Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.

1-8 (2013) 1

Review Article

Soil Structure Interaction The Early Stages

Jose M. Roesset
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, U.S.A.

Abstract
In this paper we review some of the basic developments in the early stages of seismic soil
structure interaction and some of the controversies that arose, particularly in relation to the seismic
design of nuclear power plants. Because of the large number of contributions to this area during the 50
or 60 years considered, until the publication of the first book on this subject, it is not possible to include
all of them and the selection reflects of course the bias of the author in what he considers to be the most
important ones.

Key Words: Soil Structure Interactions, Inertia Interaction, Kinematic Interaction, Foundation
Stiffness, Wave Propagation

1. Introduction Research on seismic soil structure interaction in-

The effect of the soil on the seismic response of a re-
taining wall, considered as a rigid body, was already
studied in the 1920s by Okabe [1] and Mononabe [2] in
Japan. The Mononabe-Okabe method to estimate seis-
mic pressures on retaining walls, a simple extension of
Coulombs theory for the static case, is still widely used
in practice today, in spite of the many improvements that
have been introduced over the years by a number of re-
searchers. Some of the effects of the soil on the seismic
response of more general structures were addressed by
Sezawa and Kanai [3-5] in a series of three papers pub-
lished in 1935. Seismic soil structure interaction effects
were addressed for the first time in the United States by
Martel [6] in 1940, reporting observations of the behav-
ior of the Hollywood Storage Building during the 1933
Long Beach earthquake. In the fifties Merritt and
Housner [7] and Housner [8] looked again at this pro-
blem, using data recorded at and near the building, com-
paring the effects on the translational and rotational mo-
tions of the building, concluding that the rotation seemed
to be more important as an effect, and noticing also an
important reduction in the amplitude of the horizontal
motion in the long direction of the building.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: jroesset@civil.tamu.edu
creased considerably in the 60s and 70s because in large
part of the seismic design of Nuclear Power Plants. A
simple model of a frame on an elastic foundation with 3
degrees of freedom (translation of the top and the base
and rotation of the base) was already included as an ex-
ample of application in Biggs book on Structural Dy-
namics [9] published in 1964, using constant, frequency
independent springs to simulate the stiffness of the foun-
dation. The same model with the additional simplifica-
tion of neglecting the bottom mass and the rotational in-
ertia, ending up with only one dynamic degree of free-
dom, was used by Parmelee [10] in 1967. The dynamic
stiffness of a circular foundation on the surface of an
elastic half space had been obtained by Reissner [11] in
the 30s for vertical harmonic excitation. Work on this
area continued in the 30s and then in the 50swith im-
portant contributions by Bycroft [12] and others. In 1968
Parmelee et al. [13] accounted for the frequency depend-
ence of the foundation stiffness terms using the expres-
sions available at that time [12]. Parametric studies along
these lines using Biggs 3 degree of freedom model, ac-
counting for the mass of the base and the rotational iner-
tia were conducted in 1970 by Sarrazin [14] who re-
ported that the main interaction effects were likely to to
be due to the base rotation rather than a change in the
translation, confirming what had been reported by
2 Jose M. Roesset
Housner. By that time it had become accepted that these
dynamic soil structure interaction effects would be ge-
nerally more important for very stiff and massive st-
ructures such as Nuclear Power Plants than for very flex-
ible buildings on rock or very stiff soils. A symposium on
the Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants held at MIT
in 1969, with the proceedings [15] published in 1970 in-
cluded already a chapter by R.V. Whitman on Soil Struc-
ture Interaction.
The publication in 1971 of more accurate dynamic
stiffness terms for circular foundations over an extended
range of frequencies by Veletsos and Wei [16] and Luco
and Westman [17] allowed studies to be conducted with
more accurate models and triggered another increase in
research efforts. The simplified model of Parmelee was
used by Jennings and Bielak [18] to derive an approxi-
mate expression for the effective natural frequency of the
soil-structure system that have been widely used for pre-
liminary estimates. Kausel pointed out in 1974 [19] the
need to consider in the seismic case not only the defor-
mations of the soil due to the inertia forces in the struc-
ture (axial forces, base shear and overturning moment),
which corresponds exactly to the problem of interest in
the design of vibrating machine foundations, but also the
effect of a rigid foundation on a train of travelling seis-
mic waves, filtering out high frequency components of
the translational motions and introducing rotational mo-
tions (rocking and torsion in the general case). Whitman
introduced the terms inertial and kinematic interaction to
distinguish these two types of effects. Later studies con-
firmed the potential importance of kinematic interaction
effects particularly for embedded foundations.
The research efforts during the 70s proceeded along
several complementary lines developing methods of an-
alysis incorporating soil-structure interaction, determin-
ing the dynamic stiffness of different types of founda-
tions, and evaluating the relative importance of inertial
and kinematic interaction.
2. Methods of Analysis
Two general methods of analysis were developed
and used for seismic analyses including soil-structure in-
teraction:
1. A direct approach in which the combined soil-struc-
ture system is solved in a single step. The structure is
modeled through a combination of finite elements and
linear members, and the soil is discretized using finite
elements or finite differences.
2. A three step or substructure approach where the pro-
blem is divided into three parts: determination of the
motions of the foundation without any structure due to
the seismic waves, computation of a dynamic stiffness
matrix for the foundation, and dynamic analysis of the
structure with the foundation matrix added and sub-
jected to the motion computed in the first step.
The direct approach, referred to by Seed et al. [20] as
the complete solution would indeed be the best if one
were to conduct nonlinear time domain analyses of de-
tailed three dimensional models of the soil and the struc-
ture, with appropriate nonlinear constitutive relations for
the soil, and allowing to consider all types of waves. In
practice, unfortunately, these analyses were most of the
times conducted with two dimensional plane strain mo-
dels as implemented in the computer program LUSH
[21], or pseudo three dimensional models as in FLUSH
[22]. They were performed in the frequency domain us-
ing equivalent soil properties obtained from iterative lin-
ear analyses, modifying the shear modulus and damping
as a function of the value of characteristic shear strains
obtained from the previous cycle, and they assumed the
same motion at all points along the bottom boundary of
the model, simulating shear waves with vertical propa-
gation. The structural models were normally relatively
simple, and in some sample cases only blocks of finite
elements. It was suggested in fact to use the analyses
with simplified structural models just to find the motion
at the base of the structure and then use this motion for
traditional more refined seismic structural analyses (these
models do not allow normally, however, specifying a ro-
tation at the base). The pseudo three dimensional model
considered a slice of soil with viscous dashpots placed
on the lateral faces. It was not able to reproduce correctly
a circular foundation, it required the selection of a width
of the soil slice and it was based on the assumption that
purely two dimensional models underestimated the radi-
ation damping. Whether the damping is underestimated
or overestimated depends in fact on the width of the slice
chosen. FLUSH included consistent lateral boundaries
based on Waas work [23] that allowed to consider
purely linear elastic cases as well as cases with very little
internal soil damping.
 Soil Structure Interaction The Early Stages
A better procedure was provided by the Soil Island
Approach [24]. In this case the solution was carried out
in the time domain with a nonlinear constitutive model
for the soil. The soil mass did not have absorbing (or
transmitting) lateral boundaries and the model would not
be able to provide therefore an accurate solution for a lin-
ear elastic case or if the internal damping was very small.
It was intended however for cases with substantial non-
linear soil behavior so that the waves generated by the vi-
bration of the structure would be essentially damped out
before reaching the boundaries, and initially for buried
structures subjected to blast loads.
The direct solution procedures required in all cases
the specification of the seismic input at the base of the
soil model. There was a need therefore to obtain motions
at the depth of the models base compatible with the de-
sign earthquake specified at the free surface of the soil or
at a hypothetical rock outcrop (unless the motion was di-
rectly specified at bedrock). This was referred to as a
deconvolution analyses and gave rise to additional pro-
blems.
The three step approach was proposed by Kausel
[25] in 1974. It required a linear system with nonlinear
soil behavior accounted for approximately by using the
equivalent properties resulting from free field soil ampli-
fication studies (based on the iterative linearized solu-
tion for the one dimensional case). The additional non-
linearities due to the vibrations of the structure were ne-
glected and so were other nonlinear effects (separation
between the foundation and the soil). The analyses were
normally conducted in the frequency domain. The main
advantages of this procedure were that each one of the
steps could be carried out with any desired model and the
results of each step could be easily checked to see if they
were reasonable and agreed with what one could expect
based on the characteristics of the problem, The first
step, corresponding to the kinematic interaction, could
consider any trains of seismic waves propagating th-
rough the soil and allowed to specify the design motion
at any point. The second step allowed to conduct analy-
ses for each specific case or to use in many cases avail-
able published solutions. The third and final step re-
quired in general a special purpose computer program
because the traditional ones would not allow to consider
both horizontal and rotational components of motion or
to account for a frequency dependent dynamic stiffness
3
of the foundation. This is still true today of some com-
mercial programs that claim to allow for soil structure in-
teraction effects but do not. More detailed descriptions
of the method were provided by Veletsos [26] in 1977
and by Luco [27] in 1982.
While the solution with either approach was carried
out in general in the frequency domain (the exception be-
ing the soil island approach) most practicing structural
engineers were more familiar with the use of modal anal-
ysis and, in many cases, modal spectral analysis. Unfor-
tunately the damping matrix associated with the founda-
tion, even if one assumed constant, frequency independ-
ent terms, did not satisfy the orthogonality condition and
therefore the complete system did not have real modes in
the classical sense. A number of approximate solutions
to perform modal analyses were proposed [28,29]. An
exact solution was presented by Chopra and Gutierrez
[30].
The advantages and disadvantages of the direct and
the 3 step approach were the subject of a significant con-
troversy for several years and the results they provided
were often compared making very different assumptions
for each case (considering for instance a soil layer of fi-
nite thickness in one case and an elastic half space in the
other). At one time the direct approach with the use of
the program FLUSH was the only one accepted by the
nuclear regulators of some countries in spite of its clear
limitations. The controversy ended when John Lysmer et
al. [31] developed a more accurate, three dimensional,
but linear substructure solution in program SASSI. The
substructure approach was then finally accepted by regu-
lators.
3. Dynamic Stiffness of Foundations
The original work on the dynamic stiffness of foun-
dations had considered a rigid circular mat on the surface
of a linear elastic and homogeneous half space. The solu-
tion for a more realistic layered half space had been de-
veloped by Luco [32]. Kausel [19], using a finite element
formulation in cylindrical coordinates with consistent
lateral boundaries (an extension of Waas boundary [21],
had studied both surface and embedded foundations in a
layered soil deposit of finite depth (with a rigid bottom
simulating very stiff rock). The main differences be-
tween the results for a half space and those for a finite
4 Jose M. Roesset
layer were that the static stiffness would increase in the
latter case, that the variation of the real stiffness (spring
constant) with frequency was much more pronounced,
with oscillations corresponding to the natural frequen-
cies of the layer, and that the imaginary part of the stiff-
ness, representing the radiation damping, would be zero
below a threshold frequency (the fundamental frequency
of the soil layer in shear for horizontal vibrations, and a
frequency function of Poissons ratio (and essentially
equal to the P wave natural frequency for values of this
ratio less than 1/3) for the rotational and vertical cases.
The increase in the values of the static stiffness is par-
ticularly large for the vertical case, intermediate under
horizontal vibration and smallest for the rocking term.
The stiffness of a foundation increases also with em-
bedment but in this case the effect is largest for rocking
vibrations, intermediate for horizontal motions and
smallest for the vertical term, the opposite of the trend
for a finite layer by opposition to a half space. The radia-
tion damping increases also with embedment and this in-
crease is particularly important in rocking and for low
frequencies. On the other hand these increases are af-
fected by the conditions of the backfill. Approximate so-
lutions for embedded foundations, replacing the backfill
by distributed springs and dashpots from Baranovs for-
mulas [33] for a disk vibrating in or out of a horizontal
plane, had been presented by Beredugo and Novak [34]
and Novak and Sachs [35]. These valuable approxima-
tions give reasonable results in most cases but imply that
an embedded foundation with no contact with the back-
fill would have the same stiffness as a surface founda-
tion, which is not correct. While the increases reported
above diminish substantially in this case they do not dis-
appear entirely. Solutions for rectangular foundations
were obtained by Dominguez [36] using the boundary
element (boundary integral equation) method and with
the publication of Greens functions for layered media by
Kausel [37] and Luco and Apsel [38] it became possible
to find solutions for surface or embedded foundations of
arbitrary shape.
The dynamic stiffness of single piles was investi-
gated by Novak [39] using a model of a beam on elastic
foundation with the soil represented again by springs and
dashpots from Baranovs work [33]. A more accurate so-
lution, replacing the soil around the pile by the consistent
boundary matrix of Kausel [19] and accounting for the
full interaction between soil reactions and displacements
along the pile, was developed by Blaney [40]. Later
comparative studies by Sanchez Salinero [41] showed
that the results obtained using Novaks formulation pro-
vide in general good agreement with the more accurate
solution for typical dimensions of solid piles. They are
not however so reliable for hollow piles where the mo-
ment of inertia of the pile is no longer a simple function
of its radius. A Winkler foundation model does not incor-
porate the size of the soil cavity and yields therefore re-
sults that are dependent only on the moment of inertia of
the pile. The Winkler model is however very popular and
is also the basis for nonlinear analysis of piles using P-y
curves. More serious errors are committed for hollow
piles when using finite element models of the soil and re-
producing the pile by a single line along its centroidal
axis as a one dimensional beam-column, yet this is also a
popular model used in various research studies both for
single piles and pile groups. In this case the results ob-
tained are those corresponding to a cavity with zero ra-
dius. The dynamic stiffness of pile groups, or complete
pile foundations, was studied independently by Kaynia
[42] and by Gomez [43]. There is still some controversy
today about the validity of using elastic interaction coef-
ficients and it has been suggested to make these coeffi-
cients equal to zero when the distance between the two
piles is larger than 10 or even 5 pile diameters. This
makes however an important difference for very large
pile groups. Some regulations recommend neglecting
entirely interaction effects between the piles for separa-
tions of 5 or even 3 pile diameters. Neglecting group ef-
fects for distances between piles of only 3 diameters is
not advisable. It must be realized however that the dy-
namic interaction coefficients and resulting group fac-
tors are functions of frequency and can be quite different
from the static values. There is a scarcity of reliable ex-
perimental data on the dynamic stiffness of pile groups.
Sharnouby and Novak [44] published results of carefully
conducted tests on a set of 102 small piles and Novak and
Sharnouby [45] compared the experimental data to the
results of some of the above mentioned formulations.
Soil properties varied with depth and two sets of slightly
different profiles were used for the calculations. The
tests indicated a static lateral stiffness of 22.8 106 N/m
and the computations gave values of 21.7 106 N/m and
22 106 N/m for the 2 soil profiles. The difference be-
 Soil Structure Interaction The Early Stages
tween the group factors was larger because the value of
the stiffness for a single pile used by the authors to obtain
the factor for the experimental case was different from
that obtained with the programs. The frequency of the
peak in the experimental frequency response curve was
15 to 20% higher than that obtained with the program in-
dicating that the variation of the stiffness with frequency
might be somewhat overestimated.
4. Effects of Inertial and Kinematic
Interaction
The main consequence of soil-structure interaction
is that the motion that will occur at the base of a structure
will not be equal to that experienced at the same level in
the free field as was traditionally assumed by structural
engineers in seismic structural analyses. The differences
between these motions are due in part to the scattering of
the seismic waves by the foundation (the inability of a
stiff foundation to follow the deformations that would
occur in the soil) and in part to the deformations and dis-
placements induced in the soil by the inertia forces in the
vibrating structure transmitted through the foundation.
The first effect is the kinematic interaction, particularly
important for embedded foundations. The second is the
inertial interaction. In this case instead of finding what
would be the motion at the base of the structure in order
to conduct a traditional seismic analysis it is normally
preferred to analyze a modified system consisting of the
structure and the foundation represented by a dynamic
stiffness matrix. For a rigid or very stiff foundation this
matrix would have at most 6 degrees of freedom; for
foundations with 2 planes of symmetry one could uncou-
ple 2 two by two matrices corresponding to horizontal
motions and rotations and two independent terms repre-
senting the vertical and torsional stiffness; for surface
foundations the coupling terms between horizontal
translation and rocking are small and are often neglected
leading to a diagonal stiffness matrix (or six independent
frequency dependent springs and dashpots) whereas for
embedded foundations this would require placing the
springs at some elevation above the base. The effects of
the inertial interaction are represented then by the change
between the dynamic properties (natural frequencies and
damping) of the structure-foundation system and of the
structure alone.
5
Inertial interaction effects are characterized by an in-
crease in the natural period (the structure-foundation
system is more flexible than the structure alone) and a
change (often, but not always, an increase) in the effec-
tive damping due to radiation of waves away from the
foundation. The importance of the change in period will
depend on the value of the period of the structure by it-
self and the frequency content of the seismic motion (in-
cluding kinematic interaction effects). For any particular
earthquake the result may be beneficial or detrimental
depending on whether the shift in period leads to a lower
or a higher value of the response spectrum. When using
smooth design spectra rather than actual motions the ef-
fect will be often small. For other types of excitations
(such as wave loads) the change in period may be detri-
mental. The change in effective damping is normally
beneficial, particular for short and wide stiff structures,
but it could be again detrimental for slender structures
because the radiation damping in rocking is much smaller
than in translation.
Kinematic interaction effects are characterized by a
filtering of high frequencies in the translational compo-
nents of motion and the appearance of rotational (rock-
ing and torsion) components. For surface foundations
subjected to seismic waves travelling at a nonzero angle
with respect to the vertical direction there will be a re-
duction in the amplitude of the translation with increas-
ing frequencies and the appearance of torsional compo-
nents of motion. Even a perfectly symmetric structure
would thus be subjected to torsion. Newmark [46] dis-
cussed the fact that for travelling shear waves at an angle
there would be a torsional component of motion at the
base of the structure, an effect that came to be known as
Newmarks torsion or the tau effect and that prom-
pted the regulatory agencies to have it considered in the
design of Nuclear Power Plants. Yamahara [47] on the
other hand had discussed the reduction in the horizontal
motion from observation of damage to school buildings
during the Tokachi Ochi earthquake, confirming what
Housner had reported in 1957 [8] and derived a proce-
dure to evaluate this effect. In reality both effects take
place simultaneously and one should not consider one
and ignore the other, as shown by Scanlan [48]. Kine-
matic interaction effects are particularly important for
embedded foundations even for vertically propagating
shear waves. IN this case there will be again a reduction
6 Jose M. Roesset
in the amplitude of the translational motion with increas-
ing frequency and the appearance of a rocking compo-
nent. Their importance will depend on the ratio between
the natural frequency of the structure-foundation system
and the natural frequency of the embedment layer. It will
be very small for low values of this ratio and will become
significant as the ratio increases (values larger than 0.5).
For stiff, short and wide buildings on soft soils the effect
will be generally beneficial with potentially large reduc-
tions in the horizontal motion of the base, whereas for
slender structures the base rotation may be detrimental.
For waves travelling at an angle with the vertical there
will be both rocking and torsional components. Increase
in the amplitudes of one will result in reductions in the
other. These effects were studied by Elsabee and Morray
[49] for a soil layer of finite depth over much stiffer rock
and by Luco and Wong [50] for a half space. Several pa-
pers were published after on the response of surface and
embedded foundations for different types of seismic
waves, including surface waves and an excellent approx-
imate procedure to estimate the motions of embedded
rigid foundations was presented by Iguchi [51] in 1982.
The use of kinematic interaction as a first step in the
substructure approach was not allowed for some time by
some nuclear regulators due perhaps to the belief that the
effect was due to the reduction of the amplitude of mo-
tion with depth in the free field (only a horizontal com-
ponent without rotation) as stated by some authors. In
this case for an elastic soil without damping the motion
at the natural frequency of a layer with the thickness of
the embedment would be zero and there would always be
a very large reduction around that frequency. This gave
rise to concerns if the natural frequency of the soil-struc-
ture system fell close to this one. The belief was however
incorrect. The motion of an embedded foundation is the
result of the scattering of the waves by a rigid body and is
therefore a function of the geometry (ratio between the
embedment and the radius) of the foundation. Accep-
tance or rejection of kinematic effects is directly related
to the location where the design motion is specified and
therefore it was prescribed at some time that the design
motion be applied at the foundation level. This gave rise
however to serious inconsistencies when various neigh-
boring and interconnected buildings were founded at dif-
ferent levels, inconsistencies that affected the design of
pipes connecting the buildings. The alternative of pre-
scribing the motion directly at the base of the structure
negated both inertial and kinematic interaction effects,
regressing to the times when all soil effects were unac-
counted for.
Although much remained to be done to be able to ac-
curately predict all aspects of seismic soil structure inter-
action in the real world by the early eighties, in spite of
the controversy related to the advantages or limitations
of different analysis procedures, the basic phenomena
were well known and understood. In 1985 Wolfs book
on Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction [52] was pub-
lished providing a rigorous and comprehensive treatment
of the topic with applications both to machine founda-
tions and particularly to the seismic case.
References
[1] Okabe, S., General Theory of Earth Pressure, Jour.
of the Japanese Society of Civil Engrs, Tokyo, Japan
(1926).
[2] Mononabe, N. and Matsuo, H., On the Determination
of Earth Pressure During Earthquakes, Proc. of the
World Eng. Conf., Vol. 9, p. 176 (1929).
[3] Sezawa, K. and Kanai, K., Decay in the Seismic Vi-
bration of a Simple or Tall Structure by Dissipation of
Their Energy into the Ground, Bull. of the Earthq. Re-
search Inst., Japan, Vol. 13, pp. 681-696 (1935).
[4] Sezawa, K. and Kanai, K., Energy Dissipation in
Seismic Vibrations of a Framed Structure, Bull. of the
Earthq. Research Inst., Japan, Vol. 13, pp. 698-714
(1935).
[5] Sezawa, K. and Kanai, K., Energy Dissipation in
Seismic Vibrations of Actual Buildings, Bull. of the
Earthq. Research Inst. Japan, Vol. 13, pp. 925-941
(1935).
[6] Martel, R. R., Effect of Foundation on Earthquake
Motion, Civil Engineering, Jan. (1940).
[7] Merritt, R. G. and Housner, G. W., Effects of Founda-
tion Compliance on Earthquake Stress in Multi-Story
Buildings, Bull. SSA, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 551-570
(1954).
[8] Housner, G. W., Interaction of Building and Ground
During an Earthquake, Bull. S.S.A., Vol. 47, No. 3,
pp. 179-186 (1957).
[9] Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, Mc
Graw & Hill (1964).
 Soil Structure Interaction The Early Stages
[10] Parmelee, R. A., Building-Foundation Interaction Ef-
fects, Jour. Eng. Mech Div. ASCE, Vol. 93, No. EM2,
pp. 131-152 (1967).
[11] Reissner, E., Stationare, Axialsymmetrische, Durch
Schuttelnde Masse Erregte Schwingungen Eines Ho-
mogenen Elastischen Halbraumes, Ing. Archiv, Vol.
7, pp. 381-396.
[12] Bycroft, G. N., Forced Vibrations of a Rigid Circular
Plate on a Semiinfinite Elastic Space and on an Elastic
Stratum, Phil. Trans. of the Roy. Soc of London, Vol.
248, p. 327 (1956).
[13] Parmelee, R. A., Perelman, D. S., Lee, S. and Keer, L.,
Seismic Response of Structure-Foundation Systems,
Jour. Eng. Mech Div. ASCE, Vol. 94, No. EM6, pp.
1295-1315 (1968).
[14] Sarrazin, M. A., Soil-Structure Interaction in Earth-
quake Resistant Design, Research Report R70-59,
Dept. Civil Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1970).
[15] Whitman, R. V., Soil-Structure Interaction, Seismic
Design for Nuclear Power Plants, Edited by Robert J.
Hanson, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1970).
[16] Veletsos, A. S. and Wei, Y., Lateral and Rocking Vi-
bration of Footings, Jour. of the Soil Mech. and
Found. Div. ASCE, Vol. 97 (1971).
[17] Luco, J. E. and Westmann, R., Dynamic Response of
Circular Footings, Jour. of the Eng. Mech. Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 97 (1971).
[18] Jennings, P. C. and Bielak, J., Dynamics of Build-
ing-Soil Interaction, Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., Vol. 63
(1973).
[19] Kausel, E., Forced Vibrations of Circular Founda-
tions on Layered Media, Sc. D. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (1974).
[20] Seed, H. B., Whitman, R. V. and Lysmer, J., Soil
Structure Interaction Effects in the Design og Nuclear
Power Plants, Structural and Geotechnical Mechan-
ics, A volume honoring N. M. Newmark (W. J. Hall
Editor) Prentice Hall (1977).
[21] Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Seed, H. B. and Hwang, R. N.,
LUSH A Computer Program for Complex Response
Analysis of Soil Structure Systems, UCB/EERC-74/
4, U.C. Berkeley (1974).
[22] Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C. F. and Seed, H. B.,
FLUSH A Computer Program for Approximate 3D
Analysis of Soil Structure Interaction Problems,
UCB/EERC-75/30 Earthq. Eng. Res. Ctr., U.C. Berke-
7
ley (1975).
[23] Waas, G., Earth Vibration Effects and Abatement for
Military Facilities, Tech. Report S71-14, USAEWES
(1972).
[24] Nelson, I. and Isenberg, J., Soil Island Approach to
Structure Media Interaction, Report E931606 Weid-
linger Associates (1976).
[25] Kausel, E. and Roesset, J. M., Soil Structure Interac-
tion Problems for Nuclear Containment Structures,
Electric Power and the Civil Engineer, Proc. of the
ASCE Power Div. Conf., Boulder, Colorado (1974).
[26] Veletsos, A. S., Dynamics of Structure Foundation
Systems, Structural and Geotechnical Mechanics, A
volume honoring N. M. Newmark (W. J. Hall Editor)
Prentice Hall, pp. 333-361 (1977).
[27] Luco, J. E., Linear Soil Structure Interaction: A Re-
view, Earthquake Ground Motion and its Effects on
Structures, Winter Annual Meeting ASME, pp. 41-58
(1982).
[28] Roesset, J. M., Whitman, R. V. and Dobry, R., Modal
Analysis for Structures with Foundation Interaction,
Jour. Struc. Eng. Div. ASCE, Vol. 99, ST3, pp. 389-
416 (1973).
[29] Bielak, J., Modal Analysis for Building-Soil Interac-
tion, Jour. Eng.Mech. Div. ASCE, Vol. 102, EM5, pp.
771-786 (1976).
[30] Chopra, A. K. and Gutierrez, J. A., Earthquake Re-
sponse Analysis of multistOry Buildings Including
Foundation Interaction, Int. J. of Earthq. Engng. and
Struct. Dyn., Vol. 3, pp. 65-77 (1977).
[31] Lysmer, J., Tabatabaie, M., Tajirian, F. F., Vahduni, S.
and Ostradan, F., SASSI A System for Analysis of
Soil Structure Interaction, UCB/GT-81/02 Geotech.
Eng., U.C. Berkeley (1981).
[32] Luco, J. E., Impedance Functions for a Rigid Founda-
tion on a Layered Medium, Nuclear Eng. and Design,
Vol. 31, pp. 204-217 (1974).
[33] Baranov, V. A., On the Calculation of Excited Vibra-
tions of an Embedded Foundation, (in Russian) Vo-
prosy Dynamiki Prochnocti, Vol. 14, pp. 195-209
(1967).
[34] Beredugo, Y. O. and Novak, M., Coupled Horizontal
and Rocking Vibration of Embedded Footings, Can.
Geotech. Jour., Vol. 9, pp. 477-497 (1972).
[35] Novak, M. and Sachs, K., Torsional and Coupled Vi-
brations of Embedded Footings, Int. J. of Earthq.
8 Jose M. Roesset
Engng. and Struct. Dyn., Vol. 2, pp. 11-33 (1973).
[36] Dominguez, J., Dynamic Stiffness of Rectangular
Foundations, Research Report R78-30, Dept. of Civil
Eng. MIT (1978).
[37] Kausel, E., An Explicit Solution for the Greens
Functions for Dynamic Loads in Layered Media, Re-
search Report R81-13, Dept. of Civil Eng. MIT
(1981).
[38] Luco, J. E. and Apsel, R. J., On the Greens Functions
for a Layered Half Space, part I, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am., Vol. 73, pp. 909-929 (1983).
[39] Novak, M., Dynamic Stiffness and Damping of
Piles, Can. Geot. Jour., Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 574-598
(1974).
[40] Blaney, G. W., Kausel, E. and Roesset, J. M., Dy-
namic Stiffness of Piles, Proc. 2 nd Int. Conf. on Nu-
merical Methods in Geomechanics, ASCE (1976).
[41] Salinero, I. S., Static and Dynamic Stiffness of Single
Piles, Geot. Eng. Report GR82-31, Civil Eng. Dept.
UT Austin (1982).
[42] Kaynia, A. M. and Kausel, E., Dynamic Behavior of
Pile Groups, Proc. 2 nd Int. Conf. on Numerical Me-
thods in Offshore piling, Austin, Texas (1982).
[43] Gomez, R., Rigideces Dinamicas de Grupos de Pi-
lotes, Ph. D. Dissertation, National Autonomous Uni-
versity of Mexico (UNAM) (1982).
[44] Sharnouby, B. E. I. and Novak, M., Dynamic Experi-
ments with Group of Piles, Jour. Geotech. Eng.,
ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 6, pp. 719-737 (1984).
[45] Novak, M. and Sharnouby, B. E. I., Evaluation of Dy-
namic Experiment on Pile Group, Jour. Geotech.
Eng., ASCE, Vol. 110, No 6, pp. 738-7756 (1984).
[46] Newmark, N. M., Torsion of Symmetrical Build-
ings, Proc. IV World Conf. on Earthq. Eng., Santiago,
Chile (1969).
[47] Yamahara, H., Ground Motions During Earthquakes
and the Input Loss of Earthquake Power to an Excita-
tion of Buildings, Soils and Foundations X, Japan
Soc. of Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. (1970).
[48] Scanlan, R. H., Seismic Wave Effects in Soil Struc-
ture Interaction, Int. Jour. Earthq. Eng. and Struc.
Dynamics, Vol. 4, pp. 379-388 (1976).
[49] Elsabee, F. and Morray, J. P., Dynamic Behavior of
Embedded Foundations, Research Report R77-33.
MIT, Dept. of Civil Engineering (1977).
[50] Luco, J. E. and Wong, H. L., Seismic Response of
Foundations Embedded in a Layered Half-Space,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 15, p. 2 (1987).
[51] Iguchi, M., An Approximate Analysis of Input Mo-
tionsfor Rigid Embedded Foundations, Trans. Arch.
Inst. of Japan 315, pp. 61-75 (1982).
[52] Wolf, J., Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction, Prentice
Hall (1985).
Manuscript Received: Nov. 10, 2012
Accepted: Nov. 30, 2012