This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**25 (2001) , 617 – 626.
**

c T

¨

UB

˙

ITAK

Non-Linear Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Based on

the Substructure Method in the Time Domain

Mustafa KUTAN

˙

IS, Muzaﬀer ELMAS

SA

¨

U M¨ uhendislik Fak¨ ultesi,

˙

In¸saat M¨ uh. B¨ ol¨ um¨ u, Yapı ABD

Esentepe Kamp¨ us¨ u, Adapazarı-TURKEY

Received 02.08.2000

Abstract

This paper presents an idealized 2-dimensional plain strain ﬁnite element seismic soil-structure interaction

(SSI) analysis based on a substructure method by using original software developed by the authors. To

investigate the eﬀects of SSI the following types of analysis were performed: linear SSI analysis and non-linear

SSI analysis. For the same structure, analysis was carried out by the procedure without the consideration of

soil-structure interaction. These computations were achieved for diﬀerent peak accelerations: 0.15g, 0.30g

and 0.45g. In another case for a diﬀerent site soil with a shear wave velocity of 200, 300 and 500 m/s,

a linear SSI analysis was performed. In the analysis, the radiation condition was fully accounted for, the

soil plasticity was modeled with the Von Mises failure criterion, basemat uplift was not considered, and the

action of gravity was not taken into consideration.

Key Words: Seismic soil-structure interaction, substructure formulation, ﬁnite element method

Sismik Y¨ ukler Altında Yapı-Zemin Etkile¸siminin Zaman Tanım Alanında

Altsistem Yakla¸sımı C¸ er¸cevesinde Analizi

¨

Ozet

Bu ¸ calı¸smada 2-boyutlu d¨ uzlem ¸sekil de˘gi¸stirme elemanı olarak sonlu elemanlarla modellenen bir sistemin

altsistem yakla¸sımı ¸cer¸ cevesinde, sismik y¨ ukler altında yapı-zemin dinamik etkile¸simi incelenmi¸stir. Yapılan

hesaplamalarda yazarlar tarafından geli¸stirilen program kullanılmı¸stır. Etkile¸simi izlemek amacıyla sonsuz

rijit zemin, lineer yapı-zemin etkile¸simi ve lineer olmayan yapı-zemin etkile¸simi ile ilgili durumlar, farklı

d¨ uzeydeki ivme de˘gerleri ve farklı zemin rijitlikleri i¸cin (Vs=200, 300 ve 500 m/s) hesaplamalar yapılmı¸stır.

Burada radyasyon ko¸sulunun tam olarak sa˘glandı˘gı, zemin plastik davranı¸sının Von Mises akma kriteri ile

belirlendi˘gi, zemin ayrılma etkisinin ve yapının kendi a˘gırlı˘gının ihmal edildi˘gi bir ¸c¨oz¨ umleme yapılmı¸stır.

Anahtar S¨ozc¨ ukler: Dinamik yapı-zemin etkile¸simi, altsistem form¨ ulasyonu, sonlu elemanlar y¨ontemi

Introduction

During the last quarter of the 20th century, the

importance of dynamic soil-structure interaction for

several structures founded on soft soils was well rec-

ognized. If not accounted for in analysis, the accu-

racy in assessing structural safety in the face of earth-

quakes cannot be accounted for adequately. For this

reason, seismic soil-structure interaction analysis has

become a major topic in earthquake engineering.

In dealing with the analysis of dynamic soil-

structure interaction, one of the most diﬃcult tasks

617

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

is the modeling of unbounded media. Many numer-

ical methods or techniques have been developed to

solve this problem, such as transmitting boundaries

of diﬀerent kinds, boundary elements, and inﬁnite

elements and their coupling procedures.

There are two main approaches for analyzing soil-

structure interaction, namely the direct method and

the substructure method. These methods are well

documented in two textbooks by Wolf (1985, 1988).

Both methods are still being developed to achieve the

desired results in recent years. Among them, a com-

mon formulation equally applicable to both methods

is presented by Aydıno˘ glu (1993a, 1993b). This is

achieved by changing the size of an irregular soil zone

and the deﬁnition of dynamic boundary conditions

along the interaction horizon. To determine the in-

teraction force-displacement relationships of the de-

grees of freedom in the nodes along the soil-structure

interface for use in the consistent formulation of di-

rect and substructure methods, rigorous formulation

is applied. It is based on the similarity and ﬁnite ele-

ment method, and was originally developed by (Wolf

and Song, 1996). Recent studies have proven that it

is very eﬀective and accurate.

Recent research results in the ﬁeld of soil-

structure interaction indicate that SSI has an impor-

tant eﬀect on the dynamic response of the structures

when the soil is soft. In general, there are three

major inﬂuences: (1) It will change the dynamic

characteristics of the soil-structure system, such as

modal frequencies and vibrating shapes. In particu-

lar, the fundamental frequency will have signiﬁcant

drops and the rigid body motion of the structure

will be produced or enhanced. (2) It will increase

the modal damping as some vibrating energy in the

structure will be transferred to the soil. This type of

damping is called radiation damping. (3) It will in-

ﬂuence free-ﬁeld ground motion (Menglin and Jingn-

ing, 1998).

In a seismic soil-structure interaction analysis, it

is necessary to consider the inﬁnite and layer charac-

teristics of soil strata, and the nonlinear behaviors of

soft soil. The objective of this study is to perform a

rigorous seismic non-linear soil-structure interaction

analysis in the time domain to satisfy the above re-

quirements while the results are compared with those

of ﬁxed based structural analysis.

Equations of Motion

Basic Equations of Motion for Fixed Base

Structures

If the soil-structure interaction is not considered, the

equation of the motion for the structure under the

seismic excitation in the time domain can be written

in the well-known form as follows:

[M]{¨ r (t)} + [C]{ ˙ r (t)} + [K]{r (t)} = −[M]{¨ u

g

(t)}

(1)

in which [M], [C] and [K] are nxn mass, damping

and stiﬀness matrices, respectively, n is the number

of degrees of freedom of the structure, {r} is the total

displacement vector of the system, and {¨ u

g

} is the

acceleration vector of the free-ﬁeld ground motion.

Seismic input

Structure

Near-field/Far-field

(Interaction Horizon)

Bounded-irregular

soil zone (near-field)

Unbounded-regular

soil zone (far-field)

motion

base

Hypothetical distant boundary

Figure 1. Common model for direct and generalized substructure methods (Aydıno˘ glu, 1993a)

618

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

Governing Equations of the Substructure For-

mulation

A systematic formulation and discussion of nonlinear

soil structure interaction is presented by Aydıno˘ glu

(1993a). Referring to the soil structure model given

in Figure 1 together with corresponding indices

shown in Figure 2, the basic equations of the soil-

structure system can be expressed in the time do-

main as:

s

b

n

h

r

(i)

c

d

b

n

h

r

(i)

f

e

d

s

b

e

n

h

r

d

(i)

c

(i)

f

: structure

: base

: soil portion to be excavated

: near field

: interaction horizon

: far field

: hypothetical distant boundary

: complete system including structure

: complete system of virgin soil

Figure 2. Identiﬁcation of (a) soil structure system, (b) unexcavated free ﬁeld (Aydıno˘glu, 1993a)

_

M

(c)

ii

M

ih

M

hi

M

i

hh

__

¨ r

t

i

(t)

¨ r

t

h

(t)

_

+

_

Q

i

(t)

Q

i

h

(t)

_

+

_

0

R

r

h

(t)

_

=

_

0

P

i

h

(t)

_

(2)

where [M], {Q}, {R} and {P} are mass matrix, non-

linear internal forces, interaction forces and eﬀective

force vector, respectively. The response vector, {r}

of Eq. (2) is represented by total displacement in-

dicated by superscript t. The ﬁrst term on the left-

hand side represents the inertial forces in respective

parts of the system with the last component, Q

i

h

(t),

being the nonlinear internal forces acting on the in-

ner face of the interaction horizon.

For the generalized substructure method, the

interaction force-displacement relationships in the

time domain can be expressed in terms of the relative

interaction displacements calculated along the inter-

action horizon, namely, the diﬀerence between total

and free-ﬁeld displacements, which is formulated as:

R

r

h

(t) =

t

_

0

S

r

hh

(t − τ)r

t

h

(τ)dτ−P

r

h

(t) (3)

with S

r

hh

(t) representing the far-ﬁeld dynamic stiﬀ-

ness matrix in the time domain. The second term on

the right-hand side is time eﬀective forces, and can

be expressed as:

