Influence of Foundation Flexibility on R␮ and C␮ Factors

Javier Avilés1 and Luis Eduardo Pérez-Rocha2

Abstract: Strength-reduction 共R␮兲 and displacement-modification 共C␮兲 factors have been extensively studied in the past for firm ground,
and even for soft soils considering site effects, but always excluding soil–structure interaction. In this work, they are investigated for a
single elastoplastic structure with flexible foundation excited by vertically propagating shear waves. The concepts developed earlier for
fixed-base yielding systems are extended to account for soil–structure interaction. This is done by use of the simplified reference model
and a nonlinear replacement oscillator recently proposed by the writers. Numerical evaluations are conducted for typical system configu-
rations, using the great 1985 Michoacan earthquake recorded at one site representative of the lakebed zone in Mexico City. Results are
compared with those corresponding to the fixed-base case. It is found that the site effects observed by other writers for the rigid-base
condition are increased or decreased by soil–structure interaction, depending on the period ratio of the structure and site. Finally, it is
shown how a site-dependent reduction rule proposed elsewhere for fixed-base systems should be adjusted for interacting systems using the
information presented.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:2(221)
CE Database subject headings: Displacement; Stiffness; Ground motion; Soil–structure interaction; Soft soils.

Introduction maximum elastic and inelastic displacements are equal in the

Building structures will experience nonlinear response when sub-
jected to strong earthquake motions. To account for this, the cur-
rent practice of earthquake resistant design is based on the use of
strength reduction factors, R␮, which relate the structural resis-
tance for elastic behavior to that required for a given ductility.
Also, for a more rational seismic design aimed to control the level
of structural damage, the estimation of lateral displacement de-
mands is of primary importance. In this case, displacement-
modification factors, C␮, are applied. They are defined as the ratio
of the maximum deformation of the inelastic structure to that of
an elastic structure having the same initial natural period and
damping ratio. Following this well-established design approach,
the yield resistance and maximum deformation of nonlinear struc-
tures are estimated from the corresponding values of linear struc-
tures.
There is a direct relationship between the R␮ and C␮ factors,
so that the ratio of inelastic to elastic displacements may be ob-
tained from the ratio of corresponding strengths. Perhaps, the
most widely accepted reduction rule for design is the one origi-
nally proposed by Veletsos and Newmark (1960) and after im-
proved by Newmark and Hall (1973), based on the fact that the
1
Researcher, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua, Paseo
Cuauhnahuac 8532, Jiutepec 62550, Morelos, México. E-mail: javiles@
tlaloc.imta.mx
2
Researcher, Centro de Investigación Sísmica, Carretera al Ajusco
203, Tlalpan 1 4200, México, D.F., México. E-mail: perezrocha63@
hotmail.com
Note. Associate Editor: Sanj Malushte. Discussion open until July 1,
2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on June 6, 2003; approved on June
10, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 131, No. 2, February 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2005/2-
221–230/$25.00.
long-period region of the response spectrum. Since then, many
efforts have been made to develop simple approximate rules for
relating the yield resistance and maximum deformation of elasto-
plastic, bilinear, and stiffness-degrading structures to the corre-
sponding values of linear structures, by using both earthquake
motions and pulse-type excitations. A thorough review of these
efforts for rigidly supported structures can be found in the works
by Miranda and Bertero (1994) and Miranda and Ruiz-García
(2002).
As a consequence of site effects, the shape of R␮ for soft soil
can be very different from that applicable to firm ground, depend-
ing essentially on the ratio between the fundamental period of the
structure and the predominant period of the site (Miranda 1993).
It has also been observed that the inelastic displacement demands
for structures with natural period near the site period become
considerably lower than the elastic displacement demands, C␮
Ⰶ 1, but they are substantially higher for short natural periods,
C␮ Ⰷ 1. A recent work by Ordaz and Pérez-Rocha (1998) pre-
sented a site-dependent reduction rule that is more general than
others previously published. It can be applied to a wide variety of
soft sites but, as other similar rules, does not account for soil–
structure interaction. These writers have shown that, if the struc-
ture period is close to the site period, the value of R␮ may be
significantly higher than that would be predicted by the Veletsos-
Newmark design rule, equal to the structural ductility.
For soft soils, a design reduction rule should include the ef-
fects of interaction, in addition to those induced by site condi-
tions. Nevertheless, none of the R␮ factors developed so far ex-
plicitly account for such effects. For elastic systems, the first
studies of interaction using an analogy with a single oscillator
were made by Jennings and Bielak (1973) and Veletsos and Meek
(1974). They showed that the effects of inertial interaction could
be expressed by an increase in the fundamental natural period and
a change in the associated modal damping of the fixed-base struc-
ture. After these studies, the modification of the relevant dynamic
properties of structures interacting with the soil has been investi-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005 / 221

gated further by several writers, e.g., Veletsos and Nair (1975),
Bielak (1976), Luco (1980), Wolf (1985), and Avilés and Pérez-
Rocha (1996). Based on the same analogy, the effects of kine-
matic interaction have also been evaluated for different types of
traveling seismic waves (Todorovska and Trifunac 1992; Avilés et
al. 2002).
Investigations of the interaction effects on the nonlinear be-
havior of structures are scarce. It has been believed that yielding
is basically an energy dissipation process and therefore tends to
decrease the significance of interaction. The transient response of
an elastoplastic surface-supported structure on an elastic half-
space has been examined by Veletsos and Verbic (1974), who
suggested that yielding increases the relative flexibility between
the structure and soil and thus decreases the effects of interaction.
Based on the harmonic response of a bilinear hysteretic structure
supported on the surface of a viscoelastic half-space, Bielak
(1978) has shown that the resonant structural deformation may be
significantly larger than that for the rigid-base condition. A recent
study by Avilés and Pérez-Rocha (2003) revealed that the inter-
action effects for inelastic systems may be equally important as
those for elastic systems. They found that in both cases, such
effects increase with increasing the foundation width, and with
the foundation embedment decreasing and the structure height
increasing with respect to the foundation width. The required
strengths and expected displacements may undergo both large in- Fig. 1. Single nonlinear structure placed on a rigid foundation that
crements for natural periods shorter than the site period as well as is embedded in a stratum overlying a half-space, under vertically
large reductions around the site period, with respect to the rigid- propagating shear waves
base values.
The aim of this paper is to extend the well-known concepts of Description of Model and Basic Equations
strength-reduction and displacement-modification factors devel-
oped long ago for fixed-base systems in order to account for The effects of kinematic and inertial interaction in nonlinear sys-
soil–structure interaction. To this end, an interaction model tems are evaluated by use of the relatively simple axisymmetric
formed by a single yielding structure with embedded foundation model shown in Fig. 1. The former effects are produced by the
in a soil layer over elastic bedrock is investigated, using as con- scattering and diffraction of the incident waves from the founda-
trol motion the great 1985 Michoacan earthquake recorded at one tion, while the latter are caused by the inertial forces generated in
site representative of the soft zone in Mexico City. In addition to the structure and foundation. This model is similar to that formu-
the effects of inertial interaction resulting from the soil flexibility lated by Avilés and Pérez-Rocha (2003) to investigate the effects
and wave radiation, the effects of kinematic interaction due to the of interaction on the structural ductility. It consists of a single
difference between the foundation input motion and the free-field elastoplastic structure placed on a rigid foundation that is embed-
motion are considered, for the important special case of vertically ded in a homogeneous viscoelastic layer of constant thickness
overlying a uniform viscoelastic half-space. The axisymmetry al-
incident shear waves. In spite of its simplicity, this interaction
lows us to analyze the model in a planar section. The structure
model forms the basis of the current design practice, since it
represents either a one-story building or, more generally, the first-
satisfies various requirements stipulated by building codes. Thus, mode approximation of a multistory building. In the latter case,
the conclusions from this study are expected to be applicable to the parameters He and M e are the effective height and mass of the
more complex interacting systems. structure when vibrating in its rigid-base fundamental mode. The
To easily assess the R␮ and C␮ factors with interaction, the natural period and damping ratio of the structure for the elastic
solution for a nonlinear replacement oscillator recently proposed and rigid-base conditions are given by

冑
by Avilés and Pérez-Rocha (2003) is used. This equivalent oscil-
Me
lator is defined by an effective ductility together with the effective Te = 2␲ 共1兲
period and damping of the system for the elastic condition. These Ke
writers have demonstrated that modifying both the ductility factor
as well as the relevant natural period and damping ratio of the Ce
␨e = 共2兲
fixed-base structure is a reliable way of expressing the interaction 2冑KeM e
effects in nonlinear systems. By using this information, the site- where Ce and Ke = viscous damping and initial stiffness of the
dependent reduction rule developed by Ordaz and Pérez-Rocha structure when fixed at the base. The foundation is assumed per-
(1998) for fixed-base systems is suitably adjusted for interacting fectly bonded to the surrounding soil; it is defined by the radius r,
systems. This is a more rational way to assess in practice the yield depth of embedment D, mass M c, and mass moment of inertia Jc
resistance and maximum deformation of flexibly supported struc- about a horizontal centroidal axis at the base. The stratum of
tures. thickness Hs is characterized by the Poisson’s ratio ␯s, mass den-

222 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005

sity ␳s, shear wave velocity ␤s, and hysteretic damping ratio ␨s.
Similarly, the corresponding material properties of the underlying
half-space are defined by ␯o, ␳o, ␤o, and ␨o.
The interacting system is excited by vertically incident shear
waves with particle motion parallel to the x axis, as illustrated in
Fig. 1. The horizontal free-field displacement at the ground sur-
face is denoted by Ug. In view of the characteristics of this wave
excitation, the input motion for the foundation consists of the
horizontal component Uo at the center of the base and the rocking
component ⌽o about the y axis. The model studied is limited to
the consideration of buildings with at least one vertical plane of
symmetry, for which the resulting lateral and torsional responses
are uncoupled. The interacting system will respond in the plane of
symmetry as a three-degrees-of-freedom system. The response of
the building is described by the relative horizontal displacement
Ue at the center of the deck, whereas the response of the founda-
tion is described by the horizontal displacement Uc at the center
of the base and the rocking ⌽c about the y axis, both measured
with respect to the corresponding horizontal and rocking input
motions. Consequently, the lateral displacement of the structure
relative to the input motion of the foundation results from three
contributions: Uc + 共He + D兲⌽c + Ue.
In this study, the nonlinear behavior of the system is restricted
to the structure only, although the soil nonlinearity may account
for much of the increase in period (Trifunac et al. 2001a,b). Pro-
viding the foundation is rigid and the soil behaves linearly, the
simplified analysis of interaction can be performed in three steps
as follows: (1) Elastic determination of the motion of the massless
foundation when subjected to the seismic excitation, resulting in
the horizontal and rocking input motions at the base; (2) elastic
determination of the springs and dampers by which the supporting
soil is replaced for the horizontal and rocking modes of the mass-
less foundation; and (3) nonlinear analysis of the structure, in-
cluding the mass of the foundation, supported on the springs and
dampers of step 2 and excited by the input motions of step 1.
In accordance with this substructure technique, the governing
equations of motion in the time domain for the coupled soil–
structure system are given by
冥冦
冤
Me Me M e共He + D兲 Üe共t兲
Me Me + Mc M e共He + D兲 + M cE Üc共t兲
M e共He + D兲 M e共He + D兲 + M cE M e共He + D兲2 + Jc ⌽̈c共t兲
冦 冧
Pe共t兲
+ Ps共t兲
M s共t兲
冦 冧 冦 冧
Me M e共He + D兲
= − Üo共t兲 Me + Mc − ⌽̈o共t兲 M e共He + D兲 + M cE
M e共He + D兲 + M cE M e共He + D兲2 + Jc
共3兲
where an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to time t;
and E = D / 2 = depth to the center of gravity of the foundation
which, for the sake of simplicity, is taken as one-half the depth of
embedment; this assumption is irrelevant for practical purposes.
Also, Pe共t兲 = CeU̇e共t兲 + Ve共t兲 = internal force of the structure; and
Ve共t兲 = the restoring force. The interaction force Ps共t兲 and moment
M s共t兲 of the soil acting on the foundation are defined by the
convolution integral
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005 / 223
再 冎 冕冋
Ps共t兲
M s共t兲
=
t
0
K̃hh共t − ␶兲 K̃hr共t − ␶兲
K̃hr共t − ␶兲 K̃rr共t − ␶兲
册再 冎
Uc共␶兲
⌽c共␶兲
d␶ 共4兲
where K̃hh, K̃rr, and K̃hr are, respectively, the horizontal, rocking,
and coupling dynamic stiffnesses of the foundation in the time
domain. As the soil behaves linearly, these stiffnesses can be
evaluated in the frequency domain and then transformed into the
time domain by application of the inverse Fourier transform.
When the dynamic stiffness of the foundation is evaluated in
the frequency domain, the following complex-valued function ap-
plies:
K̃mn共␩兲 = Kmn共␩兲 + i␩Cmn共␩兲; m,n = h,r 共5兲
where ␩ = ␻r / ␤s = dimensionless frequency; ␻ = exciting circular
frequency; and i = 冑−1 = imaginary unity. The terms Kmn and Cmn
represent the frequency-dependent springs and dampers, respec-
tively, by which the supporting soil is replaced for each vibration
mode of the foundation. The linear springs account for the stiff-
ness and inertia of the soil, whereas the viscous dampers account
for the energy dissipation by hysteretic behavior and wave radia-
tion within the soil.
Method of Analysis
In actual nonlinear analyses, the dynamic stiffness of the founda-
tion is often approximated with springs and dampers whose val-
ues are frequency independent. With this simplification, the con-
volution integral describing the soil interaction forces is avoided,
and hence the integration procedure of the equilibrium equations
is carried out as for fixed-base yielding systems. Calculations are
usually accomplished with the values of stiffness for zero fre-
quency and the values of damping for infinite frequency. This is
known as the doubly asymptotic approximation (Wolf 1988),
since it is asymptotically exact at both low and high frequencies.
To improve the approximation, springs and dampers may be
evaluated at other specific frequencies, for example, at the effec-
冧
tive frequency of the system for the elastic condition, just as is
done in this investigation, or may be averaged over the frequency
range of interest.
The computation of dynamic stiffnesses was achieved by use
of an efficient numerical technique based on the thin layer ele-
ment method (Tassoulas and Kausel 1983). In this technique, the
base of the stratum is taken fixed. This is not, however, a serious
restriction because it is always possible to choose a depth that is
large enough to simulate the presence of an underlying half-space.
More specifically, the foundation was assumed to be embedded in
the actual layer of thickness Hs which, in turn, is underlain by a
fictitious layer with rigid base of thickness 2Hs, representing the
underlying half-space. Modeling the supporting soil in this way is
justified because the computation of dynamic stiffnesses belongs
to a radiation problem rather than to a scattering one. In fact, it is
generally considered that the soil region that is affected by the
force and moment acting on the foundation extends to about 4r
below the foundation base for horizontal motion and to about 1.5r
for rocking motion. Here, an embedment ratio of the foundation
D / r = 0.5 and a normalized depth of the stratum Hs / r = 3 were
used for illustration. Also, the values of ␳s / ␳o = 0.8, ␤s / ␤o = 0.2,
␨s = 0.05, ␨o = 0.03, ␯s = 0.45, and ␯o = 0.33 were assigned to char-
acterize the subsoil. The normalized springs and dampers so ob-
tained are displayed in Fig. 2. The shear modulus of the stratum,
Fig. 2. Normalized springs and dampers for the horizontal, rocking, and coupling modes of an embedded foundation 共D / r = 0.5兲 in a stratum
共Hs / r = 3兲 over elastic bedrock 共␤s / ␤o = 0.2兲
Gs, is used for normalization of these quantities. Given that the
springs reflect both the stiffness and inertia of the soil, notice that
they can take negative values.
Having determined the dynamic stiffnesses, the computation
of input motions was accomplished by application of the averag-
ing method of Iguchi (1984). With this simple but efficient tech-
nique, the harmonic response of the foundation to vertically
propagating shear waves is calculated by taking a weighted aver-
age of the free-field displacements along the soil–foundation in-
terface, and adding the displacement and rocking caused by the
resultant force and moment associated with the free-field tractions
along this surface. The normalized, horizontal and rocking input
motions so obtained are exhibited in Fig. 3. Incidentally, they
prove to be independent of the layer depth and the bedrock flex-
ibility. The effects of these parameters are implicit in the free-field
motion used for normalization.
If the transfer functions Qh共␻兲 = Uo共␻兲 / Ug共␻兲 and Qr共␻兲
= ⌽o共␻兲 / Ug共␻兲 are known, the time histories of the foundation
input motion for a particular earthquake are determined from a
Fourier analysis as follows: (1) To compute the direct Fourier
transform, Ü*g共␻兲, of the horizontal free-field acceleration, Üg共t兲;
(2) to calculate the Fourier transforms of the horizontal and rock-
ing input accelerations as Ü*o共␻兲 = Qh共␻兲Ü*g共␻兲 and ⌽̈*o共␻兲
= Qr共␻兲Ü*g共␻兲; and (3) to compute the time histories of the foun-
dation input motion, Üo共t兲 and ⌽̈o共t兲, by taking the inverse Fou-
rier transforms of Ü*o共␻兲 and ⌽̈*o共␻兲.
To compute the step-by-step nonlinear response of structures
interacting with the soil, a time-integration scheme based on the
Newmark method was implemented. We obtained from Eq. (3)
the structural strength that, for a particular earthquake, is required
to limit the maximum ductility demand to the ultimate ductility
capacity. This is done by iteration on the yield resistance Vy of the
224 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005
structure until the ratio Um / Uy of its maximum to yield deforma-
tions is the same as the specified admissible ductility ␮e. Evi-
dently, the yield deformation is determined as Uy = Vy / Ke with Vy
known. The iteration process is stopped when the difference be-
tween the computed and target ductilities is considered satisfac-
tory for engineering purposes. Due precautions are taken when
the ductility demand does not increase monotonically as the struc-
tural strength decreases. In this case, there is more than one yield
resistance that produces a ductility demand equal to the target
ductility, but only the largest one of them is of interest for earth-
quake resistant design.
Nonlinear Replacement Oscillator
Effective Period and Damping of System
The common approach used in practice to take the elastic inter-
action effects into account has not changed over the years: A
replacement oscillator represented by the effective period and
damping of the system. The most extensive efforts in this direc-
tion were made by Veletsos and his co-workers (see, for instance,
Veletsos and Meek 1974; Veletsos and Nair 1975; and Veletsos
1977). Indeed, their studies form the basis of the interaction pro-
visions currently in use in U.S. codes (ATC 1984; FEMA 1997).
We shall call T̃e and ˜␨e the effective period and damping of the
system, respectively. They can be determined using an analogy
between the interacting system excited by the foundation input
motion and a replacement oscillator excited by the free-field mo-
tion. The mass of this equivalent oscillator is taken to be equal to
that of the actual structure. Under harmonic base excitation, it is
imposed that the resonant period and peak response of the inter-

Fig. 3. Amplitudes of the normalized, horizontal and rocking input
motions for an embedded foundation 共D / r = 0.5兲 in a stratum 共Hs / r
= 3兲 over elastic bedrock 共␤s / ␤o = 0.2兲, subjected to vertically
incident shear waves
acting system be equal to those of the replacement oscillator.
Introducing some permissible simplifications, Avilés and Suárez
(2002) have deduced the following expressions:
T̃e = 共T2e + T2h + Tr2兲1/2
˜␨ =
e
1
兩Qh + 共He + D兲Qr兩 冉T3e
␨e +
␨h T2h
2 +
␨r Tr2
2
T̃3e 1 + 2␨h T̃2e 1 + 2␨r T̃2e
冊 共7兲
where Th = 2␲共M e / Khh兲1/2 and Tr = 2␲关M e共He + D兲2 / Krr兴1/2
= natural periods associated with rigid-body translation and
rocking of the structure; whereas ␨h = ␲Chh / T̃eKhh and ␨r
= ␲Crr / T̃eKrr = damping ratios of the soil for the horizontal and
rocking modes of the foundation. Because of the frequency de-
pendence of the periods Th and Tr, an iterative process is required
for calculating the system period from Eq. (6). Once this is done,
the system damping is directly calculated from Eq. (7). It should
be mentioned that the factor 兩Qh + 共He + D兲Qr兩 represents the con-
tribution of kinematic interaction to the energy dissipation in the
interacting system. This effect is taken into account by consider-
ing the base excitation to be unchanged, equal to the free-field
motion, while the system damping is increased. By this means,
the same overall result is achieved.
Effective Ductility of System
Unfortunately, the procedures developed to date for replacing the
actual flexible-base structure by an equivalent fixed-base oscilla-
tor do not account for the ductile capacity of the structure. As is
known, the increases in the natural period and damping ratio by
soil–structure interaction are similar to the effects of yielding. It
has been believed that the reduction of the initial stiffness of the
structure by yielding tends to decrease the significance of inter-
action, dependent in part on the relative stiffness of the structure
and the supporting soil. Nevertheless, the consequences of inter-
action depend more generally on the interrelationship between the
characteristics of both the interacting system and the seismic ex-
citation.
In many practical cases, the interaction effects are not very
important, and they are less so for inelastic systems. In the con-
ditions of Mexico City, however, soil–structure interaction is
known to produce in some structures effects even more significant
than site effects. It has been observed (Avilés and Pérez-Rocha
2003) that the interaction effects may result in large increments or
reductions of the required strengths and expected displacements,
with respect to the corresponding rigid-base values. When both
soil–structure interaction and structural yielding take place simul-
taneously, their combined effects are beneficial for slender struc-
tures with natural period near the site period, but detrimental if
the structure period is shorter than the site period.
To account for the inelastic interaction effects, an equivalent
ductility factor that fully characterizes the replacement oscillator
should be defined. We shall call this factor ␮˜ e, also referred to as
the effective ductility of the system. The force–displacement re-
lationships for the resisting elements of the actual structure and
the replacement oscillator are assumed to be of elastoplastic type,
as shown in Fig. 4. By equating the yield strengths and maximum
plastic deformations developed in both systems under monotonic
loading, it has been found that (Avilés and Pérez-Rocha 2003)
T2e
␮
˜ e = 1 + 共␮e − 1兲 共8兲
T̃2e
This is the natural and convenient way of expressing the glo-
bal ductility of an interacting system. This expression implicitly
assumes that the translation and rocking of the foundation are the
共6兲 same in both yielding and ultimate conditions, which holds when
the soil remains elastic and the structure behaves elastoplastically.
Note that the values of ␮ ˜ e vary from 1 to ␮e, so that the effective
ductility of the system is lower than the allowable ductility of the
structure. The effective ductility ␮ ˜ e will be equal to the structural
ductility ␮e for infinitely rigid soil (for which T̃e = Te) and to unity
for infinitely flexible soil (for which T̃e = ⬁). It has been demon-
strated by Avilés and Pérez-Rocha (2003) that, under seismic ex-
citation, the yield strength of the replacement oscillator for the
effective ductility ␮˜ e remains in satisfactory agreement with that
required by the interacting system for the allowable ductility ␮e.
It is interesting to note that the ductility reduction from ␮e to
␮
˜ e is due to the stiffness decrease from Ke to K̃e only. By no
means does this imply that the foundation flexibility reduces the
ductility capacity of the structure. The apparent paradox stems
from the fact that the deformation of the replacement oscillator
involves both the deformation Ue of the structure itself as well as
the rigid-body motion Uc + 共He + D兲⌽c induced by the translation
and rocking of the foundation. The presence of this motion is
responsible for the reduction of the global ductility of the system,
but without any change in the degree of permissible inelastic
deformation.
Replacement Oscillator and its Relation to Actual
Structure
The replacement oscillator is considered to experience the same
yield strength as the actual structure, that is:
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005 / 225
Fig. 4. Resistance diagrams for the actual structure (solid line) and the replacement oscillator (dashed line), considering elastoplastic
behavior
Vy = Ṽy 共9兲
Also, both systems would experience the same plastic defor-
mation, but different total deformations because of the difference
between yield deformations, as shown in Fig. 4. Let Uy and Ũy be
the yield deformations of the actual structure and the replacement
oscillator, respectively, and Um and Ũm equal the corresponding
maximum deformations. Accordingly, the ductility factors are de-
fined in each case as ␮e = Um / Uy and ␮ ˜ e = Ũm / Ũy. In view of Vy
= KeUy and Ṽy = K̃eŨy, in which Ke = 4␲2M e / T2e and K̃e
= 4␲2M e / T̃2e , it follows from Eq. (9) that Uy and Ũy are interre-
lated by
T2e
Uy = Ũy 共10兲
T̃2e
By substituting Uy = Um / ␮e and Ũy = Ũm / ␮
˜ e into Eq. (10), one
finds that Um is related to Ũm by the expression
T2e ␮e
Um = Ũm 共11兲
T̃2 ␮
e
˜e
The difference between the deformations of the actual struc-
ture and the replacement oscillator, as revealed by Eqs. (10) and
(11), is due to the fact that the elastic deformation developed in
the latter must be shared by two springs in series representing the
flexibilities of the structure and foundation. In consequence, Ũm
− Um identical to Ũy − Uy should be interpreted as the contribution
by the translation and rocking of the foundation.
Based on the results of a comparative study by Avilés and
Pérez-Rocha (2003), it has been concluded that the actual
flexible-base structure with natural period Te, damping ratio ␨e,
and ductility factor ␮e can be reasonably replaced by an equiva-
lent fixed-base oscillator with enlarged period T̃e, increased
damping ˜␨e, and reduced ductility ␮ ˜ e, determined according to
Eqs. (6)–(8). It should be pointed out that this replacement oscil-
lator must be analyzed nonlinearly using the free-field motion as
base excitation.
226 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005
Strength-Reduction and Displacement-Modification
Factors
Contemporary design criteria admit the use of strength reduction
factors to account for the nonlinear structural behavior. It is in-
deed common practice to make use of these factors for estimating
inelastic design spectra by reducing elastic design spectra. For the
interacting system subjected to a given earthquake, we shall call
R␮−␤ the strength reduction factor, representing the ratio between
the strength required to have elastic behavior, Vm共1兲, and the
strength for which the ductility demand equals the target ductility,
Vy共␮e兲:
Vm共1兲
R␮−␤共Te兲 = 共12兲
Vy共␮e兲
It should be noted that this factor depends not only on the
structural period Te, but also on the ductility factor ␮e and the soil
flexibility measured by the shear wave velocity ␤s. To a lesser
degree, this factor is also influenced by the structural damping ␨e.
On the other hand, the substitution of Vm共1兲 = KeUm共1兲 and
Vy共␮e兲 = KeUy共␮e兲 into Eq. (12), considering that Uy共␮e兲
= Um共␮e兲 / ␮e, yields the well-known relationship
␮e
Um共␮e兲 = Um共1兲 共13兲
R␮−␤共Te兲
from where the displacement modification factor C␮−␤ relating
inelastic to elastic maximum displacements is given by
␮e
C␮−␤共Te兲 = 共14兲
R␮−␤共Te兲
It is evident that determination of R␮−␤ allows estimation of
both inelastic strength and displacement demands starting from
their elastic counterparts. Next, we show the extent to which the
R␮−␤ and C␮−␤ factors are influenced by soil–structure interaction.
Results for the Rigid-Base Condition
A free-field control motion representative of the lakebed zone in
Mexico City was used for calculations. It is defined by the 19
September, 1985 Michoacan earthquake recorded at the Secretaría
de Comunicaciones y Transportes site. In Fig. 5 are depicted the
Fig. 5. Top: normalized strength and displacement spectra without interaction for ␮e = 1 (dotted line), 2 (dashed line), and 4 (solid line),
considering the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes recording of the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico City. Bottom: resulting
strength-reduction and displacement-modification factors for ␮e = 2 (dashed line) and 4 (solid line).
normalized, strength 共Vy / M eg兲 and displacement 共Um / Ug兲 spectra
for constant ductility (␮e = 1, 2, and 4) and 5% of critical damp-
ing, at the exclusion of soil–structure interaction. Here, g is the
acceleration of gravity and Ug = 21 cm is the peak ground dis-
placement. Also shown in this figure are the corresponding
strength-reduction 共R␮−⬁兲 and displacement-modification 共C␮−⬁兲
factors.
Acording to the one-dimensional wave propagation theory, the
predominant period of the site is given by
4Hs
Ts = 共15兲
␤s
where Hs = 38 m and ␤s = 76 m / s for the site considered. So, we
have that Ts = 2 s, equal to the resonant period observed at the
elastic acceleration spectrum.
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the values of R␮−⬁ for natural
periods around the site period are substantially higher than ␮e, the
value predicted by Veletsos and Newmark’s rule for the long-
period spectral region. This fact was observed for the first time by
Meli and Avila (1988) analyzing recordings of the great Mexico
City event, and after documented by Miranda (1993) and Ordaz
and Pérez-Rocha (1998) analyzing hundreds of accelerograms
from earthquakes of different origins and site conditions. In con-
trast, the values of C␮−⬁ are notably lower than unity in the period
range at which R␮−⬁ ⬎ ␮e, as inferred directly from Eq. (14).
From these results, it is clear that the equal displacement rule may
be quite conservative for highly peaked narrow-band response
spectra.
Results for the Flexible-Base Condition
To show the influence of foundation flexibility on the R␮−␤ and
C␮−␤ factors, only one representative interacting system was
evaluated, which is characterized by: He / r = 3, for the slenderness
ratio of the structure; D / r = 0.5, for the embedment ratio of the
foundation; and Hs / r = 3, for the normalized depth of the stratum.
Naturally, deviations from these system parameters will affect
results. In general, decreasing values of He / r and increasing val-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005 / 227
ues of D / r and Hs / r tend to reduce the effects of interaction. The
remaining system parameters were fixed constant at typical values
for building structures: M c / M e = 0.2, Jc / M e共He + D兲2 = 0.05, and
M e / ␳s␲r2He = 0.2. As Hs = 38 m, the value of Hs / r = 3 is valid for
a foundation radius r ⬇ 12.5 m and, thereby, the values of D / r
= 0.5 and He / r = 3 would correspond to a foundation depth D
⬇ 6.25 m and a structure height He ⬇ 37.5 m, respectively. If we
assume an interstory height of 3.5 m and the effective height as
0.7 times the total height, the value of He ⬇ 37.5 m would corre-
spond to a building of approximately 15 stories.
The validity of Eqs. (9) and (11) is verified with the results
shown in Fig. 6 for elastic 共␮e = 1兲 and inelastic (␮e = 2 and 4)
response. It is clear that the strength and displacement spectra
obtained for the interacting system are well predicted by using the
replacement oscillator. The discrepancies observed at short natu-
ral periods are not of practical significance, since midrise struc-
tures such as the one studied normally fall in the medium-period
spectral region. For a 15-story building, Te may vary between,
say, 1.1 and 1.8 s, depending on the structural system. Out of this
region, the interest is just to show the trends observed in flexible-
base response spectra. As happens with fixed-base systems, the
spectral acceleration for a very short period as well as the spectral
displacement for a very long period are independent of the value
of ␮e. It can be seen from Figs. 5 and 6 that the inelastic displace-
ments near the site period are smaller than the elastic ones, a fact
that is more pronounced for rigid- than for flexible-base struc-
tures.
Strength-reduction and displacement-modification factors
were computed using the rigorous results given in Fig. 6. The
shapes of R␮−␤ and C␮−␤ are compared in Figs. 7 and 8 with those
of R␮−⬁ and C␮−⬁, respectively. The differences between the re-
sults with and without interaction are noticeable, specially for
␮e = 4. It is apparent that structures on soft soil designed assuming
rigid base may experience significant changes in their intended
strength and displacement demands if soil–structure interaction
plays an important role. Note that, as required by structural dy-
namics, R␮−␤ = 1 for Te = 0 and R␮−␤ → ␮e as Te → ⬁, irrespective
of the foundation flexibility. For other natural periods, there are

Fig. 6. Normalized, strength and displacement spectra with interac-
tion for ␮e = 1 (solid line), 2 (dashed line), and 4 (dotted line), con-
sidering the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes recording of
the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico City. Comparison of the
exact solution for the interacting system (thick line) with the approxi-
mate solution for the replacement oscillator (thin line). Results cor-
respond to an interacting system with He / r = 3, D / r = 0.5, and Hs / r
= 3.
no theoretical indications regarding the values of this factor. Simi-
larly, we have that C␮−␤ = ␮e when Te = 0 and C␮−␤ → 1 as Te
→ ⬁, independent of the foundation flexibility. The limits of both
factors for an infinite period have to do with the fact that long-
period structures, whether elastic or plastic, undergo the same
maximum absolute deformation, equal to the peak ground dis-
placement.
It can be seen from Figs. 7 and 8 that the shapes of R␮−␤ and
C␮−␤ are very sensitive to variations in the structure period. In
some period ranges, the values of these factors are larger for
rigid- than for flexible-base structures, but in others are smaller.
When R␮−⬁ ⬎ R␮−␤, it is confirmed that C␮−⬁ ⬍ C␮−␤; and vice
versa. This is consistent with Eq. (14). Despite this irregular be-
havior, one can conclude that site effects, reflected in that R␮−⬁
⬎ ␮e and C␮−⬁ ⬍ 1 around the site period, are counteracted by
soil–structure interaction. This means that, at extreme interaction
conditions, we will have that R␮−␤ = ␮e and C␮−␤ = 1 for medium
and long natural periods. The reason for this is that, if the inter-
action effects were so large, the structure period would shift to the
long-period spectral region, for which the equal displacement rule
is applied. Results for other soft sites in Mexico City lead essen-
tially to the same conclusions.
It should be noted that the R␮−␤ and C␮−␤ factors are to be
used in combination with flexible-base elastic spectra which, in
turn, can be derived from rigid-base elastic spectra using the val-
ues of T̃e and ˜␨e previously defined. By this way, the yield resis-
228 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005
Fig. 7. Variations against period of strength-reduction factors with
(solid line) and without (dashed line) interaction for ␮e = 2 and 4,
considering the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes record-
ing of the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico City. Results cor-
respond to an interacting system with He / r = 3, D / r = 0.5, and Hs / r
= 3.
tance and maximum deformation of interacting inelastic systems
are estimated from the corresponding values of fixed-base elastic
systems.
Design Reduction Rule
As the difference between the shapes of R␮−␤ and R␮−⬁ may be
significant, the reduction of elastic strength spectra to assess in-
elastic strength spectra could not be attained accurately with ap-
proximate rules deduced for fixed-base yielding systems. As seen
before, there is no smooth correlation between the values of R␮−␤
and Te. In spite of this, it is worthwhile to devise a site-dependent
reduction rule that includes soil–structure interaction. This prob-
lem is addressed now using the solution for the nonlinear replace-
ment oscillator.
The shape of R␮−⬁ has been extensively studied in the last
years using recorded motions and theoretical considerations. In
particular, Ordaz and Pérez-Rocha (1998) observed that, for a
wide variety of soft sites, it depends on the ratio between the
elastic displacement spectrum and the peak ground displacement,
in the following way:
冉 冊
␣
Um共Te,␨e兲
R␮−⬁ = 1 + 共␮e − 1兲 共16兲
Ug
where ␣ ⬇ 0.5. It is a simple matter to show that this expression
has correct limits for very short and long periods of vibration.
Contrarily to what happens with available reduction rules, the
values given by Eq. (16) can be larger than ␮e, which indeed
occurs if Um ⬎ Ug. In the conditions of Mexico City, this happens
when Ts ⬎ 1 s. This reduction rule is more general than others

Fig. 8. Variations against period of displacement-modification
factors with (solid line) and without (dashed line) interaction for
␮e = 2 and 4, considering the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y
Transportes recording of the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico
City. Results correspond to an interacting system with He / r = 3,
D / r = 0.5, and Hs / r = 3.
reported in literature, because the period and damping depen-
dence of R␮−⬁ is properly controlled by the actual shape of the
elastic displacement spectrum, and not by a smoothed shape ob-
tained empirically.
Following the replacement oscillator approach, this reduction
rule may be readily implemented for elastically supported struc-
Fig. 9. Comparisons of real strength-reduction factors (solid line) with those obtained by the proposed reduction rule (dashed line) for ␮e = 2 and
4, considering the Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes recording of the 1985 Michoacan earthquake in Mexico City. Results correspond
to two interacting systems with He / r = 1 and 5, in both cases with D / r = 0.5 and Hs / r = 3.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005 / 229
tures by merely replacing in Eq. (16) the relationships ␮e − 1
= 共␮
˜ e − 1兲T̃2e / T2e from Eq. (8) and Um = 共T2e / T̃2e 兲Ũm from Eq. (10),
with which we have
˜ e − 1兲 e
R␮−␤ = 1 + 共␮
Te
冉 Ug
˜兲
T̃ Ũm共T̃e,␨ e
冊 ␣
共17兲
It should be pointed out that Eq. (16) will yield the same result
as Eq. (17) if the elastic displacement spectrum without interac-
tion appearing in the former equation is replaced by the corre-
sponding spectrum with interaction. The two spectra Um共Te , ␨e兲
and Ũm共T̃e ,˜␨e兲 are used to emphasize the fact that the former
corresponds to the actual structure, whereas the latter to the re-
placement oscillator. The steps involved in the application of Eq.
(17) can be summarized as follows.
1. By use of Eqs. (6)–(8), compute the modified period T̃e,
damping ˜␨e, and ductility ␮ ˜ e of the structure whose rigid-
base properties Te, ␨e, and ␮e are known.
2. From the prescribed site-specific response spectrum, deter-
mine the elastic spectral displacement Ũm corresponding to
T̃e and ˜␨e, just as if the structure were fixed at the base.
3. The value of R␮−␤ is then estimated by application of Eq.
(17), provided the peak ground displacement Ug is known.
Results presented so far correspond to a structure with He / r
= 3. To show the validity of Eq. (17), two different values of this
crucial parameter were chosen: He / r = 1 and 5, corresponding to
short and tall structures, respectively. These values reasonably
cover the interest in structural engineering. Comparisons are
made in Fig. 9 between real strength-reduction factors and those
obtained with the proposed reduction rule, for ␮e = 2 and 4. It is
seen that, although the representation is not perfect, the approxi-
mate rule satisfactorily reproduces the tendencies observed in re-
ality. In view of the many uncertainties involved in the definition
of R␮−␤, it is judged that such an approximation is appropriate for
design purposes.
 It is interesting to note that, regardless of the value of ␮e, the
real values of R␮−␤ for short structures are practically the same as
those of R␮−⬁ (see Fig. 5). In contrast, they are notably lower for
tall structures. In this case, the largest values of R␮−␤ are of the
order of 2 for ␮e = 2 and about 4 for ␮e = 4. This means that the
equal displacement rule would work better than the purely site-
dependent reduction rule, i.e., when soil–structure interaction is
ignored. In fact, the values determined with the former rule may
be considered to be a lower bound to those obtained for any site
and interaction condition.
Conclusions
The influence of foundation flexibility on strength-reduction and
displacement-modification factors has been investigated, using a
simplified reference model representative of code-designed build-
ings. Results were given for the earthquake characteristics and
geotechnical conditions prevailing in Mexico City. It has been
found that the shapes of these factors are primarily a function of
the period ratio of the structure and site. This is in agreement with
earlier findings by other writers for the fixed-base case. The main
differences between the factors with and without interaction arise
when the structure period is close to the site period. Furthermore,
the site effects observed for the rigid-base condition tend to be
cancelled by soil–structure interaction. Therefore, the use of fac-
tors derived assuming rigid base may lead to strength and dis-
placement demands considerably different from those actually de-
veloped in structures with flexible foundation.
Based on the solution for a nonlinear replacement oscillator,
an available site-dependent reduction rule has been adjusted to
include soil–structure interaction. As a result, a period-,
damping-, and ductility-dependent rule was implemented, which
permits the use of standard free-field elastic spectra. The effi-
ciency of this approximation was validated by comparison with
results obtained rigorously. The new rule should be useful to as-
sess, in the context of code design of buildings, the yield resis-
tance and maximum deformation of flexible-base inelastic struc-
tures from the corresponding values of rigid-base elastic
structures. There is still a practical necessity of modifying this
rule to take into account the multidegree-of-freedom effects and
the uncertainties involved in real buildings.
References
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1984). “Tentative provisions for the
development of seismic regulations for buildings.” Rep. ATC-3-06
Amended, Applied Technology Council, Calif.
Avilés, J., and Pérez-Rocha, L. E. (1996). “Evaluation of interaction ef-
fects on the system period and the system damping due to foundation
embedment and layer depth.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 15, 11–27.
Avilés, J., and Suárez, M. (2002). “Effective periods and dampings of
building-foundation systems including seismic wave effects.” Eng.
Struct., 24(5), 553–562.
Avilés, J., Suárez, M., and Sánchez-Sesma, F. J. (2002). “Effects of wave
passage on the relevant dynamic properties of structures with flexible
foundation.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 139–159.
Avilés, J., and Pérez-Rocha, L. E. (2003). “Soil-structure interaction in
yielding systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 32, 1749–1771.
Bielak, J. (1976). “Modal analysis for building–soil interaction.” J. Eng.
230 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2005
Mech. Div., Proc., ASCE, 102(5), 771–786.
Bielak, J. (1978). “Dynamic response of nonlinear building-foundation
systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 6, 17–30.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (1997). “Recom-
mended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for
new buildings.” Rep. FEMA-302, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Iguchi, M. (1984). “Earthquake response of embedded cylindrical foun-
dations to SH and SV waves.” Proc., 8th World Conf. Earthquake
Engineering, 1081–1088, San Francisco.
Jennings, P. C., and Bielak, J. (1973). “Dynamics of building–soil inter-
action.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 63(1), 9–48.
Luco, J. E. (1980). “Linear soil–structure interaction.” Rep. UCRL-15272,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.
Meli, R., and Avila, J. (1988). “Analysis of building response.” Earth-
quake Spectra, 5(1), 1–18.
Miranda, E. (1993). “Site-dependent strength reduction factors.” J. Struct.
Eng., 119(12), 3503–3519.
Miranda, E., and Bertero, V. V. (1994). “Evaluation of strength reduction
factors for earthquake resistant design.” Earthquake Spectra, 10(2),
357–379.
Miranda, E., and Ruiz-García, J. (2002). “Evaluation of approximate
methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31, 539–560.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1973). “Seismic design criteria for
nuclear reactor facilities—Building practices for disaster mitigation.”
Rep. No. 46, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 209–236.
Ordaz, M., and Pérez-Rocha, L. E. (1998). “Estimation of strength-
reduction factors for elastoplastic systems: A new approach.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 27, 889–901.
Tassoulas, J. L., and Kausel, E. (1983). “Elements for the numerical
analysis of wave motion in layered strata.” Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng., 19, 1005–1032.
Todorovska, M. I., and Trifunac, M. D. (1992). “The system damping, the
system frequency and the system response peak amplitudes during
in-plane building-soil interaction.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 21,
127–144.
Trifunac, M. D., Ivanović, S. S., and Todorovska, M. I. (2001). “Apparent
periods of a building. I: Fourier analysis.” J. Struct. Eng., 127(5),
517–526.
Trifunac, M. D., Ivanović, S. S., and Todorovska, M. I. (2001). “Apparent
periods of a building. II: Time–frequency analysis.” J. Struct. Eng.,
127(5), 527–537.
Veletsos, A. S. (1977). “Dynamics of structure–foundation systems.”
Struct. Geotechn. Mech., W. J. Hall, ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 333–361.
Veletsos, A. S., and Newmark, N. M. (1960). “Effect of inelastic behavior
on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions.” Proc., 2nd
World Conf. Earthquake Engineering, 895–912, Tokyo, Japan.
Veletsos, A. S., and Meek, J. W. (1974). “Dynamic behaviour of
building–foundation systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3, 121–
138.
Veletsos, A. S., and Verbic, B. (1974). “Dynamics of elastic and yielding
structure–foundation systems.” Proc., 5th World Conf. Earthquake
Engineering, 2610–2613, Rome, Italy.
Veletsos, A. S., and Nair, V. V. D. (1975). “Seismic interaction of struc-
tures on hysteretic foundations.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE, 101(1), 109–
129.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil–structure interaction, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Wolf, J. P. (1988). Soil–structure interaction analysis in time domain,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.