Acta Geotechnica

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 761–780 | Cite as

Seismic interaction of underground RC ducts and neighboring bridge piers in liquefiable soil foundation

  • Saeed Moshirabadi
  • Masoud SoltaniEmail author
  • Koichi Maekawa
Research Paper


A coupled system of an underground reinforced concrete (RC) duct and a neighboring bridge pier supported by group piles is numerically investigated in sandy soil at both drained and undrained liquefiable states under seismic ground excitations. Parametric studies are conducted to evaluate influencing factors on seismic performances of these neighboring interactive structural systems. The numerical simulations are performed with the finite element code COM3 (COncrete Model for 3D) (Maekawa, Pimanmas and Okamura in Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete, 2003), which is capable of simulation of inelastic performance of RC structure and high nonlinearity of soil medium, especially on the liquefiable loose sand. It is mechanically pointed out that liquefaction-induced uplift of underground ducts is substantially influenced by the presence of on-ground bridges. Alternatively, inertial forces induced to the on-ground bridge pier are also noticeably affected by the presence of the neighboring underground RC duct. It is pointed in practice of design that these nonlinear interacting responses between these neighboring infrastructures are greatly magnified on liquefiable soil foundations.


Liquefiable soil On-ground bridge pier Seismic performance Structure–soil–structure interaction Underground RC duct 



This study was financially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 23226011.


  1. 1.
    Ashour M, Norris G (2003) Lateral loaded pile response in liquefiable soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng (ASCE) 129(5):404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilotta E, Lanzano G, Madabhushi SPG, Silvestri F (2014) A numerical round robin on tunnels under seismic actions. Acta Geotech 9(4):563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chopra AK, Gutierrez JA (1974) Earthquake response analysis of multistory buildings including foundation interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou JC, Kutter BL, Travasarou T, Chacko JM (2010) Centrifuge modeling of seismically-induced uplift for the BART transbay tube. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(8):754–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deshmukh VB, Dewaikar DM, Choudhury D (2010) Computations of uplift capacity of pile anchors in cohesionless soil. Acta Geotech 5(2):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foster S, Vecchio F, Maekawa K (2008) Practitioners’ guide for finite element modeling of reinforced structures. The state-of-art report, FIB bulletin no. 45, 1st edn. Sprint-Digital-Druck, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gomes RC (2014) Numerical simulation of the seismic response of tunnels in sand with and elastoplastic model. Acta Geotech 9(4):613–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guin J, Banerjee PK (1998) Coupled soil–pile–structure interaction analysis under seismic excitation. J Struct Eng 124(4):434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hejazi Y, Dias D, Kastner R (2008) Impact of constitutive models on the numerical analysis of underground constructions. Acta Geotech 3(4):251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iguchi M (1978) Dynamic interaction of soil-structure with elastic rectangular foundation. In: Proceedings of the 5th Japanese earthquake engineering symposium, Tokyo, pp 457–464Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Isoda S, Nakai N, Orense R, Towhata I (2001) Mitigation of liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structure by using sheet pile wall. In: Proceedings of the soil improvement conference, Singapore, pp 70–77Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiang X, Yan Z (1998) Earthquake response analysis of building–foundation–building interaction system. J Vib Eng 11(1):31–37MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Juang CH, Lu PC, Chen CJ (2002) Predicting geotechnical parameters of sands from CPT measurements using neural networks. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 17:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kato B (1979) Mechanical properties of steel under load cycles idealizing seismic action. In: AICAP–CEB symposium: structural concrete under seismic action, CEB bulletin information, pp 7–27Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katzenbach R, Schmitt A, Turek J (2005) Assessing settlement of high-rise structures by 3D simulations. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 20:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kita H, Iida T, Nishitani M, Noda S (1992) Experimental study on countermeasures for liquefaction by steel piles with drain. In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference in earthquake engineering, Rotterdam, pp 1701–1706Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koseki J, Matsuo O, Koga Y (1997) Uplift behavior of underground structures caused by liquefaction of surrounding soil during earthquake. Soils Found 37(1):97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li B, Maekawa K, Okamura H (1989) Contact density model for stress transfer across crack in concrete. J Fac Eng Univ Tokyo 40(1):9–52Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin HT, Roesset JM, Tassoulas JL (1987) Dynamic interaction between adjacent foundations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 15(3):323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu J, Gao H, Liu H (2012) Finite element analysis of negative skin friction on a single pile. Acta Geotech 7(3):239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luco JE, Contesse L (1973) Dynamic structure–soil–structure interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 63(4):1289–1303Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maekawa K, An X (2000) Shear failure and ductility of RC columns after yielding of main reinforcement. Eng Fract Mech 65(2–3):335–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maekawa K, Pimanmas A, Okamura H (2003) Nonlinear mechanics of reinforced concrete. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maekawa K, Fukuura N, Soltani M (2008) Path-dependent high cycle fatigue modeling of joint interfaces in structural concrete. J Adv Concr Technol 6(1):227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maheshwari BK, Sarkar R (2011) Seismic behavior of soil-pile-structure interaction in liquefiable soils: parametric study. Int J Geomech (ASCE) 11(4):335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maki T, Mutsuyoshi H (2004) Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete piles under ground. J Adv Concr Technol 2(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maki T, Maekawa K, Mutsuyoshi H (2005) RC pile–soil interaction analysis using a 3D-finite element with fiber theory-based beam elements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(13):1587–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Masing G (1926) Eigenspannungen and verfestigungbeim messing. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international congress of the applied mechanics, Zurich, pp 332–335Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murakami H, Luco JE (1977) Seismic response of a periodic array of structures. J Eng Mech (ASCE) 103(5):965–977Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nam SH, Songa HW, Byuna KJ, Maekawa K (2006) Seismic analysis if underground reinforced concrete structures considering elasto-plastic interface element with thickness. Eng Struct 28:1122–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Okhovat MR, Shang F, Maekawa K (2009) Nonlinear seismic response and damage of reinforced concrete ducts in liquefiable soils. J Adv Concr Technol 7(3):439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Osinov VC, Chrisopoulos S, Triantafyllidis T (2013) Numerical study of the deformation of saturated soil in the vicinity of a vibrating pile. Acta Geotech 8(4):439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Soltani M, Maekawa K (2015) Numerical simulation of progressive shear localization and scale effect in cohesionless soil media. Int J Nonlinear Mech 69:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Towhata I, Ishihara K (1985) Modeling soil behaviors under principal stress axes rotation. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on numerical method in geomechanics, Nagoya, pp 523–530Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Uzuoka R, Sento N, Kazama M, Zhang F, Yashima A, Oka F (2007) Three-dimensional numerical simulation of earthquake damage to group-piles in liquefied ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(5):395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vamvatsikos D, Cornel CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Whitman RV, Lambe PC (1986) Effect of boundary conditions upon centrifuge experiments using ground motion simulation. Geotech Test J 9(2):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wong HL, Trifunac MD (1975) Two-dimensional, antiplane, building–soil–building interaction for two or more buildings and for incident plane SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65(6):1863–1885Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wu G, Finn WDL (1997) Dynamic nonlinear analysis of pile foundations using finite element method in the time domain. Can Geotech J 34(1):44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yahyai M, Mirtaheri M, Mahoutian M, Daryan AS (2008) Soil structure interaction between two adjacent buildings under earthquake load. Am J Eng App Sci 1(2):121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhang JM, Wang G (2012) Large post-liquefaction deformation of sand, part I: physical mechanism, constitutive description and numerical algorithm. Acta Geotech 7(2):69–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saeed Moshirabadi
    • 1
  • Masoud Soltani
    • 2
    Email author
  • Koichi Maekawa
    • 3
  1. 1.Earthquake EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations