Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Experimental Analysis of the Effects of a

Polyurethane Foam on Geotechnical Seismic
Isolation

Michele Placido Antonio Gatto , Lorella Montrasio , Marta Berardengo &

Marcello Vanali

To cite this article: Michele Placido Antonio Gatto , Lorella Montrasio , Marta Berardengo
& Marcello Vanali (2020): Experimental Analysis of the Effects of a Polyurethane
Foam on Geotechnical Seismic Isolation, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2020.1779871

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1779871

Published online: 30 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1779871

Experimental Analysis of the Effects of a Polyurethane Foam on

Geotechnical Seismic Isolation
Michele Placido Antonio Gatto, Lorella Montrasio, Marta Berardengo, and Marcello Vanali
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A new experimental apparatus for performing impact tests is presented, to Received 12 October 2019
analyse the wave propagation phenomenon in pure sand and in composite Accepted 4 June 2020
sand-polyurethane specimens, with the final aim to explore the seismic KEYWORDS
mitigation given by a polyurethane inserted into a real soil under existing Wave propagation; seismic
structures. Polyurethane layers at three different thicknesses are considered. apparatus set-up; seismic risk
Experimental results show that composite specimens provide acceleration mitigation; polyurethane
reductions increasing with the increase of polyurethane thickness. Result foams; impact tests
interpretation in the light of the elastic wave propagation theory is pre­
sented, pointing out the experimental set-up limitations, mainly due to the
lack of sufficient specimen confinement.

1. Introduction
Seismic isolation techniques are aimed at reducing the inertial forces, that earthquakes cause to
structures. These techniques are classically structural; however, there is an increasing interest to
study solutions using the soil as object for the isolation. Tsang (2009) organically classifies the existing
seismic isolation techniques, grouping them in “Structural Seismic Isolation” and “Geotechnical
Seismic Isolation” methods. Geotechnical Seismic Isolation methods are further grouped into “foun­
dation” and “soil isolation” techniques, depending on whether the intervention is placed immediately
underneath the foundation or within the soil at some depth below the foundations.
The main Structural Seismic Isolation techniques consist of base isolation (Naeim and Kelly 1999),
energy dissipation (Soong and Spencer 2002; Symans et al. 2008) and tuned mass-dampers (Saha and
Mishra 2019; Salvi and Rizzi 2015; Warburton 1982) systems. They are based on concepts of energy
dissipation (due to hysteretic behaviour of specific materials) or on the uncoupling the soil-structure
motion (according to displacement-based methods).
During earthquakes, seismic waves propagate through the foundation soil before reaching the
structures; being the soil a deformable layer, it affects the ground motion (Brambati et al. 1980;
Capotorti et al. 1997; Marsan and Gorelli 1997); in particular, the recorded ground acceleration is
amplified according to the wave velocity of the deformable medium. This is the reason behind the
increasing spread of Geotechnical seismic isolation methods: modifying soil represents a way to reduce
ground acceleration. The modification can be done by placing additional soil layers (e.g. a layer of sand
between the foundation and the building, as described by Lee (1987)) or by using synthetic materials.
The soil itself has been considered a passive isolation system by some authors (Anastasopoulos et al.
2009; Trifunac 2003; Trifunac and Todorovska 1998), who pointed out the role of the soil in seismic
isolation due to its non-linear response, taking advantage of failure mechanism for seismic protection.
The foundation and soil seismic isolation methods presented by Tsang consider the use of synthetic
materials. Among the foundation seismic isolation techniques, the first interesting method was
proposed by Tsang (2008), consisting of the use of rubber-sand material (RSM) as a seismic isolation

CONTACT Lorella Montrasio lorella.montrasio@unipr.it Parco Area delle Scienze, 181/A 43124 Parma (PR), Italy
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

method: it deals with the realisation of a continuous RSM layer underneath the foundation. Thanks to
the rubber visco-elastic properties and the consequent higher damping in comparison with sand,
energy is demonstrated to be dissipated; moreover, this application presents an economical benefit and
it would allow the consumation of scrap tire stockpiles. An extensive laboratory characterisation is
provided by literature (Anastasiadis et al., 2012; Brunet, de la Llera, and Kausel 2016; Edil and
Bosscher 1994; Feng and Sutter 2000; Nakhaei et al. 2012; Senetakis, Anastasiadis, and Pitilakis
2012; Tsiavos et al. 2019), showing the RSM dynamic properties, as well as factors affecting the
dynamic behaviour; moreover, Tsang et al. (2012) and Pitilakis, Karapetrou, and Tsagdi (2015) and
Lopera et al. (2016) numerically investigated the effects of such an intervention on certain types of
buildings. More recently, Tsang and Pitilakis (2019) presented a lumped-parameter analytical model,
useful for the dynamic analysis of this Geotechnical Seismic isolation systems for ordinary structures
and buildings.
Another solution was presented by Yegian and Kadakal (2004), consisting of the use of a
“synthetic liner”: thanks to the friction between soil and a polyethylene interface, energy is absorbed
and dissipated along the liner interface at the occurrence of slip deformations; as a result, reduced
accelerations are transmitted to the superstructure. This solution can be classified both as founda­
tion and soil isolation since the effect of the liner is shown if either positioned immediately
underneath the foundation or within the soil profile; it deals with one of the few solutions to soil
isolation.
Foundation isolation methods, as well as the soil isolation solution described, are techniques more
suitable to new buildings, both of them have high installation costs; they are not suitable to be applied
underneath existing structures, such as historical heritage buildings.
This paper refers to some aspects of a wider research activity, aimed at deepening the benefits
deriving from polyurethane inclusions in soil to reduce the seismic effects on existing structures,
resulting in a geotechnical isolation technique. The method consists of the application of synthetic
materials by injection underneath structures; in particular, polyurethanes are considered, already in
use in geotechnical applications, as materials injected underneath foundations for ground improve­
ment and settlement reduction purposes (Buzzi, Fityus, and Scott 2010; Foti and Manassero 2004; Yu,
Wang, and Skirrow 2013). With their injection, the practical difficulties related to the realisation of
a geotechnical isolation system are overcome, so that the method may be extendable for the seismic
isolation of any kind of existing structure, from buildings to bridges and large structures.
Polyurethanes are versatile products, in use in different sectors; in Civil Engineering, they are
generally applied for thermal insulation (thanks to their low conductivity) (Albrecht 2000; Schuetz and
Glicksman 1984; Wu, Sung, and Chu 1999) and sound insulation (Adachi, Hasegawa, and Asano 1997;
Zhang et al. 2012). From a seismic point of view, few literature examples show polyurethane applica­
tions just for the liquefaction risk mitigation (Traylen, Van Ballegooy, and Wentz 2016). The poly­
addition reaction of isocyanate (containing N-C-O) and polyol (containing OH groups), thanks to
blowing agents included in polyol chemical composition, gives rise to cellular low-density materials,
where gasses are trapped within the resulting structure; coupled to soil, they give rise to a low
impedance ratio system.
The University of Parma has started a research activity finalised to understand how polyurethane
inclusions affect soil dynamic behaviour. Preliminary geotechnical laboratory tests have been per­
formed on pure polyurethane specimens under dynamic loads (Gatto and Montrasio 2018; Gatto et al.
2019) at confining pressures typical of foundation soils, and at static conditions, by performing
oedometric and triaxial tests in order to show the mechanical behaviour of the polyurethane foams
(Montrasio and Gatto 2016).
This paper shows the investigation of the effects of polyurethanes on wave propagation and
acceleration reduction, if placed within a soil profile, by adopting an ad-hoc experimental equipment;
the idea is not properly oriented to decouple the structure-soil ground motion, but finalised to modify
the foundation soil through synthetic materials, resulting in low impedance ratio systems.
Polyurethane in this case is only in slab form, with slabs having the same characteristics of material
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

obtained from injection since the attention wants to be focused not on the injection technology, but on
the properties of the resulting composite sand-polyurethane system.
Four sections are provided: a summary of a previous experimental campaign is shown first, aimed
at defining the small-strain properties of materials adopted for the realisation of specimens taken into
account in the paper. In the second part, the experimental set-up is shown, together with a brief
description of methods for experimental data analysis; after this, a summary of one-dimensional wave
propagation theory is presented. Results are therefore illustrated and commented on in the last section

2. Pure Sand, Pure Polyurethane and Composite Sand-Polyurethane Small-strain

Properties from Previous Experimental Campaign
All tests shown by the paper are performed on pure dry sand and composite sand-polyurethane speci­
mens; in particular, Po sand (Specific gravity Gs = 2.5, maximum void ratio emax = 0.873 and minimum
void ratio emin = 0. 3) and polyurethane (indicated as PUR) of density 40 kg/m3 were chosen.
A classical geotechnical characterisation based on oedometric and isotropically consolidated
undrained (CIU) triaxial tests performed on PUR samples is referred to by Montrasio and Gatto
(2016) with the scope to investigate the compressibility of polyurethane and its ultimate behaviour
under typical confining geotechnical stresses. The main evidence can be summarised as follows:

● In oedometric conditions, the material shows a very stiff behaviour under a yielding stress, after
which it shows an increase in strain at fixed stress.
● In triaxial conditions, the material confirms the almost rigid behaviour: the failure deviatoric
stress q is independent of the confining pressure p’c up to a critical value, after which it decreases
when the confining pressure is increased.

Gatto et al. (2019) present further tests performed in resonant column (RC) on PUR specimens;
moreover, Gatto and Montrasio (2018) and Gatto et al. (2019) show RC tests performed on specimens
of pure Po Sand and composite sand-polyurethane configurations. In all cases, a resonant column
device of fixed-free end (Drnevich 1967) is used. Figure 1 illustrates the PUR specimen realisation
inside a mould with a dimension of 70 × 140 mm (a) and the composite sand-polyurethane samples
(b), realised by interposition of a polyurethane disk between two layers of sand. In Fig. 1.c the
apparatus set-up is shown; in all cases, the RC tests have been performed in dry conditions, with
the confining air pressure ranging from 50 to 300 kPa.
Relevant results are herein summarised since they are useful in the interpretation of the experi­
mental results.

2.1. Results of RC Performed on Pure Sand and Pure Polyurethane Samples

Figure 2 shows the small-strain shear moduli G0 and damping �0 values varying with the confining
pressure p’c for pure materials; for sand, among the methods shown in literature, a relationship among
G0, p’c and the void ratio e is defined through Hardin and Black (1968), so that the small-strain shear
modulus can be evaluated for any density and confining pressure as:

ð2:97 eÞ2 0 n
G0 ¼ A � �pc in kPa (1)
ð1 þ e Þ

A and n are material parameters, respectively selected equal to 4000 and 0.4 after back analysis
procedures. For pure polyurethane specimens, G0 is almost independent from the confinement
pressure. In terms of �0 , polyurethane shows larger values; in both cases, a dependence on the
confining pressure is illustrated with an opposite trend.
4 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Figure 1. RC tests after Gatto et al. (2019). (a) Example of pure PUR specimen (realised inside a specific mould); (b) Example of
composite sand-polyurethane specimen; (c) Test set-up.

2.2. Results of RC Performed on Composite Sand-polyurethane Specimens

RC tests have been performed on composite sand-polyurethane specimens, realised by intersper­
sing polyurethane layers of different thicknesses in a sand sample, having the same relative
density of the pure specimen. 15, 25 and 45 mm polyurethane layers are used in specimens
70 mm thick; results of G0 and �0 are shown in Fig. 3 as a function of polyurethane percentage
in the specimen volume (0 and 100% refer respectively to RC tests performed on pure sand and
pure polyurethane, discussed in Section 2.1). From raw RC results, G0 has been here computed
homogenising the properties of the three layers (sand-polyurethane-sand); this procedure was
considered acceptable because in RC tests, layer continuity is satisfied thanks to sufficient
confinement, giving rise to a sort of unique layer with homogenised properties. Apart from
the case at 10%, G0 decays exponentially by increasing the polyurethane percentage. In terms of
damping, no standard behaviour is observed; in general, composite specimens show values even
greater than pure polyurethane.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

Figure 2. Results of RC tests performed on pure sand and pure polyurethane specimens (after Gatto and Montrasio (2018) and Gatto
et al. (2019)). (a) Small-strain shear modulus and (b) damping variation with the confining pressure.

Figure 3. Small-strain shear modulus and damping ratio from RC tests performed on composite sand-polyurethane specimens at
different polyurethane percentages, after Gatto et al. (2019)
6 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

3. Impact Hammer Tests: Experimental Set-up and Methods for Data Analysis
As stated earlier, the paper aims at studying the effect of polyurethane inclusions in sand specimens
concerning the wave propagation. Owing to the material’s nature, the problem under consideration is
purely non-linear; nevertheless, a first approach based on a linear model is herein presented, with the
identification of modal parameters. Impact tests, generally adopted for experimental modal analysis,
were carried out (Berardengo et al. 2017; Brandt 2011; Ewins 2000); they consisted of impacting
a system through an instrumented hammer and recording the response through measurement devices,
such as accelerometers. In such a way, waves are generated by the impacts of controlled magnitudes. In
this section, the experimental set-up, as well as the data processing procedures, are shown.

3.1. Experimental Equipment

Specimens are realised in a 30 cm x 30 cm x 50 cm plexiglass box, filled with sand up to the free field,
situated thirty-five centimetres from the base; the box and the materials inside represent the excited
system. Excitations are applied vertically at the base of the box by means of a PCB 086C03 dynamo­
metric hammer; the vibrational response is then recorded vertically at the specimen free field, so 35
centimetres far from the source, with a PCB 333B30 uniaxial accelerometer. In such a way, the so-
called single input – single output (SISO) impact tests are performed; the test scheme is illustrated in
Fig. 4. The modal system behaviour is investigated in a vertical direction, because otherwise (impact­
ing horizontally) vertical plexiglass walls could interfere with the propagation phenomenon. P-waves
are considered to be the main type involved in the wave propagation; other wave types possibly
generated by vertical walls are neglected by the paper.

Figure 4. Impact hammer test: arrangement scheme and instrumentation.

 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

Depending on the tip stiffness, the hammer can excite quite a wide frequency range, introducing
different energy content to the impacted system; in order to excite frequencies as low as possible, the
experimental system is excited with soft and very soft tips. Meanwhile, since the response is recorded
using a uniaxial accelerometer, it is essential to control the instrument axes orientation, for example
placing the instrument on a rigid support. For this purpose, a rigid disk (diameter ten centimetres) is
selected; two different materials for the support (steel and plexiglass) allow to study how the support
material influences the system response (note that the disk is simply supported by the specimen and
this could affect the recorded accelerations).

3.2. Testing Program

The testing program consists of a calibration phase, conducted on pure sand specimens, after which
the most suitable hammer tip and accelerometer support are chosen; in a second phase, tests are
carried out on composite specimens to focus on the paper’s goal. Sand specimens have a unique layer,
t1 thick, while composite samples are made up of three layers, with a polyurethane slice (of thickness
t2) between two layers of sand (of thickness t1 and t3). Figure 5a illustrates all specimen geometry, with
corresponding layer thickness measures, while Fig. 5b shows an example of composite specimen
realisation. Note that in all specimens sand is reconstituted with a constant relative density DR about
50% thanks to the pluvial deposition technique (Passalacqua 1991; Rad and Tumay 1987).

3.3. Data Processing

SISO tests are performed manually by an operator, who excites the specimens vertically at the centre of
the box’s base; in order to simplify the acquisition operations, forces and accelerations are continu­
ously recorded in a one-hundred seconds wide time window (Fig. 6a), during which the operator
impacts the system repeatedly (the 100 s record will be referred to as “test” in the paper). Before going
on to the real data processing procedures, “preliminary” operations are required, following these steps:
(1) Results triggering
Each SISO, i.e. the single impact force (identified by a pulse time series) and the related system
acceleration, has to be detected within the continuous data acquisition (test); it will be referred to as
“sub-test” in the following. A trigger window is defined, moving for a certain amount of time back­
wards (Δtback ) and forwards (Δtforward ) from the force peak, so that all force peaks occur at the same
instant (Fig. 6b); accelerations are consequently cut out considering the relevant time window. The

Figure 5. Detail of specimens investigated. (a) Schematic and layer thickness measures; (b) Example of polyurethane slab positioning.
8 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Figure 6. Impact test measurements – Preliminary data elaboration phases. (a) Continuous acquisition (test); (b) Result triggering
(subtest); (c) Double-hit example; (d) Data clustering example.

window length plays an important role in the following data processing; 0.36 seconds (0.01 backwards
and 0.35 forwards) are considered sufficient for the analysis.
(2) Discarding of double-peak force recordings
Heavy hammers impacting light structures or operators’ inexperience could cause double peaks in
sub-test recordings (Fig. 6c); these must be discarded for the study of system dynamic behaviour.
(3) Result clustering
Results are finally collected in clusters, according to reference forces F0,ref, thus grouping sub-tests
characterised by forces of maximum magnitude F0,ref±2 N (Fig. 6d).
Preliminary operations return groups of SISO, characterised by force x and acceleration
y recordings, varying with time t. In the paper, data analysis methods concern the computation of
the frequency response functions (FRF), from which information about modal parameters, i.e. reso­
nance frequencies and damping, can be obtained. The procedures illustrated here were presented by
Brandt (2011). The FRF is computed from the Fourier spectra of input and output recordings,
respectively X and Y, defined in the frequency f domain. According to the type of modal test
performed, different FRFs may be computed; for impact tests, it is suggested to use the H1 FRF-
estimator, since most of the test noise is contained in the hammer recordings. It is defined by Eq. (2):

H1 ðf Þ ¼ Gyx ð f Þ=Gxx ð f Þ (2)

Where Gyx and Gxx are respectively the cross output/input spectrum and the auto spectrum of the
hammer force, defined by Eqs. (3)
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

Gyx ðf Þ ¼ X � ð f Þ � Y ð f Þ (3a)

Gxx ðf Þ ¼ X � ð f Þ � X ð f Þ (3b)
In Eqs. (3) premultiplying by X*(f), i.e. the complex conjugate of the force Fourier spectrum, reduces the
noise contained in the input recording. In the paper, from Gxx an analysis of the frequency range, as well
as the energy level excited by a specific hammer tip is presented; in a Gxx-f plot, the horizontal amplitude
of the function indicates which frequency range is excited, while the magnitude of Gxx itself is propor­
tional to the energy introduced to the system.
A coherence function γ2xy establishes the reliability of the computed H1, providing a linear correla­
tion between output and input signals; this is defined by Eq. (4) and assumes values between 0 and 1.
�
γ2xy ð f Þ ¼ jGyx j2 = Gxx � Gyy (4)

In Eq.(4), Gyy is the output acceleration autospectrum, evaluated as Y � ð f Þ � Y ð f Þ.

Due to manual test performance, forces applied in each SISO have different magnitudes; this is
taken into account in both Eqs. (2) and (4), by averaging all the auto and cross spectra of the
recordings grouped in each cluster, reducing in such a way the system non-linearity effects (average
values of G� xy , G
� xx and G
� yy are computed).
From functions H1 and γ2xy , the modal parameters of the impacted system are evaluated; methods
are presented in the following.

3.3.1. Resonance Frequency Evaluation

In an H1-f plot, the FRF estimator exhibits different local maxima, each occurring at a specific natural
frequency (in other words, related to a certain mode of vibration). However, some maxima could not
be associated with resonance and could be due to computational errors; in order to understand which
H1 maximum corresponds to a reliable resonance frequency, the coherence function has to be
analysed. γ2xy ¼ 1 implies a good correlation between recorded input and output; the system’s natural
frequencies are therefore read from H1 peaks where the coherence function is around one (minimum
values of 0.8 already indicate good correlation).

3.3.2. Damping Evaluation

Two methods allow to evaluate damping � from impact test results:
A) the half-power bandwidth method, in frequency domain (�HP );
B) the free-vibration decay method (based on the Hilbert transform) in time domain (�Hilb ).
Each method requires that modes of vibration have to be completely independent from one
another, i.e. adjacent modes of vibration should not influence each other in terms of damping; the
evaluated damping is indeed associated with a specific mode of vibration. In the paper, the first mode
of vibration is taken into account.
The half-power bandwidth method computes damping from the H1 estimator, considering peaks
one by one; after identifying an FRF peak frequency fn (associated to the nth mode of vibration),
pffiffi
frequencies fa and fb are considered (see Fig. 7), i.e. the frequencies where H1 is equal to 1= 2 times
the value assumed at fn. Damping is therefore evaluated as:
�HP ¼ ðfb fa Þ=ð2fn Þ (5)
Other than the half-power bandwidth method, directly applicable in the frequency domain,
damping can be also evaluated in the time domain; even in this case, modes of vibration have to be
considered one by one. Assuming the recorded response as the free vibration of a damped single-
degree-of-freedom system, the acceleration a time history follows a general trend defined by the
expression aðtÞ ¼ B � expð �ωn t Þ � cosðωd t Þ, where B is a constant, ωn and ωd respectively the natural
10 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Figure 7. Methods for damping evaluation. (a) Half-power bandwidth method and (b) Free-vibration decay method through Hilbert
transform.

and damped resonance frequencies associated to the nth mode of vibration. Damping can be obtained
from the exponential decay:
- the inverse Fourier transform (ifft) of the H1 estimator allows to compute an average
acceleration time history, which includes all system vibrational frequencies; since the free
vibration decay method may be applied considering one natural frequency at a time, the
system fundamental frequency ω1 is isolated by filtering the acceleration through a sixth-
order Butterworth’s low pass filter (applicable in time domain). An example of filtered
acceleration is shown in Fig. 7b.;
- peaks of the average acceleration are enveloped through Matlab’s envelope function, based on
Hilbert transform, using the equation B � expð �ω1 tÞ; applying the natural logarithm, a straight
line function is obtained, whose slope is proportional to damping as follows:
1 Δ½logðenvelopeðifftðH1ÞÞÞ�
�Hilb ¼ (6)
ω1 Δt
In both cases, H1 represents the starting point for damping evaluation; since an H1 function is
provided for each cluster, a damping variation with the F0;ref is presented in the paper.

4. Wave Propagation Theory for Experimental Result Validation

Dealing with dynamic tests, essentially based on the wave propagation phenomenon, small
strains are experienced by specimens investigated (Atkinson and Sallfors 1991; Ishihara 1996;
Mair 1993; Sawangsuriya, Bosscher, and Edil 2005). Since impact tests presented by the paper are
performed vertically, P-waves are considered to be mainly involved in the wave propagation
phenomenon and the theory of one-dimensional P-wave propagation through elastic media is,
therefore, appropriate to be applied for experimental result validation. For tests performed on
pure sand specimens, what needs to be validated are the experimental natural frequencies; in
composite specimens tests, the percentage of energy held by polyurethane layers has to be
quantified, in terms of transmitted acceleration.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

Two different cases of the theory are therefore considered:

● P-wave propagation through a homogeneous layer, for tests in sand specimens;

● P-wave propagation through stratified media, for composite specimens.

4.1. P-Wave Propagation through a Homogeneous Layer

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P-waves propagate through a homogeneous elastic medium with velocity vp ¼ M=ρ, depending on
material density ρ and constrained modulus M; under small strain hypothesis, the constrained
modulus is related to Young’s modulus E0 and Poisson’s ratio ν through M ¼ E0 � ð1 2ν1 Þðν1þνÞ . Hammer-
driven impacts perturb the rest position of specimens, expected to freely vibrate with an nth natural
frequency depending on vp and the specimen height H through:
vp
fn ¼ ð2n 1Þ (7)
4H
Eq. (7) will validate the natural frequencies experimentally recorded; thanks to the expected strain
level, small-strain elastic properties are considered, evaluated at proper confining pressures.

4.2. P-wave Propagation through a Stratified Medium

In composite specimens, ground recordings of waves generated by impacting the base of the plexiglass
box are expected to be influenced by the impedance ratio between layers of different properties. In this
section, this dependance is theoretically pointed out. Let’s consider the wave propagation phenomenon
through two layers of different properties; at the ith interface, an incident wave of amplitude Ai will be
transmitted with amplitude At, linked to Ai as:
2
At;i ¼ Ai;i (8)
1 þ αz;i
� �
αz;i is an impedance ratio, defined as ρi vp;i = ρi 1 vp;i 1 , being the ratio of the impedances of the two
layers.
Starting from the time history of a wave (of frequency ω) incident to the first interface (in the paper,
the plexiglass one), the displacement transmitted by the last interface (the support one) may be simply
obtained by using Eq. (8) and imposing the continuity of interface displacements, as:
with p and q respectively the number of interfaces and layers; ki is the wavenumber of the ith layer,
depending on the excitation frequency and the wave propagation velocity through ki ¼ ω=vp;i . Eq. (9)
highlights the dependence of the transmitted wave on the impedance ratio of composite medium
layers; it also depends on the wavenumber and the thickness of each layer, as well as on the amplitude
of the displacement imposed at the first interface Ai;1 (which is clearly seen) and the frequency
introduced. This approach will be used to validate the experimental results of composite specimens.
Even in this case, the elastic properties of each layer have to be considered; for sand, whose
properties vary with the confining pressure, they will be evaluated at a mean isotropic at-rest stress,
computed as p0c ¼ ð1 þ 2k0 Þ=3 � σ 0v;0 , k0 being the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (depending on the
friction angle φ0 ) and σ 0v;0 the effective vertical stress half way up the layer.

5. Results and Discussion

In this section, experimental results of impact tests performed on sand specimens are first shown, to
rigorously choose the hammer tip and accelerometer support most suitable to the system under
consideration. Subsequently, the incidence of polyurethane layers on the vibrational response of
composite samples is analysed. Both subsections share the same structure: first, quantities of the
experimental modal analysis described in Section 3 are discussed; then experimental results are
12 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

commented on in the light of the theory shown in Section 4. Finally, a discussion in terms of damping
is provided, comparing experimental values with RC observations (Section 2).

5.1. Experimental Tests on Sand Samples – Calibration of the Experimental Set-up

In this calibration phase two different hammer tips, the black (BT, soft) and the red one (RT, super
soft), as well as two different accelerometer supports, in plexiglass (B1) and steel (B2), are used (Fig. 8).

5.1.1. Modal Testing Results

� xx , H1 and γ2 for three values of F0;ref (5; 10and15N). First, let’s
Figure 9 illustrates results in terms of G xy
compare the BT-B1 and RT-B1 tests performed with the same accelerometer support but impacting the
system with different hammer tips. The main differences are clear to see in G � xx magnitude and
horizontal amplitude: as defined by Eq. (3.b), this quantity depends exclusively on the hammer
recordings, which varies according to the tip used; in particular, a stiffer tip (the black one) excites
a wider frequency range, while the red tip introduces a greater amount of energy into the system, causing
a larger amplitude of the autospectrum. In all tests, the coherence function assumes values between 0.8
and 1 in the frequency range 100–300 Hz; in this interval, H1 peaks are referred to as reliable natural
frequencies. Two values of natural frequencies are considered, f1 and f2. In both cases BT-B1 and RT-B1,
values are almost identical (in RT tests, f1 and f2 are respectively 1% and 4% more than in the BT case).
Comparing the BT-B1 and BT-B2 results, referring to tests conducted with the same hammer tip
but different accelerometer support, G � xx is seen to stay stable, as expected, while the main differences
are shown in the H1 estimator: f1 and f2 increase of 5% and 10%, meaning that frequencies are higher
when a slighter material (plexiglass) support is used; what the material support influences more is f2;
further explanations are provided in the following.

Figure 8. Summary of variables investigated during the calibration phase. Hammer tips: black BT (soft) and red RT (super soft).
Accelerometer supports: steel B1 and plexiglass B2.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

Figure 9. Results of the experimental modal analysis on pure sand specimens. Effect of hammer tips (BT and RT) and accelerometer
support (B1 and B2) on the modal response.

5.1.2. Natural Frequencies: Experimental Vs Values Theoretically Computed for a Homogeneous

Soil Layer
Through Eq. (7), theoretical natural frequencies are evaluated, according to the uniaxial P-wave
propagation theory, described in Section 4.1; in such a way, the frequencies of a homogeneous soil
layer are considered and the effect of the accelerometer support neglected. For pure sand P-wave velocity
evaluation, M is obtained from G0 (under small-strain hypothesis), assuming ν is equal to 0.25. From Eq.
(1), G0 is computed at 50% relative density (e = 0.59, φ0 ¼ 35� ,k0 = 0.43 and dry unit weight
γd ¼ 15:5kN/m3) and at a confining pressure evaluated at half specimen height (z = 0.35/2 m,
14 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of the first and the second natural frequencies of sandy specimens, evaluated from the H1 estimator, and
comparison with theoretical values for a homogeneous soil layer. Influence of hammer tip and accelerometer support.
Specimens
F0;ref ðNÞ S SP2 SP3 SP5
5 116 114 115 112
10 116 114 115 110
15 116 114 115 110
20 116 114 114 110

σ 0v0 ¼ 2:71kPa, p’c = 1.67 kPa); it is equal to 17.59 MPa. As a consequence, vp is equal to 183 m s−1; from
this value, the first and second theoretical natural frequencies are evaluated and reported in Table 1,
together with the experimental values.
It is noticeable that the experimental f1 are close to values computed theoretically by neglecting the
support; this allows to state that f1 experimentally recorded is mainly due to the oscillation of soil in the
vertical direction as a “single mass” and it is not meaningfully affected by the support. On the other
hand, the difference between the experimental and theoretical f2 highlights the influence of the
accelerometer support (already pointed out in Section 5.1.1, by comparing results of tests performed
with accelerometer supports of different materials). As mentioned in Section 3.1, accelerometer
supports are simply supported by the specimen; because of impact, the disk’s initial position is
perturbed, causing its oscillation with a frequency depending on the material and the soil stiffness,
on which the support oscillates.

5.1.3. Damping Estimation and Comparison with RC Values

Figure 10 shows damping values computed through both the half-power bandwidth method and the
Hilbert transform. Mean values (reported in the legend, in brackets) vary from 3.2 to 4.3%; as expected

Figure 10. Sand damping ratio computed through the half-power bandwidth method (HP) and the Hilbert transform (Hilb) from
impact test results (In brackets, the legend reports the mean damping values in the force interval).
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

(Papagiannopoulos and Hatzigeorgiou 2011), the greatest values are the ones computed through the
half-power bandwidth method.
Moreover, the half-power bandwidth method does not provide different values in the three cases
considered, while damping estimated from the free-vibration decay method shows to be slightly
affected by the material support and not influenced at all by the hammer tips.
Since they are related to compression impacts, damping values obtained in this way quantify how
much P-waves are damped. For validation, they are now compared to values coming from RC tests (i.e.
related to SH-wave propagation), illustrated in Section 2.1; from literature (Wanniarachchi et al.
2017), at the same confining pressure P-waves are damped less than the SH ones, meaning that impact
test values are expected to be smaller than damping ones coming from RC tests. However, damping is
demonstrated to be dependent on confining pressure (for example, Menq (2003) shows that �0 decays
exponentially with the confining pressure). To be comparable with impact test values, �0,SH has to be
evaluated at the specimen confining pressure (p’c = 1.67 kPa); from a qualitative point of view, at such
a low confining pressure it is expected to be greater than �0,P measured by impact tests.

5.2. Experimental Tests on Composite Specimens

Impact tests are then performed on composite specimens, in which polyurethane slabs of three
different thicknesses are interspersed with two layers of sand (Fig. 5); polyurethane effects on wave
propagation are studied by comparing the response of composite and pure sand specimens. The
following experimental set-up is chosen:

● black tip (BT), which excites a wider frequency range (see Fig. 9);
● steel accelerometer support (B2), which gives more stability and has guaranteed values of the
coherence function closest to 1 in pure sand specimens.

5.2.1. Modal Testing Results

Figure 11 illustrates the experimental results in terms of H1; force autospectra, as well as the coherence
functions, are not plotted, since tests are carried out by impacting the system with the same tip, so
exciting an analogous range of frequencies (shown in Fig. 9 with label “BT”). Four F0,ref (5, 10, 15 and
20 N) are considered.
Table 2 reports f1 for each specimen at each F0,ref; due to polyurethane slabs, a slight reduction of f1
can be observed in the composite specimens. What is most evident is that the composite specimen H1
estimator exhibits three peaks in the frequency range 100–300 Hz, while sand H1 has only two peaks,
as discussed in Section 5.1.1. As concluded for sand, f2 should be due to the support oscillation,
changing with the support material; however, although all tests compared here are performed with the
accelerometer placed on B2 support, f2 does not assume constant values. In layered specimens, if layers
totally adhered to one another, a low-density layer would modify the fundamental frequency (as
experienced in RC tests, resulting in different G0); here, no changes in f1 and a third natural frequency
allow us to think that a sand-polyurethane relative oscillation occurs (f2 and f3 depend on either
support-sand and sand-polyurethane oscillation).

5.2.2. Ground Accelerations: Pure Sand Vs Composite Polyurethane-Sand Specimens

One of the paper’s goals is to investigate the effect of polyurethane layers on the response of granular
specimens in terms of maximum accelerations, for the same impacting force. Considering F0,ref as
reference forces, the corresponding mean acceleration time histories are computed from the ifft of the
average acceleration Fourier spectrum evaluated in each cluster (Fig. 12); the related maximum
accelerations are illustrated in Fig. 13a. Due to the polyurethane layers, composite specimens experi­
ence maximum accelerations lower than pure sand specimens, for each F0,ref; a percentage of max­
imum acceleration reduction is provided by introducing an amplitude transmission factor ATF,
16 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Figure 11. Results of the experimental modal analysis on composite specimens. Effects of polyurethane layers on H1.

Table 2. Fundamental frequencies of all specimens investigated.

f1 ðHzÞ f2 ðHzÞ
F0;ref ðNÞ BT-B1 BT-B2 RT-B1 BT-B1 BT-B2 RT-B1
5 122 116 124 238 216 248
10 122 116 124 236 212 246
15 122 116 124 238 210 244
Theor. 130.7 392.11

defined as the ratio between the maximum accelerations in composite specimens amax;PUR and the
maximum values in pure sand specimens amax;s :

ATF ¼ amax;PUR =amax;s (10)

This formula indicates how much waves are transmitted by composite specimens, in comparison to
pure sand specimens. ATF = 1 represents the pure sand response; the variation with F0;ref is illustrated
in Fig. 13b (dashed lines refer to average percentages in the force interval considered). Compared to
sand, composite specimens transmit less than 100%, giving rise to acceleration reductions from 15 to
35 %, according to polyurethane thickness. These quantities are therefore validated, utilising a simple
theoretical interpretation of the phenomenon, discussed in Section 4.2, assuming the one-dimensional
P-wave propagation through a stratified medium; Fig. 14a shows the scheme taken into consideration.
ATF is theoretically computed by applying Eq. (9) considering two interfaces (plexiglass-sand and
sand-steel) for sand and four interfaces (plex-sand, sand-PUR, PUR-sand, sand-steel) for composite
specimens. For each layer, vp needs to be evaluated, taking into account individually homogeneous
layers and the method already discussed in Section 4.1, with small-strain properties of pure materials
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 17

Figure 12. Mean acceleration time histories for pure sand and composite specimens, evaluated through Inverse Fourier Transform in
four clusters.

presented in Section 2.1. In Table 3 the material characteristics and the impedance ratios αz;i of
contiguous layers in composite specimens are reported; these do not depend on the material’s
thickness and are the same in all composite specimens. Figure 14b shows a comparison of experi­
mental and theoretical ATF as a function of the excitation frequency; the mean experimental ATF values
are plotted in correspondence to the experimental f1. In both cases, the presence of a polyurethane
layer with such a low impedance (polyurethane impedance: 27.2 t*m−2*s−1; sand impedance:
287.31 t*m−2*s−1) gives rise to a reduction of the transmitted waves as polyurethane thickness
18 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Figure 13. Effect of polyurethane layer thickness on (a) maximum accelerations and (b) amplitude transmission factor ATF as
a function of reference forces F0,ref.

Figure 14. Experimental vs theoretical acceleration reduction. (a) Scheme of the theoretical model; (b) Amplitude transmission factor
(ATF), theoretical as a function of the exciting frequency and experimental as dots at the corresponding fundamental frequency.

increases. Nevertheless, the comparisons reveal that experimentally the benefit deriving from the
presence of polyurethane is remarked less than the theoretical results.
The hypothesis assumed for the application of the P-wave propagation theory is the displacement
continuity at interfaces; due to the low confining pressure of the small sample at terrestrial gravity
(1 g conditions), the perfect adherence between layers submitted to the vertical hammer-driven
impacts is not guaranteed; an independent oscillation between masses and loss of continuity at the
interfaces between layers occurs, giving rise to greater ATF as well as different natural frequencies, as
announced by the H1 estimator.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 19

Table 3. Layer properties and impedance ratios for composite specimens.

Layer Material ρðkg=m3 Þ vp ðm=sÞ Iðkg � m 2 s 1 Þ αz
0 Plexiglass 1180 2700 3186000 -
1 Sand 1570 183 287310 0.09
2 PUR 40 680 27200 0.09
3 Sand 1570 183 287310 10.56
4 Steel 7800 5900 46020000 160.17

5.2.3. Damping in Composite Specimens: Comparison with RC Results

As highlighted in the previous sections, the experimental poor displacement continuity between layers
is responsible for frequencies and transmission amplitudes not perfectly captured by theory; the
fundamental frequency of composite specimens has been observed to be not so affected by polyur­
ethane layers. However, it is not sure which experimental frequency is directly depending on poly­
urethane. In this section, the experimental damping is evaluated through only the half-power
bandwidth method, applied to the first H1 peak just to have a qualitative idea of the polyurethane
influence in terms of damping. Values for composite and pure sand specimens are plotted in Fig. 15: all
composite specimens experience greater damping than pure sand specimens, about 7% more. Values
are therefore compared with RC test measurements (Section 2.2), knowing the difference between
wave types involved in the two tests, already discussed in Section 5.1.3; despite the experimental
equipment described in the paper, the RC apparatus permits us to control the confining pressure and
consequently guarantee the perfect adherence and continuity between layers.
At the same polyurethane percentage (about 15% of the total specimen volume), damping of
composite specimens estimated from RC tests is around 400% more than damping of pure sand
specimens; even in this case, the substantial difference is imputed to the loss of continuity between
layers in the experimental tests.
The real in-situ confining pressures would guarantee the adherence between soil and polyurethane
layers and this should be the significative condition to be reproduced in the lab. To ensure the control

Figure 15. Effect of polyurethane layers on damping, computed through the half-power bandwidth method (In brackets, the legend
reports the mean damping values in the force interval).
20 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

of the confining pressure and the adhesion of layers in composite specimens, the experimental set-up
will be therefore modified.

6. Conclusions
The paper shows the effects related to the use of polyurethanes as a Geotechnical Isolation system.
Polyurethanes are widespread in geotechnical applications, as materials injected underneath foun­
dations for ground improvement and settlement reduction purposes; this paper investigates how they
affect the propagation of waves, if inserted in layer form through granular specimens.
The design and realisation of an experimental set-up, suitable for the paper’s aim, is described;
impact tests are performed, generating waves through a dynamometric hammer and recording the
system response through a uniaxial accelerometer. The accelerometer is placed on a rigid support,
which allows us to control the axes orientation. From recordings, the frequency response functions are
computed and the modal parameters (natural frequencies and damping) evaluated.
Tests are first performed on pure sand specimens; the fundamental frequency experimentally
recorded is captured by the frequency evaluated according to the theory of P-wave propagation
through a homogeneous soil layer, meaning that it is due to soil oscillation. A second natural
frequency, not theoretically caught, reveals that the simply supported disk where the accelerometer
is placed affects the recording frequency content with its relative oscillation. Damping evaluated from
test results is comparable with damping from RC tests performed on the same sand type, taking into
account that different wave types are generated by the two tests.
Polyurethane layers of three different thicknesses are then considered; compared with pure sand
specimens, it has been demonstrated that the free field accelerations of composite sand-
polyurethane specimens at the same impacting force are reduced up to 35%, according to poly­
urethane thickness. From the interpretation of the experimental results in the light of the theory of
wave propagation through stratified media, the percentages of the acceleration reduction theoreti­
cally evaluated is greater; limitations of the experimentation at terrestrial gravity are pointed out:
dealing with small-sized composite samples, the natural confining pressures are not sufficient to
guarantee displacement continuity at the interfaces and a perfect adhesion between layers, giving
rise to a relative oscillation between masses and a consequent overestimation of the acceleration
transmission ratio. Resonant column tests (in which the layer adhesion is guaranteed), performed
on composite specimens in a previous experimental campaign, show damping values even greater
than those evaluated with the experimental system here introduced, thanks to higher and controlled
confining pressure.
The current experimental apparatus will be therefore modified, in order to simulate more realistic
confining pressure conditions, with respect to the ones typically involved in in-situ conditions.

References
Adachi, H., T. Hasegawa, and H. Asano. 1997. Cell distributions in and sound absorption characteristics of flexible
polyurethane foams. Journal of Applied Polymers Science 65: 1395–402.
Albrecht, W. 2000. Cell-gas composition - An important factor in the evaluation of long-term thermal conductivity in
closed-cell foamed plastics. Cellular Polymers 19: 319–31.
Anastasiadis, A., K. Senetakis, and K. Pitilakis. 2012. Small-strain shear modulus and damping ratio of sand/rubber and
gravel/rubber mixtures. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30 (2): 363–82.
Anastasopoulos, I., G. Gazetas, M. Loli, M. Apostolou, and N. Gerolymos. 2009. Soil failure can be used for seismic
protection of structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 8 (2): 309–26.
Atkinson, J. H., and G. Sallfors. 1991. Experimental determination of soil properties. Proceeding of the tenth European
conference on soil mechanics & foundation engineering, Vol. 3, 915–56. Florence, Italy.
Berardengo, M., G. Busca, S. Grossi, S. Manzoni, and M. Vanali. 2017. The monitoring of Palazzo Lombardia in Milan.
Shock and Vibration (2017) (3): 1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8932149.
Brambati, A., G. B. Carulli, F. Cucchi, E. Faccioli, R. Onofri, S. Stefanini, and F. Ulcigrai. 1980. Studio di Microzonazione
Sismica dell’Area di Tarcento (Friuli). Trieste, Italy: CLUET.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 21

Brandt, A. 2011. Noise and vibration analysis: Signal analysis and experimenal procedures. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Brunet, S., J. C. de la Llera, and E. Kausel. 2016. Non-linear modeling of seismic isolation systems made of recycled
tire-rubber. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 85: 134–45.
Buzzi, O., S. Fityus, and W. Scott. 2010. Use of expanding polyurethane resin to remediate expansive soil foundations.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 47 (6): 623–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1139/T09-132.
Capotorti, F., G. Monachesi, M. Mucciarelli, T. Sanò, and L. Trojani. 1997. Danneggiamenti ed effetti di sito nel
terremoto umbro-marchigiano del settembre 1997. Ingegneria Sismica 3: 12–21.
Drnevich, V. 1967. Effects of strain history on the dynamic properties of sand. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Michigan, USA.
Edil, T. B., and P. J. Bosscher. 1994. Engineering properties of tire chips and soil mixtures. Geotechical Testing Journal 17
(4): 453–64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10306J.
Ewins, D. J. 2000. Modal testing: Theory, practise and application. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Feng, Z., and K. Sutter. 2000. Dynamic properties of granulated rubber/sand mixtures. Geotechical Testing Journal 23 (3):
338–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11055J.
Foti, S., and M. Manassero. 2004. Rinforzo e adeguamento delle fondazioni per sollecitazioni statiche e dinamiche. XXIII
Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica AGI, Italy.
Gatto, M. P. A., and L. Montrasio. 2018. Wave propagation in sandy soil: An experimental and numerical model.
Proceeding of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Gatto, M. P. A., L. Montrasio, A. Tsinaris, D. Pitilakis, and A. Anastasiadis. 2019. The dynamic behaviour of
polyurethane foams in geotechnical conditions. Proceeding of the 7th international conference on earthquake geo­
technical engineering, Rome, Italy.
Hardin, B., and W. Black. 1968. Vibration modulus of normally consolidated clay. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division (ASCE) 94 (2): 353–70.
Ishihara, K. 1996. Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lee, L. 1987. Advances in base isolation in China. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering 43: 297–309.
Lopera Perez, J. C., C. Y. Kwok, and K. Senetakis. 2016. Effect of rubber size on the behaviour of sand-rubber mixtures:
A numerical investigation. Computers and Geotechnics 80: 199–214.
Mair, R. J. 1993. Unwin memorial lecture 1992. Developments in geotechnical engineering research: application to
tunnel sand deep excavation. Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers —Civil Engineering 97 (1): 27–41. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1680/icien.1993.22378.
Marsan, P., and V. Gorelli. 1997. Rapporto preliminare sui danni al sacro convento di Assisi a seguito della sequenza
sismica del settembre-ottobre 1997. Ingegneria Sismica 3: 57–69.
Menq, F.-Y. 2003. Dynamic properties of sandy and gravelly soils. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Montrasio, L., and M. P. A. Gatto. 2016. Experimental analyses on cellular polymers for geotechnical applications.
Proceeding of VI Italian conference of researchers in geotechnical engineering, Bologna, Italy.
Naeim, F., and J. M. Kelly. 1999. Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Nakhaei, A., S. M. Marandi, S. Sani Kermani, and M. H. Bagheripour. 2012. Dynamic properties of granular soils mixed
with granulated rubber. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 43: 124–32.
Papagiannopoulos, G. A., and G. D. Hatzigeorgiou. 2011. On the use of the half-power bandwidth method to estimate
damping in building structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31: 1075–79.
Passalacqua, R. 1991. A sand-spreader used for reconstruction of granular soil models. Soils and Foundations 31 (2):
175–80.
Pitilakis, K., S. Karapetrou, and K. Tsagdi. 2015. Numerical investigation of the seismic response of RC buildings on soil
replaced with rubber–sand mixtures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 79: 237–52.
Rad, N., and M. Tumay. 1987. Factors affecting sand specimen preparation by raining. Geotechnical Testing Journal 10
(1): 31–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10136J.
Saha, A., and S. K. Mishra. 2019. Adaptive negative stiffness device based nonconventional tuned mass damper for
seismic vibration control of tall buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126. doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105767.
Salvi, J., and E. Rizzi. 2015. Optimum tuning of tuned mass dampers for frame structures under earthquake excitation.
Structural Control & Health Monitoring 22: 707–25.
Sawangsuriya, A., P. J. Bosscher, and T. B. Edil. 2005. Alternative testing techniques for modulus of pavement bases and
subgrades. Proceeding of the 13th annual great lakes geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering conference,
geotechnical applications for transportation infrastructure, ASCE, geotechnical practice publication, Vol. 3, 108–21.
Milwaukee, Winsconsin.
Schuetz, M., and L. Glicksman. 1984. A basic study of heat transfer through foam insulation. Journal of Cellular Plastics
20 (2): 114–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021955X8402000203.
Senetakis, K., A. Anastasiadis, and K. Pitilakis. 2012. Dynamic properties of dry sand/rubber (RSM) and gravel/rubber
(GRM) mixtures in a wide range of shearing strain amplitudes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 33: 38–53.
22 M. P. A. GATTO ET AL.

Soong, T. T., and B. F. Spencer. 2002. Supplemental energy dissipation: State-of-the-art and state-of- the-practice.
Engineering Structures 24 (3): 243–59.
Symans, M. D., F. A. Charney, A. S. Whittaker, M. C. Constantinou, C. A. Kircher, M. W. Johnson, and R. J. McNamara.
2008. Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications: Current practice and recent developments. Journal of
Structural Engineering 134 (1): 3–21.
Traylen, N. J., S. Van Ballegooy, and R. Wentz. 2016. Liquefaction mitigation beneath existing structures using
polyurethane grout injection. Proceeding of 2016 New Zealand society for earthquake engineering conference,
Christchurch, New Zealand.
Trifunac, M. D. 2003. Nonlinear soil response as a natural passive isolation mechanism. Paper II. The 1933, Long Beach,
California earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 23 (7): 549–62.
Trifunac, M. D., and M. I. Todorovska. 1998. Nonlinear soil response as a natural passive isolation mechanism—the
1994 Northridge, California earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 17 (1): 41–51.
Tsang, H. H. 2008. Seismic isolation by rubber–soil mixtures for developing countries. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 37: 283–303.
Tsang, H. H. 2009. Geotechnical seismic isolation. In Earthquake engineering: New research, 55–87. New York, U.S.:
Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Tsang, H. H., S. H. Lo, X. Xu, and M. N. Sheikh. 2012. Seismic isolation for low-to-medium-rise buildings using
granulated rubber–soil mixtures: Numerical study. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41 (14):
2009–24.
Tsang, H. H., and K. Pitilakis. 2019. Mechanism of geotechnical seismic isolation system: Analytical modeling. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 122: 171–84.
Tsiavos, A., N. A. Alexander, A. Diambra, E. Ibraim, P. J. Vardanega, A. Gonzalez-Buelga, and A. Sextos. 2019. A
sand-rubber deformable granular layer as a low-cost seismic isolation strategy in developing countries: Experimental
investigation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105731.
Wanniarachchi, W. A. M., P. G. Ranjith, M. S. A. Perera, T. D. Rathnaweera, Q. Lyu, and B. Mahanta. 2017. Assessment
of dynamic material properties of intact rocks using seismic wave attenuation: An experimental study. Royal Society
Open Science 4 (10): 170896. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170896.
Warburton, G. B. 1982. Optimum absorber parameters for various combinations of response and excitation parameters.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 10: 381–401.
Wu, W. J., W. F. Sung, and H. Chu. 1999. Thermal conductivity of polyurethane foams. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 42 (12): 2211–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0017-9310(98)00315-9.
Yegian, M. K., and U. Kadakal. 2004. Foundation isolation for seismic protection using a smooth synthetic liner. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (11): 1121–30.
Yu, L., R. Wang, and R. Skirrow 2013. The application of polyurethane grout in roadway settlements issues. Proceeding of
geo Montreal 2013, Montreal, Canada.
Zhang, C., J. Li, Z. Hu, F. Zhu, and Y. Huang. 2012. Correlation between the acoustic and porous cell morphology of
polyurethane foam: Effect of interconnected porosity. Materials & Design 41: 319–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2012.04.031.