Accepted Manuscript

Seismic Soil-structure Interaction: A State-of-the-Art Review

Vishwajit Anand, S.R. Satish Kumar

PII: S2352-0124(18)30125-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2018.10.009
Reference: ISTRUC 346
To appear in: Structures
Received date: 10 June 2018
Revised date: 24 October 2018
Accepted date: 25 October 2018

Please cite this article as: Vishwajit Anand, S.R. Satish Kumar , Seismic Soil-structure
Interaction: A State-of-the-Art Review. Istruc (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.istruc.2018.10.009

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction: A State-of-the-Art Review

Vishwajit Ananda and Satish Kumar S Rb
a,b
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai- 600036, INDIA
Abstract
The process of soil response influencing motion of the structure and vice-versa is termed as
soil-structure interaction (SSI). SSI has been traditionally considered to be beneficial to
seismic response of a structure. It has been suggested that ignoring SSI in design practice
leads to a conservative design. It is evident from the design codes which either allow a
reduction of the overall seismic coefficient on account of SSI or suggest it to be ignored

PT
altogether. However observations from some of the past seismic events such as 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake and 1995 Kobe earthquake show evidences of detrimental nature of SSI in
certain circumstances. Recent studies have also been able to justify such possibilities. As a

RI
consequence of this dissent among the research fraternity, there is a lack of adequately
formulated design guidelines. Though advances have been made in developing methods to

SC
solve an SSI problem, incorporating SSI in design practice has been a rarity. The present
paper attempts to summarize various approaches to include SSI in analysis of structures and
guidelines outlined in prominent seismic codes. The significance of such a study lies in the
NU
need for selection of appropriate approach. A review of contemporary research in field of SSI
is also presented at the end.
Keywords: Soil-Structure Interaction, Seismic analysis, Earthquake Engineering, Review
MA

Article.

1. Introduction domain in a variety of structures such as

D

foundations subjected to either machine

When a foundation is under influence of operations or seismic activities. As
E

vibratory machines or a seismic event, it mentioned in a number of literature viz.

can be intuitively assessed that structural
PT

Wolf [2] and Jaya [3], the interplay can be

displacement and ground displacement are understood by distinguishing between
not independent of each other. This following three ways by which soil and
process of interdependence of structural
CE

foundations affect the dynamic behaviour

and soil responses is termed as soil- of a structure:
structure interaction. Lai and Martinelli [1]
define SSI to denote a particular category i. First the motion at the free surface
AC

of contact problems where along the of a soil deposit resting on base

surface of a structural element (e.g.
shallow/piled foundation, earth-retaining
structure) in contact with the surrounding
ground, the stresses acting along the
interface cannot be defined without
simultaneously determining the
deformation and displacement fields along
the very same interface. Therefore SSI
problems belong to a class of coupled
contact problems where action and
reaction along the contact surface are
functions of each other. SSI finds its
rock, is different from that at the
base rock itself. This modification
in the free field response of site is
known as soil amplification effect,
and is present even in absence of
structure and excavation. In
general, the motion gets amplified
depending on its frequency content.
ii. Further excavating and inserting
the rigid base into the site modifies
the motion. The rigid body motion
of the foundation, which is coupled
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

horizontal translation and rocking, into further modification of base

results into inertial loads in the
structure which varies over the
height of the structure. This
modification is due to reflection of
waves at the rigid surface of the
foundation, and hence called wave
scattering effect or kinematic
interaction effect. It is very
predominant for embedded
footings.
motion. This phenomenon, termed
as inertial interaction, is
pronounced for heavy structures
such as dams and nuclear power
plants. This brings about necessity
of carrying out SSI analysis in
design of such critical structures,
irrespective of site location.
Technically the former of the three does

PT
not qualify to be a part of actual SSI
iii. Finally, the inertial loads applied to analysis, and therefore, the interaction is
the structure leads to an said to comprise of two components-

RI
overturning moment and a kinematic and inertial. Wolf [2] suggests
transverse shear acting at base. kinematic and inertial components to be
These cause additional dominant respectively at low and high

SC
deformations in the soil, resulting levels of ground shaking.
NU
𝑇𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑘 𝑘ℎ2
= √1 + + (1)
𝑇 𝑘𝑥 𝑘𝑦𝑦
MA

1 1 1 1 (2)
𝛽0 = { 𝑛 } 𝛽𝑖 + {1 − 𝑛 } 𝛽𝑠 +{ 𝑛𝑥 } 𝛽𝑥 + 𝑛𝑦𝑦 𝛽𝑦𝑦
𝑇 𝑇 𝑇 𝑇
( 𝑆𝑆𝐼 ( 𝑆𝑆𝐼 ( 𝑇𝑆𝑆𝐼 ) ( 𝑇𝑆𝑆𝐼 )
𝑇 ) 𝑇 ) 𝑥 { 𝑦𝑦 }
E D
PT
CE
AC

Fig. 1 Schematic representation of structure-soil system

Kinematic interaction is characterized by effect refers to spatial variation of ground

deviation of foundation input motion from
free-field motion arising out of base slab
averaging, embedment effects and pile
kinematics. Base slab averaging is
averaging out of spatially variable ground
motion within foundation footprint and
often leads to reduced translation and
enhanced rotation. While embedment
motion in any embedded foundation, pile
kinematics is due to interaction of piles
with wave propagation and is unique only
to piles. On the other hand, inertial
interaction results into two major changes:
elongation in time period and modification
in damping. These changes are represented
by equations (1) and (2) as prescribed by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
NIST [4]. 𝑚, ℎ and 𝑘 are structural mass,
height and lateral stiffness respectively. 𝑇
and 𝑇𝑆𝑆𝐼 are respectively structural period
and elongated SSI period. 𝑘𝑥 and 𝑘𝑦𝑦 are
horizontal and rotational soil springs as
shown in the schematic structure-soil
system presented in Fig. 1. The radiation
damping components (𝛽𝑥 , 𝛽𝑦𝑦 ) are added
to structural (𝛽𝑖 ) and soil material (𝛽𝑠 )
damping components to obtain total
system damping (𝛽0 ). 𝑇𝑥 and 𝑇𝑦𝑦 denote
fictitious time periods 2𝜋√𝑚⁄𝑘 and
𝑥
2𝜋√𝑚⁄𝑘 . Coefficients 𝑛, 𝑛𝑥 and 𝑛𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦
depend on type of damping and can be
obtained from Givens [5].
There have been diverse research relating
to SSI. While Roesset [6] and Kausel [7]
track its historical development, Wolf
[2,8,9] has continuously contributed to the
field. There has been however a lack of
MA
consensus among researchers on effects of
SSI. Gazetas and Mylonakis [10] describe
this dubious nature of past research on
assessing SSI effects. Newmark and Hall
D
[11] proposed approximate relationships
between ductility and strength reduction
E
factor using equal displacement and equal
PT
energy rules for flexible and stiff
structures. Based on these relationships,
strength reduction factor reduces with time
CE
period for a specified target ductility.
Since SSI leads to elongation in time
period, this substantiates claim of ever-
beneficial nature of SSI. Though this work
AC
was generic in nature, it could not stand
well against similar analysis with ground
motions recorded on soft soils by Miranda
and Bertero [12]. Miranda and Bertero
[12] observed an increase in ductility
demand with increasing structural period
beyond a period 1.2 times predominant
period of ground motion. This shows
possible detrimental nature of SSI during a
seismic event. Gazetas and Mylonakis [10]
also mention that use of ductility terms in
past research is also dubious in terms of
demand and capacity. In addition, Gazetas
and Mylonakis [10] also investigated
collapse of Fukae section of Hanshin
Expressway during 1995 Kobe
Earthquake. In addition to discrepancies in
structural design (lack of adequate
transverse reinforcement, lack of
anchorage for longitudinal reinforcement
and use of elastic analysis) observed in
earlier investigations, they found role of
SSI in the collapse. Alluvial deposits
around bridge site first modified the
PT
incoming seismic waves and then
enhanced period of the bridge piers
rendering them to exhibit a stronger
RI
response. This resulted into spectacular
collapse of 18 piers of the expressway.
SC
However, as presented in upcoming
sections, recent studies have been able to
demonstrate significance of considering
NU
SSI in structural design especially for
inelastic structures. The present status of
SSI consideration in regular design
practice is a rarity possibly because of lack
of adequately laid provisions in building
codes around the world. This gap, evident
in Section 5, can be filled by development
of a set of design guidelines incorporating
SSI which is easy to be used in design
offices. Development of such guidelines
warrants a proper understanding of various
approaches to solve SSI problems. This
brings upon the significance of the present
review. Further a consensual
understanding among the research
fraternity can be achieved by reviewing
the recent developments in the field. This
paper has therefore five major objectives:
(i) to present a holistic and clear
understanding of the phenomenon (Section
1), (ii) to track historical development of
the field and to understand significance of
considering SSI in design practice
(Sections 2 and 3), (iii) to discuss broad
categories of various approaches to solve
an SSI problem (Section 4), (iv) to present
the state of practice pertaining to SSI in
different seismic codes around the globe
(Section 5), and (v) to review recent
research in the field of SSI (Section 6).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The paper also focusses on providing a
good bibliography which the readers can
refer for a deeper understanding.
2. Historical Development
Roesset [6] and Kausel [7] presented
reviews of the early stage developments in
field of soil-structure interaction. In
addition to the two components of SSI-
kinematic and inertial- originally coined
by Whitman, Roesset also discussed direct
and substructure approaches to perform
SSI analyses. He also reported previous
works by Reissner and Bycroft, Parmelle,
Veletsos and Wei, Luco and Westman, and
Novak in field of dynamic stiffness of
foundations, as well as effects of stratified
deposits, embedment and pile group on the
latter. On the other hand, Kausel presented
chronological development in SSI, starting
from fundamental solutions (commonly
termed as Green’s functions) devised by
mathematicians and scientists way back in
MA
early 19th century. He reported notable
contributions in static SSI by Boussinesq,
Steinbrenner, Reissner, Mindlin, and
Hanson, just to name a few. Reissner, in
D
1936, put founding stones for dynamic SSI
which was further carved by notable work
E
done by Luco, Bycroft, Housner,
PT
Newmark, Veletsos, Whitman and many
others. Kausel himself initiated
development of substructure approach to
CE
solve SSI problems.
3. Significance of SSI
Conventionally SSI has been considered to
AC
pose beneficial effects on seismic response
of a structure. It is evident from the design
codes which either allow a reduction of the
overall seismic coefficient on account of
SSI or suggest it to be ignored. The usual
reasoning provided in this regard is that
considering SSI makes a structure more
flexible, increases its natural period and
enhances its effective damping ratio.
These modifications suggest a reduction in
base shear demand for a structure as
compared to its fixed-base counterpart.
With such assumptions, SSI has usually
been disregarded by designers to reduce
the complications involved in analyses.
However observations from many
earthquake damaged sites tell a different
story. Noticeable instances include damage
in number of pile-supported bridge
structures in 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
as cited by Yashinsky [13] and collapse of
Hanshin Expressway Route 3 (Fukae
section) in 1995 Kobe earthquake as
investigated by Mylonakis and Gazetas
PT
[14]. Further Badry and Satyam [15]
obtained SSI analysis for asymmetrical
buildings supported on piled raft which got
RI
damaged during 2015 Nepal Earthquake.
They observed that detrimental effects of
SC
SSI can be greatly intensified by
asymmetry in geometry of superstructure.
These observations suggest that traditional
belief of SSI being ever-beneficial does
NU
not stand good for all structures on all soil
conditions. This suggests for having a look
at observations from the past research.
There have been numerous parametric
studies till date to establish significance of
considering SSI in structural design. Most
of them suggest geometry of
superstructure, foundation characteristics,
soil modulus and shear wave velocity
profile in stratified deposits to be the ones
which affect their seismic response.
Ciampoli and Pinto [16] identified
structure-to-soil stiffness ratio and aspect
ratio of structure to be regulating the
phenomenon. Nguyen et al. [17] and
Nguyen et al. [18] established significance
of foundation characteristics, viz. footing
size in shallow foundations, and pile size
and load bearing mechanism in pile
foundations, on seismic response of
structure-soil systems.
Ciampoli and Pinto [16] observed that
considering SSI in inelastic response of
bridge piers exhibits a reduced ductility
demand at an expense of a slight increase
in top displacement demand. They
identified two input parameters: wave
parameter and slenderness parameter.
While wave parameter represents soil-to-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
structure stiffness contrast, slenderness
parameter is purely geometrical property
of structure. Ghalibafian et al. [19] also
arrived at similar conclusion while
studying effects of nonlinear SSI on
inelastic seismic demand of pile-supported
bridge piers. These studies support the
conventional belief of SSI being beneficial
to seismic response of structures.
However there are studies which tell a
different story. Carlo et al. [20]
investigated influence of SSI on the
seismic response of bridge piers under
effect of EC8 response spectrum and five
artificial accelerograms. They concluded
that neglecting SSI, especially in case of
stiff superstructures, can lead to significant
underestimation of curvature ductility
demand in addition to top displacements.
Flexible and slender piers get significantly
affected by rotational motion at base
which would imply large residual top
displacement after the seismic event. This
MA
may result into dislocation of bridge deck
from bearings located at pier top, as
witnessed by Mylonakis and Gazetas [14]
in collapse of Hanshin Expressway Route
D
3 (Fukae section) during 1995 Kobe
E
earthquake. The possibility of differential
settlement arising out of soil flexibility has
PT
been remarked by Raychowdhury [21] for
low-rise steel moment resisting framed
buildings. She also concluded that SSI
CE
needs to be tackled more critically for
heavily loaded footings owing to high
inertial effects. This suggests a need to
AC
develop a rational basis for seismic design
incorporating SSI. Saez et al. [22] studied
influence of dynamic SSI on inelastic
response of moment-resisting frame
buildings founded on dry and fully
saturated sands. They concluded that
dynamic SSI has more pronounced effect
in case of fully saturated sands owing to
enhanced pore water pressure. This
suggests that the importance of
considering SSI may vary with site
conditions.
Further Jarernprasert et al. [23] studied
effects of SSI on the response of yielding
single-storey structures embedded in an
elastic half-space to a set of accelerograms
representative of diverse geology. Unlike
elastic structures, SSI may lead to increase
in ductility demands and total
displacements in case of inelastic
structures. However current seismic
provisions allow designers either to ignore
SSI altogether (e.g. IS 1893-1 [24]) or
PT
reduce design base shear (e.g. ASCE [25]).
Since structures are expected to exhibit
inelasticity under severe earthquakes, the
RI
current seismic provisions prove to be
inadequate. To overcome this issue,
SC
Jarernprasert et al. [23] also devised an
approach to incorporate SSI by use of a
modified seismic design coefficient which
enables structure to reach its target
NU
ductility demand. Tabatabaiefar and Fatahi
[26] also reported inadequacy of seismic
design without considering SSI in ensuring
structural safety especially in case of
structures founded on soft soils.
Aydemir [27] studied soil-structure
interaction effects on structural parameters
for stiffness degrading systems built on
soft soil sites and found smaller strength
reduction factors for interacting systems
than those for corresponding fixed-base
systems. This implies that neglecting SSI
may result into an unconservative design.
Further he observed importance of
considering stiffness degradation in an SSI
analysis for stiff structures. Negative post-
yield stiffness resulting from P-delta effect
(known as negative strain hardening) also
detrimentally affects seismic response in
terms of lower strength reduction factors
and higher inelastic displacement
demands. Simplified expressions to obtain
mean strength reduction factors and mean
inelastic displacement ratios of SDOF
systems with degrading stiffness have also
been proposed. Hassani et al. [28]
extended the spectrum of study to include
SSI effects on inelastic displacement ratios
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of structures experiencing degradation in
both strength and stiffness.
It can therefore be observed that there is a
need to consider SSI in design of inelastic
structures. Considering huge capital
required, importance of connectivity in
post-disaster situations and magnitude of
hazards involved, inclusion of SSI in
design of bridges, dams, wind turbines and
nuclear reactors is of paramount
importance. However despite significant
amount of research in the field,
considering SSI in design of various
structures is a rarity. This is because of
inadequately laid SSI provisions in
building codes. There is a need to develop
a procedure to analyse SSI problem which
is simple yet fairly accurate. This
development is possible only with a proper
understanding of various SSI solution
approaches available in literature which
are discussed in following section along
with their merits and demerits.
MA
4. Approaches to solve an SSI problem
Initial attempts to solve an SSI problem
mostly focussed on obtaining an analytical
D
solution. Kaynia and Kausel [29]
E
presented a general formulation based on
Green’s formula evaluated using integral
PT
transform technique for dynamic response
analysis of piles and pile groups in a
layered half-space, which could as well be
CE
extended to seismic analysis. Though such
rigorous solutions are amenable to a wide
variety of problems, they could not
AC
generate wide acceptability owing to
complexities and high computational costs
involved.
There have been numerous instances
where SSI problems have been studied
experimentally. Gazetas and Stokoe [30]
established reliability of impedance
functions enlisted in Gazetas [31] by
performing shake table tests. Boulanger et
al. [32] evaluated dynamic p-y analysis
against dynamic centrifuge model tests,
and found reasonable agreement over wide
range of shaking intensities and earthquake
motions. Durante et al. [33] experimentally
investigated effects of pile configurations,
pile caps and superstructure under white
noise and harmonic excitations using
shake table tests. Hussien et al. [34]
performed geotechnical centrifuge
experiments to examine dynamic
responses of systems with varying pile
configurations and observed both
kinematic and inertial components.
Martakis et al. [35] carried out a series of
PT
dynamic centrifuge experiments to
investigate influence of soil properties and
structural parameters on SSI effects and
RI
thereby arrived at an experimental dataset
which might serve as a benchmark for
SC
engineering practice. Most of the
experimental attempts on soil-structure
interaction are either shake table tests or
dynamic centrifuge model tests. However
NU
there have been few full-scale dynamic
testings such as that of a portal frame
railway bridge by Zangeneh et al. [36].
Since such experimentation is usually
cumbersome and expensive, researchers
have been engaged deeply into devising
modelling strategies to analyse SSI effects.
These modelling strategies, being simple
and economical, are fit to be used in
regular design offices. Far [37] presents a
review of some of these well-known
modelling techniques and computational
methods for dynamic SSI analysis, and
may serve as a good first-hand read for
novice researchers in the domain.
4.1 Discrete and Continuum modelling
Dutta and Roy [38] presented a critical
review of idealization and modelling for
interaction among various components of
the soil-foundation-structure system.
These modelling strategies are broadly
classified as discrete and continuum
depending on elements used at structure-
soil interface. In discrete modelling,
springs and dashpots are usually used as
interface elements. The set of discrete
modelling comprises of Winkler model,
Filonenko-Borodich foundation, Hetenyi’s
foundation, Pasternak foundation,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Generalized foundation, Kerr foundation,
Beam column analogy model and
continuous Winkler model. On the other
hand, continuum modelling is achieved
using either finite element or boundary
element methods. Elastic continuum
model, Vlasov foundation and Reissner
foundation are examples of continuum
modelling strategies. Kucukarslan et al.
[39] devised a hybrid continuum numerical
model with piles and structural elements
modelled as linear finite element and soil
half-space modelled using boundary
elements, and validated it against static
load experiments. This model is able to
incorporate soil’s material nonlinearity,
pile group behavior, pile settlement and
pile-soil slip. Givens et al. [40] assessed
SSI discrete modelling strategies for
response history analysis of buildings.
They evaluated impact of removing
selected components of Baseline Models
one at a time, on engineering demand
MA
parameters such as inter-storey drifts,
storey shear distributions and floor
accelerations, and found out that simple
models deduced this way are able to
D
provide satisfactory results. However
among them, the bathtub model still holds
E
the highest level of performance. The
model comparison has been performed in
PT
context of Sherman Oaks Building and
Walnut Creek Building, and forms base for
development of design guidelines report
CE
by NIST [4].
Pile foundations are usually modelled
AC
using discrete element methods in
engineering practice. Many commercial
computer programs are available to this
end. They employ p-y (nonlinear lateral
spring) and t-z (nonlinear vertical spring)
relations along length of each pile to
obtain pile response. NIST [4] mentions
that these formulations are erroneous for
small displacements because of inadequate
definition of initial stiffness.
4.2 Linear and Nonlinear Analyses
Depending on nature of elements used to
represent soil-structure interaction,
approaches can be classified as linear and
nonlinear. For instance, elasto-dynamic
solutions are linear while solutions using
p-y and t-z curves are nonlinear.
Nonlinearities in SSI involve geometric
and material nonlinearities in
superstructure, foundation and soil which
may arise from yielding of structural
elements, soil (e.g., liquefaction) and loss
PT
of contact between foundation and soil.
Most studies consider either one of soil
RI
and structure as linear and other as
nonlinear. Nonlinearity in structure is
accounted using hardening and hysteretic
SC
laws, and the results are usually interpreted
in terms of ductility demands. Ciampoli
and Pinto [16] and Mylonakis and Gazetas
NU
[14] are examples where nonlinearity in
structure was considered. Three major
approaches to consider nonlinearity in
foundation and soil are continuum models,
Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation
(BNWF) models and Plasticity Based
Macro-element (PBM) models. BNWF
models have been incorporated in Open
System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (OpenSEES) by
Raychowdhury and Hutchinson [41]. The
corresponding model has been validated
against centrifuge model tests by Thomas
et al. [42]. PBM models are relatively
recent development. Initiated by Nova and
Montrasio [43], these models employ a
single interface element to represent
flexibility as well as energy dissipation.
Gajan and Kutter [44] developed a variant
of PBM models called Contact Interface
Model (CIM) which is advantageous over
BNWF models owing to its ability to
consider nonlinearity arising from gapping
between foundation and soil by
incorporating gap geometry. Gajan et al.
[45] presented a comparison of BNWF and
CIM nonlinear SSI models. They found
CIM models to perform better in situations
with coupled moment, shear and axial
responses. In cases where one of the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
modes is dominant, both models turn out
to be equivalent. However, PBM models
are still not much in practice because of
limited experimental validation. Lee [46]
proposed a numerical approach for
nonlinear SSI by considering different
finite element strategies for near and far
field regions.
It is worth mentioning that under cyclic
loading, stiffness of soil may degrade. This
can be accounted by use of a reduced shear
modulus for the soil medium. Modulus
degradation curves can be obtained from
literature such as Kramer [47] and
Darendeli [48].
4.3 Frequency domain and Time domain
analyses
Kaustell et al. [49] performed a simplified
dynamic SSI analysis of a portal frame
railway bridge subjected to high-speed
load model (HSLM) of Eurocode. This
MA
simplified analysis includes solution of
equation of motion in frequency domain
and use of Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
to obtain solution in time domain.
Solutions sought in frequency domain
D
have linearity assumed inherently and
E
hence may not be suitable in case of
inelastic structures. Damage and residual
PT
strength evaluation cannot be therefore
achieved in frequency domain. On the
other hand, time domain solutions are
CE
much more involving in terms of
computations as they rely on convolution
integrals. There were further attempts to
AC
develop a hybrid strategy which has
advantages of both frequency and time
domain solutions. These hybrid
formulations can further be categorised as:
Hybrid Frequency-Time Domain (HFTD)
solutions and Hybrid Time-Frequency
Domain (HTFD) solutions. In HFTD
approaches such as Nimtaj and
Bagheripour [50], a reference linear
system is solved in frequency domain and
pseudo-forces are applied to represent
actual nonlinear behaviour. However in
HTFD approaches such as Bernal and
Youssef [51], equations of motion are
solved in time domain using frequency
independent impedance functions.
Frequency dependency of these functions
are taken into account via pseudo-forces in
frequency domain at every iteration.
4.4 Direct and substructure approaches
Based on above discussion of past
research, approaches to deal with SSI
problems can be classified as discrete vs
PT
continuum, linear vs nonlinear and
frequency domain vs time domain.
However these solution methods can be
RI
further classified into direct and
substructure approaches based on
SC
fundamental differences. In direct method,
the complete soil-structure system is
solved with free-field motion as input. The
response of coupled system is employed in
NU
a second stage analysis to obtain structural
response. On the other hand in
substructure approach, the system is
subdivided into various substructures
which are solved independently. Solutions
are superimposed at the end to obtain
response of the structure. Since semi-
infinite soil medium need not be
discretized in substructure method, it is
computationally efficient and cheaper than
direct method. Moreover this method
subdivides the complex problem into
multiple simpler problems giving choice of
efficient modelling strategy in each
problem. This can also be of great use
while undertaking a parametric study.
Unlike direct approach, kinematic and
inertial components are considered
separately in case of substructure approach
using transfer and impedance functions
respectively. Considering frequency
dependence of these functions,
substructure method of analysis is usually
performed in frequency domain. Though
substructure method is widely used in
analysing an SSI problem, its accuracy has
been questioned recently by Rahmani et al.
[52] who observed that this method
consistently overestimates design base
forces and top displacements and is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
therefore too simplified to capture the
major mechanisms involved in SSI.
4.5 Impedance Functions for Substructure
Method of inertial SSI Analysis
Determination of impedance functions is
one of the most critical steps involved in
substructure analysis as they are used to
represent inertial interaction effects.
Equation (3) presents a general form of
impedance functions, S as a function of
dimensionless frequency, a0 upon
normalization against static stiffness
coefficients, K. k and c denote stiffness
and damping characteristics which are also
functions of frequency.
𝑆(𝑎0 ) = 𝐾[𝑘(𝑎0 ) + 𝑖𝑎0 𝑐(𝑎0 )] (3)
The initial attempts to compute impedance
functions were quite rigorous through use
of boundary element methods or finite
element methods. Wolf [9] describes
MA
physical models to obtain foundation
impedance functions which are quite
simple to use and fairly accurate. These
physical models can be broadly
D
categorized as lumped parameter models
and cone models. While lumped parameter
E
models describe foundation as lumped
PT
stiffness, damping and mass elements,
cone models represent load dissipation
mechanism by use of cones. Most of the
CE
lumped parameter models have been
developed for ideal situations like shallow
footings on homogeneous elastic half-
space. This renders cone models an
AC
advantage over lumped parameter models
as the former is able to handle deeply
embedded and pile foundations in layered
soil deposits. This is significant in view of
Kaynia and Kausel [29] who observed that
non-homogeneity of soil tends to enhance
interaction effects and filter out high
frequency components of excitation. NIST
[4] enlists impedance functions based on
lumped parameter models from past
literature like Pais and Kausel [53],
Gazetas [31] and Mylonakis et al. [54] for
shallow footings and Mylonakis [55],
Mylonakis and Roumbas [56] and others
for pile foundations. Cone models,
initiated by Ehlers in 1942, was used to
devise a computational tool IMFFS
(IMpedance Functions of FoundationS) by
Jaya [3]. There are four major steps
involved: (i) analytical modelling of soil-
structure system, (ii) determination of
dynamic stiffness matrix of free-field, (iii)
construction of kinematic constraint
matrices, and (iv) evaluation of dynamic
PT
stiffness matrix (impedance function) of
soil-foundation system. They are briefly
outlined further in this sub-section.
RI
Moreover recent use of cone models in SSI
analyses can be observed in Khoshnoudian
SC
et al. [57] and Ayough and Taghia [58].
Cone models represent the foundation as a
stack of rigid disks. The thickness of slices
NU
of soil trapped between two consecutive
disks for embedded (or pile) foundations
should not exceed one-sixth (or one-tenth)
of smallest wavelength contained in
excitation. Soil region beyond foundation
level is discretized only at layer interfaces
and no rigid disks are used. Single and
double cones represent load dissipation
mechanism originating respectively at
surface and embedded disks. The lateral
slopes of these cones are evaluated by
equating static stiffness coefficients of disk
and cone, and depend on soil properties. In
stratified deposits, cones are replaced by
backbone cones comprising of multiple
cone frustums. Once the soil-structure
system is analytically modelled, unit load
is applied at a disk, the backbone cone is
constructed and displacements at all disk
locations are obtained. Upon repeating this
process for all other disks, dynamic
flexibility matrix of free-field is obtained
which on inversion yields dynamic
stiffness matrix of free-field. However,
unlike free-field, displacements of nodes
located on foundation element are not
independent of each other. This is
characterized by use of kinematic
constraint matrices which tend to eliminate
dependent degrees of freedom. Attention
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
should be given to active pile length while
constructing these matrices in case of long
piles. Active pile length for dynamic case
is usually longer than that for static case
because of greater ability of elastic waves
to travel further down the pile than a static
stress field. It usually ranges from 10 to 20
times pile diameter for laterally loaded
piles and can be obtained from literature
such as Gazetas [31], Syngros [59], and
Karatzia and Mylonakis [60]. In case of
axial loading, full length of pile actively
participates. Once these matrices are
applied, dynamic stiffness matrices, also
known as impedance functions, for
independent degrees of freedom are
obtained. In case of pile foundation, this
procedure is used to obtain impedance
functions for a single pile. Impedance
functions for the group is obtained from
that for a pile considering pile-soil-pile
interaction among all piles. The starting
point is to obtain interaction coefficients
MA
for a pair of piles. Interaction effects are
then summed up to obtain impedance
functions for the pile foundation. Details
can be obtained from Jaya [3].
D
4.6 Transfer Functions for Substructure
E
Method of kinematic SSI analysis
PT
In substructure approach, kinematic
component of SSI is represented by
transfer functions. These functions, Hu as
CE
given by equation (4) are ratio of
foundation input motion (uFIM) to free-field
motion (ug).
AC
𝑢𝐹𝐼𝑀 (4)
𝐻𝑢 =
𝑢𝑔
Mylonakis et al. [54] and NIST [4]
synthesised transfer function models
available in past literature respectively for
surface and embedded foundations.
Mikami et al. [61] is one of the recent
development in this context where effect
of time series analyses protocol has also
been considered. NIST [4] also mentions
unavailability of such well-callibrated
models for pile foundations.
5. Codal guidelines on SSI
Despite development of a vast array of
solution techniques discussed in Section 4,
very few international codes prescribe
some guidelines for incorporating SSI.
This is possibly attributed to lack of
consensus among researchers about SSI
effects on seismic response of structures.
However considering the significance of
considering SSI in structural design which
PT
is evident from Section 3, there is a need
to include SSI provisions in seismic codes
around the globe. To enable the
RI
stakeholders in various code committees,
this section attempts to discuss guidelines
pertaining to SSI in some of the existing
SC
international seismic codes.
5.1 United States
NU
The first generation of SSI provisions was
drafted by Applied Technology Council
(ATC) in the year 1978 as ATC 3-06 [62].
Considering a longer natural period and
usually a higher damping exhibited by
structure-soil systems against their fixed-
base counterparts, ATC 3-06 [62]
suggested a reduction in design base shear.
However this equivalent lateral force
reduction was based on elastic structural
response and later research found that SSI
effects on structural response diminishes
with extent of inelasticity experienced by
the structure. As a consequence, structures
designed may not perform adequately
during a seismic event. As a result, ASCE
7-10 [63] introduced a cap on base shear
reduction by suggesting modified design
base shear to be no less than 70% of the
original value. However Jarernprasert et al.
[23] reported that structures designed as
per ASCE 7-10 experience a mean
ductility demand exceeding target ductility
for which they were designed. This
implied a need to revisit these SSI
regulations. National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program (NEHRP) came up
with provisions in the form of FEMA [64]
which expressed the cap on base shear
reduction as a function of response
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
modification factor. These provisions
recommended lesser design base shear
reduction for systems with larger response
modification, i.e. those with larger
inelastic deformation capacity, and were
later incorporated in ASCE 7-16 [25].
In addition to equivalent lateral force
procedure, ASCE 7-16 [25] permits a
linear dynamic analysis using either the
SSI modified general design response
spectrum (specified in the code) or an SSI
modified site-specific response spectrum
(to be developed by the design engineer).
Kinematic interaction effects cannot be
included with a linear dynamic procedure.
However if kinematic interaction is
expected to be predominant, a nonlinear
response history procedure using
acceleration histories scaled to a site-
specific response spectrum for kinematic
interaction is permitted. Kinematic SSI
effects are represented by response
spectral modification factors for base slab
MA
averaging and embedment with the
product being no less than 0.7.
Khosravikia et al. [65] evaluated
consequences of practicing ASCE 7-16
D
[25] / FEMA [64] and ASCE 7-10 [63] in
E
context of safety and economy of obtained
structural design, and reported scope of
PT
improvement in the present guidelines.
5.2 Europe
CE
Eurocode 8, EN 1998-5 [66] suggests
dynamic SSI to be considered for
structures which are either slender or have
AC
significant second order (𝑃 − 𝛿) effects.
Structures founded on piles or those with
massive or deep-seated foundations such
as bridge piers, offshore caissons, and silos
also warrant inclusion of SSI in their
design process. EN 1998-1 [67]
specifically mentions a typical ground type
with extremely low shear strength and
high plasticity index, and EN 1998-5 [66]
mandates SSI consideration in design of
any structure to be built on such deposits.
Though EN 1998-5 [66] identifies the
structures for which SSI must be included
in design practice, it does not specify any
guideline for quantification of SSI effects.
5.3 India
IS 1893-3 [68] and IS 1893-4 [69] mention
about considering SSI in design of bridges
and industrial structures respectively. SSI
needs to be included in design if these
structures are to be supported on deep
foundations in soft deposits. Though it has
been observed that SSI would lead to
PT
reduced seismic forces and enhanced
lateral deflections, neither guidelines for
computing SSI effects nor specialist
RI
literature have been mentioned. Further
seismic codes for general buildings and
SC
liquid retaining structures, IS 1893-1 [24]
and IS 1893-2 [70] are completely silent
about the phenomenon.
NU
5.4 Japan
JSCE 15 [71] suggests that design of
bridge abutments, retaining walls,
underground structures and foundation
structures such as piles and caissons must
consider dynamic interaction between the
structure and the ground. For other
structures, SSI can be ignored or modelled
appropriately depending on type and
characteristics of structure and ground.
The choice of modelling structure and soil-
foundation system simultaneously or
separately, i.e. direct or substructure
approach, is left to the judgement of
structural designer. In some complicated
cases of interaction of structure with
underlying medium as well as
neighbouring structures, a coupled analysis
using direct method might be
advantageous.
5.5 New Zealand
NZS 1170.5 [72], similar to Eurocode,
Indian Standard and Japanese guidelines,
does not prescribe any guidelines for
incorporating SSI in design practice.
However it mentions use of an entity
termed as structural performance factor
which depends on material, form and
period of the seismic resisting system,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
damping of the structure, and interaction
of the structure with the ground. NZS
1170.5 [72] also requires consideration of
foundation deformations when calculating
building deflection. But since there is no
guidance on how to include foundation
flexibility, structural designers have
frequently ignored foundation flexibility.
Among the various standards discussed in
this section, ASCE 7-16 [25] appears to be
the most evolved in implementation of SSI
in structural design practice. As Oliver et
al. [73] states that most of the New
Zealand standards related to foundation
design are non-prescriptive, inclusion of
SSI in structural design relies mostly on
judgement and competence of those
undertaking the design. The same is true
for implementation of SSI in Europe, India
and Japan. Pender and Butterworth [74]
and Anand and Kumar [75] attempted to
implement classical SSI effects, viz.
changes in period and damping, on seismic
MA
hazard acceleration coefficients for various
site conditions available in their respective
national seismic codes. However the
classical approach, initially developed for
D
elastic structural response, does not truly
E
apply to structures exhibiting inelasticity
under moderate to severe ground shaking.
PT
As a consequence, a well-drafted set of
SSI guidelines in various seismic codes
will attract appreciations from structural
CE
design practitioners.
It is evident that most of the well-known
seismic codes do contain conditions for
AC
inclusion of SSI in design practice but still
lack on guidelines on assessment and
accommodation of SSI in design practice.
Such a compliance gap accompanied by a
communication gap between structural and
geotechnical engineers can render a
structure susceptible to unsatisfactory
performance during an earthquake. This
assumes greater importance in present day
where good sites for construction are rare
and construction on soft soils and landfills
are quite common. This suggests that
projects, where SSI effects are expected to
be significant, must involve a good
communication between structural and
geotechnical engineers. In this context,
NIST [4] suggests checklists for
information sharing between them which
can be utilised with certain project specific
modifications. Apart from this, a
professional knowledge sharing
mechanism among various stakeholders of
a project, viz. architects, structural
consultant, geotechnical consultant and
PT
construction engineer, might prove to be of
great worth.
RI
6. Contemporary SSI research
With availability of robust and fast
SC
computational platforms, there have been
vast and diverse advancements in the field
of SSI in recent times. Most of the recent
research in the domain can be classified
NU
under two heads: research which explore
effects of SSI on a certain structure type
and others which attempt to understand the
rationale behind these effects on a general
structural configuration.
Carbonari et al. [76] investigated SSI
effects on bridge piers founded on inclined
pile group using direct approach in
frequency domain. Bigelow et al. [77]
considered SSI while determining
fundamental frequencies and
corresponding damping ratios of a
composite single span railway bridge with
integral abutments located in Austria. Li et
al. [78] evaluated seismic response of
Sutong cable-stayed bridge built in fault
zones and observed significance of bridge
axis orientation relative to fault trace. In
recent times, bridges which assume
importance on the basis of either huge
capital involved or post-disaster
connectivity have been subjected to
analyses which fetch results closer to
actual scenario, and therefore considering
its interaction with the underlying media is
important. While Harte [79] performed
dynamic analysis of wind turbines
including SSI using substructure approach,
Fitzgerald and Basu [80] investigated
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
importance of SSI consideration in
structural control of wind turbines and
proposed an active structural control. Zuo
et al. [81] extended dynamic SSI studies
on offshore wind turbines by considering
operating conditions and found responses
to be much higher than those in parked
conditions. They also observed that SSI
effects are predominant on tower
vibrations and minimal on in-plane
vibrations of blades. Michel et al. [82]
analysed pile-grid foundations of onshore
wind turbines considering soil-structure
interaction under seismic loading. They
considered different combinations of tower
and soil properties leading to varying
dynamic response which suggests
necessity of a holistic dynamic approach
for each turbine. Chatziioannou et al. [83]
considered effect of SSI in addition to that
of nonlinear wave structure in design of
deep water platforms. SSI consideration in
offshore structures is primarily guided by
MA
unusual crustal occurences under sea and
huge capital required. Further Kavitha et
al. [84] analysed a dry dock founded on
piles considering SSI. Hatzigeorgiou and
D
Beskos [85] studied SSI effects on seismic
inelastic response of tunnels using finite
E
element method in time domain. Coleman
et al. [86], Farahani et al. [87] and Solberg
PT
et al. [88] performed time domain seismic
SSI analysis of various nuclear facilities.
Bolisetti et al. [89] devised a method of
CE
time-domain nonlinear SSI analysis of
nuclear structures using LS-DYNA and
benchmarked it against the established
AC
frequency-domain code, SASSI. The role
of SSI on response of nuclear reactor
structures cannot be overemphasized
considering their high stiffness and weight.
Moreover high degree of consequences
resulting from structural failure of these
reactors imply necessity of adequate SSI
consideration in their structural design.
Study of SSI effects is no longer limited to
seismic response as Venanzi et al. [90]
extended it to wind-induced response of
tall buildings. They found that permanent
displacements and rotations accumulated
at the foundation level can result into
significant permanent displacements at top
of such high-rise structures. Francois et al.
[91] pushed boundaries of SSI applications
by performing dynamic SSI analysis of
main telescope at Javalambre
Astrophysical Observatory in Spain. This
study was motivated by the fact that
astronomical observations may be
hindered by slightest differences in
oscillations of the telescope. Based on
PT
above discussion, it can be pointed out that
SSI principles are applicable to a variety of
structures and is prompted by diverse
RI
reasons.
Unlike past, the present decade has
SC
witnessed rise in research which aim at
exploring the science behind the effects of
SSI on structural response. Most of these
NU
studies study influence of SSI on seismic
vulnerability, seismic fragility, inelastic
displacement ratio, strength reduction
factor, ductility demand, acceleration
demand and modal characteristics (its
associated frequency and damping) of a
general structural configuration. Ayough
and Taghia [58] investigated few of the
above mentioned response parameters in
steel frames subjected to near-source
excitation and reported possibility of SSI
turning to be detrimental. On the other
hand, Mekki et al. [92] and Tomeo et al.
[93] evaluated performance of moment
resisting reinforced concrete structures.
Recently Bararnia et al. [94] proposed a
simplified expression for inelastic
displacement ratios of soil-structure
system with embedded foundations
considering both kinematic and inertial
components of SSI. Behnamfar and
Banizadeh [95] noticed alteration in
seismic vulnerability pattern in reinforced
concrete structures upon SSI
consideration. They also observed
vulnerability being intensified in case of
structures founded on soft soil sites.
Mitropoulou et al. [96] and Stefanidou et
al. [97] assessed SSI effects on seismic
fragility of building structures and bridges
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
respectively. Ghandil and Behnamfar [98]
observed increase in drifts and ductility
demands in lower storeys of moment
resisting framed structures. Karatzetzou
and Pitilakis [99] proposed reduction
factors to evaluate acceleration demand of
soil-foundation-structure systems.
Papadopoulos et al. [100] computed modal
characteristics of structure considering its
interaction with the underlying medium.
Cruz and Miranda [101] reported a typical
reduction in effective damping in case of
slender structures and an increase in case
of stocky structures. They also observed a
linear trend between variations in effective
modal damping and modal frequency.
Zhang et al. [102] studied damping
characteristics of soil-structure system
using shake table tests.
Apart from above developments, there has
been a plunge in SSI analysis of structures
equipped with earthquake resisting
systems. While Luco [103] studied SSI
MA
effects on seismic base isolation,
Nazarimofrad and Zahrai [104] evaluated
performance of asymmetric plan buildings
with active tuned mass dampers
D
considering SSI. Xu and Fatahi [105,106]
E
studied influence of using geosynthetics on
seismic performance of mid-rise buildings
PT
with different foundation types. They
observed that geosynthetics can be
employed to safeguard buildings
CE
constructed on soft soils in earthquake
prone regions by reducing maximum and
residual inter-story drift, foundation
AC
rocking and permanent foundation
settlement. Another development in the
field is coupling of two neighbouring SSI
systems to obtain a structure-soil-structure
interaction (SSSI) system. SSSI is gaining
popularity due to closely spaced residential
construction in an urban setting. Lou et al.
[107] reviewed concept, development,
research methods and available programs
in the field of SSSI. While Wang et al.
[108] numerically analysed SSSI between
underground structure and ground
structure, Jabary and Madabhushi [109]
investigated dynamic SSSI between two
adjacent sway frames retrofitted with
tuned mass dampers. Vicencio and
Alexander [110] studied effect of dynamic
SSSI between adjacent buildings through
nonlinear soil during earthquakes. Closely
spaced high-rise structures are also prone
to pounding during a seismic event which
can result into local damages or complete
collapse. Rosenblueth and Meli [111] and
Chouw and Hao [112] reported collapse of
PT
structures due to pounding during 1985
Mexico City and 2011 Christchurch
earthquakes. Fatahi et al. [113] studied
RI
response of neighbouring mid-rise
buildings founded on piles subjected to
SC
seismic pounding and proposed a
minimum seismic gap of 1.75% of the
structural height. It is worth mentioning
that in absence of computational
NU
constraint, direct method is better suited to
analyse SSSI problems and can be
witnessed in Fatahi et al. [113].
7. Summary and Conclusion
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) is a
phenomenon which comprises various
mechanisms leading to interdependence of
soil and structural displacements. These
mechanisms broadly fall under either
kinematic or inertial component of SSI.
The present study reviews past research on
SSI effects on response of structures. A
discussion of various approaches available
in literature to solve an SSI problem has
also been attempted. These methods can be
broadly categorised as continuum vs
discrete, linear vs nonlinear, frequency
domain vs time domain and direct vs
substructure approaches. A review of
prominent seismic codes from different
regions, in context to their guidelines on
SSI, has been presented. Research over
last few years has also been explored to
give a broad idea to novice researchers in
the field. Based on this comprehensive
review of literature, few concluding
remarks have been arrived at. Though
some of these remarks might be well-
established conclusions, they are of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
paramount importance in developing a
firm understanding of the phenomenon and
ways to consider the same.
Depending on structure-to-soil stiffness
contrast, SSI may turn either beneficial or
detrimental to structural response during a
seismic event. This is based on findings of
Mylonakis and Gazetas [14] during
collapse investigation of Hanshin
Expressway Route 3 during 1995 Kobe
Earthquake. Though actual response, being
function of frequency, depends on the
earthquake accelerogram, it is established
that rigid and heavy structures founded on
soft soils are the worst hit. Recent attempts
to contemplate effects of SSI on inelastic
response of structures have proved
significance of considering SSI in inelastic
structural design. Since most of the
structures are presently designed to exhibit
inelasticity during severe earthquakes,
incorporating SSI in design guidelines has
become a necessity. Moreover, following
MA
research by Jarernprasert et al. [23] and
Aydemir [27], these guidelines may be
achieved in terms of modified strength
reduction factors and inelastic
D
displacement ratios.
E
Substructure approach is advantageous
PT
over direct approach and has been
discussed in detail. Determination of
impedance functions, which is one of the
CE
most critical step in substructure analysis
for inertial interaction, has also been
outlined with a greater focus on physical
modelling such as cone models. Cone
AC
models combine the advantages of
providing physical insight, being capable
to cater to pile foundations in layered
deposits and involving lesser
computations. Details on cone models can
be obtained from Wolf [9] and Jaya [3].
Kinematic interaction is considered using
transfer functions for which expressions
are enlisted in NIST [4]. However it may
be easier to solve structure-soil-structure
interaction (SSSI) problems using direct
method which models the whole system as
a single entity.
SSI provisions listed in seismic codes from
United States, Europe, India, Japan and
New Zealand have been reported. It is
observed that ASCE 7-16 [25] is the only
standard with guidelines on
implementation of SSI in design and
analysis of structures. All other standards
suggest conditions for performing an SSI
analysis in design practice but do not
establish procedure for the same.
Considering structures often being
PT
constructed on soft soils and landfills, this
compliance gap needs to be fulfilled in
form of well-drafted guidelines to ensure
RI
inclusion of SSI in regular design practice.
A need of good communication and
SC
information sharing between structural and
geotechnical engineers working on a
certain project is of utmost importance. A
professional knowledge sharing
NU
mechanism among various stakeholders of
a project might help in reducing its seismic
vulnerability.
Contemporary research in field of SSI
focus on either exploring its effects on
certain structural type or finding rationale
behind its effects on a general structural
configuration. Parameters of interest
include seismic vulnerability, seismic
fragility, inelastic displacement ratio,
strength reduction factor, ductility demand
and modal characteristics. There have been
recent attempts to study SSI effects on
structures equipped with earthquake
resistant systems such as tuned mass
dampers and seismic base isolators.
Another field of study which is gaining
popularity is SSSI and associated
phenomena of structural pounding.
As a finishing note, it can be mentioned
that the present study would be a good
first-hand read for researchers who are
novice to the field of SSI. A firm
understanding of the phenomenon and its
significance in design practice can be
achieved. It can also prove to be useful in
selection of proper solution strategy for an
SSI problem. An understanding of current
provisions on SSI available in various
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
seismic codes can also be obtained. The
present work might be of use to
academicians and researchers in selecting
a course of study based on contemporary
research.
References
[1] Lai CG and Martinelli M (2013),
“Soil-Structure Interaction under
Earthquake Loading: Theoretical
Framework,” Alert Doctoral School,
Aussois.
[2] Wolf JP (1985), Dynamic Soil-
Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall,
Inc., New Jersey.
[3] Jaya KP (2000), Dynamic behaviour
of embedded and pile foundations in
layered soil using cone models
(Doctoral Dissertation), Indian
Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai, India.
[4] NIST (2012), “Soil-Structure
Interaction for Building Structures,”
MA
NIST GCR 12-917-21, NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture,
Maryland.
[5] Givens MJ (2013), Dynamic Soil-
D
Structure Interaction of
Instrumented Buildings and Test
E
Structures (Doctoral Dissertation),
PT
University of California, Los
Angeles.
[6] Roesset JM (2013), “Soil Structure
Interaction: The Early Stages,”
CE
Applied Science and Engineering,
16(1): 1-8.
[7] Kausel E (2010), “Early history of
AC
soil-structure interaction,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 30(9): 822-832.
[8] Wolf JP (1988), Dynamic Soil-
Structure Interaction in Time
Domain, Prentice Hall, Inc., New
Jersey.
[9] Wolf JP (1994). Foundation
Vibration Analysis Using Simple
Physical Models, Prentice Hall, Inc.,
New Jersey.
[10] Gazetas G and Mylonakis G (2001),
“Soil-Structure Interaction Effects
on Elastic and Inelastic Structures,”
4th International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics, San Diego.
[11] Newmark NM and Hall WI (1973),
“Seismic design criteria for nuclear
reactor facilities,” Report No. 46,
Building practices for disaster
mitigation, National Bureau of
Standards, U.S. Department of
PT
Commerce, 209-236.
[12] Miranda E and Bertero V (1994),
“Evaluation of strength reduction
RI
factors of earthquake-resistant
design,” Earthquake Spectra, 10(2):
SC
357-379.
[13] Yashinsky M (1998), “The Loma
Prieta, California, Earthquake of
NU
October 17, 1989- Highway
Systems,” Professional Paper 1552-
B, U.S. Geological Survey.
[14] Mylonakis G and Gazetas G (2000),
“Seismic soil-structure interaction:
Beneficial or detrimental?.” Journal
of Earthquake Engineering, 4: 377-
401.
[15] Badry P and Satyam N (2017),
“Seismic soil structure interaction
analysis for asymmetrical buildings
supported on piled raft for the 2015
Nepal earthquake,” Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences, 133: 102-113.
[16] Ciampoli M and Pinto PE (1995),
“Effects of soil-structure interaction
on inelastic seismic response of
bridge piers,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 121(5): 806-814.
[17] Nguyen QV, Fatahi B and
Hokmabadi AS (2016), “The effects
of foundation size on the seismic
performance of buildings
considering the soil-foundation-
structure interaction,” Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, 58(6):
1045-1075.
[18] Nguyen QV, Fatahi B and
Hokmabadi AS (2017), “Influence of
size and load-bearing mechanism of
piles on seismic performance of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

buildings considering soil-pile- frames,” Soil Dynamics and

structure interaction,” International
Journal of Geomechanics, 17(7):
04017007.
[19] Ghalibafian H, Ventura CE and
Foschi RO (2008), “Effects of
nonlinear soil-structure interaction
on the inelastic seismic demand of
pile-supported bridge piers,” 14th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing.
Earthquake Engineering, 66: 339-
351.
[27] Aydemir ME (2013), “Soil structure
interaction effects on structural
parameters for stiffness degrading
systems built on soft soil sites,”
Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, 45(5): 655-676.
[28] Hassani N, Bararnia M and Amiri
GG (2018), “Effect of soil-structure

PT
[20] Carlo G, Dolce M and Liberatore D interaction on inelastic displacement
(2000), “Influence of soil-structure ratios of degrading structures,” Soil
interaction on the seismic response Dynamics and Earthquake

RI
of bridge piers,” 12th World Engineering,” 104: 75-87.
Conference of Earthquake [29] Kaynia AM and Kausel E (1991),
“Dynamics of piles and pile groups

SC
Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand. in layered soil media,” Soil
[21] Raychowdhury P (2011), “Seismic Dynamics and Earthquake
response of low-rise steel moment- Engineering, 10(8): 386-401.
NU
resisting frame buildings [30] Gazetas G and Stokoe KH II (1991),
incorporating nonlinear SSI,” “Free vibration of embedded
Engineering Structures, 33(3): 958- foundations: Theory versus
MA

967. experiment,” Journal of

[22] Saez E, Caballero FL and Razavi Geotechnical Engineering, 117(9):
AMF (2013), “Inelastic dynamic 1382-1401.
soil-structure interaction effects on [31] Gazetas G (1991), “Formulas and
D

moment-resisting frame buildings,” Charts for Impedances of Surface

Engineering Structures, 51: 166-177. and Embedded Foundations,”
E

[23] Jarernprasert S, Bazan-Zurita E and Journal of Geotechnical

Bielak J (2013), “Seismic soil- Engineering, 117(9): 1363-1381.
PT

structure interaction response of [32] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter

inelastic structures,” Soil Dynamics BL, Wilson DW and Abghari A
and Earthquake Engineering, 47: (1999), “Seismic soil-pile structure
CE

132-143. interaction experiments and

[24] IS 1893-1 (2016), “Criteria for analyses,” Geotechnical and
Earthquake Resistant Design of Geoenvironmental Engineering,
AC

Structures- Part 1: General 125(9): 750-759.

Provisions and Buildings,” IS 1893- [33] Durante MG, Sarno L, Mylonakis G,
1, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Taylor CA and Simonelli AL (2015),
Delhi. “Soil-pile-structure interaction:
[25] ASCE (2016), “Minimum Design experimental outcomes from shaking
Loads for Buildings and Other table tests,” Earthquake Engineering
Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16, and Structural Dynamics, 45(7):
American Society of Civil 1041-1061.
Engineers, Virginia. [34] Hussien MN, Tobita T, Iai S and
[26] Tabatabaiefar HR and Fatahi B Karray M (2016), “Soil-pile-
(2014), “Idealisation of soil-structure structure kinematic and inertial
system to determine inelastic seismic interaction observed in geotechnical
response of mid-rise building centrifuge experiments,” Soil
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dynamics and Earthquake [42] Thomas JM, Gajan S and Kutter BL

Engineering, 89: 75-84. (2005), “Soil-Foundation-Structure
[35] Martakis P, Taeseri D, Chatzi E and Interaction: Shallow Foundations,”
Laue J (2017), “A centrifuge-based UCD/CGMDR-05/02, Center for
experimental verification of Soil- Geotechnical Modeling, University
Structure Interaction effects,” Soil of California, Davis, California.
Dynamics and Earthquake [43] Nova R and Montrasio L (1991),
Engineering, 103: 1-14. “Settlements of shallow foundations
[36] Zangeneh A, Svedholm C, on sand,” Geotechnique, 41(2): 243-
Andersson A, Pacoste C and 256.
Karoumi R (2018), “Identification of [44] Gajan S and Kutter BL (2009), “A

PT
soil-structure interaction effect in a contact interface model for shallow
portal frame railway bridge through foundations subjected to combined
full-scale dynamic testing,” cyclic loading,” Geotechnical and

RI
Engineering Structures, 159: 299- Geoenvironmental Engineering,
309. 135(3): 407-419.
Far H (2017), “Advanced

SC
[37] [45] Gajan S, Raychowdhury P,
computation methods for soil- Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL and
structure interaction analysis of Stewart JP (2010), “Application and
structures resting on soft soils,” validation of practical tools for
NU
International Journal of nonlinear soil-foundation interaction
Geotechnical Engineering, analysis,” Earthquake Spectra,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.20 26(1): 111-129.
MA

17.1354510. [46] Lee JH (2018), “Nonlinear soil-

[38] Dutta SC and Roy R (2002), “A structure interaction analysis in
critical review on idealization and poroelastic soil using mid-point
modelling for interaction among integrated finite elements and
D

soil-foundation-structure system,” perfectly matched discrete layers,”

Computers & Structures, 80: 1579- Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
E

1594. Engineering, 108: 160-176.

[39] Kucukarslan S, Banerjee PK and [47] Kramer SL (1996), Geotechnical
PT

Bildik N (2003), “Inelastic analysis Earthquake Engineering, Prentice

of pile soil structure interaction,” Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
Engineering Structures, 25(9): 1231- [48] Darendeli (2001), Development of a
CE

1239. New Family of Normalized Modulus

[40] Givens MJ, Stewart JP, Haselton Reduction and Material Damping
CB, Mazzoni S (2012), “Assessment Curves (Doctoral Dissertation),
AC

of Soil-Structure Interaction University of Texas at Austin,

Modelling Strategies for Response
History Analysis of Buildings,” 15th
World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal.
[41] Raychowdhury P and Hutchinson T
(2009), “Performance evaluation of a
nonlinear Winkler-based shallow
foundation model using centrifuge
test results,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 38(5): 679-698.
Texas.
[49] Kaustell MU, Karoumi R and
Pacoste C (2010), “Simplified
analysis of the dynamic soil-
structure interaction of a portal
frame railway bridge,” Engineering
Structures, 32(11): 3692-3698.
[50] Nimtaj A and Bagheripour MH
(2013), “Non-linear seismic response
analysis of the layered soil deposit
using hybrid frequency-time domain
(HTFD) approach,” European
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Journal of Environmental and Civil braced frames subjected to near-

Engineering, 17(10): 1039-1056.
[51] Bernal D and Youssef A (1998), “A
Hybrid Time Frequency Domain
Formulation for Non-linear Soil-
Structure Interaction,” Earthquake
Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 27: 673-685.
[52] Rahmani A, Taiebat M, Finn WDL
and Ventura CE (2016), “Evaluation
of substructuring method for seismic
source pulse-like ground motions by
including soil-structure interaction
effects,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 101: 53-
66.
[59] Syngros K (2004), Contributions to
the Static and Seismic Analysis of
Piles and Pile Supported Bridge
Piers Evaluated through Case
Histories (Doctoral Dissertation),

PT
soil-structure interaction analysis of City University of New York, New
bridges,” Soil Dynamics and York.
Earthquake Engineering, 90: 112- [60] Karatzia X and Mylonakis G (2012),

RI
127. “Horizontal response of piles in
[53] Pais A and Kausel E (1988), layered soil: Simple analysis,” 2nd
“Approximate formulas for dynamic

SC
International Conference on
stiffness of rigid foundations,” Soil Performance-Based Design in
Dynamics and Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
Engineering, 7(4): 213-227. Taormina, Italy.
NU
[54] Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S and [61] Mikami A, Stewart JP and
Gazetas G (2006), “Footings under Kamiyama M (2008), “Effect of time
seismic loading: Analysis and design series analysis protocols on transfer
MA

issues with emphasis on bridge functions calculated from earthquake

foundations,” Soil Dynamics and accelerograms,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 26(9): 824- Earthquake Engineering, 28(9): 695-
853. 706.
D

[55] Mylonakis G (1995), Contribution to [62] ATC (1978), “Tentative provisions

Static and Seismic Analysis of Piles for the development of seismic
E

and Pile-Supported Bridge Piers regulations for buildings,” ATC 3-06,

(Doctoral Dissertation), University Applied Technology Council,
PT

of Buffalo, The State University of California.

New York, Buffalo, New York. [63] ASCE (2010), “Minimum Design
[56] Mylonakis G and Roumbas D Loads for Buildings and Other
CE

(2001), “Dynamic stiffness and Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-10,

damping of piles in inhomogeneous American Society of Civil
soil media,” 4th International Engineers, Virginia.
AC

Conference on Recent Advances in [64] FEMA (2015), “NEHRP

Geotechnical Earthquake recommended seismic provisions for
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San new buildings and other structures,”
Diego. FEMA P-1050, Federal Emergency
[57] Khoshnoudian F, Ahmadi E, Kiani Management Agency, Washington
M and Tehrani MH (2014), DC.
“Collapse capacity of soil-structure [65] Khosravikia F, Mahsuli M and
systems under pulse-like Ghannad MA (2017), “Probabilistic
earthquakes,” Earthquake Evaluation of 2015 NEHRP Soil-
Engineering and Structural Structure Interaction Provisions,”
Dynamics, 44(3): 481-490. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
[58] Ayough P and Taghia SAHS (2017), 143(9): 04017065.
“Response of steel moment and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
[66] EN 1998-5 (2004), “Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance- Part 5: Foundations,
retaining structures and geotechnical
aspects,” EN 1998-5, European
Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
[67] EN 1998-1 (2004), “Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance- Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for
buildings,” EN 1998-1, European
Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
[68] IS 1893-3 (2014), “Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures- Part 3: Bridges and
Retaining Walls,” IS 1893-3, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[69] IS 1893-4 (2015), “Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures- Part 4: Industrial
Structures Including Stack-Like
MA
Structures,” IS 1893-4, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
[70] IS 1893-2 (2014), “Criteria for
Earthquake Resistant Design of
D
Structures- Part 2: Liquid Retaining
Tanks,” IS 1893-2, Bureau of Indian
E
Standards, New Delhi.
[71] JSCE 15 (2007), “Standard
PT
Specifications for Concrete
Structures- Design,” JSCE 15, Japan
Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.
CE
[72] NZS 1170.5 (2004), “Structural
Design Actions- Part 5: Earthquake
Actions- New Zealand,” NZS
AC
1170.5, Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
[73] Oliver S, Hare J and Harwood N
(2013), “Soil structure interaction
starts with engineers,” New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering
Annual Technical Conference,
Wellington.
[74] Pender M and Butterworth J (2008),
“Classical soil-structure interaction
and the New Zealand structural
design actions standard NZS 1170.5
(2004),” 18th NZGS Geotechnical
Symposium on Soil-Structure
Interaction, Auckland.
[75] Anand V and Kumar S (2018),
“Elastic seismic response of moment
resisting framed structures with soil-
structure interaction,” 11th National
Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Los Angeles.
[76] Carbonari S, Morici M, Dezi F, Gara
F and Leoni G (2017), “Soil-
structure interaction effects in single
PT
bridge piers founded on inclined pile
groups,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 92: 52-67.
RI
[77] Bigelow H, Pak D, Hoffmeister B,
Feldmann M, Seidl G and Petraschek
T (2017), “Soil-structure interaction
SC
at railway bridges with integral
abutments,” Procedia Engineering,
199: 2318-2323.
NU
[78] Li S, Zhang F, Wang J, Alam MS
and Zhang J (2017), “Seismic
responses of super-span cable-stayed
bridges induced by ground motions
in different sites relative to fault
rupture considering soil-structure
interaction,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 101: 295-
310.
[79] Harte M, Basu B and Nielsen SRK
(2012), “Dynamic analysis of wind
turbines including soil-structure
interaction,” Engineering
Structures,” 45: 509-518.
[80] Fitzgerald B and Basu B (2016),
“Structural control of wind turbines
with soil structure interaction
included,” Engineering Structures,
111: 131-151.
[81] Zuo H, Bi K and Hao H (2018),
“Dynamic analyses of operating
offshore wind turbines including
soil-structure interaction,”
Engineering Structures, 157: 42-62.
[82] Michel P, Butenweg C and Klinkel S
(2018), “Pile-grid foundations of
onshore wind turbines considering
soil-structure interaction under
seismic loading,” Soil Dynamics and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Earthquake Engineering, 109: 299-
311.
[83] Chatziioannou K, Katsardi V,
Koukouselis A and Mistakidis E
(2017), “The effect of nonlinear
wave-structure and soil-structure
interactions in the design of an
offshore structure,” Marine
Structures, 52: 126-152.
[84] Kavitha P, Venkatesh MM and
Sundaravadivelu R (2015), “Soil
structure interaction analysis of a dry
dock,” Aquatic Procedia, 4: 287-
294.
[85] Hatzigeorgiou GD and Beskos DE
(2010), “Soil-structure interaction
effects on seismic inelastic analysis
of 3-D tunnels,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 30: 851-
861.
[86] Coleman JC, Bolisetti C and
Whittaker AS (2016), “Time-domain
soil-structure interaction analysis of
MA
nuclear facilities,” Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 298: 264-
270.
[87] Farahani RV, Dessalegn TM, Vaidya
D
NR and Bazan-Zurita E (2016),
“Seismic soil-structure interaction
E
analysis of a nuclear power plant
building founded on soil and in
PT
degraded concrete stiffness
condition,” Nuclear Engineering and
Design, 297: 320-326.
CE
[88] Solberg JM, Hossain Q and Mseis G
(2016), “Nonlinear time-domain
soil-structure interaction analysis of
AC
embedded reactor structures
subjected to earthquake loads,”
Nuclear Engineering and Design,
304: 100-124.
[89] Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS and
Coleman JL (2018), “Linear and
nonlinear soil-structure interaction
analysis of buildings and safety-
related nuclear structures,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 107: 218-233.
[90] Venanzi I, Salciarini D and
Tamagnini C (2014), “The effect of
soil-foundation-structure interaction
on the wind-induced response of tall
buildings,” Engineering Structures,
79: 117-130.
[91] Francois F, Galvin P, Museros P,
Lombaert G and Degrande G (2014),
“Dynamic soil-structure interaction
analysis of a telescope at the
Javalambre Astrophysical
Observatory,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 65: 165-
PT
180.
[92] Mekki M, Elachachi SM, Breysse D
and Zoutat M (2016), “Seismic
RI
behaviour of R.C. structures
including soil-structure interaction
and soil variability effects,”
SC
Engineering Structures, 126: 15-26.
[93] Tomeo R, Bilotta A, Pitilakis D and
Nigro E (2017), “Soil-structure
NU
interaction effects on the seismic
performances of reinforced concrete
moment resisting frames,” Procedia
Engineering, 199: 230-235.
[94] Bararnia M, Hassani N, Ganjavi B
and Amiri GG (2018), “Estimation
of inelastic displacement ratios for
soil- structure systems with
embedded foundation considering
kinematic and inertial interaction
effects,” Engineering Structures,
159: 252-264.
[95] Behnamfar F and Banizadeh M
(2016), “Effects of soil-structure
interaction on distribution of seismic
vulnerability in RC structures,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 80: 73-86.
[96] Mitropoulou CC, Kostopanagiotis C,
Kopanos M, Ioakim D and Lagaros
ND (2016), “Influence of soil-
structure interaction on fragility
assessment of building structures,”
Structures, 6: 85-98.
[97] Stefanidou SP, Sextos AG,
Kotsoglou AN and Lesgidis N
(2017), “Soil-structure interaction
effects in analysis of seismic
fragility of bridges using an
intensity-based ground motion
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

selection procedure,” Engineering piles with controlled rocking for

Structures, 151: 366-380. seismic safeguarding,”
[98] Ghandil M and Behnamfar F (2017), Geosynthetics International,
“Ductility demands of MRF https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.0001
structures on soft soils considering 8.
soil-structure interaction,” Soil [106] Xu R and Fatahi B (2018),
Dynamics and Earthquake “Influence of geotextile arrangement
Engineering, 92: 203-214. on seismic performance of mid-rise
[99] Karatzetzou A and Pitilakis D buildings subjected to MCE
(2018), “Reduction factors to shaking,” Geotextiles and
evaluate acceleration demand of soil- Geomembranes, 46(4): 511-528.

PT
foundatioin-structure systems,” Soil [107] Lou M, Wang H, Chen X and Zhai Y
Dynamics and Earthquake (2011), “Structure-soil-structure
Engineering, 109: 199-208. interaction: Literature review,” Soil

RI
[100] Papadopoulos M, Beeumen RV, Dynamics and Earthquake
Francois S, Degrande G and Engineering, 31: 1724-1731.
Lombaert G (2017), “Computing the

SC
[108] Wang H, Lou M, Chen X and Zhai Y
modal characteristics of structures (2013), “Structure-soil-structure
considering soil-structure interaction interaction between underground
effects,” Procedia Engineering, 199: structure and ground structure,” Soil
NU
2414-2419. Dynamics and Earthquake
[101] Cruz C and Miranda E (2017), Engineering, 54: 31-38.
“Evaluation of soil-structure [109] Jabary RN and Madabhushi SPG
MA

interaction effects on the damping (2017), “Structure-soil-structure

ratios of buildings subjected to interaction effects on structures
earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and retrofitted with tuned mass
Earthquake Engineering, 100: 183- dampers,” Soil Dynamics and
D

195. Earthquake Engineering, 100: 301-

[102] Zhang Z, Wei H and Qin X (2017), 315.
E

“Experimental study on damping [110] Vicencio F and Alexander NA

characteristics of soil-structure (2018), “Dynamic interaction
PT

interaction system based on shaking between adjacent buildings through

table test,” Soil Dynamics and nonlinear soil during earthquakes,”
Earthquake Engineering, 98: 183- Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
CE

190. Engineering, 108: 130-141.

[103] Luco JE (2014), “Effects of soil- [111] Rosenblueth E and Meli R (1986),
structure interaction on seismic base “The 1985 earthquake: Causes and
AC

isolation,” Soil Dynamics and effects in Mexico City,” Concrete

Earthquake Engineering, 66: 167- International, 8: 23-24.
177. [112] Chouw N and Hao H (2012),
[104] Nazarimofrad E and Zahrai SM “Pounding damage to buildings and
(2017), “Fuzzy control of bridges in the 22 February 2011
asymmetric plan buildings with Christchurch earthquake,”
active tuned mass damper International Journal of Protective
considering soil-structure Structures, 3(2): 123-140.
interaction,” Soil Dynamics and [113] Fatahi B, Nguyen QV, Xu R and Sun
Earthquake Engineering, (Article in W (2018), “Three-dimensional
press). response of neighbouring buildings
[105] Xu R and Fatahi B (2018), sitting on pile foundations to seismic
“Geosynthetic-reinforced cushioned
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

pounding,” International Journal of

Geomechanics, 18(4): 04018007.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction: A State-of-the-Art Review

Vishwajit Ananda and Satish Kumar S Rb
a,b
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai- 600036, INDIA
Abstract
The process of soil response influencing motion of the structure and vice-versa is termed as
soil-structure interaction (SSI). SSI has been traditionally considered to be beneficial to
seismic response of a structure. It has been suggested that ignoring SSI in design practice
leads to a conservative design. It is evident from the design codes which either allow a
reduction of the overall seismic coefficient on account of SSI or suggest it to be ignored

PT
altogether. However observations from some of the past seismic events such as 1989 Loma
Prieta earthquake and 1995 Kobe earthquake show evidences of detrimental nature of SSI in
certain circumstances. Recent studies have also been able to justify such possibilities. As a

RI
consequence of this dissent among the research fraternity, there is a lack of adequately
formulated design guidelines. Though advances have been made in developing methods to

SC
solve an SSI problem, incorporating SSI in design practice has been a rarity. The present
paper attempts to summarize various approaches to include SSI in analysis of structures and
guidelines outlined in prominent seismic codes. The significance of such a study lies in the
NU
need for selection of appropriate approach. A review of contemporary research in field of SSI
is also presented at the end.
Keywords: Soil-Structure Interaction, Seismic analysis, Earthquake Engineering, Review
MA

Article.

Highlights
D

1. Significance of soil-structure interaction (SSI) in seismic design is established.

E

2. Various approaches to solve an SSI problem are explained.

PT

3. SSI provisions in prominent seismic codes are discussed.

4. Contemporary research in field of SSI is reviewed.
CE
AC