Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Simplified methods in Soil Dynamics

Ricardo Dobry n
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: After a brief description of the main characteristics that define Soil Dynamics and its engineering
Received 10 June 2013 applications, the role of Simplified Methods is discussed. Despite the current wide availability of
Accepted 10 February 2014 powerful computer simulations, it is concluded that Simplified Methods will continue to play an
important role in Soil Dynamics as they do in the rest of Geotechnical Engineering. Simplified Methods
Keywords: allow the engineer to conduct calculations by hand or with a minimum computational effort, including
Soil Dynamics parametric variations. In the process, the engineer has the possibility to develop a feel for the physical
Simplified methods meaning and relative importance of the various factors, with more personal control of calculations and
Dynamic-soil–structure-interaction decisions including use of engineering judgment as needed. A list of simplified procedures proposed by
Radiation damping
the author is provided, covering systems that range from the free field and earth dams to shallow and
Wave propagation
deep foundations, subjected to excitations that include both seismic shaking and machine vibrations.
Basic understanding of the basic theory and simplifications behind the simplified procedure can be very
helpful to engineers, including Dynamics and Wave Propagation concepts. Some of this understanding is
developed in the paper, with focus on shallow machine foundations and other dynamic soil–structure
interaction applications.
The Lecture concentrates on shallow machine foundations on a half-space subjected to dynamic loads
in any of the six degrees of freedom of the foundation, and the Simplified Methods that have been
proposed over the years to characterize the corresponding equivalent soil springs and dashpots. This
includes both frequency-dependent and frequency-independent springs and dashpots. It started with the
circular surface foundation which was studied over much of the 20th Century, until the breakthroughs by
Lysmer and others in 1966–1971, and continued with the cases of surface and embedded foundations
of arbitrary shape that culminated in the two summary publications by Gazetas in 1990 and 1991.
The development of these simplified equivalent springs and dashpots for both surface and embedded
foundations of arbitrary shape is discussed in some detail, including the contribution of the author in the
early part of the process.
& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
It is a great honor for me to be asked to present the Twenty-
first Nabor Carrillo Lecture, and to be associated this way with
Dr. Nabor Carrillo and his many accomplishments. It is also an
honor to be associated with the people who have been Carrillo
Lecturers over the years and who have made such gigantic
contributions to the geotechnical field. Let me add that I am
especially proud to follow two Carrillo Lecturers who were also my
professors and who had an extraordinary influence over my career.
One of them is Tamez [68], who directed my Master Thesis on
Sand Liquefaction During Earthquakes at the UNAM in México City
many years ago, and who inspired me to specialize in Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. The other is Whitman
n
Tel.: þ 1 518 276 6934; fax: þ1 518 276 4833.
E-mail address: dobryr@rpi.edu
[71], who unfortunately died this year, and who directed my
Doctoral Thesis at MIT, also on Soil Dynamics. I would not be here
without them, both of them were great teachers and mentors to
me, and this is a good opportunity to say Thanks to both of them.
Finally, let me say that it is just a pleasure to be once again back
in México, where I have so many friends and colleagues. One
of them is Prof. Eulalio Juárez Badillo, who together with
Prof. Alfonso Rico taught me so well the ABC of soil mechanics
during my graduate studies at the División de Posgrado of UNAM.
The theme of my presentation today is the Simplified Methods
in Soil Dynamics. This immediately poses two questions: What is
Soil Dynamics, and what kind of Simplified Methods are we
talking about?
In his Fifteenth Carrillo Lecture, Whitman [71] defined pro-
blems in Soil Dynamics as those in which the inertia force of
the soil plays a significant role. I would add to this a few other
characteristics common to most Soil Dynamics problems: (i) the
loads tend to act much faster than in typical soil mechanics

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.02.008
0267-7261 & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
problems; (ii) the loads change direction periodically because they
are associated with vibrations, and therefore produce cyclic rather
than monotonic stresses and strains in the soil; and finally
(iii) many of the problems that worry us most in Soil Dynamics,
are associated with shear strains in the soil which are much
smaller than those we are familiar with in regular soils testing, like
0.1%, or 0.01% or even smaller.
Table 1, reproduced from that same Carrillo Lecture by Whitman,
lists some of the most important practical applications of Soil
Dynamics. It includes the problems of machine foundations, earth-
quake engineering, pile driving, techniques used to compact sands in
the field, problems of ocean wave loading of offshore structures, etc.
Let me say a couple of things, first about earthquakes and then
about machine foundations, so as to give a better idea of some of
the complexities of analyzing Soil Dynamics systems and the need
for Simplified Solutions. Fig. 1 shows the amplification of the
earthquake waves by the soft clay in Mexico City in the 1985
earthquake, which caused a lot of damage to buildings and killed
thousands of people, and which has been studied in detail by a
number of Mexican engineers.
The curves in the figure are acceleration response spectra, and
they measure the maximum lateral force experienced by a building
that behaves elastically during the earthquake in number of accel-
erations of gravity, or g's, versus the period of the building in seconds.
In 1985 essentially all collapsed buildings and fatalities were on soil
and not on rock. This happened because the earthquake inertia forces
on these assumed elastic buildings due to the shaking, were much
Table 1
Applications of Soil Dynamics [71].
Applications/Aplicaciones
 Machine foundations/Cimentaciones  Traffic vibrations/Vibraciones
de Maquinaria debidas al tránsito
 Earthquakes/Temblores  Weapons effects/Efecto de
 Pile driving/Hincado de pilotes proyectiles
 Dynamic compaction/Compactación  Exploration/Exploración
dinamica  Blasting/Explosiones
 Vibratory compaction/Compactación  Missile penetration/Penetración de
por vibración misiles
 Offshore structures/Estructuras fuera  Equipment isolation/Aislamiento de
de costa equipos
Fig. 1. Earthquake amplification on the Mexico City soft clay in 1985 [63,66,11].
247
greater on soil than on rock, as much as ten times higher, as can seen
in the figure by how much bigger is the recorded acceleration
spectrum on soil at the building of the Secretaría de Comunicaciones
y Transportes (SCT), compared with the same recorded spectrum on
rock at the University (UNAM) [11,63,66].
The way we analyze the earthquake amplification by the soil in
a situation like this, is by feeding into a computer program the
motions on the rock, together with a dynamic profile of the soil
which must include for each layer properties like the density of
the soil, the shear wave velocity Vs, and the internal damping.
Then the computer program will calculate the motion on top of
the soil. This computer program is relatively complex, becoming
even more so if you include 2D and 3D effects due to the presence
of hills nearby, or the effect of inclined or irregular soil layers.
The shear wave velocity of the Mexico City clay is quite low, of
the order of 70 or 80 m/s, and this low shear wave velocity played
a significant role in the large site amplification during the 1985
earthquake. Shear wave velocity is by far the most important soil
property needed for these earthquake calculations. The shear
wave velocities for most soils in the world range from about 60
to 800 m/s; a factor of about fifteen. It turns out that to know with
some precision the value of this parameter for your particular
problem is also key to the analysis of most Soil Dynamics
problems, not only earthquake soil amplification. In fact, shear
wave velocity is clearly the single most important soil parameter
in the whole of Soil Dynamics, as important as soil shear strength
is for slope stability calculations.
Fig. 2 illustrates another important category of Soil Dynamics
problems: machine foundations, where a structure on a shallow
or deep foundation is excited by dynamic loads above ground,
typically due to unbalanced inertia forces caused by operation of
industrial machinery. The loads can be complicated, ranging from
sinusoidal forces having one amplitude, direction and frequency,
to very irregular loads and moments, and combinations of vertical,
horizontal, rocking and torsional vibrations. Other parameters that
add complication to the solution include the type, geometry, mass,
degree of embedment, and flexibility of the foundation; and
the soil layering and soil properties of each layer including most
prominently the shear wave velocity.
This machine foundation problem is mathematically very
similar to other problems that involve dynamic soil–structure
interaction. For example, the dynamic forces and moments acting
248 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 2. Machine foundation vibrations and dynamic soil–structure interaction.
on the pile group in Fig. 2f could originate from ocean waves
pushing periodically against the side of an offshore oil platform.
These dynamic forces and moments may also arise from the
inertia forces developed in a building during earthquake shaking,
due to the arrival of the seismic waves traveling in the ground,
sketched in Fig. 2g in a very simplified way. Due to this mathe-
matical similarity, we often use the solutions developed for
machine foundations, to analyze also the dynamic soil–structure
interaction during earthquakes. To a large extent, the differences
between the solutions for these different forms of dynamic soil–
structure interaction (machine foundations, ocean wave loading,
earthquakes), lie not so much in the physical origin of the loading,
but rather in its duration and frequency as well as in the level of
cyclic strains induced in the soil.
2. The need for simplified methods
Let me address the issue of the Simplified Procedures. For the
purpose of this presentation, I will define a Simplified Procedure
as a method that: (i) is derived totally or partially from basic
theory; and (ii) can be used to analyze a geotechnical system
either with a calculator or with minimum computational effort, of
the type than can be programmed in a spreadsheet.
We constantly use Simplified Methods in Geotechnical Engi-
neering for the analysis and design of static loads. Fig. 3 shows
three of them, all very familiar to geotechnical engineers. In fact,
I obtained the information for this figure from two standard
foundation engineering textbooks.
Let us take a look at these three methods. The ultimate
bearing capacity equation in Fig. 3a is based on an approximate
Theory of Plasticity solution developed by Prandtl and Reissner
[53,57], that Terzaghi [69] and Meyerhof [49] simplified further,
producing the equation at the bottom. The material parameters
required are the soil cohesion and friction angle, which are
obtained from laboratory tests, or, in the case of sands,
the friction angle φ may be estimated from field penetration
tests. The Schmertmann and Hartman [65] method in Fig. 3b,
which is used to compute foundation settlement in sand,
depends on a triangular stress distribution with depth that is a
simplification of the theoretical profile of stress with depth
obtained from the Theory of Elasticity Boussinesq solution. In
this settlement calculation the key material parameter is the
modulus, Ez, of each sand layer. And, finally, the popular
ordinary method of slices with an assumed circular failure
surface, proposed by Fellenius [24], sketched in Fig. 3c, just
uses basic equations of static equilibrium together with some
simplifying assumptions, allowing definition of the Factor of
Safety of the slope when the shear strength of the soil varies
along the failure surface.
Therefore, the three methods start from some basic and very
general theory, and they add simplifications and assumptions
along the way until they arrive to a simple mathematical model
that still contains the main parameters of interest and is broad
enough to accommodate the values of these parameters for many
possible systems. Furthermore, the application of any of these
Simplified Methods requires material parameters like c, φ or Ez
that are either measured in the lab or field, or are correlated
empirically to field tests like the CPT or the SPT.
These Simplified Methods have two main characteristics, which
are common to static and dynamic loads: (i) they start with basic
theory and they simplify that theory while keeping the relevant
factors; and (ii) they still cover a broad range of possible condi-
tions, allowing the engineer to bring into the analysis his/her own
loads, foundation or soil geometries, soil profiles and soil proper-
ties. These simplified methods have a number of uses, including:
 They allow the engineer to conduct calculations, either by
hand or using a minimum computational effort (hand calcu-
lator, spreadsheet).
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 3. Examples of Simplified Methods in Soil Mechanics (modified after Liu and Evett and Das [45,9]).
 They allow the engineer to develop a feel for the physical
meaning and relative importance of the different factors.
 They often serve as the basis for codes and regulations.
 In this day and age, they also allow the engineer to verify
the results of more complicated computer analyses (“reality
checks”). This is a very important function of the simplified
methods, as already noted by Ing. Enrique Santoyo in his 20th
Carrillo Lecture [64].
It is interesting that until about 30 years ago or so, that before
the age of powerful accessible computers, there was no need to
justify or defend these simplified methods, as generally there was
nothing else engineers could use. But with the advent of compu-
ters, things have changed, and in principle the engineer can
analyze very complicated systems and loadings without the need
to simplify the theory. As a result, some people are tempted to go
only that route with the exclusion of more traditional simplified
methods, which as noted by Santoyo [64] is not a good idea at all.
Table 2 lists a number of Simplified Solutions and associated
publications, proposed with the participation of the author over
the years, for a variety of Soil Dynamics systems ranging from the
free field and earth dams to shallow and deep foundations, and for
excitations covering mainly seismic and machine vibrations.
3. The machine foundation problem
The rest of this Lecture describes the development of simplified
procedures for shallow machine foundations that took place over
most of the 20th Century. While I played a role on this in the 1980s
through my collaboration at that time with Prof. George Gazetas, a
number of the key breakthroughs had already taken place by then,
through the work of such excellent researchers as Reissner, Reissner
and Sagoci, Arnold et al., Bycroft, Barkan, Lysmer and Richart, Hall,
Whitman and Richart, Elorduy et al., Gladwell, Richart et al., Luco and
Westmann, Veletsos and Wei, Kausel and Roesset, Johnson et al.,
Wong and Luco, Gazetas and Roesset, Dominguez and Roesset, and
Roesset [4,5,8,22,23,30,31,37,38,41,42,46,47,55,56,59,60,70,72–74].
249
Let me repeat again that, although we call it for simplicity the
machine foundation problem, we are really solving here all kinds of
soil–structure interaction problems where the loads may be caused
not only by machines but also by earthquakes or ocean waves.
3.1. Vertical vibration of rigid mass
Fig. 4 depicts the original machine foundation problem, which
looks deceptively simple. Fig. 4a shows the system. It is a perfectly
rigid cylindrical mass M of radius R, located on the surface of an
elastic half-space representing the soil, which is the same elastic
half-space we use in static Soil Mechanics to calculate the
Boussinesq [7] solution for the stresses under a foundation, or in
the Newmark [51] charts to calculate foundation settlement. As
usual, we need only two elastic parameters to characterize this
isotropic homogeneous material, which we select as being the
shear modulus, G, and Poisson's Ratio, μ. In addition, because of
the inertia forces associated with the dynamic loading, we also
need the mass density, ρ, which in practical terms is usually the
total unit weight of the dry or saturated soil divided by the
acceleration of gravity. In the simplest case of vertical vibration
shown in Fig. 4b, the applied vertical load at the top of the mass
varies sinusoidally with time, with amplitude Pm and frequency f,
say in cycles per second. The question to be solved is to calculate
the vertical displacement of the foundation, w, for given P, f and
the rest of the parameters of the problem.1 This problem, that at
first sight looks so simple, attracted the attention of top analytical
researchers during a period spanning 30 years, and was comple-
tely solved only in the 1960s when computers became available
[47]. The reason why the problem is so difficult to solve analyti-
cally, is that it involves a mixed boundary dynamic condition, with
the displacement of the ground surface being constant over the
1
It can be shown that the time history of w is also sinusoidal of the same
frequency of the loading, w¼wm sin (2πft  α), so the problem is reduced to the
determination of the amplitude, wm, and phase angle, α, of the displacement
response.
250 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

area of the foundation, while the vertical normal stress outside the will be a function of the properties of the half-space, G, ρ, μ, of the
area of the foundation is constant and equal to zero. radius of the foundation, R, and of the frequency of the loading, f.
What would a Simplified Solution look like? As indicated in With luck, perhaps we will conclude that k is not very sensitive to
Fig. 5, we may simplistically try to replace the whole elastic half- the frequency f. This would be ideal as we want to be able to use
space by an equivalent elastic spring, k, selecting the value of k so the solution also for loadings which are not sinusoidal. In this case
that it gives us the right w for a given P. In principle, this value of k we would have a Simplified Solution characterized by an equiva-
lent vertical spring, k, which is frequency-independent.
The problem with this is that with such a frequency-
Table 2 independent spring, what we have is the system of a mass
Simplified Solutions proposed for various Soil Dynamics problems with participa- connected to a spring of Fig. 5. This is a well known system in
tion of the author.
Dynamics called the undamped simple oscillator, or undamped
Author(s) Year Problem addressed single degree-of-freedom system, that for the applied sinusoidal
by Simplified Solution load has the solution for the displacement, w¼(Pm/k) [sin
(2πft  α)]/[1  (f/fn)2]2, which becomes infinite when the loading
Roesset et al. [62] 1973 Estimated modal damping of structure frequency, f, becomes equal to the natural frequency of the
with consideration of dynamic soil–
structure interaction
oscillator, f ¼fn ¼(1/2π)(k/M)1/2. On the other hand, all indications
were that there is no value of f for which the displacement w of
Dobry et al. [20] 1976 Fundamental period of soil profile on
the foundation in Figs. 4 and 5 become very large, let alone
Dobry and Gazetas [14] 1985 rigid rock
infinite. Therefore, a spring is not enough, and some element has
Dobry and O’Rourke [17] 1983 Bending moment in pile due to seismic to be added to the equivalent simplified system of Fig. 5 that not
kinematic effect
Dobry et al. [19] 1984 Estimation of seismic shear strains in
only stores energy, as the spring does, but also dissipates energy,
earth dam for evaluation of liquefaction hence avoiding infinite values for w.
and flow failure The researchers added a linear viscous dashpot to the system to
Gazetas and Dobry [29] 1984 Equivalent horizontal spring and dashpot take care of the necessary energy dissipation, as shown in Fig. 6,
Dobry and Gazetas [14] 1985 at the top of a pile which transforms the equivalent system into a damped simple
Dobry and Gazetas [14] 1985 Springs and dashpots for surface
oscillator.
Dobry and Gazetas [15] 1986 foundations of arbitrary shape Due to the dashpot, the displacement w is never infinite,
Dobry et al. [18] 1986 whatever the frequency of the loading. The spring k generates a
Gazetas et al. [35] 1985a Vertical spring and dashpot for embedded force that is proportional to the displacement, w, of the mass,
Gazetas et al. [36] 1985b foundations of arbitrary shape while the dashpot c generates a force that is proportional to the
Dobry and Gazetas [14] 1985 velocity of the mass, dw/dt. As a result, the equation of motion of
Dobry and Gazetas [16] 1988 Equivalent springs and dashpots of the system that allows solving the problem once the values of k
floating pile groups and c have been determined is
Dobry [11] 1991a Use of Roesset and Whitman [61] 2
d w dw
Dobry [12] 1991b theoretical solution for steady-state M þc þ kw ¼ P ¼ P m sin ð2πf tÞ ð1Þ
Dobry [13] 1995 amplification, to provide estimate of peak dt 2 dt
of Ratio of Response Spectra for soil
This is, in fact, the correct form of the exact solution for the
deposit on flexible rock
original problem of a mass on a foundation lying on a half-space
Dobry et al. [21] 1995 Decrease with distance to river or lake, of
shown in Fig. 4, and what is left is to determine how these spring
lateral spreading of ground due to sand
liquefaction in an earthquake and dashpot depend on the parameters of the problem. Of course,
that is the difficult part that took 30 years to solve.

Fig. 4. Machine foundation problem.

 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268 251

Fig. 5. First too simplistic attempt of a Simplified Solution.

Fig. 6. Second more realistic attempt of a Simplified Solution.

As mentioned before, a number of efforts were made to
develop this equivalent spring and dashpot, forgetting about the
mass for the time being, and replacing the contact area between
mass and soil by a massless rigid circular plate welded to the
surface of the half-space (Fig. 7). Finally, in 1966, in his Doctoral
thesis at the University of Michigan under the direction of Prof.
Richart, Lysmer found the exact solution to the problem with the
help of this powerful new tool called computers [47]. Then they
proceeded to find that a frequency-independent Simplified Solu-
tion was possible, because in this particular case neither the spring
nor the dashpot were very sensitive to changes in the frequency f.
Fig. 7 shows Lysmer's proposed approximate expressions for the
equivalent vertical spring, kv, and dashpot, cv. The two expressions
are a marvel of simplicity.
The value of the spring is kv E4GR/(1  μ), which is the same as
the static vertical stiffness for a rigid circular foundation obtained
by integrating the static Boussinesq solution for the half-space.
That is, the selected kv corresponds to f¼ 0. The expression for the
dashpot is even more interesting. It can be expressed either in
terms of the shear modulus, G, or alternatively in terms of the
shear wave velocity of the soil, Vs. That is, cv E[3.4/(1 μ)] (Gρ)1/2
R2 ¼[3.4/(1  μ)] (ρVs) R2, taking advantage of the fact that Vs and G
are related through the basic elasticity equation:
 1=2
G
Vs ¼ ð2Þ
p
Fig. 8 includes the comparison presented by Lysmer and Richart
for the dynamic response curves for the cylindrical mass on the half-
space of Fig. 4. The solid line is the exact solution and the dashed
line is the Simplified Solution calculated with the frequency-
independent spring and dashpot of Fig. 7.
The graph of Fig. 8 plots the normalized amplitude of the mass
displacement, wm, versus the normalized frequency of the loading.
252 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

Fig. 7. Frequency-independent Simplified Solution for vertical loading, also labeled “Lysmer's Analog” [47].

Table 3
Theoretical and Simplified Solutions to machine foundation problem.

Author(s) Year Contribution

Lamb [43] 1904 Solution for concentrated vertical force

on surface of half-space (Dynamic
Boussinesq Problem).
Reissner [55] 1936 Solution for flexible circular foundation
assuming uniform load.
Quinlan [54] 1953 Approximate solution for rigid circular
foundation assuming static pressure
distribution.
Sung [67] 1953 Solutions for various assumed pressure
distributions.
Bycroft [8] 1956 Simplified Solution by averaging
displacements over foundation area.
Hsieh [40] 1962 Introduced idea of frequency-
dependent equivalent spring and
Fig. 8. Vertical dynamic response of mass on a half-space: comparison between dashpot.
Lysmer's Analog and exact solution [47]. Lysmer and 1966 Obtained exact frequency-dependent
Richart [47] spring and dashpot for rigid circular
foundation using computer. Proposed
The curves have the typical shape of response of a damped single approximate frequency-independent
spring and dashpot as Simplified
oscillator, showing that the system has quite a bit of damping; this
Solution for engineers (Lysmer's
is reflected in the fact that the peaks of the curves are all below Analog).
three. But the most important conclusion from our viewpoint is Richart and 1967 Validated Lysmer's Analog with field
that the Simplified Method predicts very well the exact response, Whitman [58] footing vibration tests.
so it can be used by engineers with confidence as a basic tool for Whitman and 1967 Design procedure based on
Richart [72] Lysmer's Analog.
these kinds of calculations. And in fact, this Simplified Solution
and corresponding expressions of vertical spring and dashpot for a
circular surface foundation, are listed today as standard equations
in a number of textbooks and foundation manuals. and a frequency-independent dashpot. Table 3 also lists two 1967
Table 3 summarizes the history of the development of the papers by Richart and Whitman, where they validated the Sim-
solution. Lamb [43] had solved the problem of the concentrated plified Solution with field tests and developed a design procedure,
vertical dynamic load at the surface of an elastic half-space, which making the new solution available to the engineering community.
is the dynamic counterpart of the Boussinesq [7] solution for
a concentrated static load. In the 1930s, Reissner [55] integrated 3.2. Horizontal vibration
Lamb's solution over a circular area assuming a constant pressure
distribution, that is he provided a solution for a perfectly flexible After Lysmer and Richart solved for the vertical loading by
foundation rather than a rigid foundation. After various efforts combining theory with computer calculations, the rest of the
containing assumptions and approximations by several authors in solutions came fast within the next few years for other dynamic
the 1950s and early 1960s; finally Lysmer and Richart [47] solved excitations acting on the same surface circular foundation. Fig. 9
the problem numerically using a computer and provided the shows the case of horizontal loading, where again it was possible
beautiful Simplified Solution of Fig. 7, where the half-space below to obtain frequency-independent expressions for the horizontal
the foundation is replaced by a frequency-independent spring spring and dashpot.
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 9. Frequency-independent Simplified Solution for horizontal loading [38,46,70].
3.3. Simplified systems for design and equivalent circle
In their 1967 paper, Whitman and Richart summarized all these
Simplified Solutions for surface or very shallow circular foundations,
and gave recommendations on how to use them in actual engineer-
ing projects. These recommendations included how to produce the
necessary values of soil shear modulus and Poisson's Ratio needed to
calculate the spring (stiffness) and radiation dashpot for vertical,
horizontal, rocking and torsional excitations (Fig. 10).
Finally, they also provided recommendations on how to combine
these radiation dashpots with the internal damping associated with
the energy dissipated by the cyclic loading within the soil itself, mostly
in friction. Table 4 lists the expressions for the four static stiffnesses,
recommended by Whitman and Richart [72] as the frequency-
independent spring constants for the respective Simplified Solutions.2
They also suggested that foundations which do not have a circular
shape, like square, rectangular, etc., should be first transformed into an
equivalent circle before using those Simplified Solutions.
These Simplified Solutions for the circular surface foundation
were an important breakthrough, and their use for all kinds
of foundation shapes through the equivalent circle method has
served the profession well. However, they still left open the issue
of what to do when the foundation is embedded rather than being
at the surface or very close to it, and also how good is the
equivalent circle approximation, say, for a very long rectangle or
a similar elongated foundation shape.
Today's mathematical and computational techniques are much
more powerful than those available in the 1960s, and a number of
these cases have been solved by a combination of analytical and
numerical methods in the last 30–40 years, with many articles, tables
and charts published in research journals and books. Furthermore,
powerful dynamic finite elements computer programs than can solve
your specific problem for any shape and any embedment, as well as
for arbitrary soil layering, are now commercially available, and they are
routinely used in very important or critical structures such as nuclear
power plants or large bridges. But in most projects, Simplified
Solutions continue to be used. Even in projects like a large bridge, a
finite element program may be used to analyze the abutments and the
2
The equation in Table 4 and Fig. 9 for kho was obtained a few years later by
Luco and Westmann and Veletsos and Wei [46,70], and is slightly different from the
approximate expression proposed by Hall [38] and used by Whitman and Richart in
their 1967 paper.
253
foundations of the piers, with the simplified methods utilized to
analyze the foundations of the approaches to the bridge.
Therefore, there was clearly a need to extend these Simplified
Solutions produced by Lysmer, Richart and Whitman, to both
embedded foundations and to noncircular shapes. I will be
addressing these other cases later in this Lecture, but it turns out
that before we can do that, it is necessary to clarify first the
physical origin of the equivalent viscous dashpots shown in Figs. 7
and 9 for the vertical and horizontal vibrations. So, let me focus
now on these viscous dashpots.
3.4. Viscous dashpots and radiation damping
The problem can be posed as follows (Fig. 11): the soil is
represented by a purely elastic material filling the half-space, which
does not have any internal damping and therefore has no way
to dissipate energy in the material itself. If the foundation
had been on top of a closed elastic system with rigid boundaries
surrounding the soil, the displacement of the foundation would have
been infinite when vibrating at the natural frequency of the system.
But because the system is open instead of closed, energy escapes in
the form of waves propagating in the soil, with this energy never
coming back, and this is why the displacement of the foundation is
never infinite. This form of elastic energy dissipation in the form of
waves traveling away from the foundation is called Radiation (or
Geometric) Damping, and it is the physical origin of the vertical and
horizontal viscous dashpots I mentioned before, which are just
approximate mathematical representations of the phenomenon.
Which types of waves are these, and what helpful information
can we obtain from wave propagation theory? Let us take a look.
It is useful to start with the case of horizontal vibrations, which is
simpler. Fig. 12 presents again the Simplified Solution for the surface
circular foundation of Fig. 9. The same equations for kh and ch are
repeated at the bottom of Fig. 12. The viscous dashpot of expression,
ch ¼[4.64/(2μ)]ρVsR2, represents the radiation energy carried away
from the foundation by the waves propagating in the soil.
Fig. 12 also calculates this expression for two values of Poisson's
Ratio, 0.33 and 0.50, which approximately cover the range of interest
of this parameter for soils. The dashpot becomes, respectively,
2.78ρVsR2 and 3.09ρVsR2. These two expressions are numerically very
similar, indicating that the dashpot is not very sensitive to the exact
value of Poisson's Ratio of the soil, Furthermore, and this is very
important from a theoretical viewpoint, the numerical coefficients in
254 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

Fig. 10. Equivalent simplified systems for design based on equivalent circular foundation [72].

the two expressions are within 10% of the value of π¼3.14. So, what
Table 4
the Simplified Solution fitted to the original exact solution is telling
Static stiffnesses of rigid circular foundation on the
surface of an elastic half-space. us is that the horizontal viscous dashpot is approximately the
product of ρVs (which depends only on the properties of the soil),
Loading Static stiffness times the area of the circle, πR2 (which depends only on the
geometry of the contact area between soil and foundation). That is,
Vertical 4GR
kv0 ¼ ch EρVsA¼(ρVs)(πR2). This is very interesting and has significant
1μ
Horizontal 8GR theoretical as well as practical implications.
kh0 ¼
2μ It is useful at this point to look at some basic results of wave
Rocking 4GR3 propagation theory relevant to the original system of a plate on a
kr0 ¼
3ð1  μÞ half-space of Fig. 12. This is done with the help of Fig. 13.
Torsional 16GR3
kt0 ¼ Fig. 13 assumes that we have placed the same massless rigid
3
circular plate of Fig. 12, but now on the surface of an infinitely long
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268 255

Fig. 11. Radiation of energy by waves propagating from foundation [44].
elastic solid tube of radius R, with the tube in Fig. 13 having the same
properties of the half-space of Fig. 12. Fig. 13 is an example of one-
dimensional elastic wave propagation, in which the horizontal
vibration of the plate generates a pure shear wave that propagates
vertically down with a wave speed Vs, while inducing horizontal
displacements along the tube. It turns out that it is possible to
replace mathematically the tube under the plate by an equivalent
horizontal dashpot, ch ¼ρVsA¼(ρVs)(πR2). The equivalent horizontal
spring, kh ¼ 0 in this case. It is important to note that this equivalent
dashpot, ch ¼ρVsA¼(ρVs) (πR2), is not an approximation but is an
exact mathematical analog to the infinite tube in every respect. The
product ρ Vs is so important in wave propagation and Soil Dynamics
that it has been given a special name: it is called the Shear Impedance
of the material. This Impedance, ρ Vs, completely controls the relation
between load and displacement at the interface between the
massless rigid plate and the elastic material below for 1D wave
propagation in Fig. 13. The expression, ch ¼ ρ Vs A, is not restricted
to the case when the load Q in Fig. 13 is sinusoidal, but it is valid for
any time history of Q¼ Q(t). Also, the expression is still rigorously
valid for noncircular shapes of the rigid massless plate and

Fig. 12. Horizontal radiation dashpot for two Poisson's ratios.

Fig. 13. Perfect viscous dashpot analog for 1D shear wave propagation.
256 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

associated cross-section of the elastic tube, including square and
rectangular, with the expression for the dashpot being always
ρ Vs A, where A is the actual area of the square, rectangle, or
other shape.
If the massless plate located on top of the elastic tube were
excited vertically instead of horizontally, as done in Fig. 14,
a compression–extension wave (similar to a sound wave) will
propagate down the tube. This 1D wave propagation model in
Fig. 14 is relevant to the original problem of vertical excitation of
the foundation on a half-space of Figs. 4–7.
In Fig. 14, when the massless plate vibrates vertically, as the
compression–extension waves propagate down, the material in
the tube alternately compresses and extends in the vertical
direction, generating vertical displacements along the tube. This
compression–extension wave in the tube of Fig. 14 will propagate
at a speed greater than the shear wave velocity, with this speed, V,
controlled either by the constrained modulus, D, V¼ VD ¼(D/ρ)1/2,
or by the Young's Modulus, E, V¼ VL ¼(E/ρ)1/2. The actual wave
speed, V, will be either of these two values (or a value in between),
and it will depend on how freely can the rod expand or contract
laterally. In one extreme case, if the tube is completely surrounded
by a rigid wall and cannot strain laterally at all (similar to the
situation in a soil consolidometer test), the wave velocity will be
high, VD ¼ (D/ρ)1/2. On the other hand, if the tube is completely free
to expand or contract laterally (similar to a triaxial or unconfined
compression test), the wave velocity will be lower, VL ¼(E/ρ)1/2.
Table 5 lists normalized values of VL and VD for two values of
Poisson's Ratio. But whatever the value of this wave speed for the
compression–extension waves, the whole infinite rod can always
be replaced analytically by a vertical dashpot equal to the Impe-
dance of the material, ρV, times the actual area of the plate, A,
where V is the actual speed of the wave traveling in the tube.
What does this all mean for the original problem of the circular
rigid plate on the surface of the half-space? As sketched in Fig. 15,
the actual foundation problem is typically a 3D situation, and in
first approximation the waves under the plate do not travel
vertically but go out in many directions controlled by the max-
imum angle θ shown in the figure. This general picture is true for
both vertical and horizontal excitations. The problem for the
vertical vibrations sketched in Fig. 15a is further complicated by
the fact that compression–extension waves predominate only very
close to the vibrating plate, with other waves including shear
waves appearing at longer distances from it. But from the view-
point of this discussion, the rather simplified sketch of Fig. 15a will
suffice, as the dynamic vertical load–displacement relation for the
plate depends on the speed of this compression–extension excita-
tion generated in the soil very close below the plate, rather than
on the more distant waves that develop in the soil in the far field.
Consider first the case of the horizontal excitation in Fig. 15b,
which is simpler. By now we can agree that the horizontal
vibrations of the plate are mainly shearing the interface with the
soil, so that assuming that the waves sent down into the soil are

Fig. 14. Perfect viscous dashpot analog for 1D compression–extension wave propagation.

Table 5
Compression–extension wave velocities relevant to vertical vibration of plate on a half-space.

Poisson' ratio Lysmer's Analog Dilatational wave velocity Rod wave velocity
wave velocity (no lateral straining, (free to strain laterally,
VLa ¼{[3.4/π(1  μ)]}Vs VD ¼ (D/ρ)1/2) VL ¼(E/ρ)1/2)
μ VLa/Vs VD/Vs VL/Vs

0.33 1.62 2.0 1.63

0.50 2.16 1 1.73

Notes: D ¼ Constrained modulus ¼2G(1  μ)/(1  2μ). E ¼Young's modulus ¼ 2G(1 þμ). G ¼ Shear modulus. Vs ¼Shear wave velocity ¼(G/ρ)1/2.
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 15. Waves and radiation damping in vertical and horizontal vibrations.
mainly shear waves makes intuitive sense. We know from theory
(Fig. 13) that if the angle θ was zero in Fig. 15, that is if all the shear
waves were going down vertically as 1D waves, the equivalent
horizontal dashpot would be exactly ch ¼ρVsA. As we saw before
when discussing Fig. 12, the correct solution in this case, while not
exactly ch ¼ρVsA, is numerically close to it, within 10%, and it is also
approximately independent of frequency. This suggests that for this
case of horizontal vibration of a circular plate in Fig. 15b, it would
appear as if the angle θ of the waves is actually not far from zero, and
that the problem is surprisingly close to being one-dimensional. How
can this be? Because of a phenomenon known as destructive wave
interference, the waves going out at angles greater than zero tend to
cancel each other, leaving only shear waves that travel down more or
less vertically in this particular case.
This is a very important conclusion for the extension of the
Simplified Solutions to foundation shapes that are not circular,
because if that conclusion was true for any foundation shape, we
could say that the equivalent horizontal dashpot could always be
calculated using this expression ρ Vs A, where the area A is just the
actual total area of contact between the foundation and the soil.
It turns out that things are not so simple, but still, this gives us
a starting point for the development of Simplified Solutions for
noncircular shapes.
Let us now turn our attention back to the vertical vibration of a
circular foundation in Fig. 15a. We apply the same logic, except that
in this case the compression–extension wave velocity to put in the
equation ρ V A is not obvious, because as we saw in Fig. 14, the
corresponding compression–extension waves may travel relatively
slow or faster depending on the lateral straining of the tube.
We solved this by inventing a new wave velocity, that we label VLa,
defined by the expression, VLa ¼3.4Vs/(π(1 μ)). The symbol VLa
stands for “Lysmer's Analog wave velocity”, and it is simply the
value of the velocity V¼VLa that, when inserted it in the expression
ρVA, gives the correct cv defined by Lysmer in his Simplified Solution
to the original problem, cv ¼[3.4/(1 μ)]ρVsR2 (see Fig. 7). If we
consider the range of possible wave speeds for compression–exten-
sion waves in soils, the value of this new wave velocity VLa is
relatively low, and close to the value of wave velocity controlled by
the Young's Modulus of the material (see Table 5). This makes sense,
because it would intuitively seem that the soil under the foundation,
when compressed vertically as in Fig. 15a, is relatively free to expand
laterally, so the situation in the soil immediately below the founda-
tion is closer to a triaxial than to a consolidometer test.
I just spent some time going over the details of these deriva-
tions in Fig. 15a and b. But the effort is worth it, because the two
expressions for cv and ch as functions of VLa and Vs in Fig. 15, are
257
the key to the development of a whole new family of Simplified
Solutions, not only for foundations of noncircular shapes, but
also for embedded foundations. In the early 1980s, Prof. George
Gazetas and I explored this approach in some detail, and the
approach now has become part of the accepted State of Practice
for the approximate calculation of equivalent foundation dashpots.
3.5. Vertical radiation dashpot for embedded foundation
An obvious first application of this simplified concepts is to the
same case of the cylindrical rigid foundation excited vertically, but
now embedded in the half-space (Fig. 16). We assume that the base
radiates energy in the form of compression–extension waves travel-
ing with the Lysmer's Analog wave velocity, so the radiation dashpot
associated with the base is ρVLaAb, where Ab is the area of the base, in
this case πR2. In short, we assume that this dashpot associated with
the base is identical to the one found by Lysmer when the foundation
was at the ground surface and not embedded.
We also assume that the perimeter of the cylinder when
vibrating vertically is sending shear waves into the soil which
propagate horizontally with the wave speed Vs. This is what our
intuition tells us and it seems reasonable. This gives us a second
dashpot associated with this radiation of energy at the contact
between soil and foundation sidewall, which is shown here, of
value ρVsAw, where Aw is the total area of contact of the sidewall.
And because the two dashpots are in parallel, we can just add up
the two values to get the total dashpot for the whole embedded
foundation. This is done in Fig. 16, providing a simple estimated
expression for the equivalent vertical radiation dashpot of the
embedded foundation cv E ρVLaAb þρVsAw.
There is a need to be careful here, as we have jumped a lot
ahead of a more rigorous analysis, and have made a number of
assumptions based only on our intuition. It turns out that this very
simple expression works well for this case, as I will show you in a
minute. But it does not work so well in other cases, and one should
always check these simplified models against more rigorous
solutions before applying them with confidence.
On the other hand, once it is shown that a Simplified Solution
like this works, it provides a tremendous amount of insight to
researchers and engineers. Let me give you two conclusions out of
this expression in Fig. 16, so you can appreciate better what I am
saying. The first conclusion has to do with the contribution of the
embedment to the total vertical dashpot. While the value of VLa
acting at the base is typically 50% to 100% greater than the Vs
acting on the sidewalls (see Table 5), the area of the sidewall itself
tends to be much greater than the area of the base. For example, if
258 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 16. Simplified vertical radiation dashpot for embedded circular foundation (modified after [35]).
the depth of embedment D ¼R, which is not a large embedment,
the wall area will be twice that of the base, so already the wall is
contributing roughly as much as the base, and for greater embed-
ment it contributes significantly more to the total dashpot than
the base. Therefore, we should expect that embedded foundations
will have a lot of damping, having less dynamic response at the
critical frequencies than surface foundations, which is good. But
the counterpart to this, and this is my second conclusion, is that
before taking advantage of this beneficial effect of the embedment,
you better make sure that you have a good contact between the
sidewall and the soil. If you do not, you may have a foundation
with much less damping that you thought you had, and that may
be dangerous. As embedded foundations are often constructed
first in a trench leaving a gap at the sides, and the gap is filled later
with a sandy fill that is sometimes difficult to compact because of
the lack of space, there is always the possibility that the contact is
not so good. So, the engineer may want to do a parametric study
assuming that the second term of the expression in Fig. 16 does
not exist, it exists, or it is only partially efficient, by multiplying
this second term of the expression by a factor between 0 and 1.
And this is the great advantage of such a Simplified Solution; it
allows the engineer to use his/her judgment in the analysis and to
keep control of the situation instead of relying completely on a
complicated computer program he may not understand or control.
Fig. 17 shows a comparison for the dashpot of a circular
embedded foundation, between the predictions of this Simplified
Solution and rigorous dynamic finite element calculations. The
curves in the figure, corresponding to the Simplified Solution, show
a slight effect of frequency because the exact dashpot was used for
the contribution of the base, instead of the simplified frequency-
independent dashpot of Fig. 16. The comparisons in Fig. 17 corre-
spond to various degrees of embedment up to an embedment equal
to the diameter of the foundation. The agreement between Simpli-
fied and rigorous solutions is excellent, and confirms that a sig-
nificant embedment with good contact between sidewalls and
surrounding soil may provide a total radiation dashpot that is several
times the value of the dashpot of the surface foundation.
3.6. Vertical static spring for embedded foundation
Fig. 18 includes the corresponding expression for the static
vertical spring, kv0, of the same circular embedded foundation
addressed in Figs. 16 and 17. As indicated in Fig. 18, the value of kv0
is obtained by the multiplication of three factors. The first factor,
4GR/(1  μ), is just the expression for the stiffness of the surface
foundation without embedment discussed before. The second
factor, (1 þ 0.1D/R), is the “trench coefficient”, which is a small
correction, and corresponds to placing the foundation at the
bottom of the trench of depth D, but without any contact between
the sidewall and the soil. And finally, the third factor, [1 þ0.19
(Aw/Ab)2/3], which provides a much bigger correction, is associated
with the actual contact area between the foundation wall and the
soil, Aw. Again, if the engineer has doubts about the quality of this
contact, he/she should conduct a parametric study which includes
reducing this third factor to a value closer to, or equal than one.
3.7. Embedment and dynamic response
It is important to see how this very significant influence of the
embedment on the radiation damping translates into a much
reduced dynamic response when subjected to dynamic loads. Both
analysis and experiments have consistently verified the importance
of the effect. This is illustrated by Fig. 19, that shows the results of
experiments using three small-scale models conducted by [52],
where he excited vertically and horizontally a foundation embedded
in a partially saturated dense loess loam. The effect of embedment
is similar for vertical and horizontal excitations. Let us focus on the
vertical excitation, shown in the upper plot of Fig. 19. The first
experiment for the fully embedded foundation with good contact
with the surrounding soil, labeled “A,” produced a response curve of
displacement versus frequency which is very flat, with low values of
the dynamic displacement. The curve indicates a highly damped
system with a very stiff equivalent spring. In the second experiment,
labeled “B,” the sidewall contact was weakened by placing a
relatively well compacted sandy fill between the foundation and
the surrounding soil; now the response curve is a bit higher and has
a small peak at a frequency of about 3000 revolutions/min. And then
in the third experiment, labeled “C,” the model foundation was just
placed at the bottom of the trench without any contact with the soil
at the sides. Clearly in this third experiment there is much less
damping in the system, with a very high peak and large displace-
ments at a frequency of about 2000 revolutions/min. The figure
provides a dramatic illustration on how different the dynamic
response of a foundation can be without the benefit provided by
the contact with the surrounding soil.
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 17. Vertical radiation dashpot of embedded circular foundation: comparison
between simplified (curves) and dynamic finite element results (data points)
[10,35].
Fig. 18. Vertical static spring of embedded circular foundation including trench and
soil–wall contact factors [35].
4. Equivalent Springs and Dashpots for noncircular Shapes
I want to use the rest of this Lecture discussing the develop-
ment of Simplified Methods for noncircular foundation shapes
that took place in the 1980s, both for surface and embedded
foundations. Table 6 lists the publications reporting the main
results as well as the two summaries by [27,28]. Originally it grew
259
Fig. 19. Experimental verification of soil–wall contact effect on dynamic vertical
and horizontal responses of embedded circular foundation [52].
out of a collaboration at the beginning of the 1980s between Prof.
George Gazetas and myself, built on some of the ideas I discussed
before, especially for the radiation damping generated by the base
of the foundation and the foundation sidewalls. While I played a
role at the beginning of the process and I am a co-author in the
first three papers listed in Table 6, Prof. Gazetas was the driving
force of the whole project, and pursued it systematically through
a series of studies and publications over a number of years, until
he was able to put it all together in two publications listed at the
bottom of Table 6. Gazetas [27] is a chapter in a Foundation
Engineering Handbook, and Gazetas [28] is an article in the Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. In these two publications, he provides charts, formulas
and numerical examples, ready to use by practicing engineers
Table 6 gives an idea of how magnificent was this project by
Prof. Gazetas. For each of the six degrees of freedom, vertical,
torsional, horizontal in the two directions, and rocking in the two
directions, he compared possible Simplified Solutions for springs
and dashpots with rigorous computer results, modifying the
Simplified Solutions as needed to fit the rigorous results, and
arrived to recommendations that engineers could use. He also
provided convincing experimental validation for his calculations.
The work was further complicated by the strong coupling between
horizontal and rocking in embedded foundations, that he also
addresses in his 1990 and 1991 publications. You can appreciate
the complexity of the work involved in getting the correct
Simplified Solutions for horizontal, rocking and torsional springs
and dashpots of embedded foundations, by noticing that he
needed a total of six papers to present all necessary results.
My main purpose today is to provide you with an introduction
to the basic approach used by Prof. Gazetas, as an introduction to
260 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

Table 6
Simplified Solutions for surface and embedded foundations of arbitrary shape (Gazetas and co-workers [1–3,15,18,25,27,28,32,33,34,39]).

Authors Year Contribution Stiffness Damping Experiments

Dobry and Gazetas [15] 1986 Surface foundations, all six DOF's X X
Dobry et al. [18] 1986 Experimental verification for circular, X
square and rectangular shapes, all six DOF's
Gazetas et al. [35] 1985a Embedded foundations, vertical X X
Gazetas and Tassoulas [32] 1987a Embedded foundations, horizontal X
Gazetas and Tassoulas [33] 1987b X
Hatzikonstantinou, Tassoulas, Gazetas, 1989 Embedded foundations, rocking X
Kotsanopoulos and Fotopoulou [39]
Fotopoulou, Kotsanopoulos, 1989
Gazetas and Tassoulas [25] X
Ahmad and Gazetas [1] 1991 Embedded foundations, torsional X X
Ahmad and Gazetas [2] 1992a X
Ahmad and Gazetas [3] 1992b X
Gazetas [27] 1990 Surface and embedded foundations, X X
Gazetas [28] 1991 all six DOF's; formulas, charts & numerical examples X X
Gazetas and Stokoe [34] 1991 Experimental verification for circular, X
square and rectangular shapes, vertical, horizontal, and rocking

Fig. 20. General formulation for surface and embedded foundations of arbitrary shape [28].

his 1990 and 1991 publications, which may be useful if you need to
use them in one of your projects.
4.1. General problem formulation
The general formulation for both surface and embedded
foundations of arbitrary shape is presented in Fig. 20. The base
has an arbitrary shape and an area, Ab, which is embedded at
depth D, but with the possibility of the actual depth of contact of
the foundation wall with the soil being smaller, d oD, and with the
actual total contact area between the sides of the foundation and
the soil being Aw. An important tool of these procedures is a
rectangle 2L  2B that circumscribes the actual base area. This
rectangle defines the degree of elongation of the actual area by its
aspect ratio, L/B. For both square and circular foundations the
aspect ratio is 1.0.
This surface or embedded foundation is located in a half-space
which has the same properties already discussed (G, μ and ρ), to
which it is added now the internal damping ratio of the soil,
labeled β. It is not necessary to worry about β through most of the
derivations, with all calculated dashpots being radiation dashpots.
Later in this Lecture I will provide the general expression used
to increase the values of these radiation dashpots in order to
incorporate the effect of β.
The solutions presented by Gazetas [28] generate springs and
dashpots for six degrees of freedom, all shown in Fig. 20: vertical
loading; horizontal loading in the short direction, that is along
the y-axis; horizontal parallel to the long direction x; a rocking
moment in the short direction, that is around the x-axis; rocking
around the y-axis; and finally, a torsional moment around the z-axis.
It is useful to illustrate some of the complexities that must be
considered in the formulation of these Simplified Solutions, by
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268 261

considering the calculation of the horizontal radiation dashpot along

the long axis x for the embedded foundation of Fig. 20. The
foundation is moving back and forth horizontally in the x-direction,
and the question is: what is happening in terms of the waves
generated by the different contact areas? The base is clearly shearing
the soil, so you would expect its contribution to the total radiation
dashpot to be proportional to the area Ab and to the shear wave
velocity of the soil Vs. The situation with the foundation walls is more
complicated. As the foundation moves back and forth in the long
direction, the two walls parallel to x in the figure, are also shearing
the soil so their contribution should be proportional to Vs. But the
two walls perpendicular to x, are pushing back and forth against the
soil behind them, so you would expect that their contribution should
not be proportional to Vs but to the other wave velocity we defined
before for compression–extension waves, the Lysmer's analog wave
velocity that we labeled VLa. And there are also other walls in Fig. 20 Fig. 22. Vertical static spring of surface foundation of arbitrary shape [15].
which are neither parallel nor perpendicular to x, which further
complicate the situation.
Fig. 21 presents a more detailed formulation for only the base of
the surface or embedded foundation, for arbitrary shapes including
circular, square, rectangular or in fact any shape. The graph shows
again the three axes, x, y and z, all passing by the centroid O of the area
of the base, and the three loads Hx, Hy and V parallel to the three axes,
as well as the three moments around each of the three axes, Mx, My
and Mt. The actual area of the foundation is called A in Fig. 21, while it
is labeled Ab in Fig. 20 and other plots. There are other parameters
associated with the area A which are also important for the calcula-
tions. They are (see Fig. 21): the area moment of inertia around the x
axis, Iax; the same area moment of inertia around the y axis, Iay; and
the polar area moment of inertia around the z axis, J¼Iax þIay. These
three area parameters are the same studied in school in the Strength
of Materials course when looking at sections of beams and columns
subjected to bending or torsion. It turns out that these three area
moments of inertia are needed in the Simplified Method when
computing the springs and dashpots for rocking and torsional vibra-
tions. And finally, the length and width of the circumscribed rectangle,
L, B, and the aspect ratio of the foundation, L/B, are also listed in Fig. 21.

4.2. Vertical spring for surface foundation

The next few figures show some selected results for the surface
foundation of arbitrary shape, reproduced from Dobry and Gazetas
Fig. 21. Main parameters for surface foundation of arbitrary shape [15].
Fig. 23. Vertical dynamic spring of surface foundation of arbitrary shape [15].
[15]. The charts for the vertical spring in Figs. 22 and 23 are
representative of other similar charts and formulas associated
with equivalent springs for horizontal, rocking and torsional
vibrations presented by [15,28]. The chart in Fig. 22 allows
calculating a dimensionless parameter Sz0, which is used to
estimate the static vertical spring, kz0, through the expression,
kz0 ¼ Sz0 (2LG)/(1 μ). The parameter along the abscissas is A/4L2,
which for the special case of a rectangular shape is equal to the
reciprocal of the aspect ratio of the rectangle, (L/B)  1 ¼B/L. That is,
it is A/4L2 ¼1.0 for a square shape, A/4L2 ¼0.33 for a rectangle of
aspect ratio 3, etc. Why did we select this strangely looking new
parameter instead of simply using B/L? Because it turns out that
the square and circular shapes, while they have the same aspect
ratio of 1.0, have different values of Sz0, as shown in Fig. 22 by the
corresponding data points, so we had to invent a new parameter
for the plot to work. The data points in Fig. 22 correspond to
rigorous elasticity solutions, obtained either mathematically or
numerically, that we retrieved from the literature. This includes
the rigorous solution for the circle previously discussed in this
Lecture, the solution for the square, and solutions for a number of
increasingly elongated rectangles, ranging between L/B¼ 2 and
L/B¼ 20. The figure also includes a number of data points for
elliptical, triangular and other shapes, and finally we just fitted the
262 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
equation for Sz0 shown on the figure which is the one we proposed
for use in the Simplified Solution for vertical loading.
Fig. 23 presents the variation of the vertical spring kv ¼kz with
frequency for a Poisson's Ratio of 1/3. From now on, I will be
showing some plots where springs and dashpots vary with
frequency, as this is an unavoidable part of some of the Simplified
Procedures. We were lucky before, that for the circular surface
foundation the vertical and horizontal springs and dashpots do not
change much with frequency; this allowed Lysmer and other
authors to propose approximate springs and dashpots which are
independent of frequency (Figs. 7 and 9). Fig. 23 confirms this lack
of sensitivity of the spring constant to changes in frequency for
areas which are not elongated. That is, for squares, circles and
short rectangles of L/B ¼ 1 and 2, the curve in the graph is rather
flat. This is still true for rectangles of L/B ¼ 4, but it is not true at all
for very long rectangles of aspect ratios of 6 or greater, which
includes the very important case of strip footings, for which the
dynamic stiffness increases very fast at low frequencies and then
decreases. So in a case like that, the Simplified Solution must
consider the effect of the frequency of the applied loading.
4.3. Vertical and horizontal radiation dashpots
Let me switch now my attention to the radiation dashpots of
foundations of arbitrary shape. For the time being, we are still
talking only about surface foundations, and Fig. 24 is essentially
the same sketch of Fig. 15, of what happens to a surface foundation
subjected to vertical and horizontal vibrations. When discussing
Fig. 15 before for the case of a circular foundation, it was concluded
that the vertical dashpot was given approximately by the expres-
sion, cv EρVLaA, that is the Impedance times the area, where the
impedance ρVLa was controlled by the velocity VLa, the Lysmer's
Analog wave velocity, reflecting the speed of the compression–
extension waves traveling down vertically below the foundation.
And the horizontal dashpot, ch, was also given by the Impedance
times the area of the foundation, but now with the impedance
controlled by the shear wave velocity of the soil, Vs. These
expressions for cv and ch independent of frequency, worked well
for the circular shape, for which the value of the dashpot is about
the same at low and high frequencies.
Unfortunately this is not true anymore for elongated shapes
like long rectangles, where the value of the dashpot changes
Fig. 24. Vertical and horizontal radiation dashpots of surface foundations of arbitrary shape: the high-frequency asymptotes [15].
dramatically with frequency. But what we did find, first following
our intuition and then through a rigorous demonstration by [26],
is that these expressions for the vertical and horizontal dashpots
reproduced at the bottom of Fig. 24 are always true for any
foundation shape at high frequencies. That is, as the frequency
increases, the angle θ of the waves in Fig. 24 becomes zero, the
waves propagate vertically down as one-dimensional waves, and
these two expressions become exact whatever the shape of the
foundation. In other words, as f-1:
cv ¼ cz -ρV La A ð3Þ
ch ¼ cx ¼ cy -ρV s A ð4Þ
This useful behavior of the waves generated by the foundation
happens because of strong destructive wave interference at the
high frequencies, which cancels all waves traveling at angles, θ4 0.
It turns out that a similar phenomenon is well known in acoustics
and is used in the analysis and design of speakers. This is why
in rock concerts, the low frequency sounds are radiated out by
speakers that cover a wide range of directions, while for the high
frequencies, directional speakers are needed that radiate energy
only in one direction more or less as a 1D beam of sound [48,50].
The finding summarized by Eqs. (3) and (4), represented an
important breakthrough in our development of Simplified Solu-
tions for two reasons. The first is that it tells us that for vertical and
horizontal dashpots of surface foundations, we should be normal-
izing the actual dashpot obtained from rigorous solutions, dividing
it by either ρVLaA or by ρVsA, with the expectation that this ratio
will become 1.0 at high frequencies irrespective of the shape of the
foundation. And the second reason is that additional simple
theoretical derivations tell us that for the rocking vibrations,
the same thing should be happening at high frequencies of surface
foundations as for vertical vibrations, because during rocking
vibrations the foundations is also pushing and pulling vertically
the soil below, with the controlling wave velocity still being VLa,
but replacing the area A in the expression, by the area moment of
inertia of the foundation around the corresponding axis (Iax or Iay).
That is, for any arbitrary foundation shape, at high frequencies, the
rocking dashpots, crx EρVLaIax and cry E ρVLaIay. The same is true for
torsional vibrations, which similarly to the horizontal loading also
shears the soil below, where the expression at high frequencies for
ct should still be controlled by the shear wave velocity Vs, but with
the area in the expression replaced by the polar moment of inertia
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 25. Normalized horizontal radiation dashpot versus frequency of surface
foundation of arbitrary shape [15].
of that area, J. In summary, Eqs. (3) and (4) for the three trans-
lational degrees of freedom are supplemented by Eqs. (5) to (7) for
the three rotational degrees of freedom, indicating that, as
f-1:
crx -ρV La I ax
cry -ρV La I ay
ct -ρV s J ¼ ρV s ðI ax þ I ay Þ
These ideas were confirmed by Dobry and Gazetas [15] for the
radiation dashpots, first for vertical and horizontal and then for
rocking and torsional. Fig. 25 illustrates the results for the
horizontal dashpot in the short direction, versus frequency of
loading. Following the conclusion summarized in Eq. (4), the
variable along the ordinate axis in Fig. 25 is the dashpot cy divided
by ρVsA. The figure confirms the previous conclusion that for non-
elongated shapes (circles, squares and rectangles of L/B ¼2), the
ratio cy/(ρVsA) is about constant and close to one at all frequencies
considered. On the other hand, for long rectangles and strip
footings, cy is much greater than ρVsA at low frequencies, with
the ratio between the two converging to one at high frequencies,
exactly as predicted. So this is the key plot for the radiation
dashpot for horizontal loading in the short direction. The situation
for horizontal loading in the long direction of the foundation is
similar, and the plot for the vertical dashpot looks just like Fig. 25,
except that VLa is used instead of Vs on the ordinate axis.
4.4. Torsional and rocking radiation dashpots
Fig. 26 includes the corresponding plot for torsional vibrations,
where the torsional dashpot ct has been normalized to the product
ρVsJ, as suggested by Eq. (7). Here you see a different phenomenon,
which is typical of the rotational vibrations of surface foundations
including not only torsional but also rocking oscillations. This
phenomenon is that the equivalent radiation dashpots for these
rotational vibrations invariably go to zero as the frequency
decreases and goes to zero, because of destructive wave inter-
ference which does not allow any energy to leave the neighbor-
hood of the foundation when the frequency approaches zero. This
is true for circular shapes, as shown by the corresponding curve
263
Fig. 26. Normalized torsional radiation dashpot versus frequency of surface
foundation of arbitrary shape [15].
for L/B ¼1, and it is also true for long rectangles. In all cases, the
torsional or rocking radiation dashpot is not constant but increases
rapidly with frequency at the beginning, and then it stabilizes
at the theoretical value at high frequencies, with this theoretical
high-frequency value for the torsional case of Fig. 26 being the
ð5Þ
product ρVsJ. A very similar pattern to that of Fig. 26, is exhibited
ð6Þ by the rocking dashpots, which also go to zero at low frequencies
and converge at high frequencies to the product ρVLaIax or ρVLaIay.
ð7Þ This variation with frequency of rocking and torsional radiations
dashpots certainly complicates the formulation of the Simplified
Methods, but unfortunately this complication is unavoidable.
4.5. Simplified systems including embedment
Let us move on to embedded foundations of arbitrary shape.
Fig. 27 shows a sketch of the different effects contributing to the
static horizontal stiffness of an embedded foundation: (i) the
stiffness of the base of the foundation shearing the soil, which in
the first approximation is equal to the stiffness of the correspond-
ing surface foundation; (ii) the trench effect, that is the increase in
stiffness due to the foundation being placed at the bottom of the
trench instead of at the surface of the soil; and very importantly
(iii) the contribution of the contacts between the embedded
foundation walls and the surrounding soil. These are the same
three factors described before in this Lecture, when discussing the
vertical stiffness of an embedded circular foundation.
Fig. 28 includes the expression for the horizontal static spring
in the short direction, ky0, developed by Gazetas and Tassoulas [32]
on the basis of rigorous calculations for several shapes and degrees
of embedment. The expression assumes that the surface static
stiffness, ky0,sur, has already been calculated, with the expression
giving the factors greater than 1.0 that reflect the trench and
sidewall effects. Please notice that the solution allows for the
possibility of the foundation walls not being in contact with
the soil near the top of the excavation, and it certainly allows
the engineer to reduce the contribution of the sidewall contact if
he/she does not trust the overall quality of the contact between
the wall and the soil.
And finally, Fig. 29 presents the basic sketch used by Gazetas
and Tassoulas [33] to study the different contributions to the total
horizontal radiation dashpot of an embedded foundation, of the
264 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
Fig. 27. Horizontal stiffness of embedded foundation of arbitrary shape: basic sketch [32].
Fig. 28. Horizontal stiffness of embedded foundation of arbitrary shape: equation
and correlation for the sidewall contact factor [32].
various contact areas and types of waves. The area of the base
always generates shear waves. For horizontal vibrations along the
short direction as shown in the figure, the two walls perpendicular
to the short direction push and pull against the soil generating
compression–extension waves, so the contribution of that wall is
proportional to the actual area of contact of that wall times ρ VLa.
On the other hand, the two walls parallel to the short direction are
shearing the soil, so their contribution should be controlled by the
shear wave velocity Vs. Walls in the figure which are neither
parallel nor perpendicular to the direction of motion, generate
both shear (Vs) and compression–extension waves (VLa), as shown
on the figure. The situation would seem to be too complicated for a
Simplified Method. But [33], after integrating all these contribu-
tions, concluded that from the viewpoint of the horizontal dashpot
it was only necessary to consider the four walls of the circum-
scribed rectangle rather than the walls of the actual foundation,
which is much simpler.
Fig. 30 illustrates what I mean. It presents a numerical example
taken from the summary paper by Gazetas [28], where he
calculates all six sets of springs and dashpots for this embedded
foundation, which has a slightly irregular shape, and where the
wall reaches an embedment depth of 6 m but has no contact with
the soil in the top 2 m. When it comes to computing the total
horizontal dashpot of this embedded foundation in the short
direction y, the procedure ignores the actual foundation walls
and replace them by the four walls of the circumscribed rectangle
of sides 2L  2B¼ 16  5 m2. That is, the total area of contact with
the soil of the two long walls of total length 4L ¼32 m, is assumed
to generate compression–extension waves over the height of
contact of 4 m, with this contribution controlled by VLa and by
the total area of contact 32  4¼ 128 m2; while the total area of
contact of the two short walls of total length 4B ¼10 m, is assumed
to generate shear waves, with this contribution controlled by Vs
and by the total area of contact 10  4 ¼ 40 m2. Then the three
contributions of base area and shear waves, area associated with
4L and compression–extension waves, and area associated with 4B
and shear waves, are just added up to obtain the total radiation
dashpot.
Fig. 31 includes a partial view of the summary table for
embedded foundations in Gazetas [28] that provides clear instruc-
tions on how to compute different things. The last column of
Fig. 31 includes the rules just described, on how to generate the
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268 265

Fig. 29. Horizontal radiation dashpot of embedded foundation of arbitrary shape: basic sketch [33].

Fig. 30. Embedded foundation having an arbitrary shape and partial embedment: numerical example [28].

horizontal dashpots cy and cx for an embedded foundation. In each
case you have three term. For example, the expression for the total
cy ¼cy, emb includes: (i) a first term labeled Cy, which is the
contribution of the base, and is calculated in another table
essentially as the area of the base times ρ Vs, with a slight influence
of frequency; (ii) a second term, 4ρVsBd, which is the contribution
of the contact area associated with the two sides of the circum-
scribed rectangle that are shearing the soil; and finally, (iii) a third
term, 4ρVLaLd, which is the contribution of the contact area
associated with the other two sides of the rectangle, which are
pushing back and forth against the soil. For the dashpot in the
other direction, cx, the two walls that were shearing before are
now pushing and Vs is replaced by VLa, etc. Fig. 31 also includes the
expression for the vertical radiation dashpot of the same
embedded foundation. The situation for vertical is much simpler.
The expression is cz,emb ¼Cz þρVsAw; all sidewalls are shearing the
266 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268

Fig. 31. Partial view of summary table for embedded foundations of arbitrary shape [28].

Fig. 32. Contribution of soil internal damping, β, to total dashpot [28].

soil, and the total sidewall area Aw is the actual area of contact
around the foundation, with the circumscribed rectangle playing
no role in this calculation.
5. Effect of internal soil damping
To complete the picture, it is important to add to the viscous
dashpots calculated with these Simplified Methods, the contribution
due to the energy dissipated internally in the soil, mainly due to
friction, which is typically characterized by a soil damping ratio, β
(Fig. 32). The value of β depends on several factors, like the level of
cyclic shear strain induced in the soil by the dynamic loading, the
type of soil, and the Plasticity Index if the soil is a clay. Depending on
the circumstances, β can be as low as 0.02 or 0.03 (that is 2% or 3%)
and as high as 0.20 or 0.30 (20–30%). Fortunately from the viewpoint
of the Simplified Methods covered in this Lecture, once the radiation
dashpot, cradiation, has been calculated at a certain frequency f, the
 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
total dashpot, ctotal, including the effect of β can be obtained using
 
k
ctotal  cradiation þ β ð8Þ
πf
where k is the corresponding stiffness calculated at the same
frequency for the elastic half-space. This simple expression for β is
obtained from the Correspondence Principle of the Theory of
Viscoelasticity [6], and it is valid for any of the six degrees of freedom
(vertical, horizontal, rocking and torsional), as well as for surface and
embedded foundations of any shape.
6. Final comments
Simplified Methods will continue to play an important role in
Soil Dynamics as they do in the rest of Geotechnical Engineering.
While powerful computer simulations can produce more exact
and detailed information, Simplified Methods are irreplaceable
as a basis for codes and regulations, and as a tool to verify the
computer results (“reality checks”). Furthermore, they are just
better suited to many applications, where
 they allow the engineer to conduct calculations by hand or
with a minimum computational effort, including parametric
variations; and
 in the process, the engineer has the possibility to develop a feel
for the physical meaning and relative importance of the various
factors, with more personal control of calculations and deci-
sions including use of engineering judgment as needed.
It is useful for the engineer applying any of these Simplified
Methods, to have at least a basic understanding of the theory and
simplifications behind the procedure, which in Soil Dynamics
includes some Dynamics and Wave Propagation concepts. This
Carrillo Lecture was aimed at providing some of this understand-
ing, with focus on shallow machine foundations and other
dynamic soil–structure interaction applications.
Many researchers have proposed useful Simplified Methods
in Soil Dynamics, some of which are referenced in the paper.
Methods suggested by the author are listed in Table 2, and they
cover systems ranging from the free field and earth dams to
shallow and deep foundations, subjected to excitations that
include both seismic shaking and machine vibrations.
The main focus of this Carrillo Lecture was on shallow machine
foundations on a half-space subjected to dynamic loads in any of
the six degrees of freedom of the foundation, and the Simplified
Methods that have been proposed over the years to characterize
the corresponding equivalent soil springs and dashpots. This
included both frequency-dependent and frequency-independent
springs and dashpots. It started with the circular surface founda-
tion which was studied over much of the 20th Century, until the
breakthroughs by Lysmer and others in 1966–1971, and continued
with the cases of surface and embedded foundations of arbitrary
shape that culminated in the two summary publications by
Gazetas in 1990 and 1991. These solutions for machine founda-
tions are also useful for analysis of dynamic soil–structure inter-
action during earthquakes.
The development of these simplified equivalent springs and
dashpots for both surface and embedded foundations of arbitrary
shape was discussed in some detail, including the contribution of
the author in the early part of the process. This discussion serves
to introduce some of the basic dynamic theoretical concepts
behind the methods, and hopefully also as an introduction to their
use in actual engineering projects.
267
Acknowledgments
I am most grateful to George Gazetas for our many exhilarating
discussions in the early 1980s, about basic concepts of dynamics
and wave propagation that could be used to develop Simplified
Procedures for shallow and pile foundations subjected to dynamic
loads. I am also grateful to several colleagues with whom I had
the pleasure to develop and validate Simplified Methods on the
various problems listed in Table 2: José M. Roesset, Robert
V. Whitman, Issa Oweis, Alfredo Urzua, George Gazetas, Michael
J. O'Rourke, Ramli Mohamad, Panos Dakoulas, Kenneth. H. Stokoe
II, John L. Tassoulas, Victor Taboada and Lee Liu. Finally, I am
extremely grateful to the professors that taught me Soil Mechanics
and Soil Dynamics and mentored my initial research efforts:
Arturo Arias at the U. of Chile, Eulalio Juárez Badillo, Alfonso Rico
and Enrique Tamez at the UNAM, and Robert V. Whitman, José
M. Roesset and John T. Christian at MIT.
References
[1] Ahmad S, Gazetas G. Torsional impedances of embedded foundations,
Research Report, Department of Civil Engineering, SUNY at Buffalo; 1991.
[2] Ahmad S, Gazetas G. Torsional Stiffness of Arbitrarily-Shaped Embedded
Foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1992;118(8):1168–85.
[3] Ahmad S, Gazetas G. Torsional damping of arbitrarily-shaped embedded
foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE, 118; 1992; 1186–99.
[4] Arnold RN, Bycroft GN, Warburton GB. Forced vibrations of a body on an
infinite elastic solid. J. Appl. Mech. 1955;77:391–401.
[5] Barkan DD. Dynamics of bases and foundations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co.; 1962 (translated from Russian).
[6] Bland DR. The theory of linear viscoelasticity. New York, NY: Pergamon Press;
1960.
[7] Boussinesq J. Application des Potentials a L'Etude de L'Equilibre et du
Mouvement des Solides Elastiques. Paris, France: Gauthier-Villars; 1885.
[8] Bycroft GN. Forced vibration of a rigid circular plate on a semi-infinite elastic space
and an elastic stratum. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond. Ser. A 1956;A248:327–86.
[9] Das BM. Principles of foundation engineering. 4th edition. PWS Publishing;
1999.
[10] Day SM. Finite element analysis of seismic scattering problems (Ph.D. thesis).
University of California, San Diego; 1977.
[11] Dobry R. Soil properties and earthquake response, invited paper. In: Proceed-
ings of X European conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
Florence, Italy, May 26–30, vol. 4; 1991a. p. 1171–87.
[12] Dobry R. Soil properties and earhquake ground response, Invited Paper. In:
Proceedings of IX Panamerican conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering. Sociedad Chilena de Geotecnia, Santiago, Chile. 1994, vol. 4;
1991b. pp. 1557–604.
[13] Dobry R. Simple model to evaluate maximum spectral amplification of clay
sites. In: Proceedings of international symposium on civil engineering after 10
years of the 1985 earthquake in Mexico City, September 18–19; 1995. p. 91–8.
[14] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Dynamic stiffness and damping of foundations by simple
methods. In: Gazetas G, Selig ET, editors. Vibration Problems in Geotechnical
Engineering. New York, NY: ASCE; 1985. p. 77–107.
[15] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped foundations.
J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1986;112(2):109–35.
[16] Dobry R, Gazetas G. Simple method for dynamic stiffness and damping of
floating pile groups. Geotechnique 1988;38(4):557–74.
[17] Dobry R, O'Rourke MJ. Discussion of ‘Seismic response of end-bearing piles’ by
R. Flores-Berrones and R.V. Whitman. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1983;109(5):
778–81.
[18] Dobry R, Gazetas G, Stokoe II KH. Dynamic response of arbitrarily shaped
foundations: experimental verifications. J Geotech Eng, ASCE, 112; 1986;
136–149.
[19] Dobry R, Mohamad R, Dakoulas P, Gazetas G. Liquefaction evaluation of earth
dams – a new approach. In: Proceedings of 8th world conference on earth-
quake engineering, San Francisco, CA, vol. 3; 1984. p. 333–340.
[20] Dobry R, Oweis I, Urzua A. Simplified procedures for estimating the funda-
mental period of a soil profile. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1976;66(4):1293–321.
[21] Dobry R, Taboada V, Liu L. Centrifuge modeling of liquefaction effects during
earthquakes, Keynote Lecture Paper. In: Ishihara K, editor. Proceedings of first
international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering. vol. 3; 1995.
p. 1291–324.
[22] Dominguez J, Roesset JM. Dynamic stiffness of rectangular foundations.
Department of Civil Engineering, MIT; 1978 (Research Report R78-20).
[23] Elorduy J, Nieto JA, Szekely EM. Dynamic response of bases of arbitrary shape
subjected to periodic vertical loading. In: Proceedings of international sym-
posium on wave propagation and dynamic properties of earth materials.
Albuquerque, NM, August; 1967. p. 105–121.
268 R. Dobry / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 61-62 (2014) 246–268
[24] Fellenius W. Calculation of the stability of earth dams. In: Transactions of the
2nd congress on large dams, Washington, vol. 4; 1936. p. 445.
[25] Fotopoulou M, Kostanopoulos P, Gazetas G, Tassoulas JL. Rocking damping of
arbitrarily shaped embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1989;115(4):
473–90.
[26] Gazetas G. Simple physical methods for foundation impedances, dynamic
behavior of foundations and buried structures. London, England: Elsevier
Applied Science; 1987; 45–93.
[27] Gazetas G. In: Fang Hsai-Yang, editor. Chapter 15: foundation vibrations,
foundation engineering handbook. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Chapman &
Hall Publishing; 1990.
[28] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded
foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1991;117(9):1363–81.
[29] Gazetas G, Dobry R. Horizontal response of piles in layered soils. J Geotech
Eng, ASCE 1984;110(1):20–40.
[30] Gazetas G, Roesset JM. Forced vibrations of strip footings on layered soils.
Meth Struct Anal, ASCE 1976;1:115–31.
[31] Gazetas G, Roesset JM. Vertical Vibrations of machine foundations. J Geotech
Eng Div, ASCE 1979;105(GT12):1435–54.
[32] Gazetas G, Tassoulas JL. Horizontal stiffness of arbitrarily shaped embedded
foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1987;113(5):440–57.
[33] Gazetas G, Tassoulas JL. Horizontal damping of arbitrarily shaped embedded
foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE, 113; 1987; 458–75.
[34] Gazetas G, Stokoe II KH. Vibration of embedded foundations: theory versus
experiment. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1991;117(9):1382–401.
[35] Gazetas G, Dobry R, Tassoulas JL. Vertical response of arbitrarily shaped
embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1985;111(6):750–71.
[36] Gazetas G, Tassoulas JL, Dobry R, O'Rourke MJ. Elastic settlement of arbitrarily
shaped foundations embedded in half space. Geotechnique 1985;XXXV(3):
339–46.
[37] Gladwell GML. Forced tangential and rotatory vibration of a rigid circular disc
on a semi-infinite solid. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 1968;6(10):591–607.
[38] Hall JR, Jr. Coupled rocking and sliding oscillations of rigid circular footings. In:
Proceedings of international symposium on wave propagation and dynamic
properties of Earth materials, Albuquerque, NM, August; 1967. p. 139–60.
[39] Hatzikonstantinou E, Tassoulas JL, Gazetas G, Kotsanopoulos P, Fotopoulou M.
Rocking stiffness of arbitrarily shaped embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng,
ASCE 1989;115(4):457–72.
[40] Hsieh T.K. Foundation Vibrations, In: Proceedings institution of civil engineers,
London, U.K., vol. 22; 1962. p. 211–26.
[41] Johnson GR, Christiano P, Epstein HI. Stiffness coefficients for embedded
footings. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 1975;101(GT8):789–800.
[42] Kausel E, Roesset JM. Dynamic stiffness of circular foundations. J Eng Mech
Div, ASCE, 101; 1975; 771–85.
[43] Lamb H. On the propagation of tremors over the surface of an elastic solid.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond, U.K. Ser A 19041–42.
[44] Lambe TW, Whitman RV. Soil mechanics. New York: John-Wiley and Sons;
1969.
[45] Liu C, Evett JB. Soils and foundations. 4th edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall;
1998.
[46] Luco JE, Westmann RA. Dynamic response of circular footings. J Geotech Mech
Div, ASCE 1971;97:1381–95.
[47] Lysmer J, Richart Jr FE. Dynamic response of footings to vertical loading. J Soil
Mech Found Div, ASCE 1966;92(1):65–91.
[48] Massa F. Radiation of sound, American Institute of physics handbook. third
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.; 1972; 3–139.
[49] Meyerhof GG. Influence of roughness base and groundwater conditions on the
ultimate bearing capacity of foundations. Geotechnique 1955;5:227–42.
[50] Morse PM, Ingard KU. Theoretical acoustics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.;
1968.
[51] Newmark NM. Influence charts for computation of stresses in elastic founda-
tions, Bulletin no. 338. University of Illinois; 1942.
[52] Novak M. Prediction of footing vibrations. J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE
1970;96(3):837–61.
[53] Prandtl L. Über Die Härte Plastischen Korper, Nachr. kgl. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen,
Math. Phys. Klasse; 1920.
[54] Quinlan PM. The elastic theory of soil dynamics, symposium on dynamic
testing of soils, ASTM STP No. 156; 1953. p. 3–34.
[55] Reissner E. Stationäre, Axialsymmetrischei Durch Eine Schüttelnde Masse
Erregte Schwingungen Eines Homogenen Elastischen Halbraumes. Ing-Archiv
1936;7(6):381–96 (Berlin, Germany).
[56] Reissner E, Sagoci HF. Forced torsional oscillations of an elastic half-space.
J Appl Phys 1944;15:652–62.
[57] Reissner H. Zum Erddruckproblem, In: Proceedings of the 1st international
congress of applied mechanics, Delft, Holland; 1924.
[58] Richart FE, Whitman RV. Comparison of footing vibration tests with theory.
J Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE, 93; 1967; 143–68.
[59] Richart FE, Hall JR, Wood RD. Vibrations of soils and foundations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1970.
[60] Roesset JM. Stiffness and damping coefficients in foundations, dynamic
response of pile foundations. In: O'Neill M, Dobry R, editors. New York, NY:
ASCE; 1980. p. 1–30.
[61] Roesset JM, Whitman RV. Theoretical background for amplification studies,
Research Report R69-15, Soils Publication 231, Inter-American Program,
Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, March; 1969.
[62] Roesset JM, Whitman RV, Dobry R. Modal analysis for structures with
foundation interaction. J Struct Div, ASCE 1973;99(ST3):399–416.
[63] Romo MP, Seed HB. Analytical modeling of dynamic soil response in the
Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985. In: Proceedings of the international
conference on the Mexico earthquakes-1985, ASCE, Mexico City, Mexico; 1987.
p. 148–62.
[64] Santoyo E. Exploración de Suelos: Métodos Directos e Indirectos, Muestreo y
Pruebas de Campo, Vigésima Conferencia Nabor Carrillo, XXV Reunión
Nacional de la Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniería Geotécnica, Acapulco, Mexico;
2010.
[65] Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP. Improved strain influence factor diagrams.
J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE, 104; 1978; 1131–5.
[66] Seed HB. Influence of local soil conditions on ground motions and building
damage during earthquakes, Eighth Nabor Carrillo Lecture, VIII National
Meeting of the Mexican Society for Soil Mechanics, Sinaloa, Mexico; 1987.
[67] Sung TY. Vibrations in semi-infinite solids due to periodic surface loadings. In:
Symposium on Dynamic Testing of Soils, ASTM STP No. 156; 1953. p. 35–64.
[68] Tamez E. Differential settlements of colonial buildings in Mexico City Historic
Center, Eleventh Nabor Carrillo Lecture, 16th national meeting of the Mexican
society for soil mechanics, Zacatecas, Mexico; 1992.
[69] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.;
1943.
[70] Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibrations of footings. J Soil Mech
Found Div, ASCE 1971;97:1227–48.
[71] Whitman RV. Fifty years of soil dynamics, Fifteenth Nabor Carrillo Lecture,
20th national meeting of soil mechanics, Oaxaca, Mexico; 2000.
[72] Whitman RV, Richart Jr FE. Design procedures for dynamically loaded
foundations. J Eng Mech Division, ASCE 1967;93(6):169–93.
[73] Wong HL, Luco JE. Dynamic response of rigid foundations of arbitrary shape.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1976;4:579–87.
[74] Wong HL, Luco JE. Tables of Impedance functions and input motions for
rectangular foundations, Report No. CE 78-15, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles; 1978.