Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

A critical review of seismic soil-structure interaction analysis

Anuj Kumar Bharti * , Vivek Garg , Shrish Chandrawanshi
Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Traditionally, fixed-base design assumes that column bases rest on unyielding supports which do not deform
Soil-structure interaction under applied loads. This often neglects underlying soil properties, leading to potential inaccuracies in predicting
Dynamic analysis structural responses during earthquakes. The term soil-structure interaction (SSI) refers to the mutual interaction
Numerical methods
between a structure and the soil it rests on, which affects the behavior of both under various load conditions.
Review article
Accounting for this interaction is crucial for obtaining realistic predictions of soil-structural performance,
especially during seismic events. This study provides a systematic review of dynamic SSI effects observed during
seismic events. It examines various approaches to integrating SSI in seismic analysis, including numerical,
experimental, and analytical methods. Numerical approaches utilize various software to simulate different
structural models, while experimental methods such as shaking table, centrifuge, and damper tests provide actual
experimental data. Analytical methods, on the other hand, use mathematical and computational techniques to
analyze the interaction between soil and structures. Experimental data can be used for validating analytical/
numerical simulations. The findings of this review demonstrate that SSI analysis consistently provides a more
realistic assessment of structural performance compared to traditional fixed-base design approaches. Further-
more, this study compiles advantages and disadvantages of the different methods, numerous parametric in-
vestigations to provide insights into interaction behavior under diverse conditions from various researchers,
presented in tabular form. It also reviews the equations used for SSI analysis by analytical methods and various
software used by researchers in this field, offering a comprehensive overview of current SSI modeling
capabilities.

1. Introduction landmark in the field of SSI was made by Terzaghi and Peck’s [77] work
on observed performance of structures and their foundations, which
Design and analysis of many civil engineering structures like build- highlighted the need to consider how soil interacts with a structure.
ings, bridges, tunnels, etc are greatly affected by the interaction between They stressed that it is necessary to consider soil deformations and
soil and structures known as SSI. This complex behavior includes the hence, how stresses and strains are redistributed through the structure.
transfer of loads and deformations between the structure and the soil. A During the 1950s and 1960s, substantial progress was achieved in
key element in determining how an entire building will respond to an the development of analytical and numerical methods of SSI analysis.
earthquake is the dynamic coupling between the supporting soil me- For instance, researchers like Wesselink [85] and Poulos [61] developed
dium and a structure during seismic events. This can intensely modify simplified models and closed-form solutions for analyzing elastic SSI
structural response, thereby changing system natural frequencies, mode problems, taking into account actions produced by shallow as well as
shapes, as well as seismic demands. deep foundation layers. The 1960s also saw the emergence of powerful
In the early 20th century, engineers’ perspectives on structural numerical techniques, including the finite element method (FEM) and
behavior evolved significantly with the introduction of the concept of boundary element method (BEM), enabling more accurate and versatile
soil-structure interaction (SSI). However, in the mid-20th century, it modeling of SSI problems. Researchers such as Wolf [86] and Kausel
became more systematic because civil engineering projects were [41] made significant contributions to the development and application
becoming increasingly more complicated, hence there was a need for of these numerical methods within the context of SSI.
more accurate design techniques that could be relied upon. An early From the 1970s to the 1980s, the importance of SSI was further

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.K. Bharti).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2025.108221
Received 28 October 2024; Received in revised form 7 January 2025; Accepted 7 January 2025
Available online 13 January 2025
2352-0124/© 2025 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and
similar technologies.
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

emphasized by the growing interest in the construction of nuclear power

plants and the realization that seismological considerations are indis-
pensable for such works. The work of Roesset [64] and Gazetas [34] on
the dynamic behavior of soil-structure systems under seismic loading
provided valuable insights and analytical tools for addressing SSI in
earthquake engineering.
Experimental investigations have played a crucial role in validating
various theories and improving understanding of SSI phenomena,
ranging from lab-scale tests to full-scale field monitoring. Researchers
such as Kramer [45] and Madabhushi [50] have greatly contributed
towards the advancement and use of experimental techniques with
Fig. 1. Surface to surface contact. Çapar [15].
which realistic SSI could be investigated. In recent years, the develop-
ment of numerical techniques and computational resources has made it
possible to conduct more advanced and comprehensive SSI analyses. insights into multi-building interactions and seismic resilience.
Various researchers have adopted different review techniques The objective of this review paper is to present the numerical,
related to SSI, each emphasizing distinct aspects of the field. Below is a experimental, and analytical approaches utilized in the seismic analysis
synthesis of the key review methodologies employed by each researcher, of SSI problems. The key topics discussed include:
along with their respective focus areas. Dutta and Roy [21] studied SSI
under static and dynamic loading, analyzing structures like buildings • Numerical methods for modeling seismic SSI, including the finite
and water tanks. They explored soil modeling approaches, including element method (FEM), boundary element method (BEM), and
Winkler and elastic continuum models, advanced techniques like hybrid element methods. These approaches also cover constitutive
elasto-plastic and viscoelastic idealizations, and applied finite element soil models, interface behavior, and their applications in dynamic
methods to examine dynamic SSI. Garg and Hora [31] integrated analysis.
theoretical models, parametric evaluations, and experimental studies to • Experimental methods for investigating seismic SSI, such as shaking
explore SSI behavior under both static and dynamic loads, focusing on table tests, centrifuge tests, and the use of dampers.
linear, nonlinear, and elasto-plastic soil responses. • Analytical methods for seismic SSI analysis, including simplified
Kavitha et al. [42] applied a combination of theoretical analysis, models, elastic solutions, and their applicability across different
numerical simulations, and experimental validation to study laterally scenarios.
loaded piles. Their research identified key factors influencing SSI,
including soil characteristics, pile stiffness, and the nature of applied This review summarizes the latest advancements in SSI research,
loads, offering insights into pile-soil interaction behavior. Anand and offering a comprehensive resource for researchers in earthquake engi-
Kumar [1] emphasized structured problem-solving for SSI by examining neering to better understand and address SSI-related challenges.
different modeling techniques, such as discrete and continuum ap-
proaches, along with frequency and time-domain analyses. They also 2. Soil-structure interaction
reviewed international design standards from regions like the United
States, Europe, and India, while discussing recent advancements and 2.1. Numerical methods
trends in SSI research.
Bapir et al. [7] focused on dynamic aspects of SSI, evaluating Numerical methods represent one of the most important and versa-
computational models such as Winkler and macro-element methods. tile tools for understanding and simulating SSI in both linear and
Their study compared direct and substructure approaches and investi- nonlinear problems. These methods are essential for the design and
gated SSI’s impact on building types like moment-resisting frames and analysis of various geotechnical and structural engineering projects. In
wall-frame structures, with attention to dynamic soil behavior. Islam the context of seismic analysis, numerical approaches significantly
et al. [40] explored SSI in critical facilities like nuclear power plants enhance our understanding of SSI by providing detailed insights into the
using experimental and computational techniques. They reviewed soft- complex interactions between soil and structures under dynamic loading
ware tools for modeling SSI, analyzed the influence of soil, structural, conditions. The primary numerical methods employed in this field
and foundation properties, and proposed simplified methods to make include the FEM, BEM, and Hybrid element method.
SSI analysis more accessible and practical.
Structure-soil-structure interaction (SSSI) represents an advanced 2.1.1. Finite element methods
form of SSI, SSSI refers to the mutual influence between adjacent FEM are widely used to analyze SSI due to their ability to model
structures through a shared soil medium, where seismic forces on one complex geometries and material behaviors. Traditional FEM ap-
structure alter the soil response, affecting nearby structures. This proaches often assume a fixed base for structures, which can lead to
interaction modifies the dynamic and seismic responses of all involved higher computed frequencies and uneven stress distributions compared
structures. Researchers have employed various review techniques to to models that consider a flexible base. Advanced FEM techniques
address the complexities of SSSI, focusing on specific methodologies and incorporate soil properties and their non-linear behavior, utilizing
aspects of the field. Lou et al. [49] explored SSSI through a combination various constitutive models to simulate realistic soil responses. The
of analytical, numerical, experimental methods, and prototype obser- development and validation of FEM approaches for SSI have progressed
vations, extending their focus to site-city interaction (SCI). The study significantly, with researchers and engineers using commercial software
highlighted the transformative role of computer technology in like ANSYS [2], SAP2000 [20], PLAXIS [60], ABAQUS [72], and
advancing SSI analysis, with tools such as CLASSI, FLUSH, ALUSH, OpenSees [51] to improve the prediction and analysis of structural
SASSI, and HASSI highlighted as essential. Furthermore, general finite behavior under seismic loads.
element programs were recognized as crucial for comprehensive SSI In SSI analysis it is required to discretize the geometries of the
studies. Vicencio et al. [82] reviewed recent advancements in SSSI and structure and contact surfaces by appropriate elements, support and
SCI, combining theoretical analysis, numerical methods (FEM, BEM, loading conditions to perform structural analysis, such as linear, non-
Hybrid) and experimental validation (centrifuge and shaking table linear, or dynamic analysis. The interface modeling between footing
tests). Their work also explored Vibrating Barrier (ViBa) devices, surface and underline soil surface is required for actual contact behav-
instrumented structures and response spectrum analysis, providing iour. In surface-to-surface contact, it is essential to define the contact

2
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Fig. 2. Soil–structure interaction model. Tabatabaiefar, Massumi [75].

and target surfaces. Typically, the convex surface is assigned as the

contact (footing), and the concave surface as the target (soil). If one
body is significantly smaller, the larger surface is usually set as the
target. (Fig. 1) Fig. 3. (a) Fixed support condition, (b) spring foundation system, (c) pile
Contact types in engineering software are categorized based on their foundation system [54].
behavior and constraints, typically classified as bonded, no-separation,
frictional, frictionless, and rough. Bonded contact treats the geome- 50 earthquake records, focusing on the significant impact of SSI on the
tries as a single entity with no relative sliding, separation, or rotation but building’s seismic response. Using a 3D FEM model with adjusted pa-
in no-separation, contact only sliding is permitted. In Frictional contact rameters including soil properties, their findings revealed that incor-
the contact pair can slide and separate on the target surface, with friction porating soil springs and surrounding soil into the model demonstrated
coefficients influencing the tangential movements. However, in fric- that SSI significantly reduces a building’s natural frequencies, high-
tionless (smooth) contact this friction coefficient between the surfaces is lighting its crucial role in accurate seismic response predictions.
assumed to be zero. In rough contact the friction coefficient is effectively Behnamfar and Banizadeh [8] investigated reinforced concrete
infinite, preventing movement in the tangential direction. The contact structures with 3, 5, 6, and 9 stories on soft and very soft soils,
pair cannot slide tangentially, as the nodes in contact are fixed to the comparing the effectiveness of moment-resisting frames versus concrete
target surface in the tangential direction. shear walls. They conducted nonlinear dynamic analyses on 10 ground
Shakib and Fuladgar [68] proposed a novel approach for analyzing motions, applied to five buildings on two soil types, considering both
the seismic response of torsionally coupled buildings in the time domain, fixed-base and flexible-base models with SSI. Their results indicated that
focusing on the dynamic SSI of asymmetric buildings using FEM soft- SSI consideration alters the distribution of seismic vulnerability in
ware. They developed a specialized interface element to model the buildings, potentially shifting the most vulnerable point to the first story
interaction between the rigid foundation and the soil. Their results in flexible-base structures. They also found that the performance of
indicated that soil flexibility significantly impacts a building’s response structural members in lower stories deteriorates in both moment frame
to seismic activity, with more flexible soils leading to greater building and shear wall structures due to increased drift, causing lateral dis-
movement. Additionally, they found that the eccentricity ratio, which placements to align with those of the foundation.
measures how off-center a building’s mass is, significantly affects a Mitropoulou et al. [54] examined the effects of three foundation
building’s seismic behaviour, particularly in terms of torsional models (fixed, Winkler springs, and pile foundations) on seismic per-
movements. formance across low-rise, mid-rise, and high-rise buildings. Their
Tabatabaiefar and Massumi [75] investigated the seismic analysis of research demonstrated that while foundation systems minimally influ-
Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames (RC-MRFs) using a direct enced low-rise and mid-rise structures, they significantly impacted
method. They considered four types of structures on three different soil high-rise building performance, with pile foundations showing superior
types, modeling two sets of structures: one approach includes soil structural capacity compared to more vulnerable Winkler Spring sys-
interaction, while the other excludes it. These structures were subjected tems.(Fig. 3)
to various earthquake records. Their findings revealed that the average Bolisetti et al. [9] compared equivalent-linear and nonlinear SSI
ratios of story shear in flexible-base models were consistently lower than analysis methods for safety-related nuclear structures. They evaluated
those in fixed-base models, suggesting that structures with flexible bases two approaches: SASSI (frequency-domain) and LS-DYNA
experience lower story shear. This study provided a quantitative un-
derstanding of how building height influences lateral deflection under
seismic loads.(Fig. 2)
Balkaya et al. [6] comprehensive 3D simulation was conducted on
140 shear-wall dominant buildings of varying heights under four
different soil conditions. The analysis revealed that incorporating SSI
significantly extends fundamental periods compared to fixed-base
models, exposing limitations in current seismic codes. While soil char-
acteristics markedly influenced overall structural response, buildings
with first-mode torsional behavior showed minimal period variations
across different soil conditions. These findings led to the development of
new empirical equations that better predict fundamental periods by
incorporating SSI effects, addressing critical gaps in existing seismic
design codes. Butt and Omenzetter [13] analyzed the seismic behavior
Fig. 4. Finite-element model for SSI analysis using the direct method. Bolisetti
of a three-story reinforced concrete (RC) building through monitoring et al., [9].

3
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

(time-domain), for various earthquake shaking intensities. The study

found that free-field responses of the soil domain were similar for both
methods, with differences mainly due to distinct damping formulations.
Crucially, for intense shaking, nonlinear effects such as gapping, sliding,
and uplift became significant near the soil-structure boundary. The au-
thors emphasized that these critical nonlinear effects cannot be
adequately captured using equivalent-linear techniques. This research
highlights the importance of nonlinear analysis methods for accurate
assessment of SSI effects in high-intensity seismic events, particularly for
critical infrastructure like nuclear facilities.(Fig. 4)
Scarfone et al. [66] conducted a 3D numerical study to explore
soil-building foundation interactions during earthquakes, comparing
shallow, deeply embedded, and pile foundations. Their results indicated
that more flexible foundations reduce the maximum base shear force
and increase the rigid rotation of the foundation, without significantly
affecting the building’s displacement. Sharma et al. [70] investigated
the impact of SSI on the natural period of RC building frames using
OpenSees. They found that SSI significantly alters the natural period of a
Fig. 5. SSI model: (a) identification of the different components of the model;
building, particularly for structures on soft soils, which can influence the
and (b) 3D view of the model. Cortez et al., [18].
seismic forces encountered by the building. Fathi et al. [26] examines
SSI effects on out-of-plane behavior of Arge-Tabriz, an ancient masonry
structure in Iran, through FEM analysis. The modeling incorporates
boundary elements like springs and dashpots, with parameters derived
from soil properties and depth. SSI was found to significantly reduce
acceleration responses through enhanced energy dissipation from soil
nonlinearity and hysteretic damping. The study also revealed that SSI
alters mode participation by shifting effective mode vectors away from
resonance areas, thereby reducing seismic force amplification and
modifying the structure’s overall seismic behavior.
Ayala et al. [5] introduces a modeling strategy for dynamic
soil-structure interaction (DSSI) that combines spectral element method
(SEM) with a Discontinuous Galerkin approach. The study analyzes two
shear wall buildings with basements in medium dense sandy soils, using
micro-vibrations for calibration. The findings reveal significant DSSI
effects, demonstrating period lengthening of up to 47 % compared to
fixed-base conditions. Additionally, the analysis shows notable re-
ductions in structural demands, with story shear decreasing by up to
220 % and maximum lateral roof displacement reducing by 34 % rela-
tive to fixed-base responses. Fig. 6. Simulated model of the masonry building with 3D soil model. Khansefid
Zhang and Taciroglu [88] presents an innovative methodology et al., [43].
combining wave potential theory with advanced numerical approaches -
the domain reduction method (DRM) and perfectly matched layers decreased peak strength, increased damage, and higher probabilities of
(PML) - to analyze free-field response under obliquely incident SV waves near-collapse damage compared to the fixed-base model. The expected
in layered soil media. The research investigated the seismic response of a economic losses were up to 140 % higher when considering SSI effects.
20-story steel building, focusing on SSI effects and varying wave inci- Firoj et al. [27] investigated how column stiffness affects building per-
dence angles. The findings demonstrate that seismic wave incidence formance during earthquakes, considering SSI effects on mid-rise RC
angles significantly influence both ground response and SSI behavior, buildings and dual systems with shear walls. They found that incorpo-
with notable impacts on structural performance parameters including rating SSI increases the fundamental period of all building models due to
floor accelerations and inter-story drift ratio. the flexible behavior of the soil. The orientation and size of columns
Garbellini and Laloui [30] presents a general framework for significantly influenced the lateral stiffness of the building, with mixed
analyzing the bearing capacity of surface footings, emphasizing the column sizes providing better resistance compared to uniform column
importance of considering both soil and structure for accurate evalua- sizes.
tion of foundation resistance. The study finds that the contact pressure Cortez et al. [18] analyzed building responses to sequential seismic
distribution at the point of general shear failure can be approximated by and tsunami hazards using a 3D SSI model. Their results indicated that
simple shapes such as uniform, triangular, ellipsoidal, and trapezoidal, buildings’ responses to tsunamis are significantly worsened if they have
which simplifies the consideration of soil-structure interaction. sustained prior earthquake damage, particularly when the damage is
Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4] performed nonlinear dynamic time-history moderate or extensive. The SSI model predicted slightly larger responses
analyses on RC structures with 5 and 10 stories, subjected to 15 earth- compared to the fixed-base model, capturing more realistic behaviors
quake ground motions. Their findings revealed that considering SSI re- like foundation rotation and buoyancy force.(Fig. 5)
duces seismic demands, such as story drifts, particularly in the lower Wani et al. [25] investigated the effects of SSI on a multi-story
stories of buildings. This effect was more pronounced in soft soils (site (G+10) RC building under seismic loading. Using nonlinear dynamic
class E). time history analysis, they found that SSI effects increased the funda-
Requena-Garcia-Cruz et al. [62] evaluated the seismic behavior, mental period of the building, with longer periods on softer soils. Base
fragility, and potential losses of a real 5-story RC building in Seville, shear was reduced, especially on softer soils, while story drifts increased
Spain, using nonlinear static analyses (NLSA) and incremental dynamic in upper stories. Taller buildings were more impacted by SSI effects
analyses (IDA). Their results showed that considering SSI effects led to

4
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Fig. 7. Schematic of different models. Wan et al., [83].

when resting on soft soils. The damping ratio of the soil-structure system considering SSI. They found that the effect of SSI on the displacement
increased from 5 % (fixed base) to 5.6 % for soft soil conditions. response of structures with USF is not always proportional to the USF
Khansefid et al. [43] conducted the seismic performance of a typical value, and large USF can limit this effect. When SSI is considered, the
masonry building in Germany subjected to earthquakes induced by inter-story drift ratios, plastic hinge rates, torsional angles, and natural
geothermal power plants, with a focus on SSI effects. The researchers periods of USF structures significantly increase compared to fixed
developed two detailed 3D nonlinear structural models: one with a fixed foundation structures.
base and another incorporating the soil medium and its interaction with Torghabeh et al. [80] evaluated the seismic performance of 10, 20,
the building. Their analysis revealed that while structural damage to the and 30-story reinforced concrete buildings in Tehran, Iran, considering
masonry building remained low in both models, the inclusion of SSI SSI effects. Using nonlinear static and dynamic analyses, they found that
slightly increased the damage level. This study highlights the impor- flexible-base buildings performed better during strong earthquakes and
tance of considering SSI effects in seismic risk assessments, even in re- pulse-like records compared to fixed-base buildings, especially for
gions with moderate seismic activity.(Fig. 6) shorter buildings. However, the advantages of foundation flexibility
Shabani and Kioumarsi [67] evaluated the impact of SSI on the were less significant in taller buildings due to their larger weight and
seismic response of a historical masonry bridge. Using 3D finite element higher mode effects. Mishra and Samanta [53] investigated the seismic
models calibrated with operational modal analysis results, they found behavior of buildings with shear walls built on soft soil. Their results
that the central pier and arches were the most vulnerable parts during showed that shear and infill walls significantly reduce seismic responses
seismic activities. Considering SSI effects significantly influenced the in buildings, while base flexibility increases seismic vulnerability. They
bridge’s seismic response. Three strengthening techniques showed im- also found that inter-story drift is higher in lower and mid-story build-
provements in the bridge’s seismic performance, particularly under ings, and displacement ductility depends on the building’s aspect ratio.
transverse seismic excitations. Shang et al. [69] researched the seismic Wan et al. [83] focused on the seismic response of stilted mid-story
performance of structures with uneven settlement of foundation (USF) isolated structures in mountainous areas, considering SSI effects. They
found that incorporating variable SSI parameters led to more accurate
and reliable seismic response predictions compared to models without
SSI effects. Changes in soil stiffness and damping significantly affected
the seismic response of structures, resulting in stress concentrations at
particular structural elements.(Fig. 7)
Konale and Chore [44] examined the seismic response of connected
buildings linked by a bridge, taking into account SSI. Using models
created in ETABS and MATLAB, they analyzed the contribution of the
bridge’s stiffness and mass. Their findings revealed that increasing pile
diameter reduced the error in natural time period estimation, suggesting
improved seismic response with stiffer foundations. The study high-
lighted the importance of considering SSI in the analysis of connected
structures. Zhang and Far [87]. investigated the seismic response of
high-rise buildings using a numerical soil-structure model developed in
Abaqus to evaluate the effects of SSI. A total of 792 cases were analyzed,
including 72 rigid base and 720 flexible base scenarios, to identify
beneficial and detrimental impacts of SSI. The results revealed that SSI
generally amplifies inter-storey drifts, negatively affecting seismic per-
formance. However, the impact of SSI on base shear varied significantly
based on soil and foundation types, with beneficial effects observed for
soil types Dₑ and Eₑ and detrimental effects noted for type Cₑ.
Cruz et al. [19] investigation utilizes an OpenSees 3D FEM model to
analyze SSI effects on a 50-story skyscraper. The analysis evaluates soil
conditions with shear wave velocities (VS) ranging from 50 to 800 m/s,
Fig. 8. Finite element model proposed for soil-three-sided underpass culvert
interaction system. Ozturk [56]. using a fixed-base model representing rigid soil conditions (VS →∞) as a

5
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

on the Stiffness Matrix Method to evaluate SSI effects. The research

found that theoretical estimates of SSI effects were reasonably accurate
in many cases. However, some discrepancies were observed, primarily
attributed to incomplete shear wave velocity profiles and limited in-
formation about deep soil conditions. This study highlights the impor-
tance of comprehensive soil data in accurately predicting SSI effects,
particularly for pile foundations under seismic loading.

2.1.3. Hybrid element methods

The Hybrid Element Method is an advanced computational approach
that combines the FEM and BEM to provide efficient solutions for
complex SSI problems. This method typically applies FEM to the near-
field (structure and immediate surrounding soil) and BEM to the far-
field soil, overcoming limitations of each individual method. Rizos
Fig. 9. Sketch of the soil-structure dynamic interaction model with viscous- and Wang [63] investigate a method that combines the BEM and FEM
spring boundary. Li et al., [46]. for analyzing how structures interact with soil during earthquakes in a
direct time domain approach. The BEM uses advanced mathematical
reference. The study examines the building’s response to SV-, SH-, and solutions called B-Splines. Its accurately analyzes how structures
P-waves. The results demonstrate SSI’s influence on modal frequencies, interact with soil during earthquakes by using advanced mathematical
damping ratios, and effective input motion at the building’s base. Base solutions that help reduce computational effort and storage re-
moment reduction patterns reveal greater effects in softer soils, with a quirements. Spyrakos and Xu [73] developed a hybrid BEM-FEM
more pronounced reduction in the East (x) direction compared to the formulation to analyze seismic response of flexible strip foundations in
North (y) direction. Edirisinghe and Talbot [22]. enhance understanding layered soils. Their parametric study revealed that deeper foundation
of SSI between underground railway tunnels and nearby buildings, embedment significantly reduces seismic displacement by 60–70 %
focusing on the dynamic response of buildings to ground-borne vibra- compared to surface foundations, while demonstrating that the
tions. The study finds that SSI significantly reduces the vibrational soil-foundation system’s response varies distinctly between P-waves and
power input to buildings, with the fully-coupled state showing up to a S-waves, with S-waves showing approximately half the fundamental
20 dB reduction compared to the uncoupled state. frequency of P-waves.
Ozturk [56] investigated the dynamic responses of a three-sided Spyrakos and Xu [74] investigated the dynamic response of flexible
underpass culvert under near-fault and far-fault ground motions, massive strip foundations embedded in layered soils using a hybrid
incorporating SSI effects. Using a validated FEM model for the approach. Their study focused on factors such as foundation flexibility,
soil-culvert system, the study found that soil type and ground motion mass, and embedment depth. They found that foundation flexibility
characteristics significantly influenced peak displacements and stresses significantly affects the dynamic response, especially for vertical loads,
in the culvert system. Critical stress concentrations were identified near with flexible foundations experiencing displacements up to three times
the junctions of culvert walls and the foundation, indicating potential those of rigid foundations at low frequencies. The research also indi-
damage zones during seismic events. This research highlights the cated that embedded foundations benefit from reduced displacements
importance of considering SSI and ground motion characteristics in the due to sidewalls, with displacements 40–60 % of those of surface
seismic design of underground structures.(Fig. 8) foundations for embedment depths of 2 and 4 m, respectively. The ac-
curacy of their hybridmethodology was validated through comparisons
2.1.2. Boundary element methods with existing studies on rigid foundations, showing good agreement.
The BEM is a powerful tool for analyzing problems involving infinite Vasilev et al. [81] developed a hybrid methods approach to study the
or semi-infinite domains, such as SSI and wave propagation. It can seismic response of soil-structure systems, implemented in ANSYS soft-
accurately simulate boundary conditions at infinity without artificially ware. Their method combined BEM for modeling infinite geological
extending the region. Tanrikulu et al. [76] investigated SSI during dy- media and FEM for the dynamic behavior of structures and near-field
namic events using BEM with nonlocal boundary conditions. They soil regions. The hybrid model showed accurate simulation of the
developed computer programs capable of handling both dynamic and seismic response of soil-structure systems, with sensitivity to various
static analyses by adjusting frequency parameters. Their results showed factors including seismic source properties, wave path heterogeneity,
good agreement with existing literature, demonstrating the accuracy and specific characteristics of the engineering structure. The model’s
and reliability of BEM for dynamic SSI problems. Chen and Dai [16] accuracy was verified by comparing results with conventional BEM
presented a method for dynamic fracture analysis in SSI systems using software, demonstrating good agreement in displacement and stress
the Scaled Boundary Finite Element Method (SBFEM). Their approach distribution for different seismic scenarios.
efficiently solved crack problems in the time domain, focusing on dy- Mehdizadeh et al. [52] developed a hybrid numerical method to
namic stress intensity factors and T-stress. The results showed that analyze the dynamic response of structures on layered transversely
SBFEM accurately calculates dynamic stress intensity factors, which are isotropic half-spaces under time-harmonic loading. Their approach used
crucial for understanding crack growth under dynamic loads. FEM to model the structure and BEM with layered half-space Green’s
Li et al. [46] combined the inelasticity-separated finite element functions for the soil, effectively satisfying the radiation condition
method (IS-FEM) with SBFEM to analyze the seismic response of large crucial for accurate SSI analysis. The study demonstrated that this
infrastructure. This method incorporated a viscous-spring artificial hybrid method accurately captures the dynamic response of structures in
boundary to address challenges in element meshing and nonlinearity in these complex soil conditions, as validated through comparisons with
complex SSI models. Their results demonstrated that this approach existing semi-analytical and numerical results. Fu et al. [29] introduced
could accurately simulate the seismic response of large structures like a novel real-time dynamic hybrid testing (RTDHT) method using
gravity dams, effectively capturing nonlinear behavior during seismic impulsive force to investigate SSI effects on structural dynamic char-
events.(Fig. 9) acteristics.This method aimed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of
Cairo [14] investigated the key aspects of SSI, focusing on the in- traditional shaking table tests. Their findings showed that the RTDHT
fluence of pile foundations on the dynamic response of structures during method effectively simulates SSI effects, revealing that when SSI is
seismic events. The study employed a boundary element approach based considered, structures exhibit decreased natural frequencies and

6
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Fig. 10. Schematic view of the SSI system and RTDHT. (a) the model of the SSI system (b) RTDHT. Fu et al. .[29]

increased damping ratios compared to fixed-base conditions.(Fig. 10) elevated bending moments and exhibit brittle failure characteristics,
highlighting critical considerations for seismic design.

2.2. Experimental methods 2.2.2. Centrifuge tests

Centrifuge tests are an important method, allowing scaled models to
Experimental Methods involve constructing physical models using be tested under controlled conditions to simulate real-world scenarios,
various tools, obtaining results, and comparing these with computa- such as the interaction of buried structures with surrounding soil under
tional simulations. These approaches include shaking table tests, dynamic loading conditions like earthquakes. Ha et al. [38] conducted a
centrifuge tests, and the use of Dampers. dynamic centrifuge test on a nuclear power plant (NPP) model to
simulate the SSI behavior during the Chi-Chi earthquake. The study
2.2.1. Shaking table showed similarities in time and frequency domains for soil and foun-
Shaking table tests are an experimental method used to evaluate dation responses, while differences in structural responses were
computational simulations by subjecting scaled structures to simulated observed due to material damping variations between the prototype and
seismic events, ensuring the accuracy of SSI models. Liu et al. [47] model.
conducted a comprehensive study on seismic loadings using both Ha and Kim [37] performed dynamic centrifuge tests with various
shaking table tests and numerical simulations. Their research focused on soil conditions and seismic intensities to directly observe
examining the influence of various soil types and structural character- soil-foundation-structure interaction (SFSI) for nuclear containment
istics on SSI. The study revealed that buildings and their underlying structures. Their findings revealed that stiffer soils exhibited less
ground interact during seismic events, potentially leading to reduced amplification of ground motions compared to softer soils. Amplification
shaking intensity experienced by the structures. Notably, the interaction ratios generally decreased as input motion intensity increased. Softer
between the ground and the building becomes more pronounced when soil demonstrated more nonlinear behavior, resulting in less amplifica-
the ground’s natural frequency aligns closely with that of the building. tion and longer site periods compared to rock conditions as input motion
However, the effect of SSI on the building’s response diminishes in increased. Liu et al. [48] conducted centrifuge tests to analyze SSI under
scenarios involving stiffer soil and higher frequency ground motions. static loading conditions. The study examined the impact of a structure’s
El Hoseny et al. [23] investigated the seismic behavior of a 15-story stiffness relative to the soil on load redistribution within the super-
steel structure through a combination of shaking table experiments and structure. Their findings indicated that the stiffness ratio between the
numerical simulations using Plaxis-3D software. Their research incor- structure and the soil significantly influences load redistribution. The
porated SSI effects with varying foundation embedment depths. The research also revealed that changes in the number of stories and foun-
Plaxis-3D simulations demonstrated good agreement with the experi- dation soil characteristics affect load distribution and foundation
mental data, with a maximum discrepancy of less than 13 %. A key displacement.
finding of this study was that foundation embedment depth significantly Pinto et al. [59] investigates seismic earth pressures on basement
impacts the lateral displacement of structures during seismic events. walls of tall buildings employed nonlinear numerical simulations, vali-
Specifically, deeper foundation embedment correlated with enhanced dated through centrifuge experiments. The research encompassed 156
structural stability during earthquakes. 2D simulations incorporating various tall building configurations,
Zhao et al. [90] investigated SSI effects through shaking table tests ground motion characteristics, and soil profiles, with particular focus on
on an AP1000 nuclear power plant model with lead rubber bearings as sandy and gravelly soils. The findings reveal that tall superstructures
seismic isolators. Their results demonstrated that soil characteristics significantly increase lateral earth pressures on basement walls, partic-
significantly influenced the dynamic behavior of both isolated and ularly in the upper two-thirds of the basement depth, resulting in a
non-isolated structures, while seismic isolation bearings effectively trapezoidal pressure distribution. The seismic thrust magnitude is
reduced acceleration responses across rigid and soil foundations. Zhang strongly influenced by the building’s modal frequencies and the
et al. [89] investigated SSI effects through shake-table tests on pre- structure-to-soil stiffness ratio, with sandy soils exhibiting greater
stressed high-strength concrete (PHC) pipe piles in soft soil, revealing pressures than gravelly soils. Gaudio et al. [32] used dynamic centrifuge
that SSI significantly increases the superstructure’s predominant period testing to determine the equivalent fundamental period of rigid and
and reduces pile stiffness due to soil-pile separation. Their findings flexible bridge piers on caisson foundations. They investigated the
demonstrated that under seismic excitation, PHC piles experience

7
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Fig. 11. The vibration absorbers system with Ground hook Tuned Mass Fig. 12. Soil-structure-TTMD interaction [3].
Damper algorithm. Ghorbanzadeh et al. [35].
the spring method still showed significant errors, especially in esti-
effects of pier height, caisson embedment depth, and soil conditions on mating lateral forces and bending moments. The research highlighted
the fundamental period. The study found that the equivalent funda- the importance of accurate measurement of both kinematic and inertial
mental period of the system (Teq) increased significantly compared to interactions for optimal design parameters.(Fig. 11)
the fixed-base period (Ts), especially for rigid piers. The researchers Pérez-Rocha et al. [58] studied the dynamic behavior of
compared their experimental results with estimates from an empirical base-isolated mid-rise structures using a discrete shear-building model
formula to evaluate the accuracy of predicting period lengthening due to with linear elastic elastomeric bearings and a flexible foundation. They
soil-caisson system compliance. analyzed systems with nonclassical damping, finding that base isolation
effectively reduces the negative impact of SSI on mid-rise buildings
2.2.3. Dampers located on soft soil. The study observed an increase in base displacement
Dampers are devices that are installed in buildings to manage floor with the site period, but a decrease when SSI was considered, suggesting
vibrations, building displacement, and to reduce the risk for major that optimal isolation stiffness and damping values can maintain base
seismic activity. Liu et al. [47] conducted experimental and numerical displacement within practical limits. Sanghai and Pawade [65] evalu-
investigations on the effectiveness of an eddy current-tuned mass ated the performance of friction dampers for buildings with SSI,
damper (ECTMD) in controlling seismic response of buildings, consid- emphasizing the importance of considering soil non-linearity in design.
ering SSI effects. The study compared the performance of buildings with Using pushover analysis to design friction dampers, they compared
and without ECTMD under earthquake conditions. Their findings different models and assessed their performance based on story drift,
demonstrated that the ECTMD can reduce the maximum displacement member forces, and energy dissipation. Their results indicated that
and acceleration of a building during an earthquake. The research also designing friction dampers with consideration of soil non-linearity leads
revealed that ECTMD is more effective in vibration control compared to to a more accurate approach to seismic design.
systems without eddy current damping, particularly when SSI effects are Araz and Farsangi [3] investigated the optimization of tuned tandem
considered. mass dampers (TTMD) on the top stories of high-rise buildings under
Ghorbanzadeh et al. [35] assessed lateral soil-pile structure inter- near-fault pulse-like ground motions, considering SSI effects. They used
action for buildings equipped with semi-active tuned mass dampers sequential quadratic programming (SQP) for optimization and
(STMD) on deep foundations. They evaluated the accuracy of the gen- compared its efficiency with simulated annealing and pattern search
eral p-y equation for such structures and compared it with the algorithms. The study found that TTMD significantly reduces maximum
three-dimensional continuum method. The study found that the tradi- displacement and inter-story drift of high-rise buildings during earth-
tional spring method using API p-y curves is not accurate in predicting quakes, especially when considering SSI effects. SQP proved more
the dynamic response of structures with STMD on deep foundations. effective and faster at finding optimal TTMD parameters compared to
Although a modified API equation was proposed to improve accuracy, other methods.(Fig. 12)

8
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Table 1 demonstrates the model’s effectiveness in bridge seismic analysis. The

Equations used in SSI analysis by analytical methods. soil-pile element stiffness matrix is given by:
S. Parameter/Approach Equations ∫ ∫
[K]Soil-Pile = ₀ᴸ[N’’]ᵀ EI[N’]dx + ₀ᴸ [N]ᵀKₛ[N]dx
No.

(a) Stress in Elastic Half-Space σz = 3 P/(2πr²) ⋅ (1/(r²+z²) ^5/2) First term represents the pile, second term represents the soil, [N] is
Where P: Applied point load. shape function vector, Ka is the stiffness coefficient of the soil, I is
r: Radial distance.
moment of inertia and E is the Young’s modulus of the piles,
z: Depth below the surface.
(b) Shear Modulus [79] Gs = Es/[2(1 +νs)]
Forcellini [28] investigated the effects of SSI on the seismic vulner-
Where Es: Elastic modulus. ability of two benchmark buildings using 3D numerical simulations in
νs: Poisson’s ratio. OpenSees. The study compared reinforced concrete with infill masonry
Gs: Shear modulus. walls (RCIMW) and reinforced concrete (RC) structures under various
(c) Winkler Foundation [78] q(x) = ksw(x)
soil conditions, developing analytical fragility curves for four limit
Where q(x): soil pressure
w(x): deflection states. The research revealed that RCIMW structures are more vulner-
ks: Soil subgrade reaction modulus. able to seismic damage than RC structures, with consistently smaller
(d) Beam on Elastic Foundation [39] EI d⁴w/dx⁴ + ksw = q(x) mean values in the fragility curves. RCIMW structures also demonstrated
Where EI: Flexural rigidity.
greater sensitivity to SSI effects, particularly in soft soil conditions,
ks: Soil subgrade reaction modulus.
q(x): Applied load.
resulting in higher failure probabilities compared to RC structures.
w: deflection These findings highlight the importance of considering SSI in seismic
(e) Foundation Stiffness (Vertical and Kv = 4 Gr (1 - ν) design and assessment of different building types. The probability of
Horizontal) [33] Kh = 8 Gr (1 - ν) exceedance is expressed by:
Where G: Shear modulus.
r: Radius of the foundation. P[D ≥ Ci|Im] = φ((ln(Im) - μ)/β)
ν: Poisson’s ratio.
(f) Dynamic SSI Equation [17] Ms ü(t) + Ceq u˙(t) + Keq u(t) = F(t) P is probability of structural damage exceeding i-th damage state, φ
Where Ms: Mass of the structure.
is standard normal cumulative distribution function, Im is selected in-
Ceq: Equivalent damping.
Keq: Equivalent stiffness. tensity measure value, β is lognormal standard deviation, μ is mean of
u¨(t), u˙, u(t): Acceleration, velocity, lognormal seismic intensity measure.
and displacement. Bozyigit [10] utilizes the Dynamic Stiffness Method (DSM) to
(g) Dynamic Stiffness [55] Kdyn = Kstatic + iCrad analyze the seismic response of pile-supported frames, incorporating
Where Kstatic: Static stiffness.
Crad: Radiation damping coefficient.
Timoshenko beams, columns, and flexible pile caps. The framework
(h) Dynamic Pile Stiffness [55] K = F/u combines Galerkin’s method for displacement calculations with the
Where F: force applied and Runge-Kutta method for time history analysis. The model comprehen-
U: displacement sively evaluates structural responses under varying soil conditions, pile
(i) Compatibility Condition us = uf
dimensions, and column configurations. Its accuracy is validated
Where us: Soil displacement, uf:
Foundation displacement through comparisons with FEM results using the Modal Assurance Cri-
(j) Equilibrium Equation
∑ ∑
Fsoil + Fstruct = 0 terion (MAC), verification against experimental data for natural fre-
quencies, and additional validation for beams on elastic foundations.
Bozyigit et al. [11] developed an efficient analytical approach to
Elias and Djerouni [24] examined the seismic performance of a tuned investigate the seismic response of onshore wind turbines (WTs)
mass damper inerter (TMDI) across various building models, including considering SSI. The method combines transfer matrix formulations and
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF), low-rise multi-degree-of-freedom modal superposition as an alternative to classical finite element method
(MDOF), and high-rise MDOF structures. They utilized H2 and genetic (FEM) approaches. The study demonstrated that the transfer matrix
algorithm (GA) parameters for optimization and conducted frequency method (TMM) accurately calculated the first four natural frequencies
and time domain analyses under pulse-like ground motions, considering and mode shapes of the WT, considering SSI effects. These results
SSI effects. The study found that the TMDI was generally effective in showed good agreement with existing literature, validating the pro-
reducing displacement and acceleration responses of buildings, with posed analytical approach for free vibration analysis of WTs. This
some limitations in soft soil conditions. Notably, the TMDI’s efficiency method offers a precise and computationally efficient alternative for
was highest when the pulse period of the ground motion matched the seismic response analysis of wind turbines, incorporating SSI effects. The
building’s natural period. base shear for the kth mode is given by the formula:

Vbk(t) = m‾ₖω²ₖqₖ(t)
2.3. Analytical methods
Vbk(t) is base shear for kth mode, m‾ₖ is mass property, ω²ₖ is circular
Analytical methods in SSI help simplify complex seismic behaviors frequency squared, qₖ(t) is generalized coordinate.
between structures and the surrounding soil. These methods rely on Pang et al. [57] introduced a novel analytical method for predicting
foundational theories in mechanics, elasticity, and wave propagation to SSI of axially loaded piles in sand. The approach incorporates a
capture how forces transfer from structures to the ground and vice versa. two-surface plasticity model to capture stress softening and soil dilat-
Different formulas used by various researchers to investigates SSI ancy behaviors during loading. This method enhances the accuracy of
behaviour is given in Table 1. predictions for both 2-D stress-strain states of the SSI and shear band, as
Shirgir et al. [71] developed a simplified analytical model to analyze well as 3-D elastoplastic behavior of soil around the shear band. The
the seismic response of bridges, incorporating soil-pile structure inter- study derives a system of first-order differential equations to describe
action (SPSI) and pier geometry nonlinearity. The model predicts the the stress-strain relationship in the plastic zone, solving it as an initial
acceleration response of bridge decks with up to 16 % difference from value problem. This approach accurately captures the
instrumented structures across three earthquake records. By considering load-displacement response of the pile and the surrounding stress-strain
SPSI effects, the calculated natural period of the bridge system was state, providing a detailed understanding of SSI. The method’s reliability
10–40 % closer to instrumentation data compared to fixed base condi- and accuracy were validated through FEM simulations, demonstrating
tions. This improved accuracy in predicting seismic behavior its effectiveness in predicting SSI across various soil conditions.

9
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Table 2 Table 3
The advantages and disadvantages of the different methods. Parametric study on interaction behaviour by various researchers.
S. Methods Advantages Disadvantages S. Parameter Particulars Interaction studies by various
No. No. researchers

(a) Numerical Can model complex Accuracy depends heavily (a) Type of Building Low Shakib and Fuladgar[68],
Methods geometries and material on soil parameter Structure rise Tabatabaiefarand Massumi [75],
behavior. characterization. Results Buttand Omenzetter [13],
are sensitive to constitutive Behnamfar and Banizadeh [8],
model selection. Mitropoulou et al. [54], Bolisetti
Ability to simulate both Requires sophisticated et al. [9], Sharma et al. [70],
linear and nonlinear software and Bozyigit [10], Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al.
problems. Provides computational resources. [4], Firoj et al. [27], Cairo [14],
comprehensive insights Can be computationally Rizos and Wang [63], Forcellini
into complex SSI intensive for complex [28], Fu et al. [29], Liu et al. [48]
interactions problems Mid- Tabatabaiefar and Massumi [75],
Cost-effective compared May require validation Rise Balkaya et al. [6], Behnamfarand
to physical testing through experimental Banizadeh [8], Mitropoulou et al.
methods [54], Sharma et al. [70],
(b) Experimental Provides real physical Time-consuming and Ghorbanzadeh et al. [35], Cairo
Methods data hence more reliable higher cost associated to [14], Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4],
for understanding actual set up and conduct physical Requena-Garcia-Cruz, et al. [62],
behavior. testing Firoj et al. [27], Shang et al. [69],
Soil is a complex material; May not be able to replicate Mishra and Samanta [53], Elias and
experimental method can all real-world conditions. Djerouni [24],
identify unexpected SSI Limited by scale effects in High Tabatabaiefar and Massumi [75],
behavior. model testing Rise Balkaya et al. [6], Mitropoulou et al.
Can be used for validation Equipment limitations may [54], Scarfone et al. [66],
of results obtained by affect test results Sharma et al. [70], Pérez-Rocha
numerical or analytical et al. [58], Mehdizadeh et al. [52],
methods. Ayala et al. [5], Zhang and
(c) Analytical More accurate compared Typically requires more Taciroglu [88], Cortez et al. [18],
Methods to numerical methods assumptions than other Cairo [14], Wani et al. [25], Zhang
methods to simplify the et al. [89], Torghabeh et al. [80],
complex interaction Araz and Farsangi [3], Pinto et al.
problem which may cause [59], Elias and Djerouni [24],
erroneous results. Zhang & Far [87], Cruz et al. [19],
More straightforward to Limited applicability for Edirisinghe and Talbot [22]
implement in simple complicated geometries Culvert Ozturk [56]
geometries and basic Bridge Shirgir et al. [71], Shabani and
configurations Kioumarsi [67], Gaudio et al. [32].
Provides quick Tedious calculations for (b) Type of Raft Footing Balkaya et al. [6], Ayala et al. [5],
preliminary assessments, nonlinear and dynamic Foundation Firoj et al. [27], Wani et al. [25],
Good for initial design behaviour. Fu et al. [29]
stages and parametric Strip Footing Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4],
studies Spyrakos. and Xu [73]
Pile foundation Liu et al. [47], Bozyigit [10], Cairo
[14], Konale and Chore [44], Zhang
The pile-base displacement is expressed by the formula: & Far [87], Cruz et al. [19],
Edirisinghe and Talbot [22],
uₙ = (Qₙ(1-ν))/(4rₐGₙ) * (Qₙᵤ/(Qₙᵤ - RᵢQₙ))² Bozyigit et al. [12]
Flexible Footing Rizos and Wang [63], Spyrakos and
Qₙ is pile-base load, Gₙ is soil shear modulus at pile base, Rᵢ is non- Xu[74], Tabatabaiefar and Massumi
linearity parameter (0.8–0.95), Qₙᵤ is ultimate bearing capacity, ν is [75], Butt and Omenzetter [13],
Behnamfar and Banizadeh [8],
Poisson’s ratio, rₐ is pile radius Mitropoulou et al. [54],Firoj et al.
Wang et al. [84] developed an analytical solution simplifying [27], Sanghai and Pawade[65],
pile-soil interaction into a spring-damping system for horizontal dy- Torghabeh et al. [80], Mishra and
namic loads and earthquakes. Using Euler-Bernoulli theory and transfer Samanta [53]
Rigid Footing Rizos and Wang [63], Spyrakos and
matrix method, they derived pile head impedance and established dy-
Xu [74], Shakib and Fuladgar [68],
namic equilibrium equations. The study revealed that the coupling Tabatabaiefar and Massumi [75],
spring-damping system significantly affects pile displacement under Liu et al. [47], Shirgir et al. [71],
dynamic loads. Notably, it demonstrated that static spring-damping Pérez-Rocha et al. [58], Garbellini
stiffness can replace frequency-dependent dynamic stiffness in prac- and Laloui [30], Araz and Farsangi
[3], Shang et al. [69], Elias and
tical applications, simplifying numerical simulations. This approach Djerouni [24]
offers valuable insights for modeling pile-soil interactions under dy- (c) Type of soil Fixed based Behnamfar and Banizadeh [8],
namic conditions. Bozyigit et al. [12] studies the seismic behavior of Mitropoulou et al. [54], Scarfone
large monopile-supported offshore wind turbines (OWTs) using a Tim- et al. [66], Sharma et al. [70],
Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4], Firoj
oshenko beam-column model combined with the DSM and modal su-
et al. [27], Wani et al. [25],
perposition. It shows that scour and seismic activity together can cause Sanghai and Pawade [65],
resonance, especially during strong earthquakes with high ground ac- Khansefid et al. [43], Torghabeh
celeration near scoured natural frequencies. The model’s validity has et al. [80], Mishra and Samanta
been confirmed through experimental data and existing OWT results, [53], Cruz et al. [19]
Rock or Hard Soil Balkaya et al. [6], Gopikrishnan
showing strong correlation in both natural frequencies and seismic
and Varkey [36], Sharma et al.
responses.
(continued on next page)
The advantages and disadvantages of different methods, the

10
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Table 3 (continued ) Table 3 (continued )

S. Parameter Particulars Interaction studies by various S. Parameter Particulars Interaction studies by various
No. researchers No. researchers

[70], Forcellini [28], Garbellini and [11], Pang et al. [57], Forcellini
Laloui [30], Khansefid et al. [43], [28], Liu et al. [48], Pinto et al.
Shang et al. [69], Bozyigit et al. [59], Gaudio et al. [32], Elias and
[11], Ozturk [56], Araz and Djerouni [24], Wang et al. [84],
Farsangi [3], Pinto et al. [59], Elias Zhang & Far [87]
and Djerouni [24], Zhang & Far
[87], Cruz et al. [19], Bozyigit et al.
[12] parametric study on SSI by various researchers and the software used is
Medium Soil Balkaya et al. [6], Ha et al. [38], Ha shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
and Kim [37], Sharma et al. [70],
Pérez-Rocha et al. [58], Ayala et al.
[5], Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4], 3. Conclusion
Requena-Garcia-Cruz et al. [62],
Cortez et al. [18], Khansefid et al. This comprehensive review synthesizes recent advances in SSI
[43], Shang et al. [69], Torghabeh
analysis through numerical, experimental, and analytical approaches.
et al. [80], Mishra and Samanta
[53], El Hoseny et al. [23], Zhao The findings demonstrate that SSI effects significantly influence struc-
et al. [90], Araz and Farsangi [3], tural behavior under seismic loading conditions, with implications
Bozyigit et al. [11], Pang et al. varying across different structural configurations and soil conditions.
[57], Liu et al. [48], Pinto et al. The integration of SSI in seismic analysis consistently reveals modifi-
[59], Gaudio et al. [32], Elias and
Djerouni [24], Ozturk [56], Zhang
cations in fundamental structural parameters, including increased nat-
& Far [87], Cruz et al. [19], ural periods and altered dynamic response characteristics.
Bozyigit et al. [12]
Soft Soil Tabatabaiefar and Massumi [75], • Numerical investigations, particularly through advanced FEM
Balkaya et al. [6], Behnamfar and
implementations, have established that SSI consideration leads to
Banizadeh [8], Mitropoulou et al.
[54], Gopikrishnan and Varkey reduced base shear forces and modified seismic vulnerability distri-
[36],Sharma et al. [70], Fathi et al. butions in structures. The effectiveness of commercial software
[26], Pérez-Rocha et al. [58], packages in capturing these complex interactions has improved
Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4], substantially, though the accuracy of predictions remains highly
Requena-Garcia-Cruz et al. [62],
Khansefid et al. [43], Shang et al.
dependent on soil parameter characterization and constitutive model
[69], Konale and Chore [44], Zhao selection. Notably, high-rise structures exhibit heightened sensitivity
et al. [90], Zhang et al. [89], Araz to SSI effects, particularly in soft soil conditions, suggesting the
and Farsangi [3], Bozyigit et al. critical importance of site-specific analysis for tall buildings.
[11], Liu et al. [48], Elias and
• Experimental validations through shaking table and centrifuge tests
Djerouni [24], Gaudio et al. [32],
Ozturk [56], Zhang & Far [87], have corroborated numerical findings while providing crucial in-
Cruz et al. [19], Bozyigit et al. [12] sights into the physical mechanisms of SSI. These studies consistently
Layered soil Spyrakos and Xu [74], Zhang and demonstrate that the alignment of ground and structural frequencies
Taciroglu [88], Firoj et al. [27] significantly amplifies SSI effects, with foundation embedment depth
(d) Nonlinearity Geometric Tabatabaiefar and Massumi [75],
Behnamfar and Banizadeh [8],
emerging as a critical parameter in seismic response modification.
Mitropoulou et al. [54], Bolisetti The experimental results also validate the effectiveness of various
et al. [9], Scarfone et al. [66], Liu damping systems in mitigating seismic responses when SSI effects are
et al. [47], Liu et al. [47], Forcellini considered, though their efficiency varies with soil conditions and
[28], Ghorbanzadeh et al. [35],
structural characteristics.
Sanghai and Pawade [65],
Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4], • Analytical methods have evolved to provide computationally effi-
Requena-Garcia-Cruz et al. [62], cient alternatives for SSI analysis, with simplified models achieving
Firoj et al. [27], Cortez et al. [18], reasonable accuracy in predicting structural responses. The devel-
Wani et al. [25], Khansefid et al. opment of hybrid approaches and advanced constitutive models has
[43], Shabani and Kioumarsi [67],
Shang et al. [69], Torghabeh et al.
enhanced our ability to capture complex SSI phenomena while
[80], Mishra and Samanta [53], maintaining practical applicability in engineering design. However,
Wan et al. [83], Fu et al. [29], El the varying sensitivity of different structural systems to SSI effects
Hoseny et al. [23], Elias and underscores the need for careful consideration in selecting appro-
Djerouni [24], Wang et al. [84], Ha
priate analytical methods for specific applications.
et al. [38]
Material Ha and Kim [37], Behnamfar and
Banizadeh [8], Chen and Dai [16], These findings have significant implications for seismic design
Scarfone et al. [66], Gopikrishnan practices and structural safety assessments. The research suggests that
and Varkey [36], Liu et al. [47], conventional fixed-base analyses may lead to either conservative or
Fathi et al. [26], Ghorbanzadeh
unconservative designs, depending on specific structural and soil con-
et al. [35], Ayala et al. [5], Zhang
and Taciroglu [88], Cairo [14], ditions. For critical infrastructure, particularly nuclear facilities and
Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4], high-rise buildings, the incorporation of SSI effects through appropriate
Requena-Garcia-Cruz, et al. [62], numerical or analytical methods appears essential for ensuring reliable
Firoj et al. [27], Cortez et al. [18],
seismic performance predictions.
Wani et al. [25], Sanghai and
Pawade [65], Khansefid et al. [43],
Shang et al. [69], Torghabeh et al. 4. Future research directions
[80], Mishra and Samanta [53], El
Hoseny et al. [23], Bozyigit et al. (a) Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction (SSSI) and Pounding Effects:

11
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Various software used for SSI studies. Sr. Software Software used in studies Software specification
Sr. Software Software used in studies Software specification No. for respective studies
No. for respective studies
boundaries during high-
(a) SAP2000 Tabatabaiefar and Massumi Researchers have used intensity seismic events.
[20] [75], Scarfone et al. [66] SAP2000 to create 3D (f) ANSYS [2] Vasilev et al. [81], Scarfone Ansys software is used
Shang et al. [69], Mishra and numerical models of et al. [66], Gopikrishnan and for numerical modeling
Samanta [53], Wan et al. buildings, bridges, and Varkey [36], Ozturk [56] of the dynamic behavior
[83], El Hoseny et al. [23], other structures for of structures,
Bozyigit et al. [11] studying SSI effects. incorporating boundary
With SAP2000, they conditions and dynamic
perform dynamic SSI responses under seismic
analysis, investigating conditions. It effectively
parameters such as handles semi-infinite soil
vibration frequency, mediums, validates
free-vibration response, impedance functions,
mode shapes, and time- and incorporates viscous
history analysis. This and spring elements to
software facilitates analyze damping and
realistic SSI simulations, stiffness.
helping researchers (g) MATLAB Konale and Chore [44], Araz MATLAB software is
evaluate how SSI impacts and Farsangi [3] utilized for optimization
structural behavior algorithms and
under dynamic loading mathematical modeling.
conditions. It computes time periods
(b) ABAQUS Butt and Omenzetter [13], Liu Abaqus is employed for for respective
[72] et al. [47], Fathi et al. [26], designing and analyzing frequencies by using
Zhang and Taciroglu [88], the nonlinear behavior of eigenvalue matrices
Firoj et al. [27], Zhang and soil using the advanced derived from combined
Far [87] cap plasticity model. mass and stiffness
Time-history analysis is matrices.
conducted, modeling (h) ETABS Torghabeh et al. [80], Konale ETABS software is used
beams and columns to and Chore [44] for modal analysis,
examine the dynamic assessing dynamic
response of the structure. properties such as time
(c) OPENSEES Mitropoulou et al. [54], OpenSees software is periods, frequencies, and
[51] Sharma et al. [70], utilized to create mode shapes, as well as
Asadi-Ghoozhdi et al. [4], numerical models for validating fixed-base
Requena-Garcia-Cruz et al. conducting nonlinear nonlinear models.
[62], Torghabeh et al. [80], static analyses (NLSA), (i) PLAXIS− 3D El Hoseny et al. [23] Utilization of PLAXIS 3D
Ghorbanzadeh et al. [35], incremental dynamic [60] software for modeling
Forcellini [28], Pinto et al. analysis (IDA), and and analyzing the
[59], Cruz et al. [19] generating fragility seismic response of the
curves. It effectively scale and prototype
handles nonlinear soil model.
conditions, plastic (j) ARTeMIS Ayala et al. [5] ARTeMIS® software was
models, and hysteretic used for modal
materials to simulate the identification in the
interaction between soil study. It helped in
and building developing a simplified
foundations, facilitating model to identify the first
complex structural and few frequencies and
seismic assessments. modal shapes of the
(d) SCADA Pro Mitropoulou et al. [54] Uniform dimensions for structures. This was
all foundations can be achieved using
enforced using SCADA Operational Modal
Pro, which is based on Analysis (OMA)
worst-case design methods, specifically the
scenarios. The software Frequency Domain
also supports nonlinear Decomposition (FDD)
static analyses and and Stochastic Subspace
fragility curve Identification (SSI)
generation, enhancing methods.
the design process for
structural assessments.
(e) LS-DYNA Bolisetti et al. [9], Cortez et al. The software creates 3D • Develop advanced 3D numerical models to simulate nonlinear
[18], Khansefid et al. [43], finite element models to deformation and dynamic SSSI effects
Shabani and Kioumarsi [67], study natural frequency,
• Integrate machine learning algorithms for real-time seismic hazard
Zhao et al. [90] mode shapes, and time
history analysis. It assessment
performs nonlinear • Design novel structural isolation systems for SSSI mitigation
dynamic analysis,
models seismic wave (b) Dynamic Behavior of Irregular Buildings:
propagation through soil
layers, and simulates
nonlinear soil-structure • Research innovative construction techniques for complex geometries
• Develop cost-effective design solutions for irregular structures

12
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

(c) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Framework: [14] Cairo R. A boundary element approach for the evaluation of SSI effects in presence
of pile foundations under steady-state conditions. Bull Earthq Eng 2022;20(7):
3265–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01331-0.
• Establish comprehensive structural models incorporating LCA [15] Çapar Y. 2020. Contact types and behaviours in structural analysis. 〈https://yasin
principles capar.com/contact-types-and-behaviours-in-structural-analysis/〉.
• Integrate economic, environmental, and social impact factors [16] Chen D, Dai S. Dynamic fracture analysis of the soil-structure interaction system
using the scaled boundary finite element method. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2017;77:
26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2017.01.002.
(d) Case Study Analysis: [17] Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures. Pearson Education India; 2007.
[18] Cortez C, Jünemann R, Fernández C, Urrutia A, Crempien JGF, Cienfuegos R.
Performance of an RC building under seismic and tsunami actions in sequence via
• Conduct thorough investigations of diverse structural design nonlinear dynamic analysis including soil-structure interaction. Eng Struct 2022;
implementations 272:114942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114942.
• Document practical challenges and successful solutions [19] Cruz L, Todorovska MI, Chen M, Trifunac MD, Aihemaiti A, Lin G, et al. For how
large soil shear wave velocity the soil-structure interaction effects on a tall building
can be neglected?–a case study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2024;184:108845. https://
(e) Wind Engineering for Tall Structures: doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108845.
[20] CSI. SAP2000 Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design, 2021.
[21] Dutta SC, Roy R. A critical review on idealization and modeling for interaction
• Investigate aerodynamic effects on high-rise buildings and towers among soil–foundation–structure system. Comput Struct 2002;80(20-21):1579–94.
• Optimize structural configurations for wind resistance https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00115-3.
• Develop improved wind load prediction models [22] Edirisinghe TL, Talbot JP. The significance of soil–structure interaction in the
response of buildings to ground-borne vibration from underground railways.
J Sound Vib 2024:118812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2024.118812.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [23] El Hoseny M, Ma J, Dawoud W, Forcellini D. The role of soil structure interaction
(SSI) on seismic response of tall buildings with variable embedded depths by
experimental and numerical approaches. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2023;164:107583.
Shrish Chandrawanshi: Writing – review & editing, Formal anal- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107583.
ysis, Conceptualization. Vivek Garg: Writing – review & editing, Su- [24] Elias S, Djerouni S. Optimum tuned mass damper inerter under near-fault pulse-
pervision. Anuj Kumar Bharti: Writing – original draft, Formal like ground motions of buildings including soil-structure interaction. J Build Eng
2024;85:108674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108674.
analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. [25] F.M. Wani J. Vemuri C. Rajaram Effect of soil structure interaction on the dynamic
response of reinforced concrete structures Natural Hazards Research 2 4 304 315
doi: 10.1016/j.nhres.2022.11.002.
Declaration of Competing Interest [26] Fathi A, Sadeghi A, Emami Azadi MR, Hoveidae N. Assessing the soil-structure
interaction effects by direct method on the out-of-plane behavior of masonry
structures (case study: Arge-Tabriz). Bull Earthq Eng 2020;18:6429–43. https://
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00933-w.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [27] Firoj M, Bahuguna A, Kanth A, Agrahari R. Effect of nonlinear soil− structure
the work reported in this paper. interaction and lateral stiffness on seismic performance of mid− rise RC building.
J Build Eng 2022;59:105096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105096.
[28] Forcellini D. Analytical fragility curves of shallow-founded structures subjected to
References soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2021;141:106487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106487.
[29] Fu X, Pan D, Huang Y, Huang T. Real-time dynamic hybrid testing method for the
[1] Anand V, Kumar SS. Seismic soil-structure interaction: a state-of-the-art review. In
dynamic characteristics of soil-structure interaction system. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
Structures, 16. Elsevier; 2018. p. 317–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2023;166:107742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107742.
istruc.2018.10.009.
[30] Garbellini C, Laloui L. Soil-structure interaction of surface footings. Comput
[2] Ansys, User Manual, Version 13.0 2010.
Geotech 2021;134:104103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104103.
[3] Araz O, Farsangi EN. Optimum tuned tandem mass dampers for suppressing
[31] Garg V, Hora M. A review on interaction behaviour of structure-foundation-soil
seismic-induced vibrations considering soil-structure interaction. Structures 2023;
system. system 2012;2(6).
52:1146–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.04.017.
[32] Gaudio D, Madabhushi GS, Rampello S, Viggiani GM. Equivalent fundamental
[4] Asadi-Ghoozhdi H, Attarnejad R, Masoodi A, Majlesi A. Seismic assessment of
period of bridge piers on caisson foundations from dynamic centrifuge testing. Soil
irregular RC frames with tall ground story incorporating nonlinear soil-structure
Dyn Earthq Eng 2024;177:108408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
interaction. Structures 2022;41:159–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2023.108408.
istruc.2022.05.001.
[33] Gazetas G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded
[5] Ayala F, Sáez E, Magna-Verdugo C. Computational modelling of dynamic soil-
foundations. J Geotech Eng 1991;117(9):1363–81.
structure interaction in shear wall buildings with basements in medium stiffness
[34] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In Foundation engineering handbook. Boston,
sandy soils using a subdomain spectral element approach calibrated by micro-
MA: Springer US; 1991. p. 553–93.
vibrations. Eng Struct 2022;252:113668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[35] Ghorbanzadeh M, Uygar E, Sensoy S. Lateral soil pile structure interaction
engstruct.2021.113668.
assessment for semi active tuned mass damper buildings. Structures 2021;29:
[6] Balkaya C, Yuksel SB, Derinoz O. Soil-structure interaction effects on the
1362–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.020.
fundamental periods of the shear-wall dominant buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec
[36] Gopikrishnan V, Varkey D. A comparative study of pile settlement analysis based
Build 2012;21(6):416–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.611.
on soil-structure interaction. Int J Eng Res Technol 2020;7(6):7520–5.
[7] Bapir B, Abrahamczyk L, Wichtmann T, Prada-Sarmiento LF. Soil-structure
[37] Ha JG, Kim DS. Evaluation of seismic behavior of soils under nuclear containment
interaction: a state-of-the-art review of modeling techniques and studies on seismic
structures via dynamic centrifuge test. Nucl Eng Des 2014;277:64–75. https://doi.
response of building structures. Front Built Environ 2023;9:1120351. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.06.013.
org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1120351.
[38] Ha JG, Lee SH, Kim DS, Choo YW. Simulation of soil–foundation–structure
[8] Behnamfar F, Banizadeh M. Effects of soil–structure interaction on distribution of
interaction of Hualien large-scale seismic test using dynamic centrifuge test. Soil
seismic vulnerability in RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2016;80:73–86.
Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;61:176–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.01.008.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.10.007.
[39] Hetényi M. 1964. Beams on elastic foundation: theory with applications in the
[9] Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Coleman JL. Linear and nonlinear soil-structure
fields of civil and mechanical engineering.
interaction analysis of buildings and safety-related nuclear structures. Soil Dyn
[40] Islam MR, Turja SD, Van Nguyen D, Forcellini D, Kim D. Seismic Soil-Structure
Earthq Eng 2018;107:218–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.026.
interaction in nuclear power plants: an extensive review. Results Eng 2024:
[10] Bozyigit B. Seismic response of pile supported frames using the combination of
102694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102694.
dynamic stiffness approach and Galerkin’s method. Eng Struct 2021;244:112822.
[41] Kausel E. Early history of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112822.
(9):822–32.
[11] Bozyigit B, Bozyigit I, Prendergast LJ. Analytical approach for seismic analysis of
[42] Kavitha PE, Beena KS, Narayanan KP. A review on soil–structure interaction
onshore wind turbines considering soil-structure interaction. Structures 2023;51:
analysis of laterally loaded piles. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2016;1:1–15. https://doi.
226–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.03.048.
org/10.1007/s41062-016-0015-x.
[12] Bozyigit B, Bozyigit I, Prendergast LJ. Rapid assessment of seismic performance of
[43] Khansefid A, Yadollahi S, Müller G, Taddei F. Soil-structure-interaction effects on
large monopile-supported offshore wind turbines under scour. Eur J Mech-A/Solids
the seismic performance of a masonry building under geothermal power plants
2025;109:105451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2024.105451.
induced earthquakes. Structures 2023;55:468–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[13] Butt F, Omenzetter P. Seismic response trends evaluation and finite element model
istruc.2023.06.040.
calibration of an instrumented RC building considering soil–structure interaction
and non-structural components. Eng Struct 2014;65:111–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.045.

13
A.K. Bharti et al. Structures 72 (2025) 108221

[44] Konale BA, Chore HS. Development of an approximate method for analysis of [68] Shakib H, Fuladgar A. Dynamic soil–structure interaction effects on the seismic
connected buildings considering soil-structure interaction. Materials Today: response of asymmetric buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2004;24(5):379–88.
Proceedings 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.01.002.
[45] Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pearson Education India; 1996. [69] Shang H, Bao C, Wang H, Ma X, Cao J, Du J. Seismic response analysis of frame
[46] Li JL, Yu DH, Li G. Seismic response analysis of complicated soil-structure structures with uneven settlement of foundation considering soil-structure
interaction using inelasticity-separated scaled boundary finite element method. interaction. Results Eng 2023;20:101574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2022;152:107069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rineng.2023.101574.
soildyn.2021.107069. [70] Sharma N, Kaustubh D, Dey A. Natural period of reinforced concrete building
[47] Liu S, Li P, Zhang W, Lu Z. Experimental study and numerical simulation on frames on pile foundation considering seismic soil-structure interaction effects.
dynamic soil-structure interaction under earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Structures 2020;27:1594–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105864.
Eng 2020;138:106333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106333. [71] Shirgir V, Ghanbari A, Massumi A. Analytical model for time history analysis of
[48] Liu B, Xue J, Lehane BM. Centrifuge investigation of single pier bridges considering soil–pile structure interaction effects. Appl Math
soil–foundation–superstructure interaction under static loading. Eng Struct 2023; Model 2021;93:257–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2020.12.011.
281:115779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.115779. [72] Smith M., ABAQUS Unified FEA. Standard User’s Manual, 2009.
[49] Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, Zhai Y. Structure–soil–structure interaction: literature [73] Spyrakos CC, Xu C. Seismic soil–structure interaction of massive flexible strip-
review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31(12):1724–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foundations embedded in layered soils by hybrid BEM–FEM. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
soildyn.2011.07.008. 2003;23(5):383–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(03)00019-8.
[50] Madabhushi G. Centrifuge Modelling for Civil Engineers. CRC Press; 2017. [74] Spyrakos CC, Xu C. Dynamic analysis of flexible massive strip–foundations
[51] McKenna F., Fenves G. The OpenSees Command Language Manual: version.(2024). embedded in layered soils by hybrid BEM–FEM. Comput Struct 2004;82(29-30):
[52] Mehdizadeh D, Eskandari-Ghadi M, Rahimian M. A 3D BEM-FEM approach using 2541–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.05.002.
layered transversely isotropic half-space Green’s functions in the frequency domain [75] Tabatabaiefar HR, Massumi A. A simplified method to determine seismic responses
for SSI analyses. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2021;132:94–109. https://doi.org/ of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under influence of
10.1016/j.enganabound.2021.07.005. soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30(11):1259–67. https://doi.
[53] Mishra S, Samanta A. Seismic response of multi-storied building with shear wall org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.05.008.
considering soil-structure interaction in Patna, India. Structures 2023;56:104877. [76] Tanrikulu AH, Yerli HR, Tanrikulu AK. Application of the multi-region boundary
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.104877. element method to dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis. Comput Geotech
[54] Mitropoulou CC, Kostopanagiotis C, Kopanos M, Ioakim D, Lagaros ND. Influence 2001;28(4):289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(00)00031-8.
of soil–structure interaction on fragility assessment of building structures. [77] Terzaghi K, Peck RB. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 1st Edition. New
Structures 2016;6:85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.02.005. York: John Wiley; 1948.
[55] Novak M. Dynamic stiffness and damping of piles. Can Geotech J 1974;11(4): [78] Terzagi K. Evaluation of coefficients of subgrade reaction. Geotechnique 1955;5:
574–98. 41–50.
[56] Ozturk KF. Investigation of dynamic responses of three-sided underpass culvert [79] Timoshenko, S. (1970). Goodier. JN, Theory of Elasticity. New. York
under near-fault and far-fault ground motions considering soil-structure McGraw—Hil1, 970(4), 279-291.
interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2024;177:108446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [80] Torghabeh AB, Tehranizadeh M, Taslimi A. Probability of collapse evaluation for
soildyn.2023.108446. high-rise reinforced concrete buildings in the event of near-fault earthquakes and
[57] Pang L, Jiang C, Zhang C. An analytical method for predicting the soil-structure soil-structure interaction effects. Structures 2023;55:1675–91. https://doi.org/
interaction of axially loaded piles in sands incorporating the two-surface plasticity 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.06.113.
model. Eng Struct 2023;295:116841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [81] Vasilev G, Parvanova S, Dineva P, Wuttke F. Soil-structure interaction using
engstruct.2023.116841. BEM–FEM coupling through ANSYS software package. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;
[58] Pérez-Rocha LE, Avilés-López J, Tena-Colunga A. Base isolation for mid-rise 70:104–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.007.
buildings in presence of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2021;151: [82] Vicencio F, Alexander NA, Flores EIS. A State-of-the-Art review on Structure-Soil-
106980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106980. Structure interaction (SSSI) and Site-City interactions (SCI). In Structures, 56.
[59] Pinto FJ, Dashti S, Ledezma C, Abell JA. How do tall buildings affect seismic earth Elsevier; 2023, 105002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105002.
pressures on their basement walls? Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2023;171:107968. https:// [83] Wan F, Zhou W, Liu D, Huo Y, Li H, Luo X, et al. Seismic response of a stilted
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107968. mid–story isolated structure in mountainous areas based on variable parameters
[60] PLAXIS 3 D Reference Manual CONNECT Edition V20, 2024. soil–structure–interaction effect. Structures 2023;51:707–17. https://doi.org/
[61] Poulos HG. Stresses and displacements in an elastic layer underlain by a rough 10.1016/j.istruc.2023.03.072.
rigid base. Geotechnique 1967;17(4):378–410. [84] Wang P, Huang Y, Zhao M, Cheng X, Du X. Analytical solution for simplifying the
[62] Requena-Garcia-Cruz MV, Romero-Sánchez E, Morales-Esteban A. Numerical pile-soil interaction to a spring-damping system under horizontal vibration. Soils
investigation of the contribution of the soil-structure interaction effects to the Found 2024;64(3):101469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2024.101469.
seismic performance and the losses of RC buildings. Dev Built Environ 2022;12: [85] Wesselink HM. Theory of the foundation of structures. Trans Tech Assoc Civ Eng
100096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100096. Neth 1957;23:45–56.
[63] Rizos DC, Wang Z. Coupled BEM–FEM solutions for direct time domain [86] Wolf J. Dynamic Soil-structure interaction. Prentice Hall, Inc; 1985.
soil–structure interaction analysis. Eng Anal Bound Elem 2002;26(10):877–88. [87] Zhang X, Far H. Beneficial and detrimental impacts of soil-structure interaction on
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-7997(02)00057-7. seismic response of high-rise buildings. Adv Struct Eng 2024;27(11):1862–86.
[64] Roesset J.M. 1980. A review of soil-structure interaction. Lawrence Livermore https://doi.org/10.1177/13694332241255747.
Laboratory. [88] Zhang W, Taciroglu E. 3D time-domain nonlinear analysis of soil-structure systems
[65] Sanghai S, Pawade P. Performance evaluation of friction dampers for building with subjected to obliquely incident SV waves in layered soil media. Earthq Eng Struct
soil-structure interaction. Mater Today: Proc 2022;60:194–210. https://doi.org/ Dyn 2021;50(8):2156–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3443.
10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.439. [89] Zhang H, Wang F, Lyu Z, Zhao Z, Liu Z, Mao Z. Shake-table test on dynamic
[66] Scarfone R, Morigi M, Conti R. Assessment of dynamic soil-structure interaction response of prestressed high-strength concrete pipe piles under soil–structure
effects for tall buildings: a 3D numerical approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2020;128: interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2023;174:108159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
105864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105864. soildyn.2023.108159.
[67] Shabani A, Kioumarsi M. Seismic assessment and strengthening of a historical [90] Zhao J, Chen H, Zhou Z. Shaking table test study of nuclear power plant model
masonry bridge considering soil-structure interaction. Eng Struct 2023;293: considering soil-structure interaction effect. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2023;168:
116589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116589. 107859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107859.

14