COUPLED SOIL-PILE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS UNDER

SEISMIC EXCITATION

By J. Guin,t Associate Member, ASCE, and P. K. Banerjee,z Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction has been an area of limited research, and most of the existing
work adopts the conventional approach of soil-structure interaction analyses in which the problem is solved by
superposition of kinematic and inertial interaction. This multistep approach is often time consuming. The present
study focuses on a coupled finite element-boundary element type approach, where the entire problem domain
is solved in a single pass. The problem is cast in the frequency domain and a substructured method of analysis
is adopted by interfacing the superstructure and the foundation at the foundation cap level. The free-field seismic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

response is calculated by an equivalent-linear method that is widely used. The formulation allows for multiple
supports with varying excitations. Coupling of the problem allows one to construct transfer functions for various
degrees of freedom in the structure including the effects of interaction. A number of examples presented in this
paper demonstrate the utility of the method in solving problems involving bridge piers and building frames.

INTRODUCTION
Research in the field of dynamic soil-structure interaction
(SSI) since the early 1970s has primarily been focused in the
realm of nuclear containment facilities. The high level of risk
associated with such facilities and the consequent conservative
design criteria have necessitated rigorous numerical analyses
that include the effects of SSI. As a result of the work of
several researchers (Roesset et al. 1973; Veletsos and Meek
1974; Lysmer et al. 1981; Wolf 1985; Gutierrez and Chopra
1978) a good level of understanding of the subject has been
established. Luco (1982) gives a review of all linear SSI anal-
ysis methods and a comprehensive literature review on the
subject. Building frames supported on shallow mat founda-
tions have also been studied including the effects of SSI (Par-
malee 1967; Jennings and Bielak 1973; Chopra and Gutierrez
1974). The field of dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction
(SPSI) has received less attention, although some earlier work
(Penzien 1970; Takemiya and Yamada 1981) attempted to
characterize the behavior of the overall system.
Over the past 15 years a substantial research effort (Kaynia
and Kausel 1982; Gazetas 1984; Mamoon and Banerjee 1990;
Makris and Badoni 1995) has been spent in formulating and
studying the kinematic seismic behavior of piles and pile
groups subjected to incident waves. With this knowledge, the
focus in recent years has shifted to SPSI resulting in the re-
search efforts of Mylonakis (1995) and Makris et al. (1994).
Their formulations are based on a manual multistep approach
and utilize simplified semianalytical methods.
Pile foundations and drilled shafts are the most common
foundation solutions for bridges and building structures. The
performance of such structure-foundation systems in the recent
Northridge (1994) and Kobe (1995) earthquakes have come
under scruti ny. 8 uckle (1994) gives a comprehensive account
of the performance of highway bridges in the 1994 Northridge,
Calif., earthquake. These recent cases have generated sufficient
reason to believe that the subject of SPSI should be investi-
gated with greater rigor and precision. Moreover, the advances
in computer technology and the availability of computing
1Sr. Res. Engr., Appl. Insurance Res., 137 Newbury St., Boston, MA
02116; Formerly. Grad. Student, State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, N.Y.
'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., State Univ. of New York, Buffalo, NY
14260.
Note. Associate Editor: Chia-Ming Uang. Discussion open until Sep-
tember I, 1998. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on March
17, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 124, No.4, April, 1998. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/98/0004-0434-
0444/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 15354.
434/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998
power justify the use of SPSI in greater detail in many im-
portant practical engineering structures.
This paper presents a generalized coupled finite element-
boundary element type formulation for the entire problem do-
main, followed by a number of practical examples. The fea-
tures and utility of the method are demonstrated via these ex-
amples. Comparisons of results with the work of Mylonakis
(1995) are presented. The goal of this paper is to present a
methodology for analysis that can be used to study the dy-
namic characteristics of a soil-pile-structure system.
In the present study the problem is cast in the frequency
domain followed by numerical inversion to obtain results in
the time domain. The structure and the piles are modeled as
linear beam-column elements. Equivalent-linear treatment of
the viscoelastic soil domain is used to obtain the free-field
response by a method similar to Schnabel et al. (1972). A
hybrid boundary element technique is employed to couple the
soil and the structure. The superstructure and the piles are
conceived as a single structure, parts of which are embedded
in a multilayered viscoelastic solid of semi-infinite extent. This
perception allows one to capture the interaction effects be-
tween all the structural components of the system, and one
need not worry about kinematic and inertial interactions sep-
arately. This approach can be used for modeling an entire
structure like a long-span bridge along with its foundation sys-
tem in the longitudinal direction.
ANALYTICAL FORMULATION
The formulation uses the finite-element method (FEM) for
representing the structural components of the problem and
modeling the soil domain by the indirect boundary-element
method (BEM). The two sets of equations, thus produced, are
coupled by imposing displacement compatibility conditions at
the common interfaces, in this case the pile-soil interface. The
FEM is very powerful in modeling structural elements, espe-
cially one-dimensional (I D) members like the beam-column
elements used in this study. On the other hand, the BEM,
through the integral representation using Green's functions,
models the semi-infinite halfspace elegantly and accurately.
Thus, this hybrid approach utilizes the advantages of both
these methods to give a very attractive and cost-effective so-
lution.
Seismic kinematic response of piles and pile groups used in
this formulation is similar to that presented by Mamoon and
Banerjee (1990) and Mamoon et al. (1990) except that the pile
equations are slightly modified and a global equilibrium con-
straint equation set is introduced. This additional set of equa-
tions allows the cap degrees of freedom to be a part of the
final system of equations, which has the advantage of being

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 able to readily couple the substructured equations of the su-
perstructure, as will be shown later.
In the present study the pile foundation is a three-dimen-
sional (3D) model of the physical problem subjected to loads
parallel to a single plane only. The seismic excitation consid-
ered in this study is assumed to produce SH waves parallel to
a plane containing the global axes system. Hence the super-
structure that can be coupled with it is a planar structure. The
methodology presented herein is general enough to be ex-
tended to the complete 3D case, but in doing so one has to
bear increased computing costs, due to the larger system of
equations involved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Soil Equations
Scattering problems dealing with infinite and semi-infinite
regions are usually formulated by decomposing the total dis-
placement and traction fields ({ u'}, (t'}) into two parts (Ba-
nerjee 1994): a known free-field ({u I }, (tI}) and a scattered
field ({us}, If"~}), i.e.,
{Ul} = luI} + {US} (1)
{t'} = {tIl + ItS} (2)
An integral representation for the solution of the governing
differential equation in a semi-infinite medium, and the sub-
sequent discretization of the pile-soil interface yielding a ma-
trix equation have been represented by Mamoon and Banerjee
(1990)
(3)
where superscript s represents the scattered values; and the
subscript s indicates that the traction and displacement values
are obtained from a consideration of the soil medium alone.
The coefficients of the matrix [G] are obtained by integrating
along the pile-soil interface and utilizing the appropriate
Green's function. In the present study the numerically con-
structed fundamental solution in a layered halfspace, devel-
oped by Kaynia and Kausel (1982) is used. Their method was
an extension of the work of Apse! (1979), who presented dy-
namic Green's function in layered media through Hankel and
Fourier transformations of the governing differential equa-
tions. The displacement field due to distributed loads on cy-
lindrical and circular surfaces, embedded in a layered half-
space was used by Kaynia and Kausel in a boundary-element
formulation for the dynamic analysis of piles and pile groups.
But their solution strategy was not designed for a formulation
of the present type. In this work the aforementioned funda-
mental solution is reimplemented to suit the framework of the
current computer code. This has resulted in a significant ad-
vantage in computation cost.
The free-field in this study is obtained by an equivalent
linear, I D shear wave propagatioin analysis, similar to the
method proposed by Schnabel et al. (1972). This procedure
ensures strain-compatible dynamic properties of the layered
half-space. A rigorous (2D) wave propagation analysis allow-
ing for obliquely propagating waves and surface waves is more
appropriate, but is beyond the scope of the present work. Writ-
ing (3) in terms of (I) and (2), one gets
(4)
where
{b s } = [GHt{} (5)
Pile Equations
The governing differential equations for the vibration of the
piles under harmonic surface tractions were presented by Sen
J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.
et al. (1985). Though the beam-column flexibility matrix could
be employed for representing this set of equations, the ana-
lytical solutions presented by Sen et al. are more accurate and
appropriate in this case. An equivalent set of equations cor-
responding to the discretized pile-soil interface is
(6)
Global Equilibrium Constraint
The two sets of equations (4) and (6) can be coupled only
by imposing a constraint on the traction vector {t'l that is yet
unknown. This is achieved by defining a global constraint ma-
trix, equating the resultant of tractions developed on the pile-
soil interface to the externally applied load on the pile cap.
After some algebraic manipulation one obtains
[BHt~} - [E]{u~} = {!c} (7)
The coefficients of the [B] and [E] matrices are dependent on
pile geometry and inertial properties. In this equation {fc} is
the vector of externally applied loads on the pile cap. For a
kinematic seismic analysis of the pile, the vector {fc} is zero.
In a practical situation {fc] would represent the inertial loading
transferred from the superstructure, onto the foundation cap.
This point will be further examined when the final assembly
of equations is presented later in this paper.
Assembly of Pile-Soil Interface
The displacement vectors {u~}, {u~}, {u~} and traction vec-
tors {t~}, {t~} in (4) and (6) are unknowns. Therefore, to cou-
ple the sets of equations, displacement constraints have to be
assumed. In the present case, the pile-soil interface is assumed
either to be bonded or connected by a linear spring. The
spring-interface condition has been found to be quite effective
in accounting for moderate level of local nonlinearities like
"gap" formation at the pile-soil interface and "slip" between
pile and soil (Guin 1997). In the present problem the chief
source of nonlinear effects in the soil is due to the seismic
free-field motion and that is approximated by the equivalent
linear method, as mentioned earlier. A bonded interface im-
plies u~ = u~, whereas a spring interface relates pile and soil
displacements by
[K]({u~} - {u~}) = {t~}
The preceding [K] matrix is a series of uncoupled distributed
"complex" springs, the stiffness values of which are depen-
dent on the value of the soil modulus at a particular depth; K
can be expressed as K = K(I + 2iJ3.), where J3. is the hysteretic
damping factor in the soil layer and K for lateral coefficients
is given by
[( = F,Es/D (8)
and for axial coefficients
[( = FaGs 17rD (9)
where D = pile diameter; and E s and G s = soil Young's and
shear moduli, respectively. F, and Fa are factors that determine
the strength of the bond between the pile and the soil. High
values of F, (about 10) and Fa (about 5) make the pile-soil
interface behave like a bonded one. The use of these factors
also allows one to account for pile installation effects empir-
ically.
Equilibrium at the pile-soil interface is satisfied if
Using the bonded interface condition, eliminating u~ from (4)
and (6) and combining with (7) gives
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/435
 [G; D ~E] {~n tt:'} = (10)
For the spring interface condition, the term (G
will be replaced by (G + D + K- I ).
Extension to Pile Group
The procedure for extending the formulation to pile groups
of arbitrary spacing is based on the assumption of a rigid cap.
Extension of the formulation to a group is best understood by
rewriting the equations presented for a single pile for a two-
pile group from which the generalization to the arbitrary case
is obvious. The soil flexibility equation (4) can be written as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Superstructure Equations
A generalized finite-element formulation for a structure on
+ D) in (10) supports subjected to multiple excitation is adopted. The
reader is referred to Clough and Penzien (1993) for an elab-
orate discussion on the subject. Once the equations for the
entire superstructure are established, a substructured method is
implemented to couple the system to the foundation system.
Since the formulation will be cast in the frequency (w) do-
main, a constant hysteretic damping matrix of the form [C] =
2~w[K] is a preferable representation for conceptual as well
as computational reasons (Gutierrez and Chopra 1978). By
writing the total displacement vector {u t } of the superstructure
degrees of freedom as a sum of quasi-static displacements {u t }

of the superstructure degrees of freedom as a sum of quasi-

static displacements {u'} and a dynamic response {u},

The pile equation (6) takes the form lU'l = {US} + {u} (16)

and noting that under static conditions fU'l = {us}, gives

(12)

where the flexibility coefficients of the matrix [D] are un- where
coupled. The coupling between the piles lies embedded in the
matrix [hpJ, which is a result of the rigid-cap assumption. This (18)
methodology is explained in greater detail in the works of
Utilizing the preceding relations, one gets for time harmonic
Banerjee (1978) and Sen et al. (1985).
excitations
The equilibrium constraint equation for the two-pile group
is

(13)
(19)
Following a similar procedure as used for a single pile, the
assembled pile-group equation is where the vector {Ug} = displacements in the support degrees
of freedom and corresponds to the vector {u~} in (10), (14),
Gil + D 'I G I2
and (15), which is not known a priori. At this point it has to
[
G 21 G 22 + D 22 (14)
be emphasized that in SSI analyses in the literature (Gutierrez
B1 B 22
and Chopra 1978), the free-field motion and {u g } are usually
In the preceding equations the indices 1 and 2 refer to the assumed to be the same. This assumption is not valid for deep
two piles in the group. It can be seen that the form of (14) is foundations because, as will be demonstrated in the examples
very similar to that for a single pile [(10)] and the generalized later, the free-field and foundation motions vary appreciably.
system of equations for N piles can be represented by (10). Hence, all terms associated with {u g } in the right-hand side of
Therefore for a single group of N piles the vectors {u~} and (19) have to be carried over to the left-hand side and treated
{t~} in (10) have sizes equal to the number of degrees of as unknowns. In doing so, an attractive feature of a finite-
freedom at the pile cap and N times the number of degrees of element formulation, namely symmetric banded matrix, will
freedom along each pile shaft, respectively. have to be sacrificed, making the left-hand side an unsym-
metric matrix. Nevertheless, the resulting equations capture the
Multiple Groups true mechanics of the problem, though the storage and sub-
sequent reduction costs for the left-hand side increase. The
Extension of the formulation to mUltiple groups is useful modified form of (19) is
for coupling a superstructure with multiple supports to the en-
tire foundation system. Without showing the algebraic details
of the equations, the final form of the assembled equations for -w
2
[~:: ~::: ~::] {:j
two independent groups of piles are as follows:
px + (1 + 2i~) [Kss Ksg + k sg ] {u}g -_{o}
[G G+"Dlu
n
G,y
[G + Dl vy
b0 0] {t~x}
b py t~," =
{-bSX}
-bsy
where
Kgs Kgg + k gg U 0 (20)

[ B,
o
0
B,
-Ex
0
0
-Ey
U cx
U~y
!ex
fey !Vtg = - M,rsK;,,! K"g
(15)
Mgg = -MgsK.-;/Ksg
k sg = -K.<sK,;:;IKsg = -Ksg
where the indices x and y refer to the two independent groups. k gg = -KgsK,;:;IKsg
Eq. (15) shows that between the two groups only a weak cou-
pling exists through the terms G XY and G vx • For groups that are Eq. (20) can be rewritten as
very far apart, for example, a long span bridge, these coupling
terms are essentially zero and the behavior of the groups are
uncoupled. Again, the form of the equation is very similar to
[K] {:j = (OJ (21)

that for the single pile equation (10) and it will be used for where [k) = complex effective stiffness matrix of the dynamic
representing the general case. problem.
436/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 T TABLE 1. Foundation and Structural Properties for Examples
v" = 8Om/_; ...,e of Mylonakis (1995)
Clay cO
..... P" = 1.5Mglm'; Foundation system Superstructure

t
fI.1 = 10% (1 ) (2)
E = 2.510' KPa E = 2.510' KPa
D = 1.3 m (single shaft) I=0.14m4
D = 0.5 m (pile group) M = 350 Mg
. - v., = 330m/_; L = 15.5 m H=6m
Sand p = 2.5 Mglm' 13 = 5%
p" = 2.0Mglm';
8,,=7%
TABLE 2. Four Simplified Bridge Models (MylonakI81995)
Rotation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

~/,7>77777/77777777777>77777~
Rock
v,,,. = 12llOm/_; P.'" = 2.2Mglm'
Vertical S-Waves
FIG. 1. Soil Profile Used for Examples
A gaussian reduction process is utilized to eliminate the {u}
vector, such that it generates a system of equations in terms
of the foundation degrees of freedom {U g }:
Assembly for Entire System
For coupling all the systems of equations presented so far,
the global equilibrium equation for the foundation [(7)] is ex-
amined once again. The loading vector ifc} represents the net
external loading applied to the foundation. In the reduced form
of the structural equation (22) the inertial loading of the struc-
ture is embedded in the left-hand side. Combining (7) and (22)
gives
[B]{t~} - [E]{u~} = {OJ - [K]{u~}
since tUg} = {u~}.
Rewriting (10) with the modification of (23) gives the final
coupled form of the entire problem:
[G;D K~EJ{~~}={-;'}
The solution of (24) gives the tractions along the pile-soil in-
terface and the foundation displacements. Displacements along
the pile-soil interface can be recovered from (4). Back-substi-
tution into the reduced form of (21) yields the displacements
in the superstructure.
The system of equations for solving the foundation only
[(10)] is unsymmetrical and fully populated, which is typical
of a boundary-element formulation. The number of degrees of
freedom in the foundation system is comparable to that of the
superstructure and in many practical situations, may be even
higher. Therefore, the bulk of the computing cost is spent for
solving the foundation system equations. In this context it is
reasonable to solve an unsymmetric system of equations for
the superstructure.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH MYLONAKIS
Using a superposition of kinematic and inertial response,
Mylonakis (1995) has outlined a multistep equivalent-linear
method for analyzing soil-pile-bridge systems. His method is
based on a dynamic beam-on Winkler foundation type of for-
mulation. This section presents comparisons of results in the
form of transfer functions for the four "complete" analysis
cases that Mylonakis (1995) has considered. The time domain
Case Foundation system restraint at top
(1 ) (2) (3)
AI Single shaft Fixed
A21 Single shaft Free
CI 4 X 5 Pile group Fixed
C21 4 X5 Pile group Free
results are not compared because it is a trivial exercise of
numerically taking an inverse Fourier transform.
The soil profile used by Mylonakis, which is a type S4 soil
[according to "Recommended" (1991)], is shown in Fig. 1. It
is a typical soft clay stratum underlain by a thick layer of dense
(22)
sand, followed by an elastic bedrock. In the context of equiv-
alent-linear analysis for the free-field motion, the dynamic
properties of the soil profile are strain-compatible. This soil
stratum is subsequently used for all the examples presented in
this paper.
Four Cases Studied
Mylonakis (1995) has analyzed two bridge-pier systems that
are simplified models of actual bridges. The first model con-
sists of a single column bent on drilled pile of the same di-
ameter and the second is a similar superstructure founded on
(23) a group of 4 X 5 piles (spacing 3D) with a rigid cap. The
height of the pier is 6 m and the load carried by it is 3.5 MN.
The details of the two models are given in Table 1. Results
are obtained for excitation by vertical S waves described
through a rock outcrop motion.
(24) Two cases of each model are considered: (a) bridge deck
free to rotate; and (b) bridge deck fixed against rotation. Con-
dition (a) models the transverse vibration characteristics of a
long-span bridge appropriately. Condition (b) is an approxi-
mation for modeling the longitudinal vibration of a stiff deck,
monolithic with the column top. Longitudinal vibration char-
acteristics are studied in greater detail later in this paper via
an example. Nevertheless, the present methodology is em-
ployed for analyzing the aforementioned four cases, which are
summarized in Table 2 using the notations of Mylonakis
(1995).
Cases Ai and A2i: Single Column-Pile
Results are presented in the form of steady-state transfer
functions for the lateral displacement of the bridge deck, pier
base, and free-field ground surface motion. The harmonic ex-
citation amplitude at the rock outcrop is used to normalize
these response functions. Fig. 2 shows a comparison of results
for the two cases.
Case Al is represented in the plots of Fig. 2(a). The overall
dynamic characteristics of the system are similar to that of
Mylonakis (1995), but there are significant differences in the
magnitudes of the peaks in the response. The fundamental pe-
riod of the structure-foundation-soil system is about 0.65 sec
in both results, and it seems to be dominated by the second
resonant period of the soil deposit, which is about 0.5 sec. The
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I APRIL 1998/437

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 12 1lO

i 10
_F..,F.T4 8
~40
- BrltJ&I
e- s
0
§30
'S II
'5
0 0
.¥ 20
~ 4 8
..
0::
..: 2
~
"..:
..: 10

~
0
0.5 1.5 2 0 0.5 1.5 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Mylonakis (1995) (b)

20 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 40 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
c: c
.2 - FreeFieTd o - Free Field
'0
~
Q.
.. Pier Base
- Bridge
~Q.
39
.. Pier Base
- Bridge
f?u eu
'5 10
o 8 20
-no -no
ex:
-
..:
~
II: 10

o
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.5 2.0
Period: s

(8) Present Analysis (b)

FIG. 2. Comparison of Transfer Functions with Mylonakls (1995): (a) Case A1: Single Shaft with Top Fixed; (b) Case A21: Single Shaft
with Top Free

peak responses of the bridge deck and foundation from the
present analysis are about 15 and 7, respectively, as compared
to 10 and 4.5 in the published results. These differences will
obviously make a significant contribution in the time domain
results for the bridge system when subjected to a ground mo-
tion with dominant period close to 0.65 sec.
Fig. 2(b) represents the same set of results corresponding to
case A21, in which the deck is free to rotate. The fundamental
period of the composite system is about 1.25 sec. and it is
therefore clearly evident that the first resonant period of the
soil deposit (1.1 sec) dominates the response. The resonant
peaks of the response are much higher than in case A1 because
the structure is free to rotate at the top. The results agree fa-
vorably.
Cases Cl and C21: Single Column on 4 X 5 Pile Group
the second resonant frequency of the soil deposit. The in-
creased foundation stiffness as compared to case A21 reduces
the peak response of the deck. Since kinematic interaction of
pile groups reduce the rotational movement of pile caps (Kay-
nia and Kausel 1982; Mamoon and Banerjee 1990), of all the
previous cases, the foundation response is minimum in case
C21.
In conclusion, the present results are in agreement with My-
lonakis (1995). The differences that exist may be attributed to
the different assumptions in the two methodologies. While his
method is a simplified approach, the spring and damping pa-
rameters are calibrated against results based on the more rig-
orous numerical methods, like the present one. Moreover, the
present formulation is more general in its range of applica-
tions, as will be demonstrated by the examples in the rest of
this paper.

Fig. 3(a) shows the comparison of results for case Cl.
Again, the nature of the curves is similar, but there are differ-
ences in the peak magnitudes. The transfer function for the
deck in the results of Mylonakis (1995) shows a second res-
onant peak close to the fundamental one, which does not ap-
pear in the present analysis. The fundamental period of the
composite system coincides with the second resonant period
of the soil stratum, which is about 0.5 sec. This is closer to
the fixed-base fundamental period of the superstructure (0.27
sec) than in case A I (0.65 sec). The presence of 20 piles in
this case obviously results in a much stiffer foundation than
the single shaft of larger diameter, and this explains the shift
in period.
Results for case C21 as shown in Fig. 3(b) agree very well,
especially for the foundation motion. The composite funda-
mental period in this case is about 0.6 sec, which is close to
438/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998
Effect of Inertial Interaction
While still dwelling on the previous examples, an interesting
point to observe is the effect of inertial interaction on the over-
all seismic response. To illustrate this, cases A 1 and A21 are
analyzed by totally ignoring the contribution of inertial inter-
action. In other words, a kinematic seismic analysis of the pile
is performed and the resulting foundation motion is fed as the
support displacements for the structure. The difference in re-
sponse is highlighted in Fig. 4 and, as can be seen, the effect
is profound. The following observations are noteworthy:
• The kinematic seismic response of the single pile-head
follows the ground motion with slight amplifications, a
fact well established through the works of Kaynia and
Kausel (1982) and Mamoon and Banerjee (1990).

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 10 20
C c _Fro.FiJII
0 _Fro.P./1i 0
15 8 15 -PIo,B••
::a ::a 15
0-
-Br/df.
0-
g8 C
'S
0 6 10

...: 4
g
Q:: ! 5
..: 2
..:
~
-
..:
~
0 0
2 0 0.5 1.5 2
0 0.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Mylonakls (1995) (b)

12 20
c: c:
.Q 0 - Free Field
- FreeField
~
'0 .. Pier Base ~ 15 .. Pier Base
- Bridge
0- S - Bridge Q.
e e
~
0
'5 10
0 0
ti0 4 ti0

-
II:
..:
~
-
II:
..:
~
5

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period: s Period: s

(a) Present Analysis (b)

FIG. 3. Comparison of Transfer Functions with Mylonakls (1995): (a) Case C1: Pile Group with Top Fixed; (b) Case 21: Pile Group with
Top Free

• There is a significant shift in the fundamental period of NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

the structure due to interaction effects with the foundation
and soil. The two cases without inertial interaction obvi-
ously resonate at their fixed-base fundamental periods,
which are 0.27 sec (no rotation at top) and 0.53 sec (free
to rotate). Soil-pile-structure interaction therefore elon-
gates the period of the structure and tends to decrease the
peak response.
• The foundation head experiences large motions that are
dominated by the inertial load transferred from the su-
perstructure.
Effect of Spring-Interface
The examples shown so far have assumed that a perfect
bond exists between the piles and soil. A linear spring at the
pile-soil interface can approximately model the local nonlin-
earities like gapping, slipping, and softening of soil around the
pile. To verify the effects of such an assumption on the seismic
response of a structure-foundation system, the example of a
frame on a 2 X 3 pile group of the previous section is analyzed
with a spring-interface. The F values in (8) and (9) are taken
as 3, which is representative of a weaker soil layer around the
pile. The results (Guin 1997), which are not presented in this
paper, show very little effect of the spring on the overall re-
sponse of the structure and foundation. Reduction in soil stiff-
ness due to the spring is manifested in the slight increase in
the resonant period of the soil-structure system. One may con-
clude that since the structure dominates the response by virtue
of its inertial mass, local interface nonlinearities have very
little effect.
Results from the method of analysis proposed in this paper
are presented through the solution of a few selected examples.
A detailed parametric study of the effect of different parame-
ters on the behavior of the problem is out of the scope of this
work. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the problem are high-
lighted that could be topics for future investigation.
Ground Motion and Soil Profile Used
The time history response for certain problems is presented,
using the Pacoima dam downstream accelerogram (shown in
Fig. 5) recorded during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. It has
a peak horizontal acceleration (PGA) of about 0.42g. Vertically
propagating S waves generated through the application of this
motion at the rock outcrop are the source of seismic excitation
for all the analyses. The 5% and 10% damped response spectra
are also illustrated in Fig. 5. They clearly show a dominance
of low periods (0.2-0.4 sec) in the motion. Structural systems
analyzed in the examples of this section are assumed to be
founded on the soil profile depicted in Fig. 1.
Analysis of Long-Span Bridge
Pile groups and drilled shafts are widely used foundations
for bridges and therefore it can be expected that one of the
practical areas of application for the present analysis is in mod-
eling large long-span bridges. In particular, the problem stud-
ied here focuses on the longitudinal behavior (including the
effects of SPSI) of a typical multiple, long-span highway
bridge in the state of California. Fig. 6 shows a long-span
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/439

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 25

20
(a)
.
II
- - Free Field
Pier Base
II Withoullllleracl;on
II - - - Bridge
'1
II
15 II
I'
,/ ~YJ
I
( \ With Inzeraction
I

10
, I

I I ,
I I ,
I I ...
C .... \ / .. \ "
0 5 I
I
./ . ., ! \. -----
~. \ y~ ••.• ~ ...._.-.:.:.::..=.:..~.::.~.::-..::.-.-. -
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

+: I
-
0 I
:E I
----- ---........-........................---l
C. 0
...
0

-
0
~
0
::J
50
(b) ,1 - - Free Field
0
0
a:
40 ,I"
,, ,
Pier Base
- - - Bridge
.....: I
I I
I
Without Inzeraction
I
1\
I \
\

~
30 ( I \
I I I
I I \
( I \

20 (
(
I
1/ )1'\ Withlnzeraction

10 I
I
/ ., \
I
....
I
. /1 ".
.....
...

. . - :: ". ~ - - _t'- __ ::.::..~................... _

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (8)
FIG. 4. Effect of Inertial Interaction: (a) Case A1 (b) Case A21

elevation of the bridge and a typical cross section through the Ground Motion
box girder. The box girder and the piers are monolithic and
Two cases of ground motion are considered: (l) The Pa-
can therefore be assumed to be rigidly connected. There are
coima dam downstream motion applied at the rock outcrop,
four expansion joints (El, E2, E3, E4) in the entire length as assumed to be causing a uniform train of vertically propagat-
indicated. The terrain and the requirements of the interchange- ing S-waves, to impinge on all the supports with equal mag-
design are assumed to have guided the selection of bridge pier nitude and phase angle; and (2) the same motion, leading to
lengths. The foundation system for the bridge is typical of that the support excitations of equal magnitude but different
used in California; the piers are drilled into the ground forming phases. In particular, the motions at AI, PI, P2, P3, P4, P9,
a single monolithic drilled shaft-pier of uniform cross section. and A2 are assumed to be in the same phase and in exactly
In this example all the shafts are assumed to be drilled up to opposite phase (180°) to the motion at piers P5, P6, P7, and
a constant depth of 15 m. This particular example chosen re- P8. The average ground elevation of the piers within these two
sembles a section of the SRI4/I-5 interchange on Route 5 in groups is similar and it can be expected that for vertically
Los Angeles County, California, that was seriously damaged propagating waves the motion at a certain elevation will be
in the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Buckle 1994). the same. The out-of-phase motions in adjacent piers is se-
lected to create an adverse situation at the expansion joints.
Model Both these motions are idealistic, but in the framework of ID
wave propagation, these two situations serve the purpose of
The bridge is modeled as a 2D frame with beam column studying the results of analyses. The ID model of vertically
elements. Linear elastic springs are used to model the expan- propagating SH-waves through layered media was adopted be-
sion joints. In the context of linear springs, the behavior of the cause the solution is readily available and is widely used in
expansion joint has to be assumed the same in tension and practice. A 2D wave propagation analysis, taking account of
compression. The spring stiffness chosen provides a very weak the spatial variation of motion, is certainly more appropriate
moment connection at these joints and a very strong connec- in this situation and may be a subject of future investigation.
tion in a direction parallel to the pier axis. The spring stiffness Incorporation of a rigorous free-field solution in the present
along the axis of the girder, which is of interest, is chosen so formulation is straightforward via the vector {u{} in (5).
as to limit the relative motion between the girders to less than
3 cm. The end girders are assumed to be connected to the Dynamic Response
abutments through rigid bearings and so the ground motion Fig. 7 illustrates the response functions for the bridge deck
chosen in the analyses is directly applied at the end supports. at location (D) and three pier bases (P2, P5, and P6). The
440/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 0.50 restrainers have failed, followed by unseating of girders and
Pacoima, Northridge Motton (1l184) subsequent failure. The effects of SPSI, translated into the sub-
sequent relative movements at these junctions, is therefore of
0.25
:§ paramount importance. Although the behavior of the relative
c movement at such joints is highly nonlinear, it is felt that the
0
~ 0.00 present linear analysis will give a fairly good approximation
.!! of the pattern of behavior at these sections.
8u Fig. 8 illustrates the time histories of the relative motions
c(
-0.25 in the expansion joints. For both case 1 and case 2, maximum
movement occurs in E2 and hence that section of the bridge
is critical. Though the peak dynamic response in the bridge
-0.50 deck is lower for Case 2, the peak relative motion in the four
0 10 20
Time (9) joints are higher. The movements at the four joints in case 2,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

unlike in case 1, are out of phase, a direct consequence of the

1.5
input motion applied. The movements in E4 in case 2 is much
higher because of the out-of-phase ground motion at piers P8
~
-1l=5% and P9.
S .......... Il=Hl%
c
o
~ 1.0 Pier Drift and Base Forces
.!!
fl Pier drift is an important parameter from the structural de-
~ signer's point of view. For a structural system with long, un-
1! 0.5 supported members, like the present one, the foundation plays
i
Ul
a significant role. This is so because small movements at the
pier-base level translate to large displacements at the deck
0.0 '-- --' --'- --'- --l level. In case 1 the longest pier in this problem (P6) undergoes
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 a maximum drift of about 18 cm and the value in an inter-
Period (9) mediate pier (P4) is about 12 em. The interfering ground mo-
tion of case 2 reduces these values to the same order (10 cm)
FIG. 5. Pacoima, Northridge Motion and Its 5% and 10% for both piers. These results may be found in Guin (1997).
Damped Response Spectrum: This Motion Is Used for All Time The base shears and moments generated at piers P4 and P6
Domain Analyses
are plotted in Fig. 9. The shorter pier, P4, being more stiff,
attracts higher shear in both cases. The reduction in the mag-
fundamental period of the entire system is about 1.8 sec. An nitudes of the base shear for case 2 is due to the interfering
interesting observation is that the peak response magnitude of motions. Base moments at P4 and P6 are almost identical in
the structure decreases in case 2, in which the motions at a case 1 and of the same order in case 2.
number of piers are out of phase. This can be attributed to the
destructive interference of the motions at piers P4-P5 and Analysis of Building Frame Supported on Piles
P8-P9. Comparison of the motions at three pier bases shows
that the stiffer piers are subjected to higher movements. This A IS-storied building frame is analyzed including the effects
trend is expected since the stiffer components of the structure of SPSI. Two foundation systems to support the building form
are expected to attract higher loads and in this case the em- the two cases of analyses in this example. The configuration
bedded lengths of all the foundations are equal. of the building frame is illustrated in Fig. 10 and the relevant
sectional properties are given in Table 3.
Motion at Expansion Joints Four isolated footings supported on piles form the founda-
tion system in case 1. Case 2 considers a foundation where
A critical section of bridges subjected to ground shaking the entire building is supported on a pile-raft system. Since a
has often been the expansion joints. Typically these joints are 2D frame is considered, a representative area of the raft, sub-
located between the girder spans, close to the support. The jected to seismically induced loads, parallel to the plane of the
girders are held by cable restrainers that act as tension mem- frame is appropriate. Both foundation systems chosen are typ-
bers when the two girders tend to move away from each other. ical layouts used in practice. The foundation plan for the two
Several cases have been recorded in the past where these cable cases are illustrated in Fig. 11, where it can be seen that the

11 J) 12 E3 E4

T\'PJCAL SECTION

FIG. 6. Long Span Elevation and TypIcal Section of Bridge

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/441

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 20 dation systems is very similar. The fundamental frequency of
(a) the structure, as seen in the response at the roof level, is almost
identical. The slightly higher flexibility of the isolated footings
15 '\
1\ causes a shift in the dominant period along with a slight re-
I \ duction in the magnitude of the response. As a consequence
/ \ of these results, the time histories of the interstory drift at all
10 I \
/ \ levels of the building are similar too (Guin 1997).
1 \ The behavior of the structural components below the ground
I ,
c: 5
//1 ,/ ' ' - .....
is quite interesting in this problem. Two piles at locations 1
~
:iE
0

Co 0
~~~~:;:-:-
.--
::::.::-:.:-..
...........;;.~
and 2 (Fig. 11) are chosen for plotting the histories of shear
and moments at the pile heads. Fig. 13 shows that the shear
forces transferred to piles 1 and 2 in case 2 are significantly
2 higher than those in case 1. The piles in case 2, where they
~ 20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

:::J
0 - - Free FJeld
(b)
~
u .......... Pier Base (P2) 4.0
a:0 15 - - Pier Base (P5)
Pier Base (P6)
~ - - Bridge Deck (D) 2.0
:Ii Z
10 ..
~
ftI
CIl 0.0
.c
Ul
5 IftI
ID -2.0

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period (s) -4.0

FIG. 7. Transfer Functions for Bridge Superstructure and Pier 20.0

-- P4 (Case 1)
Base: (a) Case 1: Same Free Field Motion at All Piers; (b) Case 2: .......... P6 (Case 1)
Free Field Motion at Piers P1, P2, P3, P4, and P9 are 1800 out of
Phase. I
~
10.0
- -..
- - ..
P4 (Case 2)
P6 (Case 2)

0.03 'E
- - E1
(a) Case 1 .......... E2 CIl 0.0
E
0.02 -- .. E3 0
- - - E4 :iE
_0.Q1 IIIftI -10.0
§. ID
III
'E 0.00 -20.0
'0 20.0
0.0 10.0
~ -0.01
0 Time (s)
I
'ii
lii -0.02 "i!
II
FIG. 9. Time History of Base Shear and Moment at Ground
Co
>C
¥ Level for Piers P4 and P6
w -0.03
...'liic: 0.03
CD A
E (b) Case 2 f!

~ 0.02 ~~
:iE
CD
c
> 0.01
~
'ii 0.00
a: 8
10
-0.01 ..;
o
-0.02
B
-0.03 L - ~ -'- ~ --J

0.0 10.0 20.0

Time (s)
FIG. 8. Time History of Relative Movements at Expansion
Joints in Bridge Deck

number of piles used is same in both cases. This ensures ap- A

proximately similar foundation stiffness in the horizontal (par-
allel to ground) direction for both cases. The purpose of the
analysis is then to compare the behavior of the two structural
systems.
The first set of results in the form of response transfer func- 1--3 0 6.0 m--1
tions is presented in Fig. 12. The footing result corresponds
to a corner footing (Fig. 11). The behavior of the two foun- FIG. 10. Geometry of 15·Storied Building Frame

442/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING I APRIL 1998

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 TABLE 3. Sectional Properties for Building Frame 40 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
.......... Roof (c.s. 1)
Beam Column -- - - Roof (c... 2) ,"''\
I '{ \

A
2
I m A
2
I m : i', \
I • I
Zone (m ) (m") (kg/m) (m ) (m") (kg/m) I I I \

(1 )
A
B
(2)
0.24
0.21
(3)
0.0144
0.0126
(4)
1,735
1,670
(5)
0.36
0.25
(6)
0.0108
0.0052
(7)
900
625
20

,"
IA
//
, /
1/ "
"I . \
'\
\
\
'.
\
\
\
/
c:
C 0.18 0.0108 1,610 0.16 0.0021 400 , ~ '",.'... ',
~ l ,,~..., ' ............

Case 1
:E
Q.
eu ...A
j .'- \. ---- . . ~.f.o/ '..:~."."."' ••
- ...

-
:::s
0

(3J~
r;:;l 0 4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

..lIl
- - Free FIeld
~
U
0 ._------ Footing
a: Raft
PI PZ P3
~
~
f--- 6.0 ·1· 6.0 - _ . 1-1- a.o ---l 2

Case 2

r---------------,
I· • • • • • • ·.--+I-~ 0.5
I. • • • I 3.0 (TYP.)
1.0 1.5 2.0
Period (s)

~~-~-~-~-~-~-J-~ 1:3.0 (TYP.)

FIG. 12. Transfer Functions for Horizontal Displacement of
Foundations and Roof Level. Case 1: Frame Founded on Iso-
lated Piled Footings; Case 2: Frame Founded on Raft Supported
by Piles
FIG. 11. Foundation Plans for Building Frame. Case 1: Iso-
lated Piled Footings; Case 2: Raft on Piles (Representative Area 200 150
Shown) ,! - PI (c..l)
,. ~ (. PI (C... Z)
100 75
are a part of a single foundation, exhibit a "group effect" E
Z
whereby the piles toward the edges attract higher loads. This ~
0 z 0
phenomenon has been observed by a number of researchers in 'tI ~
the past for static analysis (Banerjee 1978; Poulos and Davis :I
:z:
·100 'tI ·75
1980) as well as dynamic analysis (Sen et al. 1985). The iso- .!!
ii ·200
=
:z:
.! ·150
lated groups, on the other hand, do not show a fixed pattern.
~ 200 ii 150
One would expect piles 1 and 2 to carry equal loads, but as
can be seen the loads in pile 2 are lower. This is a direct result
of the interaction of the structure with the foundation. For the
GI

..~
LI.
100 -
'i
c
GI
E
75
case of raft on piles (case 2), the moments generated at the :i
pile heads are significantly higher than those in case 1 (Fig. =
..c
1Il
0 0

13). Structural design of piles will certainly require an eval- ·100 ·75
uation of maximum design forces, which can be obtained by
such a rigorous analysis. ·200 ·150
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (9) Time (9)
CONCLUSIONS
FIG. 13. Shear Force and Moment: Time History at Head of
A general methodology is presented for soil-pile-structure Piles 1 and 2
interaction analyses subjected to seismic loading. The excita-
tion is defined through a rock outcrop motion causing verti- quite different. Design forces obtained through such an anal-
cally propagating S-waves. The formulation can address pile ysis will therefore help in identifying the critical substructural
groups of arbitrary configuration and a fairly elaborate model elements. While the present linear formulation gives sufficient
for the structure. The present implementation is restricted to insight into the effects of considering the entire system, a non-
loading parallel to a single plane. linear analysis in time domain is more appropriate and may
Several examples have been presented to demonstrate the be a topic of future investigation.
utility of this work. The need for a more elaborate modeling
of structure-foundation system was emphasized through the
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
behavior of a bridge in transverse direction and a long-span
bridge. Analysis of a long-span bridge showed that the sections Apsel, R. (1~79). "Dynamic Green's functions for layered media and
close to the expansion joints need careful design and detailing application to boundary value problems," PhD thesis, University of
to accommodate the peak relative movements between girders. California, San Diego, Calif.
A building frame was analyzed for two variations of piled Banerjee, P. K. (1978). "Analysis of axially and laterally loaded pile
groups." Developments in soil mechanics, Applied Science Publishers,
foundations. The two types of foundations did not change the London. U.K., 317-346.
overall dynamic characteristics of the structure, but the distri- Banerjee. P. K. (1994). The boundary element methods in engineering.
bution of the structural loading transferred to the piles was McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York. N.Y.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998/443

J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.

 Buckle, I. G. (1994). "The Northridge, California earthquake of January
17, 1994: performance of highway bridges." Tech. Rep. NCEER-94-
0008, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Chopra, A. K., and Gutierrez, J. A. (1974). "Earthquake response analysis
of multistorey buildings including foundation interaction." Earthquake
Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 3, 65-77.
Clough, R. w., and Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures. McGraw-
Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, N.Y.
Gazetas, G. (1984). "Seismic response of end-bearing single piles." Soil
Dyn. Earthquake Engrg., 3(2), 82-93.
Guin, J. (1997). "Advanced dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction and
nonlinear pile behavior," PhD thesis, State University of New York,
Buffalo, N.Y.
Gutierrez, J. A., and Chopra, A. K. (1978). "A substructure method for
earthquake analysis of structures including structure-soil interaction."
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida International University on 09/28/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 6, 51-69.
Jennings, P. c., and Bielak, J. (1973). "Dynamics of building soil inter-
action." Bull. Seismic Soc. Am., 63, 9-48.
Kaynia, A. M., and Kausel, E. (1982). "Dynamic stiffness and seismic
response of pile groups." Tech. Rep. R82-03, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Luco, J. E. (1982). "Linear soil-structure interaction: a review." Earth-
quake ground motion and its effects on structures, S. K. Datta, ed.,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N.Y., 41-57.
Lysmer, J., Tabatabaie, M., Tajirian, F., Yahdani, S., and Ostadan, F.
(1981). "Sassi, a system for analysis of soil-structure interaction."
Tech. Rep. UCB/GT/81-02, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Makris, N., and Badoni, D. (1995). "Seismic response of pile groups
under oblique-shear and rayleigh waves." Earthquake Engrg. Struct.
Dyn., 24,517-532.
Makris, N., Badoni, D., Delis, E., and Gazetas, G. (1994). "Prediction of
observed bridge response with soil-pile-structure interaction." J. Struct.
Engrg., ASCE, 120(10), 2992-3011.
444/ JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1998
J. Struct. Eng. 1998.124:434-444.
Mamoon, S. M., and Banerjee, P. K. (1990). "Response of piles and pile
groups to travelling SH waves." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn.,
19(4), 597-610.
Mamoon, S. M., Kaynia, A. M., and Banerjee, P. K. (1990). "On fre-
quency domain dynamic analysis of piles and pile groups." J. Engrg.
Mech.., ASCE, 116(10),2237-2257.
Mylonakis, G. (1995). "Contributions to static and seismic analysis of
piles and pile-supported bridge piers," PhD thesis, State University of
New York, Buffalo, N.Y.
Parmelee, R. A. (1967). "Building-foundation interaction effects." J.
Engrg. Mech. Div., ASCE, 93(2), 131-152.
Penzien, J. (1970). "Soil-pile foundation interaction." Earthquake engi-
neering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. (1980). Pile foundation analysis and
design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
"Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations
for new buildings." (1991). Tech. Rep., NEHRP, Building Seismic
Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Roesset, J. M., Whitman, R. Y., and Dobry, R. (1973). "Modal analysis
for structures with foundation interaction." J. Struct. Div., ASCE,
99(3),399-416.
Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972). "Shake: a computer
program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered
sites." Tech. Rep. EERC 72-12, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif.
Sen, R., Kausel, E., and Banerjee, P. K. (1985). "Dynamic analysis of
piles and pile groups in non-homogeneous soils." Int. J. Numer. and
Analytical Methods in Geomech., 9, 507 -524.
Takemiya, H., and Yamada, Y. (1981). "Layered soil-pile-structure dy-
namic interaction." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 9, 437-457.
Yeletsos, A. S., and Meek, J. W. (1974). "Dynamic behavior of building
foundation systems." Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 3,121-138.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.