Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692 www.elsevier.

com/locate/compgeo

Material damping vs. radiation damping in soilstructure interaction analysis

Ricardo Daniel Ambrosini
*
National University of Cuyo, CONICET, Los Franceses 1537, 5600 San Rafael, Mendoza, Argentina Received 18 August 2005; received in revised form 10 March 2006; accepted 16 March 2006 Available online 2 May 2006

Abstract The main objective of this paper is to contribute to a quantication of the eect of soil damping on the most important design variables in the seismic response of building structures with prismatic rectangular foundations. A soilstructure interaction model was used for this purpose. The physical model of the structure is based on a general beam formulation. A lumped-parameter model was adopted to represent the soil and the interaction mechanisms. The seismic load was incorporated by ground acceleration records of many earthquakes. Finally, using the Correspondence Principle, the hysteretic and Voigt damping was incorporated into the soil model. Using the implemented models, a numerical study was carried out. The results obtained lead to an indirect assessment of the importance of energy dissipation due to soil material damping compared with the dissipation due to radiation damping. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Soilstructure interaction; Radiation damping; Soil damping; Seismic analysis; Lumped-parameter model; Structural dynamics

1. Introduction Seismic analysis of buildings and other engineering structures is often based on the assumption that the foundation corresponds to a rigid semi-space, which is subjected to a horizontal, unidirectional acceleration. Such a model constitutes an adequate representation of the physical situation in case of average size structures founded on sound rock. Under such conditions, it has been veried that the free eld motion at the rock surface, i.e., the motion that would occur without the building, is barely inuenced by its presence. The hypothesis looses its validity when the structure is founded on soil deposits, since the motion at the soil surface, without the building, may be signicantly altered by the presence of the structure. The latter, in turn, has its dynamic characteristics, namely the vibration modes and frequencies modied by the exibility of the supports. Thus, there is a ux of energy from the soil to the structure,

Tel.: +54 2627 420211; fax: +54 261 4380120. E-mail address: dambrosini@uncu.edu.ar.

and then back from the structure into the soil, in a process that is known in seismic engineering as soilstructure interaction (SSI). Procedures to take into account soilstructure interaction in the seismic analysis of buildings were reviewed, among others, by Dutta and Roy [1] and Antes and Spyrakos [2]. Many papers following the so-called impedance functions approach may be mentioned, signicant ones being those by Wong and Luco [3], Wong et al. [4] and Crouse et al. [5]. Numerous contributions found in the literature use the lumped-parameter models: Richart et al. [6], Veletsos and Wei [7] and Wolf and Somaini [8]. Many authors follow the direct method, e.g. Viladkar et al. [9]. On the other hand, the substructure approach and the BEM are used by Hayashi and Takahashi [10]. Moreover, Yazdchi et al. [11] employed the coupled nite-element boundary-element technique (FEBE). The similaritybased methods were developed by Wolf and Song [12], a simple and fast evaluation method of SSI eects of a partially embedded structure was developed by Takewaki et al. [13] and the coupled niteinnite element method was used by Khalili et al. [14] and Yerli et al. [15]. The

0266-352X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.03.001

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692

87

discrete element technique is used, among others, by Selvadurai and Sepehr [16] for the analysis of icestructure interaction. In general, most of the papers of SSI are based on the assumption that the soil is a perfectly elastic medium that dissipates energy only by radiation of waves toward innity. Then, the main objective of this paper is to contribute to a quantication of the eect of the material damping of soil on the most important design variables in seismic problems, such as total base shear, base overturning moment and top displacements. The problem of soil material damping has been analysed, among others, by Wolf and Somaini [8], Meek and Wolf [17], Sienkiewicz [18] and Lutes and Sarkani [19]. In the specialised literature, there is no agreement in relation to the importance of the material damping. For example, Richart et al. [6] say that the geometrical damping is the principal factor in the attenuation of R waves. This criterion is commonly adopted in engineering applications because the work is based on the assumption that the soil is a perfectly elastic medium and the material damping is neglected. On the other hand, Sienkiewicz [18] states that the energy dissipation by material damping may be of the same order of magnitude as the geometrical damping by wave radiation. Moreover, according to Wolf [20], in case of shallow layers of soil, the radiation damping can be drastically reduced and material damping is the primary source of energy dissipation in the medium. de Barros and Luco [21] studied the eects of material damping on the impedance functions and scattering coecients for a semi-circular foundation on a uniform half-space. Signicant eect has been observed in the stiness coecients at high frequencies and in the damping coecients at low frequencies, but the eect of damping on the scattering coecients is small. In this paper, the results obtained lead to an indirect assessment of the importance of energy dissipation due to soil material damping compared with the dissipation due to radiation damping, and it can be stated that the material damping of soil is an important parameter and must be included in the analysis of soil structure interaction, especially to determine the maximum top displacements. 2. Description of the models At this point, the structure and soil models used in the analysis, will be briey described. Basically, these models were presented by Ambrosini [22] and more details can be found in Ambrosini et al. [23]. 2.1. Structure model The physical model of the structure, presented by Ambrosini et al. [24], is based on a general formulation of beams based on Vlasovs theory of thin-walled beams, which was modied to include the eects of shear exibility and rotatory inertia in the stress resultants, as well as var-

iable cross-sectional properties. In addition, a linear viscoelastic constitutive law was incorporated. A seismic loading, introduced by a ground acceleration record, constitutes the external load. The elements mentioned above lead to a system with three, fourth-order partial dierential equations with three unknowns. Using the Fourier transform, an equivalent system in the frequency domain, with 12 rst-order partial differential equations having 12 unknowns is formed. The scheme described above is known in the literature as state variables approach. Six geometric and six static unknowns are selected as components of the state vector v viz., the displacements n and g, the bending rotations /x and /y, the normal shear stress resultants Qx and Qy, the bending moments My and Mx, the torsional rotation, h and its spatial derivative, h 0 , the total torsional moment, MT and the bimoment, B vz; x fg; /y ; Qy ; M x ; n; /x ; Qx ; M y ; h; h0 ; M T ; Bg The system is: ov Av q oz qz; x f0; 0; qx ; 0; 0; 0; qy ; 0; 0; 0; mA ; 0gT 2 3
T

in which A is the system matrix and q, the external load vector. In order to facilitate the numerical solution, the real and imaginary parts of the functions are separated, obtaining a nal system of 24 rst-order partial dierential equations with 24 unknowns. 2.2. Soil model On basis of the review of literature, and in view of the main objective of this work, a lumped-parameter model, based indirectly on homogeneous, isotropic and elastic halfspace theory, was adopted to represent the soil and the interaction mechanisms. The model, presented by Wolf and Somaini [8], has been formulated for the rectangular foundations embedded in the halfspace and it can represent the coupling between horizontal and exural vibration modes. It has been formed by a set of masses, spring and dampers, combined adequately with the purpose of representing the exact solution to a greater range of frequencies. The model is illustrated in Fig. 1, for horizontal and rocking or exural vibration modes. It is important point out that, for an embedded foundation, a non-negligible dynamic-stiness coecient which couples the horizontal and rocking degrees of freedom referred to the centre 0 of the basemat (see Fig. 1) arises. To take this eect into account, the discrete model corresponding to the horizontal degree of freedom is connected eccentrically to point 0 and the vertical bar connecting the horizontal spring and dashpot to point 0 is rigid. The vertical and torsional degrees of freedom are uncoupled and consequently are independent. For these modes, the fundamental lumpedparameter model presented by Wolf and Somaini [8] could be used.

88

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692

others, by Ganev et n0G ; g0G ; /0xG and /0yG are:

al.

[26].

The

ESMs

(a) For horizontal components (  sin kd  0 6 kd 6 p=2 g0G kd nG gG 0:63 kd > p=2 n0G

in which nG and gG are the free-eld ground motions, d is the depth of embedment (Fig. 2) and the coecient, k is evaluated as x k 8 cs (b) For rotational components
Fig. 1. Soil model.

/0xG a nG

The dimensionless coecients of masses c0, c1, and of dampers l0, l1, are functions of the physical properties of the soil (shear modulus Gs, density qs and Poissons ratio ms) and of the foundation dimensions. These coecients have been introduced as: b2 M 0 2 Kc0 cs b2 M 1 2 Kc1 cs b C 0 Kl0 cs b C 1 Kl1 cs 4a 4b 4c 4d

/0yG a gG 8 > 0:4 d 1 cos kd a > > > > > > > > > 0:405 0:05d=a > < 1 cos kd > > > 0:4d=a > > > > > > > > : 0:405 0:05d=a

0 6 d=a 6 1 0 6 kd 6 p=2 d=a > 1 0 6 d=a 6 1 kd > p=2 d=a > 1 9

in which b is half of the width of the foundation and K represents the static-stiness coecient. Applying curve-tting techniques over a range of frequency, the coecients c0, c1, l0 and l1 have been determined for a specic component of the motion and it can be found in [8]. The shear wave velocity has been dened as: s Gs cs 5 qs There are coecients for each degree of freedom of the foundation and in Fig. 1, only those corresponding to horizontal and rocking vibrations have been presented. The dimensionless coecients c0, c1, l0 and l1 are given by Wolf and Somaini [8] to all DOF. The dimensionless frequency, a0 is dened as: a0 xb cs 6

in which a is the radius of the foundation. As the soil model, proposed by Wolf and Somaini [8], was developed for rectangular foundations of dimensions 2b 2l, the equivalent radius proposed by Meek and Wolf [17] for rocking vibration has been used: r 4 8 bl b2 l2 a req 10 3 p Then, the components of load vector (3) are: qx qF T n0G z/0xG qy qF T g0G z/0yxG h i mA qF T ay n0G z/0xG ax g0G z/0yG 11a 11b 11c

2.3. Input motion The eective seismic motion (ESM) was obtained, starting with the free-eld motion, by an approximate analytical solution developed by Harada et al. [25] and used, among
Soil deposit
Fig. 2. Flexible foundation model.

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692

89

in which q denotes the mass density of the beam material, ax and ay are the coordinates of the shear centre and FT is the cross-sectional area.

Using Eq. (13), the equilibrium equations of the model presented in Fig. 1, in the ZX plane, are: (a) Horizontal vibration

2.4. Solution method The system (2) may be integrated using standard numerical procedures, such as the fourth-order RungeKutta method, the predictorcorrector algorithm or other approaches. In order to solve the two-point boundary value problem encountered, the latter must be transformed into an initial value. To incorporate the interaction model, described in Section 2.2, in the analysis, the boundary conditions, which to a xed end, were: n g /x /y h h0 0 12

Qx K hx 1 K hx fkx

a2 l0hx 0

ls a0 c0hx ia0 n  ! 2l 1 ls a0 c0hx F x ia0 c0hx F x s /x a0 16

2l c0hx s a0

!

In which Fx = fcx/fkx (b) Rocking vibration

 ! 2l M y K hx fkx 1 ls a0 c0hx F x ia0 c0hx F x s n a0 8 > < l1ry a2 l1ry l1ry a2 0 0 K ry 1 a2 l0ry ls a0 0 l 2 a2 > c1ry 1 l2 a2 1ry 0 1ry 0 : 1 c2 c2 1ry 1ry 0 1 2 B @1
2 C 6l1ry l1ry a0 A ls a0 c0ry ia0 4 2 a2 c1ry 1 l1ry 0 1 c2 1ry 0 1 39 > 2l 2l l1ry a2 B 1 C 7= 0 s s A5 /x 2 a2 @ 1 l 2 a2 > a0 a0 1 l1ry 0 1ry ; 1 c2 0 2 c

It must be replaced by the motion equations of the soil model, except the condition, h 0 = 0. 3. Soil damping In this paper, the second important source of energy dissipation, soil material damping, has been introduced by applying the correspondence principle which states that the damped solution can be obtained from the elastic one by replacing the elastic constants with the corresponding complex ones, multiplying by 1 + 2ils, in which ls is the p soil damping ratio and i = 1. The essential concept is the direct mathematical correspondence between the governing equations for the Fourier-transformed linear viscoelastic problem and the original small strain elasticity problem with the same boundary conditions. A detailed treatise on the correspondence principle is given by Christensen [27]. In the following, only the development and results obtained for hysteretic damping are shown, although similar procedure could be used for Voigt or viscous damping. Then, using the correspondence principle, the shear modulus of elasticity of the soil is replaced by: Gs ! Gs 1 2ils 13 For the hysteretic damping, Gs and ls are frequencyindependent. The damping ratio is related to the angle of mobilised internal friction for the soil, d, by [17]: ls 0:5 tan d 14 Since the maximum upper limit of d is the angle of repose of sand slopes, around 35, tan d can never exceed about 0.7, which implies that the upper limit of the damping ratio is around 0.35. Neglecting the terms, l2 in relation to 1, the dimensions less frequency coecient becomes: a0 15 al p a0 1 ls i al2 a2 1 2ls i 0 0 0 1 2ls i

l 2 a2 1ry 0 c2 1ry

c0ry

17

1ry

1ry

(c) Torsional vibration

8 0 1 > < 2 2 l a l l a B 2 C M T K t 1 1t l20a2 ls a0 1t 1t l20a2 @1 A l2 a2 > c1t 1 1t 0 1t 0 1t : 1 c2 0 1 c2 c2 1t 1t 1t 0 1 39 2 > 2 2 2l 2l l a B 1 C 7= 6l l a ia0 4 1t 1t l20a2 s s 1t l20a2 @1 A5 h l 2 a2 > c1t 1 1t 0 a0 a0 1 1t 0 ; 1 1t2 0 2 2
c1t c1t c1t

18

The equations in the ZY plane are similar. Eqs. (16) (18) can be replaced by the following equations, which are similar to the undamped equations:
l l Qx K hx 1 a2 ll ia0 cl n K hx fkx ia0 cl fcx /x 0hx 0hx 0 0hx 2 l l1ry a2 6 0 l a2 ll M y K hx fkx ia0 c0hx fcx n K ry 41 0 0ry l 2 a2 1ry 0 1 c2 1ry 0 13
2 Bl1ry l1ry a0 l C7 ia0 @ 2 a2 c0ry A5/x c1ry 1 l1ry 0 c2 1ry 2 0

19a

19b 13 l1t a2 0 l2 a2 1t 0
c2 1t

6 M T K t 41

l1t a2 0 l2 a2 1t 0
c2 1t

Bl a2 ll ia0 @ 1t 0 0t c1t 1

C7 cl A5h 0t 19c

90

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692

Comparing Eqs. (16)(18) and (19) it leads to: 2l cl c0h s 0h a0 c0h ls l l0h l0h a0 2 0 13 cl c0r 0r 2ls 6 l1r a2 B 1 C7 0 41 @1 A5 l2 a2 l2 a2 a0 1 1r 0 1 1r 0 2 ll l0r 0r
c2 1r

20a 20b

20c 13 20d

tion, Ambrosini [22]) that was developed incorporating the models described above. With the purpose of representing many real situations, a set of three structures, dened in Table 1 with the average plan shown in Fig. 3, and three ground acceleration records, dened in Table 2, will be used. The remaining input data used in the analysis are presented in Table 3.
15.24

c2 1r

ls 6 l1r l1r a2 B 2 C7 0 4c0r @1 A5 l2 a2 l2 a2 a0 c1r 1 1r 0 1r 1 c2 0 2 c1r 1r 2 0 13

6.096 6.096

4.572 0.305

cl 0t

2ls 6 l1t a2 B 1 C7 0 41 @1 A5 l2 a2 l2 a2 a0 1t 0 1 1t 0 1 2
c2 1t

20e

1.524

0 B @1 2 1

c2 1t

13 20f 20g 20h

30.225

a) CENTRAL CORE BUILDING

ll 0t

l 6l s 4 1t a0 c1t 1

l1t a2 0 l2 a2 1t 0
c2 1t

C7 A5 l2 a2
1t 0

c2 1t

fkl fk a0 c0h fc ls a0 fc c0h 2f k ls fcl a0 c0h 2ls

In the lumped-parameter models, these modied coecients are mechanically equivalent to augment each original spring by a dashpot and each original dashpot by a mass attached to it, in parallel, by pulleys [17]. The hysteretic damping presents the important advantage of being independent of the excitation frequency and dependent of the strain magnitude, which is realistic because it matches with the experimental results. However, it presents a theoretical problem that, as Crandall [28] demonstrated, the response begins before the excitation. This so-called non-causal behaviour is obviously impossible and conrms that the augmenting dashpots and pulley masses, inversely proportional to frequency (see Eq. (20)), do not exist in reality. In spite of this, the results are correct because, as Meek and Wolf [17] demonstrated, the spring and damping coecients of the non-causal linear-hysteretic system turn out to match those of a causal non-linear frictional system, averaged over one cycle of response. 4. Numerical analysis and results The numerical analysis was performed using the program DAYSSI (dynamic analysis of soil-structure interac-

Wall width 0.40 m

4.55

8.20

9.40 34.90

8.20

4.55

b) TORRES DEL MIRAMAR - FIRST FLOOR

6.70 6.70 14.70 6.70 6.70

6.00 14.00 6.00 6.00

7.00 0.20

c) CORE AND WALLS BUILDING

Fig. 3. Plan view of the structures.

Table 1 Structures used Building B1 B2 B3

a b

Table 2 Ground acceleration records used H (m) 57.2 55.9 48.0

a

Description Central core building Torres del Miramar Core and walls building

T1b 0.60 1.03 0.87

(s)

Reference [29] [30] [31]

Ground acceleration A1 A2 A3
a

Earthquake Caucete 1977 Chile 1985 Loma Prieta 1989

Record San Juan Vina del Mar S20W Santa Cruz

Dta (s) 0.04 0.017 0.02

Durationa (s) 10 35 20

Total height of the building. Fundamental period determined by DAYSSI.

Used in the analysis.

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692 Table 3 Input data used in the analysis Building Structure properties Cross-sectional area (m2) B1 B2 B3 6.5 24.0 18.12 Shear centre coordinates (m) 5.99, 0.0 0.0, 0.0 0.0, 3.0 Mass density (kg/m3) 2400 2400 2400 Foundation properties Dimensions (m) 15.24 15.24 22.96 22.96 14.0 41.7 Depth of embedment (m) 3.0 6.0 3.0 Soil properties Shear modulus (MPa) 35 60 50 Mass density (kg/m3) 1600 1600 1600

91

Poisson modulus 0.3 0.3 0.3

Table 4 Results obtained Alternative Fixed base Qmb (MN) B1A1 Gs = 35 B2A2 Gs = 60 B3A3 Gs = 50 2.495 35.390 38.209 Mmb (MN m) 34.5 1261.9 800.1 gmt (cm) 2.6 22.8 9.7 SSI ls = 0 Qmb (MN) 1.827 21.120 24.036 Mmb (MN m) 33.1 954.5 443.1 gmt (cm) 4.3 23.2 11.2 SSI ls = 0.25 Qmb (MN) 1.732 17.406 22.398 Mmt (MN m) 24.0 848.8 296.9 gmt (cm) 2.6 19.9 7.1

In connection with the soil damping ratio, besides the limiting value given in Section 3, there are important dierences in the literature. For example, Sienkiewicz [18], uses 0.05 and Meek and Wolf [17], based on laboratory experiments presented by Gazetas [32] use 0.25 at a strain of about 0.01. A value of 0.25 has been used in this paper, which is in agreement with the low frequencies values of the linear-hysteretic frequency-dependent model presented by Assimaki and Kausel [33]. The results obtained are presented in Table 4, summarised in the form of the most important design variables in seismic problems, such as maximum total base shear, Qmb, maximum base overturning moment, Mmb and maximum top displacements, gmt. In Fig. 4, the time-history of the top displacements for the alternative B3A3 Gs = 50 MN/m2, has been presented for the cases: ls = 0 (only geometrical damping) and ls = 0.25 (material and geometrical damping).

5. Discussion and conclusions Based on the results obtained above, the following observations and conclusions can be stated: The material damping of soil is an important parameter and must be included in the analysis of soil structure interaction, especially to determine the maximum top displacement, in which the dierences are signicant. The decrease of the base shear force and base overturning moment due to the exibility of the foundation corresponds, on an average, 70% to radiation damping and 30% to material damping. However, there are special cases in which the greater reduction is due to hysteretic damping. For example, in the alternative B1A1 (Table 4) for the base overturning moment, the dissipation due to geometrical damping is only about 14%. It is well known that for sti structures having height/ width ratios greater than one, the rocking motion is the

0.15 us=0.25 0.1 0.05 Disp. (m) 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 5 10 15 20 Time (sec)
Fig. 4. Top displacement. Alternative B3A3.

us=0

25

30

35

40

92

R.D. Ambrosini / Computers and Geotechnics 33 (2006) 8692 [12] Wolf JP, Song Ch. Finite-element modelling of unbounded media. New York: Wiley; 1996. [13] Takewaki I, Takeda N, Uetani K. Fast practical evaluation of soil structure interaction of embedded structures. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2003;23:195202. [14] Khalili N, Yazdchi M, Valliappan S. Wave propagation analysis of two-phase saturated porous media using coupled niteinnite element method. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1999;18:53353. [15] Yerli HR, Kacin S, Kocak S. A parallel niteinnite element model for two-dimensional soilstructure interaction problems. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2003;23:24953. [16] Selvadurai APS, Sepehr K. Two-dimensional discrete element simulations of icestructure interaction. Int J Solids Struct 1999;36: 491940. [17] Meek JW, Wolf JP. Material damping for lumped-parameter models of foundations. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1994;23: 34962. [18] Sienkiewicz Z. Dynamic impedances of a weakly anelastic medium. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1993;22:100914 [short communication]. [19] Lutes LD, Sarkani S. Structural damping for soilstructure interaction studies. Struct Eng Mech 1995;3(2):10720. [20] Wolf JP. Dynamic soilstructure-interaction. Englewood Clis: Prentice-Hall; 1985. [21] de Barros FCP, Luco JE. Dynamic response of a two-dimensional semi-circular foundation embedded in a layered viscoelastic halfspace. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1995;14:4557. [22] Ambrosini RD. Structural dynamic analysis considering soilstructure interaction. Doctorate thesis, Fac. de Ciencias Exactas y Tec., Univ. Nac. de Tucuman, Argentina; 1994 [in Spanish]. [23] Ambrosini RD, Riera JD, Danesi RF. On the inuence of foundation exibility on the seismic response of structures. Comput Geotech 2000;27:17997. [24] Ambrosini RD, Riera JD, Danesi RF. Dynamic analysis of thinwalled and variable open section beams with shear exibility. Int J Numer Methods Eng 1995;38(17):286785. [25] Harada T, Kubo K, Takayama T. Dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis by continuum formulation method. Report of the Institute of Industrial Science 29, University of Tokyo; 1981. [26] Ganev T, Yamazaki F, Katayama T. Observation and numerical analysis of soilstructure interaction of a reinforced concrete tower. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1995;24:491503,. [27] Christensen RM. Theory of viscoelasticity. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press; 1982. [28] Crandall SH. Dynamic response of systems with structural damping. Air Force Oce of Scientic Research, AFOSR 1561, MIT, Cambridge (MA); 1961. [29] Liaw T. Torsion of multi-storey spatial core walls. Proc ICE 1978;2(65):6019. [30] Wallace J, Moehle J. Evaluation of ATC requirements for soilstructure interaction using data from the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake. Earthquake Spectra-EERI 1990;6(3): 595611. [31] Coull A. Interactions between coupled shear walls and cantilever cores in three-dimensional regular symmetrical cross-wall structures. Proc ICE 1973;2(55):82740. [32] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation engineering handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. p. 55393 [chapter 15]. [33] Assimaki D, Kausel E. An equivalent linear algorithm with frequency- and pressure-dependent moduli and damping for the seismic analysis of deep sites. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 2002;22:95965.

predominant interaction eect. In this case, especially for low frequency rocking, very little energy is dissipated by the radiation of waves, so the relative importance of material damping is much more than in translation. As it can be seen in Table 4, this eect is fullled because in the base overturning moment, the reduction is more important due to material damping. As it can be seen in Fig. 4, the importance of the soil material damping in the response of displacements is very signicant in bringing down the peak of the displacements as well as in the fast attenuation of the free vibrations after the end of the earthquake (20 s in Fig. 4). The change in natural frequencies due to the eect of the soil material damping is negligible, for which the change in the response, presented in Table 4, is due only to the eect studied in this study. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the collaboration of Profs. Jorge Riera and Rodolfo Danesi and the help received from Ms. Amelia Campos in the English revision. Moreover, the nancial support of the CONICET and the Universidad Nacional de Cuyo is gratefully acknowledged. References
[1] Dutta SC, Roy R. A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction among soilfoundationstructure system. Comput Struct 2002;80:157994. [2] Antes H, Spyrakos CC. Soilstructure interaction. In: Beskos D, Anagnostopoulos S, editors. Computer analysis and design of earthquake resistant structures. A handbook. Southampton, UK, Boston, USA: Computational Mechanics Publications; 1996. p. 271332. [3] Wong HL, Luco JE. Tables of impedance functions for square foundations on layered Media. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1985;4:6481. [4] Wong HL, Trifunac MD, Luco JE. A comparison of soilstructure interaction calculations with results of full-scale forced vibration test. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1988;7(1):2231. [5] Crouse CB, Hushmand B, Luco JE, Wong HL. Foundation impedance functions: theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng-ASCE 1990;116(3):43249. [6] Richart F, Hall J, Woods R. Vibrations of soils and foundations. Englewood Clis (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1970. [7] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. J Soil Mech Found Div-ASCE 1971:122748. [8] Wolf JP, Somaini D. Approximate dynamic model of embedded foundation in time domain. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1986;14:683703. [9] Viladkar MN, Godbole PN, Noorzaei J. Space frameraftsoil interaction including eect of slab stiness. Comput Struct 1992;43:93106. [10] Hayashi Y, Takahashi I. An ecient time-domain soilstructure interaction analysis based on the dynamic stiness of an unbounded soil. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1992;21:78798. [11] Yazdchi M, Khalili N, Valliappan S. Dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis via coupled nite-elementboundary-element method. Soil Dynam Earthquake Eng 1999;18:499517.