Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic risk assessment of a steel building supported on helical pile groups

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Designing structures to be the least vulnerable within earthquake-prone areas is a serious challenge for structural engineers. One common and useful tool that structural engineers use to predict the vulnerability of a structure during an earthquake is a fragility curve. However, most structural fragility curves do not take into consideration the contribution of pile foundation systems in the structural vulnerability. Therefore, this study aims to modify existing fragility curves of a six-story fixed-base steel frame hospital building with buckling-restrained braces, to incorporate the effect of helical pile group behavior on the fragility of the structure. To that end, a finite element model of the investigated structure was modified with results from a full-scale shake table test performed on two groups of helical piles embedded in dense sand supporting a superstructure. The primary results show that fixed-base design may not be conservative for all conditions and soil–foundation interaction should be considered when creating fragility curves, especially for a stiff structure on soft soils where a high-intensity earthquake is anticipated.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allred SM (2018) Seismic performance of grouped helical piles in fixed and pinned connections. Master of Science, University of Oklahoma

  2. American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures: ASCE/SEI 7–16

  3. Darendeli MB (2001) Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

  4. El-sawy M (2017) Seismic performance of steel helical pile. Master of science, Master of science, The University of Western Ontario

  5. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA 577 (2000) Recommended seismic evaluation and upgrade criteria for existing welded steel moment-frame buildings, Washington, DC

  6. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA P695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Washington, DC

  7. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA P-58-1 (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings. Applied Technology Council (ATC)

  8. Hassan EM, Mahmoud H (2017) Modeling resolution effects on the seismic response of a hospital steel building. J Constr Steel Res 139:254–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hassan EM, Mahmoud H (2018) A framework for estimating immediate interdependent functionality reduction of a steel hospital following a seismic event. Eng Struct 168:669–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. HAZUS-MH 2.1 (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model. Washington, DC: FEMA-National Institute of Building Sciences

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karim KR, Yamazaki F (2001) Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of highway bridge piers based on numerical simulation . Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30:1839–1856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kinali K (2007) Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames in the central and eastern United States. Doctor of Philosophy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology

  14. Kinali K, Ellingwood BRJE (2007) Seismic fragility assessment of steel frames for consequence-based engineering: a case study for Memphis, TN. Eng Struct 29(6):1115–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mahmoud HN (2011) Seismic behavior of semi-rigid steel frames. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  16. Mahmoud HN, Elnashai AS, Spencer BF Jr, Kwon O-S, Bennier DJ (2013) Hybrid simulation for earthquake response of semirigid partial-strength steel frames. J Struct Eng 139(7):1134–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mekki M, Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Zoutat M (2016) Seismic behavior of R.C. structures including soil-structure interaction and soil variability effects. Eng Struct 126:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mouroux P, Brun BL (2003) RISK-UE. An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns

  19. Nakhaei M, Ghannad MA (2008) The effect of soil–structure interaction on damage index of buildings. Eng Struct 30(6):1491–1499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (2013a) Cost analyses and benefit studies for construction in Memphis, Tennessee. Gaithersburg, MD

  21. NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture (2013b) Cost analyses and benefit studies for construction in Memphis, Tennessee (design drawings). Gaithersburg, MD

  22. Nielson BG (2005) Analytical fragility curves for highway bridges in moderate seismic zones. Doctor of Philosophy, Georgia Institute of Technology

  23. Padgett JE (2007) Seismic vulnerability assessment of retrofitted bridges using probabilistic methods. Doctor of Philosophy, Georgia Institute of Technology

  24. Park Y-J (1985) Seismic damage analysis and damage-limiting design for r/c structures (earthquake, building, reliability, design). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  25. Park Y-J, Ang AH-S, Wen YK (1985) Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 111(4):740–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Porter K (2016) A beginner’s guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. University of Colorado Boulder

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shahbazi M, Cerato AB, Allred S, El Naggar MH, Elgamal AW (2020) Damping characteristics of full-scale grouped helical piles in dense sands subject to small and large shaking events. Can Geotech J. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shahbazi M, Cerato AB, El Naggar H, Elgamal A (2020) Evaluation of seismic soil-structure interaction of full-scale grouped helical piles in dense sand. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T (2000) Statistical analysis of fragility curves. J Eng Mech ASCE 126(12):1224–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shome N, Cornell CA, Bazzurro P, Carballo JE (1998) Earthquakes, records, and nonlinear responses. Earthq Spectra 14(3):469–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tang Y, Zhang J (2011) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis of a slender RC shear wall considering soil–structure interaction effects. Eng Struct 33(1):218–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tehrani MH, Harvey PS (2019) Generation of synthetic accelerograms for telecommunications equipment: fragility assessment of a rolling isolation system. Bull Earthq Eng 17(3):1715–1737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Uang C-M, Maarouf A (1994) Deflection amplification factor for seismic design provisions. J Struct Eng 120(8):2423–2436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CAJEE, Dynamics S (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Maryam Shahbazi & Amy B. Cerato

  2. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Emad M. Hassan & Hussam Mahmoud

Authors
  1. Maryam Shahbazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy B. Cerato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emad M. Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hussam Mahmoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy B. Cerato.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shahbazi, M., Cerato, A.B., Hassan, E.M. et al. Seismic risk assessment of a steel building supported on helical pile groups. Acta Geotech. 17, 289–301 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01207-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021-01207-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation