We investigate the influence of soil–structure interaction (SSI) and nonlinear soil behavior on the seismic fragility of reinforced concrete (RC) dual (frame + shear wall) buildings resting on shallow foundations. This article includes a holistic methodology to account for nonlinear soil behavior and soil–foundation–structure interaction in a modular way. Using nonlinear dynamic analyses, we derive fragility curves for a wide set of building typologies and soil profiles, showing that soil behavior during strong shaking significantly affects the vulnerability of the soil–foundation–structure system. The influence of SSI is pronounced mostly for soft soil profiles, varying in a building-specific way. Post-processing of our results evolves into a set of fragility modifiers that enable risk analysts to massively account for soil-related and/or SSI effects in large-scale risk assessments.
AlloteyNEl NaggarMH (2003) Analytical moment-rotation curves for rigid foundations based on a Winkler model. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering23: 367–381.
2.
ATC (1996) ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (Vols. 1 and 2). Technical report 94-0006. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
3.
BakerJW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthquake Spectra31: 579–599.
4.
BakerJWShahiSK (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program. Technical report 2011/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
5.
BehnamfarFBanizadehM (2016) Effects of soil-structure interaction on distribution of seismic vulnerability in RC structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering80: 73–86.
6.
BradleyBA (2013) A critical examination of seismic response uncertainty analysis in earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42: 1717–1729.
7.
ChangGAManderJB (1994) Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge columns: Part 1-evaluation of seismic capacity. NCEER Technical report no NCEER-94-0006. Buffalo, NY: US National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
8.
CrowleyHPinhoRBommerJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering2: 173–219.
9.
D’AyalaDMeslemAVamvatsikosDPorterKRossettoTCrowleyHSilvaV (2013) Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment: Low/mid-rise. GEM technical report 8. Avaiable at: globalquakemodel.org. doi 10.13117/GEM.VULN-MOD.TR2014.12
10.
EN-1998 (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Technical report. European Committee for Standardization.
11.
FEMA-NIBS (2004) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: Earthquake model: HAZUS MH technical manual. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Washington, DC.
GajanSRaychowdhuryPHutchinsonTCKutterBLStewartJP (2010) Application and validation of practical tools for nonlinear soil-foundation interaction analysis. Earthquake Spectra26: 111–129.
14.
GhobarahA (2004) On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: Proceedings of the International workshop on performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation, Bled, Slovenia, 28 June–1 July, pp. 321–332.
HardenCWHutchinsonTMooreM (2006) Investigation into the effects of foundation uplift on simplified seismic design procedures. Earthquake Spectra22: 663–692.
17.
HardenCWHutchinsonTMartinGRKutterBL (2005) Numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
18.
HillMRossettoT (2008) Comparison of building damage scales and damage descriptions for use in earthquake loss modelling in Europe. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering6: 335–365.
19.
IbarraLFKrawinklerH (2005) Global collapse of frame structures under seismic excitations. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
20.
JalayerFEbrahimianHMianoAManfrediGSezenH (2017) Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46: 2639–2663.
21.
KapposAJ (2016) An overview of the development of the hybrid method for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering12: 1573–1584.
22.
KapposAJPanagiotopoulosCPanagopoulosGPapadopoulosE (2003) WP4: Reinforced concrete buildings (level I and II analysis). RISK-UE project: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. Technical report. RISK-UE project deliverable (European Commission).
23.
KapposAJPanagopoulosGPanagiotopoulosCPenelisG (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering4: 391–413.
24.
KarapetrouSFotopoulouSPitilakisK (2015) Seismic vulnerability assessment of high-rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil–structure interaction effects. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering73: 42–57.
25.
KaratzetzouAPitilakisD (2018) Reduction factors to evaluate acceleration demand of soil-foundation-structure systems. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering109: 199–208.
26.
KarsanIJirsaJ (1969) Behavior of concrete under compressive loadings. Journal of the Structural Division95: 2535–2563.
27.
KauselEWhitmanRVMorrayJPElsabeeF (1978) The spring method for embedded foundations. Nuclear Engineering and Design48: 377–392.
28.
KentDCParkR (1971) Inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete members with cyclic loading. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering4: 108–125.
29.
KohrangiMBazzurroPVamvatsikosDSpillaturaA (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46: 1667–1685.
30.
KramerSL (2014) Performance-Based Design Factors for Pile Foundations. Final research report (October 2014) Agreement T4118-66 WA-RD 827.1 Prepared for The State of Washington - Department of Transportation.
31.
KuhlemeyerRLysmerJ (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. Journal of the Soil Dynamics Division99: 421–427.
32.
LysmerJKuhlemeyerRL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division95: 859–877.
33.
MartinsLSilvaVMarquesMCrowleyHDelgadoR (2016) Development and assessment of damage-to-loss models for moment-frame reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics45: 797–817.
34.
MazzoniSMcKennaFScottMHFenvesGL (2009) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command-language manual. Technical report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
35.
MianoAJalayerFEbrahimianHProtaA (2018) Cloud to IDA: Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics47: 1124–1147.
36.
MylonakisGGazetasG (2000) Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental?Journal of Earthquake Engineering4: 277–301.
37.
MylonakisGNikolaouSGazetasG (2006) Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26: 824–853.
38.
NIST (2012) Soil-structure interaction for building structures. Technical report, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
39.
PaisAKauselE (1988) Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffness of rigid foundations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering7: 213–227.
40.
PitilakisDModeressi-Farahmand-RazaviAClouteauD (2013) Equivalent-linear dynamic impedance functions of surface foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering139: 1130–1139.
41.
RajeevPTesfamariamS (2012) Seismic fragilities of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with consideration of soil structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering40: 78–86.
RaychowdhuryPHutchinsonTC (2009) Performance evaluation of a nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model using centrifuge test results. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics38: 679–698.
44.
RossettoTElnashaiA (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures25: 1241–1263.
45.
RovithisEKirtasEBliziotisDMaltezosEPitilakisDMakraKSavvaidisAKarakostasCLekidisV (2017) A LiDAR-aided urban-scale assessment of soil-structure interaction effects: The case of Kalochori residential area (N. Greece). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15: 4821–4850.
46.
SaezERLopez-CaballeroFModaressi-Farahmand-RazaviA (2008) Effects of non-linear soil behaviour on the seismic performance evaluation of structures. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica2: 63–76.
47.
SaezERLopez-CaballeroFModaressi-Farahmand-RazaviA (2011) Effect of the inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability assessment. Structural Safety33: 51–63.
48.
ScottBDParkRPriestleyMJN (1982) Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. American Concrete Institute Journal79: 13–27.
49.
SilvaV (2019) Uncertainty and correlation in seismic vulnerability functions of building classes. Earthquake Spectra35: 1515–1539.
50.
SilvaVAkkarSBakerJBazzurroPCastroJMCrowleyHDolsekMGalassoCLagomarsinoSMonteiroRPerroneDPitilakisKVamvatsikosD (2019) Current challenges and future trends in analytical fragility and vulnerability modelling. Earthquake Spectra35: 1927–1952.
51.
SilvaVHorspoolN (2019) Combining USGS ShakeMaps and the OpenQuake-engine for damage and loss assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics48: 634–652.
52.
SilvaVCrowleyHPaganiMMonelliDPinhoR (2014) Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Natural Hazards72: 1409–1427.
53.
StewartJPAfshariKGouletCA (2017) Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra33: 1385–1414.
54.
StewartJPFenvesGSeedR (1999a) Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. I: Analytical methods. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering125: 26–37.
55.
StewartJPSeedRFenvesG (1999b) Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II: Empirical findings. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering125: 38–48.
56.
TangYZhangJ (2011) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of a slender RC shear wall considering soil–structure interaction effects. Engineering Structures33: 218–229.
57.
TomeoRPitilakisDBilottaANigroE (2018) SSI effects on seismic demand of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames. Engineering Structures173: 559–572.
YangZLuJElgamalA (2008) Opensees soil models and solid-fluid fully coupled elements. Technical report, University of California, San Diego, CA, October.
61.
Yepes-EstradaCSilvaVRossettoTDAyalaDIoannouIMeslemACrowleyH (2016) The global earthquake model physical vulnerability database. Earthquake Spectra32: 2567–2585.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
