Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Mitigation of seismic waves: metabarriers and metafoundations bench tested

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that two resonant metamaterial layouts—a metafoundation and a metabarrier—shrink a building's horizontal seismic response by roughly 15–70% in the 3.5–8 Hz band, with the larger reductions requiring graded resonator…

desk verdict A solid, internally consistent numerical benchmark whose headline 15-70% reduction numbers depend on an unvalidated connector assumption that the authors themselves flag; deserves refereeing with conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02056 v2 pith:MUC5S2AG submitted 2019-08-06 physics.geo-ph physics.app-ph

Andrea Colombi , Rachele Zaccherini , Antonio Palermo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.geo-phphysics.app-ph
keywords seismicmetamaterialsmetafoundationmetabarrierlocallyresonantbandgapgradedresonatorssoil-structureinteractionspectralelementsimulationSHwaves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that two resonant metamaterial layouts—a metafoundation that supports a building and a metabarrier that rings it—can reduce the spectral amplification of a building's horizontal response between roughly 15 and 70 percent for shear waves in the 3.5–8 Hz band. The claim rests on full 3D time-domain simulations that include the soil, the resonators, and the superstructure, rather than on unit-cell dispersion curves alone. A graded arrangement of resonator masses widens the attenuation band, and small damping in the metafoundation's connectors is necessary to keep the building from being detuned by resonator coupling. A reader would care because the unit cells are meter-scale concrete blocks that could plausibly be embedded in or around real buildings, and because the paper benchmarks the designs against a control building in different soils.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the locally resonant unit cell: a one-meter concrete cube supported by six rubber connectors inside a 1.4 m hollow concrete box, with a translational resonance near 6 Hz that opens an omnidirectional hybridization bandgap. A graded design, in which the resonator mass increases toward the centre of the metastructure, stacks resonances at slightly different frequencies to widen the attenuation band. The paper combines a Bloch–Floquet dispersion analysis of the periodic unit cell with an analytical mass-in-mass model for the translational resonance, and then benchmarks both designs with full 3D spectral-element time-domain simulations of wave propagation in a homogeneous sedimentary half-space with varying shear velocity and perfectly matched absorbing boundaries. The building response is measured at the roof, and performance is reported as the reduction in the spectral peak at the building's fundamental horizontal mode.

What would settle it

Build a half- or full-scale metafoundation with the same 1 m concrete masses, rubber connectors, and 2% damping, place it on a shake table, and sweep horizontal shear excitation across 3.5–8 Hz while measuring roof spectral amplification against a non-resonant reference foundation; if the measured reduction at the building's tuned resonance falls below roughly 15% while the resonator modes are still found near the designed frequencies, the paper's central performance claim would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the attenuation predicted by resonant bandgaps survives—with caveats—when the metamaterial is embedded in a full soil-structure system. With horizontally polarised shear waves from a surface source, a six-layer metabarrier with graded masses sustains roughly 50% reduction over about a 4 Hz window and peaks at 45–55%; the metafoundation reaches about 70% once 2% damping is added to the rubber connectors. The paper also finds that adding resonator layers raises mitigation by 5–20% per layer, softer soils add 10–15% attenuation, and vertically incident waves leak through shallow barriers, so the metabarrier is better suited to surface-dominated groundborne vibration than to deep seismic sources. The authors state these numbers as simulation results for a model building whose fundamental horizontal mode is tuned between 3 and 10 Hz, with random 5% mass errors in the resonators to mimic fabrication defects.

Load-bearing premise

The paper explicitly assumes in Section 5 that the unit-cell kinematics shown in its design can be built in practice; if rubber connectors cannot sustain the modeled stiffness, 2% damping, and cyclic displacements beyond 10 cm during strong ground motion, the reported 15–70% reductions may not be reachable in a real structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With six graded lateral layers, the metabarrier maintains about 50% reduction over roughly 4 Hz, and adding layers widens the band rather than raising the peak much further.
  • Softer soils improve attenuation by 10–15 percentage points, so the designs work best where seismic site amplification is often worst.
  • The metafoundation behaves like a multi-tuned mass damper: without connector damping, building-resonator coupling shifts the building's resonance and erodes the benefit; adding 2% damping raises peak reduction to about 70%.
  • Barriers with only a few vertical layers lose most of their shielding for vertically incident waves, which limits them as standalone seismic protection but leaves them viable for surface groundborne vibration.
  • Each additional resonator layer contributes roughly 5–20 percentage points of mitigation, giving a clear sizing rule of thumb.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same graded-resonator layout could be retrofitted into pile caps or slab edges rather than a full metafoundation, potentially cutting cost while keeping part of the bandwidth benefit.
  • The paper leaves a head-to-head comparison against base isolators for future work; if the 70% figure survives a physical prototype, the metafoundation becomes a candidate dual-purpose isolation-support system.
  • The reported robustness to 5% random mass errors suggests construction tolerances of a few percent do not destroy the effect, a testable prediction for a prototype build.
  • A shake-table test with real rubber connectors would also expose whether cyclic loading beyond the modeled 10 cm displacements changes the stiffness or damping enough to move the bandgap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a numerical benchmark of two seismic metamaterial concepts: a metabarrier surrounding a building and a metafoundation supporting it, both built from concrete masses mounted on rubber connectors inside hollow concrete cells. The unit-cell dynamics are characterized with finite-element frequency analysis and Bloch-Floquet dispersion curves, and a graded mass distribution is used to broaden the attenuation band. Performance is evaluated with full 3D time-domain SPECFEM3D simulations for horizontally polarized shear waves in a homogeneous soil, using a Ricker source and PML boundaries. The reported outcome is a reduction of the building's spectral amplification between about 15% and 70% in the 3.5-8 Hz band, with explicit sensitivity to soil shear velocity, barrier width and depth, source directivity, and damping in the connectors. The paper also highlights that the metafoundation behaves like a multi-tuned mass damper and that damping is essential to avoid detuning.

Significance. If the modeled behavior is physically realizable, the study is a valuable contribution because it goes beyond unit-cell dispersion analysis and quantifies, for two competing concepts, the effect of grading, damping, soil stiffness, size, and incidence angle on a defined spectral-amplification-reduction metric. The numerical workflow is standard and internally consistent: the reductions are obtained from direct simulations, the dispersion-derived bandgap is consistent with the simulated bandwidth, and the analytical mass-in-mass dispersion curve is checked against the numerical one. The paper also reports an important negative result, the strong degradation of metabarrier performance under vertical SH incidence. Its main weakness is that the headline performance is conditional on an assumed, unvalidated connector design and on an assumed 2% damping ratio, which is acknowledged in the manuscript text but not reflected in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Section 5] The central feasibility premise is stated in Section 5: the reductions are obtained 'after assuming that one can practically engineer the unit cell kinematics necessary to achieve the dynamic outlined in Figs. 2 and 3', and Section 2 explicitly says that connector design, damping properties, and bearing capacity are 'not tackled in this study'. The only physical check reported is a static self-weight deformation below 1 cm, which does not constrain the dynamic stiffness, loss factor, or cyclic deformation capacity at 3.5-8 Hz. Because the entire 15-70% range depends on these assumed connector properties, the abstract's 'can reduce' overstates the finding. Please either add a measured or otherwise referenced dynamic characterization of the connector, or add a sensitivity study around connector stiffness and damping, and in all cases condition the abstract and conclusions on the feasibility assumption.
  2. [Section 4.3, Fig. 8] The claimed metafoundation peak of about 70% is obtained only after introducing a 2% viscous damping ratio in the resonators; without this damping, the paper reports detuning and degraded response. The 2% value is introduced without a supporting reference, material test, or parametric exploration. Since the performance claim is so sensitive to this value, the manuscript should show how the amplification reduction varies with damping (e.g., 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%) and should anchor the chosen value in rubber-damper measurements or published viscoelastic data. Without this, the 70% peak is a single-point assumption rather than a robust prediction.
  3. [Section 4.4, Figs. 10-11] The paper correctly reports that the metabarrier's performance strongly degrades for vertical incidence, with near-zero attenuation for a barrier placed at a larger distance (Fig. 11a). This is an important scope condition, but the abstract presents the 15-70% reduction range without mentioning the incidence dependence. I recommend adding a concise summary, in the text or in a table, of the conditions under which each part of the reduction range was obtained, including source type, soil velocity, and configuration, so that the range cannot be misread as a broadband, omnidirectional performance envelope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'can reduce the spectral amplification' should be changed to 'are numerically predicted to reduce' or 'can reduce under the assumed material parameters', to match the feasibility caveat in Section 5.
  2. [Section 1, paragraph 1] The word 'bangaps' appears in the text; it should be 'bandgaps'.
  3. [Caption of Fig. 9] The caption begins with 'Summery plots'; this should be 'Summary plots'.
  4. [Section 4, opening paragraph] The random 5% mass variation is described as introduced 'haphazardly' and only one realization is used. Please state explicitly that this is a single deterministic perturbation and not a statistical ensemble, so readers do not interpret the results as carrying uncertainty bars.
  5. [Section 3, numerical setup] The soil model is homogeneous and the paper acknowledges in Section 5 that porosity, lateral heterogeneities, plasticity, and liquefaction are neglected. A one-sentence reminder near the setup, e.g., at the definition of the soil parameters, would help the reader keep this scope limitation in view throughout the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 15-70% reductions are direct outputs of 3D time-domain simulations, not consequences of a fitted model or a self-cited result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the metabarrier and metafoundation reduce spectral amplification by approximately 15-70%, is produced by full 3D SPECFEM3D time-domain simulations of prescribed unit-cell geometries, graded mass distributions, soil shear velocities, and damping values. The reduction curves in Figs. 7-11 are computed as spectral ratios between protected and unprotected reference configurations (Fig. 5d-f), so they are not derived from the dispersion-curve bandgap nor from any model fitted to those reductions. The bandgap shading in Fig. 7 is a consistency overlay, and the analytical mass-in-mass dispersion curve in Fig. 3a is checked against the numerical unit cell rather than used to generate the mitigation predictions. Section 2 explicitly states that connector design, damping properties, and bearing capacity are 'not tackled', and Section 5 conditions the benchmark on being able to engineer the assumed unit-cell kinematics; these are acknowledged feasibility limitations, not circular inputs. Self-citations (e.g. refs. 15, 18, 50, 53, 54) support background physics and earlier designs and are not the load-bearing justification for the computed reductions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical result is merely renamed. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on design parameters chosen by hand (mass grading, connector stiffness, 2% damping) and on modeling assumptions that exclude real-soil complexity. These are not fitted to the target reductions, so the core numerical results are not circular, but the transfer to real earthquakes is not established.

free parameters (4)
  • Resonator mass and spatial grading range = m to 1.5m (barrier), m to 1.3m (foundation)
    Chosen by hand to place the bandgap in 3.5-8 Hz; not fitted to the reduction target.
  • Rubber connector stiffness = El=1e6 Pa, nu=0.44
    Tuned so the translational resonance occurs near 6 Hz; no independent measurement.
  • Damping ratio in connectors = 0.02 (2%)
    Introduced to suppress detuning; authors state optimization was not implemented, so this value is ad hoc.
  • Soil shear velocity = 150, 300, 400 m/s
    Sensitivity inputs; vp kept constant at 1000 m/s, giving extreme Poisson ratios for soft soil.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Bloch-Floquet boundary conditions extend the unit cell to an infinite periodic medium
    Used in Section 2 to compute dispersion curves and bandgap.
  • domain assumption Soil and structures behave as linear elastic or linear viscoelastic materials
    All simulations in Section 3 assume small displacements and linear rheology; nonlinearity, plasticity and liquefaction are excluded.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous soil halfspace with constant shear velocity
    No layering, porosity or lateral heterogeneity; the authors list this as a limitation in Section 5.
  • domain assumption A line-source Ricker wavelet centered at 6 Hz adequately represents seismic excitation
    The source time function in Section 3 illuminates the 3-10 Hz band but is not a recorded earthquake motion.
  • ad hoc to paper The unit cell kinematics can be practically engineered to achieve the modeled stiffness and damping
    Explicitly assumed in Section 5; no prototype or connector design is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper A single random realization of up to 5% mass disorder represents fabrication variability
    Section 3 states a random mass error is introduced haphazardly; no statistics over disorder realizations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mitigation of seismic waves: metabarriers and metafoundations bench tested." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MUC5S2AG

@misc{pith2026190802056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mitigation of seismic waves: metabarriers and metafoundations bench tested},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MUC5S2AG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02056}
}
read the original abstract

The article analyses two potential metamaterial designs, the metafoundation and the metabarrier, capable to attenuate seismic waves on buildings or structural components in a frequency band between 3.5 to 8 Hz. The metafoundation serves the dual purpose of reducing the seismic response and supporting the superstructure. Conversely the metabarrier surrounds and shields the structure from incoming waves. The two solutions are based on a cell layout of local resonators whose dynamic properties are tuned using finite element simulations combined with Bloch-Floquet boundary conditions. To enlarge the attenuation band, a graded design where the resonant frequency of each cell varies spatially is employed. If appropriately enlarged or reduced, the metamaterial designs could be used to attenuate lower frequency seismic waves or groundborne vibrations respectively. A sensitivity analysis over various design parameters including size, number of resonators, soil type and source directivity, carried out by computing full 3D numerical simulations in time domain for horizontal shear waves is proposed. Overall, the metamaterial solutions discussed here can reduce the spectral amplification of the superstructure between approx. 15 to 70% depending on several parameters including the metastructure size and the properties of the soil. Pitfalls and advantages of each configuration are discussed in detail. The role of damping, crucial to avoid multiple resonant coupling, and the analogies between graded metamaterials and tuned mass dampers is also investigated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Different purpose and set-up of the metabarrier vs. metafoundation. The metabarrier surrounds the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) (a) Detailed view of the unit cell and its component constituting the metamaterial. The hollow case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) (a) A section of the dispersion curve in Fig. 2 along the Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Simulation set-up. (a) The computational domain characterised by soil, building and metamaterial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Color online) Summery plots showing the maximum amplitude reduction as a function of the number of vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Color online) Same as Fig. 7 but for different metabarrier and metamaterial configurations with a vertically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Color online) Amplification reduction plot as in Fig. 7 but for a metabarrier located far away from the structure. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maier, K

    S. Maier, K. Shamonina, S. Gu´ enneau, O. Hess, J. Aizpurua, Handbook of Metamaterials and Nanophotonics, Volume 2, World Scientific, Singapore, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Craster, S

    R. Craster, S. Guenneau, Acoustic Metamaterials: Negative Refraction, Imaging, Lensing and Cloaking, London: Springer, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Rupin, F

    M. Rupin, F. Lemoult, G. Lerosey, P. Roux, Experimental demonstration of ordered and disordered multi-resonant metamaterials for lamb waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 234301

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Achaoui, A

    Y. Achaoui, A. Khelif, S. Benchabane, L. Robert, V. Laude, Experimental observation of locally-resonant and bragg band gaps for surface guided waves in a phononic crystal of pillars, Phys. Rev. B 83 (10) (2011) 10401

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    J. H. Page, A. Sukhovich, S. Yang, M. L. Cowan, F. Van Der Biest, A. Tourin, M. Fink, Z. Liu, C. Chan, P. Sheng, Phononic crystals, Phys. Status Solidi B 241 (15) (2004) 3454–3462

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Kaina, M

    N. Kaina, M. Fink, G. Lerosey, Composite media mixing bragg and local resonances for highly attenuating and broad bandgaps, Sci. Rep. 3 (2013) 3240

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Brillouin, Wave propagation in periodic structure, Dover Phoenix Editions, 2003

    L. Brillouin, Wave propagation in periodic structure, Dover Phoenix Editions, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2005

    C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2005

    work page 2005

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    R. D. Woods, Screening of surface wave in soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 94 (4) (1968) 951–980

    1968

  2. [10]

    Avil´ es, F

    J. Avil´ es, F. J. S´ enchezSesma, Piles as barriers for elastic waves, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 109 (9) (1983) 1133–1146. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:9(1133)

    1983 doi

  3. [11]

    Brˆ ul´ e, E

    S. Brˆ ul´ e, E. H. Javelaud, S. Enoch, S. Guenneau, Experiments on seismic metamaterials: Molding surface waves., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 133901

    2014

  4. [12]

    Achaoui, T

    Y. Achaoui, T. Antonakakis, S. Brule, R. Craster, S. Enoch, S. Guenneau, Clamped seismic metamaterials: ultra-low frequency stop bands, New Journal of Physics 19 (6) (2017) 063022

    2017

  5. [13]

    G. M. lamo, J. D. Bordn, J. J. Aznrez, G. Lombaert, The effectiveness of a pile barrier for vibration transmission in a soil stratum over a rigid bedrock, Computers and Geotechnics 110 (2019) 274 – 286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compgeo.2019.02.022

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Krodel, N

    S. Krodel, N. Thome, C. Daraio, Wide band-gap seismic metastructures, Ex. Mech. Letters 4 (2015) 111–117

    2015

  7. [15]

    Colombi, P

    A. Colombi, P. Roux, S. Guenneau, P. Gueguen, R. Craster, Forests as a natural seismic metamaterial: Rayleigh wave bandgaps induced by local resonances, Sci. Rep. 5 (5) (2016) 19238

    2016

  8. [17]

    Miniaci, A

    M. Miniaci, A. Krushynska, F. Bosia, N. Pugno, Large scale mechanical metamaterials as seismic shields, New Journal of Physics 18 (8) (2016) 083041

    2016

  9. [18]

    Palermo, S

    A. Palermo, S. Kr¨ odel, A. Marzani, C. Daraio, Engineered metabarrier as shield from seismic surface waves, Scientific Reports 6 (2016) 39356 EP –

    2016

  10. [19]

    H. J. Xiang, Z. F. Shi, S. J. Wang, Y. L. Mo, Periodic materials-based vibration attenuation in layered foundations: experimental validation, Smart Materials and Structures 21 (11) (2012) 112003. doi:10.1088/0964-1726/21/11/112003

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    J. Bao, Z. Shi, H. Xiang, Dynamic responses of a structure with periodic foundations, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 138 (7) (2012) 761–769. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000383

    2012

  12. [21]

    Casablanca, G

    O. Casablanca, G. Ventura, F. Garesc, B. Azzerboni, B. Chiaia, M. Chiappini, G. Finocchio, Seismic isolation of buildings using composite foundations based on metamaterials, Journal of Applied Physics 123 (17) (2018) 174903. doi:10.1063/ 1.5018005

    2018

  13. [22]

    Naeim, J

    F. Naeim, J. Kelly, Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice, New York: John Wiley, 1999. 9

    1999

  14. [23]

    J. P. Talbot, Base-isolated buildings: towards performance- based design, in: Structures and Buildings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 2016, pp. 574–582

    2016

  15. [24]

    Ozmutlu, M

    A. Ozmutlu, M. Ebrahimian, M. I. Todorovska, Wave propagation in buildings as periodic structures: Timoshenko beam with rigid floor slabs model, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 144 (4) (2018) 04018010. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) EM.1943-7889.0001436

    2018

  16. [25]

    La Salandra, M

    V. La Salandra, M. Wenzel, O. Bursi, G. Carta, A. Movchan, Conception of a 3d metamaterial-based foundation for static and seismic protection of fuel storage tanks, Frontiers in Materials 4 (2017) 30. doi:10.3389/fmats.2017.00030

    2017

  17. [26]

    Achaoui, B

    Y. Achaoui, B. Ungureanu, S. Enoch, S. Brule, S. Guenneau, Seismic waves damping with arrays of inertial resonators, Extreme Mechanics Letters 8 (2016) 30 – 37

    2016

  18. [27]

    H. B. et al., Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines, Birkh auser Basel, 1995

    1995

  19. [28]

    H. Takemiya, Environmental Vibrations: Prediction, Monitoring, Mitigation and Evaluation: Proceedings of the Interna- tional Symposium on Environmental Vibrations, Okayama, Japan, September 20-22, 2005, Proceedings and Monographs in Engineering, Water and Earth Sciences, Taylo...

    2005

  20. [29]

    C. G. Lai, A. Callerio, E. Faccioli, V. Morelli, P. Romani, Prediction of railway-induced ground vibrations in tunnels, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 127 (5) (2005) 503–514

    2005

  21. [30]

    Thornely-Taylor, Underground acoustics, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 36 (3) (2014)

    R. Thornely-Taylor, Underground acoustics, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 36 (3) (2014)

    2014

  22. [31]

    Lurcock, D

    D. Lurcock, D. Thompson, Predicting groundborne railway noise and vibration in buildings: a comparison of measurements and methods, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 36 (3) (2014)

    2014

  23. [32]

    Thompson, J

    D. Thompson, J. Jiang, M. Toward, M. Hussein, E. Ntotsios, A. Dijckmans, P. Coulier, G. Lombaert, G. Degrande, Reducing railway-induced ground-borne vibration by using open trenches and soft-filled barriers, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 88 (2016) 45 – 59. doi:https:...

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    Dertimanis, I

    V. Dertimanis, I. Antoniadis, E. Chatzi, Feasibility analysis on the attenuation of strong ground motions using finite periodic lattices of mass-in-mass barriers, Journal of Engineering Mechanics 142 (9) (2016)

    2016

  25. [34]

    P. R. Wagner, V. K. Dertimanis, I. A. Antoniadis, E. N. Chatzi, On the feasibility of structural metamaterials for seismic-induced vibration mitigation, International Journal of Earthquake and Impact Engineering 1 (1-2) (2016) 20–56. doi:10.1504/IJEIE.2016.080032

    2016

  26. [35]

    Finocchio, O

    G. Finocchio, O. Casablanca, G. Ricciardi, U. Alibrandi, F. Garesci, M. Chiappini, B. Azzerboni, Seismic metamaterials based on isochronous mechanical oscillators, Appl Phys Lett 104 (2014) 191903

    2014

  27. [36]

    T. J. R. Hughes, The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis, Dover Publications Basel, 2000

    2000

  28. [37]

    Faccioli, F

    E. Faccioli, F. Maggio, R. Paolucci, A. Quarteroni, 2D and 3D elastic wave propagation by a pseudo-spectral domain decomposition method, J. Seismol. 1 (1997) 237–251

    1997

  29. [38]

    J. A. Abell, N. Orbovic, D. B. McCallen, B. Jeremic, Earthquake soil-structure interaction of nuclear power plants, differences in response to 3d, 3 x 1-d, and 1d excitations, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 47 (6) (2018) 1478–1495. doi:10.1002/eqe.3026

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    R. Xu, B. Fatahi, Novel application of geosynthetics to reduce residual drifts of mid-rise buildings after earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 331 – 344. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.022

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    Seiji, A

    T. Seiji, A. Kazuto, M. Takayuki, P. Daniel, K. Dimitri, T. Jeroen, A 1.8 trillion degrees-of-freedom, 1.24 petaflops global seismic wave simulation on the k computer, The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 30 (4) (2016) 411–422. doi:10.1177/109434...

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    Basone, M

    F. Basone, M. Wenzel, O. S. Bursi, M. Fossetti, Finite locally resonant metafoundations for the seismic protection of fuel storage tanks, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 48 (2) (2019) 232–252. doi:10.1002/eqe.3134

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    R. J. McNamara, Tuned mass dampers for buildings, J. struct. div. ASCE (103) (1977) 17851798. doi:10.1177/ 1094342016632596

    1977

  34. [43]

    Sadek, B

    F. Sadek, B. Mohraz, A. W. Taylor, R. M. Chung, A method of estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applications, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 26 (6) (1997) 617–635. doi:10.1002/(SICI) 1096-9845(199706)26:6<617::AID-EQE6643.0.CO;2-Z

    1997 doi

  35. [44]

    Tombari, M

    A. Tombari, M. G. Espinosa, N. Alexander, P. Cacciola, Vibration control of a cluster of buildings through the vibrating barrier, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 101 (2018) 219 – 236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2017. 08.034

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    Gazetas, O

    G. Gazetas, O. Zarzouras, V. Drosos, I. Anastasopoulos, Bridge–pier caisson foundations subjected to normal and thrust faulting: physical experiments versus numerical analysis, Meccanica 50 (2) (2015) 341–354. doi:10.1007/ s11012-014-9997-7

    2015

  37. [46]

    Faccioli, I

    E. Faccioli, I. Anastasopoulos, G. Gazetas, A. Callerio, R. Paolucci, Fault rupture–foundation interaction: selected case histories, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 6 (4) (2008) 557–583. doi:10.1007/s10518-008-9089-y

    2008 doi

  38. [47]

    D’Alessandro, V

    L. D’Alessandro, V. Zega, R. Ardito, A. Corigliano, 3D auxetic single material periodic structure with ultra-wide tunable bandgap, Sci. Rep. 8 (2018) 2262. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-19963-1

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Lemoult, M

    F. Lemoult, M. Fink, G. Lerosey, Acoustic resonators for far-field control of sound on a subwavelength scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011)

    2011

  40. [49]

    A. E. Miroshnichenko, S. Flach, Y. S. Kivshar, Fano resonances in nanoscale structures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 2257–2298

    2010

  41. [50]

    Colombi, D

    A. Colombi, D. Colquitt, P. Roux, S. Guenneau, R. V. Craster, A seismic metamaterial: The resonant metawedge, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 27717

    2016

  42. [51]

    Antonakakis, R

    T. Antonakakis, R. V. Craster, S. Guenneau, Moulding and shielding flexural waves in elastic plates, Euro. Phys. Lett. (2014) 54004. 10

    2014

  43. [52]

    Khelif, A

    A. Khelif, A. Choujaa, S. Benchabane, B. Djafari-Rouhani, V. Laude, Guiding and bending of acoustic waves in highly confined phononic crystal waveguides, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 (22) (2004) 4400–4402

    2004

  44. [53]

    P. Roux, D. Bindi, T. Boxberger, A. Colombi, F. Cotton, I. Douste-Bacque, S. Garambois, P. Gueguen, G. Hillers, D. Hollis, T. Lecocq, I. Pondaven, Toward seismic metamaterials: The metaforet project, Seismological Research Letters 89 (2A) (2018) 582. doi:10.1785/0220170196

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    Palermo, M

    A. Palermo, M. Vitali, A. Marzani, Metabarriers with multi-mass locally resonating units for broad band rayleigh waves attenuation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 113 (2018) 265 – 277.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn. 2018.05.035

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    Celli, B

    P. Celli, B. Yousefzadeh, C. Daraio, S. Gonella, Bandgap widening by disorder in rainbow metamaterials, Applied Physics Letters 114 (9) (2019) 091903

    2019

  47. [56]

    Peter, D

    D. Peter, D. Komatitsch, Y. Luo, R. Martin, N. Le Goff, E. Casarotti, P. Le Loher, F. Magnoni, Q. Liu, C. Blitz, T. Nissen-Meyer, P. Basini, J. Tromp, Forward and adjoint simulations of seismic wave propagation on fully unstructured hexahedral meshes, Geophys. J. Int. 186 (2) (...

    2011

  48. [57]

    Komatitsch, J.-P

    D. Komatitsch, J.-P. Vilotte, The spectral element method: An efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of 2d and 3d geological structures, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 88 (2) (1998) 368–392

    1998

  49. [58]

    H. N. Gharti, D. Komatitsch, V. Oye, R. Martin, J. Tromp, Application of an elastoplastic spectral-element method to 3d slope stability analysis, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 91 (1) (2012) 1–26. doi: 10.1002/nme.3374

    2012 doi

  50. [59]

    Gu´ eguen, A

    P. Gu´ eguen, A. Colombi, Experimental and numerical evidence of the clustering effect of structures on their response during an earthquake: A case study of three identical towers in the city of grenoble, france, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. (2016). doi:10.1785/0120160057

    2016 doi

  51. [60]

    Komatitsch, R

    D. Komatitsch, R. Martin, An unsplit convolutional perfectly matched layer improved at grazing incidence for the seismic wave equation, Geophysics 72 (5) (2007) SM155–SM167

    2007

  52. [61]

    K. Aki, P. G. Richards, Quantitative Seismology, University Science Books, 2002, 2nd edition

    2002

  53. [62]

    Bou` e, M

    P. Bou` e, M. Denolle, N. Hirata, S. Nakagawa, G. C. Beroza, Beyond basin resonance: characterizing wave propagation using a dense array and the ambient seismic field, Geophysical Journal International 206 (2) (2016) 1261–1272

    2016

  54. [63]

    Igusa, K

    T. Igusa, K. Xu, Vibration control using multiple tuned mass dampers, Journal of Sound and Vibration 175 (4) (1994) 491 – 503. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.1994.1341. Metabarrier Metafoundation Protected structure (a) (b) Figure 1: (Color online) Different purpose and set-u...

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.