Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CITATIONS READS
0 157
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related
projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Dias on 27 August 2016.
†University of Annaba
A 3D ¯nite-element model for the dynamic analysis of soil–pile–slab is presented, with the soil–
pile–mattress–slab interaction included in studying the dynamic behavior of the rigid–pile–
reinforced soils. The soil, piles, and mattress are represented as continuum solids, and the slab is
represented by structural plate elements. Quiet boundaries are placed at the boundaries of the
model to avoid wave re°ection. The formulation is based on the sub-structure method. Di®erent
geometric con¯gurations are studied in terms of dynamic impedance. The numerical results are
presented to show the in°uence of the mattress sti®ness and the pile–soil contact conditions on
the dynamic response of the foundation system. The horizontal and vertical impedances of the
pile foundations are presented with the results compared with those available in previous
studies.
1. Introduction
The technique of soil reinforcement has been widely used in the construction of roads
and railways, which has experienced tremendous growth. Partly due to application of
the soil reinforcement technique to engineering works like the nuclear power plants,
the dynamic behavior of pile groups has received a renewed attention. The design of
§ Corresponding author.
1750057-1
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
rigid–pile–reinforced soils comprises two main elements: the rigid piles and a gran-
ular mattress. Using a combination of rigid piles through the soft soil and a granular
mattress placed between the network of rigid piles and the superstructure, the load
transfer mechanism is developed due to the shearing action. The granular mattress
constitutes a zone of energy dissipation for dynamic loading. It can help reduce the
inertial e®ect of the superstructure.1–3 This type of reinforcement has been imple-
mented for the Rion–Antirion bridge.4 The dynamic behavior of rigid piles involves
many parameters, including those of the soft soil, the mattress and hard soil, the
loading characteristics and all the interactions (between the piles, soft soil, hard soil,
mattress and the slab or the superstructure). To determine the dynamic behavior of a
soil–pile–mattress–structure system under dynamic loading, it is important to study
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
(a) (b)
1750057-2
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
boundary element. A review of the techniques for the dynamic analysis of piles and
pile groups can be found in Ref. 10. Using the BEM for both the soil and piles, more
versatile and rigorous numerical models have been presented. Particularly, more
versatile and rigorous linear numerical models have been developed using the BEM
for both the soil and piles, but with the disadvantage of high computational cost. The
vibration isolation by a row of piles has been analyzed in Refs. 11 and 12 and the
dynamic impedances of pile groups have been studied by Maeso et al.13 Their
common disadvantage is high computational time. The BEM has been used to de-
termine the Green's function, while the FEM is used to model the piles, which are
considered 1D beam elements. The piles are modeled using the FEM as the beam-
type elements based on the Bernoulli hypothesis by Padron et al.14 The system is
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
sub-structured into the bounded near ¯eld surrounded by an unbounded far ¯eld.
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
The pile–soil system of the near ¯eld is modeled using the solid ¯nite elements, and
the unbounded elastic soil system of the far ¯eld is modeled using the consistent,
in¯nitesimal, ¯nite-element cell method (CIFECM) in the frequency domain by
Emani and Maheshwari.15
The soil domain is larger than the other dimensions of the problem such that it is
regarded as in¯nite. In order to model the e®ect of wave radiation into the in¯nite
domain on the structural behaviors, several kinds of modeling techniques have been
developed, including the quiet boundaries, transmitting boundary, boundary ele-
ments, in¯nite elements, and system identi¯cation method by Yun et al.29 In this
context, a physical modeling and numerical modeling procedure using the ¯nite-
di®erence elements were used to conduct a nonlinear time–history analysis of the
prototype structure supported by di®erent types of foundations by Hokmabadi
et al.16, Hokmabadi and Fatahi17 and Fatahi and Tabatabaiefar.28
Hatem18 and Okyay19 studied the behavior of the soil–pile–mattress–structure
interaction under seismic loads using ¯nite-di®erence elements with quiet bound-
aries. Okyay et al.20 used a series of dynamic tests conducted on an experimental site
and developed numerical models to interpret the dynamic response of rigid pile-
reinforced soils. A complex modeling of soil–piles–slab was implemented by the ¯nite
element method with quiet boundaries to determine the dynamic behavior of piles by
Messioud et al.21
In this paper, a 3D ¯nite-element model is used for the dynamic-sti®ness coe±-
cients in the time-harmonic domain of the soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab
systems. Di®erent con¯gurations are studied and compared in terms of impedance.
The soil, piles, and mattress are represented as continuum solids, and the slab is
represented by structural plate elements. To simulate a semi-in¯nite elastic space,
quiet boundaries are imposed on the model to avoid wave re°ection. The horizontal
and vertical impedances of pile foundations are presented, and the results are com-
pared with those of the previous studies. Selected numerical results are presented to
show the in°uence of the mattress sti®ness and pile–soil contact conditions on the
dynamic impedance.
1750057-3
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
common boundary (Fig. 2(b)). For a solution in the frequency domain, the matrix
equations relating forces and displacements are
ð! 2 M þ i!C þ KÞU ¼ P ; ð1Þ
where M is the mass matrix, C the damping matrix and K the sti®ness matrix; P and
U are the force and displacement vectors, and ! is the angular frequency. For the
Excavated soil
Structure s
s
Free Field b
Boundary Pb f
b Pf
f
g
g
Pr Pr* r
r
(b)
Dynamic Loading
(a) PZ Viscous Boundary
MY
PX
Free Field
Boundary
15m
2Lx=40m
(c)
Fig. 2. Substructure method. (a) Soil–structure interaction problem, (b) Free ¯eld problem, (c) Dynamic
impedance solution.
1750057-4
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
sake of simplicity, the frequency dependent complex sub matrices of the dynamic
sti®ness matrix will be denoted by
Kij ¼ K þ i!C ! 2 M; ð2Þ
where Kij are the submatrices of the dynamic sti®ness matrix. The sub-indices above
refer to the following: s for the nodes of the structure, excluding the soil–structure
interface; b for the nodes of the structure along the interface; f for the nodes of the
soil along the same interface; g for nodes of the soil, excluding the interface and
boundaries; and r for the nodes along the boundary. The asterisk refers to the free-
¯eld solution.
Notice that both the free-¯eld problem and the soil–structure interaction problem
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
boundary is far away from the structure. In this study, the boundaries of the model
are assumed to be far from the structure to ensure the correct functioning of the
absorbing boundaries. The force–displacement relationship including the soil–
structure interaction and the free ¯eld solution shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) are
then22,24:
2 38 9 8 9
Kff Kfg Kfr <Uf U f = <Pf P f =
4 Kgf Kgg Kgr 5 Ug U g ¼ 0 : ð3Þ
: ; : ;
Krf Krg Krr 0 Pr P r
Condensing the matrix equation above, namely, eliminating all the degrees of free-
dom that are not located in the soil-foundation interface. The system of equations
can be rewritten as
1
ðKff Kfg ðK gg Kgf ÞÞðUf U f Þ ¼ fPf P f g: ð4Þ
The dynamic sti®ness of the soil-foundation system can be given in the following
form:
1
K ¼ ðKff þ Kfg ðK gg Kgf ÞÞ ð5Þ
KðUf U f Þ ¼ Pf P f ð6Þ
in which
Pf ¼ Pb : vector of forces (moments) derived from the inertial e®ect of the
superstructure (Fig. 2(b)),
P f : vector of forces (moments) caused by the movement of free ¯eld,
Uf : vector of displacements corresponding to the soil-foundation interface,
U f : vector of displacements corresponding to the free ¯eld at the soil-foundation
interface, and
ðPf P f Þe i!t
Kð!Þ ¼ ; ð7Þ
ðUf U f Þe i!t
1750057-5
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
where ðPf P f Þ and ðUf U f Þ are the forces and displacements resulting from the
interaction e®ect. For the system of equations (4), only the force vector Pi e i!t
(harmonic loading) associated with the soil-foundation interface is applied at the
center of the slab, as shown in Fig. 3(c). The contact between the slab and mattress
is assumed to be perfect. The displacement ðUf U f Þe i!t is replaced by the resulting
displacement Ui e i!t at the center of slab (foundation). The dynamic-impedance
matrix is calculated according to the ratio of the applied force and the displacement
calculated at the center of the foundation:
Pi e i!t
Kð!Þ ¼ ; ð8Þ
Ui e i!t
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
the vector of the displacements. The impedance matrix [K] refereed to the rigid
massless foundation is given as
8 9 2 38 9
< PX = KXX KX 0 < UX =
M 4
¼ KX K 0 5 ; ð9Þ
: Y; : Y;
PZ 0 0 KZZ UZ
where the subscripts X, and Z refer to the horizontal, rocking and vertical motions,
respectively. The matrix [K] is symmetric and the cross entries except KX (¼ KX )
in [K] are negligible. The dynamic impedances are presented in the form,
Kij ð!Þ ¼ ½k rij ð!Þ þ ik iij ð!Þ, consisting of a real part k rij and an imaginary part ik iij .
The impedance functions have been normalized with respect to the static-sti®ness
(Ks ), namely,
Kij ð!Þ ¼ Ks ½k 0 ijð!Þ þ ik 00ij ð!Þ: ð10Þ
The dynamic impedances Kij ð!Þ will be obtained in the following sections by a 3D
FEM formulation. A fundamental feature of the calculation code used is the exact
representation of the boundary of the model (Fig. 1), which separates the ¯nite-
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) Floating piles, (b) resting piles, (c) anchored piles.
1750057-6
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
L = piles length
S = distance between axes
S=2m
t = slab thickness
d = diameter of the piles
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
(c)
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Fig. 3. (Continued )
element region from the semi-in¯nite continuum (the free ¯eld). The implementation
of the transient paraxial elastic elements comes primarily from the need to decom-
pose the displacements into the component along the vertical direction of the ele-
ments, corresponding to the P waves, and the component in the horizontal direction
of the element, corresponding to the S waves. Such a discretization allows us to
simulate the viscous dampers distributed along the boundaries of the model. The
inclusion of a viscous damping pseudo-matrix is re°ective of the presence of an
in¯nite domain.
1750057-7
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
(a) (b)
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Fig. 4. Model of the soil–piles–slab system. (a) Geometry of the quarter model, (b) Extracted piles.
s/d=10
Padron
2,00
1,50
1,00
1,00
0,00
0,50
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
-1,00
s/d=2 Present Study ª o
0,00
Padron
-2,00 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
s/d=5 Present Study
Padron -0,50
-3,00 s/d=10 Present Study
n Number of piles
Ksxx Static Impedance
ª o
Padron -1,00
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. (a) Vertical and (b) horizontal impedance (Kzz , Kxx of a 3 3 pile group (L=d ¼ 15, S=d ¼ 2 and
S=d ¼ 5).
The material and geometrical properties are the same, as those given in Table 1.
The complex impedances Kij ðao Þ are expressed in the form given by Kaynia,6 Padron
et al.14 and Emani and Maheshwari,15 namely,
Kij ðao Þ ¼ Ks k 0ij ðao Þ þ ik 00ij ðao Þ ð11Þ
where k 0ij ðao Þ, ik 00ij ðao Þ and Ks are the dynamic sti®ness, damping coe±cients and
static-sti®ness of the system, respectively; and ao is the dimensionless frequency,
ao ¼ !d
Cs ; with the shear-wave velocity Cs ¼ 70 m/s.
Table 1. Material and geometrical properties of soil and pile for dynamic analysis.
1750057-8
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
The dynamic sti®ness matrix Kij of a pile group subjected to a vector of forces
(and moments) applied at the center of the slab is calculated as a function of the
displacement vectors (and rotations) at the same point of application of the vector of
forces (moments). The piles are assumed connected to a slab that is in¯nitely rigid. In
this study, a vertical load is used to determine the vertical impedance, and a hori-
zontal load to determine the horizontal impedance. The displacement response is
obtained by taking the product of the function of the exciting force and the transfer
function amplitude of the displacement. The mechanical properties of the soil layer
and foundation are listed in Table 1. All these properties are adopted from Emani
and Maheshwari15 and Padŕon et al.14
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the results obtained by the numerical
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
modeling and the results of the literature. Figure 5(a) shows the variation of the
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
vertical impedance of the 3 3 pile groups, in which the ratio of the distance between
the axes and the diameter of the piles is taken to be equal to 2, 5, and 10; the results
are in good agreement with those obtained by Padŕon et al.14 Figure 5(b) shows the
variation of the dynamic impedance function Kxx versus the dimensionless fre-
quency, and a comparison between the results obtained by the numerical simulation
and those by Padron et al.,14 which indicates well agreement.
4. Numerical Study
The mechanical characteristics (Table 2) of the soft soil, hard soil, piles, rigid piles
and mattress are those used by Okyay.20 The pile length is between 9 and 11 m, the
pile diameter is 0.3 m, and the distance between the pile axes is equal to 2 m. A load-
transfer mattress of 0.60 m thickness is placed on the rigid piles. As for the case of
piles, the mattress is replaced by a rigid-slab of concrete that has a perfect head
connection with the piles (see Figs. 6 and 7).
The choice of the model and the size of the elements is done by considering the
wavelength to minimize the wave distortion. The size of the model is 40 40 15
m3, the height of the compressible layer is 10 m, and the height of the support layer is
5 m. The maximum size of the mesh element allowed for the proper transmission of
waves is equal to 0.4 m. Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer25 show that the size of the elements
Elements
Characteristic dynamic Piles Slab Hard soil Soft soil Transfer mattress
Modulus of elasticity E (Mpa) 30000 30000 100 10 50–100–500
Density kg/m 3 2500 2500 2000 1600 2000
Damping ratio 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05
Poisson ratio 0.25 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.4
Shear-wave velocity (m/s) — — 133.6 47 94.5
1750057-9
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
edge of the piles, and this boundary should re°ect the distribution of energy re°ected
and transmitted in the medium. The horizontal boundary conditions are placed so as
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
to prevent wave refraction. The results are presented in terms of the impedance
function, vertical and horizontal, for the three pile ¯xing conditions for the two
systems studied, soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab.
1750057-10
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
2,00 5,0
Floating Piles Flaoting Piles
4,5
Imaginary Part Kzz/nKszz
1,00 3,5
3,0
0,50
2,5
0,00 2,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1,5
-0,50
Frequency (Hz) 1,0
0,0
-1,50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Vertical impedance Kzz of the soil–piles–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
1750057-11
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
1,5 4,5
Floating Piles
Rested Piles 4,0 Floating Piles
1,0
0,5
3,0 Anchored Piles
Frequency (Hz)
0,0 2,5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2,0
-0,5
1,5
-1,0 1,0
-1,5 0,5
Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-2,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
Fig. 9. Vertical impedance soil–pile–mattress–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
systems, respectively. These ¯gures show that the dynamic impedances of the two
systems are similar, but the amplitudes are di®erent. They also show the in°uence of
the support layer on the dynamic impedance. The real parts of Figs. 8 and 9 show
that the dynamic sti®ness of the °oating systems is a major factor for the range near
the frequency 9 Hz. For low frequencies, the °oating systems become more amortized,
as shown in the imaginary parts of Figs. 8 and 9. In this case, the maximum values of
the dynamic impedances are given by the °oating system. In general, these ¯gures
show that the anchored systems are more rigid and the vertical dynamic impedances
are a®ected by the ¯xing conditions.
The horizontal dynamic impedances of the soil–piles–slab and soil–pile–mattress–
slab systems are calculated by applying a horizontal load on the half-space model.
The size of the half-model is 40 20 15 m3.
Figures 10 and 11 show that the horizontal impedances are slightly a®ected by
the ¯xing condition. A remarkable di®erence was noted between the °oating system
and the resting and anchored systems for the frequencies starting from 8.5 Hz. In
general, the real and imaginary parts of the horizontal dynamic impedances are
slightly a®ected by the condition of anchoring.
1,0 6,0
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Real Part Kxx / n Ksxx
Rested Piles
-1,0 Frequency (Hz) 4,0
Anchored Piles
3,0
-2,0
Floating Piles
2,0
-3,0 Rested Piles
(a) (b)
Fig. 10. Horizontal impedance Kxx of the piles–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
1750057-12
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
3,00 9,0
Floating Piles
8,0 Floating Piles
2,00
7,0
1,00 Anchored Piles
Frequency (Hz) Anchored Piles
6,0
0,00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5,0
-1,00
4,0
-2,00 3,0
-3,00 2,0
1,0
-4,00 Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-5,00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Horizontal impedance Kxx of the soil–piles–mattress–slab system. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
part.
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
1750057-13
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
1,5 6,0
Slab System
1,0 5,0 500MPa
0,5
4,0 50MPa
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3,0
-0,5
Frequency (Hz)
2,0
-1,0
Slab System
1,0
500MPa
-1,5 Mattress-Slab System Frequency (Hz)
100MPa
50MPa 0,0
-2,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
Fig. 12. Vertical impedance for soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab systems (Resting piles). (a)
Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
1,5 6,0
Slab System
1,0 5,0
Imaginary Part Kzz/nKszz
0,5
4,0
0,0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3,0
-0,5
Frequency (Hz)
2,0
-1,0
Slab System
1,0
-1,5 Mattress-Slab System Frequency (Hz)
500MPa
0,0
-2,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
Fig. 13. Vertical impedance for soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab systems (Resting piles),
E ¼ 500 MPa. (a) Real part, (b) Imaginary part.
shows the in°uence of the sti®ness of the transfer mattress on the horizontal dynamic
impedances and compares it with that of the soil–pile–slab system.
Figure 14 shows the in°uence of the rigidity of the transfer mattress on the
horizontal dynamic impedances and a comparison between the impedances of the
systems (soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab). The soil–pile–mattress–slab
system is sti®er than the soil–pile–slab system. The e®ect of the transfer mattress
rigidity is important, the soil–pile–mattress–slab rigidity increases with the modulus
of the mattress.
The in°uence of the ¯xing condition on the dynamic response of the soil–piles–
slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems and the in°uence of the rigidity of the
transfer mattress on the vertical dynamic impedances are presented in Figs. 8–14.
The results obtained showed that the vertical dynamic impedances are more a®ected
by the ¯xing condition (Figs. 8–13). The vertical dynamic impedances of the rein-
forcement system are close to those of the piles for high sti®ness of the transfer
mattress in Fig. 13.
1750057-14
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
7,0 14,0
Slab System
Slab System
12,0
500MPa
3,0 10,0
50MPa
6,0
-1,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
4,0
-3,0
2,0
-5,0 Frequency (Hz)
0,0
-7,0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
(a) (b)
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
Fig. 14. Horizontal impedance Kxx of soil–piles–slab and soil–piles–mattress–slab system. (a) Real part,
(b) Imaginary part.
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
The horizontal dynamic impedances are more a®ected by the rigidity of the
transfer mattress than the vertical dynamic impedance. Figure 14 shows that the
reinforcement system is sti®er than the soil–pile–slab system for the translational
motion. The in°uence of the transfer mattress on the damping coe±cient is marked
by the increase of the imaginary part in response to the increase in the rigidity of the
mattress, as shown in Fig. 14.
5. Conclusion
In this study, a 3D FEM dynamic analysis of the soil–piles–slab and of the soil–piles–
mattress–slab systems is presented. The piles reinforcement groups are embedded in
a homogeneous isotropic visco-elastic soil. In the modeling, the entire soil–pile–slab
and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems are considered in calculating the vertical and
horizontal dynamic impedance functions. The validation of the numerical model is
done by comparison of numerical results with those of the literature, which appears
to be in good agreement. The soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems were
simulated with di®erent head and end ¯xing conditions. The variation of the vertical
and horizontal dynamic impedance as a function of frequency and the in°uence of
¯xing conditions on the dynamic impedances have been studied. The in°uence of the
rigidity of the transfer mattress on the dynamic impedance function was examined.
The results obtained show the importance of the head and end ¯xing conditions of
the piles. The ¯xing conditions a®ect the vertical dynamic impedances for both the
soil–piles–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems. The two °oating systems are
more sensitive to the vertical impedance. The reaction of the soil on the pile–slab and
pile–mattress–slab systems is also important. Toe end ¯xing of the piles and rigid
piles increases the vertical impedance. The horizontal impedances are slightly af-
fected by the ¯xing conditions. The results show that the vertical dynamic impe-
dances are more a®ected by the ¯xing conditions than the horizontal impedances.
The elasticity modulus of the mattress is a signi¯cant parameter; which has a great
1750057-15
S. Messioud, B. Sbartai & D. Dias
References
1. A. Pecker and J. Garnier, Use of centrifuge tests for the validation of innovative 59.
Concepts in foundation engineering, in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Earthq. Geotech. Eng.,
Lisbon (1999), pp. 433–439.
2. A. Pecker and J. Salencon, Ground reinforcement in seismic area, in Proc. XI Pan-
american Conf. on Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng. Iguasu (1999) 799–808.
3. R. Dobry, A. Pecker, G. Mavroeidis, M. Zeghal, B. Gohl and D. Yang, Damping/global
energy balance in FE model of bridge foundation lateral response, J. Soil Dynam. Earth.
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
1750057-16
Estimation of Dynamic Impedance
19. U. S. Okyay, Etude experimentale et numerique des transferts de charge dans un massif
renforce par inclusions rigides: Application à des cas de chargements statiques et dyna-
miques, Doctoral thesis, Universite Lyon 1 (2010).
20. U. S. Okyay, D. Dias and P. Billion, Impedance functions of °ab foundations with rigid
piles, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 30(4) (2012).
21. S. Messioud, U. S. Okyay, B. Sbartai and D. Dias, Dynamic response of pile reinforced
soils and piled foundations, Geotech. Geol. Eng. 34(3) (2016) 1–17.
22. E. Kausel, R. V. Whitman, J. P. Morray and F. Elsabee, The spring method for embedded
foundations, Nuclear Eng. Design 48 (1978) 377–392.
23. D. Aubry and D. Clouteau, A subdomain approach to dynamic soil–structure interaction,
in: V. Davidovici, R. W. Clough (Eds.), Recent advances in Earth. Eng. Struct. Dynam.
(1992) 251–272.
24. A. Pecker, Dynamique des sols, Presses de l'Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/16/16. For personal use only.
(1984).
Int. J. Str. Stab. Dyn. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
25. R. L. Kuhlemeyer and J. Lysmer, Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation
problems, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. ASCE 99(SM5) (1973) 421–427.
26. CODE-ASTER, http://www.code-aster.org/utilisation/non-french.ph.p Non-French
Code Aster Resources.
27. S. Hamid Reza Tabatabaiefar, B. Fatahi and B. Samali, An empirical relationship to
determine lateral seismic response of mid-rise building frames under in°uence of soil–
structure interaction, The Struct. Design Tall Special Build. 23(6) (2014) 526–548.
28. B. Fatahi and S. H. R. Tabatabaiefar, Fully nonlinear versus equivalent linear compu-
tation method for seismic analysis of midrise buildings on soft soils, Int. J. Geomech.
14(4) (2013) 04014016.
29. C. B. Yun, S. H. Chang, C. G. Seo and J. M. Kim, Dynamic in¯nite elements for soil-
structure interaction analysis in a layered soil medium. International Journal of Struc-
tural Stability and Dynamics 7(4) (2007) 639–713.
1750057-17