Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Short communication

Design aids for simplied nonlinear soilstructure interaction analyses

J. Paul Smith-Pardo
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 February 2011
Revised 25 September 2011
Accepted 3 October 2011
Available online 18 November 2011

a b s t r a c t
This manuscript presents the development of charts that structural engineering practitioners can use to
quickly quantify the restraining effect at the bases of columns and walls supported on shallow foundations. The formulation is derived based on compatibility, equilibrium, and a simplied constitutive relation that uses two basic parameters to characterize the soil-foundation: the subgrade modulus the
stiffness parameter and the ultimate bearing capacity the strength parameter. The model captures
the intrinsic non-linear behavior of the soil with increasing loading, and the coupling between moments
and axial loads. Using the proposed charts, calculated rocking responses for rigid footing models under
combined axial load and moment are found to compare reasonably well with experimental results.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Seismic rehabilitation standards [1] for buildings located in
moderate and high seismic risk zones require consideration of
the interaction between the structure and the supporting soil.
Studies on soilstructure interaction problems can be traced as
far back as the work conducted by Lamb [2], more than one
hundred years ago, on the propagation of elastic waves induced
by the application of a point load on the surface of an elastic
semi-innite media. Bycroft [3] was perhaps the rst to present a
complete set of solutions for vertical and horizontal translation,
and rotation about a horizontal axis (rocking) and about a vertical
axis (torsion) of a rigid circular plate on an elastic half-space. A
comprehensive presentation of decades the of theoretical and
experimental research on vibration of foundations is presented in
the classic textbook by Richart et al. [4].
Some of the rst studies on soilstructure interaction that used
the analytical and experimental results from elastic half-space theory were carried out by Hall [5], Parmelee [6] and Parmelee et al.
[7]. Although the main limitation was the dependency of the
impedance on the exciting frequency, these became the rst
attempts to establish a bridge between the elastic half space theory
and the mass-spring-dashpot system.
General formulas and charts for the calculation of impedances
(dynamic stiffness and damping) of surface and embedded foundations of any shape were presented by Gazetas [8] and incorporated
into the pre-standard FEMA 273 [9]. The formulas were derived on
the basis of Finite Element and Boundary Element analyses and
Address: 901 12th Ave., Seattle, WA 98122-1090, USA. Tel.: +1 206 296 5901;
fax: +1 206 296 2173.
E-mail address: smithjh@seattleu.edu
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.10.005

included eight modes of vibration: (i) lateral sway (2 directions),

(ii) rocking (2 axis), (iii) torsion, (iv) vertical displacement, (v) rocking coupled with lateral sway.
In recent studies, the dynamic response of footings has been
described by using macro models that capture the coupled nonlinear material and uplift response at the soil-foundation interface
[1012]. Macro elements consist of joint elements in global coordinates and variables (forces and displacements) located at the base
of columns and walls, which can be directly incorporated in nonlinear nite element models of the entire soil-foundation-structure
systems [11]. In addition to macro models, detailed soil-foundation
models using beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundations have also
been developed and calibrated through extensive experimental
programs which range from monotonic to cyclic loading and centrifuge tests [1315].
The macro models and beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler foundation
models can be very precise but often require test results to calibrate the multiple parameters involved.
Standard ASCE 41-06 for the seismic rehabilitation of structures
allows modeling the foundation by means of a set of uncoupled
elasto-plastic springs at the base of columns and walls. The
moment capacity, in particular, is calculated using Meyerhofs
equivalent width concept [16] as further described in Section 4
of this manuscript. The static stiffnesses, on the other hand, consist
of simplied expressions obtained by Pais and Kausel [17] using
elastic half space theory; in the case of rocking about the short axis
of a footing, the static rotational stiffness for a shallow foundation
is given by:

Kh

  

GB3
L
0:4
0:1
B
1m

573

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

where, B and L are the footings width (perpendicular to the axis of

rotation) and length, G and m are the effective shear modulus and
Poissons ratio of the soil.
ASCE 41-06 establishes four different levels of analysis for the
seismic rehabilitation of structures which, in order of complexity
are: linear static procedure (LSP), linear dynamic procedure (LSP),
nonlinear static procedure (NSP), and nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP). Nonlinear procedures are permitted for any of the
rehabilitation strategies dened in this Standard. Upper and lower
bound models of the soil-foundation need to be considered by
using half and twice of the best estimate of the elastic stiffness
and corresponding plateau. It is apparent, therefore, that practitioner engineering standards advocate the use of simple methods
given the inherent uncertain nature of the input parameters for
soil-foundation interaction models.
This manuscript presents the development of non-dimensional
charts for the estimation of the rocking response of footings under
combined axial load and moment. The formulation is useful to
perform nonlinear static lateral load (pushover) analyses of
soil-foundation-structure systems. It is not intended to serve for
nonlinear dynamic analyses as the inuence of inertial effects is
not addressed and because the formulation assumes monotonic
loading only. The charts account for nonlinearities such as softening of the soil and foundation partial loss of contact and also for the
coupling between axial load and moment. The formulation is based
on the foundation subgrade modulus as the stiffness parameter
and the bearing capacity as the strength parameter. Issues related
to scale effects for these input parameters are beyond the scope of
this paper.

Consider a soil for which the average normal stress (r versus

normalized settlement (dn = dB) response is given schematically
by Fig. 1. The use of normalized settlement is advantageous because it alleviates foundation size effects [1820]. Adjusting the response to a hyperbolic function, the relation can be written in
terms of the initial slope-Ks0B, and the asymptote, r0:

K s0 Bdn
1 ndn

where, n is the stiffness to strength ratio:

@r
@dn

ks dn


K s0 B

K s0 B

r0

1 ndn 2

3. Derivation of design aid charts

Consider a rigid rectangular footing of width, B, and a length, L,
(Fig. 2) under pseudo static combined axial load, P, and uniaxial
moment, M. It is assumed that footing is rigid relative to the supporting soil and that it does not displace laterally. At given instant
during the loading, the foundation settlement at midpoint is d and
the rotation is h. The normalized settlement at any abscissa, x,
along the width of the footing is therefore given by:

d hx  B=2
1
dn ha 
B
2

dn a

where, a = x/B: normalized abscissa. dn d =B: normalized settlement at midpoint of the footing.
The equation of equilibrium that relates increments in the applied vertical load, dP, and moment, dM, with increments in the normalized midpoint settlement, dn ; and rotation, dh, can be written as:

dP=P0

dM=P0 B

2. Soil-foundation model

It is noticed that Eqs. (2) and (3) are dened in terms of parameters that structural engineers can comfortably relate to: (i) the initial
subgrade modulus, Ks0 which is a measure of foundation stiffness
and, (ii) the bearing capacity of the soil, r0 which is a measure of
foundation strength. Using Eq. (2), the tangent subgrade modulus
for any settlement normalized by the initial subgrade modulus is
found to depend solely on the stiffness to strength ratio, n:

kd

kdh

khd

kh



ddn

dh

where, P0 is the axial load capacity of the footing under concentric

loading alone:

P0 r0 BL

The terms of the tangent stiffness matrix of the soil-footing system are found by respectively imposing a unit increment in the
midpoint settlement and a unit increment in the rotation and
determining the corresponding resultant axial load and moment
reaction [18]. In terms of the introduced non-dimensional parameters (Fig. 2) this gives:

kd n

ks ada

ks aa  1=22 da

kh n

= P/(BL)

kdh khd n

ks aa  1=2da

10

where, ks(a) is the normalized subgrade modulus at any abscissa

along the width of the footing as given by Eq. (4) but modied to
account for foundation partial loss of contact:

Ks0B

Hyperbolic fit: (/B)

Test results
P

Conditions for (/B):

K s0 B =

( / B)
( / B)

0 = lim

/ B

/ B= 0

( / B)

K 5 a

Concentric load test

/B

Fig. 1. Concentric load test in terms of subgrade modulus and bearing capacity
stress.

8
<

1
for dn a P 0
1 ndn a
:
0
for dn a 6 0

11

The formulation can be used to calculate the rocking and settlement response for foundations under combined axial load and moment. In particular, the calculated moment-versus-rotation
relationships for constant axial loads of P/P0 = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7
and foundation stiffness to strength ratios, n, from 10 to 1000 are
shown in Figs. 36. The resulting charts are presented in terms of
non-dimensional parameters and thus readily available to be used
as design aids.

574

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

P/P 0
M

M/(P 0B)
(B) Normalized

(A) Actual

Ks0B

n ()
Hyperbolic
function

ks()

ks()
1

/B
Fig. 2. Soil-foundation model.

Ks0 B

0.050

Plastic Moment

0.045

1000
500

0.040

200

M/(P0B)

0.035

100
50

0.030

30
10

0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

(rad)
Fig. 3. Foundation momentrotation response for P/P0 = 0.1.

4. Plastic moment
The plastic moment capacity of a foundation can be estimated
using a simple expression suggested by Meyerhof [16]. This is classically known as the equivalent width concept and allows to relate the axial capacity of a footing under concentric loading to that
of a footing under eccentric loading (on the same soil) by assuming
that in both cases the soil can fully plastify at a stress r0 (Fig. 7). If
the concentric load capacity is P0, then the eccentric load capacity P
for an eccentricity, e, can be calculated as:



2e
P P0 1 
B

12

Setting the plastic moment capacity Mp = Pe and rearranging:



Mp 1 P
P
1

P0
P0 B 2 P0

13

This is the normalized version of the moment capacity equation

listed in ASCE 41-06, which denes the plateau for the linear momentrotation relation whose slope is given by Eq. (1).
Eq. (13) is included in the design aids (Figs. 36) as a reference.
It is noticed, as expected, that Mp/(P0B) does represent an asymptote for the design aids.

5. Comparisons with test results

In order to use the charts, the design engineer needs to rst
determine two parameters characterizing the soil-foundation;
the bearing capacity stress under concentric loading (the strength
parameter), r0, and the initial subgrade modulus (the stiffness
parameter), Ks0. Three examples are presented next to test the usefulness of the design aids.

575

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

0.110

Plastic Moment

0.100
1000
0.090
500

M/(P0B)

0.080
0.070

200

0.060

100

0.050

50

0.040
30
0.030
10

0.020
0.010
0.000
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

(rad)
Fig. 4. Foundation momentrotation response for P/P0 = 0.3.

0.140

M/(P 0B)

Plastic Moment
0.120

1000

0.100

500

0.080

200
100

0.060

50
0.040
30
0.020
10
0.000
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

(rad)
Fig. 5. Foundation momentrotation response for P/P0 = 0.5.

5.1. Example 1: 305 mm square footing

Consider the results shown in Fig. 8, which correspond to a
concentric loading test of a 305 mm (12 in.) square steel plate
supported on a ne and well-graded (DR = 0.84) gravel [21]. For
a hyperbolic function that best ts the measured response, the
initial subgrade modulus times the footing width can be calculated as:

The foundation stiffness to strength ratio is calculated as:

110
170
0:65

From the same gure, the bearing capacity stress is approximately: r0 = 0.65 MPa. The foundation bearing capacity under concentric loading alone is therefore:

Now consider the experimental results for a 305 mm square

footing supported on the same soil but subject to combined axial
load and moment [21]. Fig. 9 shows the measured momentrotation response (with isolated points) for one of the tests for which
the moment was increased monotonically and the axial load was
kept constant and equal to P = 17.8 kN (4.0 kips).
In order to estimate the foundation rocking response using the
proposed design aids, the ratio of the applied axial load to axial
load capacity of the footing under concentric loading alone needs
to be calculated:

P0 0:65 MPa  305 mm2 60:5 kN

P=P0 17:8 kN=60:5 kN 0:294

K s0 B

@ r
110MPa
@dn 0

576

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

0.120
Plastic Moment
0.100
1000

M/(P 0B)

0.080

500
200

0.060
100
0.040
50
30

0.020

10
0.000
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

(rad)
Fig. 6. Foundation momentrotation response for P/P0 = 0.7.

P
Pn

P0P0

(a) Yielding under concentric loading

(b) Yielding under eccentric loading

Fig. 7. Concentric and eccentric bearing capacity of foundations.

0.7

100

0.6
80

60

0.4
Hyperbolic fit (R2 = 0.98)

0.3

= P/A (psi)

= P/A (MPa)

0.5

40
P

0.2

20

0.1
B

0
0.00

0.02

0.04
n = /B

0.06

0
0.08

Fig. 8. Concentric load test of 305 mm2 footing model on gravel.

The entire momentrotation response can be estimated by

interpolating between the design aids for P/P0 = 0.1 (Fig. 3) and
P/P0 = 0.3 (Fig. 4), and between n = 100 and n = 200 within each

chart. After interpolation, the resulting ordinate values (normalized

moment)
are
scaled
by
a
factor
equal
to
P0B = 60.5 kN  305 mm = 18.4 kN m. The foundation rocking

577

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

18

2000

15
1500

M (k-in.)

P = 4 kips (17.8 kN)

M

1000

M (kN-mm)

12

6
B

500
Measured

3
Design Aids
Elastic Half Space (ASCE 41-06)

0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0
0.05

0.04

(rad)
Fig. 9. momentrotation for a 305 mm square footing model on gravel.

140

120

M (kN-m)

100
P
= 300kN
4 kips (17.8 kN)
P=

80

60

40
Measured

20

Design Aids
Ealstic Half Space (ASCE41-06)

0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

(rad)
Fig. 10. momentrotation envelope for 1.0 m-square footing on Ticino sand, high density (HD).

response calculated using the design aids is indicated in Fig. 9 with

a solid line. The values are found to compare reasonably well with
the experimental results.
The momentrotation response dened by Eqs. (1) and (13) is
also presented in Fig. 9 with a dashed line for comparison purposes
with the classical Elastic Half space Theory as included in the seismic rehabilitation standard ASCE 41-06 [1]. Given that the elastic
parameters G (or E: modulus of elasticity) and m were not available,
the following empirical relationship originally suggested by Vesic
[22] and later modied by Bowles [23] was used to estimate the
rotational stiffness:

K s0 B

E
2G

1  m2 1  m

14

Combining this expression with Eq. (1) and since L/B = 1 (square
footing), the following value is calculated for rotational stiffness:

Kh



K s0 B 3
B 780 kN m
4

The corresponding plastic moment is calculated using Eq. (13)

as:

Mp

1
0:2941  0:294x18:4kN  m 1:9kN  m
2

5.2. Example 2: 1.0 m square footings

Large-scale soilstructure interaction experiments on sand [24]
were conducted as part of the project TRISEE (3D Side Effects of
Soil-foundation Interaction in Earthquake and Vibration Risk Evaluation). Results from this study have been widely used in the literature to examine the response of rigid foundations to dynamic
loading. The experiments involved 1 m square footings embedded
to a depth of 1 m in Ticino Sand (D50 = 0.55 mm; coefcient of uniformity, Cu = 1.6; specic gravity, Gs = 2.68; emin = 0.58, emax = 0.93).
Two independent soil samples were used: one with relative density of DR = 0.45 (low density, or LD) and one with DR = 0.85 (high
density, HD).

578

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

45
40
35

M (kN-m)

30

PP== 4100kN
kips (17.8 kN)
M

25
20

15

Measured

10

Design Aids

Elastic Half Space (ASCE 41-06)

0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015
(rad)

0.02

0.025

0.03

Fig. 11. momentrotation envelope for 1.0 m-square footing on Ticino sand, low density (LD).

0.25

= P/A (MPa)

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

B
0.00
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

n=/
Fig. 12. Concentric load test of 80 mm square footing model on dense Ticino sand [26].

K s0 B 280 MN=m2 for HD test

The measured momentrotation response envelope (i.e., connecting the tips of the hysteretic loops) is shown in Fig. 10 for the
HD soil sample and Fig. 11 for the LD soil sample.
In order to use the design aids, the stiffness to strength ratio is
rst calculated. For r0 = P0/1.0 m2 and P0 = 5P, the following is
obtained:

K s0 B 100MN=m2 for LD test

280; 000 kN=m2

187 for the HD test
5  300 kN=m2

A vertical load P = 300 kN was subsequently applied to the HD

test and P = 100 kN was applied to the LD test. The resulting safety
factor under concentric loading alone was estimated to be 5.0 in
both cases [24], therefore:

100; 000 kN=m2

200 for the LD test
5  100 kN=m2

Prior to the application of moment, small amplitude cycles under concentric load were applied in each case. The re-loading subgrade modulus for each soil sample was reported by Allotey and
Naggar [25] as:

P=P0 0:2for both HD and LD test

Subsequent displacement-controlled cycles with gradually
increasing moment amplitude and by keeping the axial load constant (through the use of a system of air cushions) were applied
until reaching the ultimate foundation resistance in each test.

The momentrotation responses can now be estimated by

interpolating between the design aids for P/P0 = 0.1 (Fig. 3) and
P/P0 = 0.3 (Fig. 4), and between n = 100 and n = 200 within each
chart. After interpolation, the resulting ordinate values (normalized moment) are scaled by the corresponding factors:

P0 B 5  300 kN  1:0 m 1500 kN  m for HD test

579

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

0.14

0.12

0.10
P/P 0 = 0.5

Pe/B (kN)

0.08

0.06

P/P 0 = 0.3
P
e

0.04

0.02
P/P 0 = 0.1

Measured
Design Aids
Half Space

0.00
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

(rad)
Fig. 13. Momentrotation for 80 mm2 footing model on dense Ticino sand [26].

18

2000
e/B = 1/3

15

P = 4 kips (17.8 kN)

12

1500

P = 4 kips (17.8 kN)

1000

e/B = 1/6

M (kN-mm), Pe (kN-mm)

M (k-in.), Pe (k-in)

e/B = 1/4

e/B = 1/8

e/B = 1/12

500

Constant Axial Load Test

Constant Eccentricity Tests at P = 4 kips (17.8kN)

0
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0
0.05

(rad)
Fig. 14. Momentrotation response for 305 mm square footings, constant eccentricity versus constant axial load.

P0 B 5  100 kN  1:0 m 500 kN m for LD test

The foundation rocking response calculated using the design
aids is indicated in Figs. 10 and 11 with continuous lines. Once
again, the comparison is favorable.
The momentrotation whose initial slope is dened by Eq. (1)
and plateau is dened by Eq. (13) is also presented in Figs 10
and 11 with broken lines for comparison purposes of the measured
and calculated response with that of the classical Elastic Half space
Theory included in the seismic rehabilitation standard ASCE 41-06.
An estimate of the effective shear modulus was provided by Allotey
and Nagaar [25] as:

G 16 MPa for HD soil sample

G 7:0MPa for LD soil sample
Assuming a Poison ratio m = 0.3 in both cases, the rotational
stiffness are calculated using Eq. (1) (B/L = 1) as:Kh = 11.4 MN m
and 5.0 MN m for HD and LD soil sample, respectively

Corresponding plastic moment capacities are calculated using

Eq. (13) as:

Mp 120 kN  m and 40 kN  m

5.3. Example 3: 80 mm square footing under constant eccentricity

Montrasio and Nova [26] reported results on the settlement and
rotation of rigid shallow foundations under inclined and eccentric
loading. The soil in the experimental program consisted of a dense
(DR = 0.96) Ticino sand.
The normalized settlement versus average contact stress for an
80 mm square footing under concentric loading is shown in Fig. 12.
The initial subgrade modulus times the footing width and the bearing capacity stress can both be estimated from the gure as
K s0 B 9:5MPa and r0 = 0.22 MPa. It follows that the foundation
concentric bearing capacity is P0 = 0.22 MPa  (80 mm)2 = 1.4 kN
9:5
and the stiffness to strength ratio is n 0:22
43:

580

J.P. Smith-Pardo / Engineering Structures 34 (2012) 572580

The experimental results for the same 80 mm square footing

but loaded vertically with an eccentricity e = B/8 = 10 mm is shown
in Fig. 13. As a reference, the rotational stiffness obtained with the
Elastic Halfspace Theory can be calculated as in Example 1 (in absence of the elastic parameters G and m:

Kh


K s0 B 3
B 1:22 kN m
4

The simplied momentrotation relation is dened using this

slope and the plastic moment calculated based on Eq. (12) as
M p P0 1  2e=Be 10:5kN  mm.
Estimated rotations for discrete values of P/P0 (0.1, 0.3, and 0.5)
can be read from the design aids by entering with the normalized
moment M/(P0B) = P/P0(e/B) = 1/8(P/P0) and extrapolating between
the curves n = 30 and n = 50. It is noticed that the calculated values
shown with isolated points in Fig. 13, do no match the measured
response as well as in the previous examples because the design
aids were derived for constant axial load and varying moment (instead of constant eccentricity) conditions. The underestimation of
the measured response is consistent with two experimental observations for foundations models on dense granular soils under combined axial load and moment [21]: (i) the momentrotation
response is dependent on the sequence of load application (i.e.,
for the same nal axial load and moment, two different rotations
are measured if the footing is rst loaded with a constant axial load
and then increasing moment is applied versus applying an increasing axial load and moment that are proportional to each other); (ii)
the measured moment rotation relation under constant axial load
is softer than the response based on constant eccentricity tests
for the same axial load. Evidence of this is provided with Fig. 14
for some of the tests conducted by Smith [21]. An explanation of
the different behavior is that for dense soils the application of
the axial load produces softening of the material (the effect could
be expected to be the opposite for loose soils as the axial load could
have a densifying effect) prior to the application of the moment. In
the case of constant eccentricity tests, the axial load is applied
gradually in proportion to the moment from zero.
6. Summary and conclusions
This manuscript presents the development of design aids that
allow estimating the nonlinear rocking response of rigid footings
subjected to constant axial load and varying moment, including
foundation partial loss of contact. The proposed charts are based
on equilibrium, compatibility, and a simplied constitutive relation characterized by the subgrade modulus (stiffness parameter)
and the bearing capacity (strength parameter). The charts can be
applicable to a wide range of soil conditions as characterized by
its stiffness to strength ratio, n. The proposed approach may be relevant to preliminary nonlinear static soilstructure interaction

analyses of new and existing buildings and provides results that

compare reasonably well with experimental data.
References
[1] ASCE/SEI 41-06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, Am Soc Civil Eng,
2007.
[2] Lamb H. On the propagation of tremors over the surface of elastic solid. Philos
Trans R Soc Lond 1904;203:142.
[3] Bycroft GN. Forced vibrations of a rigid circular plate on a semi-innite elastic
space and on an elastic stratum. Philos Trans R Soc Lond
1956;248(948):32768.
[4] Richart FE, Hall JR, Hall RD. Vibrations of soils and foundations. Prentice-Hall
Inc.; 1970. p. 414.
[5] J.R. Hall Jr., Coupled rocking and sliding oscillations of rigid circular footings,
in: International symposium on wave propagation and dynamic properties of
earth materials, Albuquerque, 1967.
[6] Parmelee RA. Building-foundation interaction effect. J Eng Mech Div
1967;93(EM2):13152.
[7] Parmelee RA, Perelma DS, Lee SL, Keer ML. Seismic response of structurefoundation systems. J Eng Mech Div 1968;94(EM6):1295315.
[8] DR. Gazetas. Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation
engineering handbook. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. p. 553593.
[9] FEMA 273. Seismic rehabilitation guidelines, chapter 3: modeling and analysis
section 3.2.6: soilstructure interaction, 1997.
[10] Cremer C, Pecker A, Davenne L. Cylic macro-element for soilstructure
interaction: material and geometric nonlinearities. Int J Numer Anal
Methods Geomech 2001;25(13):125784.
[11] Grange S, Kotronis P, Mazars J. A macro-element to simulate dynamic soil
structure interaction. Eng Struct 2009;31(12):303446.
[12] Chatzigogo CT, Pecker A, Salenon J. Macroelement modeling of shallow
foundations. Soild Dyn Earthquake Eng 2009;29(5):76581.
[13] P. Raychowdhury, Nonlinear winkler-based shallow foundation model for
performance assessment of seismically loaded structures. Ph.D. thesis,
University of California, San Diego, CA. 2008.
[14] Harde CW, Hutchinson TC. Beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation modeling
of shallow, rocking-dominated footings, Earthquake Spectra. J. Earthquake Eng
Res Inst 2009;125(2):277300.
[15] Gajan S, Raychowdhury P, C Hutchinson T, L Kutter B, Stewart JP. Application
and validation of practical tools for nonlinear soil-foundation interaction
analysis, Earthquake Spectra. J Earthquake Eng Res Inst 2010;26(1):11129.
[16] Meyerhof GG. The bearing capacity of footings under eccentric and inclined
loads. Third Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 1953;3:4405.
[17] Pais A, Kausel E. Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid
foundations. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 1988;7(4):21327.
[18] Smith-Pardo JP, Bobet A. Behavior of rigid footings under combined axial load
and moment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(10):120315.
[19] Briau JL, Gibbens R. Behavior of ve large spread footings in sand. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 1999;12(9):78796.
[20] Ismael NF. Allowable pressure from loading tests on Kuwaiti soils. Can Geotech
J 1985;22(2):1517.
[21] J.P. Smith. Wall-frame structures with vulnerable foundations. Ph.D. thesis,
Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN, 2004.
[22] Vesic AS. Bending of beams resting on isotropic elastic solid. J Eng Mech Div
1961;87(EM2):3553.
[23] Bowles JE. Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-Hill, 1995. 175.
[24] P. Negro, R. Paolucci, S. Predetti, A.E. Faccioli. Large-scale soil structure
interaction experiments on sand under cyclic loading, Proc. 12th World Conf.
of Earthquake Eng 2000;Pub. No. 1191.
[25] Allotey N, Nagaar MH. Analytical momentrotation curves for rigid
foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2003;23:36781.
[26] Montrasio L, Nova R. Settlement of shallow foundations on sand: geometrical
effects. Geotechnique 1997;47(1):4660.