths where large discontinuity in surface soils property was observed (see Fig. 2(c)). It should
be recalled that the deformation of the assumed freefield soil is regarded as negligible, according to the design standard. Nevertheless, its displacement may cause
significant foundation response depending on the distribution of shear velocity or impedance of layered soil. It
consequently follows that not only the effect of inertial
force but also kinematic interaction should be properly
characterized and evaluated so as to avoid the unexpected damage to the foundations.

Fig. 3 Maximum response distributions of pile

(bridge pier
pier,, transverse direction to the track)
96

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

Inertial & kinematic interactions (Case 2)

Longitudinal direction
(Direction of analysis)

0
Girder

2500

Longitudinal direction
(Direction of analysis)

-5

-5

-5

Pier
2300D3000W8000H

7500
2850

-10

-10

-10

3000 1000

Bearing (Fix or isolator)

2300

2850

500

1000 3000

Depth from bottom of footing (m)

Only inertial force (Case 1)

2300
Evaluated pile
(Section 4.4)

-15

-15

-15

-20

-20

-20

Cast-in-place piles
D10008-19m
1000

0
1000 2000
Max. moment(kN-m)

0 500 1000 1500 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

Max. shear force (kN) Max. curvature (1/m)

3.1 T
arget structure with isolation bearings
Target
The PRC girder (span=29.2m) supported by the RC
column and cast-in-place piles (diameter = 1000mm,
length=19m) was adopted as the bridge model for this
dynamic analysis. The geometry of the structure is shown
in Fig. 6. The pile head were rigidly connected to the
footing. In the following simulations, two different types
of supports installed between the girder and the pier were
assumed: a fixed support and an isolation bearing. The
fixed support bearing directly transmits the inertial force
of the girder to the pier and the foundation, whereas the
isolation bearing moderates it. That is to say, soil deformation rather than inertial force might dominate the
piles response of isolated structure.
These structures and foundations were embedded in
the layered soil deposit with properties as listed in Table
3. It is estimated from the table that large deformation
of free-filed soils and piles might take place due to the
shear velocity discontinuity at depths of around 12m from
the bottom of the foundation. According to the 1/4 wavelength law designated in the Japanese seismic design
standard, however, this soil condition was classified as

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

(b) Top view of footing

Fig. 6 Geometry of the assumed structure (unit:mm)

Table 3 Properties of the layered soil deposit
Soil

In the previous chapter, simple structures whose vibration characteristics could be modeled as a single-degree-of-freedom system were investigated by means of
static-based analyses. These simulations revealed the
both inertial and kinematic interactions affect the response of the foundation even if the soil condition is regarded as good. In case of more complicated structures
such as isolated bridges, however, dynamic analyses
should be conducted in order to comprehend the seismic
response including the coupling of multiple vibration
modes or nonlinear behaviors. In this section, another
simulation was therefore conducted for an isolated
bridge, in order to verify whether the results obtained
from the static-based analysis could be applicable to more
complicated dynamic systems.

3000 1000

3000 1000

(a) Elevation

Fig. 5 Maximum response distributions of pile

(rigid frame viaduct, transverse direction to the track)
3. Evaluation of kinematic interaction by dynamic
analysis

3000

1000 3000

Thickness
(m)

N value

Soil density
(kN/m3)

Shear velocity
(m/sec)

Backfill

3.3

16

100

Clay

2.6

16

170

Clay

10

16

215

Clay

16

160

Clay

6.4

20

16

270

Sand

50

20

400

a good soil condition, in which the effect of soil deformation on piles is regarded as negligible.
3.2 Overview of the dynamic analysis
3.2.1 Numerical model considering soil deformation
The comprehensive frame model shown in Fig. 7 was
employed to evaluate the response of the structure, foundation and free-field soil. In the model, the superstructure, its foundation and soil behavior in the vicinity of
piles were characterized by a combination of lumped
mass and nonlinear beams-springs. The key feature of
the model is the bunch of layered lumped masses and
nonlinear shear springs, representing the behavior of a
free-filed soil deposit. This free-field soil model was attached to the piles by nonlinear horizontal springs, representing the behavior of the soils horizontal subgrade
reaction around piles.
This modeling is analogous to the Penzien-type model
[2] except that no preliminary simulation is needed to
obtain the deformation, velocity and acceleration of freefield soil. Figure 7 shows that the earthquake motion
induced in the seismic bedrock deforms the free-field layered soil, and also excites the bridge and its foundation.
This model is both precise and economical from the viewpoint that the inertial and kinematic interactions as well
as behavior of free-field soils can be evaluated simultaneously. Details of the modeling are mentioned in the
following sections.

97

Girder (7344kN)
Bearing (fixed or isolator)
Pier (M- beam)

Horizontal subgrade reaction (spring)

(between free-field soils and piles)
Free-field soil pillar

Footing (rigid bar)

Soil mass
(100footing area: H=1m)

Characteristic length of piles (1/)

Shear spring
(R-O+Masing rule)
Piles (M- beam)

Skin friction on pile (spring)

Seismic bedrock
Vertical subgrade reaction
at tip of pile (spring)

Fig. 7

Dashpot
Free surface motion (2E): Level2-spectrum II(G1)

Comprehensive plane frame model considering

inertial and kinematic interactions

3.2.2 Models for piers, piles and bearings

The nonlinear behavior of the pier and piles was represented by the moment-curvature relationship according to the geometry and material property of each column section. The nonlinear characters for piers and piles
are shown in Table 4. The skeleton curve was represented
by a tri-linear curve, including the cracking of cover concrete (Mc), yielding of reinforced bars (My) and the maximum resistance moment ( Mm). In modelling the piles, termination of the reinforcement was not taken into consideration, and behavior of multiple piles in the transverse
direction to the track was summarized as a single beam
model. A modified Takedas rule was then employed for
both the pier and piles to represent their hysteretic behavior.
Table 5 shows the geometry and material properties
of the isolation bearings installed between the girder and
the pier. It is assumed in the simulation that the existing fixed support was replaced by three lead rubber bearings, or LRBs. A strain-dependent bi-linear model was
used for the bearing, since the tangent stiffness of the
isolation bearing strongly depends on its maximum and
cumulative strains.

Table 4 Moment-curvature relations

Pier

Piles

Mc(kN-m)

My(kN-m)

Mm(kN-m)

c(1/m)

3758.4

y(1/m)

m(1/m)

27874.2

31205.7

0.00011

0.00235

0.0301

910.9

1678.5

1706.2

0.00085

0.00520

0.0367

Table 5 Characters of isolation bearing

Geometry

98

600 600 mm

Thickness of rubber

12 mm

Number of rubber layers

10

Diameter and amount of lead

100 mm 4

Shear module of rubber

1.0 N/mm2 (G10)

3.2.3 Models for ground resistance and the layered freefield soil deposit
The horizontal ground resistance property in the vicinity of the piles was characterized by an elasto-plastic
model. The hysteretic model was classified according to
the depth and the characteristic length of the piles:
= 4 K h D / 4 EI . In addition, skin frictions on the pile and
vertical subgrade reaction at the pile tip were characterized by a bi-linear model. The stiffness and resisting
force for these models were determined by the design
standard of foundation for railway structures, which
considers the group pile effect.
The free-field soil deposits were modeled as a soil
pillar, with the ground equally divided into the vertical
ground depths of 1m in the vertical direction. The section area of the each pillar was 100 times as large as
that of the footing, i.e. large enough to prevent the influence of structure-foundation behavior on free-filed
response. This section area size was determined through
preliminary numerical simulations. Each soil pillar was
then characterized by a group of lumped masses and
nonlinear shear springs, and each mass was connected
to the piles by nonlinear soil springs. The hysteretic behavior of the free-fields shear springs were represented
by the following Ramberg-Osgood model and Masings
rule [3], such that

Gmax

1 +
f

Gmax = Vs2 , = 2 1 , =

(1)

2 + hmax
, f = Gmax r , (2)
2 hmax

where is shear stress, is shear strain, is soil

density, Vs is shear velocity (m/s), hmax is maximum damping ratio and r is reference strain. Since the soil deposit
assumed for the simulation consists of bunch of clay (See
Table 3), h max and r were given as 0.20 and 0.001 respectively.
3.2.4 Input motion and analysis method
For input motion, the Level 2 spectrum II motion
assumed in the seismic bedrock was applied to the bottom of the model. Since the motion is determined on a
free surface, a dashpot depicted in Fig. 7 was introduced
to dissipate the downward wave.
Numerical simulations were carried out by employing the Newmarks method ( =1/4). Rayleighs proportional damping was used in the simulations. The damping factors were determined by the strain energy proportional damping method and elements damping factors. Damping factors of the structural elements assumed
were as follows: 0% for isolation bearings and footing,
2% for bridge pier, 3% for piles, 2% for free-filed soil layers, and 20% for soils in the vicinity of piles. The numerical simulations were carried out in parallel to and
in the longitudinal direction to the track. Liquefaction
was not taken into consideration in the simulations.

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

3.2.5 Evaluation of kinematic and inertial interactions

M i (t , z ) = M t (t , z ) M k (t , z ) ,

(3)

where, Mt(t , z) is an overall moment obtained from

Case 1 or 2 models, and Mk( t, z) is a moment due to soil
deformation in Case 3.
3.3 Results of simulation and discussion
3.3.1 Pier and girder responses
According to preliminary modal analyses, natural
periods of the base model and isolation model were 0.76s
and 1.16s respectively. Yielding stiffness was used to
compose the total stiffness matrices for the modal analysis. These periods correspond to the primary modes in
which the swaying motion of the superstructure and
foundation is dominant. Figure 8 shows the absolute response spectra under 5% damping with respect to the
bedrock and surface accelerations. The surface acceleration time history was calculated using the Case 3 model.
It is estimated from the natural periods and the bedrock
spectrum that the maximum pier acceleration response
can be reduced by approximately 37% by using isolation
bearings. However, its reduction effect might be different in a dynamic analysis due to the nonlinear behaviors of pier and piles.
Figure 9 illustrates the moment versus curvature
responses at the bottom of the pier with and without
isolation bearings. The figure shows that maximum curvature responses reduced from 0.040 (1/m) to 0.0025 (1/
m) due to these isolators. Figure 10 compares the displacement of girders relative to the ground with and
without isolators. It is found that the girders maximum

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

Abs. Acc. (gal)

1500
Base model (Case 1)

1000

Isolated model (Case 2)

500
0

0.2

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Natural period (sec)

1.4

Fig. 8 Absolute acceleration response spectra at bedrock

and surface (5% damping)

Base model (Case1)

Isolation model (Case2)

30000
20000

Moment (kN-m)

The responses with regard to the pier and piles including both inertial and kinematic interactions were
evaluated in the Case 1 and Case 2 simulations. The Case
3 model was used to calculate the response excluding
inertial interaction. The effects of kinematic and inertial interactions were then approximately distinguished
by combining the results of the Case 1, 2 and 3. That is
to say, the moment response of the pile due to the inertial interaction at time=t and depth=z, or Mi(t, z), was estimated as follows [4].

2000

10000
0
-10000
-20000
-30000
-40000

0.0025

0.04

-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00

Curvature (1/m)

0.01

Fig. 9 Moment-curvature responses at bottom of pier with

and without isolation bearings
40
20

Displ. (cm)

Case1: Model with fixed supports (base model)

Case2: Model with isolation bearings (isolation model)
Case3: Model without considering weight of the pier and
girders (soil model)

Bedrock (input)
Ground surface

2500

0
-20
-40

44.6
-59.3

-60
0

Base model (Case 1)

Isolation model (Case2)

20
30
40
Time (sec)
Fig. 10 Displacements of girder relative to the ground

10

800
600
400
Force (kN)

The kinematic as well as inertial interactions affecting the resulting dynamic responses of the pier and piles
cannot be evaluated independently due to the aforementioned nonlinearity. However, responses due to inertial
interaction should be distinguished from kinematic influences to assess the effect of introducing isolation bearings. In order to overcome the inconsistency, following
three simulation models were prepared, by which the
contribution of kinematic with inertial interactions on
overall response of pier and piles were approximately
distinguished.

3000

200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800

-40

-20

0
20
Displ. (cm)

40

Fig. 1
1 T
otal hysteresis of three isolators
11
Total

99

and residual displacements were also reduced by using

the isolation bearings. The total hysteretic behavior of
three isolation bearings is depicted in Fig. 11. It is estimated that the large energy dissipation of the isolation
bearing contributed to the reduction of pier and girder
responses.
3.3.2 Contribution of kinematic and inertial interactions
to pile moments
Figure 12(a) shows the maximum strain distribution
of the free-field soil deposit obtained in Case 3. In the
figure, the depth=0m corresponds to the bottom level of
the footing. It was found that the large deformation of
piles might take place at depths at around 12m below
the footing, where the discontinuity in shear strain is
relatively larger.
Figure 12 (b) illustrates the maximum distributions
of piles moments with and without isolation bearings.
Figure 12(c) and Figure 12(d) are inertial and kinematic
interactions affecting the total moment responses shown
in Fig. 12(b). The total moments, Fig. 12(b), were obtained by simply plotting the maximum moment of pile
at all depths from Case 1 and Case 2 simulations. In the
same way, the pile response distribution due to soil deformation shown in Fig. 12(d), was calculated from Case
3. Based on these distributions, moments due to inertial
interaction were evaluated as illustrated in Fig.12(c) by
incorporating the equation (3). It should be noted that
the times at which maximum pile node moments take
place differ in these figures.
It is observed from Fig. 12(c) that the pile moments
due to inertial interaction were reduced if the depth was
shallower than 10m. It is estimated that the use of an
isolation bearing reduced the inertial force of the superstructure transmitting to the foundation, by softly supporting the girder. However, large soil strain observed
in Fig. 12(d) significantly contributed to the piles response where the depth was 10m or more, regardless of

Base model (Case1)

4. Conclusions
In this research, contributions of inertial and kinematic interactions to the behavior of a bridge pier, a viaduct and an isolated bridge in a good soil condition were
studied through static and dynamic analyses. It was assumed that those structures have pile foundation and
were constructed in a good soil, whose deformation could
be regarded as negligible according to the design standard. The results presented in the paper are as follows.
(1) The effect of free-field soil deformation (kinematic
interaction) cannot necessarily be regarded as neg-

w/ isolation bearings (Case 2)

0

-2

-2

-2

-2

-4

-4

-4

-4

-6

-6

-6

-6

-8

-8

-8

-8

-10

-10

-10

-10

-12

-12

-12

-14

-14

-14

-14

-16

-16

-16

-16

-18

-18

-18

0
Depth from bottom of footing (m)

with and without isolation bearings (See Fig. 12(b) and

Fig. 12(d)). Inertial interaction had less effect on piles
response in such a deep zone as demonstrated in both
the static analysis and dynamic simulations, say, Case 1
and Case 2 in Fig. 12(b). These results imply that the
reduction of inertial force by means of isolation bearings does not necessarily contribute to the reduction of
the total momentum response of a pile.
It consequently follows that the deformation of freefield soil and subsequent kinematic interaction should
be properly characterized and evaluated in order to avoid
underestimating the response of foundations, depending on the distribution of shear velocity or impedance of
layered soil. In addition, the natural period of the freefield soil deposit, widely used for seismic design, is not
necessarily an appropriate index to estimate whether the
kinematic interaction will be dominant or not in the
structure. The comprehensive characterization of structures considering superstructure-foundation-soil interactions, such as the frame model used for this study or
FEM analysis, are required in order to estimate the response of foundation in a good accuracy, particularly if
the shear velocity and/or impedance between soil layers
change drastically.

-12

-18
-20
0.00

-20

0.01

0.02

0.03

Max. soil strain

(a) Shear strain of soil

-20
0

2000

4000

6000

Max. moment (kN-m)

2000

4000

6000

-20

(b) Total moment

(c) Inertial interaction
(inertial & kinematic)

2000

4000

6000

Max. moment (kN-m)

Max. moment (kN-m)

(b) Kinematic interaction

Fig. 12 Maximum distributions of soil strain and pile moments

100

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

ligible for the evaluation of the foundation response,

particularly if superstructures inertial force is relatively small compared to the soil deformation.
(2) The response of a pile far from the ground surface,
where little inertial force is transmitted, is strongly
affected by soil deformation if the given soil property has a large discontinuity in shear velocity distribution. This means that a structure such as an
isolated bridge will not necessarily intact after strong
motion in view of damage of foundation, even if its
inertial force is suppressed to a small extent.
(3) Free-field soil deformation and subsequent kinematic
interaction should be properly characterized and
evaluated in order to avoid underestimation of the
foundation response, depending on the distribution
of shear velocity or impedance of layered soil. In addition, the natural period of the free-field soil deposit, widely used for seismic design, is not necessarily an appropriate index to estimate whether the
kinematic interaction will be dominant or not to the
structure. The comprehensive characterization of
structures considering superstructure-foundationsoil interactions, such as the frame model used for
this study or FEM analysis, are required in order to
accurately estimate the response of foundation, particularly if the impedance between soil layers
changes drastically.

QR of RTRI, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 2012

References
[1] Railway Technical Research Institute (supervised
:Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), Design standard for railway structures and commentary (seismic design), Maruzen, 1999 (in Japanese).
[2] Penzien, J. and Scheffey, C.F. and Parmelee, R.A.,
Seismic Analysis of Bridges on Long Piles, Journal
of the Engineering Mechanics Div. Proc. of ASCE, Vol.90,
No.EM3, pp.223-254, 1964.
[3] Jennings,P.C., Periodic response of general yielding structure, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Div. Proc. of ASCE, EM2, 1964.
[4] Murono,Y. and Nishimura, A., Evaluation of seismic force of pile foundation induced by inertial and
kinematic interaction, Proc. of 12th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, No.1496, 2000.
[5] Tokimatsu, K. and Suzuki, H. and Sato, M., Effect
of inertial and kinematic interaction on seismic behavior of pile with embedded foundation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering . Vol 25, pp.753762, 2005.

101