P

r

h

(t) =

t

_

0

S

r

hh

(t − τ)v

f

h

(τ)dτ (4)

where v

f

h

(τ) is obtained from nonlinear analysis of

the unexcavated free-ﬁeld. The relative interaction

displacements are deﬁned as:

r

∆

h

(t) = r

t

h

(t) − v

f

h

(t) (5)

Thus from Eqs. (3)-(5):

R

r

h

(t) =

t

_

0

S

r

hh

(t −τ)r

∆

h

(τ)dτ (6)

Finally, the non-zero eﬀective force vector com-

ponent of Eq. (3) can be expressed as:

P

i

h

(t) =

_

M

hi

M

hi

¸

_

¨ v

f

i

¨ v

f

h

_

+

¯

P

i

h

(t) (7)

619

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

where the second term represents the internal forces

acting on the inner face of the interaction horizon

as obtained from one- or two-dimensional nonlinear

analysis of unexcavated free-ﬁeld system (Figure 2)

incident seismic waves.

To overcome the numerical diﬃculties and sim-

plify the formulation and derivation, the interaction

forces are expressed as a convolution integral of the

accelerations (Wolf and Song, 1996), as follows:

R

r

h

(t) =

t

_

0

M

∞

(t −τ) ¨ r

∆

h

(τ)dτ (8)

where M

∞

(t) is the acceleration unit impulse re-

sponse matrix in the time domain. It can be deter-

mined directly with the consistent inﬁnitesimal ﬁnite

element cell method which is addressed in (Wolf and

Song 1995). Therefore, it will not be repeated in this

paper.

The interaction forces of the soil medium at the

soil-structure interface given by Eq. (8) are dis-

cretized at time station n for a piecewise constant

acceleration unit impulse response matrix (Wolf and

Song 1995) as:

{R

r

h

}

n

= γ∆t[M

∞

]

1

{¨ r

t

h

}

n

− γ∆t[M

∞

]

1

_

¨ v

f

h

_

n

+(1 −γ) ∆t[M

∞

]

1

_

¨ r

∆

h

_

n−1

+

n−1

j=1

[M

∞

]

n−j+1

_

_

˙ r

∆

h

_

j

−

_

˙ r

∆

h

_

j−1

_

(9)

rewriting the Eq. (9) as:

{R

r

h

}

n

= γ∆t[M

∞

]

1

_

¨ r

t

h

_

n

+

_

˜

R

r

h

_

n

(10)

Substituting Eq. (9) in Eq. (2) leads to the non-

linear seismic soil-structure interaction formulation

in the time domain which is expressed as:

_

M

(c)

ii

M

ih

M

hi

M

i

hh

+γ∆t[M

∞

]

1

_

n

_

¨ r

t

i

(t)

¨ r

t

h

(t)

_

n

+

_

Q

i

(t)

Q

i

h

(t)

_

n

+

_

0

R

r

h

(t)

_

n

=

_

0

P

i

h

(t) −

˜

R

r

h

_

n

(11)

With this formulation, true nonlinearity of soil

can be consistently taken into account within the

near ﬁeld by properly deﬁned constitutive models

(Aydıno˘ glu, 1993a). To solve Eq. (11), Wilson-θ

method is applied to treat the time variable, and

the initial stiﬀness method is used to treat material

plasticity.

Material Nonlinearity

With SSI analysis there are two kinds of nonlineari-

ties. The ﬁrst one which has received most attention

from researchers and practicing engineers, and is as-

sociated with the nonlinear behavior of the soil. The

second is associated with the partial separation (up-

lift) of the foundation from the soil mass, resulting

from the inability of the soil to resist tension (Jian-

guo et al., 1998). Soil is the most complicated en-

gineering material, especially when considering the

eﬀects of seismic and dynamic loading.

In this study the authors will follow the mate-

rial nonlinearity of both soil and structure within

the framework of plasticity theory. For this purpose,

the well established Von Mises model is employed

to model the failure of the materials. For the plain

strain application the failure surface of the model is

expressed as:

F = ¯ σ −σ

Y

= 0 (12)

where σ

Y

is yield stress and ¯ σis deviator stress which

is obtained as:

¯ σ =

1

√

2

_

(σ

x

− σ

y

)

2

+ (σ

y

−σ

z

)

2

+(σ

z

−σ

x

)

2

+ 6τ

2

xy

_

1/2

(13)

in which {σ

x

σ

y

σ

z

τ

xy

} is the Cartesian stress tensor.

An outline of the elastic-plastic algorithm, which

comes after the stiﬀness matrix formation, is given

in the ﬂowchart represented in Figure 7.

Numerical Application and Discussions

The proposed analysis model is applied to study the

dynamic responses of structures to earthquake exci-

tation in the time domain. The computational model

employed in this section is shown in Figure 3. The

620

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

parameters of the model are given in Figure 3 and

Table 1. The accelerogram (E-W component) for the

Erzincan earthquake of 1992 (Figure 5) is employed

as the horizontal ground motion applied to the anal-

ysis model and scaled to have diﬀerent peak accel-

erations: 0.15g, 0.3g and 0.45g. To investigate the

eﬀects of soil-structure interaction with each input

motion level, the following cases are studied:

Far field, linear regular soil

unbounded medium

R

r

h

r

∆

irregular soil medium

B

H

b

z

h

z

interaction horizon

H=50 m

B=20 m

h

z

=20 m

b

z

=90 m

h

Figure 3. Geometry and discretization of the SSI system

1

2

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34 35 36 37

38

39

40

41

42 43 44 45

46

47 48 49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58

59 60

61 62

63 64

65 66

67 68

69 70

71 72

73 74

75 76

77 78

Figure 4. Element number of the SSI system

621

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

A

c

c

e

l

e

r

a

t

i

o

n

,

g

Time (s)

Erzincan 1992 E-W

Figure 5. Recorded acceleration time history at the ground surface (max. 0.44g)

Table 1. Material properties of the system considered

Young Modulus Shear Wave Mass Density Yield Stress Poisson’s

(kgf/m

2

) Velocity (m/s) (kg/m

3

) (kgf/m

2

) Ratio

Superstructure 2.75 E+09 - 2400 1.0E+08 0.25

Near Field - 150 1700 2.0E+05 0.35

Far Field - 200 1800 - 0.35

1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10

CYCLIC SHEAR STRAIN, PERCENT

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

D

A

M

P

I

N

G

R

A

T

I

O

P

E

R

C

E

N

T

G

/

G

m

a

x

Soil with

Soil with

OCR=1-15

Roc

Soil with

Soil with

OCR=1-15

Roc

Figure 6. Modulus reduction curves and damping ratio with cyclic shear strain (Vucetic & Dobry, 1991)

(a) Neglecting the eﬀect of soil-structure interac-

tion, i.e. assuming the structure being ﬁxed at

its base, the soil is assumed to be completely

rigid and only the superstructure is considered

for analysis.

(b) Linear soil-structure interaction analysis.

(c) Nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis.

For this purpose, at ﬁrst, seismic free-ﬁeld input

motion along the interaction horizon is determined.

This is achieved by the analysis of unexcavated vir-

gin soil in the absence of the structure. The free ﬁeld

motion is calculated by assuming an upwards prop-

agating shear wave. To carry out this step, using

the data given in Table 2 and Figure 6, a well-known

computer program, SHAKE, is employed. Then, as-

suming the far-ﬁeld to be linear, dynamic boundary

conditions along the interaction horizon are deﬁned

by calculating the unit-impulse response matrix of

the far-ﬁeld in the time domain. In the third step,

622

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

the analysis of the soil structure system under the

action of free-ﬁeld input motion determined in the

ﬁrst step, subject to the dynamic boundary condi-

tions determined in the second step, is carried out

by using the ﬁnite element software developed by the

authors. The ﬂowchart of the computational proce-

dure is given in Figure 7. In this analysis, basemat

uplift is not considered and the action of gravity is

neglected.

Calculate

strains/stress

Yield violated

Use Elastic

Stress-Strain

Matrices

Use Plastic

Stress-Strain

Matrices

Yes No

Update Global

Stiffnesses

Solve

Equations of

Motion

Calculate Displacements,

Velocities, Accelerations

Assemblage the Starting

Global Stiffness

Input and

Initialization

For all time steps

Figure 7. Flowchart for proposed procedure

Table 2. Soil proﬁle data for free ﬁeld response analysis

Layer No Soil Type Thickness Damping Unit Weight Shear Wave Velocity

(m) (%) (kgf/m

3

) (m/s)

1 PI=15 3 0.05 1600 150

2 PI=200 4 0.05 1700 180

3 PI=200 6 0.05 1700 180

4 PI=200 4 0.05 1700 180

5 PI=200 3 0.05 1800 200

6 PI=200 40 0.05 1900 300

7 Rock - 0.01 2400 1600

The calculated soil-structure interaction re-

sponses for diﬀerent cases are shown in Figures 8, 9,

10 and 11. As shown in Figure 8, at the 0.15g acceler-

ation, the level linear and nonlinear response are co-

incident, but, as the acceleration level increases non-

linear response becomes signiﬁcant (Figures 9 and

10). From these ﬁgures, it is seen that ﬁxed base

analysis gives somewhat greater displacements. As

623

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

some of the elements have exceeded the deﬁned yield

stress at the 0.45g acceleration level, the others re-

main within the elastic limit (Figure 12). In Figure

11, the linear response that is calculated for the dif-

ferent soil properties is shown. From the numerical

results, it is clear that as the shear wave velocity of

the soil increases the response decreases.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (sn)

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

T

o

p

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

)

8

6

4

2

Fixed base

Linear SSI

Nonlinear SSI

Fixed base

Linear SSI

Nonlinear SSI

Figure 8. At 0.15g acceleration level top displacement of the structure vs time

4

2

1

8

6

4

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (sn)

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

T

o

p

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

)

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1

-0.12

-0.14

Fixed base

Linear SSI

Nonlinear SSI

Figure 9. At 0.30g acceleration level top displacement of the structure vs time

2

8

6

4

2

1

8

6

4

2

Fixed base

Linear SSI

Nonlinear SSI

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (sn)

T

o

p

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

)

Fixed base

Linear SSI

Nonlinear SSI

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1

-0.12

-0.14

-0.16

-0.18

-0.2

Figure 10. At 0.45g acceleration level top displacement of the structure vs time

624

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

8

6

4

2

1

8

6

4

2

Vs=200 m/s

Vs=300 m/s

Vs=500 m/s

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time (sn)

T

o

p

d

i

s

p

l

a

c

e

m

e

n

t

(

m

)

Vs=200 m/s

Vs=300 m/s

Vs=500 m/s

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1

-0.12

-0.14

-0.16

-0.18

-0.2

Figure 11. At 0.45g acceleration level the investigation of the eﬀect of diﬀerent soil properties, Linear SSI analysis

-0.2 0 0.2

Shear Strain

-1.2E+5

-9E+4

-6E+4

-3E+4

0

3E+4

6E+4

9E+4

1.2E+5

Element No: 20

-0.2 0 0.2

Shear Strain

-1.2E+5

-9E+4

-6E+4

-3E+4

0

3E+4

6E+4

9E+4

1.2E+5

Element No: 10

-0.04 0 0.04

Shear Strain

-6E+4

-3E+4

0

3E+4

6E+4

Element No: 29

-4E-4 0 4E-4

Shear Strain

-1.5E+5

-1.2E+5

-9E+4

-6E+4

-3E+4

0

3E+4

6E+4

9E+4

1.2E+5

1.5E+5

Element No: 60

S

h

e

a

r

S

t

r

e

s

s

k

g

f

/

m

2

S

h

e

a

r

S

t

r

e

s

s

k

g

f

/

m

2

S

h

e

a

r

S

t

r

e

s

s

k

g

f

/

m

2

S

h

e

a

r

S

t

r

e

s

s

k

g

f

/

m

2

Figure 12. Calculated shear stress-strain response obtained by elastic-plastic procedure at diﬀerent elements

Conclusions

The authors performed a calculation for the lin-

ear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction analy-

sis based on the substructure method. It has been

shown that the procedure works well and it can be

employed for the analysis of important structures. It

is desirable to expand it to a three-dimensional case.

Research on this subject is continuing. Much has

to be done in investigating the performance of the

625

KUTAN

˙

IS, ELMAS

model, and the numerical procedures, as well as the

various inﬂuence factors on the response of a soil-

structure system. Moreover, the material damping

eﬀect of foundation media in the time domain needs

to be improved.

Notation

[C] damping matrix

G shear modulus

g gravitational acceleration

[K] stiﬀness matrix

[M] mass matrix

n time station

OCR over consolidation ratio

{P} eﬀective force vector

PI plasticity index

{Q} nonlinear internal forces

{R} interaction forces

{r} displacement vector

[S] far ﬁeld dynamic stiﬀness matrix

∆ t time step

{¨ u

g

} acceleration vector of free ﬁeld

Vs shear wave velocity

{v} free ﬁeld displacement vector

γ Newmark’s method constant

¯ σ deviator stress

σ

Y

yield stress

References

Aydıno˘glu, M.N., “Consistent Formulation of Di-

rect and Substructure Methods in Nonlinear Soil-

Structure Interaction”, Soil Dynamics and Earth-

quake Engineering, 12, 403-410, 1993a.

Aydıno˘glu, M.N., “Development of Analytical Tech-

niques in Soil-Structure Interaction”, in Develop-

ment in Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, ed.

P.G¨ ulkan & R.W.Clough, NATO Advanced Study

Institute, Kemer-Antalya, Turkey, 1992, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, 25-42, Dordrecht, 1993b.

Jianguo, X., Danming, W., Tieming, F., and Jun,

L., “Nonlinear SSI–Simpliﬁed Approach, Model

Test Veriﬁcation and Parameter Studies for Seis-

mic and Air-Blast Environment”, Dynamic Soil-

Structure Interaction: Current Research in China

and Switzerland, ed. Z. Chuhan & J.P. Wolf, Else-

vier Science, Amsterdam, 245-259, 1998.

Menglin, L., and Jingning, W., “Eﬀects of Soil-

Structure Interaction on Structural Vibration Con-

trol”, Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction: Current

Research in China and Switzerland, ed. Z. Chuhan

& J.P. Wolf, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 189-202,

1998.

Vucetic, M., and Dobry, R., “Eﬀect of Soil Plas-

ticity on Cyclic Response”, Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, 117(1), 89-107, 1991.

Wolf, J.P., “Dynamic Soil Structure Interaction”,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliﬀs,

1985.

Wolf, J.P., “Soil Structure Interaction Analysis in

Time Domain”, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., En-

glewood Cliﬀs, 1988.

Wolf, J.P., and C., Song, “Unit-Impulse Response

Matrix of Unbounded Medium by Inﬁnitesimal

Finite-Element Cell Method”, Computer Methods

in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 122, 251-

272, 1995.

Wolf, J.P., and C., Song, “Finite Element Modeling

of Unbounded Media”, West Sussex: John Wiley &

Sons, 1996.

626

- abst-7-1-p077-BD-9-Mirza.pdf
- h=8m
- file3
- Expert Services
- 20100810 RonanLeroy Opt
- WR_2008-33_web
- PETE321_CHAPTER2
- Loadcap En
- Downdrag Lecture
- Piled-raft Tc18 Report July 2001
- Some Applications to Mine Geotechnical Design Using Matlab
- Finite Element Analysis of Cone Penetration in Cohesionless Soil
- A Fast Algorithm for the Discrete Element Method
- ch9
- ch4
- ch1
- 16
- Seismic Structure-soil-structure Interaction in Nuclear Power Plant Structures
- IATG01.80-Formulae for Ammunition Management(v.1)
- Risk Analysis of Industrial Structures Under Extreme Transient Loads
- 5 - tabatabaie
- Validation
- Seismic Structure-soil-structure Interaction in Nuclear Power Plant Structures
- Non-Linear Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Based on The

- YaoDissertation
- Fema p440a
- muhunthan_vibrodensification
- Problems
- Dynamic Te4sting on Bridge Pier
- Section4_10
- Cpg Control of a Tensegrity Morphing Structure for Bio Mimetic Applications by Bliss, Smith, Iwasaki
- Mechanics Lab Manual
- 4_10_Work File
- Nonlinearfreevibrationofsingle-walledcarbonnanotubesusingnonlocal Timoshenkobeamtheory
- Amabili2002
- A Comparative Evaluation of Various Additives
- OM Soil Reinforcement
- Learning Bases Target Decomposition Using Kernel KSVD for Polarimetric SAR Image Classification
- VVAA. Cleaning conserving a Titanites ammonite (fósil). 2011
- Dissertation JC
- SSI-example.pdf
- Modelo de Reservas
- Yash
- Bioremediation in Petroleum Hidrocarbon
- HD 8 Prop Damped Modal Analysis
- Http Home.iitk.Ac.in ~Pkbd Lab-Compaction.html
- Matrices AZ
- Review
- Soil Improvement Using Vibro-Replacement
- 2C Soils pH Lab
- 461-sl21.pdf
- Behaviourial Study
- Site Characterization
- Cee 583 Physical Education Facilities and Sports Event Management

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd