Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853

Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with
emphasis on bridge foundations
George Mylonakis
a,Ã
, Sissy Nikolaou
b
, George Gazetas
c
a
University of Patras, Rio GR-26500, Greece
b
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, USA
c
National Technical University, Athens, Greece
Accepted 9 December 2005
Abstract
The paper provides state-of-the-art information on the following aspects of seismic analysis and design of spread footings supporting
bridge piers: (1) obtaining the dynamic stiffness (‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’) of the foundation; (2) computing the kinematic response; (3)
determining the conditions under which foundation–soil compliance must be incorporated in dynamic structural analysis; (4) assessing
the importance of properly modeling the effect of embedment; (5) elucidating the conditions under which the effect of radiation damping
is significant; (6) comparing the relative importance between kinematic and inertial response. The paper compiles an extensive set of
graphs and tables for stiffness and damping in all modes of vibration (swaying, rocking, torsion), for a variety of soil conditions and
foundation geometries. Simplified expressions for computing kinematic response (both in translation and rotation) are provided. Special
issues such as presence of rock at shallow depths, the contribution of foundation sidewalls, soil inhomogeneity and inelasticity, are also
discussed. The paper concludes with parametric studies on the seismic response of bridge bents on embedded footings in layered soil.
Results are presented (in frequency and time domains) for accelerations and displacements of bridge and footing, while potential errors
from some frequently employed simplifications are illustrated.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dynamics; Footings; Impedance; Kinematic response; Soil–structure interaction; Numerical methods
1. Introduction
During earthquake shaking, soil deforms under the
influence of the incident seismic waves and ‘‘carries’’
dynamically with it the foundation and the supported
structure. In turn, the induced motion of the superstructure
generates inertial forces which result in dynamic stresses at
the foundation that are transmitted into the supporting
soil. Thus, superstructure-induced deformations develop in
the soil while additional waves emanate from the soil–
foundation interface. In response, foundation and super-
structure undergo further dynamic displacements, which
generate further inertial forces and so on.
The above phenomena occur simultaneously. However,
it is convenient (both conceptually and computationally) to
separate them into two successive phenomena referred
to as ‘‘kinematic interaction’’ and ‘‘inertial interaction’’
[1–4], and obtain the response of the soil–foundation–
structure system as a superposition of these two interaction
effects:
(a) ‘‘Kinematic interaction’’ (KI) refers to the effects of
the incident seismic waves to the system shown in Fig. 1b,
which consists essentially of the foundation and the
supporting soil, with the mass of the superstructure set
equal to zero (in contrast to the complete system of
Fig. 1a). The main consequence of KI is that it leads to a
‘‘foundation input motion’’ (FIM) which is different
(usually smaller) than the motion of the free-field soil
and, in addition, contains a rotational component. As will
be shown later on, this difference could be significant for
embedded foundations.
(b) ‘‘Inertial interaction’’ (II) refers to the response of
the complete soil–foundation–structure system to the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
0267-7261/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.12.005
Ã
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mylo@upatras.gr (G. Mylonakis).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Nomenclature
a
k
(t) kinematic acceleration
A soil surface-to-rock motion amplification
function
A
b
foundation basemat–soil contact area
A
w
total area of actual sidewall–soil contact
surface
A
wce
sum of projections of total sidewall area in
direction perpendicular to loading
A
ws
sum of projections of total sidewall area in
direction parallel to loading
b soil inhomogeneity parameter
B foundation halfwidth or ‘‘equivalent’’ radius
in the direction examined, or of circum-
scribed rectangle
C, C
z
, C
y
, C
ij
dashpot coefficient
C
rad
radiation damping coefficient
d total height of actual sidewall–soil contact
surface
d
c
diameter of bridge pier
D depth of embedment
E
s
soil modulus of elasticity
E
c
concrete modulus of elasticity
f frequency
f
c
fundamental natural frequency of soil de-
posit in compression–extension
f
D
natural frequency in shear mode of a
hypothetical soil stratum of thickness D
f
s
fundamental natural frequency of soil de-
posit in shear mode
F(U
A
) Fourier amplitude spectrum of design mo-
tion at free-field soil surface
FS factor of safety
g acceleration of gravity
G, G
0
soil shear modulus, maximum (low-strain)
soil shear modulus
G
0
, G
N
soil shear modulus at zero and infinite depth,
respectively
h distance of (effective) sidewall centroid from
ground surface
H soil thickness
H
c
height of bridge pier
H
e
horizontal force amplitude due to inertia on
the masses of the superstructure
i OÀ1
I
1
mass moment of inertia of bridge super-
structure
I
b
polar moment of inertia about z of soil
foundation contact surface
I
bx
moment of inertia about x of soil foundation
contact surface
I
by
moment of inertia about y of soil foundation
contact surface
I
F
rotational kinematic interaction factors
I
0
mass moment of inertia of bridge foundation
I
R
impedance contrast between soil and rock
I
U
translational kinematic interaction factors
k wavenumber
K static stiffness
¯
K,
¯
K
z
dynamic stiffness (‘‘spring’’)
k, k(o) dynamic stiffness coefficient
¯
K
sur
, C
sur
dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients of
surface foundation
K
emb
, C
emb
dynamic stiffnesses and dashpot coefficients
of embedded foundation
K
x
swaying foundation impedance
K
y
swaying impedance in long direction
K
rx
rocking impedance about long axis of
foundation basemat
K
ry
rocking impedance about short axis of
foundation basemat
K
t
torsional impedance about vertical axis
K
xÀry
, K
yÀrx
cross-coupling horizontal-rocking impe-
dances
K
str
dynamic structural impedance of superstruc-
ture
L semi-length of footing (or of circumscribed
rectangle)
m
1
, m
s
superstructure mass
M
e
overturning moment amplitude due to in-
ertia on the masses of the superstructure
m
0
, m
b
foundation mass
n soil inhomogeneity parameter
P axial gravity load carried by bridge system
PGA peak ground acceleration
P
z
, P
z
(t) vertical force
q, q
u
applied foundation pressure
R radius of bridge footing
SA spectral acceleration
S
u
soil undrained shear strength
t time
T,
~
T period, effective period
u
z
(t), u
1
, u
2
vertical foundation displacement
U
A
, U
G
motions at depths A and G, respectively
V
a
apparent wave propagation velocity along
ground surface or soil–foundation interface
V
La
, V
Lao
‘‘Lysmer’s analog’’ wave velocity, ‘‘Lysmer’s
analog’’ wave velocity at surface
V
r
shear wave velocity of rock
V
R
Rayleigh wave velocity
V
s
, V
so
soil shear wave velocity, soil shear wave
velocity at surface
z depth
z
r
depth of influence
z
v
, z
h
, z
r
, z
t
depths of influence in vertical, horizontal,
rocking, and torsional vibrations
Greek letters
a, f phase angle (a also Ramber-Osgood para-
meter)
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 825
excitation by D’Alembert forces associated with the
acceleration of the superstructure due to the KI (Fig. 1b).
Furthermore, for a surface or embedded foundation, II
analysis is also conveniently performed in two steps, as
shown in Fig. 1c: first compute the foundation dynamic
impedance (‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’) associated with
each mode of vibration, and then determine the seismic
response of the structure and foundation supported on
these springs and dashpots, and subjected to the kinematic
accelerations a
k
(t) of the base. The following section
presents methods and results for each of these steps.
2. Assessing the effects of kinematic interaction
The first step of the KI analysis is to determine the free-
field response of the site, that is, the spatial and temporal
ARTICLE IN PRESS
b, b
ij
linear hysteretic damping factors
g soil unit weight
g
c
cyclic shear strain amplitude in percent
g
y
characteristic shear strain
l
R
Rayleigh wave length
n Poisson’s ratio
x,
~
x damping, effective damping of soil-structure
system
X
0
inhomogeneity parameter
r
r
elastic rock mass density
r
s
soil mass density
s
z
vertical normal stress
t, t
c
soil shear stress
F free-field rotation
F
0
foundation rotation
F
G
rotation about out-of-plane horizontal axis
through foundation center
c angle of incidence of S wave along the
horizontal axis
o cyclic frequency
Fig. 1. (a) The geometry of soil–structure interaction problem; (b) decomposition into kinematic and inertial response; (c) two-step analysis of inertial
interaction (modified after Kausel et al. [5]).
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 826
variation of the ground motion before building the
structure. This task requires that:
(a) The design motion be known at a specific (‘‘control’’)
point, which is usually taken at the ground surface or at the
rock-outcrop surface, as shown in Fig. 2. Most frequently
the design motion is given in the form of a design response
spectrum in the horizontal direction and sometimes also in
the vertical direction.
(b) The type of seismic waves that produce the above
motion at the ‘‘control’’ point may be either estimated
from a site-specific seismological study based on available
data, or simply assumed in an engineering manner. In most
cases the assumption is that the horizontal component of
motion is due solely to either vertically propagating shear
(S) waves or vertical dilatational (P) waves. In critical
projects other wave patterns (e.g., oblique body waves,
surface waves) may have to be considered.
Having established (a) and (b), wave-propagation
analyses are performed to estimate the free-field motion
along the soil–foundation interface. The equivalent linear
computer code SHAKE [6] is a well established tool for
performing such analyses, and can be used for any possible
location of the control point (at the ground surface, at the
rock outcrop surface, or the base of the soil deposit). Other
codes, performing truly nonlinear response analyses
(DESRA, DYNAFLOW, CHARSOIL, STEALTH, AN-
DRES, WAVES, etc.) require that the base motion be first
estimated and used as input. In these techniques, the
‘‘control’’ point should be at the base of the profile.
2.1. Simplified site response analysis
For the case of SH or SV harmonic waves propagating
vertically through the soil with frequency o, the variation
of motion with depth in the free field of a horizontally
stratified deposit will be given by one-dimensional ampli-
fication theory. For a homogeneous soil layer, the
amplitude of the motion at any depth z, U
G
, relates to
the motion at the ground surface, U
A
, as follows [1,7]:
A
U
G
U
A
¼ cosðkzÞ, (1)
where k ¼ a complex ‘‘wavenumber’’ in view of the
presence of material damping in the soil given by
k ¼
o
V
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ2ib
_ , (2)
where o is the excitation frequency, V
s
the propagation
velocity of shear waves in the soil, i ¼ OÀ1, b the linear
hysteretic damping coefficent of soil material.
If material damping is ignored, function A simplifies to
A¼ cosðoz=V
s
Þ. (3)
For any bearing specific depth z ¼ D (see also Fig. 3),
this transfer function becomes zero whenever o ¼
ð2n þ1Þðp=2ÞðV
s
=DÞ, which are the natural frequencies in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. Selection of ‘‘control’’ point where seismic excitation is specified.
Fig. 3. Definition of points A and G in the free field with reference to
kinematic response of a massless foundation (from [8]).
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 827
shear vibrations of a stratum of thickness D. This implies
that these frequencies would be entirely filtered out from
the seismic motion at the foundation depth D.
Since the transfer function in Eq. (1) is equal to or
less than 1 over the whole frequency range, the motion
will always be de-amplified with depth. This is no
longer true if internal damping exists in the soil, but for
moderate values of damping the transfer function will
still show some important variations with frequency and
the motion at the depth D will still be less than at the
surface.
It is also possible in the free field to define a rotation
function (Fig. 3):
F ¼
U
A
ÀU
G
D
, (4)
which pertains to a perfectly flexible embedded foundation
subjected to a vertically propagating seismic wavefield. In
more ridid foundations, the rotation would tend to be less
than the above estimate. Accordingly, F can be treated as
an upper-bound of the actual foundation rotation. Also,
for a surface foundation subjected to a traveling seismic
wave, points A and G should be taken at the same
elevation. The rocking and torsional response of the
foundation induced by such an excitation will be influenced
by the destructive interference of the incoming waves—the
so-called ‘‘tau effect’’ of Newmark [9]. Only the former case
is discussed in this work.
For a homogeneous stratum with zero internal damping,
the rotation in Eq. (4) becomes
F ¼
U
A
D
1 Àcos
oD
V
s
_ _ _ _
¼ 2
U
A
D
sin
2
oD
V
s
_ _
. (5)
2.2. Simplified kinematic interaction analysis: foundation
input motion
The displacement and rocking rotation in Eqs. (1) and
(5) refer to depth D in the free field and constitute the
driving motion for the kinematic response of the founda-
tion. The presence of a more-or-less rigid embedded
foundation diffracts the 1-D seismic waves, since its rigid
body motion is generally incompatible with the free-field
motion. The wave field now becomes much more compli-
cated and the resulting motion of the foundation differs
from the free-field motion, and includes a translational and
a rotational component. Since, according to Fig. 1, this
foundation motion is used as excitation in the II step of the
whole seismic response analysis, it is termed FIM.
The following simple expressions (based on results by
Luco [10], Elsabee et al. [11], Tassoulas [12], Harada et al.
[13], Wolf [14]) can be used for estimating the translational
and rocking components of FIM in some characteristic
cases. Specifically:
(a) For a surface foundation subjected to vertically
propagating S waves:
U
G
% U
A
, (6)
F
G
% 0, (7)
where F
G
is the rocking component of the motion. Eqs. (6)
and (7) imply that there is no kinematic effect, and that the
FIM includes only a translation equal to the free-field
ground surface motion.
(b) For a surface foundation subjected to oblique S or
surface (Rayleigh or Love) waves, one must first deter-
mine the apparent propagation velocity V
a
along the
horizontal x axis (Fig. 4). Calling c the angle of incidence
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 4. Inclined SH wave, apparent wave length ðl
a
¼ l
s
= sin cÞ, free-field surface motion (U
A
), and foundation effective input motion (U
G
,F
G
).
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 828
of an S wave:
V
a
¼
V
s
sin c
. (8)
Different choices for the value of c can be made and the
one leading to the largest structural response should be
selected.
For surface waves, V
a
will be determined from the
dispersion relation of the soil deposit for each particular
frequency o. For Rayleigh waves in a practically homo-
geneous and deep soil deposit, V
a
turns out to be only
slightly less than V
s
[15]. In this case, of course, Eq. (8) is
inapplicable. For a deposit consisting of multiple layers
of total thickness H having an average S-wave velocity
V
s
ð¼ H=SH
i
=V
i
Þ and underlain by a halfspace (‘‘rock’’)
of shear wave velocity V
r
, V
a
varies between V
s
(lower limit
at high frequencies) and 0:9 ÂV
r
(upper limit at low
frequencies) as follows [16,17,63]:
V
a
¼
0:90V
r
; f pf
H
;
V
s
; f X2f
H
;
0:90V
r
Àð0:90V
r
ÀV
s
Þ
Âðf =f
H
À1Þ; f
H
of p2f
H
;
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
(9a2c)
where f
H
¼ V
s
=4H is the fundamental natural frequency
of the deposit.
Finally, for a deposit with stiffness increasing continu-
ously with depth, V
a
is only slightly less than the S-wave
velocity V
s
(z
c
) at a depth [16,18]
z
c
%
1
3
l
R
, (10a)
where l
R
¼ V
R
=f is the wave length of the Rayleigh wave.
Apart from the above theoretical considerations, numer-
ous indirect measurements of the apparent phase wave
velocity of body waves along the ground surface have been
reported in the literature (e.g., [17]). A key conclusion from
these measurements is that the apparent velocity, even in
soft soils (characterized by S-wave velocity of the order of
150 m/s), attains values in excess of
V
a
¼ 1500 m=s: (10b)
This is an indirect evidence of the dominance of near-
vertical S waves. Seismic codes for bridges (e.g. EC8/Part2-
Bridges) have began to recognize these high values of phase
velocity.
Note that the above equations have been derived for
free-field conditions; their applicability to footings has not
been rigorously tested. Gazetas [16] first studied the
problem of equivalent depth for some profiles. Vrettos
[18] derived the exact solution for exponential variation of
soil modulus with depth, for a wide range of frequencies
and soil profile parameters. Another interesting work on
equivalent depth for SH-surface waves is given in Ref. [19].
For this type of wave, the equivalent depth is approxi-
mately 0.2 l.
Once the apparent velocity V
a
along the horizontal
x-axis is estimated, the components of FIM can be
determined from the following relations (based on the
works of Luco and Westman [20], Elsabee et al. [8],
Tassoulas [21], and Harada et al. [22]):
Horizontal translation:
U
G
¼ U
A
ÂI
U
ðoÞ (11a)
I
U
ðoÞ ¼
sinðoB=V
a
Þ
oB=V
a
;
oB
V
a
p
p
2
, (11b)
¼
2
p
;
oB
V
a
4
p
2
. (11c)
Rocking rotation:
F
G
¼
U
A
B
ÂI
F
ðoÞ, (12a)
where
I
F
¼ 0:30 1 Àcos
oB
V
a
_ _ _ _
;
oB
V
a
p
p
2
, (12b)
¼ 0:30;
oB
V
a
4
p
2
, (12c)
in which B is the foundation halfwidth or ‘‘equivalent’’
radius in the direction examined; o the cyclic frequency
of harmonic seismic waves; F
G
denotes the rocking
rotation about the out-of-plane horizontal axis through
the foundation center.
(c) For a foundation embedded at depth D and subjected
to vertical and oblique SH waves, the horizontal and
rotational component of FIM are approximately [8,20–22]:
U
G
¼ U
A
ÂI
U
ðoÞ, (13a)
I
U
ðoÞ ¼ cos
p
2
f
f
D
_ _
; f p
2
3
f
D
, (13b)
¼ 0:50; f X
2
3
f
D
, (13c)
F
G
¼
U
A
B
ÂI
F
ðoÞ, (14a)
I
F
ðoÞ ¼ 0:20 1 Àcos
p
2
f
f
D
_ _ _ _
; f pf
D
, (14b)
¼ 0:20; f Xf
D
, (14c)
in which f ¼ o=2p is the frequency in Hz of the harmonic
seismic wave; f
D
¼ V
s
=4D the frequency in shearing
oscillations of a hypothetical soil stratum of thickness D.
As a first approximation, Eqs. (13)–(17) apply to all
foundation geometries.
Note that the rotation is an integral and important part
of the base motion of the massless foundation. Ignoring it,
while de-amplifying the translational component through
the transfer function I
U
(o), may lead to errors on the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 829
unsafe side. These errors are perhaps negligible for
determining the response of short squatty structures—
especially very heavy ones, but may be substantial (of the
order of 50% or more) for tall slender structures [23]. On
the other hand, ignoring both the de-amplification of the
horizontal component ðI
U
¼ 1Þ and the existence of the
rotational component ðI
F
¼ 1Þ usually leads to slightly
conservative results; this is a simplification frequently
followed in practice for noncritical structures [24].
2.3. Use of KI transfer functions
Eqs. (6)–(14) are transfer functions relating the free-
field horizontal ground surface motion to the effective
FIM in the frequency domain. The mathematically correct
(but still approximate) way of using the functions is as
follows:
obtain the Fourier amplitude spectrum F(U
A
) of the
design motion at the free-field ground surface,
multiply F(U
A
) by I
U
(o) and by I
F
(o)/B to obtain the
Fourier amplitude spectra functions (U
G
and F
G
) of the
components of the FIM,
use these functions directly as excitation in the II
analysis, if the latter is done,
in the frequency domain, or obtain, through an inverse
Fourier transformation, the corresponding time his-
tories to be used as excitation in a time domain inertial
response analysis.
In practice, the most frequently used method involves a
further simplification. It makes use of response spectra
rather than Fourier spectra, and is, therefore, particularly
attractive whenever the design motion is specified in the
form of a design spectrum, SA(o) or PSA(o), at the
ground surface, which is the most usual case in design
codes. The response spectrum of the effective horizontal
FIM is approximated as the product of SAðoÞ ÂI
U
ðoÞ for
the acceleration to be applied at the foundation mass, and
as the product SAðoÞ Â½I
U
ðoÞ þI
F
ðoÞH
c
=BŠ for the
acceleration to be applied at a structural mass located a
vertical distance H
c
from the base [25].
3. Inertial SSI: assessment of foundation ‘‘springs’’ and
‘‘dashpots’’
As explained in Section 1, the first step in II analysis is to
determine the foundation impedance corresponding to
each mode of vibration. For the usual case of a rigid
foundation, there are six modes of vibration: three
translational (dynamic displacements along the axes x, y
and z) and three rotational (dynamic rotations around the
same axes).
For each mode, soil can be replaced for the dynamic
analysis by a dynamic spring of stiffness
¯
K and by a
dashpot of modulus C. Their values will be discussed
later on. Fig. 5 illustrates the vertical spring and dash-
pot (
¯
K
z
and C
z
) of an embedded foundation. Subjected
to harmonic vertical force P
z
ðtÞ ¼ P
z
cosðot þaÞ with
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 5. Physical interpretation of dynamic spring and dashpot in vertical mode of vibration.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 830
amplitude P
z
and frequency o, this foundation experiences
a harmonic steady-state displacement u
z
(t) which has the
same frequency o but is out-of-phase with P
z
(t). Thus, u
z
(t)
can be expressed in the following equivalent ways:
u
z
ðtÞ ¼ u
z
cosðot þa þfÞ
¼ u
1
cosðot þaÞ þu
2
sinðot þaÞ, ð15Þ
where the amplitude u
z
and phase angle f are related to the
in-phase, u
1
and the 901-out-of-phase, u
2
, components
according to
u
z
¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
2
1
þu
2
2
_
, (16a)
tan f ¼
u
2
u
1
. (16b)
We can rewrite the foregoing expressions in an equivalent
and computationally beneficial way using complex nota-
tion:
P
z
ðtÞ ¼
¯
P
z
expðiotÞ, (17a)
u
z
ðtÞ ¼ ¯ u
z
expðiotÞ, (17b)
where now
¯
P
z
and ¯ u
z
are complex quantities
¯
P
z
¼ P
z1
þiP
z2
, (18a)
¯ u
z
¼ u
z1
þiu
z2
. (18b)
Eqs. (17) and (18) are equivalent to Eqs. (15) and (16) with
the following relations being valid for the amplitudes:
P
z
¼ j
¯
P
z
j ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P
2
z1
þP
2
z2
_
, (19a)
u
z
¼ j¯ u
z
j ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
2
z1
þu
2
z2
_
, (19b)
while the two phase angles, a and f, are included in the
complex forms.
With P
z
and u
z
being out of phase or, alternatively, with
¯
P
z
and ¯ u
z
being complex numbers, the dynamic vertical
impedance (force–displacement ratio) becomes:
K
z
¼
¯
P
z
¯ u
z
¼
¯
K
z
þioC
z
, (20)
in which both
¯
K
z
and C
z
are, in general, functions of
frequency. The spring constant
¯
K
z
, termed dynamic
stiffness, reflects the stiffness and inertia of the supporting
soil; its dependence on frequency relates solely to the
influence that frequency exerts on inertia, since soil
material properties are to a good approximation frequency
independent. The dashpot coefficient C
z
reflects the two
types of damping (radiation and material) generated in the
system; the former due to energy carried by the waves
spreading away from the foundation, and the latter due to
energy dissipated in the soil through hysteretic action. As
evident from Eq. (20), damping is responsible for the phase
difference between the excitation P
z
and the response u
z
.
The definition in Eq. (20) is also applicable to each of the
other five modes of vibration. Thus, we define as lateral
(swaying) impedance K
y
the ratio of the horizontal
harmonic force over the resulting harmonic displacement
¯ u
y
ðtÞ in the same direction:
K
y
¼
¯
P
y
¯ u
y
¼
¯
K
y
þioC
y
. (21)
Similarly,
K
y
¼ the longitudinal (swaying) impedance (force–dis-
placement ratio), for horizontal motion in the long
direction,
K
rx
¼ the rocking impedance (moment–rotation ratio),
for rotational motion about the long axis of the
foundation basemat,
K
ry
¼ the rocking impedance (moment–rotation ratio),
for rotational motion about the short axis of the
foundation,
K
t
¼ the torsional impedance (moment–rotation ratio),
for rotational oscillation about the vertical axis.
Moreover, in embedded foundations and piles, horizon-
tal forces along principal axes induce rotational in addition
to translational oscillations; hence, a cross-coupling hor-
izontal-rocking impedance also exists: K
xÀry
and K
yÀrx
.
The coupling impedances are usually negligibly small in
shallow foundations, but their effects may become
appreciable for greater depths of embedment, owing to
the moments about the base axes produced by horizontal
soil reactions against the sidewalls.
3.1. Example: lateral seismic response of block foundation
supporting a SDOF structure
We refer to Fig. 6 for an example on how to use the
foundation ‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’ to determine the
response of a complete structure to harmonic earthquake-
type excitation. The foundation and structure possess two
orthogonal axes of symmetry, x and y, and coupled
horizontal (swaying) and rotational (rocking) oscillations
take place. Of interest are the foundation horizontal
displacement U
0
exp(iot) along the x-axis, foundation
rotation F
0
exp(iot) about the y-axis, and relative displace-
ment of the structure U
1
exp(iot). The seismic excitation is
given by the free-field surface displacement U
A
exp(iot) of
amplitude U
A
and frequency o.
As a first step, we determine the FIM, from the KI
analysis. Using the information presented earlier,
U
G
¼ U
A
I
U
ðoÞ and F
G
¼ U
A
I
U
ðoÞ=B,
where I
U
and I
F
are the appropriate KI factors for each
frequency o.
The governing D’Alembert equations for dynamic
equilibrium of the foundation block and the structure are
[26]:
K
x
ðU
0
ÀU
G
Þ þK
xÀry
ðF
0
ÀF
G
Þ
¼ o
2
½m
0
U
0
þm
1
ðU
0
þH
c
F
0
þU
1
ފ, ð22aÞ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 831
K
xÀry
ðU
0
ÀU
G
Þ þK
ry
ðF
0
ÀF
G
Þ
¼ o
2
½I
0
F
0
þI
1
F
0
þm
1
H
c
ðU
0
þHF
0
þU
1
ފ, ð22bÞ
Àm
1
o
2
ðU
0
þH
c
F
0
þU
1
Þ þK
str
U
1
¼ 0, (22c)
in which m
0
and I
0
are the mass and mass moment of
inertia of the foundation, m
1
and I
1
are the mass and mass
moment of inertia of the superstructure and K
str
¼ K
str
þ
ioC
str
the structural impedance (stiffness and damping) of
the superstructure. Note that K
xÀry
is of minor importance
in surface foundations, and is usually ommitted.
1
In
embedded foundations, however, the term should be
included, as it may have a profound influence in the
response [27].
The above equations define a simple algebraic system of
three equations in three unknowns, despite the fact that the
quantities involved are complex numbers. The solution, in
matrix form, for the foundation motion is
U
0
F
0
_ _
¼
K
K Ào
2
ðM
0
ÀM
b
Þ
U
G
F
G
_ _
, (23a)
where
K ¼
K
x
K
xÀry
K
ryÀx
K
ry
_ _
, (23b)
½M
0
Š ¼
m
0
0
0 I
0
_ _
, (23c)
½M
b
Š ¼ ½MŠ þm
1
1 H
c
H
c
H
2
c
_ _
, (23d)
½MŠ ¼
m
1
m
1
H
c
m
1
H
c
m
1
H
2
c
þI
1
_ _
(23e)
for the superstructure:
U
1
¼
m
1
o
2
K
str
þioC
str
Àm
1
o
2
ðU
0
þH
c
F
0
Þ. (24)
Eqs. (23) and (24) provide the solution in closed form. The
computations, however, may be somewhat tedious if
performed by hand, since K matrix involves complex
numbers. On the other hand, it is noted that if a real-
number notation (with amplitudes and phase angles) had
been adopted (as in Eq. (15)), Eqs. (23) would become six
equations with six unknowns—a less desirable procedure.
A simple computer code could readily perform the
operations in Eqs. (23) and (24).
3.2. Computing dynamic impedances: tables and charts for
dynamic ‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’
The most important geometric and material factors
affecting the dynamic impedance of a foundation are:
(1) the foundation shape (circular, strip, rectangular,
arbitrary),
(2) the type of soil profile (deep uniform or multi-layer
deposit, shallow stratum on rock),
(3) the embedment (surface foundation, embedded foun-
dation, pile foundation).
For a project of critical significance a case-specific
analysis must be performed, using the most suitable
numerical computer program. In most practical cases,
however, foundation impedances can be estimated from
approximate expressions and charts. For the usual case of a
practically rigid foundation, a number of analytical
formulae and charts for such stiffnesses have been
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 6. Seismic displacements and rotation of a foundation block
supporting a SDOF super-structure. The seismic excitation is described
through the free-field ground-surface displacement U
A
, assumed to be
produced by a certain type of body or surface waves.
1
This holds when the reference system is placed atop the footing ðz ¼ 0Þ,
as is usually the case.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 832
published (e.g., [24,28–35]) and are presented in this
section.
3.3. Surface foundation on homogeneous halfspace
For an arbitrarily-shaped foundation mat, the engineer
must first determine an ‘‘equivalent’’ circumscribed rectangle
2B by 2L (L4B) using common sense, as sketched in Fig. 7.
Then, to compute the impedances in the six modes of
vibration from Table 1a, all that is needed is:
A
b
, I
bx
, I
by
, I
b
are area, moments of inertia about x, y,
and polar moment of inertia about z, of the actual soil
foundation contact surface; if loss of contact under part
of the foundation (e.g. along the edges of a rocking
foundation) is likely, engineering judgment may be used
to discount the contribution of this part.
B and L are semi-width and semi length of the
circumscribed rectangle.
G, n, V
s
and V
La
, the shear modulus, Poisson’s ratio,
shear wave velocity, and ‘‘Lysmer’s analog’’ wave
velocity; the latter is the apparent propagation velocity
of compression–extension waves under a foundation
and is related to V
s
according to
V
La
¼
3:4
pð1 ÀnÞ
V
s
. (25)
Additional discussion on the Lysmer analog velocity can
be found in Ref. [33].
o ¼ cyclic frequency (in rad/s) of interest.
This table as well as all other tables in this paper gives:
the dynamic stiffness (‘‘springs’’),
¯
K ¼
¯
KðoÞ as a
product of the static stiffness, K, times the dynamic
stiffness coefficient k ¼ kðoÞ:
¯
KðoÞ ¼ K ÂkðoÞ, (26)
the radiation damping (‘‘dashpot’’) coefficient
C ¼ CðoÞ. These coefficients do not include the soil
hysteretic damping, b. To incorporate such damping,
one should simply add to the foregoing C value the
corresponding material dashpot coefficient 2
¯
Kb=o:
total C ¼ radiation C þ
2
¯
Kb
o
. (27)
The special cases of footings of rectangular and elliptic
shape are addressed in Table 1b.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 7. The four foundation–soil systems whose impedances are given in tabular/graphical form. Numbers I–IV refer to corresponding tables and the
associated graphs.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 833
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T
a
b
l
e
1
a
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y
s
h
a
p
e
d
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
h
o
m
o
g
e
n
o
u
s
h
a
l
f
s
p
a
c
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
K
¼
K
k
ð
o
Þ
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
C
S
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
K
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
k
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
h
a
p
e
s
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
h
a
p
e
S
q
u
a
r
e
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
s
h
a
p
e
;
0
p
a
0
p
2
)
b
(
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
¼
A
b
w
i
t
h
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
l
e
2
L
Â
2
B
;
L
4
B
)
a
L
¼
B
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
,
z
K
z
¼
2
G
L
1
À
n
ð
0
:
7
3
þ
1
:
5
4
w
0
:
7
5
Þ
K
z
¼
4
:
5
4
G
B
1
À
n
k
z
¼
k
z
L B
;
n
;
a
0
_
_
C
z
¼
ð
r
V
L
a
A
b
Þ
¯ c
z
w
i
t
h
w
¼
A
b
4
L
2
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
a
¯ c
z
¼
¯ c
z
L B
;
a
0
_
_
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
c
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
,
y
K
y
¼
2
G
L
2
À
n
ð
2
þ
2
:
5
w
0
:
8
5
Þ
K
y
¼
9
G
B
2
À
n
k
y
¼
k
y
L B
;
a
0
_
_
C
y
¼
ð
r
V
s
A
b
Þ
¯ c
y
(
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
b
¯ c
y
¼
¯ c
y
L B
;
a
0
_
_
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
d
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
,
x
K
x
¼
K
y
À
0
:
2
0
:
7
5
À
n
G
L
1
À
B L
_
_
K
x
¼
K
y
k
x

1
C
x

r
V
s
A
b
(
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
,
r
x
(
a
r
o
u
n
d
x
a
x
i
s
)
K
r
x
¼
G
1
À
n
=
0
:
7
5
b
x
L B
_
_
0
:
2
5
2
:
4
þ
0
:
5
B L
_
_
K
r
x
¼
0
:
4
5
G
B
3
1
À
n
k
r
x
¼
1
À
0
:
2
0
a
0
C
r
x
¼
ð
r
V
L
a
I
b
x
Þ
¯ c
r
x
w
i
t
h
I
b
x
¼
a
r
e
a
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
x
a
x
i
s
¯ c
r
x
¼
¯ c
r
x
L B
;
a
0
_
_
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
e
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
,
r
y
(
a
r
o
u
n
d
y
a
x
i
s
)
K
r
y
¼
G
1
À
n
=
0
:
7
5
b
y
3
L B
_
_
0
:
1
5
_
_
K
r
y
¼
K
r
x
n
o
0
:
4
5
;
k
r
y

1
À
0
:
3
0
a
0
v

0
:
5
:
k
r
y

1
À
0
:
2
5
a
0
L B
_
_
0
:
3
0
_ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ _ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ _
C
r
y
¼
ð
r
V
L
a
I
b
y
Þ
¯ c
r
y
w
i
t
h
I
b
y
¼
a
r
e
a
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
y
a
x
i
s
¯ c
r
y
¼
¯ c
r
y
L B
;
a
0
_
_
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
f
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
K
t
¼
G
J
0
:
7
5
t
4
þ
1
1
1
À
B L
_
_
1
0
_
_
K
t
¼
8
:
3
G
B
3
k
t

1
À
0
:
1
4
a
0
C
t
¼
ð
r
V
s
J
t
Þ
¯ c
t
w
i
t
h
J
t
¼
I
b
x
þ
I
b
y
p
o
l
a
r
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
¯ c
t
¼
¯ c
t
L B
;
a
0
_
_
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
g
a
N
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
a
s
L
=
B
!
1
(
s
t
r
i
p
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
)
t
h
e
t
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
K
z
a
n
d
K
y
!
0
;
v
a
l
u
e
s
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
w
o
g
i
v
e
n
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
s
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
o
f
L
=
B
%
2
0
.
b
a
0
¼
o
B
=
V
s
.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 834
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1b
Stiffness for foundations of rectangular and elliptical shape on homogeneous halfspace surface
y
x
2L
2B
2a
2b
x
y
Response mode Static stiffness K
Rectangle (B=L ¼ 2) Rectangle (B=L ¼ 4) Ellipse (a=b ¼ 2) Ellipse (a=b ¼ 4)
Vertical, z K
z
¼
3:3GL
1 Àn
2:55GL
1 Àn
2:9Ga
1 Àn
1:8Ga
1 Àn
Horizontal, y (lateral direction) K
y
¼
6:8GL
2 Àn
5:54GL
2 Àn
6:5Ga
2 Àn
5:3Ga
2 Àn
Horizontal, x (longitudinal direction) K
x
¼
4:9ð1 À1:4nÞ
ð2 ÀnÞð0:75 ÀnÞ
GL
3:9ð1 À1:4nÞ
ð2 ÀnÞð0:75 ÀnÞ
GL
4:7ð1 À1:37nÞ
ð2 ÀnÞð0:75 ÀnÞ
Ga
3:7ð1 À1:4nÞ
ð2 ÀnÞð0:75 ÀnÞ
Ga
Rocking, rx (around x axis)
K
rx
¼
0:82GL
3
1 Àn
0:2GL
3
1 Àn
0:55Ga
3
1 Àn
0:78Ga
3
1 Àn
Rocking, ry (around y axis)
K
ry
¼
2:46GL
3
1 Àn
1:62GL
3
1 Àn
1:65Ga
3
1 Àn
1:1Ga
3
1 Àn
Torsional
K
t
¼ 3:5GL
3
2.1GL
3
2.35Ga
3
1.4Ga
3
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 835
3.4. Partially and fully embedded foundations
For a foundation embedded in a deep and relatively
homogeneous soil deposit that can be modeled as a
homogeneous halfspace, springs and dashpots are obtained
from the formulae and charts of Table 2a (modified from
Gazetas [36]). The foundation basemat can again be of
arbitrary (solid) shape (Fig. 7). The engineer must
determine the following additional parameters using
the table:
D is the depth below the ground surface of the
foundation basemat.
A
w
or d is the total area of the actual sidewall–soil
contact surface, or the (average) height of the sidewall
that is in good contact with the surrounding soil. A
w
should, in general, be smaller that the nominal area of
contact to account for such phenomena as slippage and
separation that may occur near the ground surface. The
engineer should refer to published results of large and
small-scale experiments for a guidance in selecting a
suitable value for A
w
or d (e.g., [37–40]). Note that A
w
or
d will not necessarily attain a single value for all modes
of vibration.
A
ws
and A
wce
which refer to horizontal oscillations and
represent the sum of the projections of all the sidewall
area in directions parallel (A
ws
) and perpendicular (A
wce
)
to loading. Again A
ws
and A
wce
should be smaller than
the nominal areas in shearing and compression, to
account for slippage and/or separation. h is the distance
of the (effective) sidewall centroid from the ground
surface.
Note that most of the formulae of Table 2a are valid for
symmetric and nonsymmetric contact along the peri-
meter of the vertical sidewalls and the surrounding soil.
Note also that Table 2a compares the dynamic
stiffnesses and dashpot coefficients of an embedded
foundation
¯
K
emb
¼
¯
K
emb
Âk
emb
and C
emb
with those of
the corresponding surface foundation,
¯
K
sur
¼
¯
K
sur
Â
k
sur
and C
sur
.
Approximate solutions for the special cases of footings
of rectangular and elliptic shapes are given in Table 2b.
3.5. Presence of bedrock at shallow depth
Natural soil deposits are frequently underlain by very
stiff material or bedrock at a shallow depth, rather than
extending to practically infinite depth as the homogenous
halfspace implies. The proximity of such stiff formation to
the oscillating surface modifies the static stiffness, K, and
dashpot coefficients C(o). Specifically, with reference to
Table 3 and its charts:
(a) The static stiffnesses in all modes decrease with the
relative depth to bedrock H/B. This is evident from all
formulae of Table 3, which reduce to the corresponding
halfspace stiffnesses when H/R approaches infinity.
Particularly sensitive to variations in the depth to rock
are the vertical stiffnesses—the effect being far more
pronounced with strip footings (factor 3.5 versus 1.3).
Horizontal stiffnesses are also appreciably affected. On the
other hand, for H/R41.5 the response to torsional loads is
essentially independent of the layer thickness.
As indication of the causes of this different behavior
(between circular and strip footings and, in any footing,
between the different types of loading) can be obtained by
comparing the depths of the ‘‘zone of influence’’ in each
case. Circular and square foundations on a homogeneous
halfspace induce vertical normal stresses s
z
along the
centerline of the footing that become practically negligible
at depths exceeding 5 footing radii ðz
v
¼ 5RÞ; with strip
foundations vertical stresses practically vanish only below
15 footing widths ðz
v
¼ 15BÞ. The depth of influence, z
h
, for
the horizontal stresses t
zx
, due to lateral loading is about
2R and 6B for circle and strip, respectively. On the other
hand, for all foundation shapes (strip, rectangle, circle),
moment loading is ‘‘felt’’ down to a depth, z
r
, of about 2B
or 2R. For torsion, finally z
t
¼ 0:75R or 0.75B.
Apparently when a rigid formation extends into the
‘‘zone of influence’’ of a particular loading mode, it
eliminates the corresponding deformations and thereby
increases the stiffness.
(b) The variation of the dynamic stiffness coefficients with
frequency reveals an equally strong dependence on the depth
to bedrock H/B. On a stratum, k(o) is not a smooth
function but exhibits undulations (peaks and valleys)
associated with the natural frequencies (in shearing and
compression–extension) of the stratum. In other words, the
observed fluctuations are the outcome of resonance
phenomena: waves emanating from the oscillating founda-
tion reflect at the soil–bedrock interface and return back to
their source at the surface. As a result, the amplitude of the
foundation motion may significantly increase at frequencies
near the natural frequencies of the deposit. Thus, the
dynamic stiffness (being the inverse of displacements)
exhibits troughs, which can be very steep when the hysteretic
damping of the soil is small (in fact, in certain cases, k(o)
would be exactly zero if the soil was ideally elastic).
For the ‘‘shearing’’ modes of vibration (swaying and
torsion) the natural fundamental frequency of the stratum
which controls the behavior of k(o) is
f
s
¼
V
s
4H
, (28)
where H denotes the thickness of the layer, while for the
‘‘compressing’’ modes (vertical, rocking) the corresponding
frequency is
f
c
¼
V
La
4H
¼
3:4
pð1 ÀnÞ
f
s
. (29)
(c) The variation of the dashpot coefficient, C, with
frequency reveals a twofold effect on the presence of a rigid
base at relatively shallow depth. First, C(o) also exhibits
undulations (crests and troughs) due to the wave reflections
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 836
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T
a
b
l
e
2
a
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
n
d
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y
s
h
a
p
e
d
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
f
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
i
n
a
h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
o
u
s
h
a
l
f
s
p
a
c
e
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
K
e
m
b
¼
K
e
m
b
k
e
m
b
(
o
)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
C
e
m
b
(
o
)
S
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
K
e
m
b
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
k
e
m
b
(
o
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
p
e
R
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
i
l
y
-
s
h
a
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
m
a
t
A
b
w
i
t
h
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
l
e
2
L
Â
2
B
;
t
o
t
a
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l

s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
A
w
ð
0
p
a
0
p
2
Þ
2
L
Â
2
B
Â
d
(
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
w
a
l
l

s
o
l
i
d
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
d
)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
z
K
z
;
e
m
b
¼
K
z
;
s
u
r
f
1
þ
1
2
1
D B
ð
1
þ
1
:
3
w
Þ
_
¸
n
p
0
:
4
C
z
;
e
m
b
¼
C
z
;
s
u
r
f
þ
r
V
s
A
w
C
z
;
e
m
b
¼
4
r
V
L
a
B
L
¯ c
z
Â
1
þ
0
:
2
A
w
A
b
_
_
2
=
3
_
_
F
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
:
K
z
;
e
m
b
¼
K
z
;
s
u
r
f
1
À
0
:
0
9
D B
_
_
3
=
4
a
2 0
_
_
I
n
a
t
r
e
n
c
h
K
z
;
t
r
e
¼
K
z
;
s
u
r
f
1
þ
0
:
0
9
D B
_
_
3
=
4
a
2 0
_
_
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
:
i
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
t
w
o
_ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ _ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ _
þ
4
r
V
s
ð
B
þ
L
Þ
d
K
z
,
s
u
r
f
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
1
C
z
,
s
u
r
f
:
s
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
1
¯ c
z
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
T
a
b
l
e
1
A
w
¼
a
c
t
u
a
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l

s
o
i
l
d
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
;
n
¼
0
:
5
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
h
i
g
h
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
F
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
;
L
=
B

1
À
2
K
z
;
e
m
b

1
À
0
:
0
9
D B
_
_
3
=
4
a
2 0
F
u
l
l
y
e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
;
L
=
B
4
3
K
z
;
e
m
b

1
À
0
:
3
5
D B
_
_
1
=
2
a
0
:
3
5
0
_ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ _ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ _
A
w
¼
d
Â
P
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
w
¼
A
b
=
4
L
2
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
y
o
r
x
K
y
;
e
m
b
¼
K
y
;
s
u
r
f
1
þ
0
:
1
5

ffiffi
D B
_
_
_
K
y
;
e
m
b
a
n
d
K
x
;
e
m
b
c
a
n
b
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
m
o
f
L
/
D
,
D
/
B
,
a
n
d
d
/
B
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
a
0
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
g
r
a
n
t
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
C
y
;
e
m
b
¼
C
y
;
s
u
r
f
C
y
;
e
m
b
¼
4
r
V
s
B
L
¯ c
y
Â
1
þ
0
:
5
2
h B
A
w
L
2
_
_
0
:
4
_
_
þ
r
V
s
A
w
s
þ
r
V
L
a
A
w
c
e
þ
4
r
V
s
B
d
þ
4
r
V
L
s
L
d
K
y
,
s
u
r
f
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
1
A
w
s
¼

ð
A
w
i
s
i
n
W
i
Þ
¯ c
y
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
T
a
b
l
e
1
K
x
;
e
m
b
a
n
d
C
x
;
e
m
b
a
r
e
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
f
r
o
m
K
x
;
s
u
r
f
a
n
d
C
y
;
s
u
r
f
¼
t
o
t
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
A
w
c
e
¼

ð
A
w
i
c
o
s
W
i
Þ
¼
t
o
t
a
l
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
i
d
e
a
l
l
a
r
e
a
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
y
¼
i
n
c
l
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
g
l
e
o
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
A
w
i
f
r
o
m
l
o
a
d
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
y
;
s
u
r
f
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
T
a
b
l
e
1
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 837
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T
a
b
l
e
2
a
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
e
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
K
e
m
b
¼
K
e
m
b
k
e
m
b
(
o
)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
C
e
m
b
(
o
)
S
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
K
e
m
b
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
k
e
m
b
(
o
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
p
e
R
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
i
l
y
-
s
h
a
p
e
d
b
a
s
e
m
a
t
A
b
w
i
t
h
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
l
e
2
L
Â
2
B
;
t
o
t
a
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l

s
o
i
l
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
A
w
ð
0
p
a
0
p
2
Þ
2
L
Â
2
B
Â
d
(
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
w
a
l
l

s
o
l
i
d
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
d
)
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
r
x
(
a
r
o
u
n
d
l
o
n
g
a
x
i
s
)
C
r
x
;
e
m
b
¼
C
r
x
;
s
u
r
þ
r
V
L
a
I
w
c
e
¯ c
1
C
r
x
;
e
m
b
¼
4 3
r
V
L
a
B
3
L
¯ c
r
x
þ
r
V
s
ð
J
w
s
þ

½
A
w
c
e
i
D
2 i
Š
Þ
¯ c
1
þ
4 3
r
V
L
a
d
3
L
¯ c
1
¯ c
1
¼
0
:
2
5
þ
0
:
6
5
p
a
0
d B
_
_
À
a
0
=
2
d B
_
_
À
1
=
4
þ
4 3
r
V
s
B
d
ð
B
2
þ
d
2
Þ
¯ c
1
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
a
n
y
b
a
s
e
m
a
t
s
h
a
p
e
b
u
t
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
d
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
K
r
x
;
e
m
b

K
r
x
;
s
u
r
f
I
w
c
e
¼
t
o
t
a
l
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
i
r
b
a
s
e
a
x
i
s
p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
t
o
x
o
f
a
l
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
þ
4
r
V
s
B
2
d
L
¯ c
1
K
r
x
;
e
m
b
¼
K
r
x
;
s
u
r
f
K
r
y
;
e
m
b

K
r
y
;
s
u
r
f
D
i
¼
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
A
w
c
e
i
f
r
o
m
x
a
x
i
s
Â
1
þ
1
:
2
6
d B
1
þ
d B
d D
_
_
À
0
:
2
p
B L
_
_
_
_
J
w
s
¼
p
o
l
a
r
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
i
r
b
a
s
e
a
x
i
s
p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
t
o
x
o
f
a
l
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
s
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
r
y
(
a
r
o
u
n
d
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
a
x
i
s
)
K
r
y
;
e
m
b
¼
K
r
y
;
s
u
r
f
C
r
y
;
e
m
b
i
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
r
y
;
s
u
r
Â
1
þ
0
:
9
2
d B
_
_
0
:
6
1
:
5
þ
d D
_
_
1
:
9
B L
_
_
À
0
:
6
_
_
_
_
w
i
t
h
y
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
x
a
n
d
,
i
n
t
h
e
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
1
;
L
r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
B
w
i
t
h
¯ c
1
a
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
c
e
d
i
n
g
c
o
l
u
m
n
a
n
d
¯ c
r
x
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
T
a
b
l
e
1
C
o
u
p
l
i
n
g
t
e
r
m
K
x
r
y
;
e
m
b

1 3
d
K
x
;
e
m
b
K
r
x
y
;
e
m
b

K
y
r
x
;
e
m
b

1
C
x
r
y
;
e
m
b

1 3
d
C
x
;
e
m
b
A
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
c
o
l
u
m
n
S
w
a
y
i
n
g
-
r
o
c
k
i
n
g
K
y
r
x
;
e
m
b

1 3
d
K
y
;
e
m
b
C
y
r
x
;
e
m
b

1 3
d
C
y
;
e
m
b
x
,
r
y
S
w
a
y
i
n
g
-
r
o
c
k
i
n
g
y
,
r
x
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
K
t
;
e
m
b
¼
K
t
;
s
u
r
f
K
t
;
e
m
b

K
t
;
s
u
r
f
C
t
;
e
m
b
¼
C
t
;
s
u
r
þ
r
V
L
a
J
w
c
e
¯ c
2
C
t
;
e
m
b
¼
4 3
r
V
s
B
L
ð
B
2
þ
L
2
Þ
¯ c
t
Â
1
þ
1
:
4
1
þ
B L
_
_
d B
_
_
0
:
9
_
_
þ
r
V
s

½
A
w
i
D
2 i
Š
¯ c
2
þ
4 3
r
V
L
a
d
ð
L
3
þ
B
3
Þ
¯ c
2
¯ c
2
%
d D
_
_
À
0
:
5
a
2 0
a
2 0
þ
1 2
ð
L
=
B
Þ
À
1
:
5
_
¸
À
1
þ
4
r
V
s
d
B
L
ð
B
þ
L
Þ
¯ c
2
J
w
c
e
¼
t
o
t
a
l
m
o
m
e
n
t
o
f
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
o
f
a
l
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
z
a
x
i
s
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
p
l
a
n
e
D
z
i
¼
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
A
w
i
f
r
o
m
z
a
x
i
s
w
i
t
h
¯ c
2
a
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
c
e
d
i
n
g
c
o
l
u
m
n
a
n
d
¯ c
t
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
T
a
b
l
e
1
a
N
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
a
s
L
=
B
!
1
(
s
t
r
i
p
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
)
t
h
e
t
h
e
o
r
e
t
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
K
z
K
y
!
0
;
v
a
l
u
e
s
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
w
o
g
i
v
e
n
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
s
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
o
f
L
=
B
%
2
0
.
b
a
0
¼
o
B
=
V
s
.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 838
at the rigid boundary. These fluctuations are more
pronounced with strip than with circular foundations,
but are not as significant as for the corresponding stiffness
k(o). Second, and far more important from a practical
viewpoint, is that at low frequencies below the first
resonant (‘‘cutoff’’) frequency of each mode of vibration,
radiation damping is zero or negligible for all shapes of
footings and all modes of vibration. This is due to the
fact that no surface waves can exist in a soil stratum
over bedrock at such low frequencies; and, since the
bedrock also prevents waves from propagating downward,
the overall radiation of wave energy from the footing is
negligible or nonexistent.
Such an elimination of radiation damping may have
severe consequences for heavy foundations oscillating
vertically or horizontally, which would have experienced
substantial amounts of damping in a very deep deposit
(halfspace)—recall illustrative examples for Tables 1a and
2a. On the other hand, since the low-frequency values of C
in rocking and torsion are small even in a halfspace,
operating below the cutoff frequencies may not change
appreciably from the presence of bedrock.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 839
Note that at operating frequencies f beyond f
s
or f
c
, as
appropriate for each mode, the ‘‘stratum’’ damping
fluctuates about the halfspace damping C ðH=B ¼ 1Þ.
The ‘‘amplitude’’ of such fluctuations tends to decrease
with increasing H/B. Moreover, if some wave energy
penetrates into bedrock (as it does happen in real life
thanks to some weathering of the upper masses of rock) the
fluctuations tend to wither away—hence the recommenda-
tion of Table 3.
3.6. Foundations on soil stratum over halfspace
The homogeneous halfspace and the stratum-on-rigid-
base are two idealizations of extreme soil profiles. A more
realistic soil model, the stratum over halfspace, is studied in
this subsection. Besides the H/R or H/B ratio, the ratio
G
s
/G
r
(or the wave velocity ration V
s
/V
r
) is needed to
describe such a soil model. When G
s
/G
r
tends to zero the
stratum-on-rigid base (‘‘bedrock’’) is recovered; when it
becomes equal to 1, the model reduces to a homogeneous
halfspace. For intermediate situations of 0oG
s
/G
r
o1,
springs and dashpots can be estimated using the informa-
tion of this paragraph.
Table 4 presents formulas for the static stiffness of
circular and strip foundations, in terms of G
s
/G
r
and H/R
(for the circle) or H/B (for the strip). These formulas are
valid for G
s
pG
r
, i.e., a halfspace stiffer than the layer. At
the lower limit, G
s
/G
r
-0, the expressions reduce to those
of Table 3 for a layer on rigid base. At the upper limit, G
s
/
G
r
-1, the halfspace expressions (Table 1) are recovered.
At intermediate values, as the rigidity of the supporting
halfspace decreases, the static stiffnesses of the foundation
decrease, apparently due to increasing magnitude of strains
in the halfspace. The results are intuitively obvious and
need no further explanation.
The dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients as
functions of frequency also exhibit intermediate behavior
between those for halfspace and for stratum over bedrock.
Thus the observed undulations are not as sharp as the
undulations on a stratum over bedrock, depending, of
course, on the value of G
s
/G
r
.
In general, compared to a stratum over bedrock, the
flexibility of the base layer (halfspace) produces a decrease
in stiffness but an increase in radiation damping. The latter
stems from the fact that waves emitted from the
foundation–soil interface penetrate into the halfspace,
rather than being fully reflected.
For the earthquake problem, this increase in radiation
damping is practically most significant for the swaying
dashpot at frequencies o ¼ 2pf below the fundamental
frequency of the top soil stratum. Recall that at such
frequencies, when the halfspace is a rigid bedrock, no
radiation damping can generate, and hence resonance
amplifications in the seismic response may develop. In this
case this is no longer true. Fig. 8 gives a chart for
estimating the swaying dashpot C
y
for several values of the
ratio V
s
/V
r.
This chart applies to circular or square
foundations with H/RE3–4 and for strip foundations with
H=B ¼ 2. The chart can only be used as a guide in other
cases.
On the other hand, rotational modes of vibration
generate little damping below their respective cutoff
frequencies, and the significance of rock flexibility is of
minor practical significance. This is also true for higher
frequencies, since ‘‘destructive’’ interference of waves
emitted from a rotating (in rocking or torsion) foundation
limits the depth these waves can reach. Hence the flexibility
or rigidity of the base layer is, again, of practically little
significance.
Additional information on this topic can be found in
[24,28,41,42].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2b
Stiffness for foundations of rectangular and elliptical shape embedded in homogeneous halfspace
Response mode Static stiffness K
Rectangle ðB=L ¼ 2Þ Rectangle ðB=L ¼ 4Þ Ellipse ða=b ¼ 2Þ Ellipse ða=b ¼ 4Þ
Vertical, z K
z;emb
¼ K
z;surf
Âw
z
w
z
¼ 1 þ0:16
D
L
_ _
 1 þ0:42
d
L
_ _
2=3
_ _
1 þ0:25
D
L
_ _
 1 þ0:6
d
L
_ _
2=3
_ _
1 þ0:14
D
a
_ _
 1 þ0:42
d
a
_ _
2=3
_ _
1 þ0:24
D
a
_ _
 1 þ0:6
d
a
_ _
2=3
_ _
Horizontal, y K
y;emb
¼ K
y;surf
Âw
y
(lateral direction)
w
y
¼ 1 þ0:2
ffiffiffi
D
L
_ _ _
 1 þ
d
L
_ _
0:8
_ _
1 þ0:3
ffiffiffi
D
L
_ _ _
 1 þ1:3
d
L
_ _
0:8
_ _
1 þ0:2
ffiffiffi
D
a
_ _ _
 1 þ
d
a
_ _
0:8
_ _
1 þ0:3
ffiffiffi
D
a
_ _ _
 1 þ1:2
d
a
_ _
0:8
_ _
Rocking, rx K
rx;emb
¼ K
rx;surf
Âw
rx
(around x axis)
w
rx
¼ 1 þ2:5
d
L
1 þ1:4
d
L
d
D
_ _
À0:2
_ _
1 þ5
d
L
 1 þ2
d
L
d
D
_ _
À0:2
_ _
1 þ2:5
d
a
 1 þ1:4
d
a
d
D
_ _
À0:2
_ _
1 þ5
d
a
 1 þ2
d
a
d
D
_ _
À0:2
_ _
Rocking, ry K
ry;emb
¼ K
ry;surf
Âw
ry
(around y axis)
w
ry
¼ 1 þ2:1
d
L
_ _
0:6
1 þ
d
D
_ _
1:9
_ _
1 þ3:2
d
L
_ _
0:6
 1 þ1:5
d
D
_ _
1:9
_ _
1 þ2
d
a
_ _
0:6
 1 þ
d
D
_ _
1:9
_ _
1 þ3:2
d
a
_ _
0:6
 1 þ1:5
d
D
_ _
1:9
_ _
Torsional K
t;emb
¼ K
t;surf
Âw
t
w
t
¼ 1 þ3:7
d
L
_ _
0:9
1 þ6:1
d
L
_ _
0:9
1 þ4
d
a
_ _
0:9
1 þ6
d
a
_ _
0:9
Note: K
Ã;surf
obtained from Table 1b.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 840
ARTICLE IN PRESS
T
a
b
l
e
3
D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
h
o
m
o
g
e
n
e
o
u
s
s
t
r
a
t
u
m
o
v
e
r
b
e
d
r
o
c
k
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
p
e
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
a
d
i
u
s
B
¼
R
R
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
2
B
b
y
2
L
(
L
4
B
)
S
t
r
i
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
2
L
!
1
S
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
,
z
K
z
¼
4
G
R
1
À
n
1
þ
1
:
3
R H
_
_
K
z
¼
2
G
L
1
À
n
0
:
7
3
þ
1
:
5
4
B L
_
_
3
=
4
_
_
1
þ
B
=
H
0
:
5
þ
B
=
L
_
_
K
z
2
L
%
0
:
7
3
G
1
À
n
1
þ
3
:
5
B H
_
_
K
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
,
y
K
y
¼
8
G
R
2
À
n
1
þ
0
:
5
R H
_
_
*
K
y
2
L
%
2
G
2
À
n
1
þ
2
B H
_
_
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
,
x
K
x
¼
K
y
*

R
o
c
k
i
n
g
,
r
x
K
r
x
¼
8
G
R
3
3
ð
1
À
n
Þ
1
þ
0
:
1
7
R H
_
_
*
K
r
x
2
L
¼
p
G
B
2
2
ð
1
À
n
Þ
1
þ
0
:
2
B H
_
_
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
,
r
y
K
r
x
¼
K
r
y
*

T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
t
K
t
¼
1
6
G
R
3
3
1
þ
0
:
1
0
R H
_
_
*

D
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
,
z
k
z
¼
k
z
ð
H
=
R
;
a
0
Þ
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
G
r
a
p
h
I
I
I
-
1
k
z
¼
k
z
ð
H
=
B
;
L
=
B
;
a
0
Þ
i
s
p
l
o
t
t
e
d
i
n
G
r
a
p
h
I
I
I
-
2
f
o
r
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
l
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
i
p
k
(
o
)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
,
y
o
r
x
k
y
¼
k
y
ð
H
=
R
;
a
0
Þ
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
G
r
a
p
h
I
I
I
-
1
*
k
y
¼
k
y
ð
H
=
B
;
a
0
Þ
i
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
G
r
a
p
h
I
I
I
-
3
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
,
r
x
o
r
r
y
k
a
ð
H
=
R
Þ
%
k
a
ð
1
Þ
*
k
r
x
%
k
r
x
ð
1
Þ
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
t
a
¼
r
x
;
r
y
;
t
*
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
s
h
p
o
t
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
,
z
C
z
ð
H
=
B
Þ
%
0
a
t
f
o
f
c
;
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
p
e
C
(
o
)
C
z
(
H
/
B
)
E
0
.
8
C
z
(
N
)
a
t
f
X
1
.
5
f
c
A
t
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
i
e
s
:
i
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
l
i
n
e
a
r
l
y
.
f
c
¼
V
L
a
4
H
,
V
L
a
¼
3
:
4
V
s
p
ð
1
À
n
Þ
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
,
y
o
r
x
C
y
ð
H
=
B
Þ
%
0
a
t
f
o
3 4
f
s
;
C
y
ð
H
=
B
Þ
%
C
y
ð
1
Þ
a
t
f
4
4 3
f
s
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
f
o
r
C
x
A
t
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
i
e
s
:
i
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
l
i
n
e
a
r
l
y
.
f
s
¼
V
s
4
H
R
o
c
k
i
n
g
,
r
x
o
r
r
y
C
r
x
ð
H
=
B
Þ
%
0
a
t
f
o
f
c
;
C
r
x
ð
H
=
B
Þ
%
C
r
x
ð
1
Þ
a
t
f
4
f
c
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
f
o
r
C
r
y
T
o
r
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
t
C
t
ð
H
=
B
Þ
%
C
t
ð
1
Þ
*
N
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 841
3.7. Effect of soil heterogeneity
The assumption of homogeneous or layered halfspace
may not be realistic in practice, as the soil gets progressively
stiffer with depth, even in uniform deposits. The prime cause
is the increase in confining pressure with depth and the
associated increase in low-strain shear modulus. Soil
inhomogeneity can be easily treated in dynamic finite-
element formulations by dividing the soil into a number of
homogeneous layers. Yet, such formulations have not been
adequately exploited to study parametrically the dynamic
behavior of foundations [43]. On the other hand, there is an
inherent difficulty in applying analytical and semi-analytical
methods to dynamics of inhomogeneous media, because of
the difficulties associated with decoupling of the governing
equations and solving of the related differential equations
with variable coefficients. As a result, the number of
solutions available today is limited [32,33,44–47].
In this paper information is provided on three specific
cases for which solutions are available:
A rectangular footing with side lengths 2L and 2B
(L4B) resting on an elastic deposit with shear modulus
increasing with depth as
G ¼ G
0
þðG
1
ÀG
0
Þð1 Àe
Àbðz=BÞ
Þ, (30)
where G
0
and G
N
denote the shear moduli at the surface
and at infinite depth, respectively, and b is a dimension-
less inhomogeneity constant. The problem has been
analysed by Vrettos [33] for the case of vertical and
rocking oscillations.
A circular footing of radius R oscillating vertically on
elastic soil with shear modulus increasing proportionally
to the square of depth, and Poisson’s ratio n equal to
0.25 [32]
G ¼ G
0
1 þb
z
R
_ _
2
. (31)
b is a dimensionless inhomogeneity parameter which can
be determined by fitting pertinent experimental results
or field data. The corresponding problem of a strip
footing has been solved by Gazetas [46] and is not
discussed here. This model can simulate deposits with a
fast increase in elastic modulus. Usually, however, the
quadratic G-variation in Eq. (31) is of minor importance
for practical applications.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 4
Static stiffness of circular and strip foundations on soil stratum over
halfspace
Vibration mode General expression
K ¼ KðG
s
=G
r
; H=BÞ ¼ Kð1; 1Þ Â
1þmðB=HÞ
1þmðB=HÞðGs=GrÞ
K(1,N) m
Circle Strip
Vertical K 1.3 3.5
Horizontal of homogenous halfspace 0.5 2.0
Torsional 0.17 0.2
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 842
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 8. Horizontal radiation dashpot C
y
of a foundation on a soil layer underlain by ‘‘flexible’’ rock, as a fraction of the homogeneous halfspace value
C
y
(1,N), for various ratios V
S
/V
r
(after Dobry and Gazetas [39]).
Table 5
Static stiffness for rigid rectangular foundations (after Vrettos [33])
X
0
n b L/B K
z
/G
0
B K
ry
/G
0
B
3
K
rx
/G
0
B
3
0 0.3 1 6.373 5.370 5.370
2 9.326 9.610 27.044
4 14.277 13.992 144.047
0 0.2 1 5.576 4.699 4.699
0.45 8.111 6.835 6.835
0.5 0.3 0.5 1 9.188 6.508 6.508
2 14.113 11.842 35.174
4 22.556 22.422 201.029
0.5 0.3 1 1 10.115 7.180 7.180
1.5 10.636 7.653 7.653
0.5 0.2 0.5 1 7.908 5.630 5.630
1 8.694 6.183 6.183
0.5 0.45 0.5 1 12.154 8.507 8.507
1 13.420 9.486 9.486
0.7 0.3 0.25 1 10.469 6.824 6.824
0.5 12.314 7.812 7.812
1 14.458 9.246 9.246
0.9 0.3 0.1 1 13.092 7.600 7.600
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 843
A circular footing or radius R oscillating vertically on
elastic soil with shear modulus increasing according to
the function [24]
G ¼ G
0
1 þb
z
R
_ _
n
, (32)
where n and b are dimensionless parameters.
With reference to the profile in Eq. (30), Table 5 presents
results for static stiffnesses in the vertical and rocking
modes for different values of the soil Poisson’s ratio. In the
table, X
0
denotes the dimensionless parameter
X
0
¼ 1 À
G
0
G
1
, (33)
which is bounded by zero and one. Selected results for
dynamic stiffness and dashpots coefficients are presented in
Fig. 9. The dimensionless frequency factor indicated in the
graph is expressed in terms of the shear wave velocity at the
surface (V
so
) (Table 6).
For the footing on the profile described by Eq. (31),
dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients are depicted in
Fig. 10. Corresponding static stiffnesses are provided in the
paper by Guzina and Pak [32] and in [48]. It is noted that
material damping in the soil has been ignored in all the
above studies and, thereby, the derived dashpot coefficients
pertain only to wave radiation.
The following noteworthy trends can be identified in
these figures:
1. The variation with frequency of dynamic stiffness is
smaller in a heterogeneous soil than in a homogeneous soil.
In addition, the dynamic stiffness coefficient k generally
decreases with increasing levels of inhomogeneity. The
differences, however, are of secondary importance from a
practical point of view.
2. Radiation damping decreases substantially with
increasing inhomogeneity in the soil. The effect is more
pronounced at low frequencies. This decrease is understood
given the limited ability of an inhomogeneous medium to
radiate waves away from the source [24,45]. At high
frequencies the discrepancies in damping between an
inhomogeneous and a homogeneous medium become
smaller. This can be explained considering that high
frequency (small wavelength) waves emitted from the
foundation ‘‘see’’ the medium as a homogeneous halfspace
having wave velocity equal to the surface velocity V
so
(in
shearing) or V
Lao
(in compression–extension). This prop-
erty has been utilized in the development of ‘‘cone’’ models
for related problems [14,49].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
k
z
z
0.0
0.5
1.0
c
z
z
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
0
= ω B / V
so
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
k
r
y
,

k
r
x
0.0
0.5
1.0
a
0
= ω B / V
so
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
c
r
y
,

c
r
x
0.0
0.5
1.0
Ξ
o
= 0.9, b = 0.1
Ξ
o
= 0.7, b = 0.5
Ξ
o
= 0.7, b = 0.1
Ξ
o
= 0.7, b = 1
Fig. 9. Normalized dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients for vertical and rocking motion of a square foundation on a nonhomogeneous soil for
different values of b and X
0
(modified from [33]).
Table 6
Values of G/G
max
for soil beneath foundations (from NEHRP-2003 and
EC8)
Spectral response acceleration, SA
p0.10 p0.15 0.20 X0.30
G/G
max
0.81 0.64 0.49 0.42
The fact that soil stiffness does not appear as variable in this table [e.g., at
least through a soil category] reduces dramatically its usefulness.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 844
3. A cutoff frequency is apparent in the results for the
circular footing in Fig. 10. As pointed out by Guzina and
Pak [32], this may not be totally surprising, since the profile
can be regarded as a limiting case of a multi-layered
medium in which wave reflections can occur at the
‘‘interfaces’’ in the vertical direction. An interesting
discussion on the issue of cutoff frequency is given in [50].
To develop further insight on the effect of inhomogene-
ity in radiation damping, Fig. 11 depicts radiation damping
expressed in terms of the ratio
b
ij
ðoÞ ¼
oC
ij
ðoÞ
2
¯
K
ij
ðoÞ
. (34)
The above ratio is referred to as ‘‘damping performance
index’’ and is analogous to the critical damping ratio in the
theory of the single-degree-of-freedom oscillator. In Fig.
11, the dramatic decrease in radiation damping resulting
from soil inhomogeneity becomes clearly evident.
3.8. Effect of soil nonlinearity
In current soil–structure interaction (SSI) practice,
nonlinear plastic soil behavior is usually approximated
through a series of iterative linear analyses, using soil
properties (moduli and damping ratios) that are consistent
with the level of shearing strains resulting from the
previous analysis [5,52]. These analyses may utilize a
wealth of available experimental soil data relating the
decrease in (secant) shear modulus and the increase in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 11. Effect of inhomogeneity on normalized damping for vertical (upper left) and rocking motion (lower left) of a square footing based on Vrettos [33];
vertical motion of circular footing based on Guzina and Pak [32] and Gazetas [51].
Fig. 10. Dynamic spring and dashpot coefficient for a rigid circular
footing on a linear wave-velocity halfspace (modified from [32]).
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 845
(effective) damping ratio with increasing amplitude of
shear strain.
Nonlinearities in the free-field soil are treated routinely
with programs such as SHAKE [6,53]. Much less work has
been reported on nonlinearities on the dynamic impedance
functions of footings. In one of the few available studies
(e.g., [54–56]), Borja [54] reports that soil nonlinearity
resulting from an external harmonic load tends to increase
the foundation motion and generate low-frequency reso-
nances even in a homogeneous halfspace. Another inter-
esting study has been conducted by Jakub and Roesset [57].
In this, the soil is modeled as homogeneous or inhomoge-
neous stratum over rigid base with H=B ¼ 1, 2, and 4. A
Ramber-Osgood model was used to simulate the nonlinear
constitutive relations of soil and iterative linear analyses
were performed. One of the two parameters of the Ramber-
Osgood model, r, was kept constant equal to 2, while the
second one, a, was varied so as to cover a wide range of
typical soil stress–strain relations. In this model, the
variation of secant modulus and effective damping ratio
with stress amplitude is given by
G
G
0
¼
1
1 þaðt=G
0
g
y
Þ
, (35a)
b ¼
2
3p
G
G
0
t
G
0
g
y
, (35b)
in which G
0
is the initial shear modulus for low levels of
strain; g
y
a characteristic shear strain, typically ranging
from 0.0001% to 0.01%; and t the amplitude of the
induced shear stress.
It was concluded that a reasonable approximation to the
swaying and rocking impedances of a rigid strip may be
obtained from the available linear viscoelastic solutions,
provided that the ‘‘effective’’ values of G and b are
estimated from Eqs. (35) with
t ¼ t
c
, (36)
where t
c
is the statically induced shear stress at a depth
equal to 0.50 B, immediately below the foundation edge.
Note that the above depth coincides with the depth of
maximum shear strain under a vertically loaded strip
footing [58].
For design purposes and as a first approximation, we
mention here that the average shear modulus for the
soil beneath a footing can be determined according
the NEHRP-2003 recommendations, as a function of the
design seismic coefficient of the structure (Table 4).
Alternatively, one may use approximate cone models to
derive strain-compatible moduli [14].
4. Parametric study of the seismic response of bridge pier
To answer some of the questions raised earlier, a
systematic parametric study was conducted on an idealized
bridge model. One of features of the study relates to the
unavoidable soil nonlinearities during strong seismic
excitation. Such nonlinearities are of two types: ‘‘primary’’,
arising from the shear-wave induced deformations in the
free-field soil; and ‘‘secondary’’ arising from the stresses
induced by the oscillating foundation. Whereas established
methods of analysis are available for handling the former
type of nonlinearities (through equivalent linear or truly
nonlinear algorithms), no simple realistic solution is known
for the latter. The approach described above is adopted
here and different soil moduli are used for the analysis of
wave-propagation and for the computation of the dynamic
stiffnesses, consistent with the overall level of strains at
characteristic points under the footing. A discussion of
the aforementioned decoupling of nonlinearity is given in
Ref. [5].
The bridge pier sketched in Fig. 12 is a slightly idealized
version of an actual bridge. It involves a single column bent
of height H
c
¼ 6 m and diameter d
c
¼ 1:3 m, founded with
a 5-m-diameter ðR ¼ 2:5 mÞ footing placed at a depth D ¼
3 m below the ground surface. The axial load carried by the
system, P ¼ 3500 kN, is typical of a two-lane highway
bridge with a span of about 35 m. Considering a shear wave
ARTICLE IN PRESS
H = 9.5m
H = 30, 83.5m
V = 80, 160 m/s
ρ
β
ρ
β
ρ
β
= 1.8 Mg/m
= 10 %
V = 330 m/s
= 2.0 Mg/m
= 7 %
m = 350 Mg
R
d
D
EIc = 3.5 x 10 KN m
2
6
= 5% β
d = 1.3 m
H= 6m
s1
1
1
3
s2
2
2
3
1
2
c
c
elastic rock
V = 1200 m/s
= 2.2 Mg/m
= 2 %
r
r
r
3
Fig. 12. Bridge system studied.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 846
velocity and a mass density for the top layer of 80 m/s and
2 Mg/m
3
, respectively, and using the approximate relation
G/S
u
E500, the undrained shear strength of the top layer is
estimated at about 50 kPa. Accordingly, the static factor of
safety of the footing is about:
FS
q
u
q
¼
1:3 Â5:14 Â50 þ3 Â20
3500=ðp Â2:5
2
Þ
% 2, (37)
which is a sufficient, although marginal, value for a bridge
footing.
The contact area between sidewalls and surrounding soil
was considered to be either zero (no sidewall–soil contact)
or partial sidewall-soil contact over a height d ¼ 0:5D from
the base.
Results were obtained for excitation by vertical S waves,
described through a horizontal ‘‘rock’’outcrop motion.
Both harmonic steady-state and time-history analyses were
performed, in the frequency and time domains, respec-
tively. The former were applied to investigate the salient
features (SSI period, effective damping) of the dynamic
behavior of the system; the latter were performed to obtain
predictions of the response to actual motions. In the time-
domain analyses, two different excitation time histories
were used, both having a peak horizontal acceleration
(PGA) of about 0.40g:
(a) an artificial accelerogram approximately fitted to the
NEHRP-94 PGA ¼ 0:4g,
(b) the Pacoima downstream motion, recorded (on ‘‘soft
rock’’ outcrop) during the Northridge 1994 earthquake
(since the PGA is 0.42g, scaling of this motion was not
considered necessary).
The two motions and their five and ten percent damped
spectra are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. Use of these motions,
as ‘‘rock’’ outcrop excitations, is deemed necessary for
checking the limitations (or showing the generality) of our
conclusions. The same set of motions has been used by the
authors in an earlier study of pile-supported bridge piers
[27,59].
The results presented in this section refer to a bridge with
a top (deck) free to rotate, subjected to the Pacoima 1994
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 13. Artificial 0.4g motion and corresponding response spectra for 5%
and 10% damping.
Fig. 14. Pacoima (1994) motion and corresponding response spectra for
5% and 10% damping.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 847
motion, and rigid rock conditions. A second set of
parametric results, which incorporate more general bound-
ary conditions, are presented later on.
The harmonic steady state and transient seismic response
of this pier, obtained in a complete analysis, is displayed
in Figs. 15 and 16. These results should be compared
with those in Figs. 17–20, which examine the following
cases:
(a) no SSI, i.e. the footing is considered as rigidly
supported (Fig. 18)
(b) embedment having partial sidewall contact ðd ¼ 1:5 mÞ
with the surrounding soil (Figs. 17 and 19)
(c) no radiation damping, i.e. setting for all modes of
vibration C
rad
¼ 0 (Fig. 20)
The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Ignoring SSI reduces the fundamental natural period
of the system (from 0.83 to 0.53 s), bringing it closer to
resonance with the second-mode natural period of the soil
deposit (0.48 s). In addition, the effect of the soil radiation
and hysteretic damping on the bridge response disappear.
Naturally, therefore, the resulting no-SSI bridge transfer
functions exhibit a (spurious) sharp and high peak at
T ¼ 0:53 s.
Moreover, the rock outcrop excitations are richer in the
period region of 0.50 s than of 0.80 s, which accentuates the
peak at T ¼ 0:53 s.
As a result, the no-SSI time histories of bridge-deck and
footing accelerations are (Fig. 18), both, nearly two times
larger than those of the complete solution (with SSI).
Also of interest is to notice the change in the nature of
the bridge-deck response time histories: the (largest)
peak in the complete solution, at tE4 s, is in unison with
the long-period ground (free field) oscillations occurring
after about 3 s—apparently produced by resonance at
the fundamental period of the soil deposit. The early
part of the free-field ground motion, with much shorter
periods, is a product of ‘‘secondary’’ resonance between
the strong short-period early part of the Pacoima–
Northridge excitation and the second natural mode
of the soil deposit. However, the effect of this part of the
ground motion on the bridge is obviously completely
insignificant.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 15. Complete solution: harmonic steady-state transfer functions.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 848
The no-SSI response shows exactly the opposite trends,
with its (largest) peak occurring at tE2.5 s, in phase with
the strong ground motion observed at that time.
It should be pointed out that the foregoing trends should
not be generalized to any bridge-footing system. For
example, had the frequency of the earthquake excitation
been different (or, alternatively the thickness of the soil
profile been smaller or larger), the above trends could be
reversed.
3. Neglecting radiation damping in this case has a minor
effect both in the frequency and time domains. Two are the
reasons: (a) While the fundamental period of the pier
considering SSI (TE0.83 s) is below the fundamental
period of the whole deposit (TE1.15 s), the main cutoff
period (above which there is little or no radiation damping)
is the second natural period corresponding to the
resonance of the first (crucial) soft soil layer. Thus,
radiation damping in the complete solution is small and
neglecting it is of little significance at resonance. (b) In
addition, the excitation is not particularly rich in 0.80-s-
period components, so even the small decrease in overall
damping is of no further consequence. Additional discus-
sion can be found in Refs. [7,60–62].
5. Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are:
1. The decomposition of SSI into a kinematic (KI) and
an inertial (II) part provides a convenient way to analyze
the problem. To account for the unavoidable nonlinearities
in the soil during strong seismic excitation, it is reasonable
(though not strictly correct) to separate soil nonlinearity
into ‘‘primary’’, arising from the shear-wave induced
deformations in the free-field soil, and ‘‘secondary’’, arising
from the stresses induced by the oscillating foundation
(which is concentrated close to the surface). Although both
phenomena occur simultaneously, in the realm of equiva-
lent linear analyses performed using kinematic and inertial
response analyses, different soil moduli can be used in the
two steps.
2. KI leads to a foundation input motion (FIM) which is
usually smaller than the motion of the free-field soil and, in
addition, to a rotational component. Ignoring the rota-
tional excitation may lead to errors on the unsafe side.
These errors are small when determining the response of
short squatty structures but may be large for tall slender
structures. On the other hand, neglecting KI altogether
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 16. Complete solution: acceleration histories for Pacoima, North-
ridge (1994) rock motion.
Fig. 17. Solution for improved embedment: acceleration histories for
Pacoima, Northridge (1994) rock motion.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 849
usually leads to slight conservative results. It is therefore
recommended for design of noncritical bridges.
3. In embedded foundations and piles, horizontal forces
induce rotational, in addition to translational, oscillations,
hence a ‘‘cross-coupling’’ horizontal-rocking impedance
exists. Ignoring the coupling stiffness may lead to under-
estimation of the fundamental period of a flexibly-
supported pier. On the other hand, coupling impedances
are usually small in shallow foundations and can be
ignored.
4. The contact between the sidewalls of an embedded
footing and the surrounding soil tends to increase both the
stiffness (spring constant) and damping (dashpot constant)
of the footing. The actual sidewall area that is in ‘‘good’’
contact with the surrounding soil is usually smaller than
the nominal contact area. The actual contact area does not
necessarily attain a single value for all modes of vibration.
5. If bedrock is present at a shallow depth beneath a
footing, the static stiffness in all modes of vibration
increases. Particularly sensitive to the presence of bedrock
is the vertical mode. Horizontal stiffnesses may also be
appreciably affected. The torsional and rocking stiffnesses
remain essentially unaffected.
6. The variation of dynamic stiffness coefficients is also
sensitive to the presence of bedrock. The amplitude of the
foundation motion may increase significantly at frequen-
cies near the natural frequency of the deposit. Radiation
damping is insignificant at frequencies below the ‘‘cutoff’’
frequency of the layer. As with their static counterparts,
torsional and rocking damping impedances are not
particularly sensitive to the presence of bedrock.
7. The dynamic impedances of footings on a soil stratum
overlying a stiffer halfspace exhibit intermediate behavior
between those for homogeneous halfspace and for a
stratum over bedrock. The flexibility of the halfspace leads
to a decrease in stiffness but an increase in radiation
damping. The latter stems from the fact that waves emitted
from the foundation–soil interface penetrate into the
halfspace rather than being fully reflected. For the earth-
quake problem, the increase in radiation damping is most
significant in the swaying dashpot, at frequencies below the
‘‘cutoff’’ frequency of the stratum.
8. It appears difficult to determine a´ priori whether SSI
will increase or decrease the response of a bridge. In the
realm of equivalent linear analyses this seems to be
controlled by the following main parameters: (a) The
system damping: if the fundamental period of the flexibly-
supported bridge is significantly smaller than the ‘‘cutoff’’
frequency of the soil (e.g., a rigid pier on a deep and soft
deposit), radiation damping will be significant and the
response of the system will decrease. In particular, if the
cutoff period of the soil is very large (e.g., a thick deposit),
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 18. Solution ignoring SSI: acceleration histories for Pacoima,
Northridge (1994) rock motion.
Fig. 19. Solution for improved embedment: harmonic steady-state
transfer function.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 850
radiation damping may be substantial regardless of natural
period of the system. This implies that modeling the soil as
a halfspace, as done in existing seismic regulations (ATC-3,
NEHRP-2003), may lead to unconservative estimates of the
response. (b) Resonance between structure and soil. If the
increase in fundamental natural period due to SSI brings
the period of the bridge close to an ‘‘effective’’ natural
period (especially the first or second) of the soil, resonance
will develop which will tend to increase the response.
However, if the frequency content of the excitation is not
rich in that particular period, the increase may be
insignificant. (c) Double resonance. If the fundamental
natural period of the system coincides with both the natural
period of the soil and the predominant period of the
earthquake motion (at rock level), double resonance will
develop (i.e., between structure, soil, and excitation). In
this case the response may increase dramatically. Whether
or not this will result to damage is related to several
additional parameters that are not discussed in this study.
(d) Nonlinear effects. The development of plastic deforma-
tions in the structure and soil, including development of
pore water pressure and uplift, may increase the effective
natural period of the structure and the soil. This shift
in period may lead to either de-resonance or resonance
(e.g., bringing the structure closer to the predominant
period of the excitation), which, in turn, may lead to
‘‘progressive collapse’’. To date, such strong nonlinearities
are beyond the state of the art of seismic SSI.
The conclusions drawn from the parameter studies
should not be generalized to bridge piers, soil deposits
and seismic excitations with characteristics very different
from those of the studied cases. However, the observed
phenomena and the discussed interplay between various
natural periods of the system and dominant periods of the
ground excitation, can be of help in predicting qualitatively
the response in other cases, or in interpreting the results of
numerical studies.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this project was provided by the
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,
FHWA Contract DTFH61-92-C-00112, Task 112-D-3.7.
The first author received partial funding from a Car-
atheodory grant from University of Patras (D.388). Thanks
are also due to Mr. Peter Edinger, Partner, Mueser-
Rutledge Consulting Engineers and Professor Christos
Vrettos for reviewing the manuscript and offering valuable
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 20. Solution neglecting radiation damping: harmonic steady-state transfer functions.
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 851
comments, and to the staff of MRCE for preparing some
of the drawings. The authors would also like to acknowl-
edge the help of Ms. Evangelia Garini in preparing Tables
1b and 2b.
References
[1] Kramer S. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[2] Finn WDL. State-of-the-art of geotechnical earthquake engineering
practice. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2000;20(1–4):1–15.
[3] Stewart JP, Seed RB, Fenves GL. Seismic soil–structure interaction in
buildings. II: empirical findings. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1999;
125(1):38–48.
[4] Kim S, Stewart JP. Kinematic soil–structure interaction from strong
motion recordings. J Geotech Geoenv Eng ASCE 2003;129(4):
323–35.
[5] Kausel E, Roesset JM, Christian JT. Nonlinear behavior in
soil–structure interaction. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1976;102(GT12):
1159–78.
[6] Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB. SHAKE: a computer program for
earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report
EERC 72-12, University of California, Berkeley, 1972.
[7] Roesset JM. Soil amplification of earthquakes. In: Desai CS,
Christian JT, editors. Numerical methods in geotechnical engineer-
ing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1977. p. 639–82 [chapter 19].
[8] Elsabee F, Morray JP, Roesset JM. Dynamic behavior of embedded
foundations. Research Report R77-33, MIT, 1977.
[9] Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E. Fundamental of earthquake en-
gineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 640pp.
[10] Luco JE, Westman RA. Dynamic response of circular footings. J Eng
Mech Div ASCE 1971;97(EM5):1381.
[11] Elsabee F, Morray JP, Roesset JM. Dynamic behavior of embedded
foundations. Research Report R77-33, MIT, 1977.
[12] Tassoulas JL. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewalls on the
response of embedded circular foundations to obliquely-incident SV
and P waves. Dynamic soil–Structure Interaction. Kotterdam: A.A.
Balkemal; 1984. p. 55–63.
[13] Harada T, Kubo K, Katayama T. Dynamic soil–structure interaction
by continuum formulation method. Report No. 190, Institute of
Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, 1981.
[14] Wolf JP. Simple physical models for foundation vibrations. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1994.
[15] Gazetas G, Yegian M. Shear and Rayleigh waves in soil dynamics.
ASCE 1979;105(GT12):1455–70.
[16] Gazetas G. Vibrational characteristics of soil depostis with variable
wave velocity. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1982;6:1–20.
[17] O’Rourke MJ, Bloom M, Dobry R. Apparent propagation velocity
of body waves. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1982(10):283–94.
[18] Vrettos C. In-plane vibrations of soil depostis with variable shear
modulus: I. surface waves. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
1990;14:209–22.
[19] Vrettos C. Dispersive SH-surface waves in soil deposits of variable
shear modulus. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1990;9:255–64.
[20] Luco JE, Westman RA. Dynamic response of circular footings. J Eng
Mech Div ASCE 1971;97(EM5):1381.
[21] Tassoulas JL. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewalls on the
response of embedded circular foundations to obliquely-incident SV
and P Waves. Dynamic soil–structure interaction. Rotherdam: A.A.
Balkema; 1984. p. 55–63.
[22] Harada T, Kubo K, Katayama T. Dynamic soil–structure interaction
by continuoum formulation method. Report No 190, Institute of
Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, 1981.
[23] Veletsos AS, Nair VV. Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic
foundations. J Struct Eng ASCE 1975;101(1):109–29.
[24] Gazetas G. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the
art. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1983;2:2–42.
[25] Gazetas G, Mylonakis G. Seismic soil–structure interaction: new
evidence and emerging issues, emerging issues paper. Geotech Spec
Publ ASCE 1998(75):1119–74.
[26] Richart FE, Hall JR, Woods RD. Vibrations of soils and founda-
tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1970.
[27] Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G. Soil–pile–bridge seismic
interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil. J Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 1997;26:337–59.
[28] Luco JE. Impedance functions of a rigid foundation on a layered
medium. Nucl Eng Des 1974;31:204–17.
[29] Kausel E, Roesset JM. Dynamic stiffness of circular foundations.
J Eng Mech Div ASCE 1975;101:771–85.
[30] Wong HL, Luco JE. Tables of impedance functions for square
foundations on layered media. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1985;4:64–81.
[31] Dobry R, Gazetas G, Stokoe KH. II Dynamic response of arbitrarily
shaped foundations: experimental verification. J Geotech Eng Div
ASCE 1986;112(2):136–49.
[32] Guzina BB, Pak RYS. Vertical vibration of a circular footing on a
linear-wave-velocity half-space. Geotechnique 1998;48(2):159–68.
[33] Vrettos C. Vertical and rocking impedances for rigid rectangular
foundations on soils with bounded non-homogeneity. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1999;28:1525–40.
[34] Karabalis DL, Beskos DE. Dynamic response of 3-D rigid surface
foundations by time domain boundary element method. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 1984;12:73–93.
[35] Qian, Beskos DE. Dynamic interaction between three-dimensional
rigid surface foundations and comparison with the ATC-3 provisions.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1995;24(3):419–37.
[36] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and
embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991;117(9):1363–81.
[37] Stokoe KH, Richart FE. Dynamic response of embedded machine
foundations. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1974;100(GT-4):427–47.
[38] Novak M. Experiments with shallow and deep foundations. In:
Gazetas G, Selig ET, editors. Vibration problems in geotechnical
engineering. New York: ASCE; 1985. p. 1–26.
[39] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Dynamic response of arbitrary shaped
foundations. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1986;112(2):109–35.
[40] Gazetas G, Stokoe KH. Free vibration of embedded foundations:
theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991;117(9):
1382–401.
[41] Hadjian AH, Luco JE. On the importance of layering on impedance
functions. In: Proceedings of the sixth world conference on earth-
quake engineering, New Delhi, 1977.
[42] Gazetas G, Roesset JM. Forced vibrations of strip footing in layered
soils. Method Struct Anal ASCE 1976;1:115–31.
[43] Guzina BB, Pak RYS. Multi-layer representation of continuous
insitu profiles in soil dynamics. Geotechnical special publication, vol.
64. New York: ASCE; 1997. p. 1–10
[44] Awojobi AO. Vertical vibration of a rigid circular foundation on
Gibson soil. Geotechnique 1972;22:333–43.
[45] Awojobi AO. Torsional vibration of a rigid circular body on a non-
homogeneous elastic stratum. Quart J Mech Appl Math 1973;
26:235–47.
[46] Gazetas G. Static and dynamic displacements of foundations on
heterogeneous multilayered soils. Geotechnique 1980;2:159–77.
[47] Muravskii GB. Mechanics of non-homogeneous and anisotropic
foundations. New York: Springer; 2001.
[48] Kassir MK, Chuaprasert MF. A rigid punch in contact with a non-
homogeneous elastic solid. J Appl Mech ASME 1974;41:1019–24.
[49] Meek JW, Veletsos AS. Simple models for foundations in lateral and
rocking motion, Preprints, Fifth world conference on earthquake
engineering. International Association for Earthquake Engineering,
Rome, 1973. 4pp.
[50] Wolf JP. To radiate or not to radiate. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
1996;25(12):1421–32.
[51] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation
engineering handbook. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinholds;
1991. p. 553–93 [chapter 15].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 852
[52] Lysmer et al. FLUSH-a computer program of approximate 3-D
analysis of soil–structure interaction problems. Report No. EERC
75-30, University of California, Berkeley; 1975.
[53] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G. Constitutive model for 1–D cyclic soil
behavior applied to seismic analysis of layered deposits. Soils Found
2005;45(3):147–60.
[54] Borja RI, Wu WH. Vibration of foundations on incompressible
soils with no elastic region. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1994;120(9):
1570–92.
[55] Gerolymos N, Escoffier S, Gazetas G, Garnier J. Numerical modeling
of cyclic lateral pile load experiments. J Geotech Geoenv Eng,
submitted for publication.
[56] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G. Phenomenological model applied to
inelastic response of soil–pile interaction systems. Soils Found
2005;45(4):119–32.
[57] Jakub M, Roesset JM. Nonlinear stiffness of foundations. Research
Report R77-35, MIT; 1977.
[58] Tschebotarioff GP. Foundations, retaining and earth structures. 2nd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1973.
[59] Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G. Parametric results for seismic
response of pile supported bridge bents. NCEER-95-0021, National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of
New York, Buffalo, 1995.
[60] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial
or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 2000;4(3):377–401.
[61] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Nikolaou S, Chancey A. Development of
analysis and design procedures for spread footings. Research Report
MCEER-02-0003, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineer-
ing Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, 2002. p. 245.
[62] Gerolymos N, Gazetas G, Mylonakis G. Natural period and
damping of bridge-piers on piles. In: Second international conference
in geotechnical earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 1999. p. 299–96.
[63] O’Rourke MJ, Castro G, Hossain I. Horizontal soil strain due to
seismic waves. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1984;110(9):1173–87.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 853

ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 825

Nomenclature kinematic acceleration soil surface-to-rock motion amplification function Ab foundation basemat–soil contact area Aw total area of actual sidewall–soil contact surface Awce sum of projections of total sidewall area in direction perpendicular to loading Aws sum of projections of total sidewall area in direction parallel to loading b soil inhomogeneity parameter B foundation halfwidth or ‘‘equivalent’’ radius in the direction examined, or of circumscribed rectangle C, Cz, Cy, Cij dashpot coefficient Crad radiation damping coefficient d total height of actual sidewall–soil contact surface dc diameter of bridge pier D depth of embedment Es soil modulus of elasticity Ec concrete modulus of elasticity f frequency fc fundamental natural frequency of soil deposit in compression–extension fD natural frequency in shear mode of a hypothetical soil stratum of thickness D fs fundamental natural frequency of soil deposit in shear mode F(UA) Fourier amplitude spectrum of design motion at free-field soil surface FS factor of safety g acceleration of gravity G, G0 soil shear modulus, maximum (low-strain) soil shear modulus G0, GN soil shear modulus at zero and infinite depth, respectively h distance of (effective) sidewall centroid from ground surface H soil thickness Hc height of bridge pier He horizontal force amplitude due to inertia on the masses of the superstructure i OÀ1 I1 mass moment of inertia of bridge superstructure Ib polar moment of inertia about z of soil foundation contact surface Ibx moment of inertia about x of soil foundation contact surface Iby moment of inertia about y of soil foundation contact surface IF rotational kinematic interaction factors I0 mass moment of inertia of bridge foundation ak(t) A

IR IU k K ¯ ¯ K, K z k, k(o) ¯ K sur , Csur

impedance contrast between soil and rock translational kinematic interaction factors wavenumber static stiffness dynamic stiffness (‘‘spring’’) dynamic stiffness coefficient dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients of surface foundation Kemb, Cemb dynamic stiffnesses and dashpot coefficients of embedded foundation Kx swaying foundation impedance Ky swaying impedance in long direction Krx rocking impedance about long axis of foundation basemat Kry rocking impedance about short axis of foundation basemat Kt torsional impedance about vertical axis KxÀry , KyÀrx cross-coupling horizontal-rocking impedances Kstr dynamic structural impedance of superstructure L semi-length of footing (or of circumscribed rectangle) m 1, m s superstructure mass Me overturning moment amplitude due to inertia on the masses of the superstructure m 0, m b foundation mass n soil inhomogeneity parameter P axial gravity load carried by bridge system PGA peak ground acceleration Pz, Pz(t) vertical force q, qu applied foundation pressure R radius of bridge footing SA spectral acceleration Su soil undrained shear strength t time ~ T, T period, effective period uz(t), u1, u2 vertical foundation displacement UA, UG motions at depths A and G, respectively Va apparent wave propagation velocity along ground surface or soil–foundation interface VLa, VLao ‘‘Lysmer’s analog’’ wave velocity, ‘‘Lysmer’s analog’’ wave velocity at surface Vr shear wave velocity of rock VR Rayleigh wave velocity Vs, Vso soil shear wave velocity, soil shear wave velocity at surface z depth zr depth of influence zv, zh, zr, zt depths of influence in vertical, horizontal, rocking, and torsional vibrations Greek letters a, f phase angle (a also Ramber-Osgood parameter)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
826 G. Mylonakis et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853

b, bij g gc gy lR n ~ x, x X0 rr

linear hysteretic damping factors soil unit weight cyclic shear strain amplitude in percent characteristic shear strain Rayleigh wave length Poisson’s ratio damping, effective damping of soil-structure system inhomogeneity parameter elastic rock mass density

rs sz t, tc F F0 FG c o

soil mass density vertical normal stress soil shear stress free-field rotation foundation rotation rotation about out-of-plane horizontal axis through foundation center angle of incidence of S wave along the horizontal axis cyclic frequency

Fig. 1. (a) The geometry of soil–structure interaction problem; (b) decomposition into kinematic and inertial response; (c) two-step analysis of inertial interaction (modified after Kausel et al. [5]).

excitation by D’Alembert forces associated with the acceleration of the superstructure due to the KI (Fig. 1b). Furthermore, for a surface or embedded foundation, II analysis is also conveniently performed in two steps, as shown in Fig. 1c: first compute the foundation dynamic impedance (‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’) associated with each mode of vibration, and then determine the seismic response of the structure and foundation supported on

these springs and dashpots, and subjected to the kinematic accelerations ak(t) of the base. The following section presents methods and results for each of these steps. 2. Assessing the effects of kinematic interaction The first step of the KI analysis is to determine the freefield response of the site, that is, the spatial and temporal

the ‘‘control’’ point should be at the base of the profile. at the rock outcrop surface. (3) For any bearing specific depth z ¼ D (see also Fig. V s 1 þ 2ib (2) where o is the excitation frequency. Definition of points A and G in the free field with reference to kinematic response of a massless foundation (from [8]).1. UG. which is usually taken at the ground surface or at the rock-outcrop surface. 2. In most cases the assumption is that the horizontal component of motion is due solely to either vertically propagating shear (S) waves or vertical dilatational (P) waves.) require that the base motion be first estimated and used as input. DYNAFLOW. Simplified site response analysis For the case of SH or SV harmonic waves propagating vertically through the soil with frequency o. 3. b the linear hysteretic damping coefficent of soil material. (b) The type of seismic waves that produce the above motion at the ‘‘control’’ point may be either estimated from a site-specific seismological study based on available data. 3). UA (1) where k ¼ a complex ‘‘wavenumber’’ in view of the presence of material damping in the soil given by k¼ o pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi . i ¼ OÀ1. ANDRES. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 827 Fig.. etc. The equivalent linear computer code SHAKE [6] is a well established tool for performing such analyses. as shown in Fig. WAVES. oblique body waves. variation of the ground motion before building the structure. Most frequently the design motion is given in the form of a design response spectrum in the horizontal direction and sometimes also in the vertical direction. Vs the propagation velocity of shear waves in the soil. which are the natural frequencies in . In critical projects other wave patterns (e. 2. wave-propagation analyses are performed to estimate the free-field motion along the soil–foundation interface.ARTICLE IN PRESS G. fication theory. the variation of motion with depth in the free field of a horizontally stratified deposit will be given by one-dimensional ampli- Fig. Having established (a) and (b). STEALTH.7]: A UG ¼ cosðkzÞ.g. Other codes. For a homogeneous soil layer. relates to the motion at the ground surface. In these techniques. or simply assumed in an engineering manner. Mylonakis et al. this transfer function becomes zero whenever o ¼ ð2n þ 1Þðp=2ÞðV s =DÞ. If material damping is ignored. as follows [1. This task requires that: (a) The design motion be known at a specific (‘‘control’’) point. function A simplifies to A ¼ cosðoz=V s Þ. and can be used for any possible location of the control point (at the ground surface. surface waves) may have to be considered. performing truly nonlinear response analyses (DESRA. Selection of ‘‘control’’ point where seismic excitation is specified. UA. the amplitude of the motion at any depth z. or the base of the soil deposit). 2. CHARSOIL.

and includes a translational and a rotational component. Calling c the angle of incidence . and foundation effective input motion (UG. the rotation in Eq. Wolf [14]) can be used for estimating the translational and rocking components of FIM in some characteristic cases. [11]. Accordingly. Vs Vs D D (5) where FG is the rocking component of the motion. This is no longer true if internal damping exists in the soil. (1) is equal to or less than 1 over the whole frequency range. 3): UA À UG . 4). / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Fig. it is termed FIM. Since. Tassoulas [12]. Also. (6) (7) F¼ (4) which pertains to a perfectly flexible embedded foundation subjected to a vertically propagating seismic wavefield. (b) For a surface foundation subjected to oblique S or surface (Rayleigh or Love) waves.2. It is also possible in the free field to define a rotation function (Fig. (1) and (5) refer to depth D in the free field and constitute the driving motion for the kinematic response of the foundation. but for moderate values of damping the transfer function will still show some important variations with frequency and the motion at the depth D will still be less than at the surface. for a surface foundation subjected to a traveling seismic wave. the motion will always be de-amplified with depth. Simplified kinematic interaction analysis: foundation input motion The displacement and rocking rotation in Eqs. one must first determine the apparent propagation velocity Va along the horizontal x axis (Fig. Only the former case is discussed in this work. free-field surface motion (UA). 4. The rocking and torsional response of the foundation induced by such an excitation will be influenced by the destructive interference of the incoming waves—the so-called ‘‘tau effect’’ of Newmark [9]. The following simple expressions (based on results by Luco [10]. the rotation would tend to be less than the above estimate. D 2. Elsabee et al. F can be treated as an upper-bound of the actual foundation rotation.ARTICLE IN PRESS 828 G. For a homogeneous stratum with zero internal damping. In more ridid foundations. The wave field now becomes much more complicated and the resulting motion of the foundation differs from the free-field motion. and that the FIM includes only a translation equal to the free-field ground surface motion. this foundation motion is used as excitation in the II step of the whole seismic response analysis. shear vibrations of a stratum of thickness D. (4) becomes  !   UA oD U A 2 oD F¼ 1 À cos sin ¼2 . 1. FG % 0. Eqs.FG). points A and G should be taken at the same elevation. Since the transfer function in Eq. This implies that these frequencies would be entirely filtered out from the seismic motion at the foundation depth D. according to Fig. since its rigid body motion is generally incompatible with the free-field motion. Specifically: (a) For a surface foundation subjected to vertically propagating S waves: U G % U A. Inclined SH wave. (6) and (7) imply that there is no kinematic effect. Mylonakis et al. The presence of a more-or-less rigid embedded foundation diffracts the 1-D seismic waves. [13]. apparent wave length ðla ¼ ls = sin cÞ. Harada et al.

> > > < V s. even in soft soils (characterized by S-wave velocity of the order of 150 m/s). the components of FIM can be UA Â I F ðoÞ. Tassoulas [21]. Eq. f H of p2f H . of course. o the cyclic frequency of harmonic seismic waves. In this case. As a first approximation. Eqs. the horizontal and rotational component of FIM are approximately [8. may lead to errors on the . 3 (13a) (13b) where lR ¼ V R =f is the wave length of the Rayleigh wave. (14b) (14c) This is an indirect evidence of the dominance of nearvertical S waves. 3  2 f p f D. Another interesting work on equivalent depth for SH-surface waves is given in Ref. For surface waves. in which f ¼ o=2p is the frequency in Hz of the harmonic seismic wave. for a wide range of frequencies and soil profile parameters. 2fD ¼ 0:20. Va 2 (12a)  ! oB I F ¼ 0:30 1 À cos . (13)–(17) apply to all foundation geometries. f Xf D . [8]. 2fD ¼ 0:50. Apart from the above theoretical considerations. f D ¼ V s =4D the frequency in shearing oscillations of a hypothetical soil stratum of thickness D.20–22]: U G ¼ U A Â I U ðoÞ. f X2f H .g. their applicability to footings has not been rigorously tested.g. oB=V a oB p 4 . [22]): Different choices for the value of c can be made and the one leading to the largest structural response should be selected.18] z c % 1 lR . Va 2 oB p p . attains values in excess of V a ¼ 1500 m=s: (10b) (13c) (14a) f pf D .  p f I U ðoÞ ¼ cos . Va varies between Vs (lower limit at high frequencies) and 0:9 Â V r (upper limit at low frequencies) as follows [16. Elsabee et al.17. EC8/Part2Bridges) have began to recognize these high values of phase velocity. for a deposit with stiffness increasing continuously with depth. p  Rocking rotation: FG ¼ where UA Â I F ðoÞ. > 0:90V r . Note that the above equations have been derived for free-field conditions. Va 2 (11a) (11b) (11c) 2 . sin c (8) determined from the following relations (based on the works of Luco and Westman [20]. Va will be determined from the dispersion relation of the soil deposit for each particular frequency o. Va 2 (12b) (12c) in which B is the foundation halfwidth or ‘‘equivalent’’ radius in the direction examined. B  ! p f I F ðoÞ ¼ 0:20 1 À cos . 3 (10a)  Horizontal translation: U G ¼ U A Â IU ðoÞ I U ðoÞ ¼ ¼ sinðoB=V a Þ . Seismic codes for bridges (e. (c) For a foundation embedded at depth D and subjected to vertical and oblique SH waves. For a deposit consisting of multiple layers of total thickness H having an average S-wave velocity V s ð¼ H=SH i =V i Þ and underlain by a halfspace (‘‘rock’’) of shear wave velocity Vr.. Vrettos [18] derived the exact solution for exponential variation of soil modulus with depth. numerous indirect measurements of the apparent phase wave velocity of body waves along the ground surface have been reported in the literature (e. oB p 4 . For Rayleigh waves in a practically homogeneous and deep soil deposit. H where f H ¼ V s =4H is the fundamental natural frequency of the deposit. [17]). Va ¼ 0:30. (8) is inapplicable. B oB p p . Ignoring it. Gazetas [16] first studied the problem of equivalent depth for some profiles. FG ¼ 2 f X f D. the equivalent depth is approximately 0. Va turns out to be only slightly less than Vs [15]. Finally. and Harada et al.63]: 8 f pf H . [19]. while de-amplifying the translational component through the transfer function IU(o). Va is only slightly less than the S-wave velocity Vs (zc) at a depth [16. For this type of wave. FG denotes the rocking rotation about the out-of-plane horizontal axis through the foundation center.2 l. Once the apparent velocity Va along the horizontal x-axis is estimated. Mylonakis et al. Note that the rotation is an integral and important part of the base motion of the massless foundation. A key conclusion from these measurements is that the apparent velocity. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 829 of an S wave: Va ¼ Vs .ARTICLE IN PRESS G. (9a2c) Va ¼ > 0:90V r À ð0:90V r À V s Þ > > > : Âðf =f À 1Þ.

the corresponding time histories to be used as excitation in a time domain inertial response analysis. The mathematically correct (but still approximate) way of using the functions is as follows: In practice. at the ground surface. (6)–(14) are transfer functions relating the freefield horizontal ground surface motion to the effective FIM in the frequency domain. particularly attractive whenever the design motion is specified in the form of a design spectrum. or obtain. 5 illustrates the vertical spring and dash¯ pot (K z and Cz) of an embedded foundation.ARTICLE IN PRESS 830 G. y and z) and three rotational (dynamic rotations around the same axes). and is. Fig. It makes use of response spectra rather than Fourier spectra. soil can be replaced for the dynamic ¯ analysis by a dynamic spring of stiffness K and by a dashpot of modulus C. the most frequently used method involves a further simplification. 2. multiply F(UA) by IU(o) and by IF(o)/B to obtain the Fourier amplitude spectra functions (UG and FG) of the components of the FIM. 3. . in the frequency domain. which is the most usual case in design codes. use these functions directly as excitation in the II analysis. this is a simplification frequently followed in practice for noncritical structures [24]. Physical interpretation of dynamic spring and dashpot in vertical mode of vibration. For each mode. there are six modes of vibration: three translational (dynamic displacements along the axes x. SA(o) or PSA(o). the first step in II analysis is to determine the foundation impedance corresponding to each mode of vibration. Use of KI transfer functions Eqs. Subjected to harmonic vertical force Pz ðtÞ ¼ Pz cosðot þ aÞ with     obtain the Fourier amplitude spectrum F(UA) of the design motion at the free-field ground surface. if the latter is done. therefore. On the other hand. The response spectrum of the effective horizontal FIM is approximated as the product of SAðoÞ Â I U ðoÞ for the acceleration to be applied at the foundation mass. Mylonakis et al. unsafe side. Their values will be discussed later on. through an inverse Fourier transformation. 5. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Fig. Inertial SSI: assessment of foundation ‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’ As explained in Section 1. and as the product SAðoÞ Â ½I U ðoÞ þ I F ðoÞH c =BŠ for the acceleration to be applied at a structural mass located a vertical distance Hc from the base [25]. For the usual case of a rigid foundation.3. but may be substantial (of the order of 50% or more) for tall slender structures [23]. These errors are perhaps negligible for determining the response of short squatty structures— especially very heavy ones. ignoring both the de-amplification of the horizontal component ðI U ¼ 1Þ and the existence of the rotational component ðI F ¼ 1Þ usually leads to slightly conservative results.

where the amplitude uz and phase angle f are related to the in-phase. Kry ¼ the rocking impedance (moment–rotation ratio). a and f. uz ðtÞ ¼ uz expðiotÞ. reflects the stiffness and inertia of the supporting soil.1. termed dynamic stiffness. uz ¼ uz1 þ iuz2 . functions of ¯ frequency. and relative displacement of the structure U1 exp(iot). 3. since soil material properties are to a good approximation frequency independent. for horizontal motion in the long direction. u1 (16b)     We can rewrite the foregoing expressions in an equivalent and computationally beneficial way using complex notation: ¯ Pz ðtÞ ¼ Pz expðiotÞ. are included in the complex forms. damping is responsible for the phase difference between the excitation Pz and the response uz. ð15Þ (swaying) impedance Ky the ratio of the horizontal harmonic force over the resulting harmonic displacement uy ðtÞ in the same direction: ¯ Ky ¼ ¯ Py ¯ ¼ K y þ ioC y . U G ¼ U A I U ðoÞ and FG ¼ U A I U ðoÞ=B. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 831 amplitude Pz and frequency o. Mylonakis et al. (20). z1 z2 uz ¼ j¯ z j ¼ u qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u2 þ u2 . this foundation experiences a harmonic steady-state displacement uz(t) which has the same frequency o but is out-of-phase with Pz(t). The governing D’Alembert equations for dynamic equilibrium of the foundation block and the structure are [26]: Kx ðU 0 À U G Þ þ KxÀry ðF0 À FG Þ ¼ o2 ½m0 U 0 þ m1 ðU 0 þ H c F0 þ U 1 ފ. the dynamic vertical ¯ impedance (force–displacement ratio) becomes: Kz ¼ ¯ Pz ¯ ¼ K z þ ioC z . hence. and coupled horizontal (swaying) and rotational (rocking) oscillations take place. The definition in Eq. for rotational motion about the long axis of the foundation basemat. but their effects may become appreciable for greater depths of embedment. we define as lateral . in embedded foundations and piles. alternatively. a cross-coupling horizontal-rocking impedance also exists: KxÀry and KyÀrx . The spring constant K z . with ¯ Pz and uz being complex numbers. Eqs. x and y. u2. u1 and the 901-out-of-phase. ð22aÞ while the two phase angles. z1 z2 (19b) Moreover. Thus. The seismic excitation is given by the free-field surface displacement UA exp(iot) of amplitude UA and frequency o. uy ¯ (21) Similarly. (15) and (16) with the following relations being valid for the amplitudes: qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¯ (19a) Pz ¼ jPz j ¼ P2 þ P2 . for rotational motion about the short axis of the foundation. for rotational oscillation about the vertical axis. As evident from Eq. Krx ¼ the rocking impedance (moment–rotation ratio). Of interest are the foundation horizontal displacement U0 exp(iot) along the x-axis. uz(t) can be expressed in the following equivalent ways: uz ðtÞ ¼ uz cosðot þ a þ fÞ ¼ u1 cosðot þ aÞ þ u2 sinðot þ aÞ. from the KI analysis. its dependence on frequency relates solely to the influence that frequency exerts on inertia. Example: lateral seismic response of block foundation supporting a SDOF structure We refer to Fig. Using the information presented earlier. The dashpot coefficient Cz reflects the two types of damping (radiation and material) generated in the system. As a first step. the former due to energy carried by the waves spreading away from the foundation. foundation rotation F0 exp(iot) about the y-axis. Thus. The foundation and structure possess two orthogonal axes of symmetry. where IU and IF are the appropriate KI factors for each frequency o. horizontal forces along principal axes induce rotational in addition to translational oscillations. and the latter due to energy dissipated in the soil through hysteretic action. ¯ (18a) (18b) (17a) (17b) Ky ¼ the longitudinal (swaying) impedance (force–displacement ratio). (20) is also applicable to each of the other five modes of vibration. With Pz and uz being out of phase or. (17) and (18) are equivalent to Eqs. 6 for an example on how to use the foundation ‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’ to determine the response of a complete structure to harmonic earthquaketype excitation. owing to the moments about the base axes produced by horizontal soil reactions against the sidewalls. we determine the FIM. in general. The coupling impedances are usually negligibly small in shallow foundations. ¯ ¯ where now Pz and uz are complex quantities ¯ ¯ Pz ¼ Pz1 þ iPz2 .ARTICLE IN PRESS G. Kt ¼ the torsional impedance (moment–rotation ratio). (20) uz ¯ ¯ in which both K z and Cz are. components according to qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (16a) uz ¼ u2 þ u2 . 1 2 tan f ¼ u2 .

(3) the embedment (surface foundation. may be somewhat tedious if performed by hand.2. Mylonakis et al. despite the fact that the quantities involved are complex numbers. (23) and (24) provide the solution in closed form. . The seismic excitation is described through the free-field ground-surface displacement UA. I0 " 1 Hc # Hc . ð22bÞ (22c) in which m0 and I0 are the mass and mass moment of inertia of the foundation. The solution. however. Note that KxÀry is of minor importance in surface foundations. in matrix form. (23a) F0 K À o2 ðM 0 À M b Þ FG where " K¼ # . as is usually the case.ARTICLE IN PRESS 832 G. A simple computer code could readily perform the operations in Eqs. For a project of critical significance a case-specific analysis must be performed. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 The above equations define a simple algebraic system of three equations in three unknowns. using the most suitable numerical computer program. On the other hand.1 In embedded foundations. Computing dynamic impedances: tables and charts for dynamic ‘‘springs’’ and ‘‘dashpots’’ The most important geometric and material factors affecting the dynamic impedance of a foundation are: (1) the foundation shape (circular. foundation impedances can be estimated from approximate expressions and charts. In most practical cases. the term should be included. Eqs. H2 c # (23c) ½M b Š ¼ ½MŠ þ m1 " ½MŠ ¼ m1 m1 H c (23d) m1 H c m1 H 2 þ I 1 c (23e) for the superstructure: U1 ¼ m1 o2 ðU 0 þ H c F0 Þ. assumed to be produced by a certain type of body or surface waves. (23b) Kx KxÀry KryÀx Kry " m0 0 ½M 0 Š ¼ # 0 . a number of analytical formulae and charts for such stiffnesses have been KxÀry ðU 0 À U G Þ þ Kry ðF0 À FG Þ ¼ o2 ½I 0 F0 þ I 1 F0 þ m1 H c ðU 0 þ HF0 þ U 1 ފ. For the usual case of a practically rigid foundation. it is noted that if a realnumber notation (with amplitudes and phase angles) had been adopted (as in Eq. shallow stratum on rock). pile foundation). strip. (23) would become six equations with six unknowns—a less desirable procedure. Eqs. m1 and I1 are the mass and mass moment of inertia of the superstructure and Kstr ¼ K str þ ioC str the structural impedance (stiffness and damping) of the superstructure. as it may have a profound influence in the response [27]. (15)). 1 This holds when the reference system is placed atop the footing ðz ¼ 0Þ. Àm1 o2 ðU 0 þ H c F0 þ U 1 Þ þ Kstr U 1 ¼ 0. The computations. since K matrix involves complex numbers. 6. embedded foundation. however. however. K str þ ioC str À m1 o2 (24) Fig. and is usually ommitted. (2) the type of soil profile (deep uniform or multi-layer deposit. 3. for the foundation motion is ( ) ( ) UG U0 K ¼ . Seismic displacements and rotation of a foundation block supporting a SDOF super-structure. (23) and (24). rectangular. arbitrary).

(27) o The special cases of footings of rectangular and elliptic shape are addressed in Table 1b. the engineer must first determine an ‘‘equivalent’’ circumscribed rectangle 2B by 2L (L4B) using common sense. shear wave velocity. Ib are area. K. all that is needed is: and is related to Vs according to V La ¼ 3:4 V s. total C ¼ radiation C þ . times the dynamic stiffness coefficient k ¼ kðoÞ: ¯ KðoÞ ¼ K Â kðoÞ. K ¼ KðoÞ as a product of the static stiffness. pð1 À nÞ (25)   Additional discussion on the Lysmer analog velocity can be found in Ref. y. Then. the latter is the apparent propagation velocity of compression–extension waves under a foundation  the radiation damping (‘‘dashpot’’) coefficient C ¼ CðoÞ. as sketched in Fig. [24. Vs and VLa. if loss of contact under part of the foundation (e.3. n. b. Mylonakis et al. B and L are semi-width and semi length of the circumscribed rectangle. 3. moments of inertia about x. Numbers I–IV refer to corresponding tables and the associated graphs. the shear modulus. Poisson’s ratio. The four foundation–soil systems whose impedances are given in tabular/graphical form.g. Surface foundation on homogeneous halfspace For an arbitrarily-shaped foundation mat. To incorporate such damping. o ¼ cyclic frequency (in rad/s) of interest.28–35]) and are presented in this section. 7. This table as well as all other tables in this paper gives: ¯ ¯ the dynamic stiffness (‘‘springs’’).ARTICLE IN PRESS G.g. [33]. and polar moment of inertia about z. one should simply add to the foregoing C value the ¯ corresponding material dashpot coefficient 2Kb=o: ¯ 2Kb . / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 833 Fig. published (e. along the edges of a rocking foundation) is likely. 7. Ibx. Iby. G. to compute the impedances in the six modes of vibration from Table 1a.. engineering judgment may be used to discount the contribution of this part. and ‘‘Lysmer’s analog’’ wave velocity. of the actual soil foundation contact surface. These coefficients do not include the soil hysteretic damping. (26)    Ab.

834 Table 1a Dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients for arbitrary shaped foundations on homogenous halfspace surface Radiation dashpot coefficient C Dynamic stiffness coefficient k Square L¼B (General shape. Mylonakis et al. a0 ¯ B ¯ plotted in Graph c C y ¼ ðrV s Ab Þ¯ y c À Á cy ¼ cy L . a0 ¯ ¯ plotted in Graph f K t ¼ 8:3GB3 kt ’ 1 À 0:14a0 C t ¼ ðrV s J t Þ¯ t c À Á ct ¼ ct L . values computed from the two given formulas correspond to footing of L=B % 20. 0pa0p2)b (General shapes) Vibration mode Dynamic stiffness K ¼ KkðoÞ Static stiffness K General shape (foundation–soil contact surface area ¼ Ab with equivalent rectangle 2L Â 2B. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Torsional h À Á10 i K t ¼ GJ 0:75 4 þ 11 1 À B t L with J t ¼ I bx þ I by polar moment of inertia of foundation–soil contact surface a b Note that as L=B ! 1 (strip footing) the theoretical values of Kz and K y ! 0. L4B)a K z ¼ 4:54GB 1Àn À Á kz ¼ kz L . ry (around y axis) with Ibx ¼ area moment of inertia of foundation–soil contact surface around x axis h À Á i 0:15 G K ry ¼ 1Àn = 0:75 3 L B K ry ¼ K rx by 8 > no0:45. a0 B plotted in Graph a Vertical. a0 ¯ ¯ B plotted in Graph e Rocking. a0 ¯ B ¯ plotted in Graph g with Iby ¼ area moment of inertia of foundation–soil contact surface around y axis G. x (longitudinal direction) ÀLÁ0:25 À B À Á 0:2 K x ¼ K y À 0:75Àn GL 1 À B L Kx ¼ Ky K rx ¼ 0:45GB 1Àn 3 kx ’ 1 krx ¼ 1 À 0:20a0 ARTICLE IN PRESS Rocking. y (lateral direction) K y ¼ 2GL ð2 þ 2:5w0:85 Þ 2Àn K y ¼ 9GB 2Àn À Á k y ¼ k y L . > > > k ’ 1 À 0:30a < ry 0 > v ’ 0:5 : > > À Á > : kry ’ 1 À 0:25a0 L 0:30 B C ry ¼ ðrV La I by Þ¯ ry c ÀL Á cry ¼ cry B . rx (around x axis) G K rx ¼ 1Àn = 0:75 bx Á 2:4 þ 0:5 B L C rx ¼ ðrV La I bx Þ¯ rx c À Á crx ¼ crx L . z K z ¼ 2GL ð0:73 þ 1:54w0:75 Þ 1Àn A with w ¼ 4Lb2 C z ¼ ðrV La Ab Þ¯ z c À Á cz ¼ cz L . a0 B plotted in Graph b Horizontal. a0 ¯ B ¯ plotted in Graph d C x ’ rV s Ab Horizontal. n. a0 ¼ oB=V s . .

ARTICLE IN PRESS G. Mylonakis et al.35Ga3 Ellipse (a=b ¼ 4) 1:8Ga 1Àn 5:3Ga 2Àn 3:7ð1 À 1:4nÞ Ga ð2 À nÞð0:75 À nÞ 3 0:78Ga 1Àn 1:1Ga3 1Àn 1. z Horizontal. rx (around x axis) Rocking.4Ga3 Vertical. x (longitudinal direction) Rocking. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 835 Table 1b Stiffness for foundations of rectangular and elliptical shape on homogeneous halfspace surface 2L 2a 2B x 2b x y y Response mode Static stiffness K Rectangle (B=L ¼ 2) Rectangle (B=L ¼ 4) 2:55GL 1Àn 5:54GL 2Àn 3:9ð1 À 1:4nÞ GL ð2 À nÞð0:75 À nÞ 3 0:2GL 1Àn 1:62GL3 1Àn 2.1GL3 Ellipse (a=b ¼ 2) 2:9Ga 1Àn 6:5Ga 2Àn 4:7ð1 À 1:37nÞ Ga ð2 À nÞð0:75 À nÞ 3 0:55Ga 1Àn 1:65Ga3 1Àn 2. ry (around y axis) Torsional 3:3GL 1Àn 6:8GL Ky ¼ 2Àn 4:9ð1 À 1:4nÞ GL Kx ¼ ð2 À nÞð0:75 À nÞ 3 0:82GL K rx ¼ 1Àn 2:46GL3 K ry ¼ 1Àn K t ¼ 3:5GL3 Kz ¼ . y (lateral direction) Horizontal.

the amplitude of the foundation motion may significantly increase at frequencies near the natural frequencies of the deposit. The depth of influence. or the (average) height of the sidewall that is in good contact with the surrounding soil. finally zt ¼ 0:75R or 0. First. k(o) would be exactly zero if the soil was ideally elastic). Partially and fully embedded foundations For a foundation embedded in a deep and relatively homogeneous soil deposit that can be modeled as a homogeneous halfspace.g.4. circle). On a stratum. springs and dashpots are obtained from the formulae and charts of Table 2a (modified from Gazetas [36]). The foundation basemat can again be of arbitrary (solid) shape (Fig. Note that Aw or d will not necessarily attain a single value for all modes of vibration. with reference to Table 3 and its charts: (a) The static stiffnesses in all modes decrease with the relative depth to bedrock H/B. Horizontal stiffnesses are also appreciably affected. be smaller that the nominal area of contact to account for such phenomena as slippage and separation that may occur near the ground surface. due to lateral loading is about 2R and 6B for circle and strip. Approximate solutions for the special cases of footings of rectangular and elliptic shapes are given in Table 2b. in certain cases. of about 2B or 2R. This is evident from all formulae of Table 3. which reduce to the corresponding halfspace stiffnesses when H/R approaches infinity.5 versus 1. K sur ¼ K sur  ksur and Csur. and dashpot coefficients C(o). rocking) the corresponding frequency is fc ¼ V La 3:4 f . [37–40]). with strip foundations vertical stresses practically vanish only below 15 footing widths ðzv ¼ 15BÞ. which can be very steep when the hysteretic damping of the soil is small (in fact. moment loading is ‘‘felt’’ down to a depth.. for the horizontal stresses tzx. the dynamic stiffness (being the inverse of displacements) exhibits troughs. it eliminates the corresponding deformations and thereby increases the stiffness.75B. between the different types of loading) can be obtained by comparing the depths of the ‘‘zone of influence’’ in each case. k(o) is not a smooth function but exhibits undulations (peaks and valleys) associated with the natural frequencies (in shearing and compression–extension) of the stratum. respectively. rather than extending to practically infinite depth as the homogenous halfspace implies. rectangle. with frequency reveals a twofold effect on the presence of a rigid base at relatively shallow depth. Presence of bedrock at shallow depth Particularly sensitive to variations in the depth to rock are the vertical stiffnesses—the effect being far more pronounced with strip footings (factor 3. while for the ‘‘compressing’’ modes (vertical. Mylonakis et al. On the other hand. The engineer must determine the following additional parameters using the table:     D is the depth below the ground surface of the foundation basemat. C(o) also exhibits undulations (crests and troughs) due to the wave reflections . h is the distance of the (effective) sidewall centroid from the ground surface. In other words. 3. ¼ pð1 À nÞ s 4H (29) (c) The variation of the dashpot coefficient. For torsion. in any footing. Circular and square foundations on a homogeneous halfspace induce vertical normal stresses sz along the centerline of the footing that become practically negligible at depths exceeding 5 footing radii ðzv ¼ 5RÞ. K. Thus. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 3. 7). On the other hand. for H/R41. to account for slippage and/or separation.5. Aw should. The engineer should refer to published results of large and small-scale experiments for a guidance in selecting a suitable value for Aw or d (e. Note also that Table 2a compares the dynamic stiffnesses and dashpot coefficients of an embedded ¯ ¯ foundation K emb ¼ K emb  kemb and Cemb with those of ¯ ¯ the corresponding surface foundation. (b) The variation of the dynamic stiffness coefficients with frequency reveals an equally strong dependence on the depth to bedrock H/B.ARTICLE IN PRESS 836 G. zh. where H denotes the thickness of the layer. For the ‘‘shearing’’ modes of vibration (swaying and torsion) the natural fundamental frequency of the stratum which controls the behavior of k(o) is fs ¼ Vs . the observed fluctuations are the outcome of resonance phenomena: waves emanating from the oscillating foundation reflect at the soil–bedrock interface and return back to their source at the surface. in general. Note that most of the formulae of Table 2a are valid for symmetric and nonsymmetric contact along the perimeter of the vertical sidewalls and the surrounding soil. zr.3). Apparently when a rigid formation extends into the ‘‘zone of influence’’ of a particular loading mode.5 the response to torsional loads is essentially independent of the layer thickness. Aws and Awce which refer to horizontal oscillations and represent the sum of the projections of all the sidewall area in directions parallel (Aws) and perpendicular (Awce) to loading. 4H (28) Natural soil deposits are frequently underlain by very stiff material or bedrock at a shallow depth. The proximity of such stiff formation to the oscillating surface modifies the static stiffness. Again Aws and Awce should be smaller than the nominal areas in shearing and compression. As a result. for all foundation shapes (strip. Aw or d is the total area of the actual sidewall–soil contact surface. C. Specifically. As indication of the causes of this different behavior (between circular and strip footings and.

emb ¼ K z.surf: see Table 1 n ¼ 0:5 8 > Fully embedded.surf and C y.surf 1 À 0:09 D 3=4 a2 > 0 B > > > < In a trench h i À Á > K z.emb ¼ C y. Mylonakis et al. for constant effective contact high d along the perimeter Aw ¼ d  Perimeter w ¼ Ab =4L2 cz according to Table 1 ¯ G.emb are computed similarly from K x. total sidewall–soil contact area Aw (or constant wall–solid contact height d) C z. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Horizontal y or x K y.surf 1 þ 0:09 D 3=4 a2 > 0 B > > > > Partially embedded : > > > > : interpolate between the two Cz.emb ’ 1 À 0:09 D 3=4 a2 0 B > Fully embedded.surf 1 þ 0:15 D B  0:4 ! h  1 þ 0:52 B Aw L2  K y.surf obtained from Table 1 Aw ¼ actual sidewall–soild contact area.emb qffiffiffi ¼ K y.emb and C x.emb and K x.emb ¼ K z.surf þ rV s Aw Vertical z b ARTICLE IN PRESS  à 1 K z.emb ¼ 4rV La BL¯ z c þ4rV s ðB þ LÞd Kz. L=B43 > > À Á > >K : z. and d/B for each a0 from the grant accompanying this table C y.emb ¼ C z.tre ¼ K z. D/B.surf þrV s Aws þ rV La Awce C y.surf according to Table 1 cy according to Table 1 ¯ 837 .emb ’ 1 À 0:35 D 1=2 a0:35 0 B C z.surf P Aws ¼ ðAwi sin Wi Þ ¼ total effective sidewall area shearing the soil P Awce ¼ ðAwi cos Wi Þ ¼ total effective sideall area compressing the soil y ¼ inclination angle of surface Awi from loading direction C y. L=B ’ 1 À 2 > > À Á > >K < z.emb can be estimated in term of L/D.surf obtained from Table 1 K x.surf 1 þ 21 D ð1 þ 1:3wÞ B  2=3 !  1 þ 0:2 Aw A np0:4 8 > Fully embedded : > h i > À Á > > > K z.emb ¼ 4rV s BL¯ y c þ4rV s Bd þ 4rV Ls Ld Ky.Table 2a Dynamic stiffnesses and dashpot coefficients for arbitrary shaped foundations partially or fully embedded in a homogeneous halfspace Radiation dashpot coefficient Cemb (o) Dynamic stiffness coefficient kemb (o) ð0pa0 p2Þ General foundation shape Rectangular foundation 2L  2B  d Vibration mode Dynamic stiffness Kemb ¼ K emb kemb (o) Static stiffness Kemb (foundation with arbitrarily-shaped basemat Ab with equivalent rectangle 2L  2B.

emb ’ 1 dC x.emb 3 C yrx.emb ’ K t.surf K xry. ry Swaying-rocking y.surf n À d Á0:6 h À d Á1:9 ÀBÁÀ0:6 io  1 þ 0:92 B 1:5 þ D L C rx.surf n h io À Á d d d À0:2 p B  1 þ 1:26 B 1 þ B D L Rocking ry (around lateral axis) K ry.sur þ rV La I wce c1 ¯ P þrV s ðJ ws þ ½Awcei D2 ŠÞ¯ 1 i c p À d ÁÀa =2 À d ÁÀ1=4 c1 ¼ 0:25 þ 0:65 a0 B 0 B ¯ Iwce ¼ total moment of inertia about their base axis parallel to x of all sidewall surfaces effectively compressing the soil Di ¼ distance of surface Awcei from x axis Jws ¼ polar moment of inertia about their base axis parallel to x of all sidewall surfaces effectively shearing the soil C ry.emb ¼ C t.838 Table 2a (continued ) Radiation dashpot coefficient Cemb (o) Dynamic stiffness coefficient kemb (o) ð0pa0 p2Þ General foundation shape Rectangular foundation 2L  2B  d Vibration mode Dynamic stiffness Kemb ¼ K emb kemb (o) Static stiffness Kemb (foundation with arbitrarily-shaped basemat Ab with equivalent rectangle 2L  2B. values computed from the two given formulas correspond to footing of L=B % 20.emb ’ 1 dC y.emb ’ 1 dK x. L replacing B with c1 as in the preceding column and crx ¯ ¯ according to Table 1 Coupling term Swaying-rocking x.emb ¼ 4 rV s BLðB2 þ L2 Þ¯ t c 3 þ 4 rV La dðL3 þ B3 Þ¯ 2 c 3 þ4rV s dBLðB þ LÞ¯ 2 c with c2 as in the preceding column and ct ¯ ¯ according to Table 1 ARTICLE IN PRESS K t.emb ’ K ry.emb is similarly evaluated from C ry. rx K t. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 b Note that as L=B ! 1 (strip footing) the theoretical values of Kz K y ! 0.emb ’ K rx.emb ’ 1 dK y.surf K rx.emb 3 K rxy.emb ¼ 4 rV La B3 L¯ rx c 3 þ 4 rV La d 3 L¯ 1 c 3 þ 4 rV s BdðB2 þ d 2 Þ¯ 1 c 3 c þ4rV s B2 dL¯ 1 Rocking rx (around long axis) Expressions valid for any basemat shape but constant effective contact height d along the perimeter K ry. total sidewall–soil contact area Aw (or constant wall–solid contact height d) C rx.emb 3 As in the previous column Torsional C t.emb ¼ K ry. . a0 ¼ oB=V s .emb ’ 1 C xry.emb ¼ K rx.emb 3 K yrx.emb ¼ K t.sur with y replacing x and.surf h À ÁÀ d Á0:9 i  1 þ 1:4 1 þ B B L C t.surf K rx.emb ’ K yrx.emb ¼ C rx. in the equation for c1 . Mylonakis et al.sur þ rV La J wce c2 ¯ P þrV s ½Awi D2 Š¯ 2 c i À d ÁÀ0:5 2  2 1 ÃÀ1 c2 % D a0 a0 þ 2 ðL=BÞÀ1:5 ¯ Jwce ¼ total moment of inertia of all sidewall surfaces compressing the soil about the projection of z axis onto their plane Dzi ¼ distance of surface Awi from z axis a G.

operating below the cutoff frequencies may not change appreciably from the presence of bedrock. which would have experienced substantial amounts of damping in a very deep deposit (halfspace)—recall illustrative examples for Tables 1a and 2a. Second. but are not as significant as for the corresponding stiffness k(o). This is due to the fact that no surface waves can exist in a soil stratum over bedrock at such low frequencies.ARTICLE IN PRESS G. and. . / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 839 at the rigid boundary. These fluctuations are more pronounced with strip than with circular foundations. radiation damping is zero or negligible for all shapes of footings and all modes of vibration. Mylonakis et al. since the bedrock also prevents waves from propagating downward. the overall radiation of wave energy from the footing is negligible or nonexistent. since the low-frequency values of C in rocking and torsion are small even in a halfspace. is that at low frequencies below the first resonant (‘‘cutoff’’) frequency of each mode of vibration. Such an elimination of radiation damping may have severe consequences for heavy foundations oscillating vertically or horizontally. On the other hand. and far more important from a practical viewpoint.

i. of practically little significance.41. The ‘‘amplitude’’ of such fluctuations tends to decrease with increasing H/B. Moreover. Additional information on this topic can be found in [24. rx (around x axis) Rocking.emb ¼ K ry. Foundations on soil stratum over halfspace The homogeneous halfspace and the stratum-on-rigidbase are two idealizations of extreme soil profiles. Gs/ Gr-1.surf  wy qffiffiffi h i  (lateral direction) w ¼ 1 þ 0:2 D  1 þ Àd Á0:8 y L L Rocking. the ratio Gs/Gr (or the wave velocity ration Vs/Vr) is needed to describe such a soil model.emb ¼ K y. this increase in radiation damping is practically most significant for the swaying dashpot at frequencies o ¼ 2pf below the fundamental frequency of the top soil stratum. For the earthquake problem. rather than being fully reflected. Gs/Gr-0. 3. compared to a stratum over bedrock.surf  wrx h À Á i d d d À0:2 wrx ¼ 1 þ 2:5 L 1 þ 1:4 L D K ry. and hence resonance amplifications in the seismic response may develop. of course. since ‘‘destructive’’ interference of waves emitted from a rotating (in rocking or torsion) foundation limits the depth these waves can reach. This chart applies to circular or square foundations with H/RE3–4 and for strip foundations with H=B ¼ 2.surf obtained from Table 1b. z Rectangle ðB=L ¼ 4Þ Ellipse ða=b ¼ 2Þ À Ellipse ða=b ¼ 4Þ K z. the stratum over halfspace. The dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients as functions of frequency also exhibit intermediate behavior between those for halfspace and for stratum over bedrock. Thus the observed undulations are not as sharp as the undulations on a stratum over bedrock. the ‘‘stratum’’ damping fluctuates about the halfspace damping C ðH=B ¼ 1Þ. At the upper limit. Mylonakis et al. the halfspace expressions (Table 1) are recovered.6.emb ¼ K rx. These formulas are valid for GspGr. . 8 gives a chart for estimating the swaying dashpot Cy for several values of the ratio Vs/Vr. when it becomes equal to 1. rotational modes of vibration generate little damping below their respective cutoff frequencies.. depending. The results are intuitively obvious and need no further explanation. as appropriate for each mode. Recall that at such frequencies. Fig. The latter stems from the fact that waves emitted from the foundation–soil interface penetrate into the halfspace. Note that at operating frequencies f beyond fs or fc. the model reduces to a homogeneous halfspace. again. when the halfspace is a rigid bedrock. When Gs/Gr tends to zero the stratum-on-rigid base (‘‘bedrock’’) is recovered.e. the static stiffnesses of the foundation decrease. apparently due to increasing magnitude of strains in the halfspace. At the lower limit.28.surf  wry À d Á0:6 h À d Á1:9 i wry ¼ 1 þ 2:1 L 1þ D K t. Besides the H/R or H/B ratio. The chart can only be used as a guide in other cases. ry (around y axis) Torsional K rx.surf  wz À Á h À d Á2=3 i À Á h Àd Á2=3 i 1 þ 0:25 D  1 þ 0:6 L wz ¼ 1 þ 0:16 D  1 þ 0:42 L L L Á h À Á2=3 i À Á h À Á2=3 i 1 þ 0:14 D  1 þ 0:42 d 1 þ 0:24 D  1 þ 0:6 d a a a a  qffiffiffi h À Á0:8 i 1 þ 0:3 D  1 þ 1:2 d a a Horizontal. On the other hand. the expressions reduce to those of Table 3 for a layer on rigid base. springs and dashpots can be estimated using the information of this paragraph. is studied in this subsection. a halfspace stiffer than the layer. on the value of Gs/Gr. in terms of Gs/Gr and H/R (for the circle) or H/B (for the strip).emb ¼ K z. Table 4 presents formulas for the static stiffness of circular and strip foundations. In general. and the significance of rock flexibility is of minor practical significance.42].emb ¼ K t. as the rigidity of the supporting halfspace decreases. For intermediate situations of 0oGs/Gro1. A more realistic soil model. At intermediate values. if some wave energy penetrates into bedrock (as it does happen in real life thanks to some weathering of the upper masses of rock) the fluctuations tend to wither away—hence the recommendation of Table 3. the flexibility of the base layer (halfspace) produces a decrease in stiffness but an increase in radiation damping.ARTICLE IN PRESS 840 G. Hence the flexibility or rigidity of the base layer is. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Table 2b Stiffness for foundations of rectangular and elliptical shape embedded in homogeneous halfspace Response mode Static stiffness K Rectangle ðB=L ¼ 2Þ Vertical. In this case this is no longer true. This is also true for higher frequencies. y K y. no radiation damping can generate.surf  wt À d Á0:9 wt ¼ 1 þ 3:7 L qffiffiffi h qffiffiffi h  À d Á0:8 i  À Á0:8 i 1 þ 0:3 D  1 þ 1:3 L 1 þ 0:2 D  1 þ d L a a h À Á i d d d À0:2 1 þ 5L  1 þ 2L D Àd Á0:6 h À d Á1:9 i 1 þ 3:2 L  1 þ 1:5 D Àd Á0:9 1 þ 6:1 L h À d ÁÀ0:2 i 1 þ 2:5 d  1 þ 1:4 d D a a À Á0:6 h À d Á1:9 i 1þ2 d  1þ D a À Á0:9 1þ4 d a h À d ÁÀ0:2 i 1 þ 5d  1 þ 2d D a a À Á0:6 h À d Á1:9 i 1 þ 3:2 d  1 þ 1:5 D a À Á0:9 1þ6 d a Note: K Ã.

a0 Þ is obtained from Graph III-1 ka ðH=RÞ % ka ð1Þ a ¼ rx. rx À Á 8GR3 R K rx ¼ 3ð1ÀnÞ 1 þ 0:17 H K rx ¼ K ry Á 3À R K t ¼ 16GR 1 þ 0:10 H 3 kz ¼ kz ðH=R. t Rocking. z C z ðH=BÞ % 0 at fofc. a0 Þ is plotted in Graph III-2 for rectangles and strip * ky ¼ ky ðH=B. z K Kx ¼ Ky Horizontal. rx or ry Torsional. y or x Rocking. f c ¼ V La .8 Cz(N) at fX1. f s ¼ 4H C rx ðH=BÞ % 0 at f of c . / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Horizontal. t C y ðH=BÞ % 0 at f o3 f s . 841 . t À Á B % 0:73G 1 þ 3:5 H 1Àn À Á Ky 2G B 2L % 2Àn 1 þ 2 H – À Á K rx pGB2 B 2L ¼ 2ð1ÀnÞ 1 þ 0:2 H – – ARTICLE IN PRESS Dynamic stiffness coefficient k(o) Vertical. regardless of foundation shape Cz(H/B)E0. t kz ¼ kz ðH=B. y À Á R K z ¼ 4GR 1 þ 1:3 H 1Àn À Á R K y ¼ 8GR 1 þ 0:5 H 2Àn Horizontal. rx or ry Torsional. C rx ðH=BÞ % C rx ð1Þ at f 4f c Similarly for C ry C t ðH=BÞ % C t ð1Þ *Not available. C y ðH=BÞ % C y ð1Þ at f 44 f s Similarly for Cx 4 3 Vs At intermediate frequencies: interpolate linearly.Table 3 Dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients for surface foundations on homogeneous stratum over bedrock Foundation shape K z ¼ 2GL 1Àn * * * * * h  À Á3=4 i B=H 1 þ 0:5þB=L 0:73 þ 1:54 B L Circular foundation of radius B ¼ R Rectangular foundation 2B by 2L (L4B) Strip foundation 2L ! 1 Kz 2L Static stiffness Vertical. ry Torsional. z Horizontal. a0 Þ is obtained from Graph III-3 * krx % krx ð1Þ * Radiation dashpot coefficient C(o) Vertical. x Rocking. Mylonakis et al. y or x Rocking. L=B. a0 Þ is obtained from Graph III-1 ky ¼ ky ðH=R. V La ¼ pð1ÀnÞ 4H G. ry.5 fc 3:4V s At intermediate frequencies: interpolate linearly.

The corresponding problem of a strip footing has been solved by Gazetas [46] and is not discussed here. and b is a dimensionless inhomogeneity constant.44–47]. On the other hand. This model can simulate deposits with a fast increase in elastic modulus. (31) R b is a dimensionless inhomogeneity parameter which can be determined by fitting pertinent experimental results or field data.5 0.0 0.25 [32]  z 2 G ¼ G0 1 þ b .N) m Circle Strip 3. and Poisson’s ratio n equal to 0. (30) Vertical Horizontal Torsional K of homogenous halfspace 1. (31) is of minor importance for practical applications. the quadratic G-variation in Eq. . such formulations have not been adequately exploited to study parametrically the dynamic behavior of foundations [43]. Effect of soil heterogeneity The assumption of homogeneous or layered halfspace may not be realistic in practice.2  A rectangular footing with side lengths 2L and 2B (L4B) resting on an elastic deposit with shear modulus increasing with depth as G ¼ G 0 þ ðG 1 À G 0 Þð1 À eÀbðz=BÞ Þ. however.ARTICLE IN PRESS 842 G. Yet. as the soil gets progressively stiffer with depth. A circular footing of radius R oscillating vertically on elastic soil with shear modulus increasing proportionally to the square of depth. H=BÞ ¼ Kð1. respectively. the number of solutions available today is limited [32. even in uniform deposits.3 0. there is an inherent difficulty in applying analytical and semi-analytical methods to dynamics of inhomogeneous media. In this paper information is provided on three specific cases for which solutions are available: K(1. because of the difficulties associated with decoupling of the governing equations and solving of the related differential equations  where G0 and GN denote the shear moduli at the surface and at infinite depth.17 3. As a result. Mylonakis et al. Usually. 1Þ Â 1þmðB=HÞðGs =Gr Þ with variable coefficients.7. Soil inhomogeneity can be easily treated in dynamic finiteelement formulations by dividing the soil into a number of homogeneous layers.33. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Table 4 Static stiffness of circular and strip foundations on soil stratum over halfspace Vibration mode General expression 1þmðB=HÞ K ¼ KðGs =Gr .5 2. The prime cause is the increase in confining pressure with depth and the associated increase in low-strain shear modulus. The problem has been analysed by Vrettos [33] for the case of vertical and rocking oscillations.

694 12.630 6.174 201.N).458 13.326 14.7 0.183 8.ARTICLE IN PRESS G.5 0.5 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 Kz/G0 B 6.5 1 0.3 b L/B 1 2 4 1 0.556 10.835 6.508 11.699 6.183 8.422 7.5 0.5 1 0.188 14.277 5.180 7.5 0.3 0.630 6.092 Kry/G0 B3 5.9 0.610 13.370 9.835 6.1 1 .507 9.2 0.653 5.5 0.3 1 1.25 0. Mylonakis et al.373 9.486 6.5 1 0. as a fraction of the homogeneous halfspace value Cy (1.600 Krx/G0 B3 5.047 4.370 27.111 9.246 7.180 7.842 22.824 7.246 7.576 8.113 22.992 4.154 13. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 843 Fig.45 0.45 0.3 0.420 10. Table 5 Static stiffness for rigid rectangular foundations (after Vrettos [33]) X0 0 n 0.508 35.486 6. 8.600 0 0.3 0.469 12.029 7. for various ratios VS/Vr (after Dobry and Gazetas [39]). Horizontal radiation dashpot Cy of a foundation on a soil layer underlain by ‘‘flexible’’ rock.653 5.2 0.314 14.5 0.824 7.699 6.636 7.908 8.044 144.115 10.507 9.812 9.812 9.

(30).g. The differences.7. This decrease is understood given the limited ability of an inhomogeneous medium to radiate waves away from the source [24.0 0. at least through a soil category] reduces dramatically its usefulness.ARTICLE IN PRESS 844 G.0 1.0 kry.5 Ξo = 0.0 0.7. 9.45]. Radiation damping decreases substantially with increasing inhomogeneity in the soil. (31). b = 1 Ξo = 0. For the footing on the profile described by Eq. however. This property has been utilized in the development of ‘‘cone’’ models for related problems [14.5 cry. are of secondary importance from a practical point of view. crx 0. The dimensionless frequency factor indicated in the graph is expressed in terms of the shear wave velocity at the surface (Vso) (Table 6). 9.49 X0. G1 (33) which is bounded by zero and one.. 2.0 1.0 a0 = ω B / Vso a0 = ω B / Vso Fig.20 0. Table 6 Values of G/Gmax for soil beneath foundations (from NEHRP-2003 and EC8) Spectral response acceleration. SA p0. Table 5 presents results for static stiffnesses in the vertical and rocking modes for different values of the soil Poisson’s ratio.5 0.30 0. 10.1 0. 1. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853  A circular footing or radius R oscillating vertically on elastic soil with shear modulus increasing according to the function [24]  z n G ¼ G0 1 þ b .64 0. the dynamic stiffness coefficient k generally decreases with increasing levels of inhomogeneity.0 In addition. b = 0.5 0.0 0.5 1. Selected results for dynamic stiffness and dashpots coefficients are presented in Fig. At high frequencies the discrepancies in damping between an inhomogeneous and a homogeneous medium become smaller.15 0. X0 denotes the dimensionless parameter X0 ¼ 1 À G0 .5 Ξo = 0. the derived dashpot coefficients pertain only to wave radiation.81 p0. This can be explained considering that high frequency (small wavelength) waves emitted from the foundation ‘‘see’’ the medium as a homogeneous halfspace having wave velocity equal to the surface velocity Vso (in shearing) or VLao (in compression–extension).0 0.0 kzz czz 0.0 1.10 G/Gmax 0. 1. With reference to the profile in Eq. It is noted that material damping in the soil has been ignored in all the above studies and. Corresponding static stiffnesses are provided in the paper by Guzina and Pak [32] and in [48]. b = 0.49]. . (32) R where n and b are dimensionless parameters. b = 0. thereby. The variation with frequency of dynamic stiffness is smaller in a heterogeneous soil than in a homogeneous soil. krx 0.0 0. dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients are depicted in Fig.1 Ξo = 0. Mylonakis et al.5 2. The following noteworthy trends can be identified in these figures: 1. The effect is more pronounced at low frequencies.0 0.9.5 2.7. In the table. Normalized dynamic stiffness and dashpot coefficients for vertical and rocking motion of a square foundation on a nonhomogeneous soil for different values of b and X0 (modified from [33]).0 1.42 The fact that soil stiffness does not appear as variable in this table [e.5 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS G. As pointed out by Guzina and Pak [32]. . Mylonakis et al. 3. 11 depicts radiation damping expressed in terms of the ratio bij ðoÞ ¼ oC ij ðoÞ . A cutoff frequency is apparent in the results for the circular footing in Fig.52]. To develop further insight on the effect of inhomogeneity in radiation damping. 11. Fig. using soil properties (moduli and damping ratios) that are consistent with the level of shearing strains resulting from the previous analysis [5. 10.8. Effect of soil nonlinearity In current soil–structure interaction (SSI) practice. In Fig. the dramatic decrease in radiation damping resulting from soil inhomogeneity becomes clearly evident. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 845 3. An interesting discussion on the issue of cutoff frequency is given in [50]. Fig. Effect of inhomogeneity on normalized damping for vertical (upper left) and rocking motion (lower left) of a square footing based on Vrettos [33]. 11. ¯ 2K ij ðoÞ (34) The above ratio is referred to as ‘‘damping performance index’’ and is analogous to the critical damping ratio in the theory of the single-degree-of-freedom oscillator. 10. These analyses may utilize a wealth of available experimental soil data relating the decrease in (secant) shear modulus and the increase in Fig. vertical motion of circular footing based on Guzina and Pak [32] and Gazetas [51]. this may not be totally surprising. nonlinear plastic soil behavior is usually approximated through a series of iterative linear analyses. Dynamic spring and dashpot coefficient for a rigid circular footing on a linear wave-velocity halfspace (modified from [32]). since the profile can be regarded as a limiting case of a multi-layered medium in which wave reflections can occur at the ‘‘interfaces’’ in the vertical direction.

typically ranging from 0. the soil is modeled as homogeneous or inhomogeneous stratum over rigid base with H=B ¼ 1. 4. while the second one.5 x 10 KN m2 β = 5% Hc= 6m dc = 1. Such nonlinearities are of two types: ‘‘primary’’.0001% to 0. Alternatively. The axial load carried by the system. ¼ G 0 1 þ aðt=G0 gy Þ b¼ 2 G t . Mylonakis et al. Nonlinearities in the free-field soil are treated routinely with programs such as SHAKE [6. Bridge system studied. no simple realistic solution is known for the latter. A discussion of the aforementioned decoupling of nonlinearity is given in Ref. A Ramber-Osgood model was used to simulate the nonlinear constitutive relations of soil and iterative linear analyses were performed. (35) with t ¼ tc .53]. Considering a shear wave (35b) m = 350 Mg in which G0 is the initial shear modulus for low levels of strain. 2. and ‘‘secondary’’ arising from the stresses induced by the oscillating foundation. The bridge pier sketched in Fig. [54–56]). was varied so as to cover a wide range of typical soil stress–strain relations. and t the amplitude of the induced shear stress. the variation of secant modulus and effective damping ratio with stress amplitude is given by G 1 . / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 (effective) damping ratio with increasing amplitude of shear strain. founded with a 5-m-diameter ðR ¼ 2:5 mÞ footing placed at a depth D ¼ 3 m below the ground surface. One of the two parameters of the RamberOsgood model. In this model. immediately below the foundation edge.8 Mg/m3 β1 = 10 % 6 D H = 9. r. Whereas established methods of analysis are available for handling the former type of nonlinearities (through equivalent linear or truly nonlinear algorithms). Much less work has been reported on nonlinearities on the dynamic impedance functions of footings. One of features of the study relates to the unavoidable soil nonlinearities during strong seismic EIc = 3.g. a. For design purposes and as a first approximation. In this. [5]. Borja [54] reports that soil nonlinearity resulting from an external harmonic load tends to increase the foundation motion and generate low-frequency resonances even in a homogeneous halfspace. arising from the shear-wave induced deformations in the free-field soil.5m 2 elastic rock V = 1200 m/s r ρr = 2. one may use approximate cone models to derive strain-compatible moduli [14]. 83. (36) where tc is the statically induced shear stress at a depth equal to 0.50 B. we mention here that the average shear modulus for the soil beneath a footing can be determined according the NEHRP-2003 recommendations.3 m d Vs1= 80. Parametric study of the seismic response of bridge pier To answer some of the questions raised earlier.01%. was kept constant equal to 2. as a function of the design seismic coefficient of the structure (Table 4).ARTICLE IN PRESS 846 G. It was concluded that a reasonable approximation to the swaying and rocking impedances of a rigid strip may be obtained from the available linear viscoelastic solutions.2 Mg/m3 βr = 2 % Fig. 3p G0 G 0 gy (35a) excitation.0 Mg/m3 β2= 7 % H = 30. a systematic parametric study was conducted on an idealized bridge model. 12. Note that the above depth coincides with the depth of maximum shear strain under a vertically loaded strip footing [58]. P ¼ 3500 kN. 160 m/s 160 ρ1= 1. Another interesting study has been conducted by Jakub and Roesset [57]. It involves a single column bent of height H c ¼ 6 m and diameter d c ¼ 1:3 m. 12 is a slightly idealized version of an actual bridge. is typical of a two-lane highway bridge with a span of about 35 m. and 4.. consistent with the overall level of strains at characteristic points under the footing. provided that the ‘‘effective’’ values of G and b are estimated from Eqs. The approach described above is adopted here and different soil moduli are used for the analysis of wave-propagation and for the computation of the dynamic stiffnesses. . gy a characteristic shear strain. In one of the few available studies (e.5m 1 R Vs2 = 330 m/s ρ 2 = 2.

13. although marginal. two different excitation time histories were used. in the frequency and time domains. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 847 velocity and a mass density for the top layer of 80 m/s and 2 Mg/m3. Use of these motions. scaling of this motion was not considered necessary).42g. The former were applied to investigate the salient features (SSI period.40g: (a) an artificial accelerogram approximately fitted to the NEHRP-94 PGA ¼ 0:4g. Artificial 0. subjected to the Pacoima 1994 which is a sufficient.59]. Both harmonic steady-state and time-history analyses were performed. Mylonakis et al. The contact area between sidewalls and surrounding soil was considered to be either zero (no sidewall–soil contact) or partial sidewall-soil contact over a height d ¼ 0:5D from the base. value for a bridge footing. described through a horizontal ‘‘rock’’outcrop motion. (b) the Pacoima downstream motion. . Accordingly.ARTICLE IN PRESS G. In the timedomain analyses. Pacoima (1994) motion and corresponding response spectra for 5% and 10% damping. respectively. respectively. 14. The results presented in this section refer to a bridge with a top (deck) free to rotate.4g motion and corresponding response spectra for 5% and 10% damping. recorded (on ‘‘soft rock’’ outcrop) during the Northridge 1994 earthquake (since the PGA is 0. q 3500=ðp  2:52 Þ (37) predictions of the response to actual motions. The same set of motions has been used by the authors in an earlier study of pile-supported bridge piers [27. The two motions and their five and ten percent damped spectra are shown in Figs. the undrained shear strength of the top layer is estimated at about 50 kPa. as ‘‘rock’’ outcrop excitations. is deemed necessary for checking the limitations (or showing the generality) of our conclusions. and using the approximate relation G/SuE500. Results were obtained for excitation by vertical S waves. 13 and 14. the static factor of safety of the footing is about: FS  qu 1:3  5:14  50 þ 3  20 ¼ % 2. effective damping) of the dynamic behavior of the system. both having a peak horizontal acceleration (PGA) of about 0. Fig. the latter were performed to obtain Fig.

As a result.83 to 0. both.ARTICLE IN PRESS 848 G. 18) (b) embedment having partial sidewall contact ðd ¼ 1:5 mÞ with the surrounding soil (Figs. the effect of the soil radiation and hysteretic damping on the bridge response disappear.80 s. which accentuates the peak at T ¼ 0:53 s. which incorporate more general boundary conditions. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 motion. However. is displayed in Figs. The early part of the free-field ground motion. .53 s).50 s than of 0.e. Also of interest is to notice the change in the nature of the bridge-deck response time histories: the (largest) peak in the complete solution.48 s). therefore. at tE4 s. These results should be compared with those in Figs. 17 and 19) (c) no radiation damping. Mylonakis et al. is in unison with the long-period ground (free field) oscillations occurring after about 3 s—apparently produced by resonance at the fundamental period of the soil deposit. nearly two times larger than those of the complete solution (with SSI). setting for all modes of vibration C rad ¼ 0 (Fig. Moreover. i. Naturally. In addition. which examine the following cases: (a) no SSI. the resulting no-SSI bridge transfer functions exhibit a (spurious) sharp and high peak at T ¼ 0:53 s. i. are presented later on. Ignoring SSI reduces the fundamental natural period of the system (from 0. 15 and 16. 18). with much shorter periods. bringing it closer to resonance with the second-mode natural period of the soil deposit (0. the no-SSI time histories of bridge-deck and footing accelerations are (Fig. A second set of parametric results. the effect of this part of the ground motion on the bridge is obviously completely insignificant. the rock outcrop excitations are richer in the period region of 0. Complete solution: harmonic steady-state transfer functions. obtained in a complete analysis. and rigid rock conditions. is a product of ‘‘secondary’’ resonance between the strong short-period early part of the Pacoima– Northridge excitation and the second natural mode of the soil deposit. Fig. The harmonic steady state and transient seismic response of this pier. the footing is considered as rigidly supported (Fig.e. 15. 17–20. 20) The following conclusions can be drawn: 1.

3. alternatively the thickness of the soil profile been smaller or larger). For example. the above trends could be reversed. Conclusions The main conclusions of this study are: 1. in the realm of equivalent linear analyses performed using kinematic and inertial response analyses. The decomposition of SSI into a kinematic (KI) and an inertial (II) part provides a convenient way to analyze the problem. Northridge (1994) rock motion. different soil moduli can be used in the two steps. (b) In addition. Northridge (1994) rock motion. with its (largest) peak occurring at tE2. 16. in addition.ARTICLE IN PRESS G. 17. the excitation is not particularly rich in 0. it is reasonable (though not strictly correct) to separate soil nonlinearity into ‘‘primary’’. To account for the unavoidable nonlinearities in the soil during strong seismic excitation.5 s. Complete solution: acceleration histories for Pacoima. Thus. Although both phenomena occur simultaneously. 5.83 s) is below the fundamental period of the whole deposit (TE1. to a rotational component. [7. It should be pointed out that the foregoing trends should not be generalized to any bridge-footing system. arising from the shear-wave induced deformations in the free-field soil. The no-SSI response shows exactly the opposite trends. in phase with the strong ground motion observed at that time. Two are the reasons: (a) While the fundamental period of the pier considering SSI (TE0. and ‘‘secondary’’. Solution for improved embedment: acceleration histories for Pacoima. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 849 Fig.15 s). Fig.60–62]. radiation damping in the complete solution is small and neglecting it is of little significance at resonance. neglecting KI altogether . Mylonakis et al. On the other hand. 2. These errors are small when determining the response of short squatty structures but may be large for tall slender structures. arising from the stresses induced by the oscillating foundation (which is concentrated close to the surface). Neglecting radiation damping in this case has a minor effect both in the frequency and time domains. Ignoring the rotational excitation may lead to errors on the unsafe side. the main cutoff period (above which there is little or no radiation damping) is the second natural period corresponding to the resonance of the first (crucial) soft soil layer. KI leads to a foundation input motion (FIM) which is usually smaller than the motion of the free-field soil and.80-speriod components. had the frequency of the earthquake excitation been different (or. so even the small decrease in overall damping is of no further consequence. Additional discussion can be found in Refs.

the static stiffness in all modes of vibration increases. torsional and rocking damping impedances are not particularly sensitive to the presence of bedrock. The torsional and rocking stiffnesses remain essentially unaffected. in addition to translational. Northridge (1994) rock motion. Fig. The dynamic impedances of footings on a soil stratum overlying a stiffer halfspace exhibit intermediate behavior between those for homogeneous halfspace and for a stratum over bedrock. It appears difficult to determine a priori whether SSI will increase or decrease the response of a bridge. Mylonakis et al. Solution ignoring SSI: acceleration histories for Pacoima. a rigid pier on a deep and soft deposit). 19. if the cutoff period of the soil is very large (e. Ignoring the coupling stiffness may lead to underestimation of the fundamental period of a flexiblysupported pier. 5. The latter stems from the fact that waves emitted from the foundation–soil interface penetrate into the halfspace rather than being fully reflected.. usually leads to slight conservative results. The variation of dynamic stiffness coefficients is also sensitive to the presence of bedrock. horizontal forces induce rotational. In the realm of equivalent linear analyses this seems to be controlled by the following main parameters: (a) The system damping: if the fundamental period of the flexiblysupported bridge is significantly smaller than the ‘‘cutoff’’ frequency of the soil (e. coupling impedances are usually small in shallow foundations and can be ignored. radiation damping will be significant and the response of the system will decrease. In particular. The actual contact area does not necessarily attain a single value for all modes of vibration. hence a ‘‘cross-coupling’’ horizontal-rocking impedance exists. The amplitude of the foundation motion may increase significantly at frequencies near the natural frequency of the deposit. oscillations. at frequencies below the ‘‘cutoff’’ frequency of the stratum. 4. In embedded foundations and piles. As with their static counterparts. a thick deposit).g. For the earthquake problem. ´ 8.ARTICLE IN PRESS 850 G. 7. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 Fig. Horizontal stiffnesses may also be appreciably affected. If bedrock is present at a shallow depth beneath a footing. On the other hand. . Particularly sensitive to the presence of bedrock is the vertical mode. The flexibility of the halfspace leads to a decrease in stiffness but an increase in radiation damping. Radiation damping is insignificant at frequencies below the ‘‘cutoff’’ frequency of the layer. 6.g. the increase in radiation damping is most significant in the swaying dashpot.. It is therefore recommended for design of noncritical bridges. 3. Solution for improved embedment: harmonic steady-state transfer function. The actual sidewall area that is in ‘‘good’’ contact with the surrounding soil is usually smaller than the nominal contact area. The contact between the sidewalls of an embedded footing and the surrounding soil tends to increase both the stiffness (spring constant) and damping (dashpot constant) of the footing. 18.

ARTICLE IN PRESS G. soil. Mylonakis et al. soil deposits and seismic excitations with characteristics very different from those of the studied cases. Peter Edinger. and excitation). as done in existing seismic regulations (ATC-3. in turn.388). This implies that modeling the soil as a halfspace. the increase may be insignificant. Acknowledgments Financial support for this project was provided by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. bringing the structure closer to the predominant period of the excitation). MueserRutledge Consulting Engineers and Professor Christos Vrettos for reviewing the manuscript and offering valuable .e. Partner. (d) Nonlinear effects. such strong nonlinearities are beyond the state of the art of seismic SSI. Task 112-D-3. However. However. The first author received partial funding from a Caratheodory grant from University of Patras (D. This shift in period may lead to either de-resonance or resonance (e. resonance will develop which will tend to increase the response.. between structure. (b) Resonance between structure and soil. or in interpreting the results of numerical studies. radiation damping may be substantial regardless of natural period of the system. Whether or not this will result to damage is related to several additional parameters that are not discussed in this study. may lead to unconservative estimates of the response. if the frequency content of the excitation is not rich in that particular period. If the increase in fundamental natural period due to SSI brings the period of the bridge close to an ‘‘effective’’ natural period (especially the first or second) of the soil. 20. In this case the response may increase dramatically.g. If the fundamental natural period of the system coincides with both the natural period of the soil and the predominant period of the earthquake motion (at rock level). NEHRP-2003). may increase the effective natural period of the structure and the soil. double resonance will develop (i. including development of pore water pressure and uplift. Thanks are also due to Mr. The development of plastic deformations in the structure and soil. The conclusions drawn from the parameter studies should not be generalized to bridge piers. which. may lead to ‘‘progressive collapse’’. To date. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 851 Fig. FHWA Contract DTFH61-92-C-00112. (c) Double resonance.7. the observed phenomena and the discussed interplay between various natural periods of the system and dominant periods of the ground excitation. Solution neglecting radiation damping: harmonic steady-state transfer functions.. can be of help in predicting qualitatively the response in other cases.

1:115–31. [47] Muravskii GB. [18] Vrettos C. Lysmer J. [9] Newmark NM. Katayama T. Gazetas G. 4pp. [3] Stewart JP. Morray JP.2:159–77. [20] Luco JE. Beskos DE. Stokoe KH. Impedance functions of a rigid foundation on a layered medium. The authors would also like to acknowledge the help of Ms. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1986. 1977. Evangelia Garini in preparing Tables 1b and 2b. A rigid punch in contact with a nonhomogeneous elastic solid. [10] Luco JE. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1999. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1995. [8] Elsabee F. emerging issues paper. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1986. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewalls on the response of embedded circular foundations to obliquely-incident SV and P waves. Seed RB. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1990. Berkeley. In: Fang HY. Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.117(9):1363–81. Dynamic soil–structure interaction by continuoum formulation method. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Woods RD. Quart J Mech Appl Math 1973. [30] Wong HL. [11] Elsabee F. Fenves GL. Apparent propagation velocity of body waves. [5] Kausel E.101:771–85. Nonlinear behavior in soil–structure interaction. vol. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991. Rotherdam: A. Dynamic response of embedded machine foundations.14:209–22. [2] Finn WDL. [24] Gazetas G. [35] Qian. Kubo K. University of Tokyo. Vibration problems in geotechnical engineering. Roesset JM. p.26:337–59. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 [25] Gazetas G. Luco JE. [49] Meek JW.20(1–4):1–15. 55–63. II: empirical findings. 2nd ed. Rome. [7] Roesset JM. Roesset JM. 1–10 [44] Awojobi AO.102(GT12): 1159–78. 1973. Method Struct Anal ASCE 1976. 639–82 [chapter 19]. [40] Gazetas G. Simple models for foundations in lateral and rocking motion.100(GT-4):427–47. Mylonakis G. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 1971.41:1019–24. [28] Luco JE.22:333–43. [51] Gazetas G. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2000. 1981. Beskos DE. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 1975. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1996. editors. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1991.101(1):109–29. Kotterdam: A.48(2):159–68. J Struct Eng ASCE 1975. Geotechnique 1972. Foundation vibrations. MIT. Dobry R. Bloom M. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1983.117(9): 1382–401. 64. Roesset JM. [12] Tassoulas JL. In: Gazetas G. Analysis of machine foundation vibrations: state of the art. Englewood Cliffs. [6] Schnabel PB. Vertical and rocking impedances for rigid rectangular foundations on soils with bounded non-homogeneity. NJ: Prentice-Hall. New York: ASCE. Stokoe KH. Research Report R77-33. editor. Roesset JM. 1972. [22] Harada T.12:73–93. 1994. [33] Vrettos C. 1981. and to the staff of MRCE for preparing some of the drawings. Luco JE. Dynamic stiffness of circular foundations. Foundation engineering handbook. Geotech Spec Publ ASCE 1998(75):1119–74. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 1982.112(2):136–49. Westman RA. Stewart JP. Westman RA. Soil amplification of earthquakes. [23] Veletsos AS. 1977. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1999. Shear and Rayleigh waves in soil dynamics. [43] Guzina BB. SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Static and dynamic displacements of foundations on heterogeneous multilayered soils. comments. 26:235–47. 1970.28:1525–40. [16] Gazetas G.2:2–42. Nair VV. Soil–pile–bridge seismic interaction: kinematic and inertial effects. Vibrational characteristics of soil depostis with variable wave velocity. Morray JP. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1982(10):283–94. Part I: soft soil. [32] Guzina BB. p. 1977. University of Tokyo.ARTICLE IN PRESS 852 G. Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic foundations. Report No 190. J Geotech Geoenv Eng ASCE 2003. 1984. [26] Richart FE. [27] Mylonakis G. ASCE 1979. Geotechnique 1980. [37] Stokoe KH. Nucl Eng Des 1974. . [39] Dobry R. Balkema. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1984. Forced vibrations of strip footing in layered soils. [42] Gazetas G. Englewood Cliffs. II Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations: experimental verification. Katayama T. Dynamic soil–structure interaction.97(EM5):1381. Torsional vibration of a rigid circular body on a nonhomogeneous elastic stratum. Geotechnical special publication. [38] Novak M. Yegian M. [15] Gazetas G. Nikolaou A. p.105(GT12):1455–70. 2001. Free vibration of embedded foundations: theory versus experiment. Roesset JM. Fifth world conference on earthquake engineering. 190. [48] Kassir MK.24(3):419–37. Kinematic soil–structure interaction from strong motion recordings.6:1–20. 1–26.4:64–81. In: Proceedings of the sixth world conference on earthquake engineering. Preprints. Seismic soil–structure interaction: new evidence and emerging issues. New York: ASCE. Simple physical models for foundation vibrations. Institute of Industrial Science. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1974. Christian JT. [34] Karabalis DL. surface waves. Kubo K. Institute of Industrial Science. p. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1985. Balkemal. [50] Wolf JP. Dispersive SH-surface waves in soil deposits of variable shear modulus. Mechanics of non-homogeneous and anisotropic foundations. To radiate or not to radiate. Mylonakis et al.129(4): 323–35. University of California.31:204–17. New York: Van Nostrand Reinholds. Dynamic response of circular footings. In: Desai CS. In-plane vibrations of soil depostis with variable shear modulus: I. 1996. 1985. 553–93 [chapter 15]. 125(1):38–48. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 1976. Dynamic soil–Structure Interaction. Englewood Cliffs.25(12):1421–32. Dynamic response of arbitrary shaped foundations. Pak RYS. Rosenblueth E. Report No. Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations. Christian JT. Dynamic response of circular footings. Hall JR. Richart FE. NJ: Prentice-Hall. [31] Dobry R. Dynamic behavior of embedded foundations. 55–63. [13] Harada T. 640pp. Pak RYS. Gazetas G.112(2):109–35. p. Vibrations of soils and foundations. [4] Kim S. 1977. Report EERC 72-12. New Delhi. References [1] Kramer S. [21] Tassoulas JL. [14] Wolf JP. An investigation of the effect of rigid sidewalls on the response of embedded circular foundations to obliquely-incident SV and P Waves. [36] Gazetas G. p. Englewood Cliffs. Vertical vibration of a rigid circular foundation on Gibson soil. Seed HB.A. Chuaprasert MF. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1990. NJ: Prentice-Hall. [45] Awojobi AO. [17] O’Rourke MJ. Fundamental of earthquake engineering. Geotechnique 1998. [46] Gazetas G. 1984. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 1971. International Association for Earthquake Engineering. Veletsos AS. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1997. New York: Springer. Research Report R77-33. Selig ET. Dynamic interaction between three-dimensional rigid surface foundations and comparison with the ATC-3 provisions. Gazetas G. Multi-layer representation of continuous insitu profiles in soil dynamics. On the importance of layering on impedance functions. State-of-the-art of geotechnical earthquake engineering practice.A. editors. [41] Hadjian AH. Seismic soil–structure interaction in buildings. 1991.9:255–64. Dynamic soil–structure interaction by continuum formulation method. Vertical vibration of a circular footing on a linear-wave-velocity half-space. Geotechnical earthquake engineering.97(EM5):1381. [29] Kausel E. J Appl Mech ASME 1974. Experiments with shallow and deep foundations. Dynamic response of 3-D rigid surface foundations by time domain boundary element method. 1997. MIT. [19] Vrettos C. Tables of impedance functions for square foundations on layered media.

University of California. Mylonakis G. Horizontal soil strain due to seismic waves. Gazetas G. [61] Mylonakis G. [54] Borja RI. submitted for publication.ARTICLE IN PRESS G. Gazetas G. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.45(3):147–60. Gazetas G. Escoffier S. Gazetas G. Gazetas G. 1995. Nikolaou S. [59] Mylonakis G. MIT. Phenomenological model applied to inelastic response of soil–pile interaction systems. 245. 853 [58] Tschebotarioff GP. Gazetas G. 299–96. Development of analysis and design procedures for spread footings. [62] Gerolymos N. Castro G. Garnier J. Numerical modeling of cyclic lateral pile load experiments. Natural period and damping of bridge-piers on piles.4(3):377–401. Nonlinear stiffness of foundations. Nikolaou A. 1999. 2002. Berkeley. Constitutive model for 1–D cyclic soil behavior applied to seismic analysis of layered deposits. [53] Gerolymos N. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 2000. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 26 (2006) 824–853 [52] Lysmer et al. [55] Gerolymos N. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1994. 1973. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research. State University of New York. [63] O’Rourke MJ. J Geotech Eng ASCE 1984. Research Report R77-35. J Geotech Geoenv Eng. NCEER-95-0021. FLUSH-a computer program of approximate 3-D analysis of soil–structure interaction problems. Lisbon. Soils Found 2005. [57] Jakub M. Research Report MCEER-02-0003. Hossain I. Chancey A. 2nd ed. p. Vibration of foundations on incompressible soils with no elastic region. EERC 75-30. Report No. [60] Mylonakis G. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. Foundations. [56] Gerolymos N. State University of New York. In: Second international conference in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Soils Found 2005. 1975. Mylonakis et al. Gazetas G.110(9):1173–87.120(9): 1570–92. Buffalo.45(4):119–32. Parametric results for seismic response of pile supported bridge bents. Buffalo. retaining and earth structures. Roesset JM. 1977. . Wu WH.