Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic fragility analysis of URM buildings founded on piles: influence of dynamic soil–structure interaction models

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The impact of adopting different dynamic soil–structure interaction (SSI) models on the assessment of seismic fragility functions for buildings with pile foundations is studied herein. Given the importance on seismic response of the coupling of structure, foundation and soil, and the challenges posed on modelling dynamic SSI, especially when soil nonlinearity plays a significant role, the linear substructure approach is initially adopted by implementing two different models, followed by the use of a nonlinear pile-head macro-element. The first model is one-dimensional and includes, between the foundation node and the ground, only a translational elastic spring and a dashpot, whose stiffness and viscous damping are retrieved from the real and imaginary parts of the dynamic impedance at the first natural frequency of the structure. The second and more refined model is a Lumped-Parameter Model accounting for frequency dependence of the coupled horizontal and rotational impedances in a two-dimensional response. A nonlinear pile-head macro-element model is introduced afterwards to explore the sensitivity of fragility functions to the linearity assumption. This approach models the soil nonlinear behaviour at near-field, as well as the far-field dynamic impedance and energy dissipation through radiation damping, by condensing the entire soil-foundation system into a single nonlinear element at the base of the superstructure. In all models, the superstructure is represented in a simplified way as a nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom system. The comparison between the adopted approaches is evaluated in terms of their effects on the characterisation of fragility functions for unreinforced masonry buildings with pile foundations.

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
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Şenyurt M, Sisi AA, Ay BÖ, Traversa P et al (2014) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):311–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arup (2015a) Soil–structure interaction for linear analysis—Groningen earthquakes—structural upgrading. Report n. 229746_032.0_REP102. Arup, Amsterdam

  • Arup (2015b) Soil–structure interaction for nonlinear static analysis—Groningen earthquakes—structural upgrading. Report n. 229746_032.0_REP118. Arup, Amsterdam

  • Arup (2017a) EDB V5 data documentation. Report n. 229746_052.0_REP2014. NAM platform. http://www.nam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/onderzoeksrapporten.html. Accessed 1 May 2020

  • Arup (2017b) Typology modelling: analysis results in support of fragility functions—2017 batch results. Report n. 229746_031.0_REP2005. NAM platform. http://www.nam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/onderzoeksrapporten.html. Accessed 1 May 2020

  • Arup (2019) Typology modelling: analysis results in support of fragility functions—2018–2019 batch results

  • Baker JW, Allin Cornell C (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW, Lee C (2018) An improved algorithm for selecting ground motions to match a conditional spectrum. J Earthq Eng 22(4):708–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini M, Diotallevi P, Baker JW (2009) Prediction of inelastic structural response using an average of spectral accelerations. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR09), Osaka

  • Bilotta E, De Sanctis L, Di Laora R, D’Onofrio A, Silvestri F (2015) Importance of seismic site response and soil–structure interaction in dynamic behaviour of a tall building. Géotechnique 65(5):391–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS, Coleman JL (2018) Linear and nonlinear soil–structure interaction analysis of buildings and safety-related nuclear structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 107:218–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Edwards B, Kruiver PP, Rodriguez-Marek A, Stafford PJ, Dost B, Ntinalexis M, Ruigrok E, Spetzler J (2017) V5 ground-motion model for the Groningen field, NAM Platform. http://www.nam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/onderzoeksrapporten.html. Accessed 1 May 2020

  • Bourne SJ, Oates SJ, Bommer JJ, Dost B, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2015) A Monte Carlo method for probabilistic hazard assessment of induced seismicity due to conventional natural gas production. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(3):1721–1738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovo M, Buratti N (2019) Evaluation of the variability contribution due to epistemic uncertainty on constitutive models in the definition of fragility curves of RC frames. Eng Struct 188:700–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G (2011) Linear soil–structure interaction of coupled wall–frame structures on pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(9):1296–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G (2012) Nonlinear seismic behaviour of wall-frame dual systems accounting for soil–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(12):1651–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonari S, Morici M, Dezi F, Leoni G (2018) A lumped parameter model for time-domain inertial soil–structure interaction analysis of structures on pile foundations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 47(11):2147–2171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalieri F, Correia AA, Crowley H, Pinho R (2019) Comparative assessment of dynamic soil–structure interaction models for fragility characterisation. In: Proceedings of COMPDYN 2019—7th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Crete

  • Cavalieri F, Correia AA, Crowley H, Pinho R (2020) Dynamic soil–structure interaction models for fragility characterisation of buildings with shallow foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 132:106004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.106004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN - Comité Européen de Normalisation (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 5: foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. ENV 1998:5-2004

  • Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spectra 24(1):23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA, Jalayer F, Hamburger RO, Foutch DA (2002) Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines. J Struct Eng 128(4):526–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correia AA (2011) A pile-head macro-element approach to seismic design of monoshaft-supported bridges. Ph. D. thesis, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, (ROSE School), Pavia

  • Correia AA (2013) Recent advances on macro-element modeling: shallow and deep foundations. In: Proceedings of Final workshop of project compatible soil and structure yielding to improve system performance (CoSSY), Oakland

  • Correia AA, Pecker A (2020) Nonlinear pile-head macro-element for the seismic analysis of structures on flexible piles. Bull Earthq Eng (submitted for publication)

  • Correia AA, Pecker A, Kramer SL, Pinho R (2012) A pile-head macro-element approach to seismic design of extended pile-shaft-supported bridges. In: Proceedings of second international conference on performance-based design in geotechnical earthquake engineering, Taormina

  • Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, van Elk J (2017) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1325–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H, Pinho R, Cavalieri F (2019) Report on the v6 fragility and consequence models for the Groningen field. NAM platform. http://www.nam.nl/feiten-en-cijfers/onderzoeksrapporten.html. Accessed 1 May 2020

  • Dezi F, Carbonari S, Leoni G (2009) A model for the 3D kinematic interaction analysis of pile groups in layered soils. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(11):1281–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezi F, Carbonari S, Leoni G (2010) Kinematic bending moments in pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(3):119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eads L, Miranda E, Lignos D (2015) Average spectral acceleration as an intensity measure for collapse risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(12):2057–2073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fear CE, Robertson PK (1995) Estimating the undrained strength of sand: a theoretical framework. Can Geotech J 32:859–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazetas G (1991) Foundation vibrations, chapter 15. In: Fang HY (ed) Foundations engineering handbook, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand Reinholds, New York, pp 553–593

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • GRC - Geotechnical Research Centre of Western Ontario University (2015) DYNA6.1—a program for the computation of the response of rigid foundations to all types of dynamic loads, Ontario

  • Jalayer F (2003) Direct probabilistic seismic analysis: implementing non-linear dynamic assessments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University

  • Jalayer F, Cornell CA (2009) Alternative non-linear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(8):951–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Khosravikia F, Mahsuli M, Ghannad MA (2018) The effect of soil–structure interaction on the seismic risk to buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 16(9):3653–3673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klar A, Randolph MF (2008) Upper-bound and load–displacement solutions for laterally loaded piles in clays based on energy minimisation. Géotechnique 58(10):815–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohrangi M, Bazzurro P, Vamvatsikos D, Spillatura A (2017) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion record selection using average spectral acceleration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(10):1667–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruiver PP, van Dedem E, Romijn R, de Lange G, Korff M, Stafleu J, Gunnink JL, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bommer JJ, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) An integrated shear-wave velocity model for the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Bull Earthq Eng 15(9):3555–3580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesgidis N, Kwon OS, Sextos A (2015) A time-domain seismic SSI analysis method for inelastic bridge structures through the use of a frequency-dependent lumped parameter model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(13):2137–2156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LSTC—Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2013) LS-DYNA—a general-purpose finite element program capable of simulating complex problems. Livermore

  • Lysmer J, Ostadan F, Chin C (1999) Computer program SASSI2000—a system for analysis of soilstructure interaction. University of California, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Maravas A, Mylonakis G, Karabalis DL (2014) Simplified discrete systems for dynamic analysis of structures on footings and piles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 61–62:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitropoulou CC, Kostopanagiotis C, Kopanos M, Ioakim D, Lagaros ND (2016) Influence of soil–structure interaction on fragility assessment of building structures. Structures 6:85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montejo LA, Kowalsky MJ (2007) CUMBIA—set of codes for the analysis of reinforced concrete members. Technical Report No. IS-07-01. Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering. North Carolina University

  • Mosayk (2019) Calibration and verification of a nonlinear macro-element for SSI analysis in the Groningen region. Report n. D14, Mosayk, Pavia

  • Mylonakis G, Gazetas G (1998) Settlement and additional internal forces of grouped piles in layered soil. Geotechnique 48(1):55–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G (2006) Footings under seismic loading: analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(9):824–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petridis C, Pitilakis D (2018) Soil–structure interaction effect on earthquake vulnerability assessment of moment resisting frames: the role of the structure. In: Proceedings of 16th European conference on earthquake engineering (16ECEE), Thessaloniki

  • Pitilakis KD, Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD (2014) Consideration of aging and SSI effects on seismic vulnerability assessment of RC buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1755–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Marek A, Kruiver PP, Meijers P, Bommer JJ, Dost B, van Elk J, Doornhof D (2017) A regional site-response model for the Groningen gas field. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(5):2067–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seismosoft (2019) SeismoStruct 2020—a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. http://www.seismosoft.com. Accessed 1 May 2020

  • Sivaselvan MV, Reinhorn AM (1999) Hysteretic models for cyclic behavior of deteriorating inelastic structures. Report MCEER-99-0018, MCEER. University of Buffalo

  • Stafford PJ (2008) Conditional prediction of absolute durations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(3):1588–1594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Elk J, Bourne SJ, Oates S, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2019) A probabilistic model to evaluate options for mitigating induced seismic risk. Earthq Spectra 35(2):537–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are particularly grateful to Pauline Kruiver, who kindly provided access to the soil mechanical characterisation data and site response analysis results for the Groningen region. The constructive feedback of two anonymous reviewers, which led to the improvement of the original version of the manuscript, is also gratefully acknowledged.

Funding

This work was undertaken within the framework of the research programme for hazard and risk of induced seismicity in Groningen sponsored by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Via Adolfo Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Francesco Cavalieri

  2. National Laboratory for Civil Engineering (LNEC), Av. do Brasil 101, 1700-066, Lisbon, Portugal

    António A. Correia

  3. Seismic Risk Consultant, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Helen Crowley

  4. University of Pavia, Via Adolfo Ferrata 5, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Rui Pinho

  5. Mosayk Ltd., Via Fratelli Cuzio 42, 27100, Pavia, Italy

    Rui Pinho

Authors
  1. Francesco Cavalieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. António A. Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen Crowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rui Pinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Cavalieri.

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

Cavalieri, F., Correia, A.A., Crowley, H. et al. Seismic fragility analysis of URM buildings founded on piles: influence of dynamic soil–structure interaction models. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 4127–4156 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00853-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00853-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation