Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Linear soil–structure interaction of coupled wall–frame structures on

pile foundations
Sandro Carbonari a, Francesca Dezi b, Graziano Leoni c,n
a
D.A.C.S., Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy
b
D.E.T., University of San Marino, San Marino
c
SAD, University of Camerino, Ascoli Piceno, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The effects of soil–structure interaction on the response of coupled wall–frame structures on pile
Received 15 October 2010 foundations subjected to moderate earthquakes are investigated in this paper. A linear finite element
Received in revised form procedure for a complete dynamic interaction analysis is developed in the frequency domain
19 April 2011
accounting for soil–pile interaction and radiation damping. The procedure allows accounting for the
Accepted 4 May 2011
actual deformability of the soil–foundation system and modification of the input motion due to the
embedded foundation. The free-field motion is obtained by means of a local response analysis, which
accounts for site amplification. The procedure is adopted to study the effects of compliant pile
foundations on the seismic damageability of a coupled wall–frame system. Three different soil profiles
are considered and real accelerograms are used as input motions. The calculated results, expressed in
terms of the response parameters most significant for the description of damage (such as displace-
ments, inter-storey drifts, accelerations and stress resultants), are compared with those obtained from a
conventional fixed-base model. Applications demonstrate that performing complete soil–structure
interaction analyses may be crucial for the correct evaluation of the behaviour of such systems.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction site amplification effects may lead to erroneous evaluations of

Coupled wall–frame structures are seismic-resistant systems
widely adopted in buildings due to their structural efficiency. The
dynamic behaviour of such systems is very different from that of
frames or shear-wall structures because of interactions between the
structural components (walls and frames). On one hand, cantilever
shear walls are able to absorb a great amount of the total seismic
base shear while reducing the inter-storey drifts at the lower storeys
while the energy dissipation associated to the flexural damage of the
wall is limited since it only develops at the base. On the other hand,
frames assure small displacements at the upper storeys and offer a
great contribution to energy dissipation. Once a suitable degree of
restraint is ensured at the base of the wall, the interactions between
walls and frames guarantee successful seismic behaviour. Pile
foundations are usually considered to be rigid enough to guarantee
the restraint against rocking motions.
Conventional fixed-base models are used to predict the seismic
response of these systems although the dynamic Soil–Structure
Interaction (SSI) may in fact significantly affect their behaviour.
Ignoring the real deformability of the soil–foundation system and
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: graziano.leoni@unicam.it (G. Leoni).
structural displacements, including rocking movements, and mem-
ber stress resultants, affecting the damage of structural and non-
structural elements as well as the lateral loads carrying mechanism.
Even if Eurocode 8 (EC8) [1] has acknowledged that SSI may
significantly affect the seismic response of structures and suggests
accounting for the flexibility of the soil–foundation system in the
design, it also states that for the majority of common building
structures, the effects of SSI tend to be beneficial, since they reduce
the bending moments and shear forces in the various members of
the superstructure [2]. This is valid for a large number of situations
but cannot be generalised to all structural typologies and seismic
environments, since SSI and site effects may result in a detrimental
combination [3–5]. The importance of taking into account the
foundation compliance in the evaluation of the structural response
has been recognised since the early 70s [6–10]; in the case of
coupled wall–frame systems the wall foundation rocking may
strongly affect the shear force and bending moment distributions.
Furthermore, the contributions of SSI should be evaluated taking
into account not only member stress resultants but also other
response quantities including displacements.
Even if many works dealing with the SSI effects on the seismic
response of structures are available in the technical literature,
most of them adopt simplified models for the superstructure
analysis (e.g. single degree of freedom system for bridge piers

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.05.008
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309
[11–13] or shear-type frames for buildings [14]) and only few of
them refer to complex structures [15–20]. With reference to
coupled wall–frame systems, only Oliveto and Santini [21] pro-
posed simplified methods for the evaluation of the SSI effects on
the seismic response of wall–frame plane structures by adopting a
simplified model for the foundation assumed to be a rigid plate
resting on a homogeneous viscoelastic halfspace.
In this paper a complete and systematic procedure, to account
for SSI in the seismic analysis of coupled wall–frame systems
founded on piles, is developed in the frequency domain adopting
a finite element approach. The hypotheses of linear behaviour of
structure and soil enable the model to represent a valid tool for
the analysis of these structures when subjected to low and
moderate intensity earthquakes. The soil–foundation system is
modelled according to the procedure proposed by the authors
[22] and assembled to the superstructure model to obtain the
dynamic stiffness matrix of the whole soil–foundation–super-
structure system. The procedure makes it possible to account for
the actual deformability of the soil–foundation system, hysteretic
and radiation damping and modification of the input motion due
to the filtering effect of the embedded foundation. The soil–pile
interaction is accounted for by considering the real pattern of the
wall and column pile foundations. Furthermore, site amplification
effects of the seismic motion are evaluated performing a local site
response analysis and the seismic input is represented by the
free-field ground motions obtained at different depths corre-
sponding to the nodes of pile finite element discretization.
The procedure is adopted to evaluate the effects of the pile
foundation compliance on the seismic response of a 6-storey 4-bay
coupled wall–frame system. The input motion is represented by a
set of real accelerograms defined at the outcropping bedrock.
Different soil profiles are considered and a 1D local response
analysis is performed to evaluate site amplification effects. The
seismic response of complete SSI models is compared with
that obtained from conventional fixed-base models. Results are
presented in terms of the response parameters most significant for
damage such as foundation rocking, member stress resultants,
structural displacements, inter-storey drifts and floor accelerations.
2. Analysis procedure
A three-dimensional framed structure coupled with shear
walls is considered. The structure is assumed to be founded on
single piles and groups of piles (Fig. 1a) rigidly connected at the
Fig. 1. (a) Coupled wall–frame structure founded on piles and (b) structural model of the soil–foundation–superstructure system.
1297
head. For the superstructure standard finite element modelling is
adopted in which beams and shell elements may be used for the
frames and the walls, respectively, while the approach adopted by
Dezi et al. [22] is considered for the soil–foundation system
(Fig. 1b). The dynamic stiffness matrices of the superstructure
and the soil–foundation system are derived separately in the
frequency domain, by assuming that soil and structural elements
(superstructure and piles) behave linearly, and are then
assembled to obtain the following complex-valued system of
linear equations governing the dynamics of the whole soil–
foundation–superstructure system [18]:
ð1Þ
In Eq. (1) the dynamic stiffness matrix Z of the system is
partitioned consistently with the nodal displacement vector d and
the nodal forces f in order to highlight components relevant to the
superstructure (subscript S), rigid caps (subscript F) and
embedded piles (subscript E). It is worth noting that the displace-
ment components for the soil do not appear in (1) since the soil–
pile interaction is accounted for in the definition of the dynamic
stiffness matrices relevant to the rigid caps and piles [22–25].
Furthermore, the force vector f represents the soil–pile interac-
tion forces, which develop as a consequence of the seismic
motion: the component relevant to the superstructure is null
while those relevant to the foundation are non zero.
2.1. Soil–foundation system modelling
The soil–foundation system is modelled according to the
analytical formulation proposed by Dezi et al. [22]. Piles are
assumed to be beam elements embedded in a horizontally
layered Winkler-type medium that is assumed to behave linearly.
Defining the dynamics of the layer is essential for the pile–
soil–pile interaction modelling. A generic vibrating pile emits
waves that propagate and impinge the other piles of the founda-
tions. With reference to the generic independent layer, it is
assumed that point harmonic loads applied orthogonally produce
shear waves radiating toward infinity, whereas in-plane harmonic
loads produce both in-plane shear and pressure waves. Denoting
by i the application point of a harmonic unit load, with coordi-
nates (xi,yi), and by j another distinct generic point, having
coordinates (xj,yj) and lying on the same layer, the following
1298 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

relationship holds: where

h i
uj ðoÞ ¼ Dij ðoÞri ðoÞ ð2Þ T
uT ðo; zÞ ¼ u1  uTp  uTn ð10Þ
where uj is the soil displacement measured at point j and ri is the h i
T
harmonic unit load. If sij is the distance between the two points, rT ðo; zÞ ¼ r1  rTp  rTn ð11Þ
Dij is a matrix given by the product
h i
Dij ðoÞ ¼ RTij Wij ðoÞI1 ðoÞRij ð3Þ T
uTff ðo; zÞ ¼ uff ,1  uTff ,p  uTff ,n ð12Þ

where are the vectors that group displacements, soil reactions and free-
2 3
ðxj xi Þs1 ðyj yi Þs1 0 field motions relevant to the n piles, respectively, and up, rp, and
ij ij
6 7 uff,p are the complex-valued sub-vectors collecting components
Rij ¼ 6 1
4 ðyi yj Þsij ðxj xi Þs1 07
5 ð4Þ
ij relevant to the pth pile. Matrix D appearing in Eq. (9) is obtained
0 0 1 by assembling sub-matrices Dij
2 3
is a geometric matrix, I is the matrix containing impedance D11    D1j    D1n
components of the layer, namely the forces necessary to obtain 6 ^ ^ ^ 7
6 7
unit harmonic displacements at the point i, and Wij is the 6 7
Dðo; zÞ ¼ 66
Di1    Dij    Din 7
7 ð13Þ
attenuation matrix that describes the harmonic motion at point 6 ^ ^ ^ 7
4 5
j given that at point i. These matrices are obtained by manipulat-
Dn1    Dnj    Dnn
ing the impedances of the single piles and the dynamic attenua-
tion functions proposed by Dobry and Gazetas [26], Gazetas and According to Eq. (9) the soil–pile reaction forces at depth z are
Dobry [27], Makris and Gazetas [25] and Mylonakis et al. [12]
2 3 2 3 rðo; zÞ ¼ Ks ðo; zÞ½uðo; zÞuff ðo; zÞ ð14Þ
kh ðoÞ 0 0 ch ðoÞ 0 0
6 0 kh ðoÞ 7 6
0 5 þ io4 0 ch ðoÞ 0 7 where
IðoÞ ¼ 4 5 ð5Þ
0 0 kv ðoÞ 0 0 cv ðoÞ Ks ðo; zÞ ¼ Dðo; zÞ1 ð15Þ

where is the complex-valued impedance matrix of the unbounded soil.

The piles are considered to be Euler–Bernoulli beams; by
kh ¼ 1:2 Es ð6aÞ
adopting a standard finite element approach, the dynamics of
  0:25 the n piles subjected to seismic motion is governed by the
3:4 od k following system of complex linear equations:
ch ðoÞ ¼ 2drs Vs 1 þ þ2x h ð6bÞ
pð1nÞ Vs o
½KP o2 MP þ ZP ðoÞdP ¼ f P ð16Þ
0
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
@ 1 od A where KP and MP are the classical frequency-independent stiff-
kv ðoÞ ¼ 0:6 Es 1 þ ð6cÞ
2 Vs ness and mass matrices of the piles, respectively, while ZP is the
impedance matrix of the soil obtained integrating matrix Ks
 0:25 over the finite element and assembling contributions of all the
od kv ðoÞ
elements. Furthermore, dP is the vector grouping the nodal
cv ðoÞ ¼ 1:2pdrs Vs þ 2x ð6dÞ
Vs o displacements of the piles and fP is the vector of the external
are the soil frequency-dependent stiffness and damping in hor- loads due to the free-field motion obtained integrating the term
izontal (h) and vertical (v) directions. Furthermore, the attenua- Ksuff over the finite element and assembling contributions of all
tion matrix assumes the form the elements. For further details the reader may refer to [22].
2 3 Generally, the foundation system is constituted by pile groups.
c0 ðo; sij Þ 0 0
Each pile group is connected by a rigid cap that may be modelled
6 7
Wij ðoÞ ¼ 6 0 cp=2 ðo; sij Þ 0 7 ð7Þ by introducing a constraint that imposes rigid motions to the pile
4 5
0 0 cv ðo; sij Þ heads. A master node, having six additional generalised displace-
ment components is introduced for each constraint. By defining a
where suitable geometric matrix A, the nodal displacements of the piles
 1=2 may be expressed as
d
c0 ðo; sij Þ ¼ eð2x þ iÞðsij ðd=2ÞÞðpð1nÞo=3:4Vs Þ ð8aÞ
2sij
ð17Þ
 1=2
d
cp=2 ðo; sij Þ ¼ cv ðo; sij Þ ¼ eð2x þ iÞðsij ðd=2ÞÞðo=Vs Þ ð8bÞ
2sij where dF is the vector collecting the nodal displacements of the
caps, whereas dE is the vector of the nodal displacements of the
In Eqs. (6) and (8), d is the pile diameter, x is the constant embedded piles. Taking Eq. (17) into account, Eq. (16) transforms
hysteretic damping ratio, Vs is the velocity of the shear waves and into
n is the Poisson’s ratio of the soil.
By considering a system of n piles, the dynamic soil–pile
ð18Þ
interaction developing at each layer may be defined by making
use of Eq. (2) under the hypothesis that no gaps arise between soil
and piles during the motion. Superimposing the free-field motion With reference to Eq. (1), and taking into account Eq. (18), the
and the displacements induced by soil–pile interaction forces, the following identities hold:
displacements of the n piles at depth z may be expressed as
ð19Þ
uðo; zÞ ¼ uff ðo; zÞDðo; zÞrðo; zÞ ð9Þ
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309 1299

Taking into account Eq. (1) the following expression holds:

ð20Þ
The proposed model, developed in the frequency domain by
adopting the classical finite element formulation for the analysis
of structural systems, makes it possible to evaluate the dynamic
response of pile group foundations subjected to propagating
seismic waves. In particular, the model permits taking into
account the soil–pile interaction as well as soil hysteretic and
radiation damping, providing displacements and stress resultants
along the piles as a consequence of the free-field seismic motion.
The procedure may be applied once the free-field displacements
at different depths, corresponding to the nodes of the finite
element model of piles, are determined. The evaluation of the
free-field motions generally requires site response analyses of the
soil profile starting from a selected input motion. These analyses
may be performed with the desired degree of detailing: 2D or 3D
site response analyses may be considered to capture particular site
configuration effects, otherwise, for simpler cases, 1D analyses may
be carried out. Furthermore, the non-linear behaviour of the soil
should be included in order to account for stiffness degradation
occurring during the seismic excitations leading to higher lateral
displacements. The earthquake spatial variability may be also
included even if it is expected to be negligible for this structural
typology.
It is worth noting that the non-linear behaviour of the soil may
be taken into account in the proposed method by considering
degraded stiffness and enhanced damping, derived from the
maximum strain level attained at different depths from the site
response analysis. For moderate earthquakes and properly
designed foundations, local pile–soil gaps may be excluded so
that this expedient can be acceptable because inertial interaction
induces wave radiation that does not produce significant strain
increments with respect to the free-field motion.
2.2. Superstructure modelling
The dynamic stiffness matrix of the superstructure is obtained
according to the finite element formulation of the problem.
ð21Þ
where K, M and C are the classical frequency-independent
stiffness, mass and damping matrices of the superstructure,
respectively. It is worth mentioning that matrix K includes the
stiffness of the foundation tie-beams while matrix M accounts for
the mass of the tie-beams as well as the translational and
rotational masses of the foundation caps.
In the frequency domain the damping matrix C may be
conveniently represented in the form
ð22Þ
where x is the constant hysteretic damping ratio of the super-
structure [28]. Taking Eq. (22) into account, Eq. (21) transforms
into
ð23Þ
Eq. (23) permits evaluating the dynamic stiffness matrix of the
superstructure system that should be adopted for defining system
(1). It may be straightforwardly obtained in the frequency domain
by assembling classical stiffness and mass matrices of the super-
structure system.
3. Seismic SSI analysis of a coupled wall–frame system
The previous procedure is applied to evaluate the SSI effects on
the seismic response of a coupled wall–frame system. A regular
6-storey 4-bay building, with a square plan of side length l¼18 m,
total height ht ¼19.20 m and storey height hi ¼3.20 m, is consid-
ered (Fig. 2a). The building has a seismic-resistant structure
consisting of four coupled wall–frame systems placed at the
boundaries in order to realise a torsionally restrained system.
Thanks to the plan symmetry, the structural analysis is carried

x x
x
x

x x
x
x

x x
x
x

x x

L L
x
x

x x
x
x

x x
x
x

x x

Fig. 2. (a) Seismic-resistant boundary wall–frame structure and (b) schematic view of soil profiles, wall and column foundations.
1300 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

out by considering only one seismic-resistant wall–frame system
designed by a standard Fixed-Base (FB) model in order to assure
inter-storey drifts less than 5% at the Damageability Limit States
(DLSs). The masses associated to each floor, as shown in Fig. 2a,
refer to a half storey and are comprehensive of the structural self-
weight.
The wall–frame system is founded on floating piles of diameter
|¼0.8 m: a single pile foundation is considered for each frame
column, while a 2  2 pile group is adopted for the wall. In Fig. 2b
the scheme of the wall and column foundations are shown.
Since the paper focuses on the effects of the foundation
compliance, which in the case of floating piles mainly depends
on the top layer of the deposit, the soil profile consists of a 30 m
thick deformable homogeneous soil layer resting on elastic bed-
rock (Fig. 2b). Three kinds of soils are considered for the deform-
able layer, characterised by decreasing mechanical properties
(Table 1). It is worth noting that the three soils S1, S2 and S3
fall into classes B, C and D of both EC8 [1] and the Italian seismic
code [30], respectively. Pile length L depends on the soil profiles
as shown by Table 1.
Two-dimensional finite element models of the coupled wall–
frame systems are developed in the frequency domain. Frame
members are modelled with beam elements while shell elements
are used for the concrete wall. Suitable constraints are defined
accounting for the rigid beam-to-column joints and the in-plane
rigidity of the floor [29]. The concrete Young’s modulus is
assumed to be Ec ¼3.5  104 N/mm2 and the effect of cracking in
the linear behaviour of the structure is approximately taken into
account by considering a 25% reduction in Young’s modulus for
walls and columns and a 50% reduction for the beams [1].
Furthermore, structural damping x ¼ 5% is assumed. The dynamic
stiffness matrix of the model is assembled and adopted to
perform the seismic analyses of the FB systems. For the analyses
including SSI effects, the dynamic stiffness matrix of the super-
structure is opportunely assembled with that of the soil–
foundations system (SSI models). In this case, stiffnesses of the
tie-beams and additional masses relevant to the pile caps are
included.
The dynamic stiffness matrix of the soil–foundation systems is
derived according to the procedure proposed by the authors
accounting for soil–pile interaction and radiation damping. Each
pile is modelled by 1 m long finite elements to provide a suitable
Table 1
Soil properties and pile lengths.
Soil Vs (m/s2) r (t/m3) n L (m)
Bedrock 1200 2.0 0.4
S1 400 1.8 0.4
S2 250 1.6 0.4
S3 100 1.6 0.4
level of accuracy. With reference to the wall foundation, a rigid
cap is considered and a master node is introduced at the centroid
of the pile group.
3.1. Seismic action
The seismic action is defined at the outcropping bedrock and is
represented by seven real accelerograms matching the elastic
response spectrum of the Italian OPCM 3431 [30] for soil type A
and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.25 g. The records adopted
are selected from the European Strong Motion Database [31] and
are reported in Table 2. Fig. 3a,b shows the response spectra of the
selected accelerograms and the mean response spectrum com-
pared with the reference spectrum of the Italian code; dispersion
around the mean value is also shown with dotted lines.
Considering that the paper deals with the linear response of
the coupled wall–frame system, the accelerograms are scaled to
reduce the action to the damage limitation level hazard corre-
sponding to a 50% probability of occurrence in 50 years [30].
For each soil profile considered, the free-field ground motions are
obtained by means of a 1D site response analysis carried out with
the computer program NERA [32] accounting for the shear modulus
degradation suggested by Sun et al. [33] for cohesive soils. The
material damping is automatically accounted for in NERA, which
adopts a hysteretic non-linear stress–strain constitutive model for
the soil. Shear wave velocities and densities of the soils considered
in the applications are reported by Table 1.
The bedrock is assumed to behave elastically with constant
hysteretic material damping ratio xb ¼2%. The Poisson’s ratio n is
assumed to be 0.4 for all the soils. Fig. 4a, b and c shows, similar
to Fig. 3, the response spectra of the signals obtained at the
ground surface from the site response analyses for soil profiles S1,
S2 and S3, respectively, compared with the relevant spectrum
proposed by the Italian code for soil types B, C and D, respectively.
Spectral modifications due to the soil deposit response are clearly
evident; for soil profile S1 the maximum amplification is obtained
for periods between 0.1 and 0.7 s for which the reference
spectrum (Fig. 3b) has the higher ordinates; for soil profile S3
amplification occurs at higher periods between 1.5 and 2 s. Notice
that amplifications occur for periods slightly higher than those of
the deposits calculated with the small strain shear modulus due
to softening phenomena associated with the non-linear soil
behaviour that is accounted for in the analysis. It is worth noting
that considering soil deposits with different thickness of the top
layer or with different shear wave velocity profiles might give
different results. However, these issues are not considered in the
paper and only the effects produced by foundation compliance
are discussed in the following.
Site response analyses provide the free-field motions at ground
– surface and at each depth of interest, namely at depths corresponding
14
to the pile finite element discretization. The time histories of the free-
16
22 field motions at ground surface constitute the seismic input motions
of the FB models while those at different depths, corresponding to the

Table 2
Earthquake records adopted in the analyses (not scaled).

Earthquake Date Trasducer orientation Duration (s) PGA (m/s2) Magnitude (Mw) File

Izmit, Turkey 17.08.1999 E–W 51.937 2.192 7.6 001231ya.cor

Campano-Lucano, Italy 23.11.1980 N–S 71.927 2.121 6.9 000290xa.cor
Montenegro, Serbia and Montenegro 15.04.1979 N–S 47.938 2.197 6.9 000200xa.spc
Montenegro, Serbia and Montenegro 15.04.1979 E–W 40.369 2.199 6.9 000198ya.spc
Montenegro, Serbia and Montenegro 15.04.1979 N–S 40.369 1.774 6.9 000198xa.cor
Tabas, Iran 16.09.1978 N10E 39.959 3.779 7.3 000182ya.spc
Friuli, Italy 06.05.1976 N–S 36.530 3.499 6.5 000055xa.cor
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309 1301

0.6
Reference response spectrum Reference response spectrum
for soil type A for soil type A
0.5 Mean response spectrum
Standard deviation
0.4

Sa [g]
0.3
Rock Outcrop
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T [s] T [s]

Fig. 3. (a) Response spectra of the selected accelerograms and (b) mean response spectrum and standard deviation.

0.6
Reference response spectrum Reference response spectrum
for soil type B for soil type B
0.5
Mean response spectrum
Profile S1 Standard deviation
0.4
Sa [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.6
Reference response spectrum Reference response spectrum
for soil type C for soil type C
0.5
Mean response spectrum

0.4 Profile S2 Standard deviation

Sa [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.6
Reference response spectrum Reference response spectrum
for soil type D for soil type D
0.5
Mean response spectrum
Profile S3 Standard deviation
0.4
Sa [g]

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T [s] T [s]

Fig. 4. Response spectra and mean spectrum for the selected accelerograms (a) at ground surface for profile S1, (b) at ground surface for profile S2, (c) at ground surface for
profile S3.
1302 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

finite element nodes of the foundations model, are used to simulate
the seismic action in the SSI models.
3.2. SSI effects on system flexibility
SSI effects on system flexibility are evaluated by means of
steady-state analyses performed on the FB and SSI models by
considering a unit point horizontal load applied on the last floor
of the systems (Fig. 5). With reference to the SSI models, the
steady-state analyses make it possible to evaluate the funda-
mental frequencies of the systems avoiding the use of eigenvalue
analyses for non-classically damped systems. Fig. 5 shows the
amplitude of the displacement response of the loaded point in
longitudinal direction. Two peaks, corresponding to the first two
fundamental frequencies, are evident: the relevant modes are
essentially translational without a significant whole-body rocking
of the structure. As expected, the SSI slightly influences system
flexibility decreasing the fundamental frequencies of the FB
structures. Table in Fig. 5b reports the first two fundamental
frequencies of the models pointing out the percentage differences
obtained for the three soil deposits.
The greatest reduction in the fundamental frequencies may be
observed in the case of soil profile S3 while in the case of profiles S1
and S2 the frequency shift is almost coincident. Furthermore, SSI
effects on the second fundamental frequencies are more significant.
3.3. Rocking of foundations
As already stated, the whole structure is not subjected to
important rocking phenomena but rather to the rocking of the
single foundations that may be responsible for additional struc-
tural deformations and redistributions of the seismic base shear
among the wall and the frame. Conventional analyses, which
generally assume structures to be fully restrained at the base, are
not able to account for this phenomenon that, depending on the
soil–foundation system deformability, may be of particular
importance for a reliable prediction of the structural displace-
ments and forces.
Fig. 6 shows the time histories of the rocking of the founda-
tions (wall and columns) for the three different soil profiles
obtained from one of the real accelerograms considered in the
applications. It may be observed that the rocking of the inner
column foundation is considerably less than that of the edge
column for each soil profile and this tendency accentuates while
worsening the dynamic properties of the soil profile, namely the
rocking of the inner column foundation decreases in the case of
soft soils (profile S3). Furthermore, the rocking of the wall
foundation, directly related to the vertical dynamic impedance
of the single pile, dramatically increases as the shear wave
velocity of the deposit decreases.
The same phenomena are observed for the mean values of the
rocking obtained from all the analyses and shown by Fig. 7.

x10-4
12 FB Model
SSI Model for Profile S1
SSI Model for Profile S2
SSI Model for Profile S3
8 f Shift f Shift
displ. [m]

[Hz] [%] [Hz] [%]

FB --- 0.91 --- 3.17 ---

4 S1 0.89 -2.20 3.08 -2.84

SSI S2 0.88 -3.30 3.01 -5.05

S3 0.83 -8.79 2.84 -10.41

0
0 1 2 3 4
[Hz]

Fig. 5. Steady-state response due to unit point horizontal load.

Profile S1 (Vs = 400 m/s) Profile S2 (Vs = 250 m/s) Profile S3 (Vs= 100 m/s)
1
SSI
[mrad]

-1
1
SSI
[mrad]

-1
1
SSI
[mrad]

-1
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s] t [s]

Fig. 6. Time histories of the foundation rocking (Campano-Lucano 1980 N–S – 000290xa).
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309 1303

The foundation mean rocking of the wall and edge column
increases considerably in the case of soil profile S3 reaching
maximum values of about 0.8 and 0.5 mrad, respectively.
On the contrary, the foundation of the inner column undergoes
minor rotations for soft soils; this appears to be a contradiction
but is justified by the presence of tie-beams that not only restrain
the column foundations but also exert recall forces, which
increase with the rocking of the wall foundation.
Table 3 reports the mean values of the foundation rocking for
the wall and columns, with the relevant standard deviations.
Since only 7 accelerograms are considered, standard deviations
are introduced simply to provide overall information about the
structural response, being fully aware that the analyses carried
out are not probabilistic.
3.4. Internal forces
Internal forces are considered to be significant to describe the
possible damage of the structural elements. Results obtained with
SSI models are compared against those given by FB models in
Rocking [mrad]
1.2
0.8 1 2
1
3
0.4
2
0.0
S3 S2
Profile
Fig. 7. Mean values of foundations rocking.
order to understand the effects of the foundation compliance on
the development of the incipient damage mechanism.
Fig. 8a, b and c compares the time histories of the base shear in
each vertical element (wall and columns) obtained from the SSI and
FB models for all the different profiles for one of the accelerograms
adopted. An increase in the base shear in the columns is observed,
for all the soil profiles, as a consequence of the SSI. These increments
depend on the dynamic properties of the deposit; in particular the
base shear in the columns increase by decreasing the shear wave
velocity of the deposit. On the other hand, the SSI produces a
reduction in the base shear in the wall that becomes significant in
the case of soft soil (profile S3).
Fig. 8d shows the time histories of the total base shear for the
SSI and FB models obtained from the same accelerogram. In this
case SSI produces increments or decrements of the maximum
base shear, depending on the soil profile, that cannot fully be
explained by considering the soil properties only.
The redistribution of the seismic base shear between the
vertical elements is also evident from the mean values obtained
from the analyses. Fig. 9a shows the mean percentage distribution
of the seismic base shear between wall and frame, comparing the
results obtained from the FB and SSI models. When the model is
fully restrained at the base, independently from the soil profile,
the wall absorbs about 85% of the maximum seismic base shear;
considering the soil–foundation flexibility, a migration of the
shear stresses from the wall to the frame is observed depending
on the soil dynamic properties. In particular, in the case of profile
3 S3 the wall base shear reduces to 65% of the total shear, resulting
in an increasing in the frame base shear. The scattering of the
results is visualised in Fig. 9a by vertical segments having a length
twice the standard deviation. In this case SSI has only a minor
influence on the dispersions of the analyses results.
Table 3 reports the mean value of the percentage distributions
of the base shear between the wall and the frame obtained from
S1 the FB and SSI models with the relevant standard deviation.
Fig. 9b shows the mean absolute values of the seismic base
shear absorbed by the wall and the frame. The total mean
base shear is also plotted. As already stated, a migration of the

Table 3
Mean values and (standard deviations) of major response parameters.

Profile S1 Profile S2 Profile S3

FB SSI FB SSI FB SSI

Wall foundation rocking (mrad) – 0.22 (0.03) – 0.36 (0.10) – 0.80 (0.20)
Inner column foundation rocking (mrad) – 0.08 (0.01) – 0.06 (0.01) – 0.03 (0.03)
Edge column foundation rocking (mrad) – 0.16 (0.03) – 0.24 (0.07) – 0.50 (0.12)
Wall base shear (103 kN) 0.94 (0.11) 0.92 (0.11) 0.86 (0.15) 0.78 (0.18) 0.93 (0.14) 0.83 (0.20)
Frame base shear (103 kN) 0.17 (0.03) 0.21 (0.05) 0.18 (0.04) 0.26 (0.07) 0.19 (0.03) 0.42 (0.10)
Total base shear (103 kN) 1.10 (0.14) 1.13 (0.14) 1.05 (0.19) 1.03 (0.25) 1.12 (0.17) 1.26 (0.30)
Wall base shear distribution (%) 85.1 (1.57) 81.2 (3.23) 82.6 (1.16) 75.2 (1.59) 83.3 (0.68) 66.3 (1.88)

A Wall base bending moment (103 kNm)a 5.32 (1.06) 4.95 (0.87) 6.77 (1.87) 5.29 (1.30) 5.38 (0.95) 5.25 (1.20)

2 a
B Inner column bending moment (10 kNm) 1.10 (0.21) 1.35 (0.23) 1.38 (0.38) 1.67 (0.41) 1.10 (0.19) 2.47 (0.56)

2 a
C Edge column bending moment (10 kNm) 0.94 (0.18) 1.09 (0.18) 1.18 (0.33) 1.24 (0.30) 0.95 (0.16) 1.58 (0.36)

2 a
D 1st floor inner beam bending moment (10 kNm) 0.80 (0.18) 0.81 (0.15) 1.04 (0.29) 0.97 (0.23) 0.83 (0.15) 1.27 (0.29)

2 a
E 1st floor edge beam bending moment (10 kNm) 0.87 (0.18) 0.95 (0.17) 1.12 (0.31) 1.11 (0.28) 0.88 (0.16) 1.37 (0.31)

2 a
F Inner tie-beam bending moment (10 kNm) – 1.44 (0.24) – 2.18 (0.53) – 3.85 (0.87)

2 a
G Edge tie-beam bending moment (10 kNm) – 0.51 (0.07) – 0.61 (0.13) – 1.02 (0.23)

Relative displacement of the sixth floor (mm) 52.5 (11.3) 50.1 (10.3) 61.8 (11.4) 67.1 (15.1) 57.0 (13.3) 67.6 (16.7)
Inter-storey drift of the sixth floor (%) 4.69 (0.72) 4.53 (0.86) 4.76 (0.85) 4.93 (0.88) 4.47 (0.97) 5.16 (1.28)
Accelerationof the sixth floor (g) 0.36 (0.03) 0.35 (0.06) 0.29 (0.03) 0.29 (0.04) 0.30 (0.03) 0.30 (0.04)

a
Element location is shown in Fig. 10.
1304 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

Soil profile S1 (Vs = 400 m/s) Soil profile S2 (Vs = 250 m/s) Soil profile S3 (Vs = 100 m/s)
200
SSI

[kN]

-200
200
FB
[kN]

-200
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s] t [s]

200
SSI
[kN]

-200
200
FB
[kN]

-200
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s] t [s]

1500
SSI
[kN]

-1500
1500
FB
[kN]

-1500
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s] t [s]

1500
SSI
[kN]

-1500
1500
FB
[kN]

-1500
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s] t [s]

Fig. 8. Time histories of the base shear in (a) the edge column, (b) the inner column and (c) the wall; (d) total base shear (Campano-Lucano 1980 N–S – 000290xa).

base shear from the wall to the frame may be observed in the SSI
models with respect to the FB models, particularly for soil profile
S3. The total base shear obtained from the SSI and FB models is
almost the same for soil profiles S1 and S2 while for soil profile S3
the total base shear obtained from the SSI model is higher than
that relevant to the FB model.
Table 3 reports the mean values of the wall and columns base
shears obtained from the FB and SSI models with the standard
deviations.
Fig. 10 shows the envelopes of the bending moments in the
structural elements obtained from one of the accelerograms used
in the analyses for the profile S3. It may be observed that, as a
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309 1305

x10³
100 0 1.4

Wall Total
FB 1.2
80 20

Frame shear [%]

1.0

Base shear [kN]

Wall shear [%]
FB
60 SSI 40 0.8 SSI

40 60 0.6
SSI

Frame
0.4
20 SSI standard deviation 80 FB
0.2
FB standard deviation
0 100 0.0
S3 S2 S1 S3 S2 S1
Soil Soil
Fig. 9. (a) Distribution of the base shears between the structural elements and (b) mean total absolute base shear.

2·103 kNm 102 kNm 102 kNm

Fixed Base SSI

D E

A B C

F G

Fig. 10. Envelopes of bending moments in the structural elements obtained from one accelerogram (Montenegro 1979 N–S – 000200xa): (a) wall, (b) beams and
(c) columns.

consequence of foundation rocking, the bending moments are
considerably reduced in the wall and are strongly increased in the
frame elements at the lower storeys. In particular, increments of
the bending moments in the columns vary from about 20%
(profile S1) to 125% (profile S3), as shown by Table 3. Further-
more, the bending moment in the foundation tie-beams near the
wall, not included in the fixed-base model, is particularly high.
Even if the internal force redistribution is particularly important
for soft soil, it is significant for each soil profile considered.
Fig. 11 shows the envelopes of the shear force in the structural
elements for the same case. A migration of the shear stresses from
the wall to the frame, as previously discussed, is particularly
evident at the lower levels; furthermore, the shear force in the
foundation tie-beams is remarkable.
Fig. 12 shows the envelops of the axial force induced by the
earthquake; it may be pointed out that, due to SSI, the axial force
in the edge columns does not undergo significant variations while
the one calculated for the inner columns is almost twice the one
obtained from the FB model.
Finally, Fig. 13 shows the envelopes of the global stress
resultants (kinematic and inertial) in the piles due only to earth-
quake (gravity loads are not considered) obtained from the SSI
models. It is worth noting that stress resultants obtained from the
SSI model include the kinematic contributions, which are gen-
erally neglected in an FB conventional approach. At the pile head,
stress resultants are compared with the relevant values obtained
from the FB models (dots). These are evaluated following usual
foundation design procedure: (i) axial forces in the piles of the
wall foundation are determined from equilibrium considerations
on the overturning moments, (ii) shear forces are derived by
equally distributing the total base shear among piles and (iii)
bending moments are obtained schematizing the pile as a beam
on Winkler’s restraints subjected to the shear force previously
determined (coefficients of springs are assumed according to
Eq. (6a)). It is worth noting that SSI reduces axial forces induced
in the piles of the wall foundation as a consequence of the
reduced moment resisted by the wall. On the other hand, axial
force in the pile at the inner column increases significantly due to
shear forces in tie-beams. Concerning pile shear forces, in the SSI
model the distribution of the total base shear among piles
depends on the foundation impedance and on the effective degree
of restraint exerted by the superstructure. It is worth noting that
shear forces in the piles of the wall are smaller than those of the
column foundations due to the group effect; furthermore, shear
1306 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

3·102 kN 102 kN 102 kN

Fixed Base SSI

Fig. 11. Envelopes of shear forces in the structural elements obtained from one accelerogram (Montenegro 1979 N–S – 000200xa): (a) wall, (b) beams and (c) columns.

102 kN 2·102 kN
SSI
Fixed Base SSI Axial force FB

Shear force 1·102 kN

Bending moment 1·102 kNm

Fig. 12. Envelopes of seismic axial forces in the structural elements obtained from
one accelerogram (Montenegro 1979 N–S – 000200xa).

forces in the piles of the inner columns are greater than that in
the piles of the edge columns as a consequence of the greater
degree of restraint exerted by the stiff tie-beams. Similar con-
siderations may be drawn for bending moments.
The results shown in this section demonstrate that SSI gen-
erally delays the damage of the wall element to the detriment of Fig. 13. Envelopes of seismic axial forces, shear forces and bending moments in
the frame components. piles obtained from one accelerogram (Montenegro 1979 N–S – 000200xa).

3.5. Structural displacements
Structural displacements represent an important parameter in
estimating the structural efficiency due to their strong correlation
with damage.
Fig. 14 shows the maximum lateral displacements of the
structure. Dashed lines refer to the FB model while continuous
lines refer to the SSI models. They represent the mean values
obtained with the seven records used in the applications. Result
scattering is also shown at each floor by horizontal segments
having a length twice the standard deviation. With reference to
the FB model, the mean values of the maximum displacements
are slightly influenced by the soil profile and vary between
50 mm (Profile S1) and 60 mm (Profile S2 and S3) due to the site
response that affects the seismic input for the structural analysis.
The SSI produces a significant modification of the maximum
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309
Profile S1 (Vs= 400 m/s)
6
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80
displ. [mm]
SSI mean value
FB mean value
Fig. 14. Lateral relative displacements of the structure.
displacement only in the case of soft soil (profile S3) for which an
increase of about 20% is observed with respect to the FB model.
For profile S2 the modifications are below 8% while for profile S1
the results are almost coincident. Results obtained by considering
SSI are generally more scattered; the dispersion increases by
decreasing the mechanical properties of the soil and becomes
very important in the case of soil profile S3.
Table 3 reports the mean values of the displacements obtained
for the sixth floor of the FB and SSI models together with the
relevant standard deviation.
Fig. 15 shows the time histories of the inter-storey displace-
ments relevant to the 6th floor for the three different soil profiles
obtained from one of the real accelerograms considered. The
dashed straight lines represent the limit values of 5% of the
storey height as prescribed by the Italian seismic code [30].
Fig. 16 reports the mean values of the inter-storey drifts
obtained from both the FB and the SSI analyses performed for
each soil profile. These are calculated from the storey displace-
ments without subtracting whole-body rotations of the structure
that, in the case study, are negligible. Similar to displacements,
SSI effects are important for soil profile S3 for which the mean
value of the inter-storey drift, obtained at the sixth storey with
the SSI model, is more than 18% higher than that relevant to the
FB model. The rocking of the wall foundation arises despite the
whole-body rotation being negligible; this provides a justification
for the increase in the inter-storey drifts observed in the case of
SSI models: in fact, increments are due to foundation rocking that
adds a storey drift of about 0.8% (profile S3) corresponding to the
maximum rocking angle of about 0.8 mrad (Table 3).
Additionally, it should be noted that results referred to SSI
models are generally more scattered. In particular a greater
dispersion is observed for the last floor for which the mean value
of the inter-storey drift and the standard deviation of the results
are reported by Table 3.
Fig. 17 shows floor accelerations that may be related with the
damage of building contents (e.g. heating ventilating and air-
conditioning equipments). Different from forces and displacements,
SSI does not significantly affect floor acceleration (see also Table 3).
Classical response spectrum analyses have been carried out on the
1307
Profile S2 (Vs= 250 m/s) Profile S3 (Vs= 100 m/s)
100 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
displ. [mm] displ. [mm]
SSI standard deviation
FB standard deviation
FB structure to better understand the acceleration diagrams. These
have demonstrated that the distributions of acceleration are not
regular (mainly at last floors) since the structural response is
dominated by contributions of higher modes.
4. Conclusions
A finite element procedure for the complete SSI frequency
domain analysis of coupled wall–frame structures on pile founda-
tion subjected to moderate earthquakes is presented, accounting
for the hysteretic and radiation damping occurring in the soil. The
seismic input, obtained by means of a local site response analysis,
is the free-field ground motions within the piles and accounts for
the signal amplifications due to the resonance frequencies of the
deposits.
The procedure is applied to investigate the SSI effects on the
seismic behaviour of a regular 6-storey 4-bay coupled wall–frame
system. Different soil profiles are considered and real accelero-
grams are used.
The model properly includes the superstructure and allows
capturing the SSI effects in all the structural elements (i.e. wall,
columns, beams, foundation tie-beams, caps and piles). The most
important response quantities significant for quantification of
damage are evaluated comparing the results with those obtained
by a conventional fixed-base model. Comparisons demonstrate
that
 rocking of the wall foundation, related to the vertical dynamic
pile impedance, depends significantly on the soil and increases
rapidly by decreasing the soil stiffness of the deposit; in the
practise, this might be reduced by adopting end-bearing piles
or making the foundation tie-beams very stiff;
 SSI significantly modifies the seismic base shear distribution
between the structural elements; the soil–foundation flexibil-
ity produces a migration of the shear forces from the wall to
the frame that strongly increase with the soil softening;
similarly, bending moment in the wall is reduced as a
consequence of foundation flexibility while moments in beams
1308 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309

FB Model SSI Model

0.02
Soil profile S1 (Vs = 400 m/s)
s [m]

-0.02
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s]
0.02
Soil profile S2 (Vs = 250 m/s)
s [m]

-0.02
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s]
0.02
Soil profile S3 (Vs = 100 m/s)
s [m]

-0.02
0 15 30 45 60 0 15 30 45 60
t [s] t [s]
Fig. 15. Time histories of the inter-storey displacements relevant to the 6th storey (Campano-Lucano 1980 N–S).

Profile S1 (Vs = 400 m/s) Profile S2 (Vs = 250 m/s) Profile S3 (Vs = 100 m/s)
6

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
drift [‰] drift [‰] drift [‰]
SSI mean value SSI standard deviation
FB mean value FB standard deviation Damage limitation requirement
Fig. 16. Inter-storey drifts.

and columns at lower stories are strongly increased; this
means that structural damageability of the wall is delayed
whereas the foundation compliance is detrimental for the
frame components;
 internal forces in piles are sensibly affected by the super-
structure deformability; furthermore, even if the soil layer is
homogeneous, the kinematic interaction is responsible for
stresses at the deepest sections;
 a gradual and significant increase in the floor displacements is
observed by reducing the shear wave velocity of the soil
deposits as a consequence of foundation rocking; similarly, for
medium or soft soil deposits (profiles S2 and S3) a constant
increase in the inter-storey drift is observed for all the floors as
a consequence of foundation flexibility.
The above considerations support evidence on the importance
of considering SSI effects on the seismic response of coupled
wall–frame structures subjected to moderate earthquakes. Obser-
vations from force distributions reveal the importance of SSI in
the early damage of structural elements that may affect the
 S. Carbonari et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31 (2011) 1296–1309
Profile S1 (Vs= 400 m/s)
6
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0
a [g]
SSI mean value
FB mean value
Fig. 17. Storey accelerations.
evolution of the dissipative mechanism. Observations from dis-
placements demonstrate its importance with respect to the
damageability of non-structural elements.
References
[1] EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part
1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings; 2004.
[2] EN 1998-5. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part
5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects; 2004.
[3] Resendiz D, Roesset JM. Soil–structure interaction in Mexico City during the
1985 earthquake. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the 1985
Earthquakes, Factors Involved and Lessons Learned, New York, ASCE; 1986.
[4] Mylonakis G, Syngros K, Gazetas G, Tazoh T. The role of soil in the collapse of
18 piers of Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe earthquake. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006;35(5):547–75.
[5] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Soil–structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental?
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2000;4(3):277–301.
[6] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. ASCE Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1971;97(SM9):1227–48.
[7] Veletsos AS, Verbic C. Vibration of viscoelastic foundation. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1973;2(1):87–102.
[8] Veletsos AS, Meek JW. Dynamic behaviour of building–foundation systems.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1974;3(2):121–38.
[9] Veletsos AS, Nair WD. Seismic interaction of structures oh hysteretic
foundations. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division 1975;101(1):109–29.
[10] Warburton GB. Soil–structure interaction for tower structures. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1978;6(6):535–56.
[11] Makris N, Badoni D, Delis E, Gazetas G. Prediction of observed bridge
response with soil–pile–structure interaction. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing ASCE 1994;120(10). p. 2992–3011.
[12] Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G. Soil–pile–bridge seismic interaction:
kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1997;26(3):337–59.
[13] Ciampoli M, Pinto PE. Effects of soil–structure interaction on inelastic seismic
response of bridge piers. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2005;121(5):
806–14.
[14] Lin J, Tsai K, Miranda E. Seismic history analysis of asymmetric buildings with
soil–structure interaction. Journal of Structural Engineering 2009;135(2):
101–12.
[15] Guin J, Banerjee PK. Coupled soil–pile–structure interaction analysis under
seismic excitation. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1998;124(4):
434–44.
1309
Profile S2 (Vs= 250 m /s) Profile S2 (Vs= 100 m/s)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
a [g] a [g]
SSI standard deviation
FB standard deviation
[16] Padrón LA, Aznárez JJ, Maeso O. Dynamic structure–soil–structure interaction
between nearby piled buildings under seismic excitation by BEM–FEM
model. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2009;29(6):1084–96.
[17] Koo KK, Chau KT, Yang X, Lam SS, Wong YL. Soil–pile–structure interaction
under SH wave excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics
2003;32:395–415.
[18] Guin J. Advanced dynamic soil–pile–structure interaction and nonlinear pile
behaviour. Phd thesis, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY; 1997.
[19] Jeremic! B, Jie G, Preisig M, Tafazzoli M. Time domain simulation of soil–
foundation–structure interaction in non-uniform soils. Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Structural Dynamics 2009;38(5):699–718.
[20] Jeremic B, Kunnath S, Xiong F. Influence of soil–foundation–structure inter-
action on seismic response of the I-880 viaduct. Engineering Structures
2004;26(3):391–402.
[21] Oliveto G, Santini A. A simplified model for the dynamic soil–structure interac-
tion of planar frame–wall systems. Engineering Structures 1993;15(6):431–8.
[22] Dezi F, Carbonari S, Leoni G. A model for the 3D kinematic interaction
analysis of pile groups in layered soils. Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
tural Dynamics 2009;38(11):1281–305.
[23] Novak M. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 1974;11(4):574–98.
[24] Fan K, Gazetas G, Kaynia A, Kausel E, Ahmad S. Kinematic seismic response of
single piles and pile groups. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1991;117(12):
1860–79.
[25] Makris N, Gazetas G. Dynamic pile–soil–pile interaction. Part II: lateral and
seismic response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992;21(2):
145–62.
[26] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of
floating pile groups. Geotechnique 1988;38(4):557–74.
[27] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 1984;110:20–40.
[28] Gutierrez JA, Chopra AK. A substructure method for earthquake analysis of
structures including structure–soil interaction. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1978;6:51–69.
[29] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method. vol. 1: the basis. 5th
ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000.
[30] OPCM n. 3431. Technical rules for the seismic design, assessment and
improvement of buildings; 2005 [in Italian].
[31] European strong-motion data /http://www.isesd.cv.ic.ac.uk/ESD/frameset.
htmS.
[32] Bardet JP, Tobita T. NERA nonlinear earthquake site response analyses of
layered soil deposit. University of Southern California; 2001.
[33] Sun JI, Golesorkhi R, Seed, HB. Dynamic moduli and damping ratios for
cohesive soils. Report no. EERC-88/15, University of California, Berkeley,
California; 1988.