Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 2025; 47(2): 103–120

Original Study Open Access

Messioud Salah*

Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface

foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves
[Link]
received October 4, 2023; accepted January 13, 2025.
external loads, the dynamic response of the foundation is
evaluated by determining the dynamic impedance matrix
Abstract: A three-dimensional modeling approach is of the soil–foundation system. In the case of seismic wave
proposed to examine the dynamic interaction response loads, the dynamic response is determined using the input
of two foundations subjected to obliquely incident motion matrix of the soil–foundation system (referred to
harmonic seismic waves(P, shear vertical, and shear as kinematic interaction).
horizontal waves).The two foundations are positioned To investigate the impact of soil–structure interaction
on the surface of a uniform viscoelastic soil layer, on the dynamic response of the soil–foundation system,
underlain by a substratum. The dynamic response of various methods have been proposed. One method to
the rigid foundations is determined by solving the wave simplify this problem involves linear analysis. An effective
equations, taking the soil–foundation interaction into and alternative approach is the substructuring method. In
[Link] mathematical method employed is based this approach, the dynamic response of the superstructure
on integral equations in the frequency domain, utilizing elements and the substructures is analyzed separately,
Green’s function formalism presented by Kausel and Peek as described by Kausel et al. (1978), Aubry and Clouteau
in 1982 for a multilayered [Link] solution is obtained (1992), and Messioud et al. (2017).
using the frequencydomain boundary element method, The analysis of the foundation system can be
with Green’s functions derived through the thin layer simplified by focusing on two key factors: the dynamic
method. By discretizing the soil–foundation interface stiffness at the soil–foundation interface, often referred to
into quadrilateral constant elements, these equations are as impedance functions, and the driving forces generated
transformed into algebraic form, simplifying the force– by the incident waves, as discussed by Messioud et al.
displacement relationship within the discretized domain (2016). The kinematic interaction of the foundation under
into a system of linear [Link] approach was incident waves is represented using a motion matrix, a
applied to assess the impact of soil–structure interaction concept introduced by Wong (1978) and further elaborated
on the seismic response of two foundations, using the by Qian and Beskos (1996).Determining these dynamic
interaction coefficients proposed by Dobry and Gazetas in impedance functions and the driving forces resulting from
1988. The results are presented in terms of displacement, incident waves can be particularly intricate, especially
rotation, and torsion at the center of the two massless when dealing with complex geometric configurations of
surface foundations. the foundation and the mechanical properties of the soil,
as highlighted in the works of Qian and Beskos (1996) and
Keywords: modeling; BEM; TLM; seismic waves; Messioud et al. (2016).
foundations. The substructuring method has been widely
employed by numerous researchers to investigate the
dynamic interaction within foundation–soil–foundation
1 Introduction systems. Qian and Beskos (1996) developed a boundary
element method (BEM) to explore the dynamic response
The dynamic interaction between two or more foundations of a system comprising two rigid, massless or massive
is typicallyanalyzed independently for different types surface foundations with arbitrary plan forms, subjected
of loads, assuming harmonic variation over time. For to various harmonic waves in three-dimensional (3D)
[Link] et al. (1998) presented a dynamic
response analysis of a finite number of flexible surface
*Corresponding author: Messioud Salah, LGCE, University of Mohamed foundations exposed to harmonic incident Rayleigh or
Seddik Benyahia, Jijel, E-mail: smessioud@[Link] shear horizontal waves. Karabalis and Mohammadi (1998)

Open Access. © 2025 Messioud Salah, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution alone 4.0 License.
104 Messioud Salah

examined the interaction between the adjacent square 2 Dynamic response of foundations
foundations over multi layered isotropic half-space.
Chen (2016) introduced a numerical approach to
to oblique harmonic seismic waves
calculating the dynamic response of a group of rigid surface
foundations. This formulation is unconditionally stable 2.1 Physical model and basic equations
and computationally efficient, involving only algebraic
calculations. Sbartai (2016) utilized the BEM in conjunction The critical phase of this study involves calculating the
with the thin layer method (BEM-TLM)to determine the dynamic response of a foundationexposed to oblique
dynamic compliance of two rigid surface foundations. seismic waves. This response is determined by calculating
More recently, Keawsawasvong and Senjuntichai (2017, both the dynamic impedance matrix and the driving forces
2020), as well as Han et al. (2017), investigated the dynamic associated with the seismic waves applied at the center of
response of two rigid foundations resting on a multilayered the foundation.
medium under time-harmonic loading. Zhenning et al. In a continuous medium, calculating the impedance
(2018) developed an indirect boundary element method matrix is particularly intricate due to the transcendental
to study the dynamic impedance functions (stiffness nature of wave propagation and the presence of mixed
coefficients) of a rigid strip foundation. boundary conditions. However, when the medium
In these studies, the foundations are assumed to is discretized both vertically and horizontally, the
be rigid, either placed on the surface or embedded in a problem can be transformed into an algebraic one.
viscoelastic multilayer soil, and subjected to harmonic This transformation relies on the assumption that the
dynamic loads in three directions. Within the discretized displacement variation at the soil–foundation interfaces
medium encompassing the foundation–soil–foundation follows a linear pattern, as discussed in the works of
system, the relationship between the distributed loads Messioud et al. (2016, 2019).
on the elements’borders and the displacements is In this study, we consider two rigid foundations that
established through integral equations. The presence of are square in shape and positioned on the surface of a
the two foundations imposes compatibility conditions on homogeneous soil layer, bounded by a substratum (as
the border of elements, ensuring that the displacements shown in Figure 1). The soil layer has a height denoted
are consistent with the movement of the rigid bodies. byHt and is assumed to exhibit linear viscoelastic
The dynamic response can be determined by enforcing behavior, characterized by its density (ρ), shear modulus
compatibility between the two foundations and the (μ), damping coefficient (β), and Poisson’s ratio (ν). The
surrounding soil. first foundation is subjected to incident harmonic oblique
This study introduces a 3D modeling approach to seismic waves, which vary over time and include Pwaves,
examine the interaction between foundation–soil– shear vertical (SV)waves, and shear horizontal (SH)waves.
foundation systems under seismic loading conditions.
The analysis employs the BEM-TLM to investigate
the dynamic interaction within the foundation–soil– 2.2 Mathematical model of calculation
foundation system. The dynamic interaction between
the two foundations is considered using the interaction 2.2.1 Dynamic impedance
coefficients proposed by Dobry and Gazetas (1988).
A comprehensive analysis of the 3D seismic In the following sections, we will determine the dynamic
response of two surface foundations, situated in either a response within the first foundation, and the interaction
heterogeneous or a homogeneous soil layer and underlain between the two foundations will be accounted for using
by a rigid substratum, was conducted. The results are the interaction coefficients proposed by Gazetas (1988).
presented in terms of displacements, rotations, and torsion To calculate the total soil displacement matrix, we employ
for both rigid surface foundations. This study highlights a method that involves applying unit loads successively
the influence of the vertical angle of incidence of different across the individual elements of the discretized soil.
waves on displacements, rotations, and torsion. Subsequently, the displacements within the soil can be
It is important to note that this work builds upon the expressed as follows:
research conducted by Messioud et al. in 2012, 2016, and
2019. The method proposed in this study can be readily {u} = [G ].{t} (1)
applied by engineers familiar with the use of interaction
factors in foundation design.
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 105

Figure 1: Geometry of two rigid foundations subjected to harmonic seismic waves.

The vectors {u} and {t} are the nodal values of the The load vector {P} applied to the center of the
amplitudes of displacements and traction, respectively, foundation, the equilibrium between the latter, and the
at the soil–foundation interface. [G] is the soil flexibility forces (traction) distributed over the discretizing elements
matrix. of the foundation areexpressed by the following relation:
The foundations impose on the different elements
of the soil a displacement compatible with rigid body {P} = [R T ].{t} (4)
movements. The soil and the foundation are connected by
the transfer matrix: Combining equations (2), (3), and (4), the dynamic
impedance matrix is obtained by the compatibility
{u} = [R ].{∆} (2) condition.

[R] is the transfer matrix of dimension (6N×3). {P} = ([R T ].[G ]−1 .[R]).{∆} = [K (ω )]{∆} (5)

1 0 0 0 z y
 
   K xx (ω ) 0 0 0 K x ,my (ω ) 0 
[R ] = 0 0 0 −z 0 x (3)  
   0 K y (ω ) 0 K x (ω )
y ,m 0 0 
   0 0 K z (ω ) 0 0 0 
0 0 1 y −x 0  K (ω ) =   (6)
 0 K mx , y (ω ) 0 K mx (ω ) 0 0 
 
 K my , x (ω ) 0 0 0 K my (ω ) 0 
 0 0 0 0 0 K mz (ω ) 
 

N is the number of elements at the soil–foundation

interface. where ω is the circular frequency and [K (ω )] the
{∆} = {∆ x , ∆ y , ∆ z , Φ x , Φ y , Φ z }T is the displacement impedance function matrix of dimension (6×6).
vector of dimension (6×1); ∆ i (i = x, y, z )represents the
translations and Φ i (i = x, y, z ) the rotations.
106 Messioud Salah

x(ρ)

Layer 1

z zn

Sublayer j-1
n
hn Sublayer j Layer 2
n+1
Sublayer j+1

Figure 2a: Vertical discretization.

a) Determination of Green’s functions by the TLM c) Discretization of the model

Obtaining Green’s functions by the proposed method The vertical discretization of the soil mass involves
will subsequently allow us to form the displacement dividing each soil layer into a specific number of sublayers,
matrix (flexibility) of the discretized soil. The viscoelastic each with a height denoted by hj, and these sublayers
behavior of the soil is easily introduced in this study. are assumed to have identical physical characteristics,
According to the correspondence principle, by replacing as shown in Figure 2b. These sublayers are considered
the elastic constants λ and μ by their complex values: to be horizontally oriented, viscoelastic, and isotropic,
characterized by complex constants of Lamé (λj), complex
λ* = λ (1+2iβ) (7a) shear moduli (μj), and densities (ρj). It is important to
note that this discretization does not encompass the
μ*= μ (1+2iβ) (7b) substratum located at a depth of Ht, which is considered
to be infinitely rigid. It is assumed that waves reflecting
whereβ is the hysteresis damping coefficient. off the substratum experience total reflection, resulting in
zero displacements in that region.
b) Calculation of the flexibility matrix Within each sublayer, the displacement is assumed
The crux of the study concerning dynamic (seismic) to follow a linear function of the interface displacements
response lies in determining the soil flexibility matrix. above and below it. This assumption holds true when the
Once the flexibility matrix for the specific soil volume in height of the sublayer is much smaller than the wavelength
question is known, the impedance matrix can be derived being considered (typically in the order of λ/10). This
based on the geometric characteristics of the discretized approach bears similarities to the finite elements method
model and the physical attributes of the foundation in that it derives the displacements within each sublayer
(degrees of freedom). However, calculating the flexibility from the displacements at the middle of the interfaces.
matrix requires prior knowledge of Green’s functions at the The interaction between the sublayers occurs exclusively
center of each element. The Green’s function for a layered through the nodes. The overall equilibrium of the soil mass
stratum is obtained by inverting the thin-layer stiffness is understood in terms of finite elements, and the degrees
matrix using a spectral decomposition procedure. The of freedom for the soil mass are reduced to the degrees of
advantage of the thin-layer stiffness matrix technique freedom of the nodes. The stiffness matrix of the soil mass
over the classic transfer matrix technique for finite layers is determined in a manner similar to the approach used in
and the finite-layer stiffness matrix technique is that the the structural analysis by finite elements. This technique,
transcendental functions in the layered stiffness matrix known as the thin layer method, was developed by Waas
are linearized (Kausel and Peek,1982;Boumekik,1985;Mes and Lysmer (1972) and is primarily employed when
sioud et al.,2012, 2016, 2019). analyzing horizontal soil layers.
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 107

Bx and By: the dimensions of the foundation; Ht: the height of the soil mass; h1: the height of sublayer 1; Nx: the number of elements in the x
direction for a horizontal plane; Ny: the number of elements in the y direction for a horizontal plane and Nz: the number of soil layers.

Figure 2b: Calculation model.

The displacements U(n), V(n) and W(n) in each and the zero-order or first-order Hankel transform in a
sublayer vary linearly between planes and continue in cylindrical coordinate system allows for derivation of the
the x, y, and z directions. Thus, the displacements in transformed solution in a Cartesian coordinate system.
each sublayer are obtained by linear interpolation of the The axisymmetric Green’s functions used in this method
nodal displacements at the interface of the sublayer (n) as are provided by Kausel and Peek in their work in1982.
follows:
2N aαβ ⋅ φiml ⋅ φ jnl
U (n )
( z ) = (1 − η ) U + η U
n n +1 (8a) G mn
ij = ∑
l =1 k 2 − kl2
(9)

V (n ) ( z ) = (1 − η ) V n + η V n +1 (8b)
k
with: aαβ = 1 si α = β and aαβ = si α ≠ β i, j = x, y, z.
(n ) kl
W ( z ) = (1 − η ) W + η W
n n +1
(8c)
wherek andklare wave numbers;m represents the
( z − Zn)
where η=
hn
and0 ≤ η ≤ 1, and U , V , and W(n ) (n ) (n )
interface where the load is applied; and nrepresents the
are the displacements along the x-axis, the y-axis and the interface where Green’s functions are calculated.
z-axis as functions of z in the layer j, and with U n , V n , and Green’s functions obtained in this process are
W n , which are their nodal values at the interface layer complex and serve as the initial data for calculating the
z = Zn. flexibility matrix of any given soil mass. However, when
This approach has enabled the determination of considering the geometry of the foundation, a system of
3D Green’s functions and the flexibility matrix for the Cartesian coordinates is adopted. The expressions for
half-space. This method relies on an exact solution U, V, and W and the Green’s functions provided earlier
of the wave equations in the frequency-wavenumber essentially constitute the elements of the flexibility matrix
domain, where only axisymmetric Green’s functions are of the soil. Determining this flexibility matrix allows
required to facilitate a transformation into a cylindrical for computation of the impedance functions for one or
coordinate system. The connection between the double multiple foundations and provides information about the
Fourier transform in a Cartesian coordinate system vibration amplitudes in the vicinity of a foundation. This
108 Messioud Salah

C C
method has the advantage of transforming the problem waves ( c = cosPθ oro
r c= S
cos θV
) for the P and S waves,
V
into an algebraic form, enabling the determination of respectively and being equal to CR for R waves (CR/CS =
Green’s functions when combined with the BEM applied to 0.9325 for a Poisson’s ratio v = 1/3).
the soil–foundation interface. Consequently, a horizontal The presence of a foundation on the surface of a half-
discretization of the soil–foundation interface is necessary space results in a diffraction of the total displacement field
for this approach to work effectively. {u}, which can be expressed by the following relation:
The horizontal discretization involves subdividing
any horizontal interface of the ground mass into square
elements,denoted by Sk. These elements serve as constant {u} = {u f }+ {u s } (12)
boundary elements where the average displacement of
the element is approximated by the displacement at its where {us} represents the scattered wave field, which
center, and it is assumed that the stress distributionwithin satisfies the equation of motion (2).
the element is uniform. For ease of integration and Substituting equation (5) into equation (12) written in
computational efficiency, the square elements are terms of the scattered field {us}, the applied force can be
replaced by disks. obtained by the following:
When distributed unit loads (in the x, y, and z
directions) are applied to disk j, the Green’s functions at
the center of the disk I can be determined. By successively {P} = [K ]{∆}− [K ∗ ].{U f } (13)
applying these loads to all the disks, we can construct the
complex flexibility matrix of the soil at a given frequency where [K*] is the driving force matrix (6×3N) given by the
ω. The discretized model, which allows us to calculate the following relation:
impedance functions of the foundation, is presented in
Figures 2a and 2b. Within this discretized model, equation [K ] = [F ][G ] {e[
∗ −1 iω ( x . cosθ H + y . sin θ H ) / c ]
} (14)
(2) is expressed in algebraic form as follows:
Equation (9) can be replaced withthe following alternative
N form:
u j = ∑ ∫ Gij t i ds (10)
i =1 S {∆} = [C ].{P} + [S ∗ ]{U f } (15)

Where N is the total number of elements at the soil– where [C]=[K]-1 the dynamic compliance matrix (6×6)
foundation interface. and [S*]the motion matrix (6×3) given by the following
formula:

3 Dynamic response of the [S ] = [C ].[K ]

∗ ∗
(16)

foundation subjected to seismic When the foundation is loaded only by the seismic waves,
excitation the external forces are zero (P = 0), and the seismic
response of the foundation is obtained using equation (16)
In this study, the first foundation is subjected to seismic or by the following expression:
excitation. Consider the plane-harmonic waves SH, SV,
P, and R of vertical and horizontal incidence θV and θ H {∆} = [S ∗ ]{U f } (17)
(Figure1). The free field motion of the half-space under
seismic waves can be expressed at the soil surface (z = 0) With:
by the following relation:  Sxx 0 0 
0
 Syy Syz 

{u }= {U } e[
f f − iω ( x . cosθ H + y .sin θ H ) / c ]
(11) [S ]
*
0
=
Szy Szz 
 (18)
0 Rxy Sxz 
 Ryx 0 0
 
where {U f } = {U xf ,U yf ,U zf } is the vector of the free field  Szx
 0 0 
motion; and c is the apparent velocity of the incident
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 109

The displacements and rotations at the center of the through the effect of the coupling of the different
foundation are given by the following relations: coefficients. The terms of displacements, torsion, and
rotations are given by the following relations:

∆ x = SxxU xf
∆ x = Sxx U xf + Sxz U zf
∆ y = Syy U yf + Syz U zf
∆ y = Syy U yf
f f 1
∆ Z = Szy U + Szz U (21)
y z
(19) (19)
f f
∆ Z = Szx U + Szz U
y z (21)
Φ x = Rxy U yf + Sxz U zf
Φ x = Rxy U xf + Syz U zf
f
Φ y = Ryx U x
Φ y = Ryx U xf + Syz U zf
f
Φ z = Szx U x
Φ z = Rzy U xf

An important part of the equation of motion of the soil–

structure interaction is the force vector due to incident The proposed approach is based on the concept of
waves. Physically, it is defined as the vector of driving forces substructures, which involves dividing the problem into
when the foundation is subjected to an incident wave. The multiple stages, each of which is easier to solve than
vector of the driving forces is replaced by the input motion the overall problem. This method typically separates
matrix; it is linked by the dynamic impedance matrix. The kinematic and inertial analyses. In this study, we focused
input motion matrix represents, physically, the response on determining the foundation movement by solving
of a foundation subjected to incident waves (kinematic the kinematic interaction problem(where the mass of
interaction). This response is considered an important the superstructure is considered to be zero). In this
parameter in seismic analysis because it reduces the context, the interaction requires considering kinematic
horizontal motion of the foundation to that of the free interactions in cases where the foundation soil profile has
field motion. weak characteristics or is of lower quality, with successive
The coefficients of the input motion matrix [S*] layers having very different stiffness, especially in areas
(Equation 18) are valid only for plane waves with a of moderate to high seismicity. In conclusion, this method
θ
horizontal angle of incidence H = 90° (x direction). can be successfully applied to soft soils and soils with weak
The procedure presented in this work is applicable when characteristics. Itis also suitable for heterogeneous soils
determining the input motion matrix [S*] with other angles or stratified environments limited by a rigid substratum. It
of horizontal incidence and for other types of excitations, is only necessary to introduce the appropriate parameters
but with caution because the elements constituting the for each specific case.
input motion matrix change their positions when the
seismic wave changes its direction.
θ
In the case of an angle of incidence H = 0 °, the 4 Approximate study of the
motion matrix takes the following form:
foundation–soil–foundation
 Sxx 0 Sxz 
interaction
0
 Syy 0 
The problem under investigation involves two weightless
 Szx 0 Szz 
[S ]
*
=  (20) surface foundations positioned on a uniform stratum
0 Rxy 0 
or half-space, experiencing harmonic seismic waves
 Ryx 0 Syz 
  originating from the midpoint of the first foundation.
0 Szy 0  However, analyzing this intricate system requires dealing
with a substantial number of degrees of freedom. A
Dependingon the position of the elements in the input simplification can be made by assuming that the motions
motion matrix, the influence of the horizontal angle of the foundations remain unaffected by the excitation
of incidence on the seismic response is clearly evident frequency.
 110 Messioud Salah

In the case of a system comprising foundations and loading, equation (24) continues to be employed to yield
soil, the displacements of both foundations, denoted by Δ1 an approximate expression, as described in the works of
and Δ2, are identical. These displacements can be derived Dobry and Gastetas (1988), Gazetas and Makris (1991),
using the principle of superposition. Consequently, the and Makris and Gazetas (1992):
total displacement of a pair of foundations is given by:

1
Δ11 ≈ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 exp (𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔) (26)
√𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
Δ1 = Δ11 + Δ12 = Δ11 (1 + αv(d)) (22) (22)

By dividing the results of equation (25) by those of

with Δ12 = αv(d)Δ11.. equation (26), we can derive an approximate expression
where αv(d) is the interaction factor for the vertical for the vertical interaction function. Here, a is defined as
vibration. a = Bx/2, representing half the width of the foundation.
The dynamic response of the two foundations can
be readily computedonce the dynamic response of a
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 −1⁄2
single foundation has been determined. The impact 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 ≈ � � exp (−𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) exp (−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 ) (27)
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
of the vibrations from foundation 1 on the response
of foundation 2 can be described using the dynamic
interaction coefficient αv​, which varies with frequency. This simple expression is essential for computing the
vertical dynamic response of any group of foundations
when the dynamic response of a single foundation
𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 (𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔) = Δ12 ⁄Δ11 (23) is known. It is assumed based on both static (23)and
dynamic solutions that no interaction occurs due to the
rotational motion of each foundation (Poulos and Davis,
The dynamic displacement around a vibrating foundation 1980; Dobry and Gazetas, 1988). Movements (without
1 is characterized by the following asymptotic wave lateral displacement of the foundation) are virtually
expressionpresented in Dobry and Gastetas (1988), imperceptible a few foundation lengths away and result
Gazetas and Makris (1991), and Makris and Gazetas (1992): in a rapidly diminishing stress field around it. Therefore,
although both axial and rotational movements occur
in foundation 2 due to its own load, only the influence
1 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
Δ(𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎) ≈ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 exp (−𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ) 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 �𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − )� (24) of displacements from foundation (24) 1 on the axial
√𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
displacements of foundation 2 is considered.
In the case of laterally loaded foundations, the
where a represents the horizontal distance measured interaction factor αv is contingent on the frequency ω,
from the center of foundation 1, and A = A(z) signifies the distance d, and the angle θ, which denotes the angle
the amplitude of displacement. The remaining three between the foundation line and the direction of the
terms in equation (24) indicate that the amplitude of applied force. However, it is sufficient to compute αh for
motion decreases inversely proportional to a(1/2), which is just two specific angles: 0° and 90°.
influenced by the hysteretic damping factor, exp(−βωa/
Cs). The phase shift in the motion of a specific point
within the soil is solely reliant on distance a. On the axis 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ (𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃°) ≈ 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ (0°)𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃 + 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ (90°)𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠2 𝜃𝜃𝜃𝜃 (28)
of the adjacent foundation 2, located at a distance a = d,
equation (24) yields:
To improve estimations for an arbitrary angle θ, the
1
Δ12 = Δ(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
√𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
exp(−𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔) 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒[𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
approximate 𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑values (25)
⁄𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 )] of αh(0°) and αh(90°) can be used,
1 (25) which are derived from the formulas presented by
Δ12 = Δ(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
√𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
exp(−𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔) 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒[𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ⁄𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 )] (25)
Gazetas and Dobry (1984). Specifically, when considering
foundation 2 at an angle of 90°, it is influenced by the
The displacement Δ2 remains nearly identical at the Swaves originating from foundation 1, which have a
periphery of foundation 1. To determine the displacement phase velocity Cs. On the other hand, when foundation 2
Δ1 of foundation 1 when subjected to its own dynamic is at an angle of 0°, it is affected by the extension of the
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 111

1,6 0,7
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
1,4
Δx1 Real Part 30° 45° 60° Δx2
0,6 Vertica angle of incidence d =2
Horizontal Displacement

1,2 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

0,5 Real Part 30° 45° 60°
1
0,4 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

Horizontal Dispacement
0,8
0,3
0,6
0,2
0,4

0,1
0,2

0
0

-0,2
0 1 2 3
ª O
4 5 6
-0,1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,2
ª O

F1
-0,3

F2:d=2
0,7 0,3
Δx2 d=5 Δx2
x d=10
0,6
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
0,25
0,5 Real Part 30° 45° 60° Real Part 30° 45° 60°
Horizontal Displacement

0,4 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° 0,2

Horizontal Displacement
Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

0,3
0,15
0,2

0,1 0,1

0
0,05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0,1

-0,2
ª O 1E-16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0,3 -0,05
ª O

F2: d=5 F2: d=10

Figure 3: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the horizontal displacement ∆x (θH= 0°;wave P).F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

compression wave emanating from foundation 1, which coefficients can be approximated through interpolation,
propagates with an apparent phase velocity CP. considering the apparent velocity for each type of wave
C CS
(c = P or c = ).
cos θV cos θV
In this work, a parametric study was conducted to
𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ (90°) ≈ 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 (29) define the (29) parameters of the calculation model. The
influence of the discretization of the soil–foundation
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 −1⁄2 interface was studied. The thickness of a sublayer h must
𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ (0°) ≡ 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ0 ≈ � � exp(30) (−𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
be small 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ) × exp (−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 )
enough that the discrete model can transmit
(30)
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 −1⁄2 waves in an appropriate manner and without numerical
𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ (0°) ≡ 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼ℎ0 ≈ � � exp (−𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ) × exp (−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔𝜔/𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 ) (30)
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
distortion. This size depends on the frequencies involved
and the velocity of wave propagation. The frequency of
These coefficients play a crucial role in calculating the loading and the velocity of wave propagation affect the
dynamic response of foundation 2 under two distinct types precision of the numerical solution. Kausel and Peek
of loadings. The coefficients for rotational and torsional (1982) showed that the thickness of the sublayer must be
interactions can be determined based on the vertical and smaller than a quarter of the wave length λ. Consequently,
horizontal interaction coefficients, following the methods the maximum dimensionless frequency must not exceed
outlined in Dobry and Gastetas (1988), Gazetas and Makris the number of sublayer N divided by 4.
(1991), and Makris and Gazetas (1992). The validity of the BEM-TLM method utilized to
When dealing with oblique loading modes, where analyze the 3D response of foundations under plane-
the horizontal incidence angle θH is set to 0° for the P and harmonic waves with varying angles of incidence and
SV waves and 90° for the SH shear wave, the interaction vibration frequencies, denoted byao, is confirmed through
112 Messioud Salah

0,4
ª O ª O
0
0,2
Vertical Displacement

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,5 0

Vertical Displacement
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,2 ª O

-1

-0,4
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
-1,5 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
Real Part 30° 45° 60° d=2
-0,6
Real Part
Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° 30° 45° 60°

-2
Δz1
-0,8 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

ΔZ2
-1
F1

F2 : d=2
0,1 0,05

0
0 ª O

0 1 2 3 ª4O
5 6
-0,05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,1
Vertical Displacement

Vertical Displacement
-0,1
d =5
-0,2 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
-0,15

-0,2 Real Part 30° 45° 60°

-0,3 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV

Real Part 30° 45° 60° -0,25 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°
d=5
-0,4
Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° -0,3
d =10
-0,5
-0,35
ΔZ2 ΔZ2
-0,6 -0,4

F2 : d=5 F2 : d=10

Figure 4: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the vertical displacement ∆z (θH= 0°, P wave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

comparisons with findings from Luco and Wong (1977) and of ν = 1/3, a coefficient of hysteretic damping of β = 0.05, a
from Qian and Beskos (1996), conducted on semi-infinite shear modulus of µ = 1, and a density of ρ = 1.
ground (Messioud et al., 2016). Furthermore, the BEM-TLM The critical step in this study involves determining
method proposed in our study has been validated against the dynamic response of the first foundation using the
finite element method numerical computations in the BEM-TLM method. Specifically, only the first foundation
research conducted by Messioud and Dias (2023). is exposed to harmonic oblique seismic waves, while
the second foundation is linked to the first one through
interaction coefficients. The analysis varies the vertical

5 Results and discussion angle of incidence (θV) at values of 30°, 45°, and 60°,
while keeping the horizontal angle of incidence (θH) fixed
according to the characteristics of the free field motion
5.1 Surface foundations (θH = 90° for P waves and θH = 0° for SV waves). The
displacements, rotations, and torsion are computed by
In this section, a parametric analysis is conducted for multiplying the input motion matrix with the vector of free
a pair of square foundations, each with a side length field motion amplitudes. The following figures illustrate
of Bx = 2a. These foundations are subjected to plane- the changes in displacement vectors as a function of the
harmonic waves with varying angles of incidence and dimensionless frequency (ao).
vibration frequencies, as illustrated in Figure 1. The soil
is characterized by a bedrock depth of Ht = 10 meters
(simulating a semi-infinite soil medium), a Poisson’s ratio
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 113

1 0,5

0,5
Фy Φy2
0,3
0

-0,5
0 1 2 3 4
ª O
5 6

0,1
-1
Rotation

-1,5
-0,1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-2
ª

Rotation
O

-2,5
-0,3
-3 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
Real Part 30° 45° 60°
-3,5 -0,5
Imaginary Part Vertical angle of incidence
-4 30° 45° 60°
Real Part 30° 45° 60°
-4,5 -0,7 d =2
Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°
F1 -0,9

F2: d=2
0,8 0,2
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
Φy2 Φy2 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
Real Part 30° 45° 60°
0,6
Imaginary Part 15° 30° 60° 0,1 Real Part 30° 45° 60°

0,4 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

0
Rotation

0,2 Rotation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ª O
-0,1 ª
ª
O
0
O
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,2 -0,2

-0,4 d =10
-0,3
d =5
-0,6

F2: d=5 -0,4

F2: d=10

Figure 5: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the rotation Φy (θH= 0°; P wave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

5.1.1 Compression Pwaves displacement of the first foundation. This increase in

the imaginary part is particularly pronounced at lower
In Figure 3, we can observe the influence of the vertical frequencies and is attributed to the rise in damping forces
angle of incidence on the displacements Δx of both with frequency.
foundations (1) and (2). Figure 4 presents the impact of the vertical angle
The figure clearly demonstrates that the displacements of incidence on the vertical displacement Δz of both
Δxare significantly affected by the vertical angle of foundations. Similar to the horizontal displacement Δx,
incidence, particularly when it comes to P waves. This the vertical displacement Δz is highly influenced by the
effect is evident across all values of the vertical angle of angle of incidence (θV). The findings in Figure 4 indicate
incidence (θv) and various distances (d). At vertical angles that the displacement Δz increases as the vertical angle
of incidence of 45° and 60°, the horizontal displacement is of incidence increases. However, it is important to note
quite substantial, especially at lower frequencies, while at that the amplitude of displacement for the second
higher frequencies, the displacement experiences strong foundation is significantly smaller than that of the
attenuation. On the other hand, at a 30° angle of incidence, first foundation. Furthermore, the amplitudes of the
the displacement variation is relatively uniform, and the displacements for the second foundation are amplified
displacement amplitude is lower compared to the other at lower frequencies, and their behavior becomes
angle values. unpredictable due to wave reflections occurring at
It’s worth noting that the results indicate the second the level of the second foundation. This reflection
foundation (2)experiences significantly less displacement phenomenon complicates the evolution of these
compared to the first foundation(1). This suggests the amplitudes as the frequency changes.
emergence of resonance peaks in the imaginary part, In Figure 5, we observe the impact of the vertical
with their amplitudes increasing in relation to the angle of incidence on rotation and the influence of the
114 Messioud Salah

1,6 1,7
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
Horizontal Displacement
1,4
Δx1 Real Part 30° 45° 60°
Δx2 Vertical angle of incidence θV

Imaginary Part 1,2 Real Part 30° 45° 60°

1,2 30° 45° 60°
Imaginart Part

Horizontal Dispacement
1 30° 45° 60°

0,7 d=2
0,8

0,6
0,2
0,4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0,2
-0,3

0 ª O

-0,2
0 1 2 3
ª O
4 5 6

-0,8

F2: d=2
F1
1 0,8
Δx2 Δx2
x
Vertical angle of incidence θV 0,7 Vertical angle of incidence θV
0,8
Real Part 30° 45° 60° 30° 45° 60°
0,6 Real Part

Horizontal Displacement
0,6
Horizontal Displacement

Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° Imaginary Part

0,5 30° 45° 60°

0,4 0,4

d =5 0,3
0,2 d =10
0,2
0
0,1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,2 ª 0
ª
O
0 1 2 3 O 4 5 6
-0,1
-0,4
-0,2
F2: d=5
F2: d=10

Figure 6: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the horizontal displacement ∆x (θH=0°; SV wave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

interaction between the two foundations on the seismic 5.1.2 SV shear wave
response of the second foundation. The results obtained
in Figure 5 highlight several key points: Figures 6 and 7show the influence of the vertical angle of
The imaginary part of the response is strongly incidence on the displacement vector when the SV waves
affected by the increase in the vertical angle of incidence. are applied in the x direction, with soil particles moving
As the angle of incidence significantly increases, the in the same direction as the SV wave. These figures likely
system exhibits higher damping at high frequencies when depict how the angle of incidence affects the displacement
compared with an incidence angle of 30°. However, at behavior under SV wave loading.
lower frequencies, an opposite effect is noticeable: the Figure 6 underscores the significant role played by
imaginary part of the rotation weakens. the vertical angle of incidence, demonstrating how the
The interaction between the two foundations displacements Δx are influenced by the vertical angle of
results in the emergence of resonance peaks, which are incidence θV. The maximum displacement value is observed
influenced by the distance between the foundations. when θV is 60°, while the minimum value is reached
Consequently, the imaginary part of the response is when θV is 45°. It is noteworthy to observe the influence
reduced, and the real part increases in comparison to that of distance (d) on the dynamic response of foundation 2:
of the first foundation. This suggests that the presence the displacement ∆x2 decreases proportionally with the
of the second foundation alters the dynamic behavior increase in distance.
of the system, causing a change in the seismic response The variation in the movement of foundation 2 with
characteristics. respect to the angle of incidence is quite significant.
Specifically, at an angle of incidence equal to 60°, the
displacement Δx2 reaches its maximum value. However,
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 115

0,7
1,6
ΔZ2
1,4
Δz1 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
0,6 Vertical angle of incidence

0,5 Real Part 30° 45° 60°

1,2 Real Part 30° 45° 60°
Imaginary Part

Vertical Displacement
30° 45° 60° 0,4 Imaginary Part
Vertical Displacement

1 30° 45° 60°

0,8 0,3

0,6 0,2
d =2
0,4
0,1
0,2
0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -0,1
-0,2

-0,4
ª O
-0,2
ª O

-0,6 -0,3

F1 F2: d=2
0,45 0,35

ΔZ2 ΔZ2
Vertical angle of incidence d=5 0,3 Vertical angle of incidence d =10
0,35 Real Part 30° 45° 60°
Real Part 30° 45° 60° 0,25
Vertical Displacement

Imaginary Part Imaginary Part

Vertical Displacement
30° 45° 60°
30° 45° 60° 0,2
0,25

0,15

0,15
0,1

0,05
0,05
1E-16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3
ª 4 5 6

ª
-0,05 -0,05
O

-0,1
-0,15
F2:d=10
F2: d=5

Figure 7: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the vertical displacement ∆z (θH = 0°;SV wave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

for the other values of the vertical angle of incidence, such Figure 7 also demonstrates a considerable increase in
as 30° and 45°, the real part of the displacement tends the imaginary part compared withthe displacement Δz due
toward zero. This indicates that the amplitudes of the to the compression waves (Pwaves). This phenomenon
free field motion for the SV waves are nearly zero for these occurs because the free field motion of the vertical
angles, implying that the movement of foundation 2 closely shear wave is complex, and in this case the amplitude
follows the movement of the free field. Consequently, the of displacement is influenced by the presence of the
displacement amplitude of the second foundation differs imaginary part of the free field motion.
significantly from that of the first foundation under these Figure 8 demonstrates the impact of the vertical angle
conditions. of incidence on rotation. In contrast to rotation caused
Figure 7 highlights the significant influence of the by compression waves, there is a substantial increase
vertical angle of incidence on the vertical displacement in rotation as the vertical angle of incidence increases,
along the z-axis. The vertical displacements of both particularly at 60°. This effect is not observed to the same
foundations, denoted byΔz1 and Δz2, are notably impacted extent for foundation 1. However, for a vertical angle of
by the obliquity of the seismic wave. There is a substantial incidence of 30°, both foundations tend toward zero
increase in displacement as the vertical angle of incidence rotation. This behavior may be attributed to the disparity
increases, especially at the angle of 30°. However, for in the free field motion amplitudes between shear and
these angles of incidence, the vertical displacement compression waves.
experiences strong attenuation at high frequencies, with Furthermore, it is notable that the rotation of the
a change in sign for frequencies ao ≥2.5. This results in second foundation becomes less predictable due to
the variation of vertical displacement Δz at an angle of wave reflections within the foundation. The amplitudes
incidence θV = 45° becoming uncontrolled, featuring some of rotation are significantly influenced by the distance
relatively weak peaks. between the two foundations. The results indicate that
 116 Messioud Salah

4 1,2 Vertical angle of incidence θV

Φy2 Real Part

3
Фy1 1 30° 45° 60°

Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

0,8

2 0,6

1 0,4
Rotation

Rotation
0,2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
-1 ª o -0,2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
-2 Real Part 30° 45° 60° -0,4 ª O

Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° -0,6 d =2

-3
-0,8
F1 F2: d=2
1,2 0,8
Φy2 Φy2
1 Vertical angle of incidence d =5 Vertical angle of incidence d=10
0,6
Real Part 30° 45° 60° Real Part 30° 45° 60°
0,8
Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°
0,4
0,6

Rotation
0,4 0,2
Rotation

0,2
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0,2 ª O
-0,2
ª O

-0,4
-0,4
F2: d=5 F2: d=10

Figure 8: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the rotationΦy (θH=0°;SV wave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

the variation in rotations is inversely proportional to the 2. This suggests that the separation distance between the
increase in distance, suggesting that a larger distance foundations affects how their dynamic displacements
between the foundations leads to less pronounced behave under the influence of the seismic wave.
rotations. Figure 10 illustrates the influence of the vertical angle
of incidence on the torsion of the foundation under the
influence of the SHwave. This figure reveals the impact of
5.1.3 SH shear wave the SH wave on the dynamic response of the foundation.
At low angles of incidence (30°), the real part of the
Figures 9 and 10 present the seismic response of the two torsion becomes negative, especially at high frequencies
square foundations when subjected to seismic oblique (ao ≥4). Conversely, for larger values of the vertical angle
wave SHloading. In this case, the seismic wave is applied in of incidence (θV ≥60°), the imaginary part of torsion
the y direction, while the particles move along the x-axis. approaches zero for all frequencies. This phenomenon
Figure 9 underscores the significant impact of the highlights how the non-verticality of the SHshear wave
non-verticality of the seismic wave on the dynamic affects the dynamic response of the two foundations.
displacements of the two foundations. The displacements Figure 10also demonstrates that the torsion of the
along the x-axis experience strong attenuation for second foundation is strongly influenced by the presence
low vertical angles of incidence, particularly at high of the first foundation. The displacement amplitudes for
frequencies. Moreover, the results indicate that increasing all angles of incidence are significantly reduced due to
the distance between the foundations has an influence on the radiation effect. The increase in torsion amplitudes
the variation of displacement amplitudes for foundation is inversely proportional to the increase in the distance
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 117

2,5
1
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
Δx1 Real Part
Δx2 d =2 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
30° 45° 60°
2
0,8
Real Part 30° 45° 60°
Horizontal Displacement

Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

0,6

Horizontal Displacement
1,5 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

1 0,4

0,5 0,2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,5
ª O
-0,2 ª O

-1 -0,4

F1 F2:d=2
0,7 0,5
Δx2 Δx2
0,6 Vertical angle of incidence d=5 Vertical angle of incidence d=10
0,4
Real Part 30° 45° 60° RealPart 30° 45° 60°
0,5

Horizontal Displacement
Horizontal Displacement

Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60° Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°
0,4 0,3

0,3
0,2
0,2

0,1 0,1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
-0,1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-0,2
ª O
ª O
-0,1
F2: d=5 F2: d=10

Figure 9: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the horizontal displacement ∆x (θH=90°; SHwave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

between the foundations. The variation of the imaginary similarly to the influence of seismic wave incidence and
part is not controlled, likely due to the appearance distance separation, although the specific amplitudes may
of resonance peaks, which can lead to unpredictable differ. This underscores the significance of considering
behavior in certain frequency ranges. these factors in the analysis of dynamic responses in such
The study of the distance between the two foundations foundation systems.
reveals a strong influence on the dynamic response of
foundation 2. The amplitudes of displacements, rotations,
and torsions experienced by the second foundation 6 Conclusion
are consistently reduced for various types of harmonic
seismic waves. The results indicate that as the distance In the context of designing earthquake-resistant
between the foundations increases, the amplitudes of the structures, the substructural method emerges as a
displacement vector for the second foundation decrease highly appealing approach toaddressing soil–structure
proportionally. This suggests a clear inverse relationship interaction challenges. An essential component of this
between the separation distance and the displacement approach involves assessing the kinematic response
amplitudes of foundation 2. of foundations. This study leverages the substructural
Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the method to precisely evaluate the kinematic interaction
incidence of seismic waves affects the displacement of 3D foundations situated on a viscoelastic half-space,
vector amplitudes of the second foundation in a manner constrained by a rigid substratum. This research developed
consistent with the behavior observed for the first numerical tools that combine the BEM and the TLM thin-
foundation. In other words, both foundations respond layer theory. These tools were applied to calculate the
118 Messioud Salah

1,2
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
3

Фz1 Φz2
2,5 1 Real Part 30° 45° 60°

2
0,8 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°
1,5
0,6
d=2
1

Torsion
0,4
Torsion

ª
0,5
o
0,2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0,5 0
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-1 Real Part -0,2
30° 45° 60°

-1,5 Imaginary Part

30° 45° 60° -0,4 ª O

-2
-0,6
F1
F2: d=2
0,55 0,8

Φz2 Φz2 Vertical angle of incidence ϴV

0,45
0,6 Real Part 30° 45° 60°
0,35

d=5 Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°

0,25 0,4

0,15
Torsion

0,2
Torsion

0,05

-0,05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0,15
Real Part
Vertical angle of incidence ϴV
30° 45° 60°
ª O

-0,2 d=10
-0,25
Imaginary Part 30° 45° 60°
-0,35 -0,4

F2:d=5 F2: d=10

Figure 10: Influence of the vertical angle of incidence on the torsion Φz (θH = 90°; SH wave). F1, foundation 1; F2, foundation 2.

input motion experienced by foundations under various between a group of foundations situated on the surface of
traveling seismic waves. The solution was derived a homogeneous half-space.
using the BEM in the frequency domain, employing the The research calculates displacements, rotations, and
formalism of Green’s functions. A constant quadrilateral torsion by taking the product of the motion matrix and the
element was utilized to investigate the seismic response vector of freefield amplitudes of motion, with a focus on
of the foundations. the vertical angle of incidence. The findings reveal that
This study provides insights into the intricate seismic activity, influenced by kinematic interaction,
phenomenon of kinematic interaction between two results in rotations of the foundation and reduction
foundations. The dynamic interaction between these in translational movements during wave passage.
foundations is accounted for using the interaction Particularly noteworthy is the more pronounced reduction
coefficients proposed by Gazetas (1988). The research observed in transfer functions when subjected to Swaves
also implements a seismic analysis of two rigid square (SH and SV) compared with Pwaves.
foundations situated on the surface of a homogeneous The harmonic response of foundation groups is
viscoelastic soil, subjected to different types of oblique significantly impacted by the dynamic interaction between
harmonic plane waves. individual foundations. The amplitudes of displacements,
This study underscores the significance of considering rotations, and torsions for the second foundation are
the angle of incidence of seismic waves in the dynamic notably reduced across various types of harmonic seismic
behavior analysis of both square and rectangular waves. Additionally, the study explores the effect of the
foundations. Furthermore, it delves into the interactions distance between two foundations, demonstrating an
 Dynamic interaction between two 3D rigid surface foundations subjected to oblique seismic waves 119

inverse relationship between distance and displacement waves. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 6(1),
vector amplitudes for the second foundation. Furthermore, 3-16.
the incidence of seismic waves affects the displacement [5]- Qian, J., & Beskos, D. E. (1996). Harmonic wave response of two
3-D rigid surface foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
vector amplitudes of the second foundation in a manner
Engineering, 15(2), 95-110.
similar to that of the first foundation. [6]- Tham, L. G., Qian, J., & Cheung, Y. K. (1998). Dynamic
This research highlights the importance of accounting response of a group of flexible foundations to incident seismic
for foundation–soil–foundation interaction in the design waves. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 17(2), 127-
of foundation systems. It reveals that vibrations in the first 137.
[7]- Karabalis, D. L., & Mohammadi, M. (1998). 3-D dynamic
foundation induce significant displacements, rotations,
foundation-soil-foundation interaction on layered soil. Soil
and torsion in the second foundation, with the amplitudes Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 17(3), 139-152.
of these displacements being notably lower for the second [8]- Chen, L. (2016). Dynamic interaction between rigid surface
foundation compared with the first. This straightforward foundations on multi-layered half space. International Journal
approach can be applied during preliminary and extended of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(05), 1550004
design phases to accountfor inertial interaction, thus [9]- Sbartai, B. (2016). Dynamic interaction of two adjacent
foundations embedded in a viscoelastic soil. International
contributing to more robust foundation system designs.
Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(03), 1450110.
In this work, the Green’s function for a layered stratum [10]- Keawsawasvong, S., & Senjuntichai, T. (2017, November).
is obtained by an inversion of the thin-layer stiffness Dynamic response of two rigid foundations on multi-layered
matrix using a spectral decomposition procedure. The poroelastic medium. In IOP Conference Series: Materials
advantage of the thin-layerstiffness matrix technique Science and Engineering (Vol. 269, p. 012047)
[11]- Keawsawasvong, S., Senjuntichai, T., Plangmal, R., &
over the classic transfer matrix technique for finite layers
Kaewjuea, W. (2020). Rocking vibrations of rigid foundations
and the finite-layer stiffness matrix technique is that the on multi-layered poroelastic media. Marine Georesources &
transcendental functions in the layered stiffness matrix Geotechnology, 38(4), 480-492
are linearized. The linear approximations inherent in the [12]- Han, Z., Lin, G., & Li, J. (2017). Dynamic 3D foundation–soil–
TLM method and the assumptions of linear elasticity in foundation interaction on stratified soil. International Journal
the BEM might restrict the method’s accuracy in capturing of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 17(03), 1750032.
[13]- Zhenning, B., Jianwen, L., Vincent, W. L., & Liming, H. (2018).
complex non-linear behaviors. Theoretical constraints
IBEM for impedance functions of an embedded strip foundation
should be transparently acknowledged to guide future in a multi-layered transversely isotropic half-space. J Earthq
research directions and improvements. On the practical Eng ASCE, 22, 1415-1446.
side, limitations related to computational efficiency [14]- Dobry, R., & Gazetas, G. (1988). Simple method
and applicability to realproject scenarios should be for dynamic stiffness and damping of floating pile
groups. Geotechnique, 38(4), 557-574.
discussed. The method’s scalability and performance on
[15]- Messioud, S., Sbartai, B., Dias, D., & Okoyay, U. S. (2012).
large-scale models, as well as its adaptability to irregular Réponse dynamique d’une fondation encastrée soumise à des
geometries, should be addressed, such as incorporating ondes sismiques obliques. Proceeding of the XXXe Rencontres
advanced constitutive models, enhancing computational AUGC-IBPSA
algorithms, or addressing challenges in handling [16]- Messioud, S., Sbartai, B., & Dias, D. (2016). Seismic response
discontinuities or irregularities. of a rigid foundation embedded in a viscoelastic soil by taking
into account the soil-foundation interaction. Struct. Eng.
Mech, 58(5), 887-903.
[17]- Messioud, S., Sbartai, B., & Dias, D. (2019). Harmonic seismic

References waves response of 3D rigid surface foundation on layer

soil. Earthq. Struct, 16(1), 109-118.
[18]- Boumekik, A. (1985). Fonctions impédances d’une fondation
[1]- E. Kausel, R. V. Whitman, J. P. Morray and F. Elsabee, The spring vibrante en surface ou partiellement encastrée dans un sol
method for embedded foundations, Nuclear Eng. Design 48 multicouche. Free University of Bruxelle (Doctoral dissertation,
(1978) 377–392. Ph. D. Thesis).
[2]- D. Aubry and D. Clouteau, A subdomain approach to dynamic [19]- Kausel, E., & Peek, R. (1982). Dynamic loads in the interior
soil–structure interaction, in: V. Davidovici, R. W. Clough (Eds.), of a layered stratum: an explicit solution. Bulletin of the
Recent advances in Earth. Eng. Struct. Dynam. (1992) 251–272. Seismological Society of America, 72(5), 1459-1481.
[3]- Messioud, S., Sbartai, B., & Dias, D. (2016). Seismic response [20]- Lysmer, J., & Waas, G. (1972). Shear waves in plane
of a rigid foundation embedded in a viscoelastic soil by infinite structures. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
taking into account the soil-foundation interaction. Structural Division, 98(1), 85-105.
Engineering and Mechanics, 58(5), 887-903. [21]- Gazetas, G., & Makris, N. (1991). Dynamic pile‐soil‐pile
[4]- Wong, H. L., & Luco, J. E. (1978). Dynamic response of interaction. Part I: analysis of axial vibration. Earthquake
rectangular foundations to obliquely incident seismic Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 20(2), 115-132.
120 Messioud Salah

[22]- Makris, N., & Gazetas, G. (1992). Dynamic pile‐soil‐pile

interaction. Part II: Lateral and seismic response. Earthquake
engineering & structural dynamics, 21(2), 145-162.
[23]- Senjuntichai, T., Keawsawasvong, S., & Plangmal, R. (2018).
Vertical vibrations of rigid foundations of arbitrary shape
in a multi-layered poroelastic medium. Computers and
Geotechnics, 100, 121-134
[24]- Wong, H.L. and Luco, J.E. (1986). “Dynamic Interaction between
Rigid Foundations in a Layered Half-Space”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 149–158.