A simplified model for the

dynamic soil-structure interaction

of planar frame-wall systems
G. Oiiveto
Istituto di Scienza delle Costruzioni, Universith di Catania, Viale A. Doria 6,
95125 Catania, Italy

A. Santini
Istituto di Ingegneria Civile ed Energetica, Universith di Reggio Calabria, Via E.
Cuzzocrea 48, 89100 Reggio Calabria, Italy
(Received August 1992; revised version accepted 1992)

This paper presents two simplified methods for the dynamical analysis
of the response of frame-wall plane systems interacting with the
foundation soil. These methods are based on approximations widely
used in the literature and form an extension of those already presented
by the authors for structures on rigid soil. Interaction effects on the
dynamical structural response are shown by using the numerical results
obtained by these methods.

Keywords: frame-wall systems, dynamical analysis

The dynamic soil-structure interaction may significantly
affect the seismic response of structures founded on
flexible soils. The interaction effects depend on many
factors 1-4, which are mainly connected to the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the structure and
the underlying soil. The response may be much larger or
smaller than for a structure on rigid soil, due to the
changes of modes, frequencies of vibration and modal
damping caused by soil-structure interaction.
The analysis of the seismic response of soil-structure
interacting systems is rather complex because of modelling difficulties for the soil, the structure and the soilstructure interface. Some numerical procedures have
been developed in which the soil is modelled as an elastic
or viscoelastic halfspace, the foundation is a rigid plate
and the structure behaves elastically 1-6. The analysis
must be carried out in the frequency domain because
dynamic stiffness functions for the halfspace are complex
and frequency dependent. The equations of motion cannot be solved by the standard method of modal analysis
because the soil-structure system does not possess classical modes of vibration. Nevertheless, several attempts
have been made to uncouple, in an approximate way,
such equations by using undamped vibration modes
obtained by neglecting the imaginary part of the dynamic
stiffness functions of the halfspace, and by giving the real
part the constant value corresponding to the first natural
frequency 5,6.
This paper deals with plane frame-wall systems because they form a class of structures widely used for
buildings in seismic areas. First an analysis in the frequency domain is presented which is based on a mathematical model already developed 7 for structures on rigid
soil. By this method, the contributions to the structural

response of all modes of vibration are accounted for and

it is possible to include both viscous and hysteretic
damping and shear deformation effects.
Subsequently, the equations of motion are derived in
the frequency domain, providing an alternative mathematical model. For the solution of such equations an
approximate modal analysis is used, where the pseudoclassical modes are evaluated by means of Wittrick and
Williams' method 8 taking into account the actual variation with frequency of the halfspace dynamic stiffness
functions. These modes can be used to uncouple, in an
approximate way, the equations of motion. Finally,
dimensionless parameters, which govern the behaviour
of periodic systems, are singled out and their influence
on the structural response is shown by means of some
numerical applications

The physical model

The structural idealization shown in Figure 1 is composed of a plane frame and a wall linked together at floor
levels by inextensible line elements. All masses are
lumped at floor levels and a viscous damper is applied to
each of them. Furthermore, a hysteretic damping may be
considered by an appropriate definition of the elastic
constants of the structural materials. At foundation level
the system is supported by a rigid plate resting on flexible
soil modelled as a viscoelastic halfspace. This is characterized by a mass density Ps, a shear modulus G, a
Poisson's ratio v, and a loss factor AW/W. The free-field
motion is specified through a translational component
vo(t) and a rotational one Oo(t). Because of the dynamic
interaction effect, the motion of the rigid foundation

0141-0296/93/060431-08
1993Butterworth-HeinemannLtd
Engng Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 6 431

Dynamic analysis of planar frame- waft systems. G. Ofiveto and A. Santini

mN

TI

"J

Figure 1 Coupled frame-wall system interacting with foundation soil

plate is characterized by two additional displacement

components, denoted as ys and q~s in Figure 1.

A mathematical model for frequency-domain

analyses

The state vector at the base

The analyses in the frequency domain are carried out

according to a mathematical model based on the concept
of a transfer matrix 7 for structures on rigid soil. The
transfer matrix relates the state vectors at the two ends of
a structural segment, Figure 2, through the formula
Sj =

Tjsj_ 1

where
T
T
s~" = I f jT, aj,
d~r~,fo
]

f f = [St, M j~, M sw]

[y,, q~,]

f ~ = Iv0, 0g]

The superscripts f and w, denote the frame and the wall,

respectively. The transfer matrix coefficients together
with the procedure for their evaluation have been given
elsewhere 7.

force vector at jth floor

displacement vector a t j t h floor
vector of additional displacements
at base of structure
vector specifying free-field motion

The state vector at each floor level may be expressed as a

function of the state vector at the base as follows
sj = T j r ; _ l ... Txso = T~So

where, in the particular case of periodic structures, the

product T j = T j T j _ 1 ... T1 corresponds to thejth power
of the constant matrix T. The state vector at the base may
be written as So
T = [-f~,d~o, dY
, , f , r ] where do = 0 and f o
depends on the free-field motion. Therefore the state
vector at the base is known when the subvectorsfo and d s
are known. By using equation (1), the forces at the top of
the building may be expressed as
fu =

U~_l

rJsfo + r'La, + r oL

where TJy, TJ, e TJ0 are submatrices of Tu.

"_

Yj-1

"~]-1=~J-1+ J-1
P

.....

....

w
Mj_l

Figure 2 Typical segment of coupled frame-wall system, components of state vectors sj and s/ 1

432

Engng Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 6

(1)

(2)

Dynamic analysis of planar frame- wall systems." G. Ollveto and A. Santini

By setting fN = 0, because the top of the structure is
free from forces, equation (2) becomes

TI]ffo + T~sds +

T~af o = 0

tions are known, the linear structural response to any

seismic excitation can be evaluated.17

(3)

providing a set of relationships for the unknown components of subvectors fo and ds. An additional set of
relationships may be obtained by writing the equilibrium
equations for the foundation plate at the interface between soil and structure (Figure 3). This can be written as
~ o + f,o + f~ = 0

(4)

where: ~ or = [So, Mo] is the vector of the forces which

the structure applies to the foundation plate; f r = [Fo,
Co] is the vector of inertia forces for the foundation
plate; andf~r = [Ss, Ms] is the vector of the forces which
the soil applies to the foundation plate.
For an elastic or viscoelastic halfspace, the vector f~
may be expressed in terms of the vector d s through the
equation:

Equations of motion
By specifying the equations of motion for the structural
system, a mathematical model fully equivalent to that
presented in the previous section is obtained. Such equations may easily be written in terms of displacements by
using Hamilton's principle (see Appendix 2). For computational convenience, the equation of motion is written in
matrix form as
M~l + Cd + K d = ml(r~g + z'Og)

where matrices M, C, K and M 1 are derived from the

equations reported in Appendix 2
r T = [rS, rlT, r2,W..., r~]', ro~ = [1, 0]', r f = [1, O, Ol
z T = [ZoL zT,

L = K~ds

where K s is the dynamic stiffness matrix of the halfspace.

The components of the matrix Ks are complex functions
of the excitation frequency and have been reported for
several geometrical shapes of the base plate 9-16. After
some manipulations equation (4) yields
-092Bfo + [ K s - 092(Mo + A + O)]d s

+ (M o + A - ogzE)fg = 0

(5)

where o2 is the excitation frequency; and M o, A, B, D and

E are given in Appendix 1 for a periodic structure. After
the vectors fo and ds have been evaluated through equations (3) and (5) the state vector at any station in the
structure may be obtained through equation (1). By
taking a free-field motion of the form:
/Sg =/~0oexp{ict}

and

00 = 0

~), = O,oexp{ir~t}

and

6o = 0

or

where /~go= 1 and 0go = 1 the components of the state

vector at each station take the meaning of frequency
response functions. Once the frequency response func-

(6)

.....

Zo = E0, 0]; z f = [zj, 0, 0]

are pseudostatic vectors, with zj = jh for periodic structures, and

a

.....

is the displacement vector, with ~ = [y,, q~s] and

Both the wall and the frame columns have been
considered as inextensible, so that matrix M 1 on the right
hand side of equation (6) only contains translational
terms. Because of the frequency dependence of the halfspace dynamic stiffness functions, which contribute to
matrices K and C, the components of the displacement
vector d and the free-field motion /~g and 0g must be
viewed as Fourier transforms of the corresponding time
functions. The response vector d must be evaluated by
solving equation (6) for each excitation frequency simultaneously. When the excitation terms are not present in
equation (6) and the terms pertaining to damping are
neglected, an eigenvalue-eigenvector problem of the form
A(09)d = 0

(7)

is obtained, which can be solved using the Wittrick and

Williams' method s. Owing to the contributions of the
halfspace, the vibration modes (7) do not fully uncouple
the equations of motion (6). Nevertheless such modes may
be used to uncouple equation (6) in an approximate way.

wall
.

So-S;+S~

Significant parameters for periodic systems

Ido-M;+Mg

The behaviour of a periodic frame-wall system is governed by the following dimensionless parametersT:

%=%'+q =

v/////////////////////////z

s.

gw/n

F f Co
a.

Y
N

# = le'h/R .
=_ s.
- - T

Figure 3

Forces
structure and soil

I
acting on foundation plate at interface between

i = -i/(mh z)
= c/(2m09,)
=

/(2r09,)

EI /ZEI

wall-frame rigidity ratio

hysteretic damping parameter
for wall
hysteretic damping parameter
for frame
number of storeys
girder's rigidity ratio
rotational inertia parameter
fictitious viscous damping
ratio (translational)
fictitious viscous damping
ratio (rotational)

Engng Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 6

433

Dynamic analysis of planar frame- wall systems." G. Ofiveto and A. Santini

where
o.)~ = Rt/(m,h 3)
R t = R f + Rw

a reference frequency
total rigidity
total mass of superstructure
interstorey height

mt

For a soil-structure interacting system the following

additional parameters must be considered
structure-foundation
geometric ratio (h r = total
height of structure; r = radius
of foundation plate)
Poisson's ratio for soil
soil-structure rigidity ratio
soil-structure mass ratio
foundation-structure mass
ratio
ratio between floor inertia
radius i and interstorey
height h

hJ r

a = G,h4/R,/2(1 + v)
7, = P,h3t /m,
7o = mo/mt

t = i/h

and mass m o. The mass density and the Poisson's ratio

for the foundation soil have been set to Ps = 1.6 kNs 2
m - 4 and v = 0.45 respectively, while soil damping has
been neglected and the loss factor A W / W = O. The shear
modulus G, has been evaluated as a function of the shear
wave velocity V~ through the formula G~ = psV~.
The components of the complex dynamic stiffness
matrix for the soil have been specified according to the
approximate formulae 1 derived for a circular rigid plate
on an elastic halfspace. With the system properties already fixed, some of the soil-structure interaction parameters take specific values, that is 7, = 108 and t = 1.15,
while the remaining ones, 70 and ht/r, are functions of the
radius r of the foundation plate and ~ is a function of the
shear wave velocity in the soil Vs. Therefore, in the
parametric studies which follow, the variability of ht/r
will be used to provide a measure of the effects of the
foundation size, while the variability of a will be used to
obtain a measure of the effects of the soil properties.
Frequency response functions

Numerical applications
The structure chosen for the numerical applications is a
12-storey periodic building 18, whose plan is shown in
Figure 4. The storey mass m is 57.6 kNs2m - 1, the total
height h t is 36 m and the elastic modulus E is 2 x 107 kN
m -2 for both the frame and the wall. The flexural
stiffnesses in the Y direction for the wall and the frame
are E l " = 7.50 x 1 0 6 k N m 2 and E1 y = 256000 k N m 2,
respectively. By neglecting the effects of rotatory inertia
in the frame's girders and of hysteretic damping in the
wall and in the frame columns, the parameters which
characterize the superstructure take the following values:
p = 29.30; p = 2.53; N = 12; t = 0; a n d / Z ~ = y = 0.
The viscous damping coefficients and were given so
that they have a 5~o damping ratio for both the first and
second vibration mode of the structure on rigid soil. The
foundation is taken as a rigid circular plate of radius r

2.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

Figure 5 shows in amplitude and phase the frequency

response function for the shear force at the base of the
superstructure for a unitary translational motion of the
soil specified on the free surface (/500 = 1 ; 0go = 0). Dotted
lines represent a rigid soil, while solid lines denote a

10'1'

I
2

I
4

10 ~

lO 2

10

10

Frequency (Hz)

o.
.....

~.

Y
0

""%.

,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

'IT

2
0'15 T

e
|

--'R

--

o
e-

x
3~

In

-2~

0.4
t~v

0.O'F
Figure 4

434

Floor plan of analysed structure 18, dimension in meters

Engng Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 6

I
2

I
4

I
6

I
8

10

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 5 Frequency response function of shear force at base: (a),

amplitude; (b), phase. ( .... ), rigid soil; ( - - ) , flexible soil (V s =
3 0 0 m s 1 ; ~ , o = 0 . 1 5 ; h t / r = I 0 ; a = 2 1 507)

Dynamic analysis of planar frame-wall systems: G. Ofiveto and A. Santini

flexible soil characterized by a shear wave velocity of
V~ = 300ms -1.
The radius r of the foundation is 3.6 m and therefore
7o = 0.15, hJr = 10, and a = 21 507. With this size the
foundation encloses the walls but not the whole perimeter of the building. It was chosen because the effects of
the interaction are more evident, but the same traits,
though less marked, may be found for larger foundations.
The amplitude curve for the interacting structure shows a
slight advance of peaks and valleys showing a decrease of
the natural frequencies with respect to those of the
structure on rigid soil. The amplification of the first peak
suggests that a response amplification due to the interaction must be expected for this case. As should be expected, the phase curve changes abruptly in the vicinity
of the peaks and valleys of the amplitude curve. Figure 6
shows similar curves for the displacement at the top of
the building, a similar trend to those for the shear force at
the base.
The frequency response functions for a rotational
motion at the surface of the soil (/~go= O; 0oo = 1) show a
behaviour which is qualitatively similar to that shown for
the translational motion.

translational motions (fgo = 1, "Ooo= 0) can be chosen as

a representative parameter of the structural response.
This peak response has been calculated as a function of
the shear wave velocity V, in the soil for various values of
the ratio hilt. The results are shown in Fioure 7 in the
form of the ratio So/So, between the first peak shear force
amplitude So of the interacting structure and the corresponding value So, for the structure on rigid soil. It can be
seen that, for values of ht/r larger than five, there is
always an increase in response which is rather large for
soils with poor mechanical properties, characterized by a
low value of the shear wave velocity V~. For values of h,/r
smaller than five, there is only a moderate increase in the
response for soils with good mechanical properties, while
in the opposite case the response may be considerably
abated.
The change in behaviour occurs at shear wave velocities which depend on the ratio h Jr and, as can be seen
from Figure 7, decreases as ht/r increases.
Fioure 8 shows the first peak amplitude of the elastic
floor displacements yj (j = 1, 2 . . . . . 12) for hJr = 10 and
for three different soils. It is seen that the displacements

102'

Influence of the interaction on the structural response

I
300

I
400

I
500

The amplitude of the first peak of the frequency response

function of the shear force at the base of the building for
10

10 3

10 2
,-,,
E

10

~,

I
I O0

10-II
I0

-&

I
200

10 - I

v, (m,-1)

10- 2

Figure 7 Translational soil motion (t~o = 1 ; Ogo = 0). So/Sor, ratio

10-3

600

o f first peak amplitudes o f shear force at base of structures on

flexible and rigid soils; Vs, shear wave velocity in soil

10

Frequency (Hz)
10
,'"',

2
,-

....-"

; ..........

...o,.

1.

lnr

-10

2
0

-Tr
0

Figure 6 Frequency response function for elastic displacement

YN at top; (a), amplitude; (b), phase. ( .... ), rigid soil; ( - - ) ,
flexible soil (V s = 3 0 0 rn s - l ; 7o = 0.15; h t / r = 10; ~ = 21 507)

12

Y/~r,

10

Frequency (Hz)

Figure8

Translational soil motion (voo = 1 ;Ogo = O; h t / r = 10). y,

first peak amplitude o f frequency response functions o f elastic
storey displacements for three different soils; YTr, first peak amplitude o f frequency response f u n c t i o n o f elastic t o p displacement for
structure on rigid soil

Engng Struct. 1993, V o l u m e 15, N u m b e r 6

435

Dynamic analysis of planar frame-wall systems." G. Ofiveto and A. Santini

increase with the deterioration of the soil properties, with
the smaller displacements being obtained for rigid soil.
Figure 9 gives the same representation for the case when

hJr = 4.
This time the smallest response in terms of displacements is no longer attained by the structure on rigid soil
because, for flexible soils, the response is enhanced for
shear wave velocities above a value of 100 ms-~ and is
abated for smaller values. It will be shown later how this
type of behaviour is related to the effect of radiation
damping.
Modal dampin 9 ratios
The interaction effect on the structural response is related
to the change in the modal damping ratios 1-4. For a
structure on an elastic halfspace, those ratios depend on
both the loss of energy in the structure and the energy
lost by radiation in the halfspace. It is well known that
the dynamic interaction tends to reduce the damping in
the superstructure 4. When this decrease is not counterbalanced by the presence of radiation damping, the
overall damping may be less than that pertaining to the
structure on rigid soil, with a subsequent increase in the
structural response which, in some cases, may be quite
dramatic.
The overall damping ratios may be evaluated by
means of the approximate formula 6
1 .~j C(cbj)Xj

where thj and ,~'j are respectively thejth frequency and the
jth modal shape obtained by the solution of problem (7).
The damping ratios for the first two modes of the
soil-structure interacting systems, labelled in Figure 7 as
A, B, C, D, E, F, are given in Table 1.
Because the structure on rigid soil has 1.-- ~2 = 5~o,
~1 may be larger or smaller than ~1, while 32 is always
considerably larger than ~2- Thus, at least for the present
case, the contribution to the response from the second
mode is far less significant for the interacting system than
it is for the structure on rigid soil.

t~

12

10

8
///V==150

lifts-1

//

1"~=4

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Y/YT,
Figure 9

Translational soil motion (~;go = 1 ; Ogo = O; htlr = 4). y,

first peak amplitude of frequency response function of elastic storey
displacements for three differerffsoils; Yrr, :firm peak amplitude of
frequency response function of elastic top displacement for structure on rigid soil

436

Engng Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 6

Table I Overall damping ratios (approximate) for the first t w o

modes of the soil structure systems labelled A, B, C, D, E, F in
Figure 7

~1 (%)
~2 (%)

0.1 6
29.39

0.46
11.24

1.01
6.89

7.80
78.51

4.51
24.1 9

4.43
8.32

Undamped modes of vibration

The amount of modal radiation damping is known to
decrease with the relative increase of the rocking component of the base motion 4. Figure 10 shows the first five
vibration modes of the structure on rigid soil compared
with those of the soil-structure interacting systems
labelled A and D in Figure 7. In case A, where a strong
increase of the response is observed, the first mode
consists essentially of a rigid rocking motion. The displacement at the top due to the base rotation is 75 times
larger than that due to the rigid base translation and
amounts to 93~o of the total displacement. The overall
damping ratio corresponding to this mode, as seen in
Table 1, is smaller than that of the structure on rigid soil
because of the small amount of energy lost by radiation
in the halfspace. For case D, the top displacement in the
first mode due to the base rotation is only 12 times larger
than the base translation and amounts to 52~o of the total
displacement. The overall damping ratio is now larger
than that of the structure on rigid soil and consequently a
decrease in structural response is observed. This occurs
because there is a strong increase in radiation damping,
as a result of the significant translational component in
the base motion. It should be noted that the overall
damping in the second mode is, in both cases, much
larger than that corresponding to the structure on rigid
soil. This is again related to the large amount of radiation
damping due to a large component of the base translational motion.

Conclusions
Two mathematical models for the dynamic analysis of
frame-wall systems interacting with the foundation soil
have been presented. The interface between the soil and
the structure is represented by a thin rigid plate. The soil
is modelled as an elastic or viscoelastic halfspace. Although these assumptions are not always fully justified,
they allow for the definition of rather simple mathematical models representing complex structures. The two
models, one based on the transfer matrix concept and the
other on the formulation of the equations of motion, are
fully equivalent and both may be used in a frequencydomain analysis. The second model may also be used in
an approximate time-domain modal analysis 6. However,
these analyses will be considered in another paper.
The first model has been used to establish, through
frequency response functions, the characteristics of the
soil-structure interaction for frame-wall systems. For the
sake of simplicity only periodic structures have been
considered and the most significant parameters have
been identified. The geometric parameter hJr appears to
be of paramount importance through which the size of
the foundation could be used to control the effects of the
soil-structure interaction. Large values of this parameter

D y n a m i c analysis o f planar f r a m e - w a l l systems." G. Ofiveto a n d A. S a n t i n i

0.527 Hz

2.061 Hz

a
0.120 Hz

<

(
a, l/
1.210 Hz

9.215 Hz

4.916 Hz

<

<

>

3.172 Hz

2.4.37 Hz

14.969 Hz

>

%
5.853 Hz

1
l
I

b
0.321 Hz

1.146 Hz

2.281 Hz

1.408 Hz

5.107 Hz

Figure 10 First five undamped frequencies and modes of vibration for structure on rigid soil and for soil-structure interacting systems; cases A
and D in Figure 7. (a), rigid soil; (b), case A: Vs = 50 ms -1, ht/r = 10; (c), case D: Vs = 50 ms -~, ht/r = 4

lead to considerable amplification of the response, while

smaller values m a y lead only to a moderate increase or
even to an abatement of the response depending on the
soil properties. It should be observed, however, that the
large amplification effects reported in the paper might be
mitigated, in practice, by soil intrinsic damping, which
has been neglected here.
The second model has been used to establish the
u n d a m p e d frequencies and m o d a l shapes of soil-structure interacting systems and the approximate effective
d a m p i n g ratios. The results for this structural system
have also confirmed the conjecture by W a r b u r t o n 4 that
the amplification of the structural response is related to
the reduction of the effective d a m p i n g ratio in the first
m o d e when this occurs in the form of a rocking motion.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research has been provided by

the Italian Ministry for Universities and for Scientific
and Technological Research ( M U R S T ) and by the National Research Council ( C N R ) t h r o u g h the National
G r o u p for Defence against E a r t h q u a k e s ( G N D T ) .

References
1 Luco, J. E. 'Linear soil-structure interaction: a review', Earthquake ground motion and its effects on structures, ASME 1982,
AMD 53, S. K. Datta (Ed.), New York, pp. 41-57
2 Veletsos, A. S. and Nair, V. V. D. 'Seismic interaction of structures
on hysteretic foundations', J. Struet. Div., ASCE 1975, 101 (ST1),
109-129
3 Veletsos, A. S. 'Dynamics of structure-foundation systems', in
Structural and geotechnical mechanics, a volume honoring N. M.
Newmark (W. J. Hall Ed.) Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, N J,

1977, pp. 333-361

4 Warburton, G. B. 'Soil-structure interaction for tower structures',
Earthquake Engn9 Struct. Dyn. 1978, 6, 535-556
5 Chopra, A. K. and Gutierrez, J. A. 'Earthquake response analysis
of multistorey buildings including foundation interaction', Earthquake Engn0 Struct. Dyn. 1974, 3, 65-77
6 Bielak, J. 'Modal analysis for building-soil interaction', J. Engn9
Mech. Div., ASCE 1976, 102 (EM5), 771-786
7 Oliveto,G. and Santini, A. 'A simplified model for linear dynamic
analyses of planar frame-wall systems', Engno Struct. 1992, 14 (1),
15-26
8 Wittrick, W. H. and Williams, F. W. 'A general algorithm for
computing natural frequencies of elastic structures', Q. J. Mech.
AppL Math. 1971, 24 (3), 263-284
9 Veletsos, A. S. and Verbic, B. 'Vibration of viscoelastic foundations', Earthquake EngnO Struct. Dyn. 1973, 2, 87-102
10 Veletsos, A. S. and Verbic, B. 'Basic response functions for elastic
foundations', J. Eno. Mech. Div., ASCE 1974, 100 (EM2), 189-202

Engng Struct. 1993, Volume

15, Number

437

Dynamic analysis of planar frame-wall systems." G. Ofiveto and A. Santini

11 Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. 'Dynamic response of rigid foundations of arbitrary shape', Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 1976, 4,
579-587
12 Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. 'Dynamic response of rectangular
foundations to obliquely incident seismic waves', Earthquake
Enong Struct. Dyn. 1978, 6, 3-16
13 Iguchi, M. and Luco, J. E. 'Dynamic response of flexible rectangular foundations on an elastic half-space', Earthquake Engng Struct.
Dyn. 1981, 9, 239-249
14 Iguchi, M. and Luco, J. E. 'Vibration of flexible plate on viscoelastic medium', J. Engng Mech. Div., ASCE 1982, 108, (EM6),
1103-1120
15 Rficker, W. 'Dynamic behaviour of rigid foundations of arbitrary
shape on a halfspace', Earthquake Engn9 Struet. Dyn. 1982, 10,
675 -690
16 Wong, H. L. and Luco, J. E. 'Tables of impedance functions for
square foundations on layered media', Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Engn9 1985, 4(2), 64-81
17 Oliveto, G. and Santini, A. 'The dynamic response of coupled
frame-wall systems to earthquake excitations', Engn# Struet. 1986,
8(4), 237-247
18 Heidebrecht, A. C. and Stafford-Smith, B. 'Approximate analysis
of tall wall-frame structures', J. Struet. Div., ASCE 1973, 99 (ST2),
199 221

Appendix 2
Equations of motion
Foundation
[ K r r -- (mo + mt)~2]ys +

Ky~, - mh

co2 c~
J

mtz~2 E YJ
\j= 1

= - ( m o + m,)i~g - mh

"Oo
J

[K,, -- mh(j~, j)coZ]y~

+[oo

,=1+2}s

Appendix 1
Definition of matrices appearing in equation (5)

=-mh(j~,J)i~-( ,+Nl+mh2~j=ljz)~,

F o r a p e r i o d i c s t r u c t u r e the m a t r i c e s in e q u a t i o n (5) t a k e
the f o r m :

First floor

--mo2y~ - mho24)~ + [2(6 f + 6 w) - m~o2]yl

lint N

mhj~=lJ

[ mhj~ j

N I + rnh2~ fl]

Vmw;].
B = LmhV~j,

o=[o o ,O1o

~mW~].
[mWf, 1
D = LmhV~], E = LmhV~j

jth floor
-moa2ys -jmhco2c~s - ( 6 :

where
N
m
h

m~ = N m
I
mo
Io

n u m b e r of storeys
floor m a s s
interstorey height
t o t a l m a s s of s u p e r s t r u c t u r e
floor m a s s m o m e n t of i n e r t i a
f o u n d a t i o n plate m a s s
f o u n d a t i o n plate m a s s m o m e n t of i n e r t i a

W ~ , W~r, W r , Vfr, V~r , V0r are s u b v e c t o r s of the vectors

(: 1
j=l

vT =

jr~

= ~,

4, ~, ~l

j=l
where T{ is the f o u r t h r o w of t h e j t h p o w e r of the t r a n s f e r
matrix.

438

- ( 6 : + 6W)y2 + OYdp:2+ OWdp'~= - m y o - mhO a

(2~ s + k" - rco 2)~b{ - OSy2 + flScy2= 0
2 a w ~ - OWy2 + flwdp'~ = 0

Engng Struct. 1993, Volume 15, Number 6

+ 6W)yj_ 1 --

Off)f-1

-- 0w~b)L 1 + C2(6: + 6 w) - mto2]yj

-

(6: + 6W)yj+x +

O:c~f+.:

+ O~'dff+I = --mi:o - jrnhOo

OYyj_ I + flY(af_I + (2c~f + kr -/-co2)~bf
+ FC+~ = o

OYyj+1

OWyj-, + ~'~4;7-, + 2~w7 - OWyj+~ + ~"ck':'+, = o

Top floor
-mo92ys - Nmhfo2~bs - ( 6f + aw)yN - 1 -- Of dPf - 1
-- O ' q ~ _ 1 + [ ( 6 : + a " ) -- mm2]yN -- O/q~f
-- OWdp~= --mi~ o -- Nmh'O
0SyN- 1 + //S~:N-, -- 0SyN
+ (os + k" - yco2)~b~ = 0

OwyN- i + flwfb~v+ 1 -- O'yN + O~'qb~= 0