Dynamic Stiffness of Foundations on Inhomogeneous Soils

for a Realistic Prediction of Vertical Building Resonance

L. Auersch, Ph.D.1

Abstract: The aim of this contribution is a practice-oriented prediction of environmental building vibrations. A Green’s functions method
for layered soils is used to build the dynamic stiffness matrix of the soil area that is covered by the foundation. A simple building model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

is proposed by adding a building mass to the dynamic stiffness of the soil. The vertical soil-building transfer functions with building-soil
resonances are calculated and compared with a number of measurements of technically induced vibrations of residential buildings. In a
parametrical study, realistic foundation geometries are modeled and the influence of incompressible soil, deep stiff soil layering, soft top
layers, and increasing soil stiffness with depth is analyzed. All these special soil models reduce the resonant frequency compared to a
standard homogeneous soil. A physically motivated model of a naturally sedimented soil has a stiffness increasing with the square root of
the depth and yields a foundation stiffness that decreases with foundation area considerably stronger than the relatively insensitive
homogeneous soil. This soil model is suited for the Berlin measuring sites and reproduces satisfactorily the experimental results.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2008兲134:3共328兲
CE Database subject headings: Stiffness; Foundations; Predictions; Resonance; Vibration.

Introduction The main concern of this contribution is ground-borne vibra-

Dynamic soil-structure interaction is a field that has been in-
tensely investigated in the last decades. A basic topic of soil-
structure interaction is the stiffness and damping of foundations.
A variety of methods have been developed to calculate the foun-
dation stiffness and damping as a function of the excitation fre-
quency. There exists a large number of theoretical publications
about the stiffness and damping of foundations, just as examples
共Richart et al. 1970; Gazetas 1983; Wolf 1985兲. In early studies,
foundations on homogeneous soil were investigated. Later on,
layered soil, that means at least one layer resting on a usually
stiffer half-space, has been an important subject of theoretical
studies 共for example, Waas 1972; Kausel 1974; Luco 1974兲. An-
other type of inhomogeneous soil was also analyzed, but not as
intensely as layered soils, that is the inhomogeneous soil with a
stiffness that varies continuously with depth, see for example
共Waas et al. 1988; Vrettos 1991; Kalinchuk et al. 2005兲. Due to
the long history of soil-structure interaction, the effects of specific
soils—as cut-off frequencies and trapped mass—have already
been analyzed and discussed by a number of authors 共Gazetas
1987; Wolf 1994兲. There are also some experimental results about
foundations published that are made to verify the theory of dy-
namic soil-structure interaction 共Richart and Whitman 1967; Nii
1987; Gazetas and Stokoe 1991; Verbic and Meler 1991; Auersch
et al. 2002兲.
1
Federal Institute of Material Research and Testing 共BAM兲, Unter den
Eichen 87, D 12200 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: lutz.auersch-saworski@
bam.de
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on April 24, 2006; approved on July 23, 2007. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 3, March 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2008/3-328–340/$25.00.
tion of buildings caused by railway traffic 共Fig. 1兲, pile driving,
and other technical sources. For railway traffic and pile driving,
there is primarily vertical excitation in the soil. The dynamic
forces generate a wave field that is propagating through the soil.
Generally, at some distance from the source, the wave field is
dominated by surface waves, namely, Rayleigh waves with a
major vertical component. The frequency range of excitation is
between 5 and 20 Hz for pile driving and between 5 and 100 Hz
for railway traffic. When ground-borne vibration of buildings is
investigated, the transfer function between the free-field ampli-
tudes of the soil and the response of the building is considered.
The main question is whether an amplification or a reduction of
the free-field amplitudes of the soil occurs when the soil vibration
is transferred to the building foundation.
Experimental soil-building transfer functions, which are suited
for technically induced vibration problems, are rarely published,
for example 共Nelson and Saurenmann 1983; Jakobsen 1989;
Auersch et al. 2004兲. In general, the measured vertical transfer
functions show, more or less clearly, a building-soil resonance
and a reduction of amplitudes at higher frequencies. In the present
contribution, this vertical building-soil resonant frequency is
compared with calculated resonance frequencies of theoretical
soil, foundation, and building models.
The general tendency in comparison of theory and experiment
is that the experimental resonant frequencies are often lower than
the theoretically expected. This problem of lower experimental
resonance frequencies is very old and it has been suggested to add
a fictitious “soil mass” to the model of the soil-foundation system
共Reissner 1936; Barkan 1962兲. The added “soil mass” reduces the
dynamic stiffness and yields a lower resonant frequency. How-
ever, this represents only a description of the experimental obser-
vation and not its explanation.
A number of possible reasons for the shift of the resonance
frequencies are investigated in the present contribution. For a
number of parameters of the foundation geometry and the soil
structure, the dynamic stiffness is calculated. The results are

328 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Train induced vibrations of buildings

checked as to whether a reduction of the stiffness and a shift of Boundary-Element Method for the Building-Soil
resonance frequencies is possible, and whether these effects are Interaction
strong enough to explain the experimental results. Even if no
agreement with experiment is found, the merit of the study is the The stiffness matrix of the soil area is constructed by means of the
quantification of different softening effects on soil-foundation Green’s functions of the homogeneous or layered soil. The
systems. Green’s functions, which are the solution due to a harmonic point
This contribution consists of five parts. The first part recapitu- load on the surface of the soil, are calculated by an integration in
lates the theoretical methods to calculate the stiffness and damp- wave number domain 共Appendix I兲. The solution in wave number
ing of foundations on layered soil. It is based on the Green’s domain is obtained by elementary matrix methods 共Appendix II兲.
functions of a layered soil that are obtained by integration in the When the Green’s functions have been established, the
wave number domain. A similar method using the full-space boundary-element method for the soil is introduced in a very
Green’s functions has already been presented in Auersch and simple way. First, the foundation area is described by a set of
Schmid 共1990兲. The Green’s functions of layered soil were pre- surface points with coordinates x␣. A portion A␣ of the surface
sented in Auersch 共1994兲 to calculate the wave propagation. The area belongs to every surface point. For each pair of surface
method given here is similar to the method of Wolf 共1985兲 and points x␣ and x␤, the displacements
Kausel and Roesset 共1981兲. The second part discusses the moti-
vation of this contribution. A number of measurements are pre- u共x␤兲 = F共x␤ − x␣兲p共x␣兲 共1兲
sented where measured resonance frequencies and measured
wave velocities do not fit together. or
The central part of this contribution is the calculation of the
stiffness and damping of different foundations on different soils. u␤ = F␤␣p␣ 共1⬘兲
Homogeneous soils are compared with inhomogeneous soils. that are due to a force p at point x␣ are calculated using the
Deep stiff soil layers are examined as well as soft top layers. Most Green’s functions F. The singularity of the Green’s function at the
effectively, a soil with a stiffness continuously increasing with point of excitation x␣ is overcome by
depth is investigated. In addition, an incompressible soil and the
effect of a foundation, which is not in perfect contact with the
soil, are examined. Results, stiffness, and damping functions are
presented for different realistic foundation geometries as single
u␣i =
1
A␣
冕
A␣
F共x − x␣兲p共x␣兲dA 共2兲

foundations, unilateral or orthogonal strip foundations, and plate calculating the mean value over the corresponding surface area.
foundations, which cover the whole building area. The Green’s function matrices F␤␣ are assembled in a flexibil-
In the following section, the effects of the different foundation ity matrix of the soil
and soil models are analyzed for buildings that are excited by

冤 冥冤 冥冤 冥
vibrations of the soil. Vertical soil-building transfer functions are u1 F11 ¯ F1␣ ¯ F1m p1
calculated and compared with measured ones. The soil-building
interaction is solved for the simplest case, a vertical uniform ex- ] ] ] ] ]
citation of the building, which is assumed to respond as a rigid u␤ = F␤1 ¯ F␤␣ ¯ F␤m p␣ 共3兲
system. The calculated transfer functions and resonance frequen- ] ] ] ] ]
cies are compared with the experimental results in the following
um Fm1 ¯ Fm␣ ¯ Fmm pm
section, and some other effects are discussed that can influence
the soil-building interaction. with m the number of points, or in short form

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008 / 329

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

 u = Fp 共3⬘兲
The inversion of this equation
p = F−1u ¬ KSu 共4兲
gives the dynamic stiffness matrix KS = F−1 of the soil.
To get the stiffness matrix K⬘ of a rigid foundation, the stiff-
ness matrix KS of the soil must be transformed with a n ⫻ 6
matrix B, which contains the displacements of the six rigid body
motions. The stiffness matrix of the rigid foundation is
K ⬘ = B TK SB 共5兲
and the vertical stiffness of a rigid foundation is simply the sum of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
all vertical elements of KS that are due to a vertical displacement
⬘=
k = Kzz 兺
i=i
KSzz 共6兲
z
This vertical stiffness of a rigid foundation is discussed
throughout the rest of this contribution.
Experimental Motivation and Measured Transfer
Functions of Buildings
A number of small buildings, 1- to 3-story residential buildings,
have been measured in the south central 共Auersch et al. 2004兲 and
southeast of Berlin 共Meinhardt and Wuttke 2006兲. The Berlin soil
is determined by the glacial time. A glacial stream crossed Berlin
and left a deep sand deposit 共valley sand兲. North and south of the
glacial stream, the Barnim and Teltow plate are built of thick
morainic deposits 共marl, glacial till兲. Both types of soil that are
found in and around Berlin are of nearly homogeneous material
down to depth of 20 or 30 m. For the south-central area, the soil
conditions have been measured by the harmonic excitation of an
eccentric mass vibrator 共Pmax = 20 kN兲 and an electrodynamic vi-
brator 共Pmax = 1.5 kN兲. The wave velocities vW are measured
along a line of 6 to 30 equidistant geophones and the results
are vW = 210 m / s for f = 16 Hz, vW = 180 m / s for f = 20 Hz, and
vW = 155 m / s for f = 35 Hz 共Fig. 2兲. Potential errors of this
method can be detected by the redundant information of the geo-
phones. Two geophones would establish a unique wave velocity,
whereas the coincidence of the whole wave front with a straight
line would prove the quality of the results.
The amplitudes of the building foundation v are related to the
amplitudes v0 of a free-field point of the soil. These transfer func-
tions v / v0 of the buildings are presented in Fig. 3共a兲 for the south-
central region of Berlin where pile driving was used as excitation.
The transfer functions of the six different buildings show a similar
behavior. All transfer functions start with a value near to 1 at low
frequencies. That means that the soil and building vibrate at the
same level at low frequencies. Most of the buildings have a mod-
erate resonance amplification at 5 or 7.5 Hz, where 7.5 Hz is
more frequent. For higher frequencies above 10 Hz, there is a
clear reduction of the amplitudes. The reduction is about 0.3 at
20 Hz and the minimal value is 0.2 at 30 Hz. The transfer func-
tions are a little increasing or nearly constant at frequencies above
30 Hz. However, this could be due to the low energy content of
the pile driving in that frequency range.
The buildings in the southeast region of Berlin have been
monitored during train passages nearby. The soil parameters have
been measured by impulse excitation using an impulse hammer of
m = 5 kg and drop weights of m = 10 and 50 kg. The measured
wave velocity was about 240 m / s for the region where most of
330 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.
the buildings were located, and 160 m / s for one building outside
of Berlin. The measured transfer functions of nine residential
buildings are shown in Fig. 3共b兲. The building response was mea-
sured at several measuring points, and the mean value for all
foundation points is shown in Fig. 3共b兲 for each building. The
transfer functions show resonances between 5 and 7.5 Hz. For
higher frequencies 共f ⬎ 10 Hz兲, the amplitudes decrease clearly. A
minimum value of 0.1 to 0.3 is reached at 50 Hz. The average of
all nine buildings is given in Fig. 3共b兲 as well. The average trans-
fer function has a resonance between 5 and 7 Hz and values of
about 1 at 10 Hz, 0.5 at 20 Hz, 0.3 at 30 Hz, and 0.2 at 50 Hz.
The different curves of the different buildings are very close to
the average curve and this is due to the fact that up to ten foun-
dation points have been averaged for each of the buildings.
Both test series with 15 small residential buildings showed
vertical building-soil resonances between 5 and 7.5 Hz. These
resonance frequencies are considerably lower than expected for a
homogeneous soil with the measured stiffness. 共A plate founda-
tion with an area of FF = 100 m2, a building mass of m = 300 Mg,
and a soil stiffness G = 8 ⫻ 107 N / m2 according to a wave velocity
of vS = 200 m / s would yield f0 = 15 Hz; that is, at least twice as
high as the measured resonance frequencies.兲 Similar observa-
tions of lower soil-structure resonances are made for model struc-
tures 共Auersch 1988兲 and railway tracks 共Auersch 2005兲. It is the
aim of the present investigation to find the reasons for the mea-
sured transfer functions and resonance frequencies. In the next
sections, different foundation geometry, different soil models, and
additional effects are analyzed to find out which model or effect
can explain the low resonance frequencies.
Dynamic Stiffness of Typical Building Foundation
and Realistic Soil
Foundation Geometry
The following types of foundation are considered 共Fig. 4兲. Paral-
lel strip foundations or frames of strip foundations are considered
as typical for residential buildings. A number of equally spaced
individual foundations are calculated as typical for office or in-
dustrial buildings. The stiffest type of foundation, a plate founda-
tion, which covers all the building area FF = FB, is considered as
well. Whereas the types of the foundations are varied consider-
ably, the dimensions are chosen as those of the small residential
buildings that have been measured. The outer dimension is 7 or
10 m; some examples are calculated also with a = 5 m. The width
of the strip or single foundations is varied between 0.5, 0.7,
and 1.0 m. The standard soil parameters are G = 8
⫻ 107 N / m2 , ␯ = 0 , 33, ␳ = 2 Mg/ m3 , vS = 200 m / s, which
are varied in the subsequent sections, and a hysteretical material
damping of D = 2.5% is used for all numerical calculations.
As a result, the stiffness and damping values of the rigid group
foundations are presented as a function of frequency 共0 to 20 Hz兲.
Fig. 5共a兲 shows the results of the different foundations of
a = 10 m. Generally, the variations with frequency are weak. Only
the stiffness of the plate foundation 共FF / FB = 1兲 has a clear reduc-
tion with frequency so that it is only half of the static value at
20 Hz. However, this is the exception of all foundation geom-
etries. For the other foundations with 共FF / FB ⬍ 1兲, the stiffness
tends to higher values at higher frequencies.
The static and low-frequency values of the calculated stiffness
and damping functions are evaluated for a number of different
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Wave speed measurements with harmonic vibrator excitation of frequency: 共a兲 f = 16 Hz; 共b兲 20 Hz; and 共c兲 35 Hz

foundations. They can be compared with the formula of an is obtained for the plate foundation. Nearly the same value is
equivalent circular foundation and are given as a function of the obtained by foundations for RF / RB ⬎ 0.5. Only foundations,
ratio RF / RB with the radii which cover a minor part of the building area, have a consider-

冑 冑
FF FB
RF = and RB =
␲ ␲
in Fig. 6. For equal radii RF / RB = 1 共or equal areas兲, the calculated
stiffness ratio k / kF is 1. If the foundations are distributed over a
wider area 共RF / RB ⬍ 1兲, the stiffness is higher than the stiffness of
a concentrated foundation. The highest calculated stiffness ratio is
k / kF = 2 for the group of individual foundations.
Another comparison is made with the stiffness kB of a com-
pletely covered building area. In Fig. 6共b兲, once again the value 1
ably smaller foundation stiffness.
共7兲 The same evaluation has been done for the low-frequency
damping of these foundation groups 共Fig. 6兲. The same rules can
be stated, but the deviations from the equivalent and the total
plate foundation are stronger for the damping. The highest value
compared to the equivalent plate foundation is c / cF = 3.5, and the
lowest value compared to the total plate foundation is c / cB = 0.1.
Similar results about the low- and high-frequency stiffness and
damping can be found in Auersch 共1988兲. Nine single foundations
have been analyzed, of which the distance is varied. As a general

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008 / 331

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Soil-building transfer functions of 1- to 3-story buildings: 共a兲

excited by pile driving, eight single foundation points of six
buildings; 共b兲 excited by rail traffic, the mean value of all foundation
points for each of the nine buildings—the average function of all
buildings
Fig. 4. Geometry of the analyzed building foundations
tact of the foundation with the soil has a minor effect on the
dynamic foundation stiffness if there are enough contact points.

rule, the stiffness is increasing and the damping is decreasing with Incompressible Soil
increasing frequency. If the low-frequency results are presented as
a function of RF / RB 关the solid lines in Figs. 6共a and b兲兴, almost An incompressible soil or a soil with a high compressional stiff-
the same functions k / kF and k / kB are observed. ness has a special effect on the foundation stiffness. Foundations
on imcompressible soil have a very strong frequency dependence
for their foundation stiffness. Fig. 7共a兲 shows the stiffness and
Foundation with Imperfect Contact damping of a square foundation of a = 10 m, one for a standard
In the preceding section, it was discussed what happens if the soil of ␯ = 0.33, and one for an incompressible soil with ␯ = 0.5.
building area is more or less covered by the foundation. A related The static stiffness is increased by a factor of
question is about the influence of an imperfect contact between
foundation and the underlying soil. This situation is analyzed by k2 1 − ␯1 1 − 0,33
= = = 1,33 共8兲
reducing the contact area of each nodal point of the numerical k1 1 − ␯2 1 − 0,5
model by a certain amount. By that, the actual area of the foun- due to the incompressibility. The stiffness is then highly reduced
dation is reduced, but the result could also depend on the discreti- with increasing frequency. The value 0 is passed—here at
zation. This is studied for a square foundation of 16 m ⫻ 16 m, 15 Hz—and the stiffness is negative for higher frequencies. This
which is discretized by 4 ⫻ 4, 8 ⫻ 8, and 16⫻ 16 elements. For all can formally explained by a vibrating “soil mass” of
discretizations, the following coverages of the building area FB
are investigated: k
m= = 400Mg 共9兲
␻2
F/FB = 1, 1/4, 1/16
The general formula of the zero-frequency f 0 and the “soil mass”
Fig. 6共c兲 shows the static and low-frequency values of the
m are 关in agreement with Wolf 共1994兲兴
stiffness and damping compared to the nominal values of a per-
fectly covered building area. It is found that, namely, the stiffness vS vS
curve of the foundation with the highest numbers of contact f 0 = 0.4 = 0.75 and m = 1.26␳R3 = 0.23␳a3 共10兲
R a
points is close to 1, the deviation being less than 20% of the
nominal value. The deviations are stronger for the damping and Whereas the stiffness of the incompressible soil is strongly fre-
for fewer contact points. The conclusion is that an imperfect con- quency dependent, the damping is increased in the whole fre-

332 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Frequency-dependent stiffness k and damping c of single, strip, frame, and plate foundations FB = 10 m ⫻ 10 m; 共a兲 homogeneous soil with
vS = 200 m / s; 共b兲 soil with a soft top layer 共h = 1 m, vS1 = 70 m / s兲
quency range by a factor of 1.3 compared to the homogeneous
soil.
The effect of incompressible soil was also analyzed for the
other foundation geometries. For the strip foundations, the effects
are not so strong as for the plate foundation and a zero of the
stiffness does not occur. The effect can be explained by remem-
bering that a plate foundation radiates mainly compression waves
down into the soil. If the soil is incompressible, that means a
portion of the soil under the foundation is almost in phase with
the foundation. This in-phase or trapped soil mass can explain the
zero or negative foundation stiffness of an incompressible soil.
Deep Stiff Layering of the Soil
The most important effect of the soil layering is that the layering
of the soil can result in layer resonances at certain frequencies.
These resonances can have an effect on the building-soil reso-
nance if the layer frequency is lower than the building frequency.
The following soil structure is considered: A stiff half-space of
vS = 1,000 m / s starts at 10 m depth under a normal soil with
vS = 200 m / s. The typical effects of this soil layering can be found
in the stiffness and damping given in Fig. 7共b兲. In comparison
with the homogeneous standard soil, the underlying stiff half-
space increases the low-frequency stiffness. The stiffness of the
layered soil drops considerably with higher frequencies, and at
10 Hz, the value of the stiffness is zero. In the following fre-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008 / 333
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.
quency range, the stiffness is negative but turns again to higher
positive values. The most important effect is that a resonance may
occur without any building mass at the frequency of zero stiff-
ness. This resonant frequency can be calculated according to
vS
f0 = 共11兲
2h
with the wave velocity vS and the height h of the layer.
This frequency is also of importance for the damping of a
foundation on a layered soil 关Fig. 7共b兲兴. For frequencies below the
layer frequency f 0, the damping is very low. The radiation into the
soil is prevented by the reflecting interface between the layer and
the stiff half-space. For frequencies above the layer frequency f 0,
the damping values are—with some oscillations—around the
higher values of a homogeneous half-space.
The more general studies about layered soils 共Auersch 1995兲
show that the effects of soil layering depend on the contrast of
wave velocities and on the relation between foundation length and
layer depth. The effect of a zero foundation stiffness is only found
if the foundation is large enough compared to the depth of the
layer.
Effect of a Soft Top Layer
The layering of the soil is discussed as the deviation from a stan-
dard homogeneous soil. Whereas in the preceding section the de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Low-frequency stiffness k and damping c of different foundations as a function of RF / RB, compared with the values kF, cF of a circular
equivalent foundation: 共a兲 or kB, cB of a foundation with the total building area; 共b兲, 共c兲 square foundation with imperfect contact, FB = 16 m
⫻ 16 m and 䊐 256, 䊊 64, 䉭 16 contact areas; and 共d兲 soil with continuously increasing stiffness

334 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Frequency-dependent stiffness k and damping c of a square foundation 共FB = 10 m ⫻ 10 m兲: 共a兲 on an incompressible soil 共␯ = 0 , 5兲; 共b兲 on
a soil with a deep stiff layering 共h = 10 m, vS2 = 1,000 m / s兲, 䊐 homogeneous standard soil 共␯ = 0,33兲

viation was in great depth and with a stiffer underlying material,
in this section, a softer thin layer is considered on top of the
standard soil. The wave velocities are vS = 70 m / s for the layer
and vS = 200 m / s for the half-space and the layer thickness is
h = 1 m. The stiffness and damping of different foundation geom-
etries with FB = 10 m ⫻ 10 m are presented in Fig. 5共b兲. In con-
trast to the deep layering, almost no frequency-dependent
phenomena are found. The layer frequency for the soft top layer is
at f = 35 Hz, which is higher than the frequency range considered
here. Nevertheless, there is a strong influence of the top layer. The
high compliance of the top layer reduces the foundation stiffness
considerably from k = 3 ⫻ 109 N / m 关Fig. 5共a兲, curve FF / FB = 1 for
the plate foundation兴 to less than 2 ⫻ 109 N / m 关Fig. 5共b兲兴. For
strip and individual foundation groups 共FF / FB ⬍ 1兲, the stiffness
reduction is even more pronounced. The maximum reduction for
the individual foundations 共FF / FB = 0.09兲 is from k = 1.5
⫻ 109 N / m to 0.3⫻ 109 N / m, that means the thin soft top layer
reduces the stiffness of this foundation group to 20% of the ho-
mogeneous value.
The smaller the foundations are, the stronger are the effects of
the thin top layer. If the length a of a square foundation or the
height h of the top layer is varied, one finds the stronger reduction
with decreasing ratio a / h in Fig. 8, see also Auersch 共1995兲. If
the foundation is large compared to the layer height, then the
stiffness is ruled by the stiffness kH2 of the underlying half-space.
If the foundation is of the same size as the layer height, the
foundation stiffness is reduced by the top layer. For very small
foundation or thick top layers, the foundation stiffness approaches
the half-space value of the top soil, which is—in that example—
four times softer than the standard half-space.
Continuously Increasing Stiffness of the Soil
In addition to the simply layered soil, a soil with continuously
increasing stiffness is analyzed. The stiffness increases with depth
z according to the relation
G ⬃ z0,5 共12兲
that is, an increase proportional to the square root of the depth.
This is the law for a naturally sedimented soil and is due to the
increasing pressure and the pressure-dependent stiffness of granu-
lar material. This type of stiffness variation can be regarded as a
standard continuously increasing soil. An example of this distri-
bution is used in the calculation, where the continuous stiffness or
wave velocity distribution is approximated by 20 layers. Corre-
sponding to the wave velocity variation, the layer thickness is
selected very small when approaching the soil surface. The com-
plete soil profile is defined by the power of stiffness increase
共p = 0.5兲 and the wave velocity at a certain depth, here by
vS = 200 m / s at z = 4 m. The soil profile has both characteristics of
the preceding layered soils, low wave velocities of the top layers
共the very thin top layer has vS = 32 m / s兲, and high wave velocities
in great depth.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008 / 335

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Low-frequency stiffness k / kH2 of a square foundation 共length Fig. 9. Low-frequency stiffness k / kV10 of a square foundation 共length
a兲 on a layered soil 共vS2 / vS1 = 2兲, compared with the stiffness kH2 of a兲 䊊 on a soil with continuously increasing stiffness, 䊐 and a
the underlying half-space, as a function of the ratio a / h, 䊐 vertical, homogeneous half-space, 䉭, and ⫹ horizontal stiffness
䊊 horizontal, 䉭 rocking, and ⫹ torsional stiffness

The stiffness and damping functions of different foundation
groups are very similar to those of the soft top layer of the pre-
ceding section. There is little frequency dependence, but a strong
influence of the foundation area FF / FB. This is further analyzed
in Fig. 6共d兲, where it is found—as for the top layered soil—that a
considerable reduction of foundation stiffness can be obtained by
a reduction of the foundation area or equivalent radius, which is
much stronger than for the foundations on homogeneous soil.
The same rule can be found in Fig. 9 for plate foundations of
different lengths a. Whereas for the homogeneous soil, there is a
linear increase of the stiffness
k⬃R or k⬃a
with the foundation dimension 共radius R or length a兲, the increase
of the foundation stiffness is of a higher power than 1 for the
regularly inhomogeneous soil. The stiffness law can be derived
theoretically as
G ⬃ z0.5
It can be written with a new material parameter H of the soil
G tion will show which soil and foundation model has the strongest
G = Hz0.5 or H=
z0.5
Due to the dimension of this parameter H, which is N / m2.5, the
only possible relation for the foundation stiffness is
k ⬃ HR1.5 ⬃ R1.5
see also 共Holzlöhner 1999兲. This power law 共p = 1.5兲 is stronger
than for the homogeneous half-space 共p = 1兲, but not as strong as
for a Winkler foundation 共p = 2兲. It is well proved by the numeri-
cal results of Fig. 9.
The results of Fig. 9 can be used to calculate the depth where
the corresponding soil stiffness yields the appropriate foundation
stiffness when it is introduced into the formula of the homoge-
neous soil. This depth is at
z0 = 0.38R = 0.2a
This can be interpreted as follows. A larger foundation is sup-
ported by deeper and, therefore, stiffer soil layers. The foundation
stiffness increases not only with its dimension, but also with the
deeper and stiffer soil on which it is supported.
The representative depth 共16兲 for the soil with continuously
increasing stiffness is also evaluated for the other modes as
z0/a = 0.2共vertical兲 0.07共horizontal兲 0.05共rocking兲
0.02共torsional兲 共17兲
That means that the torsional stiffness is determined by the high-
est and softest soil, whereas the vertical stiffness is determined by
the deepest and stiffest soil. The same effect can be read from Fig.
8 for the soil with a thin soft top layer. The strongest reduction in
stiffness is found for the torsional mode, the horizontal and the
rocking modes have a medium reduction. Finally, Fig. 9 demon-
strates the stronger reduction of the horizontal stiffness compared
to the vertical stiffness.
共13兲
Influence on Dynamic Stiffness
A number of soil and foundation models have been presented for
which the stiffness is reduced, compared to a standard homoge-
neous soil. An incompressible soil and a deep stiff layering of the
soil yield a highly frequency-dependent foundation stiffness,
where zero values are possible. A reduced foundation area, a soft
top layer, or a soil with generally increasing stiffness with depth
yield a reduction of the stiffness at all frequencies. The next sec-
共14兲
influence on the building-soil resonant frequency.
Soil-Building Interaction
共15兲
After the dynamic stiffness of different foundations on different
soils have been calculated, the effects on the soil-structure inter-
action are analyzed. The most simple model of soil-structure in-
teraction is a rigid mass, which is vertically excited by a vertical
vibration of the soil. This model is used here to find out which
soil model is able to represent the measured soil-building interac-
tion. The soil-building transfer function between the vertical
building amplitude v and the vertical free-field amplitude v0 of
the soil is calculated as
共16兲
v k + ci␻
= 共18兲
v0 k + ci␻ − m␻2
k and c = frequency dependent stiffness and damping of the foun-
dation as calculated in the preceding section. The building is only
represented by its mass m. Standard values for the mass have
been chosen for the building examples, m = 150 Mg for the build-

336 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Soil-building transfer function of a building with plate
foundation of length a = 10 m, 䊐 homogeneous soil 共vS = 200 m / s兲, 䊊
incompressible soil and 䉭 soil with deep stiff layering 共h = 10 m,
vS2 = 1,000 m / s兲
ings with FB = 7 m ⫻ 7 m, and m = 300 Mg for the buildings with
FB = 10 m ⫻ 10 m.
At first, a building with a plate foundation is analyzed with
different soil conditions, a homogeneous soil, an incompressible
soil, and a deep and stiff soil layering 共Fig. 10兲. The correspond-
ing foundation stiffness and damping are given in Fig. 7. The
calculated soil-building interaction is very small. The relation be-
tween the building and soil amplitudes is nearly 1, and for the
homogeneous compressible and incompressible soil, the reso-
nances are very small. Only the deep layering of the soil yields a
remarkable resonance. For all three buildings on a plate founda-
tion, no reduction of amplitudes is observed. This is due to the
high radiation damping of a plate foundation on a homogeneous
soil. For the layered soil, the remarkable resonance is mainly
determined by the layer resonant frequency f 0 = vS / 2h. At higher
frequencies, the layered soil approaches the homogeneous soil
and the amplitude reduction is as small as in the homogeneous
case.
The incompressible and the deep layered soil have been inves-
tigated for plate foundation because their effects are strongest for
the plate foundation. The other soil models are now analyzed for
different strip foundations. For a homogeneous soil, the resonance
frequencies are far higher than 10 Hz. This is even increased by
the increasing stiffness with frequency so that the lowest reso-
nance is nearly 20 Hz for the narrowest strip foundations 关Fig.
11共a兲兴.
The results for the soil with the continuously increasing stiff-
ness is given in Fig. 11共b兲. The building-soil resonance frequen-
cies are at 8.5 Hz for the frame foundations 共FF / FB = 0.25兲 and at
7 Hz for the strip foundations 共FF / FB = 0.15兲. Similar results are
obtained for a soil with a soft top layer. It is typical for both
inhomogeneous soil models that the damping is reduced so that
the building-soil resonances are much clearer than for the homo-
geneous soil. Both inhomogeneous soil models yield a resonant
frequency of 7 Hz in the case of strip foundation of width
d = 0.5 m. This important result is a combination of the inhomo-
geneous soil profile and the reduced area of the foundation type.
Comparison with Measurements and Discussion
To compare the calculated results for buildings on inhomoge-
neous soils with the experimental results, Fig. 12 presents two
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008 / 337
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.
Fig. 11. Soil-building transfer function of buildings on different
foundations 共d = 0 , 5 m兲: 共a兲 on homogeneous soil 共vS = 200 m / s兲; 共b兲
on a soil with increasing stiffness
average transfer functions of all calculated building foundations
on soils with increasing stiffness. The results of a soil with soft
top layer are very similar to those of the soil with continuously
increasing stiffness 共Fig. 11兲. The average results of the calcula-
tions in Fig. 12 are shown together with the experimental results,
the average and envelope curves of Figs. 3共a and b兲. The com-
parison in Fig. 12 shows that the inhomogeneous theory can result
in almost as low building resonance frequencies as measured
while the amplitudes at the resonance are higher. The good agree-
ment between theory and measurement is obtained by thin strip
foundations on a soil with increasing stiffness with depth, either
continuously increasing or layered. The most important parts of
the layering are the soft layers near the soil surface, which
strongly influence the foundation stiffness.
The following additional effects can be considered as reasons
for the reduced building-soil resonant frequency:
• Foundation installation effects can reduce the stiffness of the
top layer of the soil. This argument holds especially for model
tests if the complete model structure or building is placed on
the foundation area 关see discussions in Gazetas and Stokoe
共1991兲兴.
• Kinematic interaction or wave-passage effects give an addi-
tional reduction of the foundation amplitudes. If the free-field
vibration of different points of the foundation are of a different
phase, the complex average of the displacements of all foun-
dation points yields a reduced input motion. This holds for
deterministic, as well as, for stochastic incoherencies of the
wave-field 共Kim and Stewart 2003兲. At low frequencies as
considered here, the kinematic effect can be neglected. At

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Average soil-building transfer functions of buildings on
different foundations 䉭 on a soil with increasing stiffness, ⫹ on a soil
with soft top layer, experimental results 共average and envelope兲 of the
䊐 south central and 䊊 south east region of Berlin
higher frequencies if the wavelengths are smaller than the
length of the foundation, the kinematic effects are stronger and
should be considered for the prediction of technically induced
vibration. The exact kinematic effects 共rigid wave-passage ef-
fects兲 seem to be too strong at high frequencies, as real build-
ings do not react as rigid bodies. It could be replaced by
weaker elastic wave-passage effects 共Auersch and Schmid
1990兲 or rigorously truncated at a certain level 共Mylonakis
et al. 2006兲.
• Top-down interaction, that is the elastic behavior of the build-
ing in vertical direction, modifies the inertial forces of the
building that act on the foundation area. The resultant force is
increased around the first elastic resonance of the building
whereas at higher frequencies, it is reduced compared to a
rigid building. For the low buildings considered here, the top-
down effects are expected at considerably higher frequencies
than the building-soil resonant frequency 共Auersch et al.
2004兲. However, these effects are of importance for higher
buildings and higher frequencies, and certainly are included in
the practice-oriented prediction method presented in Rücker
et al. 共2005兲.
• Nonlinearity of the soil properties can also explain a reduced
resonant frequency. As the soil stiffness is reduced for higher
vibration amplitudes, the soil near the soil surface has a lower
stiffness than deeper soil material. This argument holds for
earthquake excitation, whereas technically induced vibrations
are generally in such a low amplitude range that no stiffness
reduction occurs.
This discussion shows that the experimentally observed low
resonant frequencies can best be explained with the soft top soil
layers. The discrepancy with the measured soil stiffness can be
interpreted as follows: The measured wave velocities of the soil
are higher than the wave velocities of these soft top layers. This is
due to the fact that at low frequencies, the measured wave veloci-
ties correspond to deeper and, therefore, stiffer soil layers. The
top layers, which are important for the stiffness of the building
foundation, can only be measured with a high-frequency excita-
tion. It should be added that wave velocity measurements below a
possible cut-on frequency and above typical cut-off frequencies of
soils 共Auersch 1994兲 have usually a high uncertainty, whereas
measurements at the dominating midfrequencies are generally of
high precision. Nevertheless, the results of this contribution show
that it is very important to establish the high-frequency top-soil
338 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.
stiffness for a realistic prediction of the vertical building-soil
resonant frequency.
Conclusions
The study has shown different soil and foundation models that
yield reduced building-soil resonances.
The foundation geometry 共plate foundations, strip foundations,
or single foundations兲 has an influence on the stiffness of the
foundation. The main parameter is the foundation area FF. For
homogeneous soils, the stiffness is proportional to the square root
of the foundation area. Therefore, the foundation area has only a
minor influence f 0 ⬃ F0.25
F on the resonant frequency.
Foundations that are not in perfect contact with the soil would
also reduce the stiffness and the resonant frequencies. For this
case, the same laws are found as for the different foundation
geometries. A considerable reduction of resonant frequencies can
only be observed if large parts of the foundation area are not in
contact with the soil.
An incompressible soil has a specific mass-like behavior so
that even a foundation without any mass would have a resonance.
For massive buildings, the additional “soil mass” of an incom-
pressible soil is only of importance if the building mass is not
much greater than the “soil mass.” In addition, the effect is stron-
gest for a plate foundation, which is the foundation type with the
highest resonant frequency. Therefore, an incompressible soil is
not suited to explain the measured low resonance frequencies.
A deep stiff soil layering yields a low-frequency resonance due
to the reflection of waves at the layer interface. At this layer
frequency, the stiffness of a foundation is reduced or zero. For
lower frequencies, the foundation damping is considerably re-
duced. Due to these effects, the soil layering can have an influ-
ence on the building-soil resonance, and this influence is strongest
for light-weight buildings and plate foundations. Therefore, the
deep stiff soil layering is not a helpful explanation for the reduced
resonant frequencies of buildings.
A different soil layering has been analyzed, a thin soft top
layer. The top layer of the soil generally has an important influ-
ence on the foundation stiffness. The soft top layer reduces the
foundation stiffness. The smaller the area of the foundation or the
foundation parts is, the stronger is the reduction effect.
A soil with a continuously increasing stiffness can show simi-
lar effects as the soil with a soft top layer. The effects can clearly
be studied for a soil of which the stiffness increases regularly with
depth as G ⬃ z0.5. Explicit laws are given for the stiffness of a
square plate foundation and for the depth, where the correspond-
ing stiffness of a homogeneous soil can be found. For soils with
increasing stiffness, the foundation stiffness depends considerably
stronger on the foundation radius k ⬃ R1.5 F than for homogeneous
soils.
An acceptable explanation of the lower measured resonant fre-
quencies has been found by soil models with a soft top layer or
with a stiffness increasing with depth. Building models on these
soils can reproduce the measured building-soil resonances and the
building-soil transfer functions for ground-borne vibrations.
Finally, there is also an experimental conclusion. At a site with
a nonhomogeneous soil, it is necessary to measure the frequency-
dependent wave velocities 共dispersion兲. Moreover, for a soil with
soft top layers, it is necessary to measure the wave velocities at
much higher frequencies than the resonant frequency of a build-
ing for which an appropriate soil model has to be established.
 Appendix I. Green’s Functions of the Soil by Wave
Number Integrals a P = a Pk and q P = 冑k2P − k2 kP =
␻
vP
vP = 冑 G共2 − 2␯兲
␳共1 − 2␯兲
The elastic half-space is excited on the surface by a harmonic 共27兲
force p of angular frequency ␻. The displacements u at a distance Thus, the compressional wave can be expressed as
r of the load p have to be calculated.
The displacement u as well as the force p can be described in u P = 共ker − q Pez兲ei共kr−qPz兲 共28兲
cylindrical 共transversal, radial and vertical兲 components as
and the stresses at the surface are, according to Eq. 共26兲

冤冥冤 冥冤 冥
ut Ftt 0 0 pt t P = iG共2q Pker − 共k2S − 2k2兲ez兲eikr 共29兲
ur = 0 Frr Frz pr 共19兲
The SV wave
uz 0 − Frz Fzz pz
uS = 共qSer + kez兲ei共kr−qSz兲 共30兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The four functions Fij共r , ␻兲 can be calculated by integration in

wave number domain, the vertical Green’s function is a solution of the field Eq. 共24兲 with

Fzz =
1
2␲
冕
0
⬁
Nzz共k兲J0共kr兲kdk 共20兲 a·k=0 and qS = 冑k2S − k2 kS =
␻
vS
vS = 冑 G
␳
共31兲

and yields the surface stresses

the radial component due to vertical excitation

冕
⬁ tS = iG共共k2S − 2k2兲er − 2qSkez兲eikr 共32兲
i
Frz = Nrz共k兲J1共kr兲kdk 共21兲 To obtain the in-plane compliances, one combines a compres-
2␲ 0
sional wave and a SV wave
and the two horizontal solutions for the transverse and the radial
u = a Pu P + a Su S 共33兲
problem

冕冋 册
giving the equations

冋册冋 册冋 册
⬁
1 J0 − J2 J0 + J2
Frr = Nrr共k兲 共kr兲 + Ntt共k兲 共kr兲 kdk 共22兲 ur k qS aP
2␲ 0 2 2 = 共34兲
uz − qP k aS

冕冋 册
⬁ and
1 J0 − J2 J0 + J2

冋册 冋 册冋 册
Ftt = Ntt共k兲 共kr兲 + Nrr共k兲 共kr兲 kdk 共23兲
2␲ 2 2 tr 2q Pk k2S − 2k2 aP
0
= iG 共35兲
tz 2k2 − k2S 2qSk aS
k⫽wave number and Ji⫽Bessel functions of the first kind. The
compliances Nij共k , ␻兲 in wave number domain are calculated by or in abbreviated form
matrix methods in Appendix II.
u = Ba, t = Ta
B and T⫽displacement and stress matrices for a homogeneous
Appendix II. Solution in Wave Number Domain for half-space. By elimination of the wave contributions a
Homogeneous or Layered Soils
u = BT−1t = NHt 共36兲
The solution for homogeneous or layered soils is based on the either the compliance NH or the stiffness matrix KH of the homo-
field equation of elasticity geneous half-space

冉
G div grad u +
1
1 − 2␯
grad div u = ␳ü 冊 共24兲
t = TB−1u = KHu
is obtained. The compliance NH, which can also be given explic-
共37兲

The elastic material is described by the parameters G the shear
modulus, ␯ the Poisson’s ratio, and ␳ the mass density.
Plane harmonic waves
u = aei共k·x+␻t兲
with wave number k and circular frequency ␻ are considered 共the
time factor ei␻t will be omitted throughout this paper兲. The
stresses t of such a wave at a plane interface with normal n are
itly 共Auersch 1994兲, can be introduced directly in the integrals
关Eqs. 共20兲–共23兲兴 to get the Green’s functions of the homogeneous
half-space.
In case of a layered soil, a stiffness matrix KL for each layer is
共25兲 calculated. The solution of a layer consists of four waves. In
addition to the downward waves, an upward compressional wave
u−P and an upward shear wave u−SV have to be considered. The
corresponding displacements and stresses are obtained from Eqs.
共34兲 and 共35兲 by inversion of the vertical wavenumbers qi. The

冉
t = iG k · na + a · nk +
2␯
1 − 2␯
冊
a · kn eik·x 共26兲
displacements and stresses at the bottom of the layer are the same
as at the top of the layer 共z = 0兲, but multiplied by the factor e−qih
of the corresponding wave type. By that, a 4 ⫻ 4 displacement
For the in-plane problem, one has to consider two types of matrix B and 4 ⫻ 4 stress matrix T
waves, a compressional wave u P and a vertical polarized shear
u = Ba t = Ta 共38兲
wave 共SV wave兲 uSV. The compressional wave u P is a solution of
the field Eq. 共24兲 if with

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008 / 339

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.

 B = 共u+P,u+SV,u−P,u−SV兲 a = 共a+P,a+SV,a−P,a−SV兲
are established 关see also Auersch 共1994兲兴. From these matrices,
the stiffness matrix KL of a single layer is built
t = TB−1u = KLu
KL = TB−1 共39兲
All layer stiffness matrices of the soil profile are assembled in
a global stiffness matrix K including the half-space stiffness ma-
trix KH at the lower end. The global stiffness matrix K is inverted
and the first submatrix 共of the soil surface兲 of the resulting global
compliance matrix N = K−1 contains the compliances Nij, which
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Florida Atlantic University on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
have to be inserted in the integrals 关Eqs. 共20兲–共23兲兴.
Corresponding stiffness matrices are derived for the out-of-
plane problem where the dimension is only half of the in-plane
problem. The complete set of stiffness matrices are given explic-
itly in 共Wolf 1985兲, together with a number of special cases,
which are necessary to solve soil-structure problems. Another so-
lution procedure for the layer displacement and stress matrices is
given in 共Auersch 1994兲, which is more suited for wave propaga-
tion problems. The integrals 关Eqs. 共20兲–共23兲兴 are calculated nu-
merically for each radius r and frequency ␻ to get the Green’s
functions of a layered soil.
References
Auersch, L. 共1988兲. “Wechselwirkung starrer und flexibler Strukturen mit
dem Baugrund insbesondere bei Anregung durch Bodenerschütterun-
gen.” Forschungsbericht 151 Ph.D. thesis, Bundesanstalt für Materi-
alforschung und -prüfung, Berlin.
Auersch, L. 共1994兲. “Wave propagation in layered soil: Theoretical solu-
tion in wavenumber domain and experimental results of hammer and
railway traffic excitation.” J. Sound Vib., 173, 233–264.
Auersch, L. 共1995兲. “Some effects of the layering of the soil on wave
propagation and foundation vibration.” Proc., 7th Conf. Soil Dynam-
ics and Earthquake Engineering, Computational Mechanics Publ.,
Crete, Greece, 283–290.
Auersch, L. 共2005兲. “Dynamics of the railway track and the underlying
soil: The boundary-element solution, theoretical results and their ex-
perimental verification.” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 43, 671–695.
Auersch, L., Said, S., Schmid, W., and Rücker, W. 共2004兲. “Erschütter-
ungen im Bauwesen: Messergebnisse an verschiedenen Gebäuden und
eine einfache Berechnung von Fundament-, Wand- und Decken-
schwingungen.” Bauingenieur, 79, 185–192, and 291–299.
Auersch, L., and Schmid, G. 共1990兲. “A simple boundary element formu-
lation and its application to wavefield excited soil-structure interac-
tion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 19, 931–947.
Auersch, L., Semrau, N., Schmid, W., Said, S., and Rücker, W. 共2002兲.
“Theory and experiments on wave propagation, on track-soil and on
soil-building interaction related to railway induced vibration.” Proc.,
5th Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics (Eurodyn 2002), Swets and
Zeitlinger, Munich, Germany, 1137–1142.
Barkan, D. 共1962兲. Dynamics of bases and foundations, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Gazetas, G. 共1983兲. “Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: State of
the art.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 2, 2–41.
Gazetas, G. 共1987兲. “Simple physical methods for foundation imped-
ances.” Dynamic behaviour of foundations and buried structures,
340 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2008
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2008.134:328-340.
Elsevier Applied Science, London, New York, 45–94.
Gazetas, G., and Stokoe, K. 共1991兲. “Free vibration of embedded foun-
dations: Theory versus experiment.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 117共9兲,
1382–1401.
Holzlöhner, U. 共1999兲. “Der nichtlineare heterogene Halbraum.” Geo-
technik, 22, 96–113.
Jakobsen, J. 共1989兲. “Transmission of ground borne vibration in build-
ings.” Low Freq. Noise, Vib., Act. Control, 8, 75–80.
Kalinchuk, V. V., Belyankova, T. I., and Tosecky, A. 共2005兲. “The effec-
tive approach to the inhomogeneous media dynamics modelling.”
Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics (Eurodyn 2005), Mill-
press, Paris, 2199–2207.
Kausel, E. 共1974兲. “Forced vibrations of circular foundations on layered
media.” Ph.D. thesis, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge, Mass.
Kausel, E., and Roesset, J. M. 共1981兲. “Stiffness matrices for layered
soils.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 71, 1743–1761.
Kim, S., and Stewart, J. 共2003兲. “Kinematic soil-structure interaction
from strong motion records.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129共4兲,
323–335.
Luco, J. 共1974兲. “Impedance functions for a rigid foundation on a layered
medium.” Nucl. Eng. Des., 31, 204–217.
Meinhardt, C., and Wuttke, W. 共2006兲. Erschütterungsmessungen bei
Bahnverkehr an Gebäuden im Südosten von Berlin und Umgebung.
Bericht zum BMBF-Vorhaben 19U0039B, Bundesanstalt für Materi-
alforschung und -prüfung, Berlin.
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, S., and Gazetas, G. 共2006兲. “Footings under
seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge
foundations.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 26, 824–853.
Nelson, J. T., and Saurenmann, H. J. 共1983兲. “State of the art review:
Prediction and control of ground-borne vibration from rail transit
trains.” Rep. No. UMTA-MA-06-0049-83-4, U.S. Dept. of Transporta-
tion, Washington, D.C.
Nii, Y. 共1987兲. “Experimental half-space dynamic stiffness.” J. Geotech.
Engrg., 113共11兲, 1359–1373.
Reissner, E. 共1936兲. “Stationäre axialsymmetrische durch eine schüt-
telnde Masse erregte Schwingungen eines homogenen elastischen
Halbraumes.” Ing.-Arch., 7, 381–396.
Richart, F. E., Hall, J. R., and Wood, R. D. 共1970兲. Vibrations of soils and
foundations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Richart, F. E., and Whitman, R. V. 共1967兲. “Comparison of footing vibra-
tion tests with theory.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 127, 863–898.
Rücker, W., Auersch, L., Gerstberger, U., and Meinhardt, C. 共2005兲. “A
practical method for the prediction of railway vibration.” Proc., 6th
Int. Conf. on Structural Dynamics (Eurodyn 2005), Millpress, Paris,
France, 601–606.
Verbic, B., and Meler, S. 共1991兲. “Experimentally determined impedance
functions of surface foundations.” Proc., 5th Conf. on Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, Karlsruhe, Germany, 479–489.
Vrettos, C. 共1991兲. “Time-harmonic Boussinesq problem for a continu-
ously nonhomogeneous soil.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 20, 961–
977.
Waas, G. 共1972兲. “Linear two-dimensional analysis of soil dynamic prob-
lems in semi-infinite layered media.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California,
Berkeley, Calif.
Waas, G., Hartmann, H., and Werkle, H. 共1988兲. “Damping and stiffness
of foundations on inhomogeneous media.” Proc., World Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo.
Wolf, J. 共1985兲. Dynamic soil-structure interaction, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.
Wolf, J. 共1994兲. Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical
models, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.