STRUCTURAL CONTROL INCLUDING SOIL-STRUCTURE

INTERACTION EFFECTS
By H. L. Wong 1 and J. E. Luco, 2 Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: The effects of soil-structure interaction on the form of the control

rule and on the effectiveness of active control of the seismic response of structures
are examined. The structure is modeled as a uniform shear beam supported on a
rigid foundation embedded in an elastic soil. The seismic excitation is represented
by vertically incident shear waves. Active control in the form of an absorbing
boundary located at the top of the structure is considered. The active absorbing
boundary cancels the reflection of waves at the top of the structure and eliminates
resonance within the superstructure. It is found that the form of the control rule
changes as a result of the rocking of the foundation associated with the kinematic
and inertial interaction. However, the effectiveness of this form of active control
remains unchanged or is improved when soil-structure interaction effects are
included.

INTRODUCTION

For the last 20 years there has been increased interest in the possible use
of active control techniques to limit the seismic response of structures. Some
of the advances in this area have been reviewed recently by Yang and Soong
(1988). A common assumption in most studies on active control of the
seismic response of structures is that soil-structure interaction effects are
small and, in particular, that the rocking motion of the base is negligible.
The objective of this study is to remove these assumptions and to consider
the seismic response of tall structures subjected to active control when the
flexibility of the soil is included in the analysis.
In this paper, the structure is modeled as a uniform shear beam supported
on a rigid foundation embedded in the soil represented by a uniform visco-
elastic half-space (Fig. 1). The seismic excitation is represented in the form
of vertically incident SH-waves. The kinematic interaction effects associated
with the embedment of the foundation together with the inertial interaction
effects result in a base motion that includes translational and rocking re-
sponse components. The seismic response of the structure, including soil-
structure interaction effects, is modified by use of a control force acting at
the top of the structure. The active control strategy used here is based on
the work of Vaughan (1968) and von Flotow (1986), in which the energy
flow within the structure is modified by controlling the reflection and/or
transmission of waves at end points or at joints. In this study, the active
control force is selected to simulate an absorbing boundary such that all
upward propagating waves are absorbed at the top of the structure and no
downward propagating waves are reflected at that point. Applications of
this approach to the active control of the seismic response to tall structures

'Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

90089-2531.
2
Prof., Dept. of Appl. Mech. and Engrg. Sci., Univ. of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, CA 92093-0411.
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 1992. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
November 28, 1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol.
117, No. 10, October, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399/91/0010-2237/$1.00 + $.15
per page. Paper No. 26211.
2237

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Description of Model

in the absence of soil-structure interaction effects have been presented by

Mita and Luco (1990a, 1990b) and Luco et al. (1991).
The form and effectiveness of active control in the presence of soil-
structure interaction effects are examjned by considering structures with
different heights supported on soils with different rigidities. The effects on
the response of the structures and on the amplitudes of the required control
forces are described in some detail.

FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM AND SOLUTION

Structural Response with Absorbing Boundary

To formulate and solve the complete problem, we first consider the motion
of the superstructure for a given translation and rotation of the base. Let
u(x)e'°" equal the harmonic translation of the structure with respect to an
inertial frame of reference. For small displacements, the total displacement
u(x) can be decomposed into
u(x) = uB + xdB + uR(x) (1)
2238

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 where uB — the horizontal motion of the base; QB = the rocking angle of
the base; and uR(x) = the relative displacement of the structure with respect
to a frame of reference moving with the foundation (Fig. 1). The equation
of motion of the structure for harmonic vibrations with time dependence
e'°", where w is the frequency, is given by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

u" + (w/pB)2« = 0 0< x <H (2)

where the prime denotes derivative with respect to x; H = the height of
the structure; and
p B = 0B[1 + 2/£Bsign(co)]1'2 (3)
in which £,B = the hysteretic damping ratio in the structure; and p B =
(approximately) the shear wave velocity within the structure. The boundary
condition at the base of the shear wall is
w(0) = uB (4)
where uBe'°" = the horizontal motion of the base of the structure (top of
the rigid foundation). If an active control force FTe'"" is applied at the top
of the structure, then the corresponding boundary condition at x = H is
pBABFB[u'(H) - QB] = FT (5)
where pB and AB are the density and cross-sectional area of the shear wall,
respectively.
The general solution of (2) is
u(x) = Ae-^1^ + Be'^'M (6)
in which the first and second terms represent upward and downward prop-
agating waves, respectively. If the control force FT is selected so that an
absorbing boundary is obtained at the top of the structure, then no reflected
waves are obtained and B = 0. In this case, (4) and (6) with 5 = 0 lead
to
u(x) = uBe~^xliiB) (7)
which shows that, in this case, the response at any level of the superstructure
is never larger than the motion uB of the base. The required control force
FT is obtained by substitution from (7) to (5). The resulting expression is
FT = -pBAB$Bu(H) - pBAB^B% (8)
where the overdot denotes differentiation with respect to time [u(H) =
iu>u(H) for harmonic time dependence]. The control rule given by (8) differs
from previous expressions derived under the assumption of negligible rock-
ing (Mita and Luco 1990a, 1990b) in that it depends not only on ii(H) but
also on 6B. It should be noted that for the particular shear beam model
considered in this study, the rotation of the cross section at the top of the
structure is equal to the rotation 0B of the base.
To solve the soil-structure interaction problem leading to uB and 8B, it is
necessary to obtain expressions for the base shear force FBe'"" and for the
base overturning moment MBe'"" in terms of uB and 8B. The resulting expres-
sions obtained by consideration of the linear and angular momenta of the
structure are
FB = -ioipBAB$BuB - pBAB$2BeB (9)
2239

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 M„ -pBABp2B[l -i(o.H/p
- <r* fl)l

H
+ (-pBAB$l + w 2 P s / B ) ( - ) LGB (10)

where 7B = the (area) moment of inertia of the cross section about a

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

horizontal axis; and L = a length of reference taken to be equal to the

half-width of the foundation.

Structural Response with Simplified Absorbing Boundary

The control rule given by (8) depends on both ii{H) and 8B. It is of interest
to consider the response of the structure when the control rule given by (8)
is replaced by the simpler expression
FT = -pBABpBu(H) (11)
where u(H) = mu(H) for harmonic time dependence of the type e'°". Eq.
(11) corresponds to the form of the control rule when rocking of the base
is ignored (Mita and Luco 1990a, 1990b). In this case, substitution of the
general solution, given by (6), into the boundary conditions given by (4)
and (5) with FT given by (11), results in the solution

sin
P*
u(x) = uBe~ /(un/Pfl) ,-i(mHlf,B) (12)

The solution in this case includes both upward and downward propagating
waves in the structure but, as in the previous case, no resonance is obtained
within the superstructure. The corresponding expressions for the base force
and base overturning moment are given by
FB = -mpBAB$BuB - pBAB£B [1 - e-'-(«"'f»»>] 0, (13)
and
MB = -pBAB?,2B [1 - c-'(»"'&»] uB + ^pBIB(H/L)LQB

sin
PB
-/(aitt/pa). (14)
PBAB&[ y L8 S

P«/ _j

Structural Response without Absorbing Boundary

To evaluate the effectiveness of active control we must compare with the
response of the structure when no control is provided. In this case, the
boundary condition at the top of the structure is given by
PBABFB[*(H) - eB] = o (15)

Substitution of the general solution given by (6) into the boundary conditions
given by (4) and (15) permits us to determine the unknown coefficients A
and B with the result
2240

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 c o/cox\
s / t o / A . /cox
u(x) =
y tan —
VPJ
sin —
\P*.
. /cox'
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(16)
cos —

The corresponding expressions for the base shear force FB and the base
overturning moment MB are

n ^wH
1 — cos —
F B = bipBAB$Btm\ — )uB + pBAB% — (17)
V PA / /to//
cos ——
VP*
and
/to//
1 - cos —
MB = pBAB$ \p«
cos
(t)
tan —
// \P« W
+ < -pBABft W * I ^ ) f £e fl . . . (18)
L to//
P«/ -1
Eqs. (16), (17), and (18) indicate that u(x), FB, and MB can be very large
in the vicinity of the fixed-base characteristic frequencies for which cos(co///
P«) = o.

Soil-Structure Interaction Equations

The equation of motion of the rigid foundation (referred to the center of
the bottom of the foundation) can be written in the form

-to 2 M 0 U 0 = FB F0 (19)
T
where U0 = (u0,LB0) is the generalized displacement of the bottom of the
foundation; and F B 0 = (FB0,MB0/L)T and - F ? = - ( F 0 , M 0 / L ) r are the
generalized forces that the structure and the soil exert on the foundation,
respectively. The generalized mass matrix of the foundation M 0 is given by

1 0 MF 0 1 (hl2L)
(20)
QiIlL) 1 0 (IF/L2) 0 1

where MF = the mass of the rigid foundation; / F = its mass moment of

inertia with respect to a horizontal axis through the center of the mass; and

2241

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 h = the depth of the foundation. In here we assume that the center of mass
of the foundation is at a height A/2 from the bottom of the foundation.
Eqs. (9), (10), (13), (14), (17), and (18) indicate that the generalized
force F B = (FB,MBIL)T\ha\ the structure exerts on the top of the foundation
can be written in the form
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

F„ = -G,LKB(o>)UB (21)
T
where JJB = (uB,LQB) . The elements of the matrix KB have been normalized
by the half-width L of the foundation and by the shear modulus of the soil

10
i—f—PI —I—I—i—r ~I—i—i—i—i—r

PS/PB=IO P S /PB = IO

n—i—I—i—i—i—r "1 1 1 1 1 1

A/PB=I MPB=I

ICQ.

<

J i i i u
3
/(Hz)

FIG. 2. Normalized Amplitudes of Top Translation \u,/itK\ and of Control Force

\FT/(-i(apgAB^Bug)\ for 10-Story Building and Three Soil Conditions (p s /p f l = 10, 2,
and 1). Cases Shown Correspond to Absence of Control, Control by Exact Ab-
sorbing Boundary, and Control by Approximate Absorbing Boundary

2242

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 n—i—i—i—i—i—r ~i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r

PS/PB=10 PS/PB=IO
- No Control
- Exact AB Control
- Approx. AB Control
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

_i i i i i i i i i i_ -J A I I I I I I I I I

n—i—i—i—i—r ~I—i—I—I—r ~I i I I r
PS/PB = 2 PS/PB = 2

FIG. 3. Normalized Amplitudes of Base Translation \uBlug\ and Base Rotation

\LQBlug\ of 10-Story Building for Three Soil Conditions (]yj3 f l = 10, 2, and 1)

Gs = P*P?> where ps and f}s are the density and shear wave velocity of the
soil, respectively. Considering the relations

1 0
Fso - (22)
(h/L) 1
and

1 (h/L)
Ufl = U0 (23)
0 1
leads to
2243

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4. Normalized Amplitudes of Base Shear Force \FB/-iiopBAB$Bug\ and Base

Overturning Moment \MBI — ib)pBABfiBHus\ of 10-Story Building for Three Soil Con-
ditions (jyp B = 10, 2, and 1)

F B 0 = -G s LK B 0 (o))U 0 (24)
in which

1 0 1 (hIL)
KHn — K, (25)
(ML) 1 0 1
The motion of the soil in contact with the foundation can be described
by the expression

Co = U0* + ( = ^ - 1 C(co)F0 (26)

where Uo = (ul,Lft%)T is the effective input motion to the foundation;

2244

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.

ps/pB = io p s /p B =io
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• No Control
Exact AB Control
Approx. AB Control
i

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I

P S /PB = 2

i i i i i i i i

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••[ 1 M M II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

P~ S /PB=I PS/PB=I

lea
<
-
z'" \_,

1 1M i l I I I ! E ! 1 1

/(Hz) /(Hz)

FIG. 5. Normalized Amplitudes of Top Translation »7.'»,| and of Control Force

\FTl(-iwpBAB$Bus)\ of 100-Story Building for Three Soil Conditions (iyj3 B = 10, 2,
and 1)

and C(co) = the 2 x 2 normalized compliance matrix. The compliance

matrix corresponds to the inverse of the foundation impedance matrix.
Substitution from (19) and (24) to (26) leads to

U0 = I + C(o)) KB0(co) - al Uo (27)

P^|M"
where a0 = coL/p^ is a dimensionless frequency normalized by the half-width
L of the foundation and by the shear wave velocity p., of the soil. In this
study, we assume that the seismic excitation corresponds to vertically in-
cident shear waves characterized by the free-field ground motion on the soil
surface ug(u>)e'M. In this case
2245

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 T I I I I I I I ITTTnTTTTT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •

p s /p B = io PS/PB=IO
No Control
Exact AB Control
Approx. AB Control
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

I I I I I I I I ' i t ' ' '

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i m~
P S /PB = 2

i i i i i i n - m i i i i i i i ~r
PS/PB=I

/(Hz) /(Hz)

FIG. 6. Normalized Amplitudes of Base Translation \uBlug\ and Base Rotation

\LQBlug\ of 100-Story Building for Three Soil Conditions <&SI$B = 10, 2, and 1)

"o = S(a0)ug . (28a)

LQg = R(a0)ug (286)
where S(a0) and R(a0) = scattering coefficients that depend on the dimen-
sionless frequency a0 and on the characteristics of the foundation and the
soil. The scattering coefficients and the elements of the compliance matrix
(or, of its inverse the impedance matrix) for different types of foundations
can be obtained from published results [e.g., Apsel and Luco (1987); Luco
and Wong (1987); Mjta and Luco (1989)].
Once the motion U0 of the bottom of the foundation has been obtained
by use of (27), (28a) and (286), the motion UB at the base of the super-
structure, the response u(x) at any point in the structure, the base shear
2246

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 I I I I I I

P , / P B = 10
- No Control
- Exacl AB Control
- Approx. AB Control
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

/(Hz) /(Hz)

FIG. 7. Normalized Amplitudes of Base Shear Force \FBl-mpBAB$Bug\ and Base

Overturning Moment \MB/-mpBAB$BHug\ of 100-Story Building for Three Soil Con-
ditions ( f y p f l = 10, 2, and 1)

force FB, the base overturning moment MB and the required control force
FT can be calculated easily.

PARAMETRIC STUDY

To study the effects of soil-structure interaction on the effectiveness of

active control of the seismic response of structures we have considered
simplified models of 10- and 100-story buildings founded on soils with dif-
ferent rigidities. The properties of the structural models including the fun-
damental fixed-base period 7\, fixed-J^ase hysteretic damping ratio £ s , ve-
locity of shear waves in the building BB, slenderness ratio H/L, mass ratio
2247

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 (pBABH/psL2H), and inertia ratio (pBIBH/psL5) are listed in Table 1. It should
be noted that the rotatory inertia of the floors was ignored and that IB was
set equal to zero. The foundations were modeled as rigid rectangular blocks
of base dimension 2L x 2L embedded to a depth h in the soil. The values
of the half-width L, embedment ratio hIL, foundation mass ratio (MF/psL3)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and foundation inertia ratio (IF/psL5) are also listed in Table 1. The soil
was modeled as a uniform viscoelastic half-space_characterized by complex
wave velocities a,. = a s (l + 2r'£„)1/2 and P.v = P5(l + 2/£p)1/2 for P- and
•S-waves, respectively. To take advantage of the numerical results presented
by Mita and Luco (1989) for the impedance functions and scattering^ coef-
ficients of square embedded foundations it was assumed that as = 2$s{v ~
1/3), &, = 0.0005, and £p =_CJJ)01. Three values of the soil shear wave
velocity $s corresponding to ps/pfi = 10, 2, and 1 were used to represent
stiff, intermediate, and soft soil conditions, respectively. For (3S = 150
m/s, PS/(3B = 10 corresponds to a rock with p, = 1,500 m/s and $J$B = 1
corresponds to a soft soil with ps = 150 m/s.
Numerical results for the 10- and 100-story-building models were obtained
for three soil conditions and for three cases corresponding to the absence
of control, control by the absorbing boundary defined by (8), and control
by the approximate absorbing boundary defined by (11). Results in the
frequency domain for the 10-story building are shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4.
The corresponding results for a 100-story building are shown in Figs. 5,6,
and 7.
The amplitudes of the transfer functions [u-jJu] where uT = u(H) is the
total motion at the top of the structure and us is the free-field motion of
the ground surface are shown in Figs. 2 and 5 for 10- and 100-story buildings,
respectively. Also shown in Figs. 2 and 5 are the normalized amplitudes
\Frl( — mpBAB$Bu^\ of the control forces for the two control cases. A first
observation referring to the response at the top of the structure is that both
the exact and the simplified absorbing boundaries drastically reduce the
response and eliminate all resonant behavior. Both absorbing boundaries
lead to almost the same response at the top. The results for \ujJug\ also
indicate that the beneficial effects introduced by active absorbing boundaries
are not reduced in any way by soil-structure interaction effects. The nor-
malized values for the amplitude of the required control force FT also shown
in Figs. 2 and 5 indicate that: (1) Both types of absorbing boundaries lead
to almost the same control force; (2) as the soil becomes softer and the

TABLE 1. Characteristics of Structures and Foundations

Property 10-story building 100-story building

(D (2) (3)
r,(s) 1.00 10.00
£* 0.02 0.02
0 fl (m/s) 150.00 150.00
HIL 3.75 12.50
(pBABH/psL2H) 1.00 0.40
(pBIBH/psL") 0.00 0.00
L(m) 10.00 30.00
hIL 0.50 1.00
(MF/psL>) 0.70 1.40
(IF/PSLS) 0.35 0.70

2248

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 importance of soil-structure interaction effects increases, the amplitude of
the required control force appears to decrease; and (3) this reduction of the
required control force is larger for the larger structure that has a more
deeply embedded foundation.
The amplitudes of the transfer functions (uB/ug) and (LQB/ug) for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

translational and rocking response at the base of the structure are presented
in Figs. 3 and 6 for 10- and 100-story buildings, respectively. These results
indicate that the use of absorbing boundaries drastically reduces the inertial
interaction effects on the base translation and rotation. In particular, the
rocking response is drastically reduced when absorbing boundaries are used.
As in the case of the response at the top, both types of absorbing boundaries
(exact and approximate) lead to almost the_same response at the base.
The normalized amplitudes \FBI — mpBAB$Bug\ and \MBI-iu>pBAB$BHug\
of the base shear force and base overturning moment are shown in Figs. 4
and 7 and 10- and 100-story buildings, respectively. The results in Figs. 4
and 7 indicate that the use of absorbing boundaries strongly reduces the
base shear force and the base overturning moment in the vicinity of the
characteristic frequencies of the system without control. At other frequen-
cies these quantities may be increased by the use of control through ab-
sorbing boundaries.
The results in Figs. 2-7 indicate that the introduction of absorbing bound-
aries eliminates the resonant response of the superstructure and, conse-
quently, reduces the force and moment that the superstructure exerts on
the foundation in the vicinity of the characteristic frequencies of the (un-
controlled) system. This reduction, in turn, leads to a decrease of the inertial
interaction effects and, in particular, of the rocking response.
The effects of soil-structure interaction on the amplitude of normalized
control force FT/( — iu>pBABfiBug) are summarized in Fig. 8. These results
indicate that the amplitude of the required control force decreases as the
soil becomes softer. It appears that this reduction is mainly associated with
kinematic interaction effects and, consequently, is stronger for the larger
structure founded on a deeper foundation.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects that the interaction between the structure and the soil may
have on the possibility of using active control techniques to modify the
seismic response of structures have been studied. It has been found that the
rocking of the foundation resulting from the kinematic and inertial inter-
action effects changes the form of the control rule required to obtain an
active absorbing boundary at the top of shear wall models of structures.
Active control by means of an exact absorbing boundary, which includes
the rocking effects, and by an approximate absorbing boundary, which
ignores the rocking effects, result in large reductions in the structural re-
sponse even when soil-structure interaction effects are included. In fact, the
amplitudes of the required control force and of the structural response
decrease as the soil becomes softer. The use of control by means of absorbing
boundaries also reduces the inertial interaction effects and, in particular,
drastically reduces the rocking response of the structure.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work described here was supported by grants from the Ohsaki Re-
search Institute, Shimizu Corp. to the University of Southern California,
and the University of California, San Diego.
2249

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.

 Kxucl AB Control EX;ILI AB Control
10-s.orcy I <}0-srorey
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by WALTER SERIALS PROCESS on 07/13/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B./|i B = 2
P,/Pll=l
_i I L_J I I L L_L_J

I I I I I I I TTTT
Approx. AB Control Approx. AB Comrol
H)-slorcy KH)-Morey

/'(Hz)

FIG. 8. Effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on Amplitude of Normalized Control

Force \FTl-iupBA,$Bug\ for 10- and 100-Story Buildings (results for Exact and Ap-
proximate Absorbing Boundaries Shown by Upper and Lower Frames, Respec-
tively)

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Apsel, R. J., and Luco, J. E. (1987). "Impedance functions for foundations embed-
ded in a layered medium: An integral equation approach." Earthquake Engrg.
and Struct, Dynamics, 15(2), 213-231.
Luco, J. E., and Wong, H. L. (1987), "Seismic response of foundations embedded
in a layered half-space." Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, 15(2), 233-
247.
Luco, J. E., Wong, H. L., and Mita, A. (1991). "Active control of the seismic
response of structures by combined use of base isolation and absorbing bounda-
ries." Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, (submitted for publication).
Mita, A., and Luco, J. E. (1989). "Impedance functions and input motions for
embedded square foundations." /. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 115(4), 491-503.
Mita, A., and Luco, J. E. (1990a). "Active vibration control of a shear beam with
variable cross section." Proc. of the 1990 Dynamics and Design Conference, Japan
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Jul., 276-279.
Mita, A., and Luco, J. E. (19906). "New active control strategy for tall buildings."
Proc. Eighth Japan Earthquake Engrg. Symp., Dec. 1869-1874.
Vaughan, D. R. (1968). "Application of distributed parameter concept to dynamic
analysis and control of bending vibrations." /. Basic Engrg., Jun., 157-166.
von Flotow, A. H. (1986). "Travelling wave control of large spacecraft structures."
J. of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 9(4), 462-468.
Yang, J. N., and Soong, T. T. (1988). "Recent advances in active control of civil
engineering structures." Probabilistic Engrg. Mech., 3, 179-188.

2250

J. Eng. Mech. 1991.117:2237-2250.