Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements

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

2D dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction: A case study of Millikan

Library Building
Bing Han a, Shaolin Chen a, Jianwen Liang b,∗
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300354, China

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

Keywords: Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI) effects with large separation distance are investigated based on
Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction a case study of Millikan Library Building. The numerical results are obtained by two-dimensional (2D) anti-plane
(SSSI) model and in-plane model using indirect boundary element method (IBEM) for any incident direction of seismic
Large separation distance
waves. It’s shown that the SSSI effects may be detrimental or beneficial, and the amplification and reduction
Case study
of structural response compared to the stand-alone structure may be up to 40% and 30%, respectively in the
Anti-plane model
In-plane model case of Millikan Library Building. The structural response is sensitive to adjacent building’s parameters. Both for
Indirect boundary element method (IBEM) anti-plane model and in-plane model, more similar or heavier adjacent building has more significant influence.
Moreover, beyond what was previously known, the SSSI effects may persist up to large separation distance, e.g.,
the amplification may be up to 36% when separation distance is up to b/𝜆equ ≈ 2.5 (b ≈ 410 m). Of course, the
detrimental or beneficial effects are not constant but appear alternately with variation of the separation distance,
which should be considered comprehensively in the prediction of seismic response for design.

1. Introduction numerical methods [6–17,30–32] and experimental methods [22–24].

In our recently published papers [1,2], we studied two-dimensional
(2D) dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI) for twin build-
ings in frequency domain. It’s shown that the presence of neighboring
identical structure may significantly modify the response of a structure
at particular frequencies [1,2]. However, it’s undeniable that properties
of adjacent building are not always as same as each other like twin build-
ings, and analysis in time domain is more intuitive for actual cases. In
addition, as far as the authors know, there is no clear and general conclu-
sion evaluating the maximum separation distance up to which the SSSI
effects can be ignored. Thus, in this study, we investigate the SSSI effects
between buildings with different parameters with large separation dis-
tance in time domain. For this purpose, a case study of Millikan Library
Building is conducted by a linear 2D anti-plane model [1] and in-plane
model [2] using indirect boundary element method (IBEM). Our focus
herein will be the influence laws of SSSI effects, as a function of sepa-
ration distance between buildings, on the structural response with large
separation distance for any incident direction of seismic waves. We hope
our study is useful for assessment of SSSI effects and interpretation of
observed seismic structural response.
Dynamic SSSI is a classical topic in earthquake engineering that
has been studied for several decades, using analytical methods [3–5],
Literature review on this topic can be found in [25].
Studies in frequency domain showed that the SSSI effects are espe-
cially important for certain frequencies [3], e.g., in the neighborhood of
the fixed-base frequency of the second structure [4], or in the vicinity of
Rayleigh frequencies [5], or at the natural frequencies of the structures
(coupled with the soil) [6], or around the overall system fundamental
frequency [7]. In addition, a study in which the incident wave traveled
with a shallow angle showed that the building in front acted as a shield
for the wall behind and the latter may amplify the excitation for the
former at some frequencies [3].
Furthermore, whether the presence of adjacent building has a signif-
icant influence on structural response in time domain? It was shown that
large differences in response may be produced due to the presence of ad-
jacent identical structures by a BEM-FEM model [7] or a discrete model
[9]. Mahmoud et al. [8] studied the SSSI effects between two identi-
cal buildings and found that the interaction effects increase the period,
base shear and lateral displacement which depend on the separation dis-
tance between adjacent buildings. Guéguen and Colombi [11] studied
the clustering effect using the model of three identical buildings located
in Grenoble, France, and it’s concluded that clustering has an impact on
urban effect, calling into question the validity of seismic design, which
considers buildings in urban areas as stand-alone constructions. Sadegh

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liang@tju.edu.cn (J. Liang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2020.01.012
Received 29 October 2019; Received in revised form 25 December 2019; Accepted 23 January 2020
0955-7997/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
and Hassan [10] showed that for different adjacent buildings, heavier
building influenced its adjacent lighter building while it was less af-
fected by its adjacent lighter buildings. Bybordiani and Arici [12] in-
vestigated the interacting effects using 5-, 15-, and 30-story structures
models, and their results showed that neglecting SSSI for neighboring
closely spaced high-rise structures or building clusters with a large stiff-
ness contrast would lead to a considerable underestimation of the true
seismic demands. Fariborz and Ali [17] used FEM to realize the effects
of the adjacent buildings on the dynamic response. In their model, two
buildings, namely, 15-story and 30-story tall buildings, which were sep-
arated by distances of 1/4 and 1/8 of the width of the foundation, were
located on hard and soft soil profiles. It was concluded that in the case
where the soil and structure’s periods were near to each other, the in-
teraction of adjacent structures on increasing nonlinear responses and
structural damage indexes was noticeable and therefore was not negli-
gible. Using a two-dimensional discrete nonlinear model, Vicencio and
Alexander [27] evaluated the effects of SSSI. They showed that there are
important differences between nonlinear SSSI and nonlinear SSI, and
the adverse effects of SSSI can be more pronounced when the soil non-
linearity is assumed. In addition, several works addressed the topic of
site-city interaction, which are the multiple interactions between soil
layers and civil engineering structures in dense urban areas. Gueguen
et al. [14] showed that two major parameters of the site-city environ-
ment control the efficiency of the contamination: the urbanization den-
sity and the resonance criterion between soil and buildings. Kham et al.
[13] use 2D BEM models subjected to vertical plane SH Ricker wavelet
to investigate the sensitivity of the effects to some governing parame-
ters. It resulted that building density and city configuration play a cru-
cial role in the energy distribution inside the city. Kumar and Narayan
[15] investigated the effects of site-city interaction on the fundamental
frequency of structures using SH-wave and P-SV-wave finite-difference
programs. Tsogka and Wirgin [16] studied the seismic response of an
idealized 2D ‘city’, constituted by ten non equally-spaced, non equally-
sized, homogenized blocks anchored in a soft soil layer overlying a hard
half-space.
In most of previous studies, the SSSI effects at a few fixed separa-
tion distances are investigated, which did not investigate systematically
the SSSI effects with the variation of separation distance. However, the
separation distance is one of the key parameters influencing SSSI ef-
fects. In [1,2], it suggested that the SSSI effects may decrease or in-
crease the structural response at a particular frequency depending on
the separation distance using a twin-buildings model. In [14], it esti-
mated the variation of the intensity of the radiated motion as a func-
tion of distance between buildings. In their model, the buildings are
with the ratio of system frequency to the site fundamental frequency
between 0.9 and 1.1 as the highest effects are observed for the ratio
close to 1. In this study, we want to explore the sensitivity of the SSSI
effects to the variation of adjacent structure’s parameters with large sep-
aration distance in time domain for any incident direction of seismic
waves. A case study is performed using a linear 2D anti-plane model
and in-plane model. The principle objective of this study is to analyze
in detail the influence laws on the structural response by adjacent build-
ings, or in other words, we want to evaluate, for a given structure,
what kind of adjacent buildings may influence the structural response
significantly.
For the purpose of this study, Millikan Library Building is selected.
Millikan Library Building, a nine-story reinforced concrete building in
Pasadena, California, has been studied extensively especially for the
issue of soil-structure interaction. Detailed structure information and
some simplified analytical/numerical models [18,29] are available. The
soil mechanics information and shear wave velocity profiles in the vicin-
ity of the site [18] have been determined. The wealth of information
makes the Millikan Library Building an ideal selection for this study.
A brief description of the Millikan Library Building and the simplified
model are presented in next Section.
347
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
Fig. 1. The model.
2. Methodology
2.1. A brief description of the Millikan Library Building
The Robert A. Millikan Library is a nine-story reinforced concrete
building located on the campus of the California Institute of Technology
in Pasadena, California. The structure has a basement and an enclosed
roof area. The typical floor plan covers an area of 21 × 23 m. It stands
43.9 m above the first floor level. The total weight of the superstructure
is estimated at 1.05 × 108 N. The fixed-base frequency is 2.33 Hz in N-S
direction [29]. The plan dimensions of the foundation are approximately
23.3 × 25.1 m with additional areas of dimensions 9.9 × 1.7 m and
9.9 × 3.5 m at east and west extremes, respectively. The total weight
of the foundation is estimated at 0.14 × 108 N. The foundation rests on
alluvium composed of medium to dense sands mixed with gravel. The
shear wave velocities at the site are listed in Table 1 [18].
2.2. The model of the SSSI system
In the model, the structures, the soil layers and the bedrock half-
space are assumed to be linear elastic, homogeneous and isotropic. As
shown in Fig. 1, Millikan Library Building is modeled by a shear wall rep-
resenting the superstructure which deforms in shear only, with building
height H1 = 44 m and building width W1 = 25 m, supported by circular
cylindrical rigid foundation, with radius a = W1 /2, embedded in soil
layers. The ratio of building mass to foundation mass is Mb1 /M01 = 7.5
[18] and the ratio of foundation mass to soil mass that removed by
the excavation is M01 /Ms1 = 0.2. The fundamental fixed-base frequency
of the building is f1 = 2.33 Hz. The superstructure as a whole, can be
characterized by its equivalent shear wave velocity in vertical direc-
tion [19] 𝛽 b1 = 4 H1 f1 = 410 m/s. The Poisson ratio is 𝜈 b1 = 1/3, and
the hysteretic damping ratio is 𝜁 b1 = 0.01. To investigate the structure-
soil-structure interaction effects, it’s assumed that there is an adjacent
building near Millikan Library Building. The assumed adjacent build-
ing is characterized by building height H2 , building width W2 , mass ra-
tios Mb2 /M02 and M02 /Ms2 , fundamental fixed-base frequency f1 ’, super-
structure equivalent shear wave velocity 𝛽 b2 , which will be determined
in the numerical results and analysis. Poisson ratio of the assumed adja-
cent building is 𝜈 b2 = 1/3, and the hysteretic damping ratio is 𝜁 b2 = 0.01.
The boundaries between the foundations and the soil layer are marked
by Γ1 and Γ2 , and Γ = Γ1 + Γ2 , and it’s assumed that perfect bond exists
along Γ. The separation distance between the two structures is b.
The soil model considered here consisted of nine layers resting on
a uniform half-space. The Poisson ratio of the soil layers are 𝜈 i = 1/3
(i = 1~9), and hysteretic damping ratios are 𝛽 i = 0.02 (i = 1~9). Other
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358

Table 1
Soil parameters of the site of Millikan Library Building [18].

Soil layer No. S-wave velocity (𝛽 i , i = 1~10) (m/s) Layer thickness (di , i = 1~10) (m) Depth range (m) Mass density (𝜌i , i = 1~10) (kg/m3 )

1 298.7 1.83 0–1.83 1810

2 298.7 0.91 1.83–2.74 1810
3 298.7 2.75 2.74–5.49 1810
4 387.1 1.52 5.49–7.01 1810
5 387.1 2.74 7.01–9.75 1810
6 454.2 3.66 9.75–13.41 1810
7 487.7 6.71 13.41–20.12 1810
8 609.6 82.29 20.12–102.41 1810
9 762.0 16.16 102.41–118.57 1810
Bedrock 944.8 – 118.57- 1810

4 motions of the excavations due to the mass inertia of the structures and
6.470Hz
4.126Hz
their foundations.
For 2D anti-plane model, the motion of each rigid foundation is de-
1.416Hz fined by horizontal translation, and so as each shear wall. For 2D in-
3
plane model, it’s assumed that the motion of each rigid foundation is
defined by the horizontal and vertical translations, and clockwise rota-
tion about the center of circular foundation. The displacements are small
Uf 2 and the vertical translation is uncoupled from the horizontal translation
and rotation. The motion of each shear wall is defined by shear and
longitudinal deflections.
1 First, the displacement Uf (x,z) and the traction Tf (x,z) of free-field
motion are calculated. Then, the displacement Green’s functions gu (x,z)
and the traction Green’s functions gt (x,z) are obtained. Subsequently, the
0 impedance functions [K] of the SSSI system are calculated by using the
0 5 10 15 20 25 Green’s functions. The details can be found in [1] for anti-plane model
f (Hz) and [2] for in-plane model.
For the scattering problem, the responses of the excavations [Δ1 ]
Fig. 2. Free-field amplification spectrum of the site of Millikan Library Building. are obtained using the impedance function and the free-field motion.
For anti-plane model,
[ ] [([ ] )𝑇 [ ]𝑇 ]
parameters of the site are listed in Table 1 [18]. As shown in Fig. 2 of the Δ1 =[𝐊]−1 𝐠𝐭 (𝑥, 𝑧) [𝚲] 𝑈𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑧) − 𝛀𝑗 (𝑥, 𝑧) 𝑇𝑓 (𝑥, 𝑧) ds
∫Γ
free-field amplification spectrum, the first three predominant frequen-
cies of the site are 1.416 Hz, 4.126 Hz and 6.470 Hz. 𝑗 = 1, 2 (3)
The seismic wave, Taft earthquake wave or El Centro earthquake
where[Λ] represents fictitious loads on each element corresponding to
wave, is incident from the bedrock, at angle 𝜃 measured from the hori-
unit generalized displacement vector of each foundation. For anti-plane
zontal. The acceleration time histories of Taft wave and El Centro wave
model, Ω1 = [1.0, 0.0]; (x, z) ∈[Γ1 , Ω2 = [0.0, 1.0]; (x, z) ∈] Γ2 ; and
are shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b), respectively. As shown in Fig. 3(c) and
1 −𝑧∕𝑎 0 0 0 0
(d) of the Fourier spectrum of incident waves, the predominant frequen- for in-plane model [Ω1 (𝑥, 𝑧)] = ; (𝑥, 𝑧) ∈
cies are 1.17–3.0 Hz for Taft wave and 1.17–2.19 Hz for El Centro wave, 0 𝑥∕𝑎 1 0 0 0
[ ]
respectively. 0 0 0 1 −𝑧∕𝑎 0
Γ1 , [Ω2 (𝑥, 𝑧)] = ; (𝑥, 𝑧) ∈ Γ2 .
0 0 0 0 𝑥∕𝑎 1
2.3. The calculation procedure For the radiation problem, the motions of foundations are obtained
from the dynamic equilibrium conditions of the foundations,
The model response is computed as follows. First, the acceleration [ ] [ ]
of the seismic records, acc(t), are converted to frequency domain acc(f) 𝚫2 =[𝐊]−1 𝑭 0 + 𝑭 𝑏 (4)
by Fourier transform, in which, F0 and Fb are the inertia force of the rigid foundations and
𝑎𝑐 𝑐 (𝑓 ) = 𝐹 𝑇 {𝑎𝑐 𝑐 (𝑡), 𝑁 } (1) the shear walls per unit length, respectively. For anti-plane model,
[ ]𝑇
and N/2 frequencies, f1 , f2 ,…,fN /2 –1 , fN /2 are got, in which N and Δtare 𝑭 0 = 𝜔2 𝑀01 Δ𝑦1 , 𝜔2 𝑀02 Δ𝑦2 (5a)
the number of samples and time interval of the seismic records, respec-
tively. [ ]𝑇
𝑭 𝑏 = 𝐹𝑏1 , 𝐹𝑏2 (5b)
𝑖
𝑓𝑖 = (𝑖 = 1, 2, ..., 𝑁∕2 − 1, 𝑁∕2) (2)
𝑁Δ𝑡 tan 𝑘𝑏𝑗 𝐻𝑗
in which 𝐹𝑏𝑗 = 𝜔2 𝑀𝑏𝑗 𝑘𝑏𝑗 𝐻𝑗
Δ𝑦𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1, 2, Δy1 and Δy2 are the dis-
Then, the system response in frequency domain is computed.
placement of left foundation and right foundation, respectively. For in-
plane model,
2.3.1. System response in frequency domain
[ ]𝑇
The dynamic response of the foundation in frequency domain is de- 𝑭 0 = 𝐹01 , 𝐹02 (6a)
composed into a scattering problem and a radiation problem. The scat-
tering problem consists of finding the responses of the excavations to [ ]𝑇
the incident wave, and the radiation problem consists of finding the 𝑭 𝑏 = 𝐹𝑏1 , 𝐹𝑏2 (6b)

348
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358

0.15 Taft earthquake wave of peak 0.1g 0.15 El Centro earthquake wave of peak 0.1g
0.10 0.10
0.05 0.05
0.00 0.00
-0.05 -0.05
-0.10 -0.10
-0.15 -0.15
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
i ( ) i ( )
(a) Taft earthquake wave history of peak 0.1g (b) El Centro earthquake wave history of peak 0.1g
2.5 2.5
Taft earthquake wave of peak 0.1g El Centro earthquake wave of peak 0.1g
Amplitude ×10-2 (m/s-2)

Amplitude ×10-2 (m/s-2)

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
f (Hz) f (Hz)
(c) Fourier spectrum of Taft earthquake wave (d) Fourier spectrum of El Centro earthquake wave
Fig. 3. The time history and Fourier spectrum of incident earthquake waves.

Fig. 4. Time history of building drift with (a) for fixed-base building, (b) for stand-alone building, (c) for twin buildings of b/W1 = 2, (d) for b/W1 = 4 and (e) for
b/W1 = 18.

349
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358

Fig. 5. The influence degree of adjacent building with different building equivalent shear wave velocity on Millikan Library Building for vertical incidence.

𝜔𝐻𝑗
⎡ 𝑀0𝑗 −𝑆𝑥𝑗 ∕𝑎 0 ⎤ in which 𝑘𝛼𝑗 = . The relative horizontal displacement is
𝛼𝑏𝑗
in which 𝐹0𝑗 = 𝜔2 [𝑴 0𝑗 ]𝚫𝑏𝑗 ,[𝑴 0𝑗 ]=⎢−𝑆𝑥𝑗 ∕𝑎 𝐼0𝑗 ∕𝑎2 0 ⎥,
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 𝑀0𝑗 ⎦ 𝑥
Δrx bx
𝑗 = Δ𝑗 − Δ𝑗 − 𝜑𝑗 𝐻𝑗 ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (10)
𝐹𝑏𝑗 = 𝜔2 [𝑴 𝑏𝑗 ]𝚫𝑏𝑗 , [𝑴 𝑏𝑗 ] =
tan 𝜅 𝛽𝑗 𝐻 The drift of the superstructure can be got by the ratio between the
⎡ 𝜅𝛽𝑗
1
( 1 − 1) 𝑎𝑗
𝜅𝛽𝑗 2 cos 𝜅𝛽𝑗
0 ⎤
⎢ 2 ⎥ relative horizontal displacement and the height
𝐻 𝜅 𝐻 2 𝑊
𝑀𝑏𝑗 ⎢ 2 ( 0 ⎥.
1 1 𝑗 −1 tan 𝛽𝑗 𝑗 1 𝑗
− 1) 𝑎 (1 − 𝜅 ) 𝑎2 + 12 ( 𝑎 )
⎢ 𝛽𝑗
𝜅 cos 𝜅 𝛽𝑗 𝜅 𝛽𝑗
2
𝛽𝑗 ⎥ for anti − plane model ∶ 𝑑𝑗 = Δ𝑏𝑗 ∕𝐻𝑗 ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (11a)
⎢ tan 𝜅𝛼𝑗 ⎥
⎣ 0 0 𝜅𝛼𝑗 ⎦
I0 j = 0.5a2 M0 j is the rotational inertia with respect to center of the
for in − plane model ∶ 𝑑𝑗 = Δ𝑟𝑥
𝑗 ∕𝐻𝑗 ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (11b)
foundation, and Sxj = 4/(3𝜋)M0 j is area moment with respect to the
x-axis; 𝚫𝑏1 = [Δ𝑥1 , 𝑎𝜑1 , Δ𝑧1 ] and 𝚫𝑏2 = [Δ𝑥2 , 𝑎𝜑2 , Δ𝑧2 ] are the displacement of The acceleration is got by second derivative of the absolute displace-
left foundation and right foundation, respectively. ment to time,
The generalized displacement vector 𝚫 is represented as a sum of the ( )
𝜕 2 Δ𝑏𝑗 + Δ𝑦𝑗
scattering problem and the radiation problem, for anti − plane model ∶ 𝑎𝑐 𝑐𝑗 = ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (12a)
𝜕 𝑡2
[ ] [ ]
[𝚫]= 𝚫1 + 𝚫2 (7)
𝜕 2 Δ𝑏𝑥
𝑗
Once the response of the foundation has been obtained, the displace- for in − plane model ∶ 𝑎𝑐 𝑐𝑗 = ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (12b)
𝜕 𝑡2
ments of the shear walls can be computed. For anti-plane model, the
The base shear force can be got by the mass and the acceleration of the
relative displacements of the top of the shear wall are [1]
superstructure.
( )
[ ] 1 [ ]
Δ𝑏𝑗 = − 1 Δ𝑦𝑗 ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (8) 2.3.2. System response in time domain
cos 𝑘𝛽𝑗 𝐻𝑗
System response, including the drift, the acceleration, the base shear
𝜔𝐻𝑗 force and so on, in frequency domain Res(fi ), i = 1,2,…,N/2 have been
in which, 𝑘𝛽𝑗 = 𝛽𝑏𝑗
and 𝜔 is the circular frequency. For in-plane model,
got, and another group of N/2 system responses can be got by complex
the absolute horizontal and vertical displacements at the top are [2]
conjugate. Then, the group of system responses Res(fi ), i = 1,2,…,N, in
⎧Δ𝑏𝑥 = Δ (cos 𝜅 + tan 𝜅 sin 𝜅 ) + 𝜑 𝛽𝑏𝑗 sin 𝜅 frequency domain are converted to time domain Res(ti ), i = 1,2,…,N by
⎪ 𝑗 𝑥𝑗 𝛽𝑗 𝛽𝑗 𝛽𝑗 𝑗 𝜔 cos 𝜅 𝛽𝑗
𝛽𝑗 inverse Fourier transform [20].
⎨ ; 𝑗 = 1, 2 (9)
( ) ( ) { ( ) }
⎪Δ𝑏𝑧 = Δ cos 𝜅𝛼𝑗 + tan 𝜅𝛼𝑗 sin 𝜅𝛼𝑗 Res 𝑡𝑖 = 𝐹 𝑇 −1 Res 𝑓𝑖 , 𝑁 , (𝑖 = 1, 2, ..., 𝑁 ) (13)
⎩ 𝑗 𝑧𝑗

350
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
Fig. 6. The influence degree of adjacent building with different building height on Millikan Library Building for vertical incidence.
It is shown in [1,2] that the numerical results in frequency domain
are accurate, and the Fourier transform does not introduce extra error.
Therefore, the numerical accuracy of the results herein is guaranteed.
3. The necessity of SSSI analysis with large separation distance
As shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b), for 0.1 g Taft earthquake wave
incidence and in-plane model, the maximal building drift of Millikan
Library Building is 19.46 × 10−4 and 12.28 × 10−4 for fixed-base
building (neglecting the soil-structure interaction) and for stand-alone
building (neglecting the cross interaction with adjacent buildings),
respectively. Obviously, the SSI effects are evident and influence
the structural response significantly. We suspect that maybe there is
obvious cross interaction between adjacent buildings.
As shown in Fig. 4(c), if there is a similar building and the separa-
tion distance between buildings is b/W1 = 2 (b = 50 m), the maximal
drift is 10.63 × 10−4 and the reduction is 13% compared with that of
stand-alone building. If the separation distance is b/W1 = 4 (b = 100 m),
the maximal drift is 14.47 × 10−4 and the amplification is 18%. If the
separation distance is up to b/W1 = 18 (b = 400 m), the maximal drift
is 13.68 × 10−4 and the amplification is 11%.
Obviously, the separation distance is a key parameter influencing
SSSI, and the analysis may be not comprehensive with a or a few fixed
separation distance if we want to analyze the influence law of the SSSI
effects. Moreover, the adjacent building still influences the structural
response obviously when the separation distance is up to 400 m in this
numerical case. Therefore, it’s necessary to study the SSSI effects with
large separation distance.
351
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
4. Numerical results and analysis
We define a dimensionless parameter to represent the separation dis-
tance between the two buildings, b/𝜆equ , and the wave length, 𝜆𝑒𝑞𝑢 =
𝛽𝑒𝑞𝑢 ∕𝑓1 , in which, 𝛽 equ is the equivalent shear wave velocity of the
principal soil layers and f1 is the fixed base frequency of Millikan Li-
brary Building respectively. In the following numerical cases, the sepa-
ration distances between buildings are from 0 to 3𝜆equ (3𝜆equ ≈ 500 m).
The maximal drift in the time history of the Millikan Library Building
with consideration of SSSI effects is dSSSI , and that for the stand-alone
Millikan Library Building which neglecting the cross interaction with
adjacent building is dSSI . To show the influence degree of the adja-
cent building on the maximal drift directly, we give the percentages
(𝑑𝑆 𝑆 𝑆 𝐼 − 𝑑𝑆 𝑆 𝐼 )∕𝑑𝑆 𝑆 𝐼 in the numerical cases.
The numerical results contain two parts, with Section 4.1 being
SSSI effects for vertical incidence of seismic waves and Section 4.2 for
oblique incidence of seismic waves (𝜃 = 45°). Each numerical case has
part (a) for excitation of Taft earthquake wave of peak 0.1 g and part
(b) for El Centro earthquake wave of peak 0.1 g. In each case, the
left graph is for anti-plane model, and the right one is for in-plane
model.
4.1. The SSSI effects for vertical incidence
If an adjacent building exists, does the variation of adjacent build-
ing’s parameters result in different influence degree on the structure of
interest? In the following, we discuss the influence law of the stiffness
and mass of the adjacent building for vertical incidence.
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358

Fig. 7. The influence degree of adjacent building with different building mass on Millikan Library Building for vertical incidence.

Table 2 It is shown that the influence degree of adjacent building on the shift
Structure parameters. is not monotonic with the separation distance range of 0~3𝜆equ , which
Equivalent shear wave Building Building Fixed-base System is related with the dynamic characteristics of the whole SSSI system.
velocity (m/s) height (m) mass frequency (Hz) frequency (Hz) This phenomenon agrees with the results in frequency domain [1,2].
The building drift is sensitive to the variation of adjacent building’s
245 44 Mb 1.39 1.24
328 44 Mb 1.86 1.53 equivalent shear wave velocity, and the influence degree is larger for
410 44 Mb 2.33 1.76 anti-plane model than that for in-plane model.
492 44 Mb 2.80 1.92 For anti-plane model, if the adjacent building’s equivalent shear
410 22 Mb 4.66 3.08
wave velocity is much smaller than that of the building of interest
410 66 Mb 1.17 1.01
410 44 0.5 Mb 2.33 1.98
(𝛽 b2 = 245 m/s, f1 ′ = 1.39 Hz), the influence degree is negligible. With
410 44 1.5 Mb 2.33 1.59 increasing adjacent building’s equivalent shear wave velocity, the in-
fluence degree increases, and the amplification and reduction reach
the maximum of 41% and 22% for Taft earthquake wave and 27%
and 15% for El Centro earthquake wave when the two buildings are
4.1.1. The influence of variation of adjacent building’s stiffness (related identical. In this situation, resonance may occur and it depends on the
with the superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity and height) on SSSI separation distance significantly. With the adjacent building’s equiva-
effects lent shear wave velocity continuing to increase, the influence degree
In the model, the superstructure, as a whole, is represented by a shear reduces.
wall that deforms in pure shear. Thus, the stiffness of the superstructure For in-plane model, the influence degrees of adjacent building in-
herein is related with the equivalent shear wave velocity [19] and height crease with increasing of its equivalent shear wave velocity, which is
of the shear wall. different from that of anti-plane model. When 𝛽 b2 = 492 m/s and for
The influence of variation of adjacent building’s equivalent shear wave Taft earthquake wave incidence, the reduction of building drift is up to
velocity on SSSI effects: In Fig. 5, it shows the influence degrees 10% for close separation distance, and the amplification is up to 18%.
of different adjacent buildings with superstructure 𝛽 b2 = 245 m/s SSI studies showed that the larger the stiffness ratio between the super-
(f1 ’ = 1.39 Hz, 40% smaller than that of Millikan Library Building), structure and the soil is, the more obvious the SSI effects is [21]; ac-
328 m/s (f1 ’ = 1.86 Hz, 20% smaller than that of Millikan Library Build- cording to results of in-plane model in Fig. 5, it’s similar that the larger
ing), 410 m/s (f1 ’ = 2.33 Hz, same as that of Millikan Library Building) the ratio between the adjacent building’s equivalent shear wave veloc-
and 492 m/s (f1 ’ = 2.80 Hz, 20% larger than that of Millikan Library ity and that of the building of interest is, the more evident the influence
Building). Other parameters such as building height, building mass are degree by the adjacent building may be; of course the SSSI effects also
the same with Millikan Library Building and are listed in Table 2. depend on the separation distance evidently.

352
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
Fig. 8. The shielding effect of adjacent building with different building stiffness on Millikan Library Building (Millikan Library Building is behind) for oblique
incidence (𝜃 = 45°).
The influence of variation of adjacent building’s height on SSSI effects: To
analyze the influence laws of adjacent buildings with different height,
Fig. 6 shows the results of adjacent buildings with height H2 = 22 m,
44 m (the same as Millikan Library Building) and 66 m. Other param-
eters, such as superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity, building
mass are the same with Millikan Library Building and are listed in
Table 2.
It’s shown that the building drift is sensitive to the variation of ad-
jacent building’s height. For anti-plane model, the identical adjacent
building has the most significant influence. For in-plane model, when
the separation distance is small (b/𝜆equ <0.4, b<60 m), the structural
response is more affected by taller building; while with increasing sepa-
ration distance, it’s more affected by identical adjacent building in most
cases. Thus, if structures will be built near a very similar building, maybe
it’s not enough to consider the dynamic soil-new structure interaction
only.
4.1.2. The influence of variation of adjacent building’s mass on SSSI effects
To analyze the influence laws of adjacent buildings with different
mass, Fig. 7 gives the results of adjacent buildings with building mass
0.5Mb , Mb (the same as Millikan Library Building), and 1.5Mb . Other pa-
rameters such as superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity, build-
ing height are the same as Millikan Library Building and are listed in
Table 2.
It’s shown that the building drift is sensitive to the variation of adja-
cent building’s mass. With increasing building mass, the influence by the
adjacent building increases. In addition, the influence degree is larger
for anti-plane model than that for in-plane model.
It is shown in an SSSI study that heavier building influences its ad-
jacent lighter building while it is less affected by its lighter building
353
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
when the separation distance is fixed [10], which is consistent with our
conclusion herein. However, it should be noted that the influence de-
gree depends on the separation distance significantly as shown in Fig. 7.
Moreover, being less affected doesn’t mean the influence can be ignored,
and in our numerical case for anti-plane model and for Taft earthquake
wave incidence, even if the mass of the adjacent building is much lighter
(Mb2 = 0.5Mb ), the influence may be still evident and the maximal am-
plification is up to 26% when b/𝜆equ ≈0.9. Thus, the structural response
may be influenced evidently by the cross interaction no matter the
adjacent building is heavier or lighter.
Of course, the reduction of structural response also occurs owing to
the presence of adjacent building for vertical incidence and may be up
to 20% at some separation distance. The amplification and reduction
appear alternately with variation of separation distance.
It’s worth noting that, for the special case of twin buildings
H1 =H2 = 44 m, the influence by SSSI effects is evident in most cases.
Moreover, the amplification may be up to 28% for anti-plane model and
10% for in-plane model when separation distance is large (b/𝜆equ ≈ 2.5,
b ≈ 410 m), while the influence degree is small when the adjacent
building is different in height from the building of interest in Fig. 6.
In Figs. 5 and 7, the cross interaction may persist for large separation
distance if the adjacent building is not much more flexible or much
lighter (e.g., for Mb2 = 1.5Mb the amplification is up to 36% for anti-
plane model and 16% for in-plane model when separation distance is
b/𝜆equ ≈ 2.5). It means that if two buildings are identical or very similar
in size (the system frequencies may be quite different) and the adjacent
building is not much more flexible and not much lighter, the SSSI ef-
fects may be significant and persist for large separation distance, which
should be paid attention to. In the analysis of [14], it computed the
wave field radiated into the soil from buildings to explore the maximum
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
Fig. 9. The shielding effect of adjacent building with different building height on Millikan Library Building (Millikan Library Building is behind) for oblique incidence
(𝜃 = 45°).
distance up to which the building contamination is still important. In
their model, the buildings are with the ratio of the system frequency
(for stand-alone structure considering SSI effect) to the site fundamen-
tal frequency between 0.9 and 1.1. It suggests that it doesn’t exist a
critical distance up to which the buildings have to be considered, and
thus in a real case all the existing buildings should be considered in
the analysis. Our conclusion herein is consistent with [14]. However, in
most of realistic cases, the system frequency and the site fundamental
frequency are not always close to each other. Thus, a more comprehen-
sive analysis is conducted in this study and a supplement is provided
that even if the system frequencies of the buildings (listed in Table 2)
and the site fundamental frequency are not very similar but buildings
are similar in size and the adjacent building is not much more flexible
and not much lighter, the SSSI effects may be also significant and persist
for large separation distance.
4.2. The SSSI effects for oblique incidence
As shown in Fig. 1, for oblique incidence, the seismic wave encoun-
ters one building first, which we call the building in front in the fol-
lowing, and then encounters the other one, which we call the building
behind.
Previous study in frequency domain showed that the building in front
acts as a shield for the building behind, and the latter may amplify the
excitation for the former when the incident wave travels with a shallow
angle [3]. Whether the response of the building behind in time domain
is reduced certainly, and that of the building in front is amplified for
oblique incidence? Do the structural parameters have evident influence
on this effect? We hope we can answer these questions in this Section.
354
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
4.2.1. The building of interest is behind
Based on previous studies in frequency domain, for oblique incidence
obvious reduction of structural response may occur according to the
shielding effects if the building of interest is behind. In this section,
we analyze the shielding effects by the adjacent building for oblique
incidence of 𝜃 = 45°.
The influence of variation of adjacent building’s equivalent shear wave
velocity on SSSI effects: To analyze the shielding effects of the adjacent
building with different superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity,
Fig. 8 gives the corresponding results in which the parameters are the
same with Fig. 5 but for oblique incidence (𝜃 = 45°).
The building drift is more sensitive to adjacent building’s equiva-
lent shear wave velocity for anti-plane model than that for in-plane
model.
For anti-plane model, the variation of adjacent building’s equiva-
lent shear wave velocity has significant influence on structural response.
Similar with vertical incidence, the most evident shielding effects occurs
when the two buildings are the same, in which the reduction is up to
28% for Taft earthquake wave and 17% for El Centro earthquake wave.
In addition, in some separation distances, amplification also occurs, in
which the maximal amplification is up to 34% for Taft earthquake wave
and 26% for El Centro earthquake wave when the two buildings are
identical.
For in-plane model, when the separation distance is not large
(b/𝜆equ <0.75), reduction occurs due to the shielding effects of the
adjacent building, which may be up to 20% for Taft earthquake wave
incidence and 11% for El Centro earthquake wave incidence, respec-
tively. Moreover, the reduction degree is more obvious for the adjacent
building with larger superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity.
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358

Fig. 10. The shielding effect of adjacent building with different building mass on Millikan Library Building (Millikan Library Building is behind) for oblique incidence
(𝜃 = 45°).

Fig. 11. The influence of adjacent building with different building superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity on Millikan Library Building (Millikan Library
Building is in front) for oblique incidence (𝜃 = 45°).

355
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
Fig. 12. The influence of adjacent building with different building height on Millikan Library Building (Millikan Library Building is in front) for oblique incidence
(𝜃 = 45°).
Certainly, with increasing of separation distance, amplification also
occurs, which may be up to 15%.
The influence of variation of adjacent building’s height on SSSI effects:
For anti-plane model, the shielding effect is sensitive to the variation of
adjacent building’s height. When the two buildings are similar and close
to each other, the reduction of the shielding effect is obvious, and may
be up to 28%. With increasing of separation distance, amplification also
occurs and may be up to 34%.
For in-plane model, as shown in Fig. 9, the reduction of the shielding
effect is more obvious and can persist up to larger separation distance for
taller building, e.g. for H2 = 66 m and for El Centro earthquake wave
incidence the reduction is up to 30% and persists up to b/𝜆equ = 1.1
(b ≈ 180 m). For the numerical case of H2 = 22 m that is half of the
height of the behind building, the shielding effect is less than 10%. Thus,
for in-plane model the shielding effect of a tall building may be very
significant, while that of a very low building is negligible, which agrees
with the conclusion in [3].
Thus, it means that for oblique incidence, there is obvious shielding
effect provided by the front building for the behind building at certain
separation distance scope especially when the buildings are similar or
the front building is with larger superstructure equivalent shear wave
velocity or the front building is taller. In addition, the reduction in struc-
tural response of behind building is not certain, amplification also occurs
at some distance.
The influence of variation of adjacent building’s mass on SSSI effects:
As shown in Fig. 10, the building drift is more sensitive to the variation
of adjacent building’s mass for anti-plane model than that for in-plane
model, and the reduction of the shielding effect is more obvious
for heavier building. Of course, amplification also occurs in some
356
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
separation distance, and it may be up to 38% for anti-plane model
when the adjacent building is much heavier (Mb2 = 1.5Mb ).
4.2.2. The building of interest is in front
If the building of interest is in front, whether the adjacent building
behind has evident influence on its response for oblique incidence? In
this section, we analyze the influence laws of the building behind with
different structural parameters.
As shown in Figs. 11–13, for anti-plane model, the building drift is
sensitive to the variation of adjacent (behind) building’s stiffness (su-
perstructure equivalent shear wave velocity and height) and mass, and
the maximal amplification and reduction, which are up to 29%~36%
and 22%~25% respectively, appear when the buildings are identical or
the building behind is much heavier.
For in-plane model, the building drift is not very sensitive to the
variation of superstructure equivalent shear wave velocity of the behind
building, while it’s sensitive to the variation of building height and mass.
As shown in Figs. 12 and 13, the taller or heavier the building behind
is, the more evident the amplification of the structural response of the
front building is; and when the height of building behind is 66 m or the
mass is Mb2 = 1.5Mb , the amplification of drift may be up to 41% and
27%, respectively.
Of course, amplification is not certain. The amplification and reduc-
tion appear alternately depending on the whole SSSI system and the
excitation.
It’s shown that for oblique incidence, the building drift may be am-
plified or reduced no matter the building of interest is in front or be-
hind. Moreover, for anti-plane model, the most influence occurs when
the buildings are very similar or the building behind is much heavier,
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
Fig. 13. The influence of adjacent building with different building mass on Millikan Library Building (Millikan Library Building is in front) for oblique incidence
(𝜃 = 45°).
and the amplification as well as the reduction is evident. For in-plane
model, if the adjacent building is with much larger superstructure equiv-
alent shear wave velocity or much taller or much heavier, the reduction
is more obvious when the building of interest is behind; and if the adja-
cent building is much taller or much heavier the amplification is more
obvious when it is in front.
The SSSI effects have similar influence laws on base shear force as
that for building drift for vertical or oblique incidence. Thus, the results
of base shear force are not shown here.
5. Conclusion
A case study of Millikan Library Building to investigate the SSSI ef-
fects with large separation distance 0~3𝜆equ (≈ 0~500 m) for vertical or
oblique incidence (𝜃 = 45°) by linear 2D anti-plane model and in-plane
model using IBEM are presented. The principal findings are as follows.
The presence of adjacent building may amplify or reduce structural
response obviously, which may be up to 40% and 30%, respectively
in the case of Millikan Library Building. Thus, the cross interaction
between buildings may be detrimental or beneficial for any incident
directions of seismic waves. Furthermore, depending on the whole
SSSI system and the excitation, the detrimental or beneficial effects is
not constant but appears alternately with the variation of separation
distance between buildings.
The structural response is sensitive to the variation of adjacent build-
ing’s parameters. Both for anti-plane model and in-plane model, more
similar or heavier adjacent building influences the structural response
more significantly. Furthermore, beyond what was previously known,
the SSSI effects may persist up to large separation distance, e.g., the
amplification may still be up to 36% for anti-plane model and 16% for
357
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
in-plane model when separation distance is b/𝜆equ ≈ 2.5 (b ≈ 410 m)
in the case of Millikan Library Building. Thus, if the structure of inter-
est will be built or has been built near a heavy building or a similar
building, it’s not advisable to ignore the SSSI effects.
Of course, our linear models do have some limitations. Nonlinear soil
deformation may consume a significant part of the input wave energy,
and thus influence the dynamic response of the building [28]. Moreover,
the interaction between closely spaced buildings may increase when the
nonlinear behavior in the soil is considered [27]. Thus, the scope and the
level of detrimental or beneficial effects of SSSI may be influenced by
the nonlinearity of the soil, which is the objective in our future work. In
addition, the analysis herein is conducted based on a 2D model, which
results in larger damping coefficient for the translational and rocking
motions than 3D model. Furthermore, the wave amplitudes diminish less
with distance in 2D model [26]. In our numerical cases, the phenomena
that SSSI effects persists up to very large separation distance may be
partly associated with 2D model. In 3D analysis, energy dissipation is
larger, and the SSSI effect with large separation distance is expected to
be less, which will also be investigated in our future work.
Acknowledgments
This study is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grant 51578372, which is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Liang J, Han B, Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD. 2D dynamic structure-soil-structure
interaction for twin buildings in layered half-space I: incident SH-waves. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2017;102:172–94.
B. Han, S. Chen and J. Liang
[2] Liang J, Han B, Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD. 2D dynamic structure-soil-structure
interaction for twin buildings in layered half-space II: incident SV-waves. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2018;113:356–90.
[3] Wong HL, Trifunac MD. Two-dimensional, antiplane, building-soil-building interac-
tion for two or more buildings and for incident planet SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 1975;65(6):1863–85.
[4] Luco JE, Contesse L. Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction. Bull Seismol Soc
Am 1973;63(4):1289–303.
[5] Murakami H, Luco JE. Seismic response of a periodic array of structures. J Eng Mech
Div ASCE 1977;103(5):965–77.
[6] Wang S, Schmid G. Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction by FEM and BEM.
Comput Mech 1992;9(5):347–57.
[7] Padrón LA, Aznárez JJ, Maeso O. Dynamic structure-soil-structure interaction be-
tween nearby piled buildings under seismic excitation by BEM-FEM model. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2009;29(6):1084–96.
[8] Mahmoud Y, Masoud M, Mehrab M, Amir SD, Mohammad AA. Soil structure inter-
action between two adjacent buildings under earthquake load. Am J Eng Appl Sci
2008;1(2):121–5.
[9] Mulliken JS, Karabalis DL. Discrete model for dynamic through-the-soil coupling of
3-D foundations and structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;27(7):687–710.
[10] Sadegh N, Hassan P. SSI and SSSI effects in seismic analysis of twin buildings: dis-
crete model concept. J. Civ Eng Manag 2012;18(6):890–8.
[11] Guéguen P, Colombi A. Experimental and numerical evidence of the clustering effect
of structures on their response during an earthquake: a case study of three identical
towers in the city of grenoble, france. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2016;106:2855–64.
[12] Bybordiani M, Arici Y. Structure-soil-structure interaction of adjacent buildings sub-
jected to seismic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2019;48(7):731–48.
[13] Kham M, Semblat JF, Bard PY, Dangla P. Seismic site-city interaction: main gov-
erning phenomena through simplified numerical models. Bull Seismol Soc Am
2006;96(5):1934–51.
[14] Gueguen P, Bard PY, Chávez FJ. Site-city seismic interaction in Mexico city-like
environments: an analytical study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2002;92(2):794–811.
[15] Kumar N, Narayan JP. Effects of site-city interaction and polarization of the inci-
dent S-wave on the transfer function and fundamental frequency of structures. Nat
Hazards 2019;27(2):747–74.
[16] Tsogka C, Wirgin A. Simulation of seismic response in an idealized city. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2003;23(5):391–402.
[17] Fariborz NE, Ali RT. Nonlinear dynamic response of tall buildings considering struc-
ture-soil-structure effects. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2013;22(14):1075–82.
358
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 113 (2020) 346–358
[18] Luco JE, Wong HL, Trifunac MD. Soil-structure interaction effects on forced vibra-
tion tests. Report 86-05, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
[19] Todorovska MI, Rahmani MT. System identification of buildings by wave travel time
analysis and layered shear beam models-Spatial resolution and accuracy. Struct Con-
trol Health Monit 2013;20(5):686–702.
[20] Ohsaki Y. An introduction to spectral analysis of seismic oscillation. Beijing: Seis-
mological Press; 1980.
[21] Shang S, He Z, Wang H, Liu F, Xiong W. Experimental investigation on the effect of
the relative stiffness ratio between superstructure and ground soil on the fundamen-
tal frequency of soil-structure system. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2008;28(5):94–101 (in
Chinese).
[22] Celebi M. Seismic responses of two adjacent buildings. I. Data and analyses. J Struct
Eng ASCE 1993;119(8):2461–76.
[23] Celebi M. Seismic responses of two adjacent buildings. II. Interaction. J Struct Eng
ASCE 1993;119(8):2477–92.
[24] Mason HB, Trombetta NW, Chen Z, Bray JD, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL. Seismic soil–
foundation-structure interaction observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2013;48:162–74.
[25] Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, Zhai Y. Structure-soil-structure interaction: literature re-
view. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31(12):1724–31.
[26] Wolf JP, Meek JW. Insights on 2D-vs. 3D-modelling of surface foundations
via strength-of-materials solutions for soil dynamics. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2010;23(1):91–112.
[27] Vicencio F, Alexander N. Dynamic interaction between adjacent buildings through
nonlinear soil during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;108(130):141.
[28] Gičev V, Trifunac MD. Energy dissipation by nonlinear soil strains during soil-struc-
ture interaction excited by SH pulse. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012;43(4):261–70.
[29] Luco JE, Trifunac MD, Wong HL. On the apparent change in dynamic behavior of a
9-story reinforced-concrete building. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1987;77(6):1961–83.
[30] Estorff OV, Firuziaan M. Coupled BEM/FEM approach for nonlinear soil/structure
interaction. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2000;24(10):715–25.
[31] Padrón LA, Aznárez JJ, Maeso O. 3-D boundary element-finite element method for
the dynamic analysis of piled buildings. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2011;35(3):465–77.
[32] Zhang X, Lu JF. A wavenumber domain boundary element method model for
the simulation of vibration isolation by periodic pile rows. Eng Anal Bound Elem
2013;37(7–8):1059–73.