Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stewart1999 PDF
Stewart1999 PDF
I: ANALYTICAL METHODS
By Jonathan P. Stewart,1 Gregory L. Fenves,2 and Raymond B. Seed,3 Members, ASCE
ABSTRACT: Recent improvements in seismological source modeling, analysis of travel path effects, and char-
acterization of local site effects on strong shaking have led to significant advances in both code-based and more
advanced procedures for evaluating seismic demand for structural design. A missing link, however, has been an
improved and empirically verified treatment of soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects on both the strong motions
transmitted to structures and the structural response to these motions. This paper describes analysis procedures
and system identification techniques for evaluating inertial SSI effects on seismic structural response. The anal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 01/11/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ysis procedures are similar to provisions in some building codes but incorporate more rationally the influence
of site conditions and the foundation embedment, flexibility, and shape on foundation impedance. Implementation
of analysis procedures and system identification techniques is illustrated using a building shaken during the 1994
Northridge earthquake. The analysis procedures predict the observed SSI effects accurately. A companion paper
applies these analyses to empirically evaluate SSI effects using available strong motion data from a broad range
of sites and then develops general conclusions regarding SSI effects on seismic structural excitation and response.
INTRODUCTION (1978)] codes, but these provisions have not been calibrated
against a large inventory of field performance data as has been
The seismic excitation experienced by structures is a func- done for site effects.
tion of the earthquake source, travel path effects, local site The objectives of this paper and a companion paper (Stewart
effects, and soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. The result et al. 1999) are to make use of earthquake strong motion data
of the first three of these factors is a ‘‘free-field’’ ground mo- to evaluate the effects of SSI on structural response for a range
tion. Structural response to free-field motion is influenced by of site and structural conditions and then to use these results
SSI. In particular, accelerations within structures are affected to calibrate simplified analytical procedures similar to those in
by the flexibility of foundation support and variations between the BSSC and ATC codes. This paper summarizes procedures
foundation and free-field motions. Consequently, an accurate for predicting SSI effects and reviews system identification
assessment of inertial forces and displacements in structures procedures for evaluating SSI effects from strong motion re-
can require a rational treatment of SSI effects. cordings. In the companion paper, these procedures are applied
Recent major advances have been made in state-of-practice for 57 sites in California and Taiwan with strong motion re-
procedures for characterizing earthquake source, travel path, cordings to elucidate the effects of inertial SSI on seismic
and local site effects, as reflected in recent updates to code structural response and to verify the simplified analytical pro-
provisions by the Building Seismic Safety Council [BSSC cedures.
(1997)] and International Conference of Building Officials
(Uniform 1997). These advances have emerged largely as a
SSI ANALYSIS PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN
result of strong motion data that has become available follow-
ing recent earthquakes. For example, recent advances in the Overview
treatment of site effects were motivated by the significant
ground motion amplification observed at soft, cohesive soil Two mechanisms of interaction take place between the
sites in major earthquakes such as the 1985 Mexico City and structure, foundation, and soil:
1989 Loma Prieta events (Seed et al. 1988, 1992).
The state-of-practice for engineering characterization of SSI • Inertial Interaction: Inertia developed in the structure due
effects for ordinary structures has not undergone recent similar to its own vibrations gives rise to base shear and moment,
advancement, despite the availability of (1) a significantly which in turn cause displacements of the foundation rel-
broadened database of both free-field and structural strong mo- ative to the free-field. Frequency dependent foundation
tion recordings from recent earthquakes; and (2) sophisticated impedance functions describe the flexibility of the foun-
SSI analysis procedures. SSI analysis procedures include direct dation support as well as the damping associated with
approaches in which the soil and structure are modeled to- foundation-soil interaction.
gether and analyzed in a single step and substructure ap- • Kinematic Interaction: The presence of stiff foundation
proaches where the analysis is broken down into several steps. elements on or in soil cause foundation motions to deviate
Simplified substructure-based SSI provisions are included in from free-field motions as a result of ground motion in-
the BSSC (1997) and Applied Technology Council [ATC coherence, wave inclination, or foundation embedment.
Kinematic effects are described by a frequency dependent
1
Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California, Los transfer function relating the free-field motion to the mo-
Angeles, CA 90095. tion that would occur on the base slab if the slab and
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkeley, structure were massless.
CA 94720.
3
Prof., Dept. of Civ. and Envir. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA 94720. The focus of this paper is on inertial interaction, which can
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 1999. Separate discussions should be the more important effect for foundations without large,
be submitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the rigid base slabs or deep embedment.
closing date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE A system commonly employed for simplified analysis of
Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for
review and possible publication on August 29, 1997. This paper is part
inertial interaction, shown in Fig. 1, consists of a single-de-
of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, gree-of-freedom structure of height h on a flexible foundation
Vol. 125, No. 1, January, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/99/0001- medium represented by the frequency dependent and complex-
0026 – 0037/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 16525. valued translational and rotational springs k¯ u and k¯ . This sim-
26 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1999
ple system can be viewed as a model of a single-story building weighting function that decreases linearly from a maximum at
or, more generally, as an approximate model of a multistory the surface to zero at the profile depth. The foundation im-
building that is dominated by the fundamental mode response. pedance of a finite soil layer overlying a rigid base is discussed
In the latter case, h is interpreted as the distance from the base by Kausel (1974) and Roesset (1980), although such profiles
to the centroid of the inertial forces associated with the fun- are seldom encountered in practice.
damental mode.
Embedded Foundations
Impedance Function
The impedance of embedded foundations can be modeled
The impedance function is represented in Fig. 1 by k̄u and in two ways: (1) Couple the increased static stiffness of em-
k̄ and may also include a coupling spring. Simplified impe- bedded foundations with frequency dependent terms ␣u, u,
dance function solutions are available for rigid circular disk ␣,  for surface foundations [e.g., Elsabee and Morray
foundations located on the ground surface or embedded into a (1977)]; or (2) use relatively rigorous analytical solutions for
uniform, viscoelastic half-space. Terms in the impedance func- the impedance of a rigid foundation embedded into a half-
tion are expressed in the form space that account for dynamic basement wall/soil interaction
effects [e.g., Bielak (1975) and Apsel and Luco (1987)]. The
k̄j = kj (a 0,) ⫹ icj (a 0, ) (1) static stiffnesses of shallowly embedded foundations (e/r < 1)
where j denotes either deformation mode u or ; = angular in a half-space can be approximated as follows:
frequency (rad/s); a 0 = dimensionless frequency defined by a 0
= r/VS ; r = foundation radius; VS = soil shear-wave velocity;
and = soil Poisson ratio. Foundation radii are computed sep-
(KU)E = KU 冉
1⫹
2e
3r冊; (K )E = K 冉
1⫹2 冊
e
r
(4)
arately for translational and rotational deformation modes to Coupling impedance terms are small relative to (Ku)E and
match the area Af and moment of inertia If of the actual foun- (K )E for small embedment ratios (i.e., foundation embedment/
dation (i.e., ru = 兹Af /, r = 4兹4If /). There are correspond- radius, e/r < 0.5). The BSSC (1997) code recommends use of
ing (a 0)u and (a 0) values as well. (4) for embedded foundations.
The real stiffness and damping of the translational and ro- The frequency-dependent ␣ and  terms computed by Meth-
tational springs and dashpots are expressed, respectively, by ods 1 and 2 for a cylindrical foundation embedded in a vis-
Kuru coelastic half-space ( = 1%, = 0.25) are compared in Fig.
ku = ␣uKu; cu = u (2a) 2. For Method 1, stiffness terms ␣* u and ␣* are computed as
VS
the product of ␣u and ␣ for surface foundations (Veletsos and
Kr Verbic 1973) and the depth effect modifiers on the right-hand
k = ␣ K ; c =  (2b) sides of (4). Damping factors *
VS u and * were similarly in-
creased to reflect the higher static stiffness of embedded foun-
where ␣u, u, ␣, and  express the frequency dependence of dations. Stiffness terms ␣u and ␣ from Methods 1 and 2 are
the impedance terms; and Ku and K = static stiffness of a disk comparable for e/r < 0.5, and in the case of ␣, for a 0 < 1.5
on a half-space as well. In the case of damping, the comparison in Fig. 2 is
8 8 essentially one of radiation damping due to the low hysteretic
Ku = Gru; K = Gr 3 (3) soil damping in this example. Method 1 significantly under-
2⫺ 3(1 ⫺ ) predicts radiation damping for embedded foundations. How-
where G = soil dynamic shear modulus. ever, these errors may be tolerable for low frequency structures
Analytical procedures are available for the computation of (a 0 < 1) founded in soil with high hysteretic damping, as the
impedance functions for rigid foundations, many of which are radiation damping contribution to overall foundation damping
summarized in Luco (1980) and Roesset (1980). Adopted here can be relatively small in such cases.
is a widely used solution for a rigid circular foundation on the To investigate the importance of embedment on SSI, the
surface of a viscoelastic half-space (Veletsos and Wei 1971; impedance of embedded foundations is evaluated in the com-
Veletsos and Verbic 1973). However, the potentially significant panion paper using Method 1 and an adaptation of Method 2.
effects of nonuniform soil profiles, embedded foundations, The more rigorous Method 2-type analyses are based on the
noncircular foundation shapes, flexible foundations, and piles formulation by Bielak (1975) and more rigorously incorporate
or piers beneath the base slab must be taken into account. The dynamic soil/basement-wall interaction effects into the foun-
following briefly discusses the effects of these factors on im- dation impedance function.
pedance functions.
Foundation Shape
Nonuniform Soil Profiles
Impedance functions for foundations of arbitrary shape are
The effective properties of profiles having a gradual increase commonly analyzed as equivalent circular mats, provided that
in stiffness with depth can often be approximately modeled by the foundation aspect ratio in plan is <4:1 (Roesset 1980). An
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1999 / 27
FIG. 2. Foundation Stiffness and Damping Factors for Rigid Cylindrical Foundations Embedded in Half-Space; Approximation ver-
sus Solution by Apsel and Luco (1987) [Asterisk (*) Denotes Modification to Parameters for Surface Foundations Taking into Account
Effects of Embedment]
equivalent radius for translational stiffness is derived by equat- dation. The reductions are most significant for narrow central
ing the area of the mats, while an equivalent radius for rocking cores and large deviations between soil and foundation slab
stiffness is derived by equating the moment of inertia of the rigidity. Hence, corrections for foundation flexibility effects
mats. These criteria have been adopted into the BSSC (1997) should be made to rocking impedance terms for structures hav-
code. Combining a number of analytical impedance function ing central core shear walls in accordance with the analytical
solutions from the literature for foundations of arbitrary shape, results of Iguchi and Luco (1982). Use of the rigid foundation
Dobry and Gazetas (1986) found that the use of equivalent assumption introduces much smaller errors to rocking impe-
circular mats is acceptable for aspect ratios < 4:1, with the dance terms for other wall configurations.
notable exception of dashpot coefficients in the rocking mode.
The radiation damping component of rocking dashpot coeffi- Piles or Piers
cients was found to be underestimated by the equivalent disk
assumption at low frequencies. Hence, radiation dashpot co- The influence of pile foundations on impedance functions
efficients for oblong, noncircular foundations should be in- cannot easily be accounted for with simplified analyses. Many
creased in accordance with the results of Dobry and Gazetas analytical techniques are available for evaluating the impe-
(1986) to account for the more efficient emission of waves dance of pile supported foundations [e.g., Novak (1991) and
from oblong foundations. Gohl (1993)], but a review of such techniques is beyond the
scope of this paper. The effects of piles/piers was not directly
Foundation Flexibility included in the development of impedance functions for the
analyses presented in the companion paper (Stewart et al.
Impedance functions for flexible circular foundation slabs 1999). Instead, the influence of foundation type on the final
supporting shear walls have been evaluated for a number of results was evaluated empirically.
wall configurations, including the following: (1) Rigid core
walls (Iguchi and Luco 1982); (2) thin perimeter walls (Liou Effects of Inertial SSI on Buildings
and Huang 1994); and (3) rigid concentric interior and perim-
eter walls (Riggs and Waas 1985). These studies focused on Veletsos and Meek (1974) found that the maximum seis-
the effects of foundation flexibility of rocking impedance; the mically induced deformations of a single-degree-of-freedom
horizontal impedance of flexible and rigid foundations are sim- model of a structure with a surface foundation can be predicted
ilar (Liou and Huang 1994). Foundation flexibility effects on accurately by an equivalent fixed-base single-degree-of-free-
rocking impedance are most significant for a rigid central core dom oscillator with period T˜ and damping ratio . ˜ These are
with no perimeter walls. For this case, the flexible foundation referred to as ‘‘flexible-base’’ parameters, because they rep-
has significantly less stiffness and damping than the rigid foun- resent the properties of an oscillator that is allowed to translate
28 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1999
from Veletsos and Nair (1975) and Bielak (1975) for T̃/T and
where ˜ 0 is referred to as the foundation damping factor and ˜ 0 versus 1/ are shown in Fig. 3. The static foundation stiff-
represents the damping contributions from foundation-soil in- nesses were modified according to (4) for application of the
teraction (with hysteretic and radiation components); and = Veletsos and Nair model to embedded foundations. These re-
fixed-base damping ratio. A closed-form expression for ˜ 0 is sults indicate that the ratio of structure-to-soil stiffness 1/ is
represented in Veletsos and Nair (1975). Bielak (1975) simi- a critical factor controlling the period lengthening. In addition,
larly expressed the effects of inertial interaction for embedded for a given value of 1/, T̃/T increases for structures with
structures in terms of period lengthening ratio T̃/T and foun- increasing aspect ratio and decreasing embedment. The flexi-
dation damping factor ˜ 0. ble-base damping ˜ can increase or decrease relative to fixed-
For both the Veletsos and Nair (1975) and Bielak (1975) base damping depending on the period lengthening and the
formulations, the relationships between the fixed- and flexible- foundation damping factor ˜ 0. As shown in Fig. 3, ˜ 0 increases
base structure properties depend on aspect ratio h/r, soil Pois- with 1/ and embedment ratio and decreases with aspect ratio.
son ratio , soil hysteretic damping ratio , and the following A comparison of the analytical results from the two for-
dimensionless parameters: mulations indicates essentially identical results for surface
foundations (e/r = 0). For the case of e/r = 1, increases in
= VST/h (7) damping and decreases in period lengthening are predicted by
FIG. 3. Comparison of Period Lengthening Ratios and Foundation Damping Factors for Single-Degree-of-Freedom Structure with
Rigid Circular Foundation on Half-Space for Surface and Embedded Foundations ( = 0.45,  = 5%, ␥ = 0.15, = 5%) (Veletsos and Nair
1975; Bielak 1975)
FIG. 4. (a) Schematic Showing Effects of Period Lengthening and Foundation Damping on Design Spectral Acceleration Using
Smoothed Spectral Shape — Sa Can Increase or Decrease Due to SSI; (b) Effect of Period Lengthening and Foundation Damping on Sa
at Site A23
FIG. 5(a). Sensor Locations and Structural Configuration at Los Angeles Six-Story Office Building (Note: Data Provided by Califor-
nia Strong Motion Instrumentation Program)
FIG. 5(b). Generalized Soil Column at Los Angeles Six-Story As illustrated schematically in Fig. 6(a), the objective of
Office Building [Data Sources: 0 – 12 m (LCA, Confidential Re- system identification analyses is to evaluate the unknown
ports, 1975 and 1986); 12 – 30 m (Duke and Leeds 1962)] properties of a system using a known input into, and output
from, that system. For analyses of seismic structural response,
profile depth of 10.8 m). A deconvolution analysis is per- the ‘‘system’’ has an unknown flexibility that generates a
formed with the one-dimensional site response analysis pro- known difference between pairs of input and output strong
gram SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1972) using the recorded free- motion recordings. For example, as indicated in Fig. 6(b), pa-
field motion (peak acceleration = 0.25g) and the profile in Fig. rameters describing the fixed-base system are evaluated from
5(b). This analysis indicates shear strain compatible effective input/output pairs that differ only by the structural deformation
half-space parameters VS = 190 m/s and  = 5.2%. The foun- u. Likewise, parameters describing the flexible base system are
dation is modeled as a rigid disk embedded 4.3 m into the evaluated from strong motion pairs whose difference results
soil, although it is noted that the foundation walls are not from foundation flexibility in translation uf and rocking , as
continuous around the foundation perimeter. No adjustments well as structural flexibility. A comparison of fixed- and flex-
to the impedance function are made for foundation flexibility ible-base modal parameters provide a direct quantification of
or shape effects. The tower is modeled as a single-degree-of- SSI effects.
freedom system with a height of 17 m (⬃2/3 of the overall There are two principal system identification procedures:
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1999 / 31
FIG. 6(a). Schematic of System Identification Problem Three cases of base fixity are of interest in analyses of SSI:
(1) Fixed-base, representing only the flexibility of the struc-
ture; (2) flexible-base, representing the combined flexibility of
the complete soil-structure system; and (3) pseudoflexible-
base, representing flexibility in the structure and rocking in the
foundation. Pseudoflexible-base parameters are of interest be-
cause they can sometimes be used as direct approximations of
flexible-base parameters or to estimate either fixed- or flexible-
base parameters.
Stewart and Fenves (1998) evaluated the types of input and
output strong motion recordings that are necessary to evaluate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 01/11/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
j = j j ⫾ ij兹1 ⫺ j
2
sj , s* (9)
Fig. 10 presents the flexible-base transfer function sur-
face for the example structure with the axes on the hor-
izontal plane scaled according to (9) to match the modal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 01/11/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tion and free-field motions. lowing is done: (1) If rocking is evident from amplification of
• U2: The structure was so stiff that the roof and founda- foundation-level vertical motions at the fundamental mode of
tion level motions were essentially identical, and hence the structure, the results for the site are discarded (see error
the response could not be established by system identifi- U3 earlier); or (2) if no rocking is evident, fixed-base param-
cation. eters are approximated by pseudoflexible-base parameters.
• U3: For the A sites, fixed-base parameters could not be Hence, the results for some sites indicate T̃ < T, despite the
obtained directly from system identification and also obvious error associated with such a finding. Similarly, there
could not be estimated because T˜ < T*˜ and base rocking are cases of ˜ 0 < 0. Such results are interpreted as indicative
effects were evident from comparisons of vertical foun- of small SSI effects and are taken as T/T˜ = 1 or ˜ 0 = 0.
dation and free-field motions. Evidence of base rocking
suggests that SSI effects are significant, and that fixed-
base period will differ substantially from flexible- and System Nonlinearities
pseudoflexible-base period. Hence, the inability to esti-
mate the fixed-base period necessarily terminates the anal- Modal parameters are generally developed from CEM par-
ysis. Similarly, at the B sites, flexible-base parameters ametric system identification analyses and, hence, are based
could not be estimated because T > T̃*. on the assumption of linear, time invariant behavior. As a
• U4: Reliable parametric models of structural response check of this assumption, the time dependence of first-mode
could not be developed for unknown reasons. parameters are also evaluated by recursive techniques. An ex-
ample of essentially linear, time invariant response was pre-
Low confidence levels occur most often because of poor viously provided in Fig. 7. An illustration of nonlinear struc-
characterization of geotechnical conditions (i.e., insufficient tural response is provided by the six-story Imperial County
in-situ data to evaluate stratigraphy and shear-wave velocities Service Building (ICSB), which partially collapsed during the
to depths of about one foundation radius). Although geotech- 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. As shown in Fig. 15, reduc-
nical data have no direct effect on vibration parameters eval- tions in first-mode frequency and high damping are evident
uated through system identification, VS affects the manner in during the first 20 s of strong shaking. A nonlinear structural
which SSI results are interpreted relative to other sites through response can lead to significant differences between modal pa-
the parameter [(7)]. Other reasons for low confidence in the rameters at a given time and CEM modal parameters evaluated
results include contamination of free-field motions from vi- across the duration of the time history. What is important from
brations of nearby structures, moderately incoherent founda- the standpoint of evaluating inertial interaction effects is that
tion and free-field motions, and short duration strong motion differences between CEM parameters for different cases of
data. base fixity are consistent with differences in recursive param-
eters during times when the identification is stable. For ex-
Errors in First-Mode Parameters ample, at the ICSB, differences between fixed- and pseudo-
flexible-base frequencies were generally consistent with the
There is always uncertainty in models identified from par- difference in CEM frequencies throughout the duration of
ametric analyses due to imperfect model structures and dis- strong shaking (CEM results were ˜f = 1.36, ˜f * = 1.54 Hz).
turbances in the output data (Ljung 1995). Systematic errors Conversely, differences between damping values were strongly
can result from inadequate model structure (i.e., poor selection time-dependent, with ˜ significantly exceeding * ˜ for t < 20 s
of the d or J parameters) that cannot be readily quantified. A and the opposite trend subsequently. The corresponding CEM
second type of error results from random disturbances in the results are ˜ = 16.8% and * ˜ = 13.5%, which is reasonably
data. This error quantifies how the model would change if the representative of recursive results during early portions of the
identification were repeated with the same model structure and time history. Recursive results for t < 20 s are more stable than
input but with a different realization of the output. This un- subsequent results due to the much reduced amplitude of shak-
certainty can be readily computed from the least-squares so- ing for t > 20 s. Hence, the CEM damping results were con-
lution for the model parameters. The coefficients of variation sistent with recursive results from the most stable portion of
associated with random disturbance errors are generally about the time history in this case, and the CEM results were used
0.5 – 1.5% for frequency and 5 – 15% for damping. for final characterization of SSI effects at the site.
Errors associated with inadequate model structure are con- Occasionally, the differences between modal parameters
trolled by selecting J to minimize deviations between the from CEM and recursive analyses are inconsistent. In such
model output and roof recording, while not overparameterizing cases, average differences between parameters for different
the model in such a way as to cause pole-zero cancellation in base fixity conditions computed from recursive analyses over
the transfer function. However, an additional constraint is a times of stable identification can be used for evaluating SSI
need to maintain the same J for all output/input pairs in a effects. Such usage of recursive results was seldom necessary
given direction. This is enforced to maximize the likelihood but was more common for evaluating ˜ 0 than T/T. ˜ These cor-
that variations between modal parameters for different condi- rections, where made, are indicated in Stewart and Stewart
tions of base fixity are reflective of true SSI effects and not (1997).
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING / JANUARY 1999 / 35
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support for this project was provided by the California Department of
Transportation, the EERI/FEMA 1995 – 1996 NEHRP Fellowship in
Earthquake Hazard Reduction, and the U.S. Geological Survey, Depart-
ment of the Interior (USGS award number 1434-HQ-97-GR-02995). The
views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the writers
and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official pol-
icies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government.
APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY on 01/11/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
regarding seismic response analyses of soft and deep clay sites.’’ Proc.,
Seminar on Seismic Des. and retrofit of bridges, Earthquake Engineering soil layer and foundation embedded into finite soil
Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif., and Div. of Struc- layer [Eq. (4)];
tures, California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, Calif., 18 – 39. k = lateral stiffness of single-degree-of-freedom structure;
Seed, H. B., Romo, M. P., Sun, J. I., Jaime, A., and Lysmer, J. (1988). ku, K u = dynamic and static translational stiffnesses, respec-
‘‘The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985 — relationships be- tively, for foundation on half-space;
tween soil conditions and earthquake ground motions.’’ Earthquake k¯ u, k¯ = complex-valued dynamic foundation impedance for
Spectra, 4(4), 687 – 729. translation and rocking deformations, respectively;
Stewart, J. P., and Fenves, G. L. (1998). ‘‘System identification for eval- k, K = dynamic and static rotational stiffnesses, respectively,
uating soil-structure interaction effects in buildings from strong motion for foundation on half-space;
recordings.’’ J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 27, 869 – 885.
m = generalized mass of structure for fundamental mode;
Stewart, J. P., Seed, R. B., and Fenves, G. L. (1999). ‘‘Seismic soil-
structure interaction in buildings. II: Empirical results.’’ J. Geotech. n = number of structural degrees-of-freedom;
Engrg., ASCE, 125(1), 38 – 48. r = radius of circular foundation;
Stewart, J. P., and Stewart, A. F. (1997). ‘‘Analysis of soil-structure in- ru, r = radii that match area and moment of inertia, respec-
teraction effects on building response from earthquake strong motion tively, of assumed circular foundation in impedance
recordings at 58 sites. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-97/01, Earthquake Engi- function formulations to actual foundation area and
neering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif., 742. moment of inertia;
Todorovska, M. I. (1996). ‘‘Second Preliminary Release Of Records Of s = variable for Laplace-transformed functions, units of
The Northridge Earthquake (17 January, 1994) At Stations Of The Los frequency;
Angeles Strong Motion Network,’’ Univ. of Southern California, Los ˜ T*
T, T, ˜ = fixed-, flexible-, and pseudoflexible-base periods, re-
Angeles, Calif.
spectively, for fundamental mode;
Uniform building code, 1997 edition. (1997). International Conference of
Building Officials, Whittier, Calif. u = displacement of single-degree-of-freedom structure
Veletsos, A. S., and Meek, J. W. (1974). ‘‘Dynamic behavior of building- relative to its base;
foundation systems.’’ J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 3(2), 121 – uf = horizontal displacement of foundation relative to free-
138. field;
Veletsos, A. S., and Nair, V. V. (1975). ‘‘Seismic interaction of structures ug = free-field ground displacement;
on hysteretic foundations.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 101(1), 109 – 129. Vs = shear-wave velocity of soil;
Veletsos, A. S., and Verbic, B. (1973). ‘‘Vibration of viscoelastic foun- ␣u, u = dimensionless parameters expressing frequency-de-
dations.’’ J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dyn., 2(1), 87 – 102. pendence of foundation translational stiffness and
Veletsos, A. S., and Wei, Y. T. (1971). ‘‘Lateral and rocking vibrations of damping, respectively [Eq. (2)];
footings.’’ J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, 97(9), 1227 – 1248.
␣*,
u ␣* = products of ␣u and ␣, respectively, and static foun-
dation impedance modifiers for depth effects [Eq.
APPENDIX II. NOTATION (4)];
␣,  = dimensionless parameters expressing frequency-de-
The following symbols are used in this paper: pendence of foundation rocking stiffness and damp-
ing, respectively [Eq. (2)];
Af = area of foundation;  = soil hysteretic damping ratio;
a 0 = normalized frequency, = r/Vs; ␥ = ratio of structure-to-soil mass [Eq. (8)];
c = internal damping of single-degree-of-freedom struc- , ,
˜ * ˜ = fixed-, flexible-, and pseudoflexible-base damping ra-
ture; tios, respectively, for fundamental mode;
cu, c = coefficients of foundation translational and rotational ˜ 0 = foundation damping factor, defined in Eq. (6);
dashpots, respectively; = base rocking of foundation slab;
d = delay between x(t) and y(t), used in parametric system = forgetting factor for exponential window used in par-
identification; ametric system identification analyses by recursive
e = foundation embedment; prediction error method;
f, ˜f, ˜f * = fixed-, flexible-, and pseudoflexible-base fundamental = soil Poisson ratio;
mode frequencies, respectively; = ratio of soil-to-structure stiffness [Eq. (7)]; and
G = shear modulus of soil; = angular frequency (rad/s).