Najar et al.

J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Journal of Infrastructure

[Link]
Preservation and Resilience

REVIEW Open Access

Advancing soil‑structure interaction (SSI):

a comprehensive review of current practices,
challenges, and future directions
Imtiyaz Akbar Najar1, Raudhah Ahmadi1*, Akeem Gbenga Amuda2, Raghad Mourad3, Neveen El Bendary4,
Idawati Ismail1, Nabilah Abu Bakar5 and Shanshan Tang6

Abstract
The safety, stability, and long-term performance of reinforced concrete (RC) structures depend significantly on soil-
structure interaction (SSI), a critical phenomenon governing the dynamic relationship between soil and structural
behaviour. SSI plays a pivotal role in seismic design, influencing the stiffness, damping, and natural frequency of struc-
tures, yet its application in practical design remains underutilized due to challenges in modelling and integrating
code provisions. This review synthesizes existing knowledge on SSI, emphasizing its impact on buildings, bridges,
and foundations under static and dynamic loads. It highlights advancements in analytical, numerical, and experi-
mental modelling methods, such as finite element analysis and discrete element methods, and evaluates their
effectiveness in capturing the complex interactions between soil and structural systems. The review identifies key
gaps, including a lack of unified guidelines in international codes, inadequate integration of SSI in real-world design
processes, and limited exploration of its role in emerging engineering challenges like sustainability and climate
resilience. Historical seismic events, such as the Kobe and Loma Prieta earthquakes, are analysed to underscore
the detrimental consequences of neglecting SSI considerations. Additionally, the review discusses recent innovations,
including the application of machine learning and advanced computational tools, and their potential to enhance
the accuracy and efficiency of SSI analysis. This study offers actionable insights for improving design practices, such
as adapting SSI frameworks for structures on soft soils and incorporating dynamic interactions in seismic design
codes. It concludes with a call for interdisciplinary collaboration and future research into novel SSI applications, includ-
ing its integration with smart sensing technologies and sustainable infrastructure design. This review bridges the gap
between theoretical advancements and practical applications of soil-structure interaction (SSI) by synthesizing cur-
rent knowledge, identifying critical research gaps, and proposing innovative solutions to enhance structural resilience,
sustainability, and seismic safety.

Highlights
➢ The introduction of SSI and the previous studies in seismic design is debated.
➢ Need, significance and the standard code provisions of SSI of different countries are explained.
➢ Solving methods of SSI are discussed.
Keywords Soil-structure interaction (SSI), Seismic design, Numerical modelling, SSI guidelines, Structural resilience

*Correspondence:
Raudhah Ahmadi
araudhah@[Link]
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit [Link]
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 2 of 25

Graphical Abstract

Introduction structure, and how they interact [20–25]. In this way,

Understanding the role of soil‑structure interaction (SSI) engineers can design structures that are safe, stable, and
The safety, stability, and long-term performance of efficient, even under changing soil conditions. It con-
structures, particularly reinforced concrete (RC) build- siders the influence of the underlying soil’s mechanical
ings, bridges, and foundations, are deeply influenced and geometrical properties on the structural behaviour
by the interaction between the built environment and of the building and vice versa. It is an essential consid-
the ground it rests upon [1, 2]. Since earthquakes are eration in the design of foundations, retaining walls,
unpredictable and unavoidable, and they have signifi- and other structures that are in contact with the soil.
cantly impacted human life, infrastructure, and eco- The analysis of SSI can be done using analytical, numer-
nomic development [3, 4]. More of the negative impact ical, or experimental methods [12, 26–28]. The numeri-
has raised concerns about the resilience of structures cal study of seismic SSI is a critical stage in the design
and their components that are vulnerable to seismic process that focus on performance-based criteria of the
hazards [5, 6]. So in essence, various approaches for above-mentioned structures. The direct finite element
mitigating the adverse effects have been developed by approach by Wolf [29, 30] is frequently used for such
researchers worldwide through the consideration of SSI analyses. Initially, a one-dimensional (1D) seismic site
[7–10]. SSI stands for soil-structure interaction (SSI), response analysis is done [22, 26, 31–33], followed by
and it has been an acronym common among research- an SSI analysis using a shortened SSI model. To repli-
ers [11–13]. Many types of civil infrastructure, like that cate the infinite domain wave radiation effect, the SSI
nuclear power plants [4, 14], hydro dams, subterranean analysis model’s shortened border is given an absorbing
buildings [15], and large-span bridges [8], are severely boundary condition. Ultimately, the seismic response
affected by seismic motions [16–18]. SSI refers to the is produced by the equivalent seismic load calculated
dynamic interface between the soil and the construc- based on the site’s reaction [25, 34, 35].
tion built on it [10, 14, 19]. This interface can consider- The majority of civil constructions, particularly
ably impact the behaviour and stability of the structure, bridges (abutments, piles, and retaining structures) are
particularly in cases where the soil experiences signifi- erected on or within the earth [36–38]. When study-
cant changes in load, moisture, and temperature [7–9]. ing such a structure, the results show a significant
SSI is critical to consider in the design of structures difference when the analysis is done with ground condi-
such as buildings, bridges, and foundations, as it can tions in mind. Hence, the ground conditions must be
significantly impact the overall performance of these considered to achieve analytical findings, such as the
structures [1–4]. To properly understand and predict behaviour of the actual building [39–41]. SSI is a physi-
SSI, engineers use various methods and models, such as cal phenomenon that occurs when a structure fails to
Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Finite Element Method behave independently and instead interacts with the
(FEM), Discrete Element Method (DEM), Finite Dif- soil [30], as seen in the Fig. 1. Because earthquakes sig-
ference Method (FDM), Boundary Element Method nificantly impact the ground and structures. Therefore,
(BEM) to consider for the properties of the soil and the the seismic design must take this phenomenon into
account.
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 3 of 25

Fig. 1 Interaction of the bridge’s structure with the ground [42]

Lessons from historical failure The Hanshin Expressway Bridge in Japan throughout
Numerous pile-supported bridges have collapsed as a the 1995 Kobe earthquake is another instance where
result of powerful earthquake shaking globally. One of SSI significantly contributed to a bridge collapse. A
the primary causes of these tragic collapses is a lack of methodical analysis of the Hanshin Expressway Bridge
comprehension and awareness of the influence of SSI revealed that the behaviour of this structure was sig-
[43]. The downfall of the Cypress street viaduct following nificantly influenced by the attributes of the soil [47].
the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 in Oakland, Califor- Soft soil refers to soil with a standard penetration of 10
nia is one of the well-known instances where SSI played or less (N ≤ 10). This type of soil can cause the essential
a significant role in a bridge disaster. The unstable sand period of the soil and structure system to increase, and
foundation upon which the structure was constructed can also alter the frequency content of an earthquake,
caused it to react more severely, which finally caused sev- which in turn can lead to a more severe structural
eral of the bridge’s sections to collapse structurally [44]. response [48]. Figure 3 depicts the two bridge construc-
Several bridge piers were harmed during the Northridge tions’ catastrophic collapse as a result of the Loma Pri-
earthquake in 1994 as a result of soil-pile-bridge seismic eta and Kobe earthquakes.
interaction [43, 45]. The Northridge Earthquake of 1994
is depicted in Fig. 2 as causing a bridge column to fail.

Fig. 2 Due to the Californian Northridge shallow crustal earthquake, the Mission Gothic Bridge’s column failed [46]
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 4 of 25

Fig. 3 A During the Kobe earthquake in Japan, an approximately 630-meter stretch of the elevated Hanshin Expressway collapsed [49]. B Due
to the Loma Prieta earthquake, the Cypress Structure, which functioned as the highway connection from Oakland to the Bay Bridge, experienced
a structural failure [50]

Challenges in current design practices strain is less than ­10−6, and the shear wave velocity is
Despite its established importance, SSI remains under- more than 1,100 m/sec, the SSI can be neglected [42].
utilized in practice due to several challenges [51]. These Depiction from above, it can be deduced that the sig-
include the complexity of modelling soil’s non-linear nificance of piqued the interest of numerous researchers
behaviour [52], the difficulty of simulating infinite who have delved into examining the impacts of SSI on
domains in computational analyses [53], and the lack diverse structures. They have also worked on formulat-
of consistent guidelines in international design codes ing several modelling techniques with varying degrees
[47, 54]. For instance, while Eurocode 8 and ASCE 7 of precision. However, the incorporation of SSI consid-
provide some recommendations for SSI, they fall short erations into practical designs has not garnered the focus
of offering universally applicable methodologies [55]. of structural engineers. This might be attributed to the
Moreover, the computational expense of detailed SSI absence of universal guidelines and the prevalent notion
models and the fragmented understanding of SSI’s that SSI effects invariably offer advantages to structures.
impact on structural systems further hinder its wide- Nevertheless, recent research and historical seismic
spread adoption. events suggest that neglecting SSI effects might result in
Two main impacts on the structure may broadly dis- designs that lack safety [60–63].
tinguish SSI. The first result is a modification in the
dynamic properties of the structure [56]. Because the
stiffness of soil is generally lower than that of the struc- Objective and scope of the review
ture, the structure’s stiffness and natural frequency are The primary objective of this review is to synthesize the
reduced. The second effect is an increase in structural current understanding of soil-structure interaction (SSI)
damping caused by the addition of radiation damping and address its critical role in improving the safety, resil-
[25]. These impacts differ based on the mix of soil lay- ience, and sustainability of structures. SSI significantly
ers, material qualities, seismic data, and structure fre- influences the dynamic behaviour of structures, particu-
quency [25]. As a result, the reaction due to SSI analysis larly under seismic loads, yet its integration into practical
may be more or less than the typical seismic analy- design remains inconsistent. This review aims to bridge
sis results under the assumption of ground fixity. Soil the gap between theoretical advancements and real-
response is used to develop design response spectrums, world applications by evaluating existing studies, identi-
define the dynamic stress-strain relationship of the soil, fying research gaps, and proposing actionable insights for
and quantify the seismic loads acting on the ground engineering practice.
structures as a result of an earthquake [32, 57, 58]. The The scope comprises a comprehensive analysis of
seismic wave characteristics at a bedrock outcrop are SSI’s effects on various structures, including buildings,
nearly identical to those at bedrock. However, subject bridges, and foundations, under static and dynamic
on the soil parameters, the features of a seismic wave in loads. It examines advancements in analytical, numeri-
soft soil or at the ground surface of deep ground might cal, and experimental modelling methods. Additionally,
vary greatly [59]. SSI can have a momentous influence the review highlights the challenges of incorporating
on the dynamic behaviour of a structure on (or inside) SSI into design practices, including modelling complexi-
soft soil. If a structure is built on bedrock and the shear ties, computational costs, and the lack of standardized
guidelines across international seismic codes. Emerging
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 5 of 25

technologies like machine learning, digital twins, and addressed, leaving a critical gap between theoretical
smart sensing technologies are also explored for their advances and practical implementation.
potential to revolutionize SSI applications. By address-
ing these aspects, this review seeks to contribute to the Need of soil‑structure interaction (SSI)
development of resilient, cost-effective, and sustainable The need for considering SSI arises because the behav-
infrastructure systems. iour of a structure is not only determined by its own
characteristics, but also by the characteristics of the soil
Advantages of previous studies on which it is built [60, 64]. The mechanical properties of
Previous studies on soil-structure interaction (SSI) have soil, such as its strength and deformation characteristics,
significantly advanced the understanding of how soil can have a significant impact on the structural behaviour
and structural systems interact, particularly under seis- of the building [65]. For example, if a structure is built on
mic loading. Analytical and numerical models, such as soil with a low bearing capacity, it may experience exces-
the FEM and BEM, have enabled engineers to simulate sive settlements or even failure. Similarly, if a structure
SSI effects with increasing accuracy. These studies pro- is built on soil that is prone to liquefaction or landslides,
vided critical insights into dynamic behaviours, includ- it may experience instability or even collapse during an
ing the alteration of natural frequencies, damping ratios, earthquake. Furthermore, the structural behaviour of a
and base shear, which are essential for resilient design. building can also affect the soil; for example, a founda-
Experimental approaches, such as shake table tests and tion or a retaining wall can cause changes in soil stress
centrifuge modelling, validated theoretical models, and deformation. Therefore, considering SSI is impor-
bridging the gap between research and real-world appli- tant for ensuring the safety, stability, and performance of
cations. Historical seismic failures, such as the collapses structures, and preventing structural failures or damage
during the Kobe and Loma Prieta earthquakes, demon- due to soil behaviour [66–69]. Neglecting SSI can lead
strated the necessity of integrating SSI into design prac- to overdesign or underdesign of structures, increasing
tices, prompting updates in seismic codes like Eurocode both construction costs and the risk of failure [70]. His-
8 and ASCE 7. Moreover, hybrid methods that combine torical failures, such as the collapse of the Cypress Street
analytical and experimental approaches have provided Viaduct during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and the
resource-efficient solutions, while emerging tools such Hanshin Expressway in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, have
as machine learning and digital twins promise to revolu- underscored the catastrophic consequences of disregard-
tionize SSI modelling and its role in real-time structural ing SSI [66]. These cases highlight how soil properties,
monitoring. such as stiffness, damping, and shear strength, signifi-
cantly influence structural performance during seismic
events.
Limitations of previous studies The requirement for SSI may be explained by compar-
Despite these advancements, previous studies on SSI are ing the structure’s deformation based on the stiffness/
hindered by several limitations. Many rely on idealized strength differential between the structural system and
assumptions, such as linear soil behaviour and uniform the soil [66]. The two conditional constructions men-
foundation properties, which fail to account for the com- tioned in the ATC-40 (Applied Technology Council) are
plexity of real-world conditions like heterogeneous soils compared to compare the reaction of the structure to
and irregular geometries. Computationally intensive geotechnical circumstances. The comparison of structure
methods, though accurate, limit practical application in responses based on ground conditions is illustrated in
large-scale projects. Experimental approaches, while val- Fig. 4.
uable, are resource-intensive and constrained to specific
scenarios. Furthermore, most research focuses narrowly A) Because the rigidity of a stiff foundation structure
on seismic events, neglecting multi-hazard scenarios is very great, no further deformations occur in the
such as tsunamis or extreme winds, which are crucial structure [72, 73]. As a result, the shear and moment
for comprehensive resilience. SSI’s nonlinear behaviour created by the seismic force are solely resisted by the
under extreme loads remains underexplored due to shear wall’s strength. As a result, damage (for exam-
the lack of reliable constitutive soil models. Inconsist- ple, fractures) forms on the shear wall, but no dam-
ent and vague guidelines across seismic codes, particu- age occurs on the frame other than a little displace-
larly in regions like Malaysia and New Zealand, further ment [74].
impede its adoption. Additionally, emerging challenges B) Because a flexible foundation cannot withstand
like sustainability, adaptive designs, and SSI’s applica- structural deformation due to seismic forces, rotation
tion in renewable energy systems remain inadequately occurs in the shear wall [75]. This rotation generates
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 6 of 25

Fig. 4 Comparison of structure responses based on ground conditions (A) showing rigid base and (B) showing flexible base [71]

frame distortion, resulting in severe deformations Fundamental concept of soil‑structure interaction

and fissures in the frame structure [76]. However, the (SSI)
shear wall’s force requirement falls when compared Soil-structure interaction (SSI) is a complex and dynamic
to (A). phenomenon that governs the interplay between a struc-
ture and the supporting soil medium [17, 77]. Unlike
As can be observed, the analytical findings for both traditional designs that assume fixed-base conditions,
situations varied largely dependent on the subsoil. The SSI considers the mutual influence of structural and soil
shear wall will be overdesigned if the ground condition is behaviors, particularly under dynamic loading conditions
not adequately assessed and understood as a hard foun- such as seismic events [69, 78]. This interaction manifests
dation, as indicated in (A). The reaction of structure, as through two primary mechanisms: kinematic interaction
in the instance (B), may be calculated as the dissimilar- and inertial interaction [75, 77], which are discussed as
ity between the ground motion without the structure and follows:
the structure’s motion owing to the stiffness of the foun-
dation, as well as an extra displacement in the ground Kinematic and inertial interaction
produced by force created by the structure’s motion. Kinematic interaction and inertial interaction are the
The need of SSI highlights the importance of under- names given to these mechanical processes [69, 79]. In
standing soil-structure interaction (SSI) for accurate recent years, substantial innovations in complete seis-
structural design and performance analysis. For current mic risk assessment techniques have been made in
practice, focusing on key parameters such as soil stiffness, earthquake engineering. Indeed, detailed approaches for
structural configuration, and seismic loading conditions quantifying non-structural and structural damage, esti-
is essential to achieve resilient designs. These param- mating the number of victims, and predicting restoration
eters enable engineers to optimize designs for safety and costs following severe earthquakes have been developed
efficiency, particularly in seismic zones. SSI-informed [77, 80]. As a result, strong analysis methods for pre-
practices reduce overdesign and material waste, ensur- cisely analyzing structural models and estimating the
ing cost-effective solutions. However, challenges such as needs for various levels of shaking have been established
computational complexity and fragmented design guide- [69, 75, 81]. Nonetheless, the majority of these solutions
lines must be addressed to fully integrate SSI into routine do not include the fundamental requirements. Hence,
engineering practice. Simplified approaches and unified it is presumed that the structure is closely connected to
standards are critical for broader adoption. Simplified yet the foundation medium, and specific soil situations are
effective modeling techniques are critical for bridging the incorporated by choosing suitable ground motions that
gap between research and practical application. align with the features of the underlying soil deposit [71].
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 7 of 25

Kinematic interaction in soil‑structure interaction (SSI) to produce conservative results. However, investigations
Kinematic interaction in soil-structure interaction (SSI) on the impact of the SSI on building capacity evalua-
arises due to changes in the propagation of seismic tion have shown that it does not have a favourable effect
waves caused by variations in the density and elastic- on various forms of structures in all varieties of soil [44,
ity of the surrounding media [82]. These changes alter 91–94]. It is demonstrated that the SSI influences charac-
the wave propagation velocity, resulting in the reflec- teristics of building seismic performance, such as ductil-
tion and refraction of incoming seismic waves [83]. Kin- ity, strength, and energy dissipation. As a result, in some
ematic effects refer to the difference in the structural circumstances, omitting the SSI might lead to an over-
response when considering free-field motions versus estimation of structural capacity, resulting in inaccurate
when the structure’s presence is accounted for during results [81].
analysis [79]. Unlike inertial interaction, kinematic effects
are independent of the structure’s mass and are instead Quantitative insights into SSI effects
influenced by factors such as the geometry and configu- Quantitative analyses reveal that SSI can reduce seis-
ration of the structure, the degree of foundation embed- mic base shear by up to 30% under certain conditions,
ment, the composition of incident free-field waves, and depending on soil stiffness and structural properties [95].
the angle at which these waves strike [77]. However, kin- However, in soft soils, SSI may increase deformation and
ematic interaction can be considered negligible in cases internal stresses, as seen in studies of tall buildings and
where the structure lacks embedment or when it is sub- bridge piers [63]. Incorporating SSI considerations also
jected to vertically propagating shear waves, as these prevents overdesign, potentially reducing foundation
conditions minimize the influence of wave reflection and material requirements by 10–20% [76].
refraction on the overall structural response [54, 72].
Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) history
Inertial interaction in soil‑structure interaction (SSI) The history of SSI can be traced back to the early days
Inertial effects in soil-structure interaction (SSI) arise of civil engineering when engineers first began to under-
from the dynamic coupling between the structure, its stand the significance of the soil’s properties in determin-
foundation, and the supporting soil medium [82]. The ing the behaviour of structures built on it. Understanding
elastic and inertial properties of the soil contribute addi- the history of soil-structure interaction (SSI) provides
tional degrees of freedom to the structural system, fun- insight into its evolution as a critical field in structural
damentally altering its dynamic behaviour [43]. These and geotechnical engineering. SSI research emerged
effects enable the dissipation of seismic energy through from the need to address the complexities of how soil and
two primary mechanisms: radiation damping, where seis- structures influence each other under static and dynamic
mic waves propagate outward from the structure, and loads. Its development has been shaped by groundbreak-
hysteretic deformation, which involves energy absorp- ing theoretical work, technological advancements, and
tion within the soil due to its material behaviour [84]. The lessons from structural failures.
significance of inertial effects is closely tied to the rela-
tive flexibility of the supporting soil in comparison to the Early contributions to SSI
structure. For regular structures founded on stiff soils or In the 19th century, the development of new materials
rock, inertial effects are typically negligible due to the and construction methods, such as reinforced concrete,
limited deformation of the soil medium [85, 86]. How- led to the construction of taller and more complex
ever, for stiff and massive structures situated on more structures. This increased the prominence of under-
flexible soils, these effects become pronounced, exerting standing the interplay among the construction and
a considerable influence on the system’s overall response. the underlying soil, and the need for better methods
This dynamic interplay underscores the critical role of of analysis and design. Lord Kelvin initially identified
soil flexibility in governing the inertial behaviour of the the SSI effect in the 19th century when studying the
soil-structure system [83, 87, 88]. issue of calculating displacements brought on by rigor-
In most seismic vulnerability evaluations, the earth ous static pressures deforming at any specific location
beneath the structures is neglected. In spite of its appli- within an infinitely elastic solid [96]. In 1935, Sezawa
cability in construction of structures, its inclusion in seis- and Kanai introduced the concept of energy dissipa-
mic studies is unknown [89]. In essence, a previous study tion into the ground, marking an early recognition of
suggested that the SSI was favourable as a result of the DSSI effects. Around the same time, Martel observed
reduction of internal stresses and drifts caused by the the behaviour of the Hollywood Storage Building dur-
greater flexibility of the soil [62, 90]. As a result, seismic ing the 1933 Long Beach earthquake, documenting the
assessments were performed using fixed-base structures impact of soil properties on structural response. These
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 8 of 25

early efforts provided crucial insights into how ground Integration of experimental and computational techniques
conditions alter structural behaviour during seismic The late 20th century brought the integration of experi-
events. mental techniques, such as centrifuge modelling and
shake table tests, with computational methods [14, 54,
101]. These experiments validated theoretical models
Mid‑20th century advancements and provided data for refining numerical simulations.
In the early 20th century, the field of soil mechanics was Pioneers like Gazetas developed impedance curves for
established, which provided a better understanding of the various foundation types, offering engineers tools to
mechanical properties of soil and their influence on the incorporate SSI into real-world designs.
behaviour of structures. This resulted in the creation of Wolf ’s work in the 1980s on direct time-domain SSI
techniques for analyzing the behaviour of shallow foun- analysis addressed challenges in simulating the infinite
dations, such as spread footings and mat foundations. domain of soil. The introduction of absorbing boundary
Sir Horace Lamb investigated the characteristics of wave conditions further improved the accuracy of dynamic SSI
propagation within the earth’s subsurface in the early models [66, 102, 103]. Software like ABAQUS, ANSYS,
20th century [96]. and OpenSees became instrumental in applying these
In the mid-20th century, the discipline of soil dynam- techniques, bridging the gap between academic research
ics and mechanics further developed, and the use of and industry practices [43, 54, 104].
numerical methods, such as finite element analysis,
became more prevalent. This contributed to an enhanced Modern developments and future directions
comprehension of the behaviour of deep foundations, In recent decades, SSI research has expanded to address
such as piles and drilled shafts, and the ability to analyze emerging challenges. Advances in non-linear modelling,
more complex SSS. Sezawa & Kanai [97], investigated multi-layered soil analysis, and machine learning have
the decaying vibration of a structure due to the dissipa- improved the accuracy and efficiency of SSI simulations
tion of its energy into the ground, were the first to con- [17, 53]. Researchers like Kausel have introduced meth-
sider the influence of SSI on structural response in 1935. ods to simplify complex interactions using Green’s func-
Martel first took SSI classes in the US in 1940 [98]. He tions and substructuring techniques [105].
wrote about his views of the Hollywood Storage Build- Today, SSI is being integrated into interdisciplinary
ing’s operation during the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. fields, including digital twin technology and real-time
Bycroft [99], investigated the behaviour of a stiff circular structural health monitoring [38, 104, 106]. These inno-
plate on an elastic bed when it was excited harmonically. vations aim to provide adaptive solutions for dynamic
Evaluations of the early-stage advancements in the environmental conditions, such as earthquakes, floods,
field of SSI were presented by [96, 100]. Roesset [100], and extreme weather events. The ongoing development
depicted the methods of substructure and direct ways of international guidelines, like Eurocode 8 and ASCE 7,
to undertake SSI studies. He also depicted the impacts reflects the growing recognition of SSI’s importance in
of embedment, stratified deposits, and piling groups on ensuring resilient infrastructure.
the latter. On the other hand, Kausel [96], presented a The history of SSI demonstrates a continuous evolu-
sequential evolution of SSI, starting with the fundamen- tion from theoretical exploration to practical application,
tal solutions, also known as Green’s functions, which driven by technological advancements and lessons from
were initially formulated by physicists and mathemati- real-world failures. Early pioneers laid the groundwork
cians as far back as the early 1800s. By way of example, he for understanding soil-structure interaction (SSI), while
mentioned Boussinesq, Hanson, Mindlin, Reissner, and modern researchers continue to refine models and meth-
Steinbrenner as major contributors to static SSI. Reiss- ods to address new challenges. As infrastructure becomes
ner laid the foundation for the influential SSI in 1936, and more complex and climate-related risks increase, the
noteworthy contributions from Bycroft, Housner, Luco, integration of SSI into design practices will remain a cor-
Newmark and numerous others helped shape it further. nerstone of resilient and sustainable engineering.
Kausel [96], himself was the driving force for the creation
of the substructure approach to SSI challenges [66].
The history of SSI continues to evolve with the advent Synthesis of previous studies
of advanced numerical and experimental techniques and With the advent of reliable and quick computational
the increasing complexity of structures and SSS. Today, platforms, the discipline of SSI has recently seen numer-
SSI constitutes a significant subject of study and practice ous and varied improvements. The majority of recent
in civil engineering and continues to play a critical role in research in the field can be divided into two categories:
the design and analysis of structures built on soil. studies that examine the impacts of SSI on a particular
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 9 of 25

type of structure and those that seek to know the reason- wind turbine structures and presented an active struc-
ing after these impacts on a broad structural pattern. In tural control. By taking into account working condi-
most seismic vulnerability evaluations of structures, SSI tions, Zuo et al. [115] expanded their investigations
effects are ignored. Nonetheless, previously it is demon- into dynamic SSI (DSSI) experiments involving offshore
strated that there is a possibility they could significantly wind turbines and discovered reactions to be signifi-
disturb the way they perform under seismic conditions. cantly higher. Additionally, the researchers noted that the
The previous studies on different structures has been impact of SSI on tower vibrations are more pronounced
summarised as follows: than on blade in-plane vibrations. Onshore wind turbine
pile-grid foundations were analysed by Michel et al. [116]
Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) of tall buildings with the interaction both structure and soil subjected
and skyscrapers to seismic load in mind. They took into account various
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) significantly influences pairings of tower and soil characteristics that resulted
the seismic response of tall buildings and structures. in diverse dynamic responses, suggesting the need for a
Studies on sky-pod towers, skyscrapers, high-rise build- comprehensive dynamic strategy for each turbine. When
ings, and tall chimneys demonstrate that SSI effects are designing deep sea platforms, Chatziioannou et al. [117]
particularly pronounced for structures on soft to inter- took into account the effects of SSI alongside a nonlinear
mediate soils [107, 108]. Analysis methods incorporat- wave structure. The main factors influencing SSI consid-
ing SSI, such as flexible base models with nonlinear eration in offshore structures are the significant capital
soils, provide more realistic representations of structural required and peculiar crustal occurrences under the sea.
behaviour during seismic events [1]. SSI generally leads Additionally, Kavitha et al. [118] examined a dockage
to increased top displacements and decreased base shears built on piles while taking into account SSI.
in regularly shaped buildings, though this trend may not
hold for irregularly shaped structures [17, 109]. The mag- Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) of tunnels and nuclear
nitude of SSI effects depends on soil rigidity and seismic structures
excitation characteristics [110]. Advanced modelling Hatzigeorgiou & Beskos [119], incorporated the finite
techniques, including nonlinear-inelastic approaches, are element approach in the time domain and investigated
crucial for accurately assessing the seismic performance that the impacts of SSI on the inelastic seismic response
of tall buildings with SSI [9]. These findings underscore of tunnels. For a variety of nuclear plants, time-domain
the importance of considering SSI in the seismic analysis seismic SSI analysis was carried out [120, 121]. By
and design of tall structures. employing LS-DYNA, a technique of non-linear SSI
investigation was developed by Bolisetti et al. [122] for
Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) of bridges nuclear facilities. The impact of SSI on nuclear structures
Using a direct method in the frequency domain, Car- is extremely significant due to their stiffness and weight.
bonari et al. [20] calculated the effects of SSI on piers of The failure of these structures also emphasizes the
bridge supported by the group of piles. When calculat- importance of considering SSI in their structural design.
ing the basic frequencies and accompanying damping Venanzi et al. [123] expanded on the study of SSI and its
ratios for an Austrian Railway Bridge with a single span effects on tall buildings, stating that it is not only limited
and integral abutments, Bigelow et al. [111] took SSI into to seismic response. Their findings revealed that uniform
account. Li et al. [112] assessed the Sutong cable-stayed rotations and displacements at the foundation level may
bridge’s seismic reaction and noted the importance of the lead to substantial permanent displacements at the top of
direction of the bridge axis in relation to the fault trace. tall buildings. Over the past decade, the amount of study
Recent evaluations of bridges that are significant due to on how SSI affects structural response has increased sub-
their high capital costs or their post-disaster connect- stantially. This research has focused on understanding
edness have produced results that are more accurate to how SSI affects diverse modal characteristics, includ-
the real world. Therefore it is crucial to take into account ing frequency, damping, seismic vulnerability, reduction
how they interact with the underlying soil medium. coefficient, seismic fragility, ductility, and acceleration
While Harte et al. [113] used a substructure technique to within a general structural layout.
undertake a dynamic analysis of wind turbines, incorpo- Ayough & Taghia [124], studied steel frames that expe-
rating SSI. rienced near-source stimulation and found that SSI could
be harmful based on several response parameters. In con-
Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) of wind turbines trast, Mekki et al. [125] and Tomeo et al. [55] estimated
A study carried out by Fitzgerald & Basu [114], looked reinforced concrete structures that could resist moment.
into the value of taking SSI into account when controlling Bararnia et al. [81] offered a formula for displacement
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 10 of 25

inelastic nature in systems with fixed foundations. This also carried out dynamic p-y analysis and site response
formula takes into account both the kinematic and iner- analysis by monitoring the dynamic beam on the non-
tial aspects of SSI. Papadopoulos et al. [126] considered linear Winkler foundation. Seismic waves travel from
how structures interacted with the underlying medium the bedrock, traversing through layers of soil during an
when computing their modal properties. Cruz & Miranda earthquake, and can lead to loss to structures on the sur-
[127], made an interesting discovery regarding the behav- face. It is crucial to comprehend the local site effects on
iour of structural damping. They found that effective significant ground motion to minimize earthquake disas-
damping decreases as structures become more slen- ters and develop earthquake-resistant construction tech-
der, which means that thinner structures tend to exhibit niques in the future. Using the Abaqus V.6.8 software,
reduced damping. On the other hand, for stocky struc- Matinmanesh & Asheghabadi [136], conducted a two-
tures (those with more robust proportions), the effective dimensional plane strain finite element study on seismic
damping increases. This relationship between damping SSI, which involved three actual ground motion records
and the structural proportions appears to be linear and is representing low, moderate, and high-frequency seismic
also linked to the modal frequency of the structure [128]. motions. The study investigated the influence of various
In simpler terms, slender structures tend to have lower factors such as subsoil type (dense and loose sand), build-
damping, while stocky ones exhibit higher damping, and ing height, and earthquake frequency content on acceler-
this relationship follows a linear pattern in relation to the ation response, soil amplification, and stress propagation
modal frequency [129]. at the soil-foundation interaction. The research discov-
Zhang et al. [130] delved into an examination of the ered that both categories of sandy soils enhance seis-
damping characteristics within the SSS. They did so by mic wave amplitudes at the interface with the structure
conducting rigorous shake table tests, which allowed because of the influence of SSI.
them to assess how the structure interacts with the soil Sáez et al. [137] carried out research on the impact of
under dynamic loading conditions. In a separate study inelastic dynamic SSI on the response of moment-resist-
by Nazarimofrad & Zahrai [131], they focused on evalu- ing frame buildings. They created a modelling technique
ating the performance of irregularly designed structures using a modified 2D in-plane approach, which allowed
equipped with active tuned mass dampers. Importantly, for quicker finite element analysis In the research, two
their research considered the impact of SSI during their typical buildings were studied, built on sandy soil in both
assessments. This means they took into account how the arid and fully saturated state, and a variety of motions
dynamic behaviour of the structures was influenced by were analyzed to evaluate the impact of inelastic DSSI
the underlying soil conditions and the use of active tuned on structural behaviour. The findings demonstrated that
mass dampers to mitigate vibrations and enhance struc- the effect of DSSI on dry soil scenarios was uncertain,
tural performance. Both studies represent significant whereas it was always beneficial or insignificant when
contributions to our understanding of how structures the soil was saturated. According to Sáez et al. motions
and soils interact under various conditions and the strat- with extensive inelastic structural behaviour and a mean
egies that can be employed to improve their damping and period close to the first elastic period of the soil deposit
overall performance, Luco [132], explored the impact are particularly important for inelastic DSSI.
of SSI on seismic base isolation. Fatahi et al. [133] rec-
ommended a seismic clearance requirement equal to at Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) of moment‑resisting frames
least 1.75% of the structural height based on their study (MRFs)
of the effects of seismic pounding on mid-rise buildings Tomeo et al. [55] examined the influence of SSI on the
supported by piles. Direct methods, as demonstrated by seismic performance of 2D reinforced concrete (RC)
Fatahi et al. [133] are more suitable for analysing SSSI moment-resistant frames (MRFs) using non-linear
situations in the absence of computational constraints. dynamic analysis. They performed a parametric study in
It should be noted that there has been a decrease in SSI which they varied the SSI modelling technique, the char-
study of earthquake-resistant buildings. Buildings col- acteristics of the soil, as well as the seismic design crite-
lapsed during earthquakes in Christchurch in 2011 and ria for the structures. The mechanical properties of the
Mexico City in 1985, as reported by Rosenblueth & Meli soil were determined based on Eurocode 8 soil classes.
[134], and Chouw & Hao, [92]. They studied both a substructures method and a direct
Boulanger et al. [135] conducted an experiment on the approach for SSI modelling. Finally, they evaluated struc-
use of p-y analytical methodologies to examine seismic tures with 4 and 8 stories designed for vertical loads only
soil-pile-structure interaction issues. The authors com- or in accordance with the Italian construction regulations
pared their findings on seismic soil-pile-structure inter- (NTC-08). Since SSI effects are expected to be more sig-
action to those of dynamic centrifuge model testing. They nificant in RC-MRFs constructed on soft soils, they were
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 11 of 25

analyzed. According to Tomeo et al.‘s research, the maxi- Sustainability-focused studies, such as those by [17,
mum base shear and maximum inter-story drift ratio of 140, 141], have examined how SSI-informed designs
SSI have varying effects on seismic demand. reduce material usage and carbon footprints. Research
into multi-hazard scenarios, including earthquakes and
Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) of reinforced concrete tsunamis, is gaining attention, with projects like SAFEL
buildings aiming to integrate SSI into disaster-resilient infrastruc-
Requena-Garcia-Cruz et al. [68] conducted a study on ture frameworks [110, 140].
the impact of seismic SSI on the seismic vulnerability of
RC buildings. They employed two methods, the Beam
on Nonlinear Winker method (BNWM) and direct soil Research gaps and future directions
modelling, to quantify the SSI effects and characterize Despite significant progress, several gaps remain in SSI
soil behaviour. The study was conducted on a mid-rise research. Many studies focus on idealized conditions,
RC building in Lisbon built on clay-type soil under und- neglecting the complexity of real-world scenarios, such
rained conditions. The researchers used 3D FEA to accu- as heterogeneous soils or multi-hazard effects. Addition-
rately model the nonlinear soil behaviour and the entire ally, the computational expense of advanced numerical
system’s response. Requena-Garcia-Cruz and colleagues models limits their practical application, particularly in
[39] depicted that considering SSI effects can reduce the large-scale projects.
building’s maximum capacity by up to 15% and increase Future research should address these gaps by exploring
the periods and seismic damage due to soil flexibil- hybrid modelling techniques, integrating experimental,
ity. However, the model behaviour and building shape numerical, and machine learning approaches. Studies on
remain the same whether or not SSI is considered. SSI in renewable energy infrastructure, such as offshore
This review study highlights the critical importance wind farms and solar installations, represent another
of accurately modelling the soil and foundation systems promising avenue. Finally, developing standardized SSI
when considering the impacts of SSI. In order to obtain guidelines for international codes are crucial for translat-
reliable and trustworthy results when accounting for ing research findings into practical engineering solutions.
these interactions, it is imperative to use realistic and
representative models for both the structural compo- Significance of soil‑structure interaction (SSI)
nents and the underlying soil. However, one significant The role of SSI in enhancing the ability of a structure
observation is that the majority of the existing studies to withstand earthquakes has been widely acknowl-
in this field are heavily based on simplified and idealized edged [64, 66]. The design codes provide options that
representations of both structures and soil conditions. either neglect SSI or permit a decrease in the overall
These idealized models might not capture the complexi- seismic coefficient due to SSI [26, 87]. The rationale for
ties of real-world scenarios accurately, which can poten- such choices is that considering SSI leads to increased
tially lead to less accurate predictions of SSI effects on flexibility, longer natural period, and better damp-
structures. Another noteworthy finding is the lack of ing ratio, which translate to lower base shear demand
comprehensive studies and guidelines when it comes to for the structure than its fixed-base counterpart [59,
quantifying the effects of SSI, even within established 127]. Nonetheless, observations from earthquake-dam-
building codes and standards. This gap in knowledge aged sites offer an alternative viewpoint. For example,
and guidance indicates that there is still much room for Yashinsky [102], reported that several pile-supported
research and development in this area to better under- bridge constructions were damaged in the 1989 Loma
stand, quantify, and account for the impacts of SSI in Prieta earthquake, while Mylonakis & Gazetas [48],
structural engineering and construction practices. noted the downfall of the Hanshin Expressway Route
3 (Fukae portion) in the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Simi-
Emerging research trends larly, Badry & Satyam [142], analyzed the impact of SSI
Recent studies have explored innovative applications of on asymmetrical buildings supported by piled rafts,
SSI, integrating advanced computational tools and inter- which were damaged in the 2015 Nepal earthquake.
disciplinary approaches. Machine learning techniques They found that the shape asymmetry of the super-
are increasingly being used to model complex SSI inter- structure could exacerbate the negative effects of SSI.
actions, as shown by [19, 138, 139], who trained neural Thus, it is essential to consider the findings of previ-
networks to predict seismic response in layered soils. ous studies and carefully evaluate the assumptions
Additionally, digital twin technology is being applied to made about SSI. Several parametric studies have been
monitor real-time SSI effects, offering adaptive solutions conducted to assess the influence of SSI on the seismic
for dynamic environmental conditions. response of structures, with most of them finding that
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 12 of 25

the structural geometry, foundation properties, soil Broader implications of SSI

modulus, and shear wave velocity profile are critical SSI’s significance extends beyond immediate struc-
factors. The studies by Ciampoli & Pinto [85], and Van tural performance to address broader challenges in
Nguyen et al. [133, 143] demonstrated that the ratio of engineering:
aspect and stiffness ratio of the structure-to-soil system
and the foundation parameters, such as footing and pile • Sustainability: By optimizing material use and
size, play significant roles in determining the seismic enhancing durability, SSI contributes to environmen-
reaction of the system. tally sustainable construction practices [110].
The importance of SSI lies in its ability to provide • Cost Efficiency: SSI-informed designs prevent
a more accurate and realistic representation of the overdesign, reducing construction and maintenance
behaviour of structures built on the soil [114, 144]. By expenses over a structure’s lifecycle [148].
considering the effects of the soil’s properties on the • Public Safety: SSI enhances resilience, minimizing
structural behaviour of the building, and vice versa, structural damage and ensuring quicker recovery
SSI allows for more accurate predictions of the perfor- after disasters [17].
mance of the structure under different loading situa- • Standardization: Incorporating SSI into design codes
tions [135, 145]. like Eurocode 8 and ASCE 7 ensures consistency in
Some of the key significance of SSI are: global engineering practices, but further standardiza-
tion is needed [110, 149].
1. By considering SSI, engineers can ensure that struc-
tures are designed to withstand the forces imposed Emerging trends in SSI
by the soil and provide sufficient safety and stability Advancements in technology are reshaping how SSI is
for the intended use [66]. analyzed and applied:
2. SSI can be used to optimize the design of a structure,
leading to improved performance, such as reduced • Machine Learning and AI: These tools are improv-
settlements or increased load-carrying capacity [64]. ing the accuracy of SSI predictions, enabling efficient
3. By considering SSI, engineers can design more effi- modelling of complex soil-structure interaction (SSI)
cient and cost-effective structures, by reducing the [150].
number of materials needed or by avoiding the use of • Digital Twins: Real-time monitoring systems are
expensive construction methods [111]. integrating SSI into adaptive designs, allowing struc-
4. SSI can be used to design more effective sustain- tures to respond dynamically to environmental
able structures, such as reducing the environmental changes [130].
impact of construction or using local materials [146]. • Sustainability Integration: Recent studies highlight
5. SSI is essential to confirm the safety of structures SSI’s role in reducing embodied carbon by optimiz-
during earthquakes. Proper consideration of SSI can ing foundation designs [17].
help to minimize the damage and collapse of struc- • Multi-hazard Analysis: Emerging research addresses
tures during seismic events [85]. SSI under combined hazards, such as earthquakes
and extreme wind loads, ensuring comprehensive
In general, SSI plays a central role in safeguarding the resilience [3].
integrity, stability, and functionality of structures. It is
essential for the design and analysis of structures con- The significance of SSI lies in its ability to enhance the
structed on a foundation of soil [75, 93, 147]. safety, performance, and cost-efficiency of structures in
So it should be clear that SSI must be considered diverse environments. From mitigating seismic risks to
when designing inelastic structures. Due to the signifi- supporting sustainable infrastructure, SSI considerations
cant financial investment needed, the prominence of have become indispensable in modern engineering. As
connectivity in post-disaster circumstances, and the new technologies emerge and global challenges intensify,
enormous risks convoluted, SSI needs to be consid- SSI will continue to play a transformative role in advanc-
ered during the design stage structures. Nevertheless, ing resilient and efficient design practices.
SSI concern in the design of different constructions is
uncommon despite the substantial amount of study Soil‑structure interaction (SSI) solving approaches
on the topic. This is due to improperly implemented Soil-structure interaction (SSI) significantly impacts
SSI provisions in building codes. A straightforward yet the behaviour and performance of structures, particu-
fairly accurate method of SSI problem analysis needs to larly in seismic regions. SSI effects can alter the dynamic
be developed. properties and frequency response of structures [140],
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 13 of 25

influencing stresses, displacements, and internal forces possesses similar damping ratio and period as that of an
in both the building and soil [151]. Solving SSI problems SDOF system, which relies on linear elastic soil. Their
requires understanding the reaction of the soil and the research was also expanded to find several system factors
structure, and how they interact with each other. that may be utilized to evaluate the importance of SSI
Because of the infinite domain of the soil, the precision impacts through thorough numerical simulations on the
of the SSI analysis results is dependent on how radiation comparable oscillator. This research also influenced the
circumstances are handled, the modelling method of soil creation of the first recommendations in FEMA, (1997)
materials, and the nonlinear modelling method between to take SSI impacts into account when designing struc-
the soil and the structure. SSI is primarily classified into tures. Researchers like e.g., Elsabee et al. [158]; Veletsos &
two approaches. The direct method considers the ground Meek [70], have been able to tackle more intricate foun-
and structure as a whole system and models it as a struc- dation structures (such as foundations on layered media
ture using finite elements or finite differential methods. and embedded foundations) to determine functions of
The Substructure Method, on the other hand, treats the impedance because of the development of mathematical
mechanical behaviour of the soil as a single system with tools like the boundary element method and the finite
independent stiffness and damping. element method in the 1970s. Using a variety of analyti-
The first attempts to tackle an SSI problem were largely cal and numerical methods over the years, Gazetas [159],
aimed at achieving an investigative solution. When con- created impedance curves that varied depending on the
ducting dynamic response assessments of individual pil- frequency for different types and configurations of foun-
ings and group of pile within a layered half-space, it’s dations, such as embedded foundations and foundations
essential to consider the complex behaviour of these with irregular shapes.
foundational elements within the varying soil conditions. In the past, SSI analyses frequently make use of equiva-
The analysis involves investigating how piles, either indi- lent springs and dashpots with precomputed impedance
vidually or when grouped together, interact with the sur- functions to represent the soil’s flexibility at the foun-
rounding layered soil, Kaynia & Kausel [152], provided a dation. The spring method is another name for this SSI
mathematical approach on the basis of Green’s formula analysis approach. A significant limitation of the spring
used in various fields, including physics and engineering, method was that the damping functions and stiffness
to solve problems related to partial differential equations, of the foundation obtained from previous experiments
boundary value problems, and integral equations that were not applicable to a wide range of frequencies and
may be applied to the seismic investigation. While these were dependent on frequency [100]. The incorpora-
comprehensive solutions are applicable to a broad spec- tion of more complex foundations with irregular shapes,
trum of problems,, they are unlikely to gain widespread deeply embedded foundations, and soil profiles featur-
acceptance due to the complexities and high comput- ing non-uniform variations in shear modulus at various
ing costs required. SSI concerns have been investigated depths posed additional challenges. These issues call for
experimentally in a number of cases. more complex solutions, which were subsequently cre-
Early SSI assessments relied on analytical estimations ated primarily for the nuclear industry [96, 100]. As a
of the reactions of footings and foundations sitting on a result, two main approaches; the direct technique and the
semi-infinite half-space. The majority of research, such as substructuring method, were developed in the quest for
Kaynia & Kausel, [152]; Luco and Westman, [154]; Velet- more advanced SSI analysis tools. The following sections
sos and Verbic, [155]; Veletsos and Wei, [153], designed provide an explanation of these techniques since they are
impedance functions dependent on frequency for inflex- also employed in the SSI analyses reported in this article.
ible foundations with shapes restricted to rectangles or cir- There are several methods for solving SSI problems,
cles that rested on elastic or viscoelastic half-spaces. Bielak each with its own advantages and limitations. Here are a
[156]; Jennings and Bielak [157], demonstrated in one of few standard methods:
the seismic analysis of buildings studies that the technique
to calculate the SSI response of the structure involves the 1. Analytical methods: These methods use mathemati-
combination of n + 2 damped linear oscillators that are cal equations to model the behaviour of the soil and
subject to modified excitations. The building has n reso- structure. Analytical methods include the use of elas-
nant frequencies, and the two additional oscillators repre- ticity theory, beam on elastic foundation theory, and
sent foundation translation and rotation. Winkler’s model for the soil. They include numerous
In 1974, a groundbreaking research was conducted by solutions for diverse loading conditions, boundary
Veletsos & Meek [70] where they utilized this discovery conditions, and soil profiles [146, 160].
to deduce the characteristics of an analogous single- 2. Numerical methods: These methods use computer
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator. The said oscillator programs to solve the equations that describe the
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 14 of 25

behaviour of the soil and structure. The FEM and linear studies because it relies on superposition to com-
BEM are the two most commonly used numerical bine the responses of individual substructures. However,
methods in SSI analysis. FEM is a powerful tool this approach is still commonly used for SSI analysis and
that can model the behaviour of both the soil and there are software packages, such as SASSI and CLASSI,
structure in great detail, while BEM is a more effi- which utilize the substructuring technique in the fre-
cient method that can handle problems with large quency domain) Lysmer et al. [168].
deformations and nonlinear material behaviour Figure 5 illustrates the substructure strategy (also called
[78, 161, 162]. the indirect method). The method aims to use calibrated
3. Experimental methods: These methods use physi- springs and dashpots to depict the continuum response
cal testing to measure the behaviour of the soil and to summarize the soil response. This method accounts
structure. The most common experimental methods for impacts brought on by the foundation’s presence by
include centrifuge modelling, laboratory testing, and adjusting the input motion (Foundation Input Motion,
field testing. These methods are often used to verify or FIM) applied to the structure. Site-response analy-
the results obtained from analytical or numerical sis and structural analysis are used to determine the
methods, or to study the behaviour of a specific SSS reactions of these substructures [31, 32]. Once the seis-
under realistic conditions [75, 86, 128]. mic input and the foundation’s impedance have been
4. Hybrid methods: These methods combine the advan- approximated, they can be employed when conducting
tages of analytical and numerical methods. For exam- a dynamic investigation for the building and assessing
ple, a hybrid method can use analytical solutions for how it reacts to seismic forces, including the effects of
simple loading conditions and numerical solutions SSI. This can help in designing structures that can bet-
for more complex loading conditions. Another exam- ter resist seismic forces and reduce potential damage, it
ple is a combination of experimental and numerical is convenient to undertake structural analysis using finite
methods, where experimental results are used to cali- element methods. A scattering analysis is used to calcu-
brate the numerical model [107, 163, 164]. late the seismic input and should take kinematic inter-
action into consideration. The calculation of foundation
The choice of method depends on the specific problem, impedance, also known as the interaction analysis or
the available resources, and the level of accuracy required the impedance analysis, should take radiation damping
[84]. Analytical methods are generally simple and easy to into account. There are four categories of substructuring
use, but they may not be able to handle complex loading techniques, classified based on how they resolve the scat-
conditions or nonlinear soil behaviour [146]. Numerical tering problem and interaction problem. Some of these
methods such as FEM and BEM are widely used in SSI methods encompass the rigid boundary approach, the
analysis due to their ability to handle more complex prob- pliable boundary approach, the pliable volume method,
lems and loading conditions, but they can be computa- and the subtraction technique. Each of the three tech-
tionally expensive and may require specialized software niques site-response analysis, impedance analysis, and
and expertise [165]. Experimental methods can provide structural response analysis utilizes site-response analy-
valuable information about the behaviour of specific SSS, sis, impedance analysis, and structural response analysis
but they can be costly and time-consuming [128]. Hybrid to compute ground motion, foundation impedance, and
methods can combine the advantages of different meth- structural response.
ods to provide the most accurate and efficient solution
for a specific problem [162, 166]. Direct method
Although the substructuring approach is flexible enough
Substructure method to use multiple analysis methods for various substruc-
The SSI is separated into many components (or sub- tures and has low computational requirements, it is
structures) in the substructuring approach of SSI analy- only applicable to linear analysis. The direct methodol-
sis, and the response of each substructure is estimated ogy, which examines the whole SSS as a unified process
separately [167]. The substructures are interconnected without relying on superposition, enables a more precise
by imposing equal and opposing interaction pressures modelling of the nonlinear behaviour of the SSS. Com-
on each of them. To determine the final reaction of the mercial finite element systems including LS-DYNA
system, the responses of all the substructures are sub- (LSTC, 2013), ANSYS (ANSYS Inc., 2013), and ABAQUS
sequently superimposed [84]. The advantage of using a (Systèmes, 2005), as well as the open source OpenSees
proper analysis approach to determine each substruc- software (a finite element tool), can perform SSI utilising
ture’s reaction is thus made possible by the substructure the direct technique [170]. Figure 6 displays a FEM for
methodology. The substructure approach is limited to the analysis of SSS employing the direct technique. Since
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 15 of 25

Fig. 5 Schematic diagram of a substructure method to analyse SSI for rigid and flexible foundations [169]

Fig. 6 An example of the direct analysis of SSI using a continuum modelling approach with the FEM [169]
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 16 of 25

the direct technique of SSI analysis takes more process- method enables the replicating the non-linear reaction of
ing power than the substructuring method, it is rarely each component of the model. Table 2 gives the compari-
used in actual practice [43, 66]. Subsequently, perform- son of SSI solving approaches.
ing nonlinear SSI investigation by employing the direct The assessment of computational cost in Table 2 is
technique remains challenging due to difficulties in defin- based on extensively accepted benchmarks in SSI mod-
ing ground motion, replicating an unbound region, and elling. Numerical methods, such as the FEM and BEM,
establishing dependable 3D nonlinear constitutive mod- are known for their high computational demands due to
els for soil [53, 68]. their capability to model complex geometries, heteroge-
Another significant obstacle in accomplishing nonlin- neous soil properties, and nonlinear interactions [9, 78,
ear SSI investigation with the direct approach is simu- 181, 182]. These models need detailed discretization of
lating an infinite domain [30, 143]. By creating a finite the problem domain, which significantly increases the
domain that meets the requirements listed below, an infi- number of calculations and degrees of freedom, particu-
nite soil domain can be replicated [20, 27, 103]. Effective larly in large-scale or dynamic scenarios [27, 166, 183].
wave damping away from the structure to prevent lateral High computational cost is further characterized by
boundary reflections into the soil domain and ensuring the necessity of advanced computing resources, such as
stress equilibrium along the lateral boundaries to incor- multi-core processors or GPU clusters, to ensure reason-
porate the unconsidered portions of the soil domain that able processing times [64, 184].
was not incorporated into the finite domain model [78, Additionally, numerical methods often involve itera-
171]. The utilization of absorbing boundary models at tive solvers for nonlinear equations, which demand sub-
the lateral boundaries can achieve this by absorbing the stantial time to converge, especially in dynamic analyses
incoming waves and diminishing reflections. Commer- or when modelling soil-structure interaction (SSI) under
cial finite element programmes have developed and used extreme conditions [185]. Compared to simpler ana-
absorbing boundary models [119, 120, 172]. LS-DYNA lytical or hybrid approaches, numerical methods require
incorporates various models for SSI analysis, such as the specialized software, skilled personnel, and significant
Perfectly Matched Layer (PML) model introduced by resource allocation, all of which contribute to the overall
Basu in 2009 and the viscous boundary model developed computational expense [186].
by Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer [173], in 1969. These models
have been proven effective in analyzing SSI in a dynamic Guidelines on soil‑structure interaction (SSI) based on codes
environment. Table 1 provides a clear comparison, high- As stated earlier that soil-structure interaction (SSI) plays
lighting the strengths, limitations, and ideal applications a critical role in the seismic design of structures, pre-
of both methods. dominantly in areas with soft soils, deep foundations,
Figure 6 provides a schematic representation of the key or dynamic loading conditions. However, its treatment
elements that need to be considered when conducting a across international seismic codes, as summarized in the
study of SSI using a continuum approach (also called the Table 3, reveals significant differences in emphasis and
direct method). Using the right constitutive models, this implementation. While some regions, such as Europe

Table 1 Comparative analysis of direct and substructure methods

Aspect Substructure method Direct method

Strength Divides the problem into substructures, allowing for computa- Models the entire soil-structure system as a single entity, enabling
tional efficiency and flexibility precise nonlinear and dynamic analysis
Suitable for linear analyses and routine design practices Captures complex geometries, heterogeneous soil properties,
with manageable computational requirements and boundary conditions effectively
Supported by specialized software (e.g., SASSI, CLASSI) that sim- Ideal for extreme load scenarios and advanced seismic studies
plifies practical application
Limitations Relies on superposition, limiting effectiveness for nonlinear Computationally intensive, requiring significant processing power
analyses involving complex soil-structure behaviors and time for large-scale models
May oversimplify soil conditions, reducing accuracy in capturing Challenges in simulating infinite soil domains, needing advanced
detailed dynamic responses boundary techniques like absorbing boundaries
Requires careful calibration of impedance functions, which can Less practical for routine design due to complexity and high cost
be challenging for heterogeneous or layered soils
Best applications Routine design projects, especially those involving linear analy- Detailed analysis of nonlinear SSI under extreme loads
ses or less complex SSI scenarios or advanced seismic conditions
 Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil

Table 2 Different approaches of solving SSI problems

Approach Description Advantages Limitations Applications Reference
(2025) 6:5

Analytical Methods Simplified, closed-form solutions - Quick and computationally efficient - Limited to simple geometries - Preliminary design [38, 174]
based on assumptions of linear - Useful for preliminary analysis and linear behaviour - Validation of numerical and experi-
behaviour and idealized systems and validation - Cannot handle complex soil-struc- mental models
ture systems
Numerical Methods Computational models like FEM, BEM, - Handles complex geometries - High computational cost - Detailed SSI analysis [53, 175, 176]
and FDM for solving complex SSI and soil behaviours - Requires extensive input data - Seismic performance studies
problems - Accurate for detailed analysis
Experimental Methods Laboratory and field experiments - Provides empirical validation - High cost and scaling challenges - Validation of numerical models [130, 177]
to validate models and understand - Captures real-world phenomena - Limited to specific scenarios - Seismic and dynamic behaviour
SSI behaviour like non-linearity studies
Hybrid Methods Combines analytical, numeri- - Leverages strengths of multiple - May still face scaling and computa- - Multi-hazard scenarios [162, 178, 179]
cal, and experimental methods approaches tional challenges - Layered soils and irregular structures
for enhanced modelling - Reduces computational effort
in complex systems
Emerging Methods Advanced tools like AI, machine learn- - Handles uncertainty effectively - Requires large datasets for training - Real-time SSI monitoring [17, 141, 180]
ing, and digital twins for SSI modelling - Facilitates real-time monitoring - May need integration with tradi- - Predictive analysis in adaptive
and adaptive designs tional methods and sustainable infrastructure
Page 17 of 25
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 18 of 25

Table 3 Guidelines on SSI based on codes

Country Code Year Guideline

Europe EC8, EN 1998-5 2004 According to Eurocode 8, EN 1998-5 [187] when designing structures that are thin or have substantial second-
order effects (such as P-δ effects), dynamic SSI must be considered.
The use of SSI in the design process is also recommended for buildings supported by piles or with substantial
or deep-seated foundations.
The standard ground type with extremely high plasticity index and low shear strength is particularly mentioned
in EN 1998-1 (EN, 2004), and EN 1998-5 (EN, 2003) requires SSI attention in the design of buildings or any struc-
tures to be built on such deposits [188].
Regardless of determining the buildings for which SSI must be employed in design, EN 1998-5 (EN, 2003) does
not offer any recommendations for measuring SSI effects
Japan JSCE, 15 2007 This code [189] advises that dynamic ground interaction must be measured and considered while designing
underground constructions, retaining walls, bridge abutments, and foundation constructions.
Varies based on the nature and properties of the structure and the ground, SSI effects may be neglected in cer-
tain cases, while for others, they should be accurately incorporated into the modelling.
It is up to the structural designer to decide whether to model the system with both soil foundation and struc-
ture jointly or independently, using a substructure or direct method
United States (ATC, 1978) 1978, The Applied Technology Council (ATC) in 1978 created the initial set of SSI provisions as ATC 3–06 [190]. ATC
3–06 [190] recommended a reduction in design base shear in light of the longer natural period and typically
stronger damping displayed by SSS compared to their fixed-base counterparts
[191] 2010 ASCE 7–10 [191] suggested that the amended the designed base shear should remain at or above 70%
of the initial value, putting a limit on base shear reduction. However, according to Jarernprasert et al., structures
built in accordance with ASCE 7–10 [191] suffer a mean ductility that is higher than the goal ductility for which
they were intended. This suggested that these SSI rules needed to be reviewed
FEMA, (2015) 2015 In the form of (FEMA, 2015), the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) created regulations
that established the maximum reduction in base shear in relation to the response modification factor [192].
These regulations were eventually incorporated into ASCE 7–16 [193] and recommended a smaller reduction
in design base shear for systems with a higher response modification factor, or those that have a greater capac-
ity for inelastic deformation
[193] 2016 ASCE 7–16 [193] include a linear dynamic analysis that utilizes either the SSI-modified general design response
spectrum or a site-specific response spectrum, taking into consideration the SSI effects. This analysis method
is in addition to the conventional lateral force technique.
Khosravikia et al. [194] assessed the effects of following ASCE 7–16 [193]/FEMA [192] and ASCE 7–10 [191]
in terms of the safety and efficiency of the structural designs that were produced, and they indicated areas
in which the current recommendations may be improved
India IS 1893-1 2016 IS 1893-1 [195] gives a standard for earthquakes resistant design for general provisions and constructions
IS 1893-2 2014 IS 1893-2 [196] (BIS, 2014) is for liquid retaining structures and does not say anything about the SSI
IS 1893-3 2014 IS 1893-3 [197] (BIS, 2014) states the criteria for earthquake-resistant design of constructions for retaining walls
and bridges mentions the consideration of SSI in the design of bridges
IS 1893-4 2015 IS 1893-4 [198] (BIS, 2015) states a norms for earthquakes resilient strategy of structures for designing industrial
buildings comprising stack-like constructions. If constructions are to be sustained on deep foundations in low
shear wave velocity soils i.e. soft soil, SSI must be taken into consideration during design
New Zealand NZS 1170.5 2004 It makes no recommendations regarding how to apply SSI in field of design. The usage of a structural per-
formance factor is mentioned, which is influenced by various factors such as the material, shape, and age
of the seismic-resistant system, as well as the damping properties of the structure and its interaction
with the ground. When calculating building deflection, NZS 1170.5 [199] stipulates that foundation deforma-
tions must also be taken into account
Australia AS1170.4 2007 The Australian code [200] depicts the design guidelines for seismic-resistant structures state that soils
with SPT-N values lower than 6 are considered to be soft, following the New Zealand design standard. To
account for SSI effects and reduce earthquake damage, it is recommended to use structural performance
and ductility factors during the design phase
Malaysia MNA-EC8 -MS 2017 Malaysia is following the Eurocode 8 for the design and construction of structures. MS EN 1998-1: 2015 [201]
EN 1998-1: provides the general design of structures for earthquake resistance but SSI has been largely disregarded. It
2015 provides the data for the site response analysis and design response spectra but it does not give any proper
guidelines in regard of SSI

and Japan, recognize the importance of SSI in certain In the United States, guidelines have evolved over time,
structural scenarios, they often provide only general rec- with updates in ASCE 7–16 introducing more precise
ommendations without detailed methods for quantifying provisions, such as adjustments in base shear reduction
SSI effects. and dynamic analysis techniques. Despite this progress,
inconsistencies remain in aligning design practices with
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 19 of 25

real-world structural behaviour. On the other hand, that the criteria for assessing seismic performance
countries like Malaysia and New Zealand incorporate could be based on adjusted strength reduction fac-
international standards but fail to address SSI com- tors and ratios of inelastic displacement.
prehensively, which could lead to oversight in critical 2. Although the actual response, which varies on fre-
site-specific conditions. This disparity underscores the quency, is determined by the seismic accelerogram,
necessity for more consistent and detailed SSI frame- it is known that inflexible, big structures built on the
works globally (Table 3). soft soils having low shear wave velocity are the most
severely damaged [66].
3. Modern studies on SSI concentrate on either examin-
Discussion and conclusion ing how it affects a particular structural type or figur-
It is clear from Table 1 that most of the reputable seis- ing out how it affects a broad structural arrangement.
mic codes do include requirements for including SSI in Strength reduction factor, seismic fragility, ductility
design practice, however, there are still no standards for demand, inelastic displacement ratio, seismic vulner-
SSI assessment and implementation in design practice. ability, and modal properties are among the param-
In the event of a discrepancy between the structural and eters of interest. More recent studies have looked at
geotechnical engineers, such as a compliance gap and a how SSI affects buildings with seismically resistant
communication gap, a building’s performance may be features such seismic base isolators and tuned mass
compromised during seismic activity. Due to the scarcity dampers [131]. The study of SSSI and the related phe-
of appropriate construction sites today and the preva- nomenon of structural pounding is another area of
lence of building on landfills and soft soils, this assumes study that is becoming more and more popular.
more importance. Hence, where it is anticipated that SSI 4. SSI may be advantageous or unfavorable to a struc-
impacts would be severe require effective coordination tural reaction through an earthquake, depending
between structural and geotechnical experts. For infor- on the structure-to-soil stiffness differential. This is
mation sharing between them in this situation, NIST based on findings from an examination of the col-
[202] recommends checklists that can be used with some lapse of Hanshin Expressway Route 3’s condition
project-specific adjustments. In addition, a professional throughout the Kobe Earthquake in 1995 by Mylona-
knowledge-sharing system between the different project kis and Gazetas [48].
stakeholders, including the planners, structural consult- 5. The advantages of the substructure technique over
ants, soil mechanics consultants, and building engineers, the direct approach have been thoroughly covered.
could potentially be very valuable. There has been a heightened focus on physical mod-
SSI is a phenomenon that involves a number of pro- elling techniques, particularly cone models, when
cesses that result in the interdependence of structural considering impedance functions during substruc-
displacements and the soil. These processes are classified ture analysis for inertial interaction. Cone models are
as inertial or kinematic components of SSI. The current advantageous because they provide a better under-
study surveys previous studies on the influence of SSI on standing of the physical system, can account for pile
structural response. Research has also been performed in foundations in layered deposits, and require less
recent years to provide novice researchers with a broad computation than other modelling methods.
overview of the field. This extensive review of the litera- 6. As a last point, it should be noted that researchers
ture yielded few findings. Although some of these obser- who are new to the topic of SSI would benefit from
vations may be considered common knowledge, they are reading the current work. It is possible to gain a thor-
still essential for gaining a thorough understanding of the ough understanding and recognize its importance to
phenomenon and determining effective approaches to the field of design. It may also be helpful in choosing
address it. the best solution approach for an SSI problem. Addi-
It has been found from this state-of-the-art that: tionally, knowledge of the most recent SSI regulations
found in different seismic codes can be acquired.
1. Recent attempts to evaluate how SSI might affect a Academicians and researchers may find the current
structure’s inelastic response have demonstrated work useful in deciding on a line of study based on
the need to consider SSI when designing an inelas- current research.
tic structure. SSI must now be encompassed in
guidelines of design recommendations because the In conclusion, SSI is an imperative consideration in
majority of structures are now built to demonstrate the design and analysis of structures built on the soil. By
inelasticity during strong earthquakes. Additionally, taking into account the soil’s properties on the structural
Jarernprasert et al. [203] and Aydemir [59], suggest behaviour of the building, and vice versa, SSI allows for
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 20 of 25

more accurate predictions of the reaction of the structure Authors’ contributions

Imtiyaz Akbar Najar (conceptualization, writing – original draft); Raudhah
under various loading. Ahmadi (supervision, writing – review and editing); Akeem Gbenga Amuda
There are several methods that can be used to solve SSI (conceptualization, writing – review and editing); Raghad Mourad (supervi-
problems, including analytical methods, numerical meth- sion, writing – review and editing); Neveen El Bendary (writing – review and
editing); and Idawati Ismail (writing – review and editing); Nabilah Abu Bakar
ods, experimental methods, hybrid methods and empiri- (writing – review and editing); and Shanshan Tang (writing – review and
cal methods. The selection of approach will be contingent editing)
on the precise problem being considered, the available
Funding
resources, and level of precision required. Despite the Open Access funding provided by Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. PILOT Research
advancements in the field of SSI, there are still many Grant of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) has supported this study with
challenges and open questions that need to be addressed. grant number UNI/F02/PILOT/85624/2023.
These include the development of more accurate and Data availability
efficient methods for analyzing SSI, the need for a bet- No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
ter understanding of the reaction of SSS under extreme
loading conditions, such as earthquakes and fires, and the Declarations
need for more sustainable and resilient structures. Over-
Ethics approval and consent to participate
all, SSI is an important and active area of research and Not applicable.
practice in civil engineering and will continue to play a
critical role in the design and analysis of structures built Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
on soil.
The review establishes SSI as a critical component of Author details
modern engineering design, emphasizing its role in seis- 1
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia. 2 Department of Civil
mic safety, cost-efficiency, and sustainability. By address- Engineering, Nile University of Nigeria, 900108 Abuja, Nigeria. 3 Department
ing soil-structure interaction (SSI), engineers can better of Architecture, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Ajman University,
predict structural responses and develop resilient sys- 346, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. 4 Healthy Buildings Research Centre (HBRC),
Ajman University, 346, Ajman, United Arab Emirates. 5 Department of Civil
tems capable of withstanding extreme conditions. While Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Ser-
current research has made significant strides, challenges dang, Selangor, Malaysia. 6 Faculty of Engineering, Anhui Sanlian University,
such as improving computational efficiency, address- 230601 Hefei, Anhui, China.
ing soil variability, and integrating SSI into multi-hazard Received: 29 November 2024 Revised: 4 January 2025 Accepted: 6 Janu-
scenarios remain pressing. Future efforts should focus ary 2025
on interdisciplinary collaboration, real-world validation,
and the development of standardized practices to bridge
gaps between research and application. SSI will continue
to play a transformative role in civil engineering, enabling References
the design of safer, more resilient, and sustainable infra- 1. Firoj M, Bahuguna A, Kanth A, Agrahari R (2022) Effect of nonlinear
soil – structure interaction and lateral stiffness on seismic performance
structure for a rapidly evolving world. of mid – rise RC building. J Build Eng 59:105096. [Link]
1016/j.​jobe.​2022.​105096
Abbreviations 2. Firoj M, Maheshwari BK (July, 2022) Effect of CPRF on nonlinear seismic
AS Australian standard response of an NPP structure considering raft-pile-soil-structure-inter-
ASCE American society of civil engineers action. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 158. [Link]
ATC​ Applied technology council 107295
BEM Boundary element method 3. Liu J et al (June, 2024) Failure mechanisms and seismic fragility analysis
BNWM Beam on nonlinear Winkler method of overhead transmission lines incorporating pile-soil-structure interac-
DEM Discrete element method tion. Eng Fail Anal 160. [Link]
DSSI Dynamic soil-structure interaction 108201
FDM Finite difference method 4. Bahuguna A, Firoj M (2022) Nonlinear seismic performance of Nuclear
FEA Finite element method structure with soil–structure Interaction. Iran J Sci Technol - Trans Civ
FEM Finite element method Eng 46(4):2975–2988. [Link]
FEMA Federal emergency management agency 5. Kassem MM, Nazri FM, Noroozinejad Farsangi E (2019) Development of
FIM Foundation input motion seismic vulnerability index methodology for reinforced concrete build-
IS Indian standard ings based on nonlinear parametric analyses. MethodsX 6:199–211.
MNA Malaysian national annex [Link]
MRF Moment-resisting frame 6. El-Maissi AM, Argyroudis SA, Kassem MM, Mohamed Nazri F (2022)
NIST National institute of standards and technology Development of intrinsic seismic vulnerability index (ISVI) for assessing
NZS New Zealand standard roadway system and its assets framework. MethodsX 9:101818. [Link]
PML Perfectly matched layer doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​mex.​2022.​101818
RC Reinforced concrete 7. Firoj M, Maheshwari BK (2022) A new nonlinear spring-dashpot model
SDOF Single degree of freedom of CPRF of NPP structure based on coupled BEM-FEM approach. Earthq
SSI Soil-structure interaction Eng Struct Dyn 52(4):932–955
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 21 of 25

8. Pinto F, Astroza R, Bazáez R, Hernández F, Navarro N (February, 2024) soil layer. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 20(3):553–565. [Link]
Probabilistic seismic assessment of multispan RC highway bridges s11803-​021-​2038-3
considering soil-structure interaction and chloride-induced corrosion. 28. Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, Zhai Y (2011) Structure-soil-structure interac-
Eng Struct 301. [Link] tion (SSI): literature review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(12):1724–1731.
9. Firoj M, Maheshwari BK (2023) Dynamic impedances of CPRF using cou- [Link]
pled BEM-FEM approach: A parametric study and application. EngAnal 29. Wolf JP (1986) Dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI). Earthq Eng
Bound Elem. 156:8–19. [Link] Struct Dyn 14(4):177–190. [Link]
036 tb005​74.x
10. Tasleem M, Firoj M, Bahuguna A (2022) Effect of open-ground storey on 30. Wolf JP (1989) Soil-structure-interaction analysis in time domain.
RC frame buildings incorporating soil–structure interaction. Asian J Civ Nucl Eng Des 111(3):381–393. [Link]
Eng 23(4):471–485. [Link] 90249-5
11. Gao X, Duan P, Duan S (2021) Simulated seismic response analysis of 31. Ahmadi R, Najar IA, Faisal AA (2020) T. Gallin Response spectra for mod-
subway tunnels under complex geological conditions of obliquely inci- erate seismic area – application to Miri district of Sarawak, Malaysia, in
dent seismic SV waves. Arab J Geosci 14(11). [Link] The 13th International UNIMAS Engineering Conference 2020 (ENCON IOP
s12517-​021-​07376-w Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020;1–10
12. Jeong SY, Kang THK, Yoon JK, Klemencic R (2020) Seismic performance 32. Najar IA, Ahmadi RB, Jamian MAH, Hamza HB, Ahmad A, Sin CH (2022)
evaluation of a tall building: practical modeling of surrounding base- Site-Specific Ground Response Analysis using the Geotechnical dataset
ment structures. J Build Eng 31:101420. [Link] in Moderate Seismicity Region. Int J Mech 16:37–45. [Link]
2020.​101420 46300/​9104.​2022.​16.5
13. Yuan WH, Wang HC, Zhang W, Dai BB, Liu K, Wang Y (2021) Particle 33. Kuyumcu Z, Ates S (2012) Soil-structure-foundation effects on
finite element method implementation for large deformation analysis stochastic response analysis of cable-stayed bridges. Struct Eng Mech
using Abaqus. Acta Geotech 16(8):2449–2462. [Link] 43(5):637–655. [Link]
s11440-​020-​01124-2 34. Huang J, Zhao M, Du X (2017) Non-linear seismic responses of tunnels
14. Maheshwari BK, Firoj M, March (2023) 112518. [Link] within normal fault ground under obliquely incident P waves. Tunn
nucen​gdes.​2023.​112518 Undergr Sp Technol 61:26–39. [Link]
15. Givens MJ, Stewart JP, Haselton CB, Mazzoni S (2012) Assessment of 006
Soil-structure interaction Modeling Strategies for Response History 35. Huang J, Zhao M, Xu C, Du X, Jin L, Zhao X (2018) Seismic stability of
Analysis of Buildings. Proc 15th World Conf Earthq Eng. pp. 1–10 jointed rock slopes under obliquely incident earthquake waves. Earthq
16. Maheshwari BK, Firoj M (June, 2024) Seismic response of combined Eng Eng Vib 17(3):527–539. [Link]
piled raft foundation using advanced liquefaction model. Soil Dyn 36. Chugh AK, Labuz JF, Olgun CG (2016) Soil structure interactions of
Earthq Eng 181. [Link] retaining walls. Geotech Struct Eng Congr 2016 - Proc Jt Geotech Struct
17. Fang H, Hongjie Fang CQ, Lai Z (2024) Investigation of Seismic Ampli- Eng Congr 2016 no December 2017:pp439–454. [Link]
fication on Soil-Structure Interaction Problems Based on a 3D DRM- 1061/​97807​84479​742.​036
RFEM, Framework ASCE-ASME. J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A Civ Eng. 37. Dhar S, Dasgupta K (2019) Seismic soil structure Interaction for Integral
10(1):131–142. Available: [Link] Abutment bridges: a review. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 6(4):249–
12345​6789/​1091/​RED20​17 267. [Link]
18. Bahuguna MF (2023) Analytical plasticity-based model for soil-structure 38. Kottary AS, Ahmed DSK (2022) Soil-structure interaction (SSI) and
interaction of lumped system on heterogenous soil media. Earthq Eng retaining walls: a Review paper. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol
Resil 2(4):493–514 10(6):599–606. [Link]
19. Weihang Ouyang S-WL, Li G (2024) Machine learning - based soil – 39. Tsai CC, Liu HW (2017) Site response analysis of vertical ground motion
structure interaction analysis of laterally loaded piles through physics in consideration of soil nonlinearity. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 102:124–136.
- informed neural networks. Acta Geotech 19(1):4765–4790 [Link]
20. Carbonari S, Morici M, Dezi F, Gara F (2017) Leoni G (2016) Soil-structure 40. Amirsardari A, Lumantarna E, Goldsworthy HM, Professor A (2014)
interaction effects in single bridge piers founded on inclined pile Seismic site response analysis for Australia. Aust Earthq Eng Soc
groups. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 92:52–67, 2017. [Link] 41. Tsipianitis A, Tsompanakis Y, Psarropoulos PN (2020) Impact of Dynamic
soild​yn.​2016.​10.​005 Soil–Structure Interaction on the Response of Liquid-Storage Tanks.
21. Emani PK, Maheshwari BK (2009) Dynamic impedances of pile groups Front Built Environ 6:1–18. [Link]
with embedded caps in homogeneous elastic soils using CIFECM. Soil 42. Bridge M (2022) What is soil-structure interaction (SSI)? [Link]
Dyn Earthq Eng 29(6):963–973. [Link] midas​bridge.​com/​en/​solut​ions/​soil-​struc​ture-​inter​action
11.​003 43. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou A, Gazetas G (1997) Soil-pile-bridge seismic inter-
22. Kwag S, Ju BS, Jung W (2018) Beneficial and detrimental effects of action: Kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil. Earthq Eng Struct
Soil-structure interaction (SSI) on probabilistic seismic hazard and risk of Dyn 26(3):337–359. [Link]
Nuclear Power Plant. Adv Civ Eng 2018. [Link] 3<​337::​AID-​EQE64​6>3.​0.​CO;2-D
26983​19 44. Barbosa AR, Mason HB, Romney KT (2014) SSI-Bridge: Soil-Bridge Inter-
23. Manna B, Baidya DK (2010) Dynamic nonlinear response of pile founda- action during Long-Duration Earthquake Motions
tions under vertical vibration-theory versus experiment. Soil Dyn Earthq 45. Mitchell R, Bruneau D, Williams M, Anderson M, Saatcioglu D, M., and,
Eng 30:456–469. [Link] Sexmith (1995) Performance of bridges in the 1994 Northridge Earth-
24. Abell JA, Orbović N, McCallen DB, Jeremic B (2018) Earthquake quake. Can J Civ Eng 22(2):415–427
soil-structure interaction (SSI) of nuclear power plants, differences in 46. Achheim MA (1994) Mission Gothic Bridge, Image-NR917, National
response to 3-D, 3 × 1-D, and 1-D excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn Earthquake Engineering Information Resources (NISEE) e-Library, University
47(6):1478–1495. [Link] of California, Berkeley
25. Zhao M, Gao Z, Wang L, Du X, Huang J, Li Y (2017) Obliquely incident 47. Mittal V, Samanta M (2021) A critical review on design philosophies
earthquake for soil-structure interaction (SSI) in layered half space. of different design standards on seismic soil–structure Interac-
Earthq Struct 13(6):573–588. [Link] tion. Lect Notes Civ Eng 120 LNCE:1–13. [Link]
26. Ci̇velekler E, Okur VD, Afacan KB (2021) A study of the local site effects 978-​981-​33-​4005-3_1
on the ground response for the city of Eskişehir, Turkey. Bull Eng Geol 48. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI):
Environ 80(7):5589–5607. [Link] beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4(3):277–301. [Link]
27. Zhidong G, Xu Z, Mi Z, Xiuli D, Junjie W, Pengcheng L (2021) Efficient 1080/​13632​46000​93503​72
seismic analysis for nonlinear soil-structure interaction (SSI) with a thick
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 22 of 25

49. Tsikada Y, Shimbun A (1995) Collapse of Hanshin Expressway, Image- vulnerability of mid-rise RC buildings in Lisbon. Struct. 38:599–617.
-K0013, National Earthquake Engineering Information Resources (NISEE) [Link]
e-Library, University of California, Berkeley 69. Stefanidou SP, Sextos AG, Kotsoglou AN, Lesgidis N (2017) Kappos
50. Steinbrugge KV (1989) Cypress St. Viaduct, Image- S6130, National AJ (2018) Soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects in analysis of seismic
Earthquake Engineering Information Resources (NISEE) e-Library, University fragility of bridges using an intensity-based ground motion selection
of California, Berkeley procedure. Eng Struct. 151:366–380, 2017. [Link]
51. Raheem SEA, Hayashikawa T (2013) Soil-structure interaction (SSI) engst​ruct.​2017.​08.​033
modeling effects on seismic response of cable-stayed bridge tower. Int 70. Veletsos AS, Meek JW (1974) Dynamic behaviour of building-founda-
J Adv Struct Eng 5(1):1–17. [Link] tion systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(2):121–138. [Link]
52. a Hashash YM, Groholski DR (2010) Recent advances in non-linear site 1002/​eqe.​42900​30203
response analysis, Fifth Interantional Conf. Recent Adv. Geotech. Earthq. 71. MidasBridge (2020) [Link], [Link]
Eng. Soil Dyn. Symp. Honor Profr. I.M. Idriss, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1–22. Avail- en/​solut​ions/​soil-​struc​ture-​inter​actio​n,
able: [Link] 72. Turner B, Brandenberg S, Stewart J (2017) Influence of kinematic SSI
le:​Remar​ks+​on+​site+​respo​nse+​analy​sis+​by+​using+​Plaxis+​dynam​ic+​ on foundation input motions for bridges on deep foundations. Pacific
module#0 Earthq Eng Res Cent. 241
53. Scarfone R, Morigi M (2020) Conti R (2019) Assessment of dynamic 73. Alam AKMT, Bhuiyan MAR (2013) Effect of soil-structure interaction (SSI)
soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects for tall buildings: A 3D numerical on seismic response of a seismically isolated highway bridge pier. J Civ
approach. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 128:105864, 2020. [Link] Eng 41(2):179–199
1016/j.​soild​yn.​2019.​105864 74. Thusoo S, Modi K, Kumar R, Madahar H (2015) Response of buildings
54. Awchat G, Monde A, Sirsikar R, Dhanjode G, Tayade S (2022) Soil-struc- with soil-structure interaction (SSI) with varying Soil types. 9(4):353–357
ture interaction (SSI): comparative review of International codes and 75. Borghei A, Ghayoomi M (2019) The role of kinematic interaction on
other Literature with Indian Seismic Code. Civ Environ Eng 18(1):87–95. measured seismic response of soil-foundation-structure systems. Soil
[Link] Dyn Earthq Eng 125:105674. [Link]
55. Tomeo R, Bilotta A, Pitilakis D, Nigro E (2017) Soil-structure interac- 013
tion (SSI) effects on the seismic performances of reinforced concrete 76. Moghaddasi M, MacRae GA, Chase JG, Cubrinovski M, and and, Pam-
moment resisting frames. Procedia Eng 199:230–235. [Link] panin S (2015) Seismic design of yielding structures on flexible founda-
10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2017.​09.​006 tions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(2):1805–1821. [Link]
56. Gouasmia A, Belkhiri A, Athmani A (2015) Dynamic soil-structure inter- eqe
action (SSI) analysis of Reinforced concrete buildings. Int J Civil Environ 77. Zogh P, Motamed R, Ryan K (2021) Empirical evaluation of kinematic
Struct Constr Archit Eng 9(7):862–868 soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects in structures with large footprints
57. Ahmadi R, Suhaili MHAM, Najar IA, Ladi MA, Bakie NA, Abdullahi AF and embedment depths. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 149:106893. [Link]
(2021) Evaluation on the Soil flexibility of the largest HEP dam area in org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2021.​106893
East Malaysia using 1-D Equivalent Linear Analysis. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf 78. Carbonell JM, Monforte L, Ciantia MO, Arroyo M, Gens A (2022) Geo-
Technol 11(4):1535–1542. [Link] technical particle finite element method for modeling of soil-structure
58. Najar IA, Ahmadi RB, Hamza H, Sa’don NBM, Ahmad A (2020) First Order interaction (SSI) under large deformation conditions. J Rock Mech
Seismic Microzonation of Miri district of Sarawak Malaysia using AHP- Geotech Eng 14(3):967–983. [Link]
GIS Platform. Test Eng Manag. 83(2):13918–13928. Available: [Link] 006
www.​scopus.​com/​inward/​record.​uri?​eid=2-​s2.0-​85084​15952​7&​partn​ 79. Stefanidou SP, Sextos AG, Kotsoglou AN, Lesgidis N, Kappos AJ (2017)
erID=​40&​md5=​07f3d​42ad4​83f69​13587​0a6da​8d187​46 Soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects in analysis of seismic fragility of
59. Aydemir ME (2013) Soil structure interaction effects on structural bridges using an intensity-based ground motion selection procedure.
parameters for stiffness degrading systems built on soft soil sites. Struct Eng Struct 151:366–380. [Link]
Eng Mech 45(5):655–676. [Link] 033
60. Varma M, Sawant VA, Chandaluri VK (2017) Effect of soil structure Inter- 80. Betti ASN (1993) Kinematic soil-structure interaction (SSI) for long-span.
action on response of G + 3 building. J Struct Eng 44(4):307–318 Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 22(3):415–430
61. Anwar N, Uthayakumar A, Najam FA (2019) Significance of soil-structure 81. Bararnia M, Hassani N, Ganjavi B, Ghodrati Amiri G (2018) Estimation of
interaction (SSI) in seismic response of buildings. NED Univ J Res inelastic displacement ratios for soil-structure systems with embedded
1:43–54 Special Issue on First SACEE’19. [Link] foundation considering kinematic and inertial interaction effects. Eng
nedjr-​stmech-​2019-​0004 Struct. 159:252–264. [Link]
62. Kamal M, Inel M, Cayci BT (2021) Seismic behavior of mid-rise reinforced 82. Brandenberg SJ, Mylonakis G, Stewart JP (2015) Kinematic Framework
concrete adjacent buildings considering soil-structure interaction for evaluating Seismic Earth pressures on retaining walls. J Geotech
(SSI). J Build Eng 51:104296, 2022. [Link] Geoenvironmental Eng 141(7). [Link]
104296. 5606.​00013​12
63. Yanik A, Ulus Y (2023) Soil–structure Interaction consideration for base 83. Torabi H, Rayhani MT (2014) Three dimensional Finite element
isolated structures under Earthquake Excitation. Buildings 13(4). [Link] modeling of seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI) in soft soil. Comput
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​build​ings1​30409​15 Geotech 60:9–19. [Link]
64. Riaz MR, Motoyama H, Hori M (2021) Review of soil-structure interac- 84. Bapir B, Abrahamczyk L, Wichtmann T, Prada-Sarmiento LF (2023)
tion (SSI) based on continuum mechanics theory and use of high Soil-structure interaction (SSI): A state-of-the-art review of modeling
performance computing. Geosci 11(2):1–22. [Link] techniques and studies on seismic response of building structures.
geosc​ience​s1102​0072 Front Built Environ. 9:1–17. [Link]
65. Yuan B et al (2019) Transparent Synthetic Soil and Its Application in 85. Ciampoli M, Pinto PE (1995) Effects of Soil-structure interaction (SSI) on
Modeling of Soil-structure interaction (SSI) Using Optical System. Front Inelastic Seismic Response of Bridge Piers. J Struct Eng. 12(5):806–814.
Earth Sci 7:1–9. [Link] [Link]
66. Anand V, Satish Kumar SR (2018) Seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI): 86. Bhaumik L, Raychowdhury P (2013) Seismic response analysis of a
a state-of-the-art review. Structures 16:317–326. [Link] nuclear reactor structure considering nonlinear soil-structure interac-
1016/j.​istruc.​2018.​10.​009 tion (SSI). Nucl Eng Des 265:1078–1090. [Link]
67. Bezih K, Chateauneuf A, Kalla M, Bacconnet C (2015) Effect of soil- gdes.​2013.​09.​037
structure interaction (SSI) on the reliability of reinforced concrete 87. Wolf JP, Song C (2002) Some cornerstones of dynamic soil-structure
bridges. Ain Shams Eng J 6(3):755–766. [Link] interaction (SSI). Eng Struct 24(1):13–28. [Link]
2015.​01.​007 0296(01)​00082-7
68. Requena-Garcia-Cruz MV, Bento R, Durand-Neyra P, Morales-Esteban A 88. Van Nguyen Q, Fatahi B, Hokmabadi AS (2017) Influence of size and
(2022) Analysis of the soil structure-interaction effects on the seismic load-bearing mechanism of piles on seismic performance of buildings
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 23 of 25

considering soil–pile–structure Interaction. Int J Geomech 17(7):1–22. Engineering - Case studies and Best practices. no. February, p 33.
[Link] [Link]
89. Pavić G, Hadzima-Nyarko M, Bulajić B, Jurković Ž (2020) Development 111. Bigelow H, Pak D, Hoffmeister B, Feldmann M, Seidl G, Petraschek T
of seismic vulnerability and exposure models-A case study of Croatia. (2017) Soil-structure interaction (SSI) at railway bridges with integral
Sustain 12(3):1–24. [Link] abutments. Procedia Eng 199:2318–2323. [Link]
90. González Acosta JL, Vardon PJ, Hicks MA (February, 2021) Study of land- proeng.​2017.​09.​204
slides and soil-structure interaction (SSI) problems using the implicit 112. Li S, Zhang F, quan Wang J, Alam MS, Zhang J (2017) Seismic responses
material point method. Eng Geol 285. [Link] of super-span cable-stayed bridges induced by ground motions in
2021.​106043 different sites relative to fault rupture considering soil-structure interac-
91. Requena-Garcia-Cruz MV, Morales-Esteban A, Durand-Neyra P, Romero- tion (SSI). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 101:295–310. [Link]
Sánchez E, Soil-structure interaction (SSI) in the seismic vulnerability soild​yn.​2017.​07.​016
analysis of RC buildings. Application to a case study building located in 113. Harte M, Basu B, Nielsen SRK (2012) Dynamic analysis of wind turbines
southwestern Spain, (2021). [Link] including soil-structure interaction (SSI). Eng Struct 45:509–518. [Link]
92. Chouw N, Hao H (2012) Pounding damage to buildings and bridges doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2012.​06.​041
in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Int J Prot Struct 114. Fitzgerald B, Basu B (2016) Structural control of wind turbines with soil
3(2):123–140. [Link] structure interaction included. Eng Struct 111:131–151. [Link]
93. Tseng WS, Lilhanand K, Hamasaki D, Garcia JA, Srinivasan R (2014) 10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2015.​12.​019
Seismic soil-structure interaction (SSI) with consideration of spatial 115. Zuo H, Bi K, Hao H (2017) Dynamic analyses of operating offshore wind
incoherence of seismic ground motions: a case study. Nucl Eng Des turbines including soil-structure interaction (SSI), Eng. Struct., vol. 157,
269:200–206. [Link] no. November pp. 42–62, 2018. [Link]
94. Shye K-Y, Robinson AR (2018) Civil Engineering studies Dynamic Soil- 2017.​12.​001
structure interaction (SSI), no. 484 116. Michel P, Butenweg C, Klinkel S (2018) Pile-grid foundations of onshore
95. Jasim FA, Jasim NA, Al-Hussein AA (2024) Assessment of Soil-structure wind turbines considering soil-structure-interaction under seismic
interaction (SSI) effects on Seismic Behavior of Isolator and Mass loading, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 109, no. March, pp. 299–311. [Link]
Damper equipped buildings. Math Model Eng Probl 11(2):325–339. doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2018.​03.​009
[Link] 117. Chatziioannou K, Katsardi V, Koukouselis A, Mistakidis E (2017) The
96. Kausel E (2010) Early history of soil-structure interaction (SSI). Soil Dyn effect of nonlinear wave-structure and soil-structure interaction (SSI)s in
Earthq Eng 30(9):822–832. [Link] the design of an offshore structure. Mar Struct 52:126–152. [Link]
97. Sezawa K, Kanai K (1935) Decay in the Seismic Vibrations of a Structure org/​10.​1016/j.​marst​ruc.​2016.​11.​003
by Dissipation of their Energy into the Ground, Proceedings of the Impe- 118. Kavitha P, Venkatesh MM, Sundaravadivelu R (2015) Soil Structure
rial Academy, vol. 11, no. 5. pp. 174–176. [Link] Interaction Analysis of a Dry Dock. Aquat Procedia 4(Icwrcoe):287–294.
912.​11.​174 [Link]
98. Martel RR (1940) Effect of foundation on earthquake motion. Civ Eng J 119. Hatzigeorgiou George GD D. and, Beskos DE (2010) Soil-structure inter-
10(1):7–10 action (SSI) effects on seismic inelastic analysis of 3-D tunnels. Soil Dyn
99. Bycroft GN (1956) Forced vibrations of a rigid circular plate on a semi- Earthq Eng 30(9):851–861. [Link]
infinite elastic space and on an elastic stratum. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 120. Coleman JL, Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS (2016) Time-domain soil-structure
Ser Math Phys Sci 248(948):327–368. [Link] interaction (SSI) analysis of nuclear facilities. Nucl Eng Des 298:264–270.
0001 [Link]
100. Roesset (2013) Soil structure interaction the early stages. J Appl Sci Eng 121. Farahani RV, Dessalegn TM, Vaidya NR, Bazan-Zurita E (2016) Seismic
16(1):1–8 soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of a nuclear power plant building
101. Ghosh B, Madabhushi SPG (2004) Dynamic soil structure interaction for founded on soil and in degraded concrete stiffness condition. Nucl Eng
layered and inhomogeneous ground: a comparitive study, 13th World Des 297:320–326. [Link]
Conf. Earthq Eng. 440 122. Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Coleman JL (2017) Linear and nonlinear
102. Yashinsky M (1998) The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis of buildings and safety-related
17, 1989, Highway systems (No. 1552) nuclear structures, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 107, no. October pp.
103. Rahnema H, Mohasseb S, JavidSharifi B (2016) 2-D soil-structure interac- 218–233, 2018. [Link]
tion (SSI) in time domain by the SBFEM and two non-linear soil models. 123. Venanzi I, Salciarini D, Tamagnini C (2014) The effect of soil-foundation-
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 88:152–175. [Link] structure interaction on the wind-induced response of tall buildings.
01.​008 Eng Struct 79:117–130. [Link]
104. Li M, Lu X, Lu X, Ye L (2014) Influence of soil-structure interaction (SSI) 124. Ayough P, Taghia SAHS (2017) Response of steel moment and braced
on seismic collapse resistance of super-tall buildings. J Rock Mech frames subjected to near-source pulse-like ground motions by
Geotech Eng 6(5):477–485. [Link] including soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
105. Causse M, Cotton F, Cornou C, Bard PY (2008) Calibrating median and 101:53–66. [Link]
uncertainty estimates for a practical use of empirical Green’s functions 125. Mekki M, Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Zoutat M (2016) Seismic behavior
technique. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(1):344–353. [Link] of R.C. structures including soil-structure interaction (SSI) and soil vari-
01200​70075 ability effects. Eng Struct 126:15–26. [Link]
106. Abdelmonem MAES, Osman EA (2014) Seismic Response Analysis 2016.​07.​034
Considering Soil-structure interaction (SSI) of High-Rise Buildings 126. Papadopoulos M, Van Beeumen R, François S, Degrande G, Lombaert G
107. Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD, Pitilakis KD (2015) Seismic vulnerability (2017) Computing the modal characteristics of structures considering
assessment of high-rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil- soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects. Procedia Eng 199:2414–2419.
structure interaction (SSI) effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 73:42–57. [Link] [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2015.​02.​016 127. Cruz C, Miranda E (2017) Evaluation of soil-structure interaction (SSI)
108. Galvín P, Romero A (2014) A MATLAB toolbox for soil-structure interac- effects on the damping ratios of buildings subjected to earthquakes.
tion (SSI) analysis with finite and boundary elements. Soil Dyn Earthq Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:183–195. [Link]
Eng 57:10–14. [Link] 2017.​05.​034
109. Abd Rahim SM, Mohd Zahid MZA, Wan Omar WMS, Bin Ab MA, Rahim, 128. Aldaikh H, Alexander NA, Ibraim E, Oddbjornsson O (2015) Two dimen-
Faisal A (2016) Assessment of reinforced concrete building with soil sional numerical and experimental models for the study of structure-
structure interaction effect under vertical earthquake. Mater Sci Forum soil-structure interaction (SSI) involving three buildings. Comput Struct
857:331–336. [Link] 150:79–91. [Link]
110. Akbar Firoozi A, Asghar Firoozi A (2024) Soil-structure interaction (SSI): 129. Niu Y et al (2023) Dynamic displacement estimation and modal
understanding and mitigating challenges. in Challenges in Foundation analysis of long-span bridges integrating multi-GNSS and acceleration
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 24 of 25

measurements. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil 4(1). [Link] 149. Bapir B, Abrahamczyk L (2024) Assesment of Simplified Soil-structure
s43065-​023-​00077-6 interaction (SSI) Models for Seismic Analysis of RC Buildings, in 18th
130. Zhang Z, Wei H, Qin X (2017) Experimental study on damping charac- World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. p. 13
teristics of soil-structure interaction (SSI) system based on shaking table 150. Ramaiah P, Kumar S (2018) Dynamic analysis of soil structure interaction
test. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 98: 183–190. [Link] (SSI) using ANFIS model with oba machine learning approach. Int J Civ
2017.​04.​002 Eng Technol 9(11):496–512
131. Nazarimofrad E, Zahrai SM (2018) Fuzzy control of asymmetric plan 151. Edgers L, Sanayei M, Alonge JL (2005) Modeling the effects of soil-struc-
buildings with active tuned mass damper considering soil-structure ture interaction (SSI) on a tall building bearing on a mat foundation. Civ
interaction (SSI). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 115:838–852. [Link] Eng Pract 20(2):51–68
1016/j.​soild​yn.​2017.​09.​020 152. Kaynia AM, Kausel E (1991) Dynamics of piles and pile groups in layered
132. Luco JE (2014) Effects of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on seismic base soil media. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 10(8):386–401. [Link]
isolation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 66:167–177. [Link] 0267-​7261(91)​90053-3
soild​yn.​2014.​05.​007 153. Veletsos YT, A.S. and, Wei (1971) Lateral and rocking vibration of foot-
133. Fatahi B, Van Nguyen Q, Xu R, Sun W (2018) Three-Dimensional ings. J ASCE Soil Mech Found Div 97(SM9):1227–1249
response of neighboring buildings sitting on Pile foundations to Seis- 154. Luco RA, J. E., and, Westman (1971) Dynamic response of circular foot-
mic pounding. Int J Geomech 18(4). [Link] ings. J Eng Mech Div 97(EM5):1381–1395
1943-​5622.​00010​93 155. Veletsos B, A. S., and, Verbic (1973) Vibration of viscoelastic foundations.
134. Rosenblueth E, Meli R (1986) The 1985 earthquake: causes and effects Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2(1):87–104. [Link]
in Mexico City. Concr Int 8(1):23–24 00000​20
135. Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A (1999) Seis- 156. Bielak J, (1974) Dynamic behaviour of structures with embedded foun-
mic soil-pile-structure Interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech dations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3(3):259-274. [Link]
Geoenvironmental Eng 125(9):750–759. [Link] eqe.​42900​30305
1090-​0241(1999)​125:​9(750) 157. Jennings, PC, Bielak J (1973) Dynamics of building-soil interaction. Bull
136. Matinmanesh H, Asheghabadi MS (2011) Seismic analysis on soil- seismol soc Am 63(1):9-48. [Link]
structure interaction (SSI) of buildings over sandy soil. Procedia Eng 158. Elsabee JM, Kausel F, E., and, Roesset (1977) Dynamic Stiffness of
14:1737–1743. [Link] Embedded Foundations, in Seconf Annual Engineering Division Spe-
137. Sáez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A (2013) Inelas- cialty Conference ASCE North Carolina State University Rayleigh, Noth
tic dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects on moment-resisting Carolina, pp. 40–43
frame buildings. Eng Struct 51:166–177. [Link] 159. George Gazetas, Foundation Vibrations, in Foundation Engineering
ruct.​2013.​01.​020 Handbook, vol. 22, no. 2, (1991) pp. 553–565. [Link]
138. Sbartai B, Goudjil K (2012) Response of soil-structure interaction (SSI) iicep.​1962.​11089
system using Artificial Neural Network (ANN), World Sci. Proc. Ser. Com- 160. Li P Lu X Chen B & Chen, Y (2004, August). Computer simulation on
put. Eng. Inf. Sci. 7; Uncertain. Model. Knowl. Eng. Decis. Mak. - Proc. dynamic soil-structure interaction system. In 13th World conference on
10th Int. FLINS Conf. 7: 1017–1022. [Link] earthquake engineering (No. 3233). Vancouver, Canada.
747_​0163 161. Liao HJ, Liu J, Zhao YG, Xiao ZH (2014) Analysis of Soil-structure interac-
139. Boudghene Stambouli A, Zendagui D, Bard PY, Derras B (2017) Deriving tion (SSI) with Finite Element Method. Key Eng Mater., vol. 340–341, no.
amplification factors from simple site parameters using generalized July pp. 1279–1284, 2007. [Link]
regression neural networks: implications for relevant site proxies. Earth kem.​340-​341.​1279
Planet Sp 69(1). [Link] 162. Mirhashemian P, Khaji N, Shakib H, Soil-structure interaction (SSI) analy-
140. Krishnan R, Sivakumar VL (2024) The effect of soil-structure interac- sis using a hybrid spectral element/finite element (SE/FE) approach,
tion (SSI) on Structural Stability and sustainability of RC structures. Civ JSEE-Journal Seismol. …, vol. 11, no. 2, 2009
Environ Eng Rep 34(1):47–67. [Link] 163. Pitilakis KD, Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD (2014) Consideration
141. Won J, Shin J (2021) Machine learning-based approach for seismic dam- of aging and SSI effects on seismic vulnerability assessment of RC
age prediction method of building structures considering soil-structure buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1755–1776. [Link]
interaction (SSI). Sustain 13(8). [Link] s10518-​013-​9575-8
142. Badry P, Satyam N (2017) Seismic soil structure interaction analysis for 164. Todorovska MI (2002) Full-scale experimental studies of soil-structure
asymmetrical buildings supported on piled raft for the 2015 Nepal interaction. ISET J Earthq Tech 39(3):139-165.
earthquake. J Asian Earth Sci 133:102–113. [Link] 165. Bezih K, Chateauneuf A, Demagh R (2020) Effect of long-term soil
jseaes.​2016.​03.​014 deformations on RC structures including soil-structure interaction (SSI).
143. Van Nguyen Q, Fatahi B, Hokmabadi AS (2016) The effects of founda- Civ Eng J 6(12):2290–2311. [Link]
tion size on the seismic performance of buildings considering the 166. Vasilev G, Parvanova S, Dineva P, Wuttke F (2015) Soil-structure interac-
soil-foundation-structure interaction. Struct Eng Mech 58(6):1045–1075. tion (SSI) using BEM-FEM coupling through ANSYS software package.
[Link] Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 70:104–117. [Link]
144. Lv H, Chen SL (2022) Analysis of nonlinear soil-structure interaction (SSI) 12.​007
using partitioned method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 162:107470. [Link] 167. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall,
org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2022.​107470 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA
145. Swami JM, Panchal PBJ (2018) Review Paper on effects of Soil-structure 168. Lysmer, J., Ostadan, F., & Chin, C. (1999). SASSI2000-A system for analysis
interaction (SSI) on Bridge structures. Int J Sci Res Dev 6(02):2449–2451 of soil-structure interaction. University of California, Berkeley, California.
146. Amorosi A, Boldini D, di Lernia A (2017) Dynamic soil-structure interac- 169. Tadesse ZL, Padavala HK, Koteswara VRP (2022) Seismic response
tion (SSI): a three-dimensional numerical approach and its application assessment of building structures with underground stories: a state-of-
to the Lotung case study. Comput Geotech 90:34–54. [Link] the-art review. Innov Infrastruct Solut 7(6):336–351. [Link]
10.​1016/j.​compg​eo.​2017.​05.​016 1007/​s41062-​022-​00942-5
147. Oz I, Senel SM, Palanci M, Kalkan A (2020) Effect of soil-structure interac- 170. Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., & Fenves, G. L. (2009). Computer
tion (SSI) on the seismic response of existing low and mid-rise RC Program OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simula-
buildings. Appl Sci 10(23):1–21. [Link] tion, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). University
148. Imran H, Al-Jeznawi D, Al-Janabi MAQ, Bernardo LFA (2023) Assessment of California, Berkeley, California.
of soil–structure Interaction approaches in mechanically stabilized 171. Sharma N, Dasgupta K, Dey A (2020) Optimum lateral extent of soil
Earth retaining walls: a review. CivilEng 4(3):982–999. [Link] domain for dynamic SSI analysis of RC framed buildings on pile
3390/​civil​eng40​30053 foundations. Front Struct Civ Eng 14(1):62–81. [Link]
s11709-​019-​0570-2
Najar et al. J Infrastruct Preserv Resil (2025) 6:5 Page 25 of 25

172. Ferro AN (2013) Nonlinear dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI) in 197. IS 1893-3 (2014) Criteria for earthquake resistant for design of structures
Earthquake Engineering, p. 138 part 3: bridges and retaining walls. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
173. Lysmer RL, J., and, Kuhlemeyer (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite Delhi.
media. J Eng Mech Div 95(EN4):859–877 198. IS 1893-4 (2015) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-
174. Pang L, Jiang C, Zhang C (2023) An analytical method for predicting Part 4: industrial structures including stack-like structures. IS 1893-4,
the soil-structure interaction (SSI) of axially loaded piles in sands incor- Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
porating the two-surface plasticity model. Eng Struct 295(11):116841. 199. NZS 1170.5 (2004) Structural design actions- Part 5: earthquake actions-
[Link] New Zealand. NZS 1170.5, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
175. Yesane PM, Ghugal YM, Wankhade RL (2016) Study on Soil-structure 200. AS (2007) Structural design actions‒Part 4 earthquake actions in Aus-
interaction (SSI): A Review Study on Soil-structure interaction (SSI) : A tralia. AS/NZS 1170.4: 2007.
Review, no. February. [Link] 201. MNA-EC8 (2015) NA-2017 to MS EN1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design of struc-
176. Davenne L, Ragueneau F, Mazars J, Ibrahimbegovic A (2003) Efficient tures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: general rules, seismic actions
approaches to finite element analysis in earthquake engineering. Com- and rules for buildings. Department of Standards. Malaysia
put Struct 81(12):1223–1239. [Link] 202. NIST (2012) Soil-structure interaction for building structures. NIST GCR
00038-5 12-917-21, NEHRP Consultants Maryland.
177. Lu, Y. (2016). Seismic soil-structure interaction in performance-based 203. Jarernprasert S, Bazan-Zurita E, Bielak J (2013) Seismic soil-structure
design (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham). interaction (SSI) response of inelastic structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
178. Markou G, Sabouni R, Suleiman F, El-Chouli R (2015) Full-scale modeling 47:132–143. [Link]
of the soil-structure interaction (SSI) Problem through the use of Hybrid
models (HYMOD). Int J Curr Eng Technol 5(2):885–892
179. Gupta JP, (1982) Three-dimensional hybrid modelling of soil- structure Publisher’s Note
interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 10(10):69–87 Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
180. Jong SC, Ong DEL, Oh E (March, 2021) State-of-the-art review of lished maps and institutional affiliations.
geotechnical-driven artificial intelligence techniques in underground
soil-structure interaction (SSI). Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 113. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tust.​2021.​103946
181. Moreno-Mateos MA, Steinmann P (2024) Configurational force method
enables fracture assessment in soft materials. J Mech Phys Solids
186:105602. [Link]
182. Boudaa S, Khalfallah S, Hamioud S (2019) Dynamic analysis of soil
structure interaction by the spectral element method. Innov Infrastruct
Solut 4(1):1–8. [Link]
183. Chen S, Lv H, Zhou G (2022) Partitioned analysis of soil-structure
interaction (SSI) for Nuclear Island buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
51(10):2220–2247. [Link]
184. Du Mi X, Zhao Q, Ding (2024) Shengtao. Cao, Zhishan. Li, large-scale
seismic soil–structure interaction analysis via efficient finite element
modeling and multi-GPU parallel explicit algorithm. Comput Civ Infra-
struct Eng 10(2):1886–1908
185. Sen Yang Y, Wang W, Lin JZ (2017) Direct-iterative hybrid solution in
nonlinear dynamic structural analysis. Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng
32(5):397–411. [Link]
186. David T, Stevens J, Krauthammer (1991) Analysis of blast-loaded, buried
RC arch response. I: numerical approach. J Struct Eng 117(1):197–212
187. EN 1998-5 (2004) Eurocode 8–design of structures for earthquake
resistance, part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical
aspects. EN 1998-5, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
188. EN 1998-1 (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake
resistance- Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
189. JSCE 15 (2007) Standard specifications for concrete structures- design.
JSCE 15, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.[Link]
coj19​75.​46.7_3
190. ATC (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regula-
tions for buildings. ATC 3–06, Applied Technology Council, California.
191. ASCE. (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia.
192. FEMA (2015) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new build-
ings and other structures. FEMA P-1050, Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
193. ASCE (2016) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia.
194. Khosravikia F, Mahsuli M, Ghannad MA (2017) Probabilistic evaluation
of 2015 NEHRP soil-structure interaction (SSI) provisions. J Eng Mech
143(9):1–11. [Link]
195. IS 1893-1 (2016) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-
Part 1: general provisions and buildings. IS 1893- 1, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi
196. IS 1893-2 (2014) Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures-
Part 2: liquid retaining tanks. IS 1893-2, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.