Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 4797–4823 | Cite as

Numerical simulations of liquefaction on an ordinary building during Italian (20 May 2012) earthquake

  • Davide ForcelliniEmail author
Original Research


Soil liquefaction has been observed during the earthquake on May 20, 2012 M5.9 that shock Emilia Romagna (Italy). It is one example of moderate earthquakes yielding extensive liquefaction-related phenomena that induced damage, disruption of function and considerable replacement expenses for structures. The paper aims at simulating the liquefaction effects on an ordinary benchmark residential structure. 3D numerical simulations of the soil–structure system perform a shear-type building based on a non-linear hysteretic soil. The paper applies the open-source computational interface OpenSeesPL, implemented within OpenSees, from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. It allows integration of advanced models to investigate challenging numerical simulations of soil–structure interaction with liquefaction.


Liquefaction Soil–structure interaction Numerical simulations Opensees Italian (20 May 2012) earthquake 



  1. Andrews DCA, Martin GR (2000) Criteria for liquefaction of silty soils. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, New Zealand, paper no. 0312Google Scholar
  2. Arulmoli K, Muraleetharan KK, Hossain MM, Fruth LS (1992) VELACS: verification of liquefaction analyses by centrifuge studies, laboratory testing program. Report no. 90-0562, The Earth Technology Corporation, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  3. Attewell P, Farmer IW (1973) Attenuation of ground vibrations from driven piling. Ground Eng 6(4):26–29Google Scholar
  4. Bol E, Önalp A, Arel E (2010) Liquefaction of silts: the Adapazari criteria. Bull Earthq Eng 8:859–873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray JD, Sancio RB, Riemer MF, Durgunoglu T (2004) Liquefaction susceptibility of fine-grained soils. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering and 3rd international conference on earthquake Geotech Engrg, vol 1. Berkeley, pp 655–662, 7–9 JanGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan AHC (1988) A unified finite element solution to static and dynamic problems in geomechanics. PhD thesis, University College of SwanseaGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman JL, Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS (2016) Time-domain soil–structure-interaction analysis for nuclear facilities. Nucl Eng Des 298:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer M, Wilson D (2010a) Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(1):151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer M, Wilson D (2010b) Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(7):918–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elgamal A, Yang Z, Parra E, Ragheb A (2003) Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils. Int J Plast 9(6):883–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elgamal A, Lu J, Forcellini D (2009) Mitigation of liquefaction induced lateral deformation in sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical simulation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(11):1672–1682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Figini R, Paolucci R (2016) Integrated foundation-structure seismic assessment through non-linear dynamic analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(3):349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finn WL, Ledbetter RH, Wu G (1994) Liquefaction in silty soils: design and analysis. Ground failures under seismic conditions. Geotechnical special publications no. 44, ASCE, New York, pp 51–76Google Scholar
  14. Forcellini D (2017) Cost assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge with soil–structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  15. Forcellini D (2018) Seismic assessment of a benchmark based isolated ordinary building with soil–structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  16. Gobbi S, Forcellini D, Lopez-Caballero F (2017) Numerical analysis of soil liquefaction induced failure of embankments. In: Proceeding of the 6th international conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, pp 990–1006Google Scholar
  17. Gottardi G, Amoroso S, Bardotti R, Bonzi L, Chiaradonna A, D’onofrio A, Fioravante V, Ghinelli A, Giretti D, Lanzo G, Madiai C, Marchi M, Martelli L, Monaco P, Porcino D, Razzano R, Rosselli S, Severi P, Silvestri F, Simeoni L, Tonni L, Vannucchi G (2014) Analisi dei fenomeni deformativi indotti dalla sequenza sismica emiliana del 2012 su un tratto di argine del Canale Diversivo di Burana (FE). Italian Geotech J 2:28–58Google Scholar
  18. Honda R, Sawada S (1992) Time integration scheme that eliminates high frequency noise by digital filter. In: Proceedings of 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, 19–24 July 1992, MadridGoogle Scholar
  19. Iida M (1998) Three-dimensional non-linear soil building interaction analysis in the lakebed zone of Mexico City during the hypothetical Guerrero Earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27:1483–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ITACA 1.1 (2011) italian accelerometric archive (1972–2011) version 1.1.
  21. Jesmani M, Fallahi AM, Kashani HF (2012) Effects of geometrical properties of rectangular trenches intended for passive isolation is sandy soils. Earth Sci Res 1(2):137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karimi Z, Dashti S (2016) Seismic performance of shallow founded structures on liquefiable ground: validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge experiments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(6):04016011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koutsourelakis S, Prevost JH, Deodatis G (2002) Risk assessment of an interacting structure–soil system due to liquefaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:851–879. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. In: Hall WJ (ed) International series in civil engineering and engineering mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  25. Liang RW, Bai XH, Wang JC (2010) Effect of clay particle content on liquefaction of soil. In: Proceedings of 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, 19–24 July 1992, MadridGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu L, Dobry R (1997) Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(6):557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A (2013) Numerical simulation of mitigation of liquefaction seismic risk by preloading and its effects on the performance of structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 49:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A, Stamatopoulos CA (2016) Numerical evaluation of earthquake settlements of road embankments and its mitigation by preloading. Int J Geom ASCE 16(5):C4015006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu J, Elgamal A, Yang Z (2011) OpenSeesPL: 3D lateral pile-ground interaction, user manual, beta 1.0.
  30. Martelli L, Marziali G (2012) Terremoto 2012, geologia, rilievi agibilità, analisi dei danni. Geological, Seismic and Soil Survey Regional Department, Emilia-Romagna (in Italian) Google Scholar
  31. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL (2009) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, user command-language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, OpenSees version 2.0.
  32. Montoya-Noguera S, Lopez-Caballero F (2016) Numerical modeling of discrete spatial heterogeneity in seismic risk analysis: application to treated ground soil foundation. Georisk Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geohazards 10(1):66–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (2000) Seismic soil–structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng 4:277–301Google Scholar
  34. Ozocak A, Tapan M (2014) The influence of pore size distribution and radial consolidation properties on the liquefaction potential of silts. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 29(1):35–47Google Scholar
  35. Pathak SR, Purandare AS (2016) Liquefaction susceptibility criterion of fine grained soil. Int J Geotech Eng 10(5):445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pecker A, Paolucci R, Chatzigogos CT, Correia AA, Figini R (2013) The role of non-linear dynamic soil-foundation interaction on the seismic response of structures. Bull Earthq Eng 12(3):1157–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitilakis D, Dietz M, Wood DM, Clouteau D, Modaressi A (2008) Numerical simulation of dynamic soil–structure interaction in shaking table testing. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(6):453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramberg W, Osgood WR (1948) Description of stress strain curves by three parameters. Technical Note 902 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Rayhani MT, El Naggar MH (2012) Physical and numerical modeling of seismic soil–structure interaction in layered soils. Geotech Geol Eng J 30(2):331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Regnier J et al (2016) International benchmark on numerical simulations for 1D, nonlinear site response (PRENOLIN): verification phase based on canonical cases. Bull Seism Soc Am SSA 106(5):2112–2135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Renzi S, Madiai C, Vannucchi G (2013) A simplified empirical method for assessing seismic soil–structure interaction effects on ordinary shear-type buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 55:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sáez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A (2013) Inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings. Eng Struct 51:166–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saouma V, Miura F, Lebon G, Yagome Y (2011) A simplified 3D model for soil–structure interaction with radiation damping and free field input. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1387–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273Google Scholar
  45. Seed HB, Wong RT, Idriss IM, Tokimatsu K (1986) Moduli and damping factors for dynamic analyses of cohesionless soils. J Geotech Eng 112(11):1016–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shahir H, Pak A (2010) Estimating liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations by numerical approach. Comput Geotech 37(3):267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tokimatsu K, Seed HB (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng 113(8):861–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tonni L, Gottardi G, Amororo S, Bardotti R, Bonzi L, Chiaradonna A, d’Onofrio A, Fioravante V, Ghinelli A, Giretti D, Lanzo G, Madiai C, Marchi M, Martelli L, Monaco P, Porcino D, Razzano R, Rosselli S, Severi P, Silvestri F, Simeoni L, Vannucchi G, Aversa S (2015a) Analisi dei fenomeni deformativi indotti dalla sequenza sismica emiliana del 2012 su un tratto di argine del Canale Diversivo di Burana (FE). Riv Ital Geotecn 2:28–58Google Scholar
  49. Tonni L, Forcellini D, Osti C, Gottardi G (2015b) Modelling liquefaction phenomena during the May 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake (Modélisation des phénomènes de liquéfaction pendant le tremblement de terre du 2012 en Emilia-Romagna (Italie)). ISBN 978-0-7277-6067-8. XVI Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development (ECSMGE). Edinburgh, England, 13–17 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  50. Travasarou T, Bray JD, Sancio RB (2006) Soil–structure interaction analyses of building responses during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. In: 8th US national conference on earthquake engineering, pp 9809–9818Google Scholar
  51. Vucetic M, Dobry R (1991) Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. J Geotech Eng 117(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang W (1979) Some findings in soil liquefaction. Water Conservancy and Hydroelectric Power Scientific Research Institute, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang Z (2000) Numerical modeling of earthquake site response including dilation and liquefaction. PhD thesis, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang Z, Elgamal A (2002) Influence of permeability on liquefaction-induced shear deformation. J Eng Mech 128(7):720–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E (2003) A computational model for cyclic mobility and associated shear deformation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng (ASCE) 129(12):1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Paul DK, Shiomi T (1990) Static and dynamic behavior of soils: a rational approach to quantitative solutions: I. Fully saturated problems. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 429:285–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations