Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

A simplied empirical method for assessing seismic soil-structure

interaction effects on ordinary shear-type buildings
Stefano Renzi n, Claudia Madiai, Giovanni Vannucchi
Universit di Firenze, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, 50123 Firenze, Italy

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 23 May 2012
Received in revised form
16 September 2013
Accepted 18 September 2013
Available online 8 October 2013

The benecial or detrimental effect of seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI) is still a controversial issue.
A parametric analysis of the seismic SSI effects of a large number of idealised ordinary shear-type
buildings was carried out with some simplifying assumptions. Results were compared to the corresponding classical xed-base solutions.
Structures were modelled as generalised single degree of freedom systems using the principle of
virtual displacements and shallow squared foundations resting on different soil types were assumed.
The outcomes of the numerical analyses were used as a statistical base in order to obtain simple
analytical and non-dimensional relationships for estimating seismic SSI effects in terms of modied
period and damping.
The proposed approximated method can be used by consultants in an immediate and simplied
manner in order to obtain a preliminary evaluation of SSI effects and seismic demand without devoting
resources to complex analyses.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Seismic soil-structure interaction
SSI simplied procedure
Modied structural damping and period
Modied structural seismic demand

1. Introduction
Due to evidence of historical earthquakes, the importance of
achieving an acceptable level of safety for ordinary shear-type
buildings, as element at risk, is undisputed. It is also well known
that seismic Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) can play a relevant role
even if the issue is not free from misconceptions.
The dynamic response of a structure supported on soft soil may
differ substantially in amplitude and frequency content from the
response of an identical structure founded on rm ground.
The main effects of seismic SSI on buildings with shallow
foundations consist of an increase in the fundamental period and
damping of the soil-structure system, as evidenced by many
researchers [18].
In addition, other effects of SSI, such as foundation uplift and
sliding at the soil-foundation interface, were analysed by several
authors [916]. The latter phenomena can occur when seismically
induced loads attain a limit value, the soil-foundation system
initiates signicant yielding and foundation permanent displacements take place, with accumulation of large residual foundation
rotations and horizontal displacements. Such effects, particularly
associated with strong earthquakes, involve non linearity and will
not be considered in this paper.

Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 347 1945 409.

E-mail address: renzi.stefano@gmail.com (S. Renzi).

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.09.012

In literature, different ways for studying SSI have been adopted,

i.e. theoretical, physical and numerical modelling [1719].
Despite extensive research over the past 40 years, there is still
controversy regarding the role of fundamental period lengthening
and damping increase due to Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) in the
seismic performance of structures founded on soft soil. As a matter
of fact, the idealised design spectra of the seismic codes along with
such modications lead invariably to reduced design base shear
(Fig. 1). For this reason, neglecting SSI effects is currently being
suggested in many seismic codes (e.g. ATC-3-06 [20], NEHRP-97
[21]), as a conservative simplication that supposedly leads to
improved safety margins [22], at least for ordinary structures.
Moreover, the computational difculties in evaluating the
effects of seismic SSI discourage consultants faced with this task
and, as a consequence, these effects are often neglected in
engineering practice even though they may be relevant.
The effect of seismic SSI has in fact been recognised as being
important by many researchers [2238]. In general, it cannot be
neglected and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the
opinion of the authors it should sometimes be opportunely estimated
even for ordinary structures, such those investigated in this paper, for
the following reasons: (i) with reference to displacement design
spectra incorporated in most seismic codes, the effect of seismic SSI
may induce excessive displacements to structures (this must be taken
into account for example for adjacent structures, Service Limit State
analyses, etc.); (ii) the modied seismic behaviour of structures, both
in terms of stresses and strains, could in some cases produce a

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

101

parameters of the soil-foundation-superstructure systems and

~
the ratios T~ =T and =.

Fig. 1. Reduction in design base shear due to SSI ( according to NEHRP seismic
coad [21]).

detrimental effect on structures, as shown by many documented

evidences around the world, e.g. during the Bucharest (1977), Mexico
City (1985) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes. Hence, whenever the
seismic design is performed using actual or synthetic earthquakes,
representative of the local seismicity, the effect of SSI could be
detrimental even in terms of pseudo-spectral acceleration. Nevertheless, as mentioned before, rigorous assessment of seismic SSI is not
a simple task due to the difculties associated with the evaluation of
kinematic and inertial effects.
In the literature some methods are available for the evaluation
of the SSI effects. The most currently used methods [2,4,5,8,
26,35,39] provide approximate solutions or charts and require
the knowledge of the impedance matrices of the soil-foundation
system. An exact solution that does away with the approximations
of the previous available approaches has recently been proposed
[40], requiring the knowledge of the dynamic impedance matrices.
The aim of the present paper is to provide a practical tool,
capable of offering a satisfactory trade-off between rigour and
simplicity, to obtain an approximate but reliable estimate of SSI
effects in terms of modied damping and period of ordinary sheartype structures with surface squared foundations. A wide range of
soil-foundation-superstructure systems were examined and simple numerical relationships from statistical analyses of the
obtained results are nally proposed.
Even if the preliminary determination of dynamic impedance
matrices was still required in the method developed in this study,
the numerical relationships obtained from the authors can be
applied by nal users without calculating these matrices.

2. Analyses performed
Extensive numerical analyses of simplied superstructurefoundation-soil models [41,42] were performed in order to evaluate SSI effects and summarise the results in equations obtained
from statistical analyses. The adopted procedure can be summarised as follows:
(1) Computation of soil-foundation impedance matrices. Horizontal and rocking components were numerically evaluated using
the computer programme SASSI2000.
(2) Idealisation of shear-type buildings. Superstructures were
modelled as equivalent SDF systems having a fundamental
period T and damping ratio .
(3) Estimate of SSI effects. Modied period T~ and damping ratio ~
of the analysed soil-foundation-superstructure systems were
evaluated by means of a recent exact solution.
(4) Statistical analyses of the results from step 3. Analytical relationships were obtained between the main non dimensional

In order to show the effectiveness of such expressions, a

systematic comparison between the values of the ratios T~ =T and
~
=
estimated by the proposed relationships and computed by
applying steps 1 to 3.
The SSI effects were analysed using a substructuring approach:
the problem is broken down into a series of subsystems which are
solved separately then reassembled using the principle of superposition, requiring as assumption soil and structural linear
behaviour.
A wide range of soil-foundation-superstructure congurations
were examined. Shear-type buildings (up to 20 storeys) having a
exural rst mode of vibration were modelled as generalised
Single Degree of Freedom (SDF) systems, with squared shallow
foundations resting on homogeneous subsoil.
The analyses were performed under the following simplied
assumptions:
 Regular plan and elevation shear-type buildings were considered. Since their seismic response is not signicantly affected
by contribution from higher modes of vibration, they were
modelled as equivalent SDF systems, whose modied fundamental period was evaluated for exural mode.
 Squared raft foundations were analysed; this particular shape
combined with a symmetrical superstructure shows the same
behaviour in terms of lateral stiffness in both x- and ydirections.
 Rigid foundations were considered.
 Homogeneous soil deposit, with constant shear stiffness and
damping, was assumed.

2.1. Computation of soil-foundation impedance matrices

As suggested by many Codes (e.g. FEMA 368 [43] and FEMA 369
[44]) the compliance of the subsoil was accurately evaluated by
Finite Element Method (FEM) using the computer programme
SASSI2000 [45,46]. The analyses were performed to estimate the
horizontal and rocking foundation impedance matrices; in such
preliminary analysis the foundation mass does not play a signicant role, as a matter of fact, the numerous existing formula and
charts proposed in the related literature [2,4,5,8,26,35,39] always
refer to massless foundation.
Thus, rigid and massless foundation rafts were modelled by
means of 3D brick nite elements. Surface squared raft foundations of characteristic length, b5, 12.5 and 25 m, resting on
different subsoil congurations, were considered.
The subsoil is modelled as a homogeneous viscoelastic halfspace or as a homogeneous viscoelastic horizontal deposit resting
on an elastic bedrock. In the latter case the bedrock was assumed
at ve different depths, Hdep 5, 10, 20, 50 m (it should be noted
that for the halfspace conguration Hdep p ).
In the viscoelastic halfspace conguration a viscous boundary
was assumed, in order to account for radiation damping in the
halfspace through the lower boundary and to avoid wave
reections.
For the numerical analyses the deposit was subdivided into
different sublayers. Each of them was identied by its thickness,
unit weight, shear-wave velocity (VS), compressional-wave velocity (VP) and associated damping ratio.
In order to evaluate the inuence of soil shear-wave velocities
on SSI effects, three different types of homogeneous soils were
selected for the subsequent analyses, i.e. VS 80, 200 and 320 m/s
(corresponding to effective shear modulus values of 12, 77 and

102

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

Fig. 3. General 2D model.

Fig. 2. Impedance scheme.

198 MPa respectively for a soil unit weight of 19 kN/m3); soil

damping, s, was assumed equal to 5% in all cases analysed.
Bedrock shear wave velocity was supposed equal to 800 m/s.
Interaction between soil and foundation occurs only at their
common nodes.
The impedance matrices K and C of the rigid and massless
foundations were computed from the foundation compliance
matrices, whose columns were obtained by applying a unit force or
moment in the desired direction at the foundation level (Fig. 2), and
computing the resulting real and imaginary part of displacements and
rotations of that point. Finally, by inverting the compliance matrices,
the corresponding impedance matrices were computed.
It is worth mentioning that, since the purpose of numerical
analysis is to estimate impedance matrices, no seismic response
analysis was performed.
Fig. 4. Lateral forces assumed to obtain the shape function from static deection.

2.2. Idealisation of shear-type buildings

A set of shear-type buildings, squared in plane, with a maximum of 20 storeys, each 3 m tall, squared columns having a
minimum section of 30  30 cm2, beams having rectangular sections (20  45 cm2), forming 5 m squared frames (Fig. 3) were
considered in the analyses.
The presence of an elevator was assumed in all the cases
examined; such horizontal reinforcement gives rise to an increment in the lateral stiffness of the structure.
Different types of loads were taken into account: (i) accidental
loads Qk 2.00 kN/m2; (ii) oor self-load Gkf 4.81 kN/m2; (iii)
external masonry (thickness 40 cm) Gkm 3.70 kN/m2.
Such structures were modelled as generalised Single Degree of
Freedom (SDF) systems using the principle of virtual displacements.
As evidenced in literature [47], the analysis of an equivalent
SDF system provides exact results for an assemblage of rigid
bodies supported so that it can deect in only one shape. The
approximate natural frequency is shown to depend on the
assumed deected shape
The assumed deection can be related to a single generalised
displacement z(t) through a shape function (x) that approximates
the fundamental vibration mode.
In the analyses the deected shape due to static forces was
adopted as an approximate shape function (x). The lateral force
for each oor was assumed in the horizontal direction and equal to
wi mii, where mi is the oor mass and g the acceleration of
gravity.
The fundamental frequency 0 for a building with j storeys, was
estimated from the set of forces shown in Fig. 4, which leads to the
following evaluation:
v
u
ugN
j 1 mj uj
1
0 t N
j 1 mj u2j
This equation appears in the seismic design provisions of some
building codes, e.g. in the 2005 edition of the National Building

Code of Canada (NBCC) [48] and in the 2004 edition of the Mexico
Federal District Code (MFDC) [49].
Following the method previously described, each superstructure was modelled as a SDF system, having equivalent height, heq,
equivalent mass, meq, and equivalent stiffness, keq, with 5% viscous
damping ratio.
At this stage of the procedure the foundation mass, mb, was
introduced, considering a 1 m thick foundation in all the cases
under investigation.
As previously mentioned, a linear approach was applied,
ignoring the nonlinear interaction effects of the soil-foundation
system.
2.3. Estimate of SSI effects
The classical approach for elasto-dynamic analysis of SoilStructure Interaction [39,40] aims at replacing the actual structure
by an equivalent Single Degree of Freedom (SDF) (see Section 2.2)
system supported on a set of frequency-dependent springs and
dashpots accounting for the stiffness and damping of the compliant soil-foundation system (see Section 2.1).
The structure is described by its stiffness k, mass m, height h,
and damping coefcient c (Fig. 5a). The foundation consists of a
rigid shallow squared raft of characteristic dimension b (half
width) and mass mb resting on a homogeneous, linearly elastic,
isotropic halfspace described by a shear modulus Gs, mass density s,
Poisson's ratio s, and hysteretic damping ratio s.
Translational and rotational stiffness, Kx and Kr respectively, of
the compliant soil-foundation system, are modelled by a pair of
frequency-dependent springs. To ensure uniform units in all
stiffness terms, Kr is represented by a translational vertical spring
acting at the edge of the foundation (i.e. at a distance b from the
centre of the footing).
Translational and rotational damping, Cx and Cr respectively, of
the compliant soil-foundation system, are modelled by a pair of
frequency-dependent dashpots, attached in parallel to the springs,

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

representing energy loss due to hysteretic action and wave radiation in the soil medium.
The stiffness and damping terms of both the structure and the
soil-foundation system can be condensed in two terms [39,40], K~
~ The corresponding system is represented by the replaceand C.
ment oscillator shown in Fig. 5b.
Superstructure-foundation-soil model parameters (Hdep, VS, heq,
meq, keq, b and mb) were selected in order to be representative of a
wide range of actual systems; SSI analyses were performed on 563
different models.
Period lengthening and effective damping of each analysed SSI
system were calculated by systematic application of the exact
solution recently proposed by Maravas et al. [40] (Eqs. (2) and (3)
and compared to the corresponding values of the xed-base
structure.
The method contains no approximations in the derivation of
~ of the
~ and effective damping, ,
the fundamental natural period, ,
system. Furthermore, the exact frequency-varying foundation
impedances may be employed.
The properties of the replacement oscillator are given by
x
r

2 1 42
2 1 42
2 1 42

r
x
r
~ x
1
1
1

2x 1 42x 2r 1 42r 2 1 42

"
~ 2 1 4

103

2
2
2
~
~
~
14
14
2
2
2
2
2
x 1 4x
r 1 4r
1 42

#1

3
q2
q
q
i
where x Kmx , r K r b2 , mk , i C
2K i , (ix, r) with being
mh

the circular excitation frequency.

2.4. Statistical analyses

In order to perform the statistical analyses, model parameters
and numerical computation results were expressed by means of
the following dimensionless quantities:
x1

1 heq
;

s TV S

x2

b
;
H dep

x3

heq
;
b

x4

mb
;
meq

T~
y ;
T

where T and are the fundamental period and damping of the

xed-base structure, while T~ and ~ are the fundamental period
and damping of the numerically analysed SSI systems.
The results obtained were statistically analysed, considering
only the most interesting 275 cases that met the following
conditions:
x2 Hbdep 4 0
T~
y 4 1:05
T
~
z 4 1:05

Fig. 5. (a) Superstructure-foundation-soil idealised by a stick model. (b) Reduced

single degree-of-freedom model (after [39,40]).

~ less than 1.05 were not included in

Cases with values of T~ =T or =
the analysis because they were considered to be of little practical
signicance.
The statistical analyses were performed assuming the parameters y and z as dependent variables and x1, x2, x3, x4 as
independent variables. A multiple regression analysis was performed in order to nd the best compromise between the
simplicity of the equations (minimum number of parameters of
the statistical model) and their ability to provide a good estimate
of the parameters (high value of R2, symmetrical distribution
having mean zero of the residuals ).
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to assess the contribution
of each dimensionless parameter on the dependent variables.

Fig. 6. Comparison between estimated and computed values of the ratio (a) y TT and (b) z .

104

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

3. Results
In the statistical model the best estimate of the variable y T~ =T
was found to be represented by means of the following equation:
y ax1 m1 x2 m2 x3 m3 1

that is
lny 1  m1 lnx1 m2 lnx2 m3 lnx3 lna

where the coefcients obtained from the statistical analysis are

a 0:7698;

m1 1:663;

m2  0:1359;

m3 0:8443

the coefcient of determination for the regression (4) is R2 0.937.

The comparison between estimated and computed values for the
275 cases considered is shown in Fig. 6a.
The proposed analytical expression (5) shows a good agreement
between estimated and computed values. The average difference is

74% over the whole range of analysis (1.05ryr2.83), with 90% of

cases presenting a difference less than 710%.
In particular in the range 1.05 r yr1.40, which is the range of
most practical interest for engineering applications, the estimated
values differs from the computed values of 7 3% (in average), with
90% of cases presenting a difference less than 75.4%.
The residual , that is the difference between the value
obtained from numerical analysis of the SSI model (computed
value) and the value estimated from the proposed relationship (4)
(estimated value), is a normally distributed random variable
(Fig. 7a) with zero mean and standard deviation SD 0.098.
It is evident from analysis of the coefcients of Eq. (5) that, as
expected, the non-dimensional wave parameter x1 1=s
heq =TV S (which may be looked upon as a measure of the relative
stiffness of the foundation and the superstructure) plays the most
important role on the ratio y T~ =T. The slenderness ratio
x3 heq =b, also shows a signicant inuence on period lengthening, while the parameter x2 b=H dep , representing the foundation

Fig. 7. Histogram for the residuals of the statistical model for: (a) y TT and (b) z .

Fig. 8. Inuence of x2 (b/Hdep) on (a)

T
T

and (b) .

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

105

As an example some signicant comparisons are shown in

Table 1 for the case 1/s equal to 0.437. The differences in terms of
T~ =T are about 6%.
~
The variable z =
was estimated by means of a more
complex equation

characteristic length compared to the bedrock depth, has little

inuence on this parameter.
The mass ratio x4 mb =meq does not have any inuence.
In order to assess the contribution of each dimensionless
parameter on the estimate of y, a sensitivity analysis was done.
In Fig. 8a the inuence of the parameter x2 on y is presented
given heq/b4 and 0.60. As mentioned before, this parameter
has little inuence in particular for low values of 1/s (say less than
0.2) and becomes more important for higher values.
The increment of the SSI effect on the fundamental period is
more pronounced for lower values of x2, i.e. for deep bedrock and/
or for small foundations.
Such variation is more evident as 1/s increases: i.e. given 1/s,
the decrement of y with x2 is constant and shows a linear
increment as 1/s increases.
The effect of x3 on y is presented in Fig. 9a, given b/Hdep 0.5 and
0.60. The increment of the fundamental period shows an exponential increment for higher values of x3, i.e. tall and slender buildings.
Since the parameter x4 does not play any role in the evaluation
of period increase, the sensitivity analysis for this parameter was
not performed.
The validity of all the steps of the method have been checked
with existing solutions. In particular the dynamic impedance
matrices obtained in the present paper were compared with the
solution proposed by Gazetas ([36]); some differences were found,
both in static and dynamic parts.

z m1 x4 m2 x3 x1 2 m3 x4 m4 x3 m5 x2 x1 1

that is
z  1 m1 x4 x1 2 m2 x3 x1 2 m3 x4 x1 m4 x3 x1 m5 x2 x1

where the coefcients obtained from the statistical analysis are

m1 11:457; m2  1:017; m3 1:660; m4 0:9558; m5 4:3048
The coefcient of determination for the regression (6) is R2 0.948.
The comparison between the values obtained from the numerical
models (computed values) and the values estimated from the
proposed relationship (6) (estimated values) for the 275 cases
considered is shown in Fig. 6b.
The proposed analytical expression (7) shows a satisfactory
agreement between estimated and computed values, even if in
this case data are more scattered. The average difference is 714%
over the whole range of analysis (1.05 ryr3.88), with 90% of
cases presenting a difference less than 725%.
The residual is a normally distributed random variable
(Fig. 7b) with zero mean and standard deviation SD 0.286.

Fig. 9. Inuence of x3 (heq/b) on (a)

T
T

and (b)

Table 1
Comparison with existing solutions.
SDF parameters

Soil and foundation data

Results
3

heq [m]

keq [kN/m]

meq [Mg]

[%]

T [s]

b [m]

VS [m/s]

[kN/m ]

[]

Hdep [m]

Kx [kN/m]

Kr [kNm]

T~
T

20

57030

472.1

0.572

80

19

0.3

10

2.11E 05
4.06E 05
2.93E 05
3.32E 05

7.37E 06
8.85E 06
7.04E 06
8.38E 06

2.091 (Gazetas [36])

1.963 (this study)
2.106 (Gazetas[36])
1.990 (this study)

20

106

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

Since the proposed analytical equation is more complex, the

inuence of each parameter cannot be evaluated in an immediate
manner.
The sensitivity analysis shows in Fig. 8b the inuence of the
parameter x2 on z given heq/b 4 and 0.60. Even in this case, the
increment of the SSI effect on the damping increment is more
pronounced for lower values of x2, i.e. for deep bedrock and/or for
small foundations.
Such variation is more evident for low values of x2 and becomes
rapidly less important as x2 increases.
The effect of x3 on z is presented in Fig. 9b, given b/Hdep 0.5
and 0.60. The damping increment is more evident for tall/
slender structures (higher values of x3).
Given 1/s, the parameter x4 plays an important role in the
evaluation of damping increase (Fig. 10). The sensitivity analysis
shows higher damping values with increasing x4, i.e. as the mass of

the foundation increases and tends to equal the mass of the

structure. This effect is more pronounced for higher values of 1/s.
Once the fundamental vibrational period T~ and the viscous
damping ratio ~ had been calculated by means of the analytical
formulations, the SDF response in terms of S~ e , and S~ De , were
evaluated using the elastic acceleration spectra of EC8, Type 1 [50].
As expected, the inuence of seismic SSI leads to smaller
accelerations in the structure and its foundation. On the other
hand the increase of natural period leads to higher relative
displacements, which may cause an increase in the seismic
demand associated with P effects.
In Fig. 11a results are presented in terms of computed and
estimated pseudo-spectral acceleration ratio S~ e =Se , (i.e. between
SSI-SDF systems and SDF with xed-base); in Fig. 11b the comparison between computed and estimated pseudo-spectral displacement ratio S~ De =SDe , is presented.
As shown in Fig. 11a, there is a good agreement between
estimated and computed values. The average difference is 77.4%
over the whole range of analysis.
Finally good agreement is also found in Fig. 11b. The average
difference is 75.7% over the whole range of analysis.

4. Conclusions

Fig. 10. Inuence of x4 (mb/meq) on .

Fig. 11. Estimated versus computed values of : (a) spectral acceleration ration

Seismic SSI includes several complex effects. Of these, period

lengthening and damping increase are considered particularly
signicant for the structural response and they were analysed in
the present paper.
The present paper provides a practical tool for obtaining an
approximate but reliable estimate of the SSI effects in terms of
modied damping and period of ordinary shear-type buildings
with surface squared foundations.
A sensitivity analysis to evaluate the inuence of nondimensional parameters on period lengthening and effective
damping was carried out. It was shown that the wave parameter
(1/s) is the parameter which mostly affects fundamental period
modications. The slenderness ratio (heq/b) also plays a signicant
role, while the mass ratio (mb/meq) does not inuence period
increase.
On the other hand, the effective damping exhibits remarkable
inuence on all the non-dimensional parameters.
Results are presented as a function of 1/s.
The obtained empirical relations were nally used to estimate the
ratios between the pseudo-spectral acceleration and displacement of

~ 
Se
Se

and (b) spectral displacement ratio

~ 
S De
SDe

of SSI and xed-base SDF.

S. Renzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55 (2013) 100107

the SSI systems and the corresponding values of the xed-base

systems (S~ e =Se and S~ De =SDe respectively). Comparisons with the
analogous values computed by applying steps 1 to 3 of the above
described procedure show good agreement.
The analytical expressions proposed in this paper represent the
best compromise between simplicity and ability to estimate the
fundamental parameters governing seismic SSI.
The outcomes of the present research can be used by consultants in order to obtain a preliminary estimate of seismic SSI
effects without devoting resources to complex analyses.
References
[1] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1971;97(SM9):122748.
[2] Jennings PC, Bielak J. Dynamics of building-soil interaction. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 1973;63(1):948.
[3] Luco JE. Impedance functions of a rigid foundation on a layered medium.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 1974;31:20417.
[4] Bielak J. Dynamic behavior of structures with embedded foundations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1975;3:25974.
[5] Veletsos AS, Nair VV. Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic foundations. Journal of Structural Engineering, 101101; 10929.
[6] A.S. Veletsos, A.M. Prasad, Y. Tang. Design approaches for soil-structure
interaction, National center for earthquake engineering research. Technical
report NCEER-88-0031; 1988.
[7] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded
foundations. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1991;117(9):136381.
[8] Wolf JP. Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1985.
[9] Paolucci R, Shirato M, Yilmaz T. Seismic behaviour of shallow foundations:
Shaking table experiments vs numerical modelling. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 2008;37:57795.
[10] Paolucci R. Simplied evaluation of earthquake-induced permanent displacements of shallow foundations. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1997;13:56379.
[11] Nova R, Montrasio L. Settlement of shallow foundations on sand. Geotechnique
1991;41(2):24356.
[12] Cremer C, Pecker A, Davenne L. Modeling of nonlinear dynamic behaviour of a
shallow strip foundation with macro-element. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2002;6(2):175212.
[13] Gazetas G, Apostolou M, Anastasopoulos IX. Seiemic uplifting of foundations
on soft soil, with examples from Adapazari. In: Foundations: innovations,
observations, design, and practice, british geotechnical association. Thomas
Telford; 3750.
[14] Psycharis I. Dynamic behaviour of rocking structures allowed to uplift. Journal
of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1983;11.
[15] Chopra A, Yim S. Simplied earthquake analysis of structures with foundation
uplift. Journal of Structural Engineering 1985:90630.
[16] Maugeri M, Musumeci G, Novit D, Taylor CA. Shaking table test of failure of a
shallow foundation subjected to an eccentric load. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2000;20:43544.
[17] Abate G, Massimino MR, Maugeri M, Muir Wood D. Numerical modelling of a
shaking table test for soil-foundation-superstructure interaction by means of a
soil constitutive model implemented in a fem code. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering Journal 2010;28(1):3759.
[18] Saouma V, Miura F, Lebon G, Yagome Y. A simplied 3D model for soilstructure interaction with radiation damping and free eld input. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 2011;9(5):1387402.
[19] Rayhani MT, El Naggar MH. Physical and numerical modeling of seismic soilstructure interaction in layered soils. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
Journal 2012;30(2):33142.
[20] ATC-3-06. Amended tentative provisions for the development of seismic
regulations for buildings. ATC Publication ATC 3-06, NBS Special Publication
510, NSF Publication 78-8, Applied Technology Council. US Government
Printing Ofce: Washington, DC; 1978.
[21] Building seismic safety council, NEHRP. Recommended provisions for the
development of seismic regulations for new buildings (and other structures).
National earthquake hazards reduction programme: Washington, DC; 1985,
1988, 1991, 1994 (1997, 2000).
[22] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: benecial or
detrimental? Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2000;4:277301.

107

[23] Wu WH, Smith HA. Efcient modal analysis for structures with soil-structure
interaction. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995;24:28399.
[24] Wu WH. Equivalent xed-base models for soil-structure interaction systems.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1997;16:32336.
[25] Wolf JP. Spring-dashpot-mass models for foundation vibrations. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997;26:93149.
[26] Aviles J, Perez-Rocha LE. Effect of foundation embedment during building-soil
structure interaction. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
1998;27:152340.
[27] Stewart JP, Seed RB, Fenves GL. Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings.
II: empirical ndings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 1999;125(1):3848.
[28] Ambrosini RD, Riera JD, Danesi RF. On the inuence of foundation exibility
on the seismic response of structures. Computers and Geotechnics
2000;27:17997.
[29] Aviles J, Suarez M. Effective periods and dampings of building-foundation
systems including seismic wave effects. Engineering Structures
2002;24:55362.
[30] Takewaki I, Takeda N, Uetani K. Fast practical evaluation of soil structure
interaction of embedded structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2003;23:195202.
[31] Barcena A, Esteva L. Inuence of dynamic soil-structure interaction on the
nonlinear response and seismic reliability of multistory systems. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007;36:32746.
[32] Chatterjee P, Basu B. Some analytical results on lateral dynamic stiffness for
footings supported on hysteretic soil medium. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2008;28(1):3643.
[33] Pitilakis D, Dietz M, Wood DM, Clouteau D, Modaressi A. Numerical simulation
of dynamic soil-structure interaction in shaking table testing. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering 2008;28(6):45367.
[34] Livaoglu R. Investigation of seismic behavior of uid-rectangular tank-soil/
foundation systems in frequency domain. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2008;28:13246.
[35] Veletsos AS, Meek JW. Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1974;3:12138.
[36] Gazetas G. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1983;2:242.
[37] Avils J, Prez-Rocha LE. Evaluation of interaction effects on the system period
and the system damping due to foundation embedment and layer depth. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1996;15:1127.
[38] Mylonakis G, Nikolau S, Gazetas G. Footing under seismic loading: Analysis
and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 2006;26:82453.
[39] Veletsos AS. Dynamics of Structure-Foundation Systems. Hall, W.J.: Prentice
Hall; 1977 (Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics).
[40] G. Maravas, G. Mylonakis, D.L. Karabalis. Dynamic characteristics of simple
structures on piles and footings. In: Proceedings of the forth international
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Paper no. 1672; 2007.
[41] S. Renzi. Inuence of dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses on shear
buildings [Doctoral Thesis]. Department of Architecture. Germany: Civil
Engineering and Environmental Sciences of the Technische Universitt
Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig. Italy: Faculty of Engineering Department
of Civil Engineering of the University of Florence ; 2010.
[42] Renzi S, Mylonakis G, Madiai C, Vannucchi G. Inuence of soil-structure
interaction on seismic response of shear buildings. In: Proceedings of the fth
international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake
engineering and soil dynamics and symposium in honor of professor IM
Idriss, San Diego, CA; 2010.
[43] FEMA 368. The 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions For New Buildings And
Other Structures Part 1:Provisions. NEHRP; 2000.
[44] FEMA 369. The 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions For New Buildings And
Other Structures Part 2:Commentary. NEHRP; 2000.
[45] Lysmer J, Ostadan F, Chin C. SASSI2000 Theoretical manual Revision 1.
Geotechnical Engineering Division. Civil Engineering Department University
of California: Berkeley; 1999.
[46] Lysmer J, Tabatabaie-Raissi M, Tajirian F, Vahdani S, Ostadan F. SASSI-A System
for Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction. Report N. UCB/GT/81-02, Geotechnical Engineering. University of California: Berkeley; 1981.
[47] Chopra A. Dynamics of structures theory and applications to earthquake
engineering. third ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs; 30536.
[48] Canadian commission on building and res code. The National Building Code
of Canada. Ottawa: National Research Council; 2005.
[49] Government of the federal district. Complementary technical norms for
seismic design. Mexico: Ofcial Gazette of the Federal District; 2004.
[50] Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects.