Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 1041-1056.

June 1973

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES BY WILLIAMWEAVER,JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW,AND KAAREHOEG

ABSTRACT

Calculations for the dynamic response of muitistory buildings to earthquake accelerations of bedrock should include the effects of the soil and the structural foundation. For this purpose a three-dimensional analytical model is developed, consisting of the following parts. The superstructure is modeled as a tier building (with rigid floor diaphragms, space frame members, bracing, and setbacks); the foundation is approximated by a rigid block in combination with piles (prismatic members with pinned ends), and the soil is idealized by a finite-element mesh (three-dimensional rectangular prisms) with special boundary conditions (viscous damping at lateral boundaries and a rigid boundary at bedrock). This analytical model is incorporated into a computer program, which performs response analyses for specified earthquakes. Sample problems are included to demonstrate the capabilities of both the analytical model and the computer program. The results show that the combination of a three-dimensional analytical model and the presence of underlying soil has important influences on the calculated responses of mnltistory buildings to earthquakes.

[NTRODUCTION

The response of a building to earthquake ground motions depends not only upon its own characteristics and the nature of the excitation, but also upon the properties of underlying soil. With the aid of digital computers, structural engineers are able to analyze building frames in a highly refined manner, and soil engineers have progressed in their understanding of free-field ground surface motions from a knowledge of local soil conditions. However, insufficient attention has been given to the combined soilfoundation-structural system and its response to earthquake excitations. The importance of local soil conditions upon ground surface motions during earthquakes has been shown analytically and experimentally (Gutenberg, 1957; Kanai et al., 1959; Seed et al., 1969; Tsai, 1967; Wiggins, 1964). Analysts initially utilized rather simple analytical models (Biot, 1943; Hashiba and Whitman, 1968; Jacobsen, 1938; 1958; Parmelee, 1967; 1968 ; Whitman, 1969) to represent what is actually a very complex problem. Since the advent of digital computers, however, investigators have developed discretized analytical models with many degrees of freedom (Lycan and Newmark, 196i ; Minami etal., 1969; 1970; Penzien etal., 1964). The finite-element method has been applied to the soil-structure problem by Khanna (1969) and Wilson (1969), who analyzed two-dimensional frameworks subjected to one horizontal component of ground motion. In both of these studies rigid boundaries were assumed to exist at bedrock and along vertical planes at arbitrary distances from the structures. Unfortunately, in dynamic analysis, the side boundaries cause artificially reflected waves that obscure the true soil-structure response. However, Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) devised a method for synthesizing nonreflective boundaries by using viscous dampers at boundary nodes. Most of the previous investigations have yielded some insight into the soil-structure interaction problem, but the analytical models apply at best only to two-dimensional
104l

1042

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW, AND KAARE HOEG

situations. The primary objective of this paper is to present a three-dimensional analytical model for soil-foundation-structure interaction that represents actual conditions more realistically than its predecessors. This model and a method for calculating dynamic response to earthquake ground motion are described herein. Selected examples are included to demonstrate the nature of results obtainable from a special-purpose computer program developed in this project.

ANALYTICAL MODEL

Three-dimensional assemblage. Figure 1 shows the three-dimensional analytical model selected for this study. It consists of a multistory (tier) building projecting above ground level, a rigid structural foundation below ground level, and a network of finite elements representing the soil above bedrock. Vertical or inclined piles driven to bedrock may be included, and damped boundary conditions on the finite elements simulate a soil of infinite extent in horizontal directions. All materials in the analytical model are assumed to be linearly elastic, and displacements relative to bedrock are assumed to be sufficiently small that the original geometry may be used throughout the analysis. Actions and

oundory Node

Boundary

STF FO[ PILl

FIG. 1. Three-dimensional assemblage.

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES

1043

displacements are taken to be positive when in the positive directions of orthogonal

(xyz) reference axes. Tier building model. The three-dimensional analytical model for static and dynamic analyses of tier buildings has been described in previous papers (Weaver et al., 1966;
!968). The capability of including three-dimensional shear cores was added by Manning (1970), while various possibilities for bracing and setbacks were contributed by Brandow (1970). Figure 2 illustrates all of these features, although shear walls were not actually utilized in this project. The primary framing members in the tier building model consist of prismatic beams and columns arranged in a rectangular pattern, as indicated in Figure 2. Connections

tm

"X

FIG, 2. Tier building model.

between beams and columns are assumed to be rigid, whereas those at the ends of braces are taken as pinned. Floor and roof diaphragms are idealized as laminae having infinite rigidities in their own planes and finite rigidities normal to their planes, in the form of beam stiffnesses. Each lamina has three rigid-body motions with which inertia actions are associated: translations in the x and y directions and rotation in the z sense. Joint displacements with which no inertia actions are associated (x and y rotations and z translation) are eliminated in the condensation process leading to the stiffness matrix for story displacements. Masses of the tier building tributary to the framing levels are assumed to be uniformly distributed over the laminae. Under this assumption, the center of mass at each level

1044

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW, AND KAARE HOEG

coincides with the centroid of the area. The resulting mass-inertia matrix referred to the centroid of the area for the k th framing level may be written as

M k

mk

where m k is the mass at the k th level and r k is the radius of gyration with respect to the centroid. The mass matrix for the entire tier building is diagonal when centroids of laminae are chosen as reference points. Finite elements f o r the soil. The three-dimensional solid rectangular element of Melosh (1963) was chosen to represent the soil above bedrock. This element has eight corner nodes and three types of generic and nodal displacements, as indicated in Figure 3.

[ :1
0 1
0 0 rk 2

(1)

Zl

/
I uz f'-'-~Uy
UX "~ I

T 1
2c y,~

x. I
FIG. 3. Finite element for soil.
The generic displacements u = {ux, uy, u~} are related to the nodal displacements U by the following interpolation formula 8u, = (1 +3)(1 - q ) ( l + O U ~ , + ( I +4)(1+~/)(1 +~)U2, (1 +3)(1 + r/)(1 - ~ ) U 3 , + (1 +3)(1 - r/)(l - O U , , (1 --~)(1 --q)(l + ~ ) U s / + ( I - ~ ) ( l + r/)(l ~-~)U61 (1 --~)(l + r/)(1 -- ~)U71+ (1-3)(1 - r/)(1 - ~ ) U s i for i = x , y , z and = x/a, q = y/b, ~ = z/c. This formulation leads to a 24 24 stiffness matrix for the element, which may be partitioned to segregate terms associated with each of the eight nodes, as follows

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES

1045

-$11

Sz2
522

... . .

$1s$28

821
S E -~-

(3)

Ssl

Ss2

Sss

where each of the submatrices is of order 3 x 3. Because of the layered nature of sedimentary soil deposits, orthotropic stress-strain relationships are considered an essential feature of this element in the present application. For x, y, and z as principal directions of orthotropy, these relationships are

-a~x-'l a~,v I azz [ axv [

ax~ I _ay~_l

-El 1 [ Ezl [ E31

El 2 E2z E32 0
0
0

E13 E23 E33 0

0
0

0 0 0
E44

0 0 0
0

0 0 0
0

-8xx 8yy 8zz

8xy

=I

(4)

0 ! L 0

0
0

E55
0

0
E66

ex~
_~yz[

in which the symbols o and e denote stress and strain, respectively. Nine independent constants E u are required to represent an orthotropic material in three dimensions

(Eji = Eli). in a preliminary vibrational study, natural frequencies for a representative problem using the consistent-mass matrix (Archer, 1963) of the element were compared against those using a lumped-mass matrix of the following form M e = pVI/8
(5)

in which p is the mass density of the material, V ( = 8abe) denotes the volume of the element, and I is the identity matrix (of order 24 x 24). These comparisons indicated that either type of mass representation would suffice, and that given by equation (5) was chosen because of its greater simplicity. For layered soils the variation of mass density and soil properties with depth may be easily included in the analysis. Foundation and piles. The portion of a multistory building below ground level is typically very stiffand massive in comparison with the superstructure and is characterized by thick basement walls, heavy floor slabs, and large footings or mat foundations. Therefore, this portion of the structure is assumed to be a three-dimensional solid rigid body having six degrees of freedom (three components of translation and three of rotation) with which inertia actions are associated. The mass-inertia matrix for principal axes through the center of mass for such a foundation block is a 6 x 6 diagonal array with the terms MB, M,, MB*, lxx, lry, and I~ in diagonal positions. Here the symbol MB represents the mass of the block (associated with x and y translational accelerations), while MB* is the same mass augmented by a portion of the mass of the superstructure (associated with z translational accelerations). The terms 1~, lyy, and I= are the moments of inertia of the block about principal body axes. Masses associated with nodes of finite elements and structural members attached to the rigid body must be taken into account when calculating the location of its center of mass and its mass-inertia properties. Furthermore, an axis-rotation transformation is required in cases where the principal axes of the foundation block are not parallel to global reference axes.

1046

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW, AND KAARE HOEG

Piles, piers, or caissons often support the foundations of tall buildings in soft soils, and axial-force prismatic members are included in the analytical model to represent such entities driven to bedrock. Figure 4 shows a pile member of general orientation, for which
id Block Finite Element

,DR6 Djl
,DR3
j/

I~'~

/./XR j
P Ie Member"

_.~/"~ ./f-

x/

DK3
,y

J
Dkl

FIG. 4. Finite element and pile attached to foundation.

the stiffness matrix is a 6 x 6 array commonly associated with the space truss type of framing member (Weaver, 1967). The stiffness matrix for a pile may be written as (6)

Sp = L S kj

S k kJ

which consists of 3 x 3 submatrices pertaining to displacements at the j and k ends of the member. Geometric transformations. Nodes of finite elementsl piles, and framing members attached to the foundation block must displace in a pattern determined by the rigidbody motions of the block. Thus, the translations of n o d e j in Figure 4 may be expressed in terms of the six displacements of reference point R on the rigid body as
D~ = T j R D R

(7)

inwhich, Dj

{Djl, Dj2, Dj3};DR

T jR = 1 0

= {DR1, Dn2 . . . . . DR6}; and

0 1

-- ZRj YRj

0 -- XRi

Rj

(8)

where the distances xt~j, ygj, and ZRj are given in Figure 4. Stiffnesses for a pile member may be referred to the point R in Figure 4 by forming the 9 x 9 matrix SpR as follows

THREE-DIMENSIONALSOIL-STRUCTURERESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES

1047

=ISRR SRkJ
SPR = T'eRSpTpR L S kR Sk

(9)

in which

oI
and T~R is the transpose of TpR. The analogous transformation for a finite element is more complex, however, because more than one node of an element may be attached to the rigid body. An operation that can be used for all finite elements, regardless of their connectivity with the foundation block, consists of transforming the 24 x 24 matrix Se from equation (3) to the 30 x 30 matrix SERa s follows

811 $21 SER = T~RSETER ----88l SR1

512 822

... . .

S18 $28

SIR" S2R
(11)

Ss2 SR2

. . ...

Sss Sg8

SSR

SRR

The upper left-hand portion of SER is of the form given in equation (3); but certain submatrices will be null due to the nature of the 24 30 operator TeR, which is composed as

I1R

0
I2R

TER =
L

... ..

0 O

TIR 1 T2R (1 2)

...

I8n

TsR_[

where I jR is a 3 3 identity matrix and T jR is given by equation (8). The former submatrix is null if n o d e j is attached to the foundation block. The 12 12 member stiffness matrix S c for a first-story column must be transformed to a reference point F on the first-story lamina as well as the reference point R on the foundation. If the nodal displacements are taken in the sequence shown in Figure 5, the desired transformation becomes

SCFR = T~RScTFR = SFj SRj

in which

TFR -~- O 0
where

[io o1
TjF

I
0

Sjj

SjF SFF SRF

S jR iI SFR SRR

(13)

(14)

TkR
-- .FFj1

TjF =

|
o

XFjl

(15)

lj

1048

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW, AND KAARE Ht~EG

~)

(b)

ZR

Column----~.,,
Rigid Block

.~

"7////////////

k
Dk3

:DR6 Dkl/Dkz I DR
Ro m,,~

;Dk6
/

~
XR

,/D/R1 DR2 DR5 DR4 YRk

IZRk // lI ///XRk J//

vR

FIG. 5. Column attached to foundation: (a) first story level; (b) ground level.

and
-1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 --ZRk YR k 1 0 0 2Rk 0 -- XR k 0 1 0 --YRkXRk 0

TkR

0 0 0 0

(16)
0 0 1

Transformations for braces at the first story are similar to that for a column but simpler in their details (Brandow, 1971 ). Boundary conditions for the soil. The viscous boundary conditions developed by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer (1969) serve to represent a soil of infinite extent horizontally. In their approach, the following conditions are specified at the boundaries
aB = pVp~

and

zB = p V s ~

(17)

in which an and zs are the normal and shear stresses at a boundary surface, fi and ~' are the normal and tangential velocities of the soil at such a surface, and Vp and Vs are the velocities of normal and shearing stress waves defined by

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES

1049 (18)

Vp = (G/p)'/2/s and

Vs = (G/p) '12

in which G = shear modulus of soil, p = mass density, and s = an elasticity constant given by s = [(1 - 2v)/2(1 - v)]'/2 (19) where v = Poisson's ratio. With orthotropic materials the quantities v and G in equations (18) and (19) must be calculated as average values. For the discretized analytical model in Figure 1, the damping matrix B, pertaining to nodes on viscous boundaries, contains coefficients on the diagonal for hypothetical dashpots. The contribution of one finite element to such a coefficient for the i t" boundary displacement is computed as

B u = ApVv/4

or

Bit =

ApVs/4

(20)

depending upon whether the displacement is normal or tangential to the boundary. The symbol A in these expressions represents the surface area of the face of the finite element on the boundary.
METHOD OF SOLUTION

Equations of motion. The equations of motion for the discretized analytical model subjected to earthquake ground accelerations may be written as
M 6 + c o + s o = A(0

(21)

in which the symbols D, 1), and D represent displacements, velocities, and accelerations of nodes (or reference points) relative to bedrock. The identifiers M, C, and S denote mass, damping, and stiffness matrices for the degrees of freedom, and A(t) is a vector of equivalent actions (or loads) that vary with time. In their final form the stiffness and mass matrices in equation (21) are

S =

-Ls o:
S

SRR SSR

SRs SSS

o1

(22)

MTT
M = 0

0
Mnn

0 J
0

(23)

Mss

In these expressions the subscripts T, R, and S pertain to the tier building, the rigid foundation block, and the soil. Submatrices in the stiffness matrix are filled, but those in the mass matrix are diagonal. The numbers of degrees of freedom with which masses (or mass moments of inertia) are associated are as follows: Tier building: Rigid foundation block : Soil: 3 times number of stories 6 2 times number of unconstrained nodes.

Vertical displacements of unconstrained nodes in the soil network are eliminated in a matrix condensation procedure leading to the final form of the stiffness matrix,

1050

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW, AND KAARE HOEG

The damping matrix C in equation (21) is best obtained as C = B + M ~ (2),ipi4~')M i=1 (24)

in which B is a diagonal damping matrix with terms due to dashpots on viscous boundaries. The last part of equation (24) is derived from modal analysis, where i = mode index, n = number of natural modes of interest, y~ = ratio of damping to critical damping in mode i, p~ = undamped angular frequency of mode i, and ~ = eigenvector for mode i normalized with respect to M. Because multistory buildings are much more sensitive to horizontal ground motions than to vertical motions, the load vector is restricted to contain terms due only to the former. Earthquake records are usually in the form of accelerograms; so the load vector is constituted as follows A(t)i = - a~(t)M, A(t)i = - ay(t)M~ A(t)i = 0 (if i denotes x translation) (if i denotes y translation) (otherwise). (25a) (25b) (25c)

The terms a~(t) and ay(t) represent earthquake accelerations of bedrock in the x and y directions, respectively, which may be treated as piecewise-linear forcing functions (Weaver et al., 1968). Step-by-step solution. The presence of matrix B in equation (24)~precludes the possibility of analyzing the present problem by the normal-mode method. Therefore, the step-bystep method of Wilson (1968) was utilized, which involves the approximation that accelerations vary linearly within a time interval At. In the step-by-step procedure the time of interest is divided into very short intervals. During each interval, the forcing functions a~(t) and ay(t) are assumed to be constant and are assigned their values at the midpoint of the time interval 2At. Computer program. A computer program named SOILTIER was written in F O R T R A N IV(H) for the IBM 360/67 at Stanford University and is documented in Brandow (1971). It can analyze tier buildings (with or without bracing and setbacks) that are either supported by a foundation embedded in soil (with or without piles) or are resting directly upon bedrock. The output produced by the program may be either frequencies and mode shapes for the undamped system (without viscous boundaries) or the results from numerical integration of the equations of motion for the system subjected to horizontal accelerations of bedrock.

EXAMPLES

The following examples indicate the capabilities of the method described herein and are not intended to represent typical cases. 1. Two-story building. To demonstrate how crude the finite-element mesh can be, a very simple structure was analyzed for several soil networks. Figure 6 shows a twostory building supported on a foundation block that is 6 ft deep and is embedded within 99 finite elements (5 x 5 x 4 - 1) representing the soil. Columns in the building are assumed to have cross-sectional areas of 9 in z, principal moments of inertia of 110 in 4, and torsion constants of 20 in'~; beams have moments of inertia of 200 in 4 and torsion constants of 20 in 4. Young's modulus for all members is E -- 30,000 ksi. The tributary weight at each story is taken as 216 lb/ft 2, and the foundation block has a uniformly-

THREE-DIMENSIONALSOIL-STRUCTURERESPONSETO EARTHQUAKES

1051

Story 2 Story 1 ~

~ I ~z''

_~8'0"/'60'-

0"

i
.

~- Bedrock
5 @ 24'-0" : 120'-0"

Note: Viscous boundary not shown in figure

FIG. 6. Example 1: Two-story building.

X - Direction 0.3
(1X

"

"

Time (sec)

-0.3 Y- Direction 0.3

ay g

- 0.3

FIG. 7. Bedrock accelerations for example 1. distributed total weight of 260 kips. The soil is assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic with Young's modulus E = l0 ksi, Poisson's ratio v = 0.45, and unit weight of 120 lb/ft 3 ( V e ~ 1200 fps and V s ~ 365 fps). The response of this system to the bedrock accelerations shown in Figure 7 was calculated for a time of 2 sec using 100 steps of 0.02 sec. For this purpose, damping was assumed to be 10 per cent of critical damping in the fundamental mode of vibration with rigid boundaries. Similar analyses were also conducted using cruder meshes for the same

1052

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW, AND KAARE HOEG

volume of soil, as follows: 18 elements ( 3 x 3 2 ) , and 9 elements ( 3 3 x 1). For the latter analyses the depth of the foundation block was reduced to zero. Figure 8 shows maximum x-displacements in the soil, which occurred at approximately the same time for all analyses. At ground level, these maxima are very close; the result for 18 elements differs from that for 99 elements by only about 6 per cent while that for 9 elements is even closer. Displacements in the x direction of the second story and the foundation slab are plotted against time in Figure 9. For practical purposes, the results from all three meshes appear to be satisfactory. Thus, even the very crude 9-element mesh would suffice for this example.

2. Ten-story building. A ten-story example is presented to show some of the effects of varying the depth of soil under a tall building. Figure 10 gives the layout of a hypothetical building that has a steel frame and four braced bays above the first story level. The total weight tributary to each framing level is assumed to be 283 kips. Mass and inertia properties of the foundation were computed as if it were a solid concrete mat with a thickness of 5 ft, but its thickness in the analytical model was reduced to zero for purposes of this parameter study. The finite-element mesh (not shown in Figure 10) was taken as 3 spaces at 100 ft each way horizontally to form networks of 9 elements (3 x 3 x 1), 18 elements (3 x 3 x 2), or 27 elements (3 x 3 x 3), depending upon the depth of the soil. Properties of the soil are the same as in example 1, and damping was determined on the basis of 10 per cent of critical damping in the fundamental mode. The forcing functions used in this example consist of earthquake accelerograms for 12 sec of the Eureka (California) earthquake of December 21, 1954. Figure 11 contains computer plots of digitized accelerations for the north-south and east-west components of motion. The maximum component of acceleration was 0.28 times gravity in the eastwest direction, and the magnitude of this earthquake was 6.7 on the Richter scale. Response calculations were conducted for 12 sec using 600 steps of 0.02 sec. Maximum shear forces and moments produced in the first story of this building by the Eureka earthquake are plotted against depth of soil in Figure 12. The variation of these quantities for depths from zero (no soil--bedrock at surface) to 200 ft is considerable. For example, the x-shear for a soil depth of 60 ft is approximately 150 per cent of that for zero depth. A more complete illustration of story shears is given in Figures 13a and b, where both x- and y-shears fora soil depth of 60 ft are compared withcorresponding values for bedrock at the surface.
CONCLUSIONS

The analytical model described herein constitutes a useful tool for investigating threedimensional soil-foundation-structure interaction for multistory buildings subjected to earthquakes. The use of finite elements to represent the soil appears promising because this technique is versatile, straightforward, and amenable to computer programming. Sample problems indicate that a rather small number of finite elements is apparently sufficient for calculating the dynamic response of a structure. On the other hand, determination of stresses in the soil typically requires a more refined network. The report by Brandow (1971) contains the results for a number of parameter studies, including the effects of varying soil depth to bedrock, Young's modulus for the soil, stiffnesses of the structural framework, and foundation conditions. These studies show that the influences of the soil and foundation upon the response of the superstructure can seldom be ignored. Except for the matters of computer time and storage, there are no great obstacles for extending the method to include nonlinear stress-strain-relationships in the soil.

THREE-DIMENSIONAL SOIL-STRUCTURE RESPONSE TO EARTHQUAKES

1053

0 @ co u 0 > 0 .0 OJ 0 4~
c1

99 ele~ent~- ~ / 9 elements-~//

///

H /

]1

////////// ~
/z/ j

\18 elements

Ld 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 0,5 0.6 Maximum Soil Displacement (inches)

Fie,. 8. Maximum x-displacements in soil for example 1.

12) cd

Second S t o r y ~
@

FoundotJon
0i8 1.0
1.2

/
/1.,4 1.6

X
1.8

~o
@

Legend :

~.
i i i

FIG. 9. Plots of x-response for example l.

[ly

B=

~----~BrQced

Bays(4 total)

I~, F

I ~

.X

~ ~,, ~_ 3 7 2 "
Z

~
J_ 372"

Foundation (100'xlO0')

/\

/\ /\
CU

~ cq

/\

o~1
("3

Beams: 21WFl12
0,1

FIG. 10. Example 2: ten-story building.

q O~
I

X - D i r e c t i o n (N-S)

::~ Lr) 03

-a x g

u.J
CE C~ nLLI CE ay xt __ LU g n~) LU

,~

c~
..,l ..... ~/1 /k ^ t',_ m , a ~,

0 ,~
('3
D

4
Time

8,

10

11

q2

(sec)

FIG. 11. Earthquake accelerograms for example 2.

o o' o ,loment
.o

o o
OJ

o.
[D_

L~ -E

r~o

X-

otS
o.

t
.o

Y-Shear
o
o,

100 150 200 Depth of Soil (feet) Fl(i. 12. Maximum shear forces and moments in first story of example 2.

50

0t
~-:
~. zko2
0

(~) -,

L~_
Bedrock at sur
i i i i i Ill

L_ ~d/f-60 feet of soil

L_-,

~[

L_. 1
i i

i |

200 400 600 800 Maximum Shear in Story (kips)

1000

o-i

--I ao-~-~qBedrck atsurface

.Q

(b)

~
~

~L~

~ 1
L-I] f , ~ - - 6 0 feet of soil

ZLOty. L

200

400

600

800

1000

Maximum S h e a r in S t o r y (kips) :c. 13. Comparison o f story shears for example 2. (a) x direction; (b) y direction

1056

WILLIAM WEAVER, JR., GREGG E. BRANDOW~ AND KAARE HC)EG

REFERENCES Archer, J. S. (1963). Consistent mass matrix for distributed mass systems, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 89, 161-178. Blot, M. A. (1943). Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology, Trans. ASCE, 108, 365-385. Brandow, G. E. (1970). Computer programs for statics and dynamics of tier buildings, Technical Report No. 129, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University. Brandow, G. E. (1971). Soil-foundation-structure interaction during earthquake excitations, Technical Report No. 145, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University. Gutenberg, B. (1957). The effect of ground on earthquake motion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 47, 221-251. Hashiba, T. and R. V. Whitman (1960). Soil-structure interaction during earthquakes, Soils Found., Japan, 8, 1-12. Jacobsen, L. S. (1939). Natural periods of uniform cantilever beams, Trans. ASCE, 104, 402-439. Jacobsen, L, S. and R. S. Ayre (1958). Engineering Vibrations, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 110-112. Kanai, K., T. Tanaka, and S. Yoshizawa (1959). Comparative studies of earthquake motions on the ground and underground, Part 1, Bull. Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 37, 53-88. Khanna, J. (1969). Elastic soil-structure interaction, Proe. Worm Conf. Earthquake Engineering, 4tk, Chile, 3, 143-152. Lycan, D. L. and N, M. Newmark (1961). Effects of structure and foundation interaction, J. Eng. Meek. Div., ASCE, 87, 1-31. Lysmer, J. and R. S. Kuhlemeyer (1969). Finite dynamic model for infinite media, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 95, 859-877. Manning, T. A. (1970). The analysis of tier buildings with shear walls, Technical Report No. 128, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University. Melosh, R. J. (1963). Structural Analysis of Solids, J. Struet. Div., ASCE, 89, 205-223. Minami, J. K. and J. Sajurai (1969). Some effects of substructure and adjacent soil interaction on the seismic response of buildings, Proe. Worm Conf. Earthquake Eng., 4th, Chile 3, 71-86. Minami, K., J. Sakurai, and T. Katayama (1970). Some effects of substructure proportions and adjacent soil interaction on the seismic response of buildings, Proc. Japan Earthquake Eng. Symp., 3rd, Tokyo 1-8. Parmelee, R. A. (1967). Building-foundation interaction effects, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 93, 131-152. Parmelee, R. A., D. S. Perelman, and S. L. Lee (1968). Seismic response of structure-foundation systems, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 94, 1295-1315. Penzien, J., C. F. Scheffey, and R. A. Parmelee (1964). Seismic analysis of bridges on long piles, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 90, 223-254. Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss, and F. W. Kiefer (1969). Characteristics of rock motions during earthquakes, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 95, 1199-1218. Seed, H. B. and I. M. Idriss (1969). Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 95, 99-138. Tsai, Nien-Chien (1967). Influence of local geology on earthquake ground motion, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. Weaver, W., Jr. (1967). Computer Programs for Structural Analysis, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. Weaver, W., Jr. and M. F. Nelson (1966). Three-Dimensional Analysis of Tier Buildings, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 92, 385-404. Weaver, W., Jr., M. F. Nelson, and T. A. Manning (1968). Dynamics of tier buildings, J. Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 94, 1455-1475. Whitman, R. V. (1969). The current status of soil dynamics, Appl. Mech. Rev. 22, 1-8. Wiggins, J. H. (1964). Effects of site conditions on earthquake intensity, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 90, 279313. Wilson, E. L. (1969). A method of analysis for the evaluation of foundation-structure interaction, Proc. Worm Conf. Earthquake Eng., 4th, Chile, 3, 87-150. Wilson, E. L. (1968). A computer program for the dynamic stress analysis of underground structures Report No. 68-1, Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CALIFORNIA(W.W. AND K.H.) BRANDOW t~ JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA(G.E.B.)

Manuscript received November 20,

1972