Natural Hazards

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 827–847 | Cite as

On the resonance effect by dynamic soil–structure interaction: a revelation study

Original Paper


The present study makes an attempt to investigate the soil–structure resonance effects on a structure based on dynamic soil–structure interaction (SSI) methodology by direct method configuration using 2D finite element method (FEM). The investigation has been focused on the numerical application for the four soil–structure models particularly adjusted to be in resonance. These models have been established by single homogenous soil layers with alternating thicknesses of 0, 25, 50, 75 m and shear wave velocities of 300, 600, 900 m/s-a midrise reinforced concrete structure with a six-story and a three-bay that rests on the ground surface with the corresponding width of 1,400 m. The substructure has been modeled by plane strain. A common strong ground motion record, 1940 El Centro Earthquake, has been used as the dynamic excitation of time history analysis, and the amplitudes, shear forces and moments affecting on the structure have been computed under resonance. The applicability and accuracy of the FEM modeling to the fundamental period of soils have been confirmed by the site response analysis of SHAKE. The results indicate that the resonance effect on the structure becomes prominent by soil amplification with the increased soil layer thickness. Even though the soil layer has good engineering characteristics, the ground story of the structure under resonance is found to suffer from the larger soil layer thicknesses. The rate of increment in shear forces is more pronounced on midstory of the structure, which may contribute to the explanation of the heavily damage on the midrise buildings subjected to earthquake. Presumably, the estimated moment ratios could represent the factor of safeties that are excessively high due to the resonance condition. The findings obtained in this study clearly demonstrate the importance of the resonance effect of SSI on the structure and can be beneficial for gaining an insight into code provisions against resonance.


Resonance Soil–structure interaction Finite element method Site response analysis 



This study is supported by The Scientific Research Project Unit of University of Gaziantep. Dr K.Hazirbaba is gratefully acknowledged by the corresponding author of this paper for providing post-doctorate fellowship at his research project (Grant No. G3238-33650) at University of Alaska Fairbanks. The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for carefully reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable comments.


  1. Ansal A, Iyisan R, Güllü H (2001) Microtremor measurements for the microzonation of Dinar. Pure appl Geophys 158(12):2525–2541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold C, Reitherman R (1982) Building configuration and seismic design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Aviles J, Perez-Rocha LE (1997) Site effects and soil-structure interaction in the Valley of Mexico. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aviles J, Perez-Rocha LE (2003) Soil–structure interaction in yielding systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1749–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balendra T, Lam NTK, Perry MJ, Lumantarna E, Wilson JL (2005) Simplified displacement demand prediction of tall asymmetric buildings subjected to long-distance earthquakes. Eng Struct 27:335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyen K (2007) Structural identification for post-earthquake safety analysis of the Fatih mosque after the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Eng Struct 30(8):2165–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borcherdt RD (1970) Effects of local geology on ground motion near San-Francisco Bay. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60:29–61Google Scholar
  8. Çelebi M (2000) Revelations from a single strong-motion record retrieved during the 27 June 1998 Adana (Turkey) earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 20:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Sheikh N (2002) Response spectrum predictions for potential near-field and far-field earthquakes affecting Hong Kong: soil sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:419–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutta SC, Roy R (2002) A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction among soil–foundation–structure system. Comput Struct 80:1579–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta SC, Bhattacharya K, Roy R (2004) Response of low-rise buildings under seismic ground excitation incorporating soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24:893–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng ASCE 117(9):1363–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Güllü H (2001) Microzonation of Dinar with respect to soil amplification by using geographic information systems. Ph.D. Thesis, İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, p 289Google Scholar
  14. Halabian AM, El Naggar MH (2002) Effect of non-linear soil–structure interaction on seismic response of tall slender structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:639–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ICBO (1994) Uniform Building Code. 1991 International Conference of Building Officials, Whitter, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaya KP, Meher Prasad A (2002) Embedded foundation in layered soil under dynamic excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khalil L, Sadek M, Shahrour I (2007) Influence of the soil–structure interaction on the fundamental period of buildings. Short Communication. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:2445–2453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer S (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, p 653Google Scholar
  19. Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM (2001) Seismic displacement response spectrum estimated from the frame analogy soil amplification model. J Eng Struct 23:1437–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liao ZP, Wong HL (1984) A transmitting boundary for the numerical simulation of elastic wave propagation problems. J Comput Phys 3:174–183Google Scholar
  21. Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 95:859–877Google Scholar
  22. Lysmer J, Waas G (1972) Shear wave in plane infinite structure. J Eng Mech Div ASCE 98(EM1):85–105Google Scholar
  23. Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsai CF, Seed HB (1975) FLUSH: a computer program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil–structure interaction problems. Report EERC-75-30, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostadan F, Chen CC, Lysmer J (2000) SASSI2000—a system for analysis of soil–structure interaction. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Pitilakis D, Dietz M, Muir Wood D, Clouteau D, Modaressi A (2007) Numerical simulation of dynamic soil–structure interaction in shaking table testing. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(6):453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sancio RB, Braya JD, Stewart JP, Youd TL, Durgunoglu HT, Onalp A, Seed RB, Christensen C, Baturay MB, Karadayılar T (2002) Correlation between ground failure and soil conditions in Adapazari, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:1093–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE: A Computer Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites. Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. DecemberGoogle Scholar
  28. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1970) Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses. Report No:EERC-70-10. University of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith WD (1974) A nonreflecting plane boundary for wave propagation problems. J Comput Phys 15:492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart JP, Fenres GL, Seed RB (1999) Seismic soil–structure interaction in buildings I: analytical method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Takewaki I (1988) Remarkable response amplification of building frames due to resonance with the surface ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 17:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tezcan S, Kaya E, Bal E, Ozdemir Z (2002) Seismic amplification at Avcılar, Istanbul. Eng Struct 24:661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ulusay R, Aydan O, Erken A, Tuncay E, Kumsar H, Kaya Z (2004) An overview of geotechnical aspects of the Cay-Eber (Turkey) earthquake. Eng Geol 73:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Veletsos AS, Prasad A (1989) Seismic interaction of structures and soils: stochastic approach. J Struct Eng ASCE 115:935–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng ASCE 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wegner JL, Yao MM, Zhang X (2005) Dynamic wave–soil–structure interaction analysis in the time domain. Comput Struct 83:2206–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenk T, Lacave C, Peter K (1998) The Adana-Ceyhan earthquake of June 27, 1998. Reconnaissance Report of the Swiss Society for Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolf JP, Song CH (2002) Some cornerstones of dynamic soil–structure interaction. Eng Struct 24:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yalçınkaya E, Alptekin O (2005) Site effect and its relationship to the intensity and damage observed in the June 27, 1998 Adana-Ceyhan Earthquake. Pure Appl Geophys 162:913–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang X, Wegner JL, Haddow JB (1999) Three dimensional soil–structure–wave interaction analysis in time domain. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1501–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of GaziantepGaziantepTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAdıyaman UniversityAdıyamanTurkey

Personalised recommendations