Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Dynamic soil–structure interaction effects on the seismic

response of asymmetric buildings
H. Shakib*, A. Fuladgar
Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modarres University, P.O. Box 14155-4838, Tehran, Iran
Accepted 12 January 2004

Abstract
An approach is formulated for the linear analysis of three-dimensional dynamic soil– structure interaction of asymmetric buildings in the
time domain, in order to evaluate the seismic response behaviour of torsionally coupled buildings. The asymmetric building is idealized as a
single-storey three-dimensional system resting on different soil conditions. The soil beneath the superstructure is modeled as linear elastic
solid elements. The contact surface between foundation mat and solid elements of soil is discretised by linear plane interface elements with
zero thickness. An interface element is further developed to function between the rigid foundation and soil. As an example, the response of
soil – structure interaction of torsionally coupled system under two simultaneous lateral components of El Centro 1940 earthquake records
has been evaluated and the effects of base flexibility on the response behaviour of the system are verified.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Asymmetric buildings; Dynamic soil–structure interaction; Time domain analysis

1. Introduction single-storey structural model, Chandler and Hutchinson

Asymmetric buildings are more vulnerable to earthquake
hazards compared to the buildings with symmetric con-
figuration. The recognition of this sensitivity has led the
researchers to concentrate their studies on earthquake
characteristics, evaluation of the structural parameters and
validity of the system models [1 – 8], among others.
However, the destruction of numerous asymmetric build-
ings in 1985 Mexico earthquake made researchers focus on
soil – structure interaction effects and on the response
behaviour of such systems [9]. So far, several researchers
have attempted to incorporate the flexibility of foundation in
asymmetric system models. Among them, Balendra et al.
[10] used simple springs to represent frequency-indepen-
dent values and to approximate the frequency-dependent
foundation impedance functions in an asymmetric multi-
storey building. Later, Tsicnias and Hutchinson [11]
extensively investigated the steady-state response of
flexibility supported torsionally coupled buildings subjected
to harmonic ground motions by using frequency-indepen-
dent springs and dashpots. Using the same simple
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shakib@modares.ac.ir (H. Shakib).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.01.002
[12,13] examined the seismic response to different types of
earthquakes and considered approximate frequency-inde-
pendent foundation impedance functions. Also, Sivaku-
maran et al. [14] and Sivakumaran and Balendra [15]
presented a method of analysis to determine the seismic
response of three-dimensional asymmetric multi-storey
building-foundation systems using approximate frequency-
independent foundation impedance functions. Wu et al. [16,17]
incorporated the frequency-dependent foundation impe-
dance functions in the frequency domain to assess the
combined soil –structure interaction and torsional coupling
effects on the asymmetric buildings. An accurate modeling
of soil – structure interaction is expected to incorporate the
major effects of soil – structure interaction in the response of
complex systems such as torsionally coupled systems.
However, the studies carried out on the torsionally coupled
base flexible systems have not properly considered such
factors as the dissipation of the vibrational energy of
structure through wave radiation into the soil; reduction of
natural frequencies due to the soil flexibility; and the
modification of the actual foundation motion from the free-
field ground motion.
In this study an attempt has been made to consider the
above effects by formulating soil – structure interaction
380 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388

system in order to evaluate the seismic response behaviour
of torsionally coupled systems. Unlike previous studies on
the subject, an accurate method of soil – structure interaction
in time domain has been used by finite element method. An
interface element is further developed based on the interface
element introduced by Beer [18] and Buczkowski and
Klieber [19] to function between rigid foundation and soil.
The effect of eccentricity ratio on the response of torsionally
coupled system for different soil conditions is studied in
details.
2. System model and formulation
A single-storey building resting on homogeneous soil
surface, as shown in Fig. 1, represents the idealized system
considered in this study. The superstructure of the system
consists of a rigid uniform floor slab of mass ms and plan
dimensions of a by b: The centre of mass (CM) is located at
the geometrical centre of the slab. It is supported at the
edges by four massless columns. The columns at the
base are connected to a rigid foundation of mass mb :

Fig. 1. Idealized 3D building-soil model.

 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388 381

The foundation mat is assumed to be of negligible thickness. the foundation mat is given by
Two orthogonal principal axes of mass (x and y) can be 8 9
> uxb >
defined through the CM at the floor or at the foundation and >
> >
>
>
> >
>
the vertical axis (z) passes through the centre of masses. A 8 9 2 3>> u yb >
>
bi-directional horizontal ground accelerations along the x- >
> u> 1 0 0 0 0 2y >> >
>
< > = 6 >
<
7 uzb =
>
and y-direction, u€ g ; are considered. The eccentricities {d}mat ¼ v ¼6 0 1 0 0 0 7
x 5
>
> > 4 > uxb >
between the CM and resistance is defined along the x- and : > ; >
>
>
>
>
>
y-direction and are denoted by ex and ey : The supporting soil w 0 0 1 y 2x 0 >
> >
>
>
> u >
>
is characterized by its mass density, r; shear wave velocity, >
>
yb >
>
: ;
VS ; and Poisson’s ratio n: uzb
The dynamic behaviour of the investigated torsionally
coupled building subjected to two simultaneous lateral ¼ ½Nmat {U}mat ð1Þ
components of El Centro 1940 earthquake records is
where u; v; and w are the displacements of point j on any
described by the following 12 degrees of freedom: three
point of the low surface of the foundation mat; x and y are
translations and three rotational motions of the floor, ux ; uy ; the coordinates of point j with respect to the CM of
uz ; ux ; uy ; uz ; and three translations and three rotational the foundation mat. {U}mat is the vector of displacement at
motions of the base, uxb ; uyb ; uzb ; uxb ; uyb ; uzb with respect to CM of foundation mat, and ½Nmat is the transformation
the bedrock. The soil beneath the superstructure is modeled matrix. Similarly we can write for the top surface of the
by solid elements with eight nodes of three translational bottom element
degrees of freedom at each node. The contact surface 8 9
between foundation mat and solid elements is discretised >
> u>
< > =
and further developed [18,19] by linear plane interface v ¼ ½Nsoil {U}soil ð2Þ
>
> >
elements with zero thickness, as shown in Fig. 2. The : > ;
displacement at any point on the bottom surface of w soil

Fig. 2. Interface element model.

382 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388

in which ½Nsoil and {U}soil are to avoid any overly large effects produced by wave
reflection. However, the viscous boundaries are simple
½Nsoil ¼ ½N1 ½I; N2 ½I; …; Nn ½I; approximate transmitting boundaries. In global co-ordinate
8 9 system, the differential equation of motion of soil –
>
> ui >
> structure interaction system can be written in the following
>
> >
< > = ð2aÞ form
{Ui }soil ¼ vi
>
> >
> € þ ð½C þ ½CV1  þ ½CV2  þ ½CV3  þ ½CV4 Þ{U}
½M{U} _
>
> >
: > ; ð8Þ
wi þ ½K{U} ¼ FðtÞ

where Ni is isoperimetric shape function and I is a 3 £ 3 where FðtÞ

unit matrix. The co-ordinates of the contact are now € g } þ ½CV1 {U
_ f 1 } þ ½CV2 {U
_ f 2}
FðtÞ ¼ 2½M½Rg {U
computed by:
8 9 8 9
>
> x> > xi > þ ½CV3 {U_ f 3 } þ ½CV4 {U_ f 4 } ð8aÞ
< = X >
> n < > =
y ¼ Ni yi ð3Þ {U} is the vector of displacement in global co-ordinate
>
> > i¼1 > >
: > ; >
: > ; system relative to the bedrock. {U} _ and {U}
€ are the vectors
z zi mat
of velocity and acceleration in global co-ordinate system
The displacement in the directions normal and tangen- relative to the bedrock. ½M; ½C and ½K are the mass,
tial to the contact surface are obtained by damping and stiffness of the whole system, which is
8 09 8 9 derived by assembling the elements matrices. In this study,
>
> u >> >
> u>
< = < > = Rayleigh damping is used to construct the damping matrix
0 T
v ¼ ½T v ð4Þ ½C: ½CV1  to ½CV4  are the viscous boundary matrices on
>
> > > >
: 0> ; >
: > ; the four sides of the free field elements. {U_ f 1 } to {U
_ f 4 } are
w w
the vectors of free field velocity on the four sides. {U € g } is
where ½T is the transformation matrix. Slip in x- and earthquake ground acceleration vector at the bedrock and
y-direction, and convergence or separation in z-direction ½Rg  is the matrix of the ground motions influence. The
are the relative displacements at the interface and given as free field equation of motion is also made and solved for
the follows: each time history with different soil conditions. Then,
8 9 8 09 8 09 the differential equation of motion of soil – structure
>
> ds1 >
> >
> u >> >
> u >
< = < = < > = interaction system (Eq. (8)) is solved in incremental form
0
ds2 ¼ v 2 v0 ð5Þ by employing the Newmark b-method assuming constant-
>
> >
> > > > >
: ; > : 0> ; >
: 0>; average acceleration over a short time interval.
dn w mat w soil
The interface element is able to consider the slip and
separation of the foundation. However, in this study 3. Numerical study
the high stiffness values are used for the interface element
to create a high frictional force between foundation mat To verify the effect of soil – structure interaction on the
and soil surface in order to prevent slip between the response of asymmetric buildings an idealized three-
superstructure and substructure. The following relation- dimensional single-storey system is studied in details. As
ships between tractions acting on the contact and relative an example, two lateral components of El Centro 1940
displacements are defined as earthquake are applied simultaneously to the system along
the x- and y-direction. Soil beneath the structure is modeled
{t} ¼ ½D{d} ð6Þ
with 1980 solid elements. The solid element has eight nodes
where D is the elasticity matrix. The above equation can be with three degrees of freedom at each node. The viscous
written as boundary is modeled by using 280 elements. Each element
8 9 2 38 9 has four nodes with three degrees of freedom in each node.
>
> ts1 >
> ks1 0 0 > > ds1 >>
< = 6 7< = The interface elements between rigid foundation and soil
ts2 ¼ 6 4 k 0 7
5 d ð7Þ are used with the help of 16 rigid-contact elements. The
> >
> > s2
>
>
s2
>
>
: ; : ; interface element is developed based on the interface
tn sym kn dn
elements introduced in Refs. [18,19]. In the soil – structure
where ts1 ; ts2 are shear tractions, tn the contact pressure and interaction system model, there are 1352 nodes and 3387
ks1 ; ks2 ; kn are the shear and normal stiffnesses. The degrees of freedom. The dimensions of asymmetric building
stiffness matrix is obtained by the standard procedure of are taken to be a ¼ b ¼ 20 m. Height of the soil over the
minimizing the total potential energy. Viscous boundaries bedrock is assumed to be 45 m and the bounded soil is taken
condition is introduced on the four sides of the soil model to be 380 £ 380 m2. The maximum dimension of the mesh
 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388 383

of solid elements is chosen as in Ref. [20] and it is given in
the following form:
Dlx;y , Vs =2fmin
Dlz , Vs =8fmin
By considering the minimum value of shear wave
velocity (i.e. Vs ¼ 90 m/s), which is used in this study,
and the minimum frequency of soil – structure interaction
system (fmin ¼ 0:44 Hz), the maximum mesh dimension in
horizontal and vertical directions will be 100 and 25 m,
respectively.
In the present model, the dimension of mesh close to the
superstructure is considered to be 5 £ 5 £ 5 m3, and near
to the viscous boundary, it is assumed to be
60 £ 60 £ 15 m3. The dimension of interface element is
taken to be 5 £ 5 m2. The accuracy of these dimensions is
verified through trial and error. The shear stiffnesses and
normal stiffness of interface elements are assumed to have
very high values. Dimension of viscous boundary elements
is taken to be similar to that of solid elements. Prior to soil –
structure interaction analysis, the free-field analysis was
carried out and the velocities at each node in the form of
time histories was stored and used in analysis of soil –
structure interaction system.
In order to carry out the parametric study in a wide range,
an idealized elastic single-storey structure-foundation
model has been considered. The variable parameters of
the superstructure of the model consist of Tx ; ey =a: Where Tx
is the uncoupled lateral period of the structure in fixed
condition; ey =a is the ratio of eccentricity to the dimension of
the building’s plan parallel to the y-axis. In addition to the
above structural parameters the soil parameters are selected
as: the ratio of base masses to superstructure (i.e.
mb =ms ¼ 0:35); Poison’s coefficient of soil (i.e. n ¼ 0:35);
and the ratio of mass density of superstructure to
mass density of soil (i.e. ms =abhs r ¼ 0:15); where hs is

Fig. 3. Variation of the surface acceleration time histories of one-dimensional free-field analysis subjected to N–S (corresponding to x-component) and E–W
(corresponding to y-component) components of 1940 El Centro earthquake for different values of a:
384 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388
the effective height of the idealized building; r is the soil
mass density. The damping ratio of superstructure is
assumed to be 5% of the critical damping, while the
damping value of soil is assumed to be 10% of the critical
damping. The ratio of uncoupled lateral periods of fixed
building in x- and y-direction is assumed to be equal to one
ðTy =Tx ¼ 1:0Þ; and this ratio for z- and x-direction is taken to
be 0.5 ðTz =Tx ¼ 0:5Þ: The ratio of eccentricity in x- and y-
direction is assumed to be 0.5 ðex =ey ¼ 0:5Þ: The ratio of
uncoupled torsional to uncoupled lateral frequency in the
fixed base condition is assumed to be one ðvu =vx ¼ 1:0Þ: In
the numerical analysis, the time increment of earthquake
records ðDtÞ is taken to be 0.002 s. In this study Tx is taken to
be 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 s. These values approximately represent
the 5, 10, and 20 storey buildings [21]. The values of Vs are
normalized by H=Tx and introduced as a; where H is the
height of multi-storey building. The values of a in this study
are considered to be equal to 3, 6, 10, and 33.3 which
represent loose, coarse-grain granular material and soft clay
or silt soil (Vs ¼ 90 m/s); medium sand and medium stiff clay
(Vs ¼ 180 m/s); stiff sand or very stiff over-consolidated
clay (Vs ¼ 300 m/s); and very stiff soil or rock
(Vs ¼ 1000 m/s). The mass density of soil is assumed to
be, 180 kg s2/m4.
In the free field one-dimensional model, 18 one-
dimensional elements with two nodes and 2.5 m length
are considered. For 90, 180, 300, and 1000 m/s shear wave
velocities equivalent to a equal to 3, 6, 10 and 33.3 the free
Fig. 4. Variation of response time histories of the asymmetric building considering and ignoring soil–structure interaction for low structural period ðTx ¼ 0:5Þ:
field analyses are carried out, respectively. The lateral
components of El Centro 1940 earthquake are applied
simultaneously to the bedrock of the free field model.
As example, acceleration time histories of the free field
model for a ¼ 3 and 6 are shown in Fig. 3. The maximum
relative lateral displacements (urx ¼ ux 2 uxb and
ury ¼ uy 2 uyb ) and normalized relative torsional displace-
ment ðurz r ¼ ðuz 2 uzb ÞrÞ; between floor-storey and rigid
base mass of soil –structure interaction system are deter-
mined. r is the radius of gyration of the floor-storey.
To verify the variation of time history responses of the
asymmetric buildings ðey =a ¼ 0:35Þ situated on soft soil
condition ða ¼ 3Þ for different structural period (i.e. Tx ¼
0:5; 1.0, 2.0), Figs. 4– 6 are represented by considering and
ignoring soil – structure interaction. The soil – structure
interaction effects reduce the relative response displace-
ments of urx ; ury ; and urz : The reduction is more pronounced
in torsional displacement ðurz Þ compared to lateral displace-
ments ðurx ; ury Þ: However, as the structural time period is
increased the soil –structure interaction effects are consider-
ably reduced. It is notable that in long period structure
(i.e. Tx ¼ 2:0), the variation time history for interaction and
no-interaction are similar with a trivial phase lagging.
The variation of peak displacements (urx ; ury ; and urz r)
versus eccentricity ratio ðey =aÞ is shown in Figs. 7– 9 for
Tx ¼ 0:5; 1.0, and 2.0, respectively. As it can be seen in
Fig. 7, the response variation of structure for Tx ¼ 0:5
increases with the increase of ey =a of the system for a ¼ 3
 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388 385

Fig. 5. Variation of response time histories of the asymmetric building considering and ignoring soil–structure interaction for medium structural period
ðTx ¼ 1:0Þ:

Fig. 6. Variation of response time histories of the asymmetric building considering and ignoring soil– structure interaction for high structural period ðTx ¼ 2:0Þ:
386 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388
Fig. 7. Variation of peak response base flexible building versus eccentricity
ratio for low structural period ðTx ¼ 0:5Þ situated on different soil
conditions.
and 6. However, the lateral responses of the system situated
on stiff soil ða ¼ 10Þ decrease by increasing the eccentricity
ratio. But the torsional response in this case linearly
increases up to ey $ 0:15 and after that the increase is not
significant. It is worth mentioning that as the system base
flexibility parameter is increased the response of the system
shows a considerable increase as well.
Fig. 8 presents the relation between peak displacements
and eccentricity ratios of soil –structure interaction for
Tx ¼ 1:0: In this case for very flexible base system ða ¼ 3Þ;
the urx and ury are not sensitive to the variation of
eccentricity ratio for ey =a , 0:3: While, the torsional
response considerably increases by increasing the ey =a:
For the system situated on medium flexible foundation
ða ¼ 6:Þ; the variation of displacements in relation to
eccentricity ratio is not sensitive in eccentricity ratio greater
than 0.15. However, for system with ey =a , 0:15; urx
decreases while ury increases. The two get close to each
other at ey =a ¼ 0:15: The torsional response is almost
Fig. 8. Variation of peak response base flexible building versus eccentricity
ratio for medium structural period ðTx ¼ 1:0Þ situated on different soil
conditions.
constant over the entire range of eccentricity ratios in this
case. In system situated on stiff soil, the pattern of variation
of displacements versus ey =a is almost constant for entire
range of eccentricity ratios. The torsional response is
considerably affected by the flexibility conditions of
the base in system with Tx ¼ 1:0: It is interesting to note
that the maximum responses are observed for the system
with a ¼ 6:0:
The relation between peak displacements and eccentri-
city ratios of soil – structure interaction system with
Tx ¼ 2:0 situated in different soil conditions is shown in
Fig. 9. As it can be seen, the variation of the displacements
is not significantly influenced by the variation of eccen-
tricity ratios. Unlike the system with Tx ¼ 0:5; as the base
flexibility parameter is increased the displacements are
considerably decreased.
Fig. 10 shows the peak responses of symmetric
ðey =a ¼ 0:0Þ and asymmetric ðey =a ¼ 0:35Þ soil – structure
 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388
Fig. 9. Variation of peak response base flexible building versus eccentricity
ratio for high structural period ðTx ¼ 2:0Þ situated on different soil
conditions.
interaction systems in relation to the base flexibility
value a for Tx ¼ 0:5; 1.0 and 2.0. The responses of
symmetric and asymmetric systems increase by increas-
ing the base flexibility value a; for Tx ¼ 0:5 as shown in
Fig. 10a. The maximum increase occurs in a ¼ 10: The
sudden increase of the responses in a ¼ 10 happens as
the periods of structure and soil get closer to each other.
The ratio of peak response of symmetric and asymmetric
systems for a ¼ 10 to the response of the system for
a ¼ 33:3 is about 3. The response of asymmetric system
is considerably greater than that of symmetric system for
a , 10: However, for a $ 10 the response of symmetric
system is greater than that of asymmetric system.
Fig. 10b shows the peak relative responses of
symmetric and asymmetric systems in relation to a for
Tx ¼ 1:0: As a increases the response of symmetric and
asymmetric system also increases. The increase is more
pronounced for a ¼ 6:0; where the resonance takes place.
The ratio of peak response of symmetric and asymmetric
387
Fig. 10. Variation of peak response of symmetric and high eccentric
buildings versus the variation of base flexibility (a) for different structural
periods.
system for a ¼ 6 to the response of the system for
a ¼ 33:3 is about 4.2.
The peak response of symmetric and asymmetric
systems in relation to base flexibility conditions ðaÞ for
Tx ¼ 2:0 is shown in Fig. 10c. Unlike the above cases, with
the increase of a the value of responses of symmetric and
asymmetric systems are decreased. The slope of the
decrease is very sharp up to a , 6:0 and then it remains
almost constant for the rest of the values of a: The
maximum peak values of responses occur in a ¼ 3:
The ratio of maximum value of response (i.e. for a ¼ 3)
to the response of the system of a ¼ 33:3 is about 3.7 for
asymmetric system and 4.7 for symmetric system. In this
case, the response of symmetric system is greater than that
of asymmetric system for all the values of a: It is worth
mentioning that as the structural period increases the ratio
of peak responses of flexible base systems to the
responses of fixed base condition ða ¼ 33:3Þ drastically
increases.
388 H. Shakib, A. Fuladgar / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24 (2004) 379–388
4. Conclusions
Three-dimensional soil – structure interaction behaviour
of asymmetric buildings subjected to bi-directional com-
ponents of El Centro 1940 earthquake records is investi-
gated. The study leads to the following conclusions:
Soil – structure interaction effects reduce the lateral and
torsional displacements of asymmetric systems. However,
as the time period of the structure is increased the soil –
structure interaction effects are considerably reduced.
In long structural period, the variation time history
responses for interaction and no-interaction is almost
similar with a trivial phase lagging.
The eccentricity ratio of asymmetric system has a
significant effect on the response of soil –structure inter-
action system and it is strongly dependent upon the base
flexibility and structural period of the system. In low
structural period ðTx ¼ 0:5Þ; the displacements of asym-
metric building situated in very flexible and medium
flexible soil conditions are considerably increased by
increase of eccentricity ratio. However, in long structural
period ðTx ¼ 2:0Þ situated on the same soil conditions the
lateral displacements are decreased by increase of eccen-
tricity ratio, and torsional displacement is mildly increased
by increase of eccentricity ratio.
The peak responses of the symmetric and asymmetric
base flexible systems occur when the period of soil and
structure get close to each other. The peak response of the
flexible base system to peak response of the system situated
on very stiff soil condition (a ¼ 33:3 or Vs ¼ 1000 m/s) is
increased with the increase of structural period.
References
[1] Kan CL, Chopra AK. Elastic earthquake analysis of torsionally
coupled multi-story buildings. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1977;5:
395–412.
[2] Kan CL, Chopra AK. Simple model for earthquake response studies of
torsionally coupled buildings. Engng Mech Div, ASCE 1981;107:
935–51.
[3] Hejal R, Chopra AK. Earthquake analysis of a class of torsionally
coupled buildings. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1989;18:305–23.
[4] Chandler AM, Duna XN. Evaluation of factors influencing the
inelastic seismic performance of torsionally asymmetric building.
Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1991;20:87–95.
[5] Shakib H, Datta TK. Inelastic response of torsionally coupled system
to an ensemble of non-stationary ground motion. Engng Struct 1993;
15:13–20.
[6] Paulay T. Seismic torsional effects on ductile structural wall systems.
Earthquake Engng 1997;1:721–45.
[7] Myslimaj B, Tso WK. A strength distribution criterion for minimizing
torsional response of asymmetric wall-type systems. Earthquake
Engng Struct Dyn 2002;31:99 –120.
[8] Shakib H, Touhidi RZ. Evaluation of accidental eccentricity in
buildings due to rotational components of earthquake. Earthquake
Engng 2002;6:431 –45.
[9] Chopra AK. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1995.
[10] Balendra T, Tat CW, Lee SL. Modal damping for torsionally coupled
buildings on elastic foundation. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1982;
10:735–56.
[11] Tsicnias TG, Huchinson GL. Soil– structure interaction effects on the
steady state response for torsionally coupled buildings with
foundation interaction. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1984;12:
237 –62.
[12] Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. Code design provisions for torsionally
coupled buildings on elastic foundation. Earthquake Engng Struct
Dyn 1987;15:517–36.
[13] Chandler AM, Hutchinson GL. Parametric earthquake response for
torsionally coupled buildings with foundation interaction. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Engng 1987;6:138–48.
[14] Sivakumaran KS, Lin MS, Karasudhi P. Seismic analysis of
asymmetric building-foundation systems. Comput Struct 1992;43:
1091–103.
[15] Sivakumaran KS, Balendra T. Seismic analysis of asymmetric
multistorey buildings including foundation interaction and P 2 D
effects. Engng Struct 1994;16:609–25.
[16] Wu WH, Smith HA. Efficient modal analysis for structures with soil–
structure interaction. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1995;24:283 –99.
[17] Wu WH, Wang JF, Lin CC. Systematic assessment of irregular
building-soil interaction using efficient modal analysis. Earthquake
Engng Struct Dyn 2001;30:573 –94.
[18] Beer G. An isoparametric joint interface element for finite element
analysis. Numer Meth Engng 1985;21:585–600.
[19] Buczkowski R, Kleiber M. Elasto-plastic interface model for 3D-
frictional orthotropic contact problems. Numer Meth Engng 1997;40:
599 –619.
[20] Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for
wave propagation problems. Soil Mech Found, ASCE 1973;99:
421 –7.
[21] Sikaroudi H, Chandler AM. Structure-foundation interaction in the
earthquake response of torsionally asymmetric buildings. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Engng 1992;11:1–16.