Modelling of Soil-Structure Interaction in OpenSees

Structures 30 (2021) 75–88
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures
Modelling of soil-structure interaction in OpenSees: A practical approach

for performance-based seismic design
Smail Kechidi *, Aires Colaço, Pedro Alves Costa, José Miguel Castro, Mário Marques
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: In this paper, a numerical tool based on the Monkey-tail fundamental lumped parameter model is proposed for
Soil-structure interaction the simulation of dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI). The proposed model has been implemented in the
Lumped-parameter model OpenSees finite element environment where the input parameters are merely function of the soil properties. The
OpenSees
ease of use, accuracy and versatility of the proposed model is demonstrated in order to encourage its use within,
Nonlinear dynamic analysis
Site effect
among others, the practicing engineers’ community. Furthermore, the influence of the SSI and local soil con
ditions (i.e., site effect) on the seismic response of two 5-storey steel moment-resisting frame buildings has been
investigated. Preliminary results shed light on the influence of these two geotechnical aspects on the structural
seismic response where peak floor displacements and inter-storey drifts considering the SSI are even larger in the
lower stories than those of the fixed base case. Furthermore, the results revealed the dependence of the soil
amplification factor on the fundamental period of vibration, seismic intensity level and soil stiffness which are
not taken into account by the current European design codes.
1. Introduction Other examples can also be pointed out, such as the earthquake of Loma
Prieta in 1989 [2] and San Francisco 1957 [3], where the relevance of
Throughout history, several civilisations have developed along the evaluation of local amplification phenomena in cases of presence of
sedimentary basins of soft soils, particularly along the alluvial ones. soft soils was demonstrated. Ideally, a complete seismic analysis should
These geotechnical formations, which are mainly sought after due to the address the rupture mechanism of the earthquake source and the entire
richness of their soil for agriculture, pose today serious concerns with path of propagation of seismic waves to the free surface. However, this
regards to earthquake losses since they are densely populated areas. In methodology of analysis is impractical, therefore, in the current earth
addition, structures supported by shallow foundations are subjected to quake engineering situations the response spectrum is adopted as rec
inertial loads due to earthquake ground motion and eventually the ommended by technical standards where the site effect is taken into
foundation might undergo sliding, settling and rocking movements. If account through the consideration of soil coefficients, defined as a
the capacity of the foundation is mobilised, the soil-foundation interface function of the classification of the soil itself [4,5]. In literature, several
would dissipate significant amount of vibrational energy resulting in a analytical, semi-analytical and numerical techniques of analysis for the
reduction in the structural force demand. This energy dissipation and consideration of these effects are available. Kausel [6] presented an
force demand reduction may enhance the overall performance of the exhaustive description of the main developments in this topic, while
structure, provided that potential consequences such as excessive tilting, Clouteau et al. [7] presented the main numerical models adopted in his
settlement or bearing failure are accounted for in the formulation of the study where in cases where more particular character and careful
corresponding numerical models. analysis of the local phenomena are necessary, the use of numerical
The influence of the above-mentioned geotechnical formations on methodologies is deemed essential. These are usually grouped according
the local seismic response and soil-structure interaction (SSI) is to the dimension of the problem, although large parts derive from one-
currently referred to and studied. The earthquake that struck Mexico dimensional techniques [8]. The level of accuracy of the desired results
City in 1985 is one of the best-documented examples of the potential and the available computational resources are often factors that can
harmful role played by soft soils during high intensity seismic events [1]. influence the choice of the type of analysis, being that more complex
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kechidi@fe.up.pt (S. Kechidi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.006
Received 10 November 2020; Received in revised form 14 December 2020; Accepted 4 January 2021
Available online 16 January 2021
2352-0124/© 2021 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kechidi et al. Structures 30 (2021) 75–88
analyses (e.g., soil modelling by finite elements (FE) method) require forces, the displacement, velocity and acceleration vector of the degrees
invariably higher computational resources, however, sometimes the of freedom (DOF) in connection with the ground is given by:
results achieved by applying relatively simplified methodologies are
ubs = u0 + Δub (2)
sufficient for the intended objectives. In addition to the site effect, in the
current earthquake engineering practice, there is a division of the
u̇bs = u̇0 + Δu̇b (3)
problem into two distinct geotechnical and structural means influencing
the structural seismic analysis. Raychowdhury [9] proposed a modelling
übs = ü0 + Δüb (4)
tool for the SSI adopting the beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation
(BNWF) approach. Ghandil and Behnamfar [10] considered the SSI
using the direct method that consists of concurrent modelling of the where Δub , Δu̇b and Δüb are the displacement, velocity and acceleration
structure and its supporting soil up until the bedrock level. Karapetrou increment of the DOF due to the inertial forces generated in the building.
et al. [11] modelled the SSI by applying the direct one-step approach Hence, the ground is assumed as a flexible medium, Δub , Δu̇b and Δüb
considering either linear or nonlinear soil behaviour while site effects are not null, and SSI problem should be solved.
are inherently accounted for. Behnamfar and Banizadeh [12] studied the Assuming the compatibility of displacements between the supporting
SSI effect on reinforced concrete (RC) buildings resting on soft and very ground and the structure, the following relationship is easily inferred:
soft soils, once with moment-resisting frames and once with shear walls.
Fs = Ks Δub + Cs Δu̇b + Ms Δüb (5)
Mitropoulou et al. [13] derived fragility curves for different limit-states
of RC and steel structures with two, four and eight storeys considering where Ks, Cs and Ms are the dynamic stiffness, damping and masse of the
three SSI systems. In particular, the three SSI systems considered are the footing and Fs is the vector comprising the incremental loads applied by
fixed model where SSI is neglected, the model where the foundation the structure to the ground.
effects are taken into account using single-node Winkler springs and the On the other hand, since the equilibrium condition between both
model with pile foundations system. Shakib and Homaei [14] modelled systems (i.e., structure and supporting ground) should be respected, the
the soil-foundation system by using the BNWF approach. Despite the vector of incremental loads generated in the DOF of the structure in
potential benefits of modelling the SSI and site effects, building codes connection to the ground is given by:
discourage designs that consider mobilisation of the foundation’s ca
pacity. This lack of acceptance to embrace the SSI may stem from the Fb = − Fs (6)
lack of well-calibrated modelling tools coupled with parameter selection
Finally, the following relationship can easily be found when intro
protocols cast in a simplistic manner. Therefore, it is deemed necessary
ducing Eqs. (2)–(4) and (6) on Eq. (1):
to develop a practical tool for modelling SSI enabling performance-
[ aa ][ ] [ aa ][ ] [ aa ][ ]
based seismic design. K K ab ua C Cab u̇a M M ab üa
In this paper, a practical modelling tool of the SSI for a performance- K ba K bb + Ks ub
+
Cba Cbb + Cs u̇b
+
M ba M bb + Ms üb
based seismic design has been developed. The model has been imple [ ]
mented in OpenSees FE software following a simplistic approach where =
0
Ks u + Cs u̇ + Ms ü
its parameters are related to the soil properties. In order to provide in
sights into the impact level of the SSI and local soil conditions on the (7)
structural seismic response, two 5-storey steel moment-resisting frame
where Kij, Cij and Mij are terms of the stiffness, damping and masses
(MRF) buildings have been assessed in terms of peak floor displacements
matrix of the building.
and inter-storey drifts under sets of ground motion records compatible
With regards to the computation of the matrices Ks, Cs and Ms,
with the Eurocode 8 (EC8) [4] elastic response spectrum for 10% and 2%
different approaches can be followed, comprising different degrees of
probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., return period of 475 and
approximation and complexity. In the present study, a lumped-
2475 years, respectively). Subsequently, the dependence of the soil
parameter model was adopted for the inclusion of the SSI in structural
amplification factor on the fundamental period of vibration, soil stiffness
seismic analyses.
and seismic intensity level, has been studied.
2. Soil-structure interaction modelling 2.2. Lumped-parameter model
The consideration of the SSI in nonlinear dynamic analyses of Methods for the inclusion of the SSI can be achieved by simplified
structures submitted to seismic actions introduces additional complex approaches as for instance the lumped-parameter formulation [15]. A
ities. This section presents the mathematical background of the analysis lumped parameter model represents the frequency dependent SSI of a
methodology developed in this study. massless foundation by simplified approaches where the dynamic
behaviour of the ground is simulated by a range of spring and dashpots-
masses with lumped values representing the stiffness, inertial effect and
2.1. Formulation of the problem
damping generated from the SSI phenomenon. Different lumped-
parameters models are available in the literature [16,17]. The present
Assuming a FE approach for structural simulation, the motion of the
study adopts the “monkey-tail” fundamental lumped model that has
system, in time domain, is given by the following conventional equation:
been developed and studied by Wolf [16], with the configuration
K b ub + Cb u̇b + M b üb = F b (1) depicted in Fig. 1.
The “monkey-tail” model is a four-parameter model, where merely
where Kb, Cb and Mb are the system (building) stiffness, damping and the parameter K, i.e., the static stiffness, has a physical meaning, since
mass matrices, respectively; Fb is the external load vector; ub, ůb and üb the remaining three are adjusted parameters obtained in order to have a
are the vectors of displacement, velocity and acceleration, respectively. good fitting of the dynamic stiffness as function of the frequency.
The external action that disturbs the standstill equilibrium of the This model requires five coefficients (Ks, Cs0, Cs1, Ms0 and Ms1) for
building is given by the incident wave field, herein represented in terms each DOF, as depicted in Fig. 1b. The spring coefficient Ks represents the
of displacements, velocities or accelerations (u0 , u̇0 or ü0 , respectively), static stiffness of the soil and it is given in Table 1 (reproduced from
that impinges the structure footings. Since this incident wave field [17]). The mass and damping of the soil are represented, respectively, by
causes the motion of the structural elements and consequently inertial Csi and Msi (i equal to 0 and 1) coefficients, where their assessment can
76
Fig. 1. Monkey-tail model: (a) problem description and (b) structural system (adapted from [17]).
Table 1
Non-dimensional coefficients for the assessment of Csi and Msi coefficients [17].
Static stiffness Dashpot Mass
Ks γ0 γ1 μ0 μ1
Horizontal 8Gs R 0.78 − 0.4ν – – –
2− ν
Vertical 4Gs R 0.8 0.34 − 4.3ν4 1 0 0.4 − 4ν4
ν<
1− ν 3
1 1
ν> 0.9(ν − )
3 3
Rocking 8Gs R 3 – 0.42 − 0.3ν 2 1 0 0.34 − 0.2ν2
ν<
3(1 − ν) 3
1 1
ν> 0.16(ν − )
3 3
be achieved using Eqs. (8)–(11) [17]. the main parts of the implementation process. As it can be seen, there is a
connection between Matlab [20] and OpenSees software, where the SSI
R
Cs0 = γ0 Ks (8) force is calculated in Matlab then saved as an input file for OpenSees
Vs
nonlinear dynamic analyses.
R The load vector defined in Eq. (12) is applied directly to the structure
Cs1 = γ Ks (9) modelled in OpenSees in the same node of the mass Ms0 described above.
Vs 1
The OpenSees script, written in TCL programing language, for the
R2 application of this load and the introduction of the soil properties
Ms0 = μ Ks (10) defined in Eqs. (8)–(11) are provided in Appendix A.
Vs2 0
R2 2.4. Validation of the proposed model

Ms1 = μ Ks (11)
Vs2 1
In order to check the accuracy of the proposed model and establish a
where γ and μ are dimensionless coefficients (see Table 1). certain reliability for its use in further studies, a validation process
If merely the horizontal component of a seismic excitation is should be carried out. Thus, two simple study cases are presented, as
considered, the vector of incremental loads generated in the horizontal shown in Fig. 3: a) Single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system; b)
DOF of the structure in connection to the ground is expressed as: oscillator.
The validation of the proposed methodology is carried out by
Fs = Ks,H u + Cs0,H u̇ (12)
comparing the response of the structures shown in Fig. 3 with the FE
Model shown in Patricia et al. (2014) [18]. In this model, the SSI is
2.3. Model implementation in OpenSees considered by a sub-structuring approach, using distinct numerical
methods for the simulation of each part of the domain i.e., the building
In this study, the OpenSees FE software [19] has been adopted to was modelled by FE method and the dynamic stiffness of the the soil was
implement the above described lumped-parameter model. In order to given by a lumped mass model. The soil dynamic stiffness was also
model the soil behaviour, zeroLength elements were used. Fig. 2 shows evaluated through the boundary elements formulation (BEM) where a
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the Matlab-OpenSees interconnection.
77
3.1. Design of the buildings
Two different 5-storey steel MRF buildings with a regular configu

ration in plan and elevation were considered. The plan layout and the
elevation view of the internal MRF of the analysed buildings are illus
trated in Fig. 7 [22]. The response of a conventional steel MRF building
depends on the characteristics of its fundamental components namely
the columns, beams and connections (e.g., beam-to-column connection).
Each building was designed according to different criteria. The first
building, denoted as GB, has been designed to resist gravity loads in
accordance with the provisions of Eurocode 3 (EC3) [23] for sectional
resistance, stability checks and deflection serviceability limits. The other
building, entitled SB, in additional to gravity design, it has been seis
Fig. 3. Study cases: a) Single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system (m = 94 ton; c mically designed according to Part 1 of EC8 [4], with a behaviour factor
= 9.3e5 kN.s/m2; k = 9.3e7 kN/m); b) oscillator. (q) equal to 4.0. Two limit states were verified, namely Damage Limi
tation (DL) and Ultimate limit state also designed by No-Local Collapse
good agreement has been obtained between both approaches that (NLC) assuming a medium ductility class (DCM). Although it is not
comprise different degrees of approximation and complexity. These specifically defined in EC8 [4], it is considered by the author that the
analyses are performed in the frequency domain. first step of the design process should be the DL limit state checking,
Thus, the response comparison of the structures shown in Fig. 3 for a particularly in the case of flexible structures located in moderate-to-high
given seismic action is performed for the two methods listed: i) Open seismicity regions. Regarding the NLC limit state, the design process
Sees model (included Monkey-tail model); ii) FEM method (included consists of checking the dissipative elements followed by capacity design
Monkey-tail model) (Patricia et al. (2014) [18]). The input seismic ac of non-dissipative elements. The capacity design of the non-dissipative
tion for both analyses is depicted in Fig. 4. members was conducted according to the EC8 criteria with the modifi
Considering the structure shown in Fig. 3a, the time history of the cations proposed by Elghazouli (2010) [24]. As for the design of the
mass vertical displacement can be seen in Fig. 5 for different soil stiff panel zone, a “balanced” design approach was adopted in this study [25]
ness. In this regard, it is noted that the choice of a seismic data recording which establishes that panel zones should be proportioned such that
is performed based on specific soil and structure conditions. When yielding of these elements occurs at similar load levels that develop
considered different soils, there is no more validity of the signal record. flexural plastic hinges in the beams. The potential influence of second-
Given the relevance of this subject, in the following sections of this paper order P-Δ effects should be checked through the calculation of the
will be addressed this issue, being considered in this section the same inter-storey sensitivity coefficient θ. In this study, the θ coefficient was
seismic record for different geotechnical scenarios considered. limited to 0.1, meaning that an amplification of the lateral load had to be
Fig. 5 shows an acceptable correlation between the results obtained performed during the design process [4]. Furthermore, the DL perfor
from the two approaches with a negligible mismatch. Similar conclu mance requirement was considered in the seismic design by limiting the
sions can be drawn from the analysis of Fig. 6, which shows the response inter-storey drift ratio during a frequent earthquake event to 1% of the
of the system depicted in Fig. 3b. storey height. The members of the analysed buildings are presented in
Table 2, being assumed a grade S275 for the structural steel. The design
3. Case study seismic action was set for Zone 3 (Lisbon) of the Portuguese territory and
assuming a soil type C, defined by a soil factor S equal to 1.29 according
The study presented herein was performed with the aim of assessing to the Portuguese National Annex of EC8.
the influence of the SSI and local soil conditions (i.e., site effect) on the
seismic response of two 5-storey steel MRF buildings. The seismic
analysis are focused on a strictly regulatory perspective, following the 3.2. Numerical modelling of the buildings
requirements set out in EC8 [4] and the Portuguese National Annex
[21]. This regulate perspective allows comparisons between the ob The OpenSees FE software [19] has been adopted in this study to
tained results and the existing legal provisions. model the structures of building GB and building SB and to conduct
nonlinear dynamic analyses. For the development of the numerical
Fig. 4. Ground motion record: a) time and b) frequency domain.
78
Fig. 5. Validation of modelling in OpenSees (black line) by comparison with the response history obtained in the frequency domain (Matlab): a) Vs30 = 800 m/s, b)
Vs30 = 360 m/s, c) Vs30 = 180 m/s and d) Vs30 = 100 m/s.
Fig. 6. Validation of modelling in OpenSees by comparison with the response history obtained in the frequency domain (Matlab): a) Vs30 = 180 m/s and b) Vs30 =
100 m/s.
models, the previously presented data is sufficient. Nevertheless, it the integration of the element end points. In addition, a cross-section
should be referred that instead of the exact manufactured cross-section discretization solution by fibers was followed and a bilinear elasto-
properties, approximate properties were used by neglecting the repre plastic material model with 0.5% hardening was adopted for the struc
sentation of the root radius between the flange and the web of the cross- tural steel. Special attention was given to the modelling of the elastic
sections. viscous damping using the Rayleigh approach, having the mass pro
Beams and columns are represented with force-based beam-column portional damping been neglected, since it does not have a real physical
elements [26,27]. The material nonlinear behaviour is considered meaning [28], and a tangent-stiffness proportional damping assumed,
through a distributed plasticity approach adopting 10 Gauss-Lobatto which greatly reduces the elastic damping force when the structural
integration points along the length, which offers a superior solution to stiffness drops to the post-yield level [29–30]. A fraction of critical
the classical Gauss integration method when it is important to include in damping of ξ = 2% has been adopted. The gravity loading assumed in
79
Fig. 7. Dimensions and structural elements: (a) elevation view; (b) and plan view showing the analysed frame (adapted from [22]).
corresponding value of the 5% damping elastic response spectrum of

Table 2 EC8.
Characteristics of the analysed buildings.
The real ground-motion sets were defined using the SelEQ tool
Storey Building GB Building SB (Macedo and Castro (2017) [32]), which consists of a software appli
Outer Columns Inner Columns Beams Columns Beams cation for record selection developed at the Faculty of Engineering of the
5 HE240B HE280B IPE300 HE500B IPE300
University of Porto (FEUP). SelEQ makes use of the adaptive harmony
4 HE240B HE280B IPE300 HE500B IPE400 search meta-heuristic optimization algorithm in order to significantly
3 HE240B HE280B IPE300 HE500B IPE400 minimize computational cost and analysis time, whilst still meeting the
2 HE260B HE300B IPE300 HE500B IPE450 imposed selection constraints. In this study, 10 records per group
1 HE260B HE300B IPE300 HE500B IPE450
compatible with the elastic spectrum obtained from EC8 associated with
a return period of 475 years. A maximum deviation of 10% of the
the analysis merely consists of simple point loads applied at the mid- average spectrum from the EC8 target spectrum was imposed in the
span of the beams and at each alignment of columns, which represent period range of interest. Fig. 8 shows spectra of the 10 records and their
the vertical loads transmitted from secondary frames. The combination average along with the EC8 target spectrum for building GB and building
factor ψ 2 proposed in the Eurocode 0 [31] seismic combination of loads SB. Moreover, and with the aim of finding a simple and efficient way of
was defined as 0.0 at the top floor and 0.3 at the remaining storeys. The reducing the record-to-record variability of each set, an additional cri
masses were lumped at each node of the various floors and P-Δ effects terion was considered in the selection, which consisted of imposing
were directly included in the numerical analysis. Finally, as the type 1 spectral mismatch limits relative to the target spectrum of ±50% for
seismic action defined in EC8 [4], which represents an inter-plates each individual record.
earthquake, was found to be the critical one during the design, it It is worth noting that when different soils are considered, there is no
served as the basis for the assessment study presented hereafter, being more validity of the selected records set. Given the relevance of this
characterized by PGA values equal to 0.091 g, 0.15 g and 0.451 g for the subject, this issue is addressed in Section 4.2, being considered in the
Damage Limitation, Significant Damage and Near Collapse limit states, present section the same ground motion records set for the different
respectively. shear wave velocities in the top 30 m of the soil (i.e., Vs30).
Modal analysis was carried out for each frame to identify their dy
namic characteristics, which are listed in Table 3. 3.4. Geotechnical considerations for seismic analysis
Conventional seismic analyses focus primarily on modelling struc

3.3. EC8-based ground motion record selection tural elements where the interaction of the structure with the underlying
environment is usually neglected, with fixed supports being commonly
In the context of demand-based assessments of buildings, Part 1 of used to represent the foundations. This methodology of analysis is
EC8 establishes the following criteria for the selection and scaling of considered as a usual practice, and it may even be mentioned that, in
ground motion records: (i) the mean of the zero period spectral response most cases, it is a conservative analysis. In fact, neglecting the effects of
acceleration values calculated from the individual time histories should the SSI only entails risks in particular cases where the conjugation of two
not be smaller than the value of ag S for the site under study, ag being the essential characteristics: rigid structures and soft soils [6,33]. In the
design ground acceleration on rock and S the soil parameter; (ii) and, in presence of these conditions, an analysis considering the SSI in the
the range of periods between 0.2 T1 and 2.0 T1, where T1 is the overall system response would be recommended. Therefore, a simplified
fundamental period of the structure in the direction where the record methodology is proposed as presented in Section 2.
will be applied, no value of the mean 5% damping elastic spectrum, In the analysis methodologies discussed above, the local geotech
calculated from all time histories, should be less than 90% of the nical conditions are considered in the process of selecting ground motion
records (see Section 3.2) through the soil factors as a function of the soil
Table 3 type. It turned out that local geotechnical conditions play, in some cases,
Dynamic characteristics of the frames. a key role in the ground motion record at the free surface level. Several
Building Period of vibrations (s) Mass participation ratios (%) examples have been documented in the literature, such as the earth
quake in Mexico City (1985) [1], Loma Prieta (1989) [2] and San
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Francisco (1957) [3] that demonstrate the relevance of the evaluation of
GB 1.63 0.50 0.26 85.49 9.24 3.40 the site effect in cases of soft soils.
SB 0.90 0.27 0.13 80.56 13.22 4.33
Given the importance of the above-described effects, the present
80
Fig. 8. Target and different ground motion records spectra for: a) building GB and b) building SB.
paper proposes an alternative approach where, as a first step, the se ground motion records are selected following the same way as in the first
lection of the ground motion records was carried out at the bedrock level approach. In the last analysis, along with the incorporation of the SSI,
through compatibility with the response spectra (see Section 3.3). the site effects are taken into account in the assessment of the building
Subsequently, considering these selected ground motion records, an seismic response.
equivalent linear approach was implemented in order to assess the ef
fects of local soil conditions on the amplitude and frequency contents of 4. Results and discussion
ground motion in soil deposits. This methodology is an incremental
analysis, in which the properties of the soil change according to the level 4.1. Influence of SSI on structural seismic response (approaches 1 and 2)
of strain. Therefore, it is assumed, at the beginning of the ith iteration,
constant values of soils properties (stiffness and damping) which are Considering the first two approaches (1 and 2), Fig. 11 shows the
consistent with the level of strain computed in the (i-1)th iteration. The values of the mean peak displacements per floor (left) and the mean
key aspect of this approach is the evaluation of the transfer function, peak inter-storey drift ratios (as an abbreviation, inter-storey drifts will
where a known time history of the bedrock ground motion (input) is be used hereafter) (right) of the structures subjected to the above-
represented in the frequency domain and each term is then multiplied by described ground motion records.
the transfer function to obtain the free surface ground motion (output). With regards to the second approach, three seismic analyses have
The transfer function determines how each frequency in the bedrock been carried out considering different levels of soil rigidity (Vs30 equal to
ground motion is amplified (or deamplified) by the soil deposit. The 360 m/s, 180 m/s and 100 m/s). Although the selection of the ground
evaluation of this function is carried out following the methodology motion records was made based on a soil type C (Vs30 between 180 m/s
proposed in Kramer [8] where, for a brevity, the numerical procedure is and 360 m/s), another level of Vs30 is considered in order to make a
not presented herein. comparison between the two approaches for the case of a significantly
The main goal of this methodology is the computation of the free reduced soil stiffness (Vs30 equal to 100 m/s). It should also be noted that
surface ground motion. This is reached in two steps, wherein the transfer geotechnical formations with a high stiffness contrast can be found
function has a central role: i) deconvolution and ii) convolution. The relatively close, since when a given region classified with a particular
former allows the computation of the bedrock ground motion from a soil type, there is a possibility of distinct soils within the same area.
known free surface motion and the latter is related to the computation of Therefore, using the same ground motion records for a range of soil
free surface motion from the bedrock ground motion. Fig. 9 shows the stiffness remains arguable. A detailed investigation of this topic is pre
general scheme of the input motion path. sented in Section 4.2.
Overall, three different methodologies of analyses are considered in It is noticed from Fig. 11 that a small dispersion of the outcomes both
this study as shown in Fig. 10 and listed in Table 4. The first one is a in terms of the mean peak displacements per floor and the mean peak
typical structural analysis, where the SSI is neglected and the site effects inter-storey drifts. The trend of the structure deformation is similar be
are incorporated in the ground motion record selection (i.e., through the tween the different analyses. From Fig. 11a, a steady increase in the
soil factor). The second analysis incorporates the SSI effects and the mean maximum displacements per floor is associated with the soil
stiffness reduction.
Analysing the results obtained in the form of inter-storey drifts
shown in Fig. 11b, one can notice that the upper limit corresponds to the
diagram of the rigid case (approach 1) except for the section of the di
agram corresponding to lower floors. This is due to the fact that the
foundation movement (SSI) causes flexibility in the structural system
and results in additional deformations at lower stories. However, it is
found that the maximum values of inter-storey drifts are located at the
second floor level, these being by default the reference values.
Given the relative flexibility of building GB, and its influence on the
SSI phenomena being recognised, Fig. 12 presents the results of the same
analyses considering the seismically designed building (i.e., building
SB).
In Fig. 12a, it is shown that the absolute values of displacements are
lower than those obtained from the outcomes of building GB. The same
trend is noticed in the inter-storey drift diagrams, especially with respect
to the lower floors. These differences are associated with the fact that a
clear difference in the lateral stiffness (i.e., the fundamental period of
Fig. 9. General scheme of the input motion path. vibration) in both building GB and building SB (1.63 s and 0.87 s,
81
Fig. 10. Schematic representation of: a) approach 1, b) approach 2 and c) approach 3.
performed considering a seismic intensity level having a probability of

Table 4
occurrence (PoE) of 2% in 50 years (return period “TR” of 2475 years).
Summary of the considered geotechnical aspects.
The results obtained for building GB and building SB are shown in
Approach Site amplification SSI Records selection Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.
1 No No Soil C Comparing now the results obtained from the two considered seismic
2 No Yes Soil C intensity levels (i.e., 10% and 2% PoE in 50 years), a similar trend can be
3 Yes Yes Pre-selection in rock
seen in the results obtained from both intensity levels. In fact, there is a
low dispersion of the results for building GB and the increase thereof
respectively). However, in the case of building SB, a greater dispersion when building SB is evaluated, particularly with respect to the case of a
of the results compared to its counterpart building GB. In addition, a low soil stiffness. Furthermore, there is a significant increase at the level
significant change in the deformation pattern of building SB at lower of deformations, being associated to an increase of the plastic de
floors for the lowest soil stiffness (i.e., Vs30 = 100 m/s), with a deviation formations of the structural members coupled with some structural
of 70% from fixed support case (i.e., approach 1). As far as the amplitude considerations.
of the inter-storey drifts is concerned, a maximum of 1.6% and 0.8% for
building GB and building SB, respectively, gives an indication that both
4.2. Combination of SSI and soil effect (approach 3)
buildings responded linearly.
In order to investigate the nonlinear response effect on the above
As discussed in Section 3.4, the local geotechnical conditions have
described patterns of deformations, complementary analyses were
non-negligible influence on the overall response of the structure. In
Fig. 11. Response of building GB considering approach 1 and approach 2 under seismic intensity associated with TR = 475 years: a) peak displacements per floor and
b) peak inter-storey drifts (in %).
82
Fig. 12. Response of building SB considering approach 1 and approach 2 under seismic intensity associated with TR = 475 years: a) maximum displacements per
floor and b) peak inter-storey drifts (in %).
Fig. 13. Response of building GB considering approach 1 and approach 2 under seismic intensity associated to TR = 2475 years: a) peak displacements per floor and
b) peak inter-storey drifts.
Fig. 14. Response of building SB considering approach 1 and approach 2 approaches under seismic intensity associated with TR = 2475 years: a) peak displacements
per floor and b) peak inter-storey drifts.
order to explore this aspect in more details, different geotechnical pro infinite combinations of geotechnical profiles that can be considered, ten
files are considered in this section based on their value of Vs30 as adopted profiles were generated randomly. The average Vs30 value of the ten
in EC8 [4]. Since it is not the objective of the present work to explore the generated geotechnical profiles can be visualised in Fig. 15 (blue), which
83
also shows the variability between profiles (green), besides the value of when the value of Vs30 is reduced to 180 m /s where the soil amplifi
Vs30 considered (homogeneous profile plotted in red). In this section, cation plays a crucial role yielding inter-storey drift diagrams, obtained
two cases with different values of Vs30 corresponding to the extreme following approach 3, considerably higher than those obtained in case of
values of the range indicated in EC8 for soil type C (i.e., 360 m/s and approach 2.
180 m/s), are considered. It should be noted that in the generation of the Given the low amplitudes of deformations obtained in the case of a
profiles, the variability of the soil rigidity is conditioned, making it seismic intensity level having a return period of 475 years, it is
impossible to have high stiffness contrasts, nevertheless, these cases concluded that the structure behaved in an elastic regime. Thus, the
could be found in reality. understanding of the results obtained previously can be confirmed
In this section, only the structure of building SB is considered. Since through the observation of the response spectra. For this purpose, the
this being a structure with a fundamental shorter period, