This paper studies the free-field response by adopting a flexible membrane container as soil boundary for experimental shaking table tests. The influence of the soil container boundary on the soil behaviour and the dynamic soil properties under seismic effect were examined. A flexible container with 1/50 scale factor was adopted in the experimental tests, including construction, instrumentation, and determination of the results of dynamic tests on a shaking table. Horizontal face displacements and accelerations were analysed to determine the influence of the container boundary on the performance of the soil. The outputs results show that the flexible boundary container allows more displacement and larger accelerations. The soil in a rigid wall container cannot deform as similar as the soil in the real field does. Therefore, the response of flexible container tested is believed to be more reliable for soil boundary than that in the rigid container.
 Brennan, A. T. N. &. M. S. 2. E. o. s. m. a. d. i. d. c. t. J. o. G. a. G. E. 1. 1.-., 2005. Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, pp. 131, 1488-1497.
 Chunxia, H. H. Z. G. C. &. Z. S., n. d. Design and Performance of a Large-Scale Soil Laminar Shear Box in Shaking Table.
 Clough, R. W. &. P. J., 1975. Dynamics of structures.
 Dietz, M. &. M. W. D., 2007. Shaking table evaluation of dynamic soil properties. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering,
 Hardin, B. O. &. D. V. P., 1972. Shear modulus and damping in soils: measurement and parameter effects. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, 98. Journal of Soil Mechanics & Foundations Div, p. 98.
 Karatzetzou, A. F. S. E. R. K. S. T. G. G. E. P. K. G. N. &. G. G., n. d. A Comparative Study of Elastic and Nonlinear Soil Response Analysis.
 Kramer, S. L., 1996. Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
 Meymand, P. J., 1998. Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear soil-pile-superstructure interaction in soft clay. Issue University of California, Berkeley.
 Moss, R. E. C. V. &. K. S., 2010. Shake table testing to quantify the seismic soil-structure interaction of underground structures.
 Nielsen, A. H. s., 2006. Absorbing boundary conditions for seismic analysis in ABAQUS. Issue ABAQUS User Conference, pp. 359-376.
 Pearson, C. E., 1986. Numerical Methods In Engineering & Science, CRC Press.
 Seed, H. B. W. R. T. I. I. &. T. K., 1986. Moduli and Damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 112, 1016-1032.
 Tabatabaiefar, H. R. &. M. A., 2010. A simplified method to determine seismic responses of reinforced concrete moment resisting building frames under the influence of soil–structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. pp. 30, 1259-1267.
 Turan, A. H. S. D. &. E. N. H., 2009. Design and commissioning of a laminar soil container for use on small shaking tables. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, pp. 29, 404-414.
 Vucetic, M. &. D. R., 1991. Effect of soil plasticity on the cyclic response. Journal of geotechnical engineering, pp. 117, 89-107.
 Wolf, J. P. &. O. P., 1985. Non‐linear soil‐structure‐interaction analysis using dynamic stiffness or flexibility of soil in the time domain. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics. pp. 13, 195-212.
 Zeghal, M., n.d. Soil System Identification Using Earthquake Records and Experimental Data.
 Zeng, X. &. S. A., 1996, Design and performance of an equivalent-shear-beam container for earthquake centrifuge modelling. Geotechnique. pp. 46, 83-102.
 Zhang, C. &. W. J. P., 1998. Dynamic soil-structure interaction: current research in China and Switzerland, Elsevier.