Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urban-Scale Risk Assessment: (How) Does It Change If We Include SSI and Site Amplification Effects?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Progresses in European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (ECEES 2022)

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We introduce, develop, compare and apply two holistic, modular methods to include site amplification (SA) and soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects in urban scale earthquake risk assessment. We propose two methods, including a detailed and a simplified structural modeling approach. SSI and SA effects are explicitly considered in both approaches’ fragility and vulnerability calculation. The detailed method is accompanied by a significant time and effort cost, while it more elaborately captures the structural response. The simplified modeling approach facilitates the analyses procedures; however, it neglects certain aspects of the more complex nonlinear dynamic structural behavior. We applied the two approaches to the risk assessment of a block of buildings in Thessaloniki, Greece, and demonstrated each method’s advantages and disadvantages. Our main results suggest that SA effects increase fragility more than SSI. Using a detailed modeling approach may lead to a more reliable estimate of the expected losses, compromised, however, by the significantly higher modeling and computational effort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Akkar, D.S., Bommer, J.J.: Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the mediterranean region, and the middle east. Seismol. Res. Lett. 81(2), 195–206 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amendola, C., Pitilakis, D.: Urban scale risk assessment including SSI and site amplification : the method. Bull. Earthq. Eng. (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amendola, C., Pitilakis, D.: Vulnerability assessment of historical cities including SSI and site-effects. In: TC 301 - IS NAPOLI 2022, Third International Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering for the Preservation of Monuments and Historic sites, Napoli, Italy, pp. 22–24 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anastasiadis, A., Raptakis, D., Pitilakis, K.: Thessaloniki’s detailed microzoning: subsurface structure as basis for site response analysis. Pure Appl. Geophys. 158(12), 2597–2633 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baker, J.W., Shahi, S.K.: New Ground Motion Selection Procedures and Selected Motions for the PEER Transportation Research Program. Technical report (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Behnamfar, F., Banizadeh, M.: Effects of soil-structure interaction on distribution of seismic vulnerability in RC structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 80, 73–86 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavalieri, F., Correia, A., Crowley, H., Pinho, R.: Dynamic soil-structure interaction models for fragility characterisation of buildings with shallow foundations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 132, 106004 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dabbeek, J., Silva, V.: Modeling the residential building stock in the middle east for multi-hazard risk assessment. Nat. Hazards 100(2), 781–810 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03842-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolce, M., et al.: Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19(8), 2999–3032 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harden, C., Hutchinson, T., Martin, G.R., Kutter, B.L.: Numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow foundations. Technical report (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H., Miano, A., Manfredi, G., Sezen, H.: Analytical fragility assessment using unscaled ground motion records. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 46(15), 2639–2663 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kappos, A.J., Panagopoulos, G., Panagiotopoulos, C., Penelis, G.: A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 4(4), 391–413 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9023-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Karapetrou, S., Fotopoulou, S., Pitilakis, K.: Seismic vulnerability assessment of high-rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil structure interaction effects. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 73, 42–57 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Karsan, I., Jirsa, J.: Behavior of concrete under compressive loadings. J. Struct. Div. 95, 2535–2563 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lin, T., Haselton, C.B., Baker, J.W.: Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection. part I: hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42(12), 1847–1865 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lowes, L.N., Mitra, N., Altoontash, A.: A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martins, L., Silva, V.: Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19(15), 6719–6745 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00885-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Miano, A., Jalayer, F., Ebrahimian, H., Prota, A.: Cloud to IDA: Efficient fragility assessment with limited scaling. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 47(5), 1124–1147 (2018). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/eqe.3009

  19. Motamed, H., Calderon, A., Silva, V., Costa, C.: Development of a probabilistic earthquake loss model for Iran. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 17(4), 1795–1823 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0515-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. NIST: Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures. Technical report (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pagani, M., et al.: OpenQuake engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol. Res. Lett. 85(3), 692–702 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Petridis, C.: Seismic risk assessment of reinforced concrete buildings including nonlinear soil structure interaction and site amplification effects, Ph.D. thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Petridis, C., Pitilakis, D.: Large-scale seismic risk assessment integrating nonlinear soil behavior and soil–structure interaction effects. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19(15), 6423–6441 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01237-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Petridis, C., Pitilakis, D.: Fragility curve modifiers for reinforced concrete dual buildings, including nonlinear site effects and soil–structure interaction. Earthq. Spectra 36(4), 1930–1951 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pitilakis, K., Riga, E., Anastasiadis, A., Fotopoulou, S., Karafagka, S.: Towards the revision of EC8: proposal for an alternative site classification scheme and associated intensity dependent spectral amplification factors. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 126, 105–137 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rajeev, P., Tesfamariam, S.: Seismic fragilities of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames with consideration of soil structure interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 40, 78–86 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Raychowdhury, P., Hutchinson, T.C.: Performance evaluation of a nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model using centrifuge test results. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 38(5), 679–698 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Riga, E., Karatzetzou, A., Apostolaki, S., Crowley, H., Pitilakis, K.: Verification of seismic risk models using observed damages from past earthquake events. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 19(2), 713–744 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01017-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Riga, E., Karatzetzou, A., Fotopoulou, S., Apostolaki, S., Dafloukas, K., Pitilakis, K.: Urban seismic risk model for resilient cities. the case of Thessaloniki. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 410(1), 012107 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saez, E., Lopez-Caballero, F., Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi, A.: Effect of the inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability assessment. Struct. Saf. 33(1), 51–63 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Silva, V., et al.: Development of a global seismic risk model. Earthq. Spectra 36, 372–394 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sousa, M.L., Campos Costa, A.: Evolution of earthquake losses in Portuguese residential building stock. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14(7), 2009–2029 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9809-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Suzuki, A., Iervolino, I.: Seismic fragility of code-conforming Italian buildings based on SDoF approximation. J. Earthq. Eng. 25(14), 2873–2907 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vamvatsikos, D., Allin Cornell, C.: Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 31(3), 491–514 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yepes-Estrada, C., et al.: Modeling the residential building inventory in south America for seismic risk assessment. Earthq. Spectra 33(1), 299–322 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yepes-Estrada, C., et al.: The global earthquake model physical vulnerability database. Earthq. Spectra 32(4), 2567–2585 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Authors have received funding from the ITN-Marie Sklodowska-Curie project “New challenges for Urban Engineering Seismology (URBASIS-EU)” (GA 813137) and the project “Comprehensive risk assessment of basic services and transport Infrastructure (CRISIS)” (GA 101004830).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Dimitris Pitilakis, Christos Petridis & Chiara Amendola

Authors
  1. Dimitris Pitilakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christos Petridis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chiara Amendola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris Pitilakis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Radu Vacareanu

  2. National Institute for Earth Physics, Magurele, Romania

    Constantin Ionescu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Pitilakis, D., Petridis, C., Amendola, C. (2022). Urban-Scale Risk Assessment: (How) Does It Change If We Include SSI and Site Amplification Effects?. In: Vacareanu, R., Ionescu, C. (eds) Progresses in European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. ECEES 2022. Springer Proceedings in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15104-0_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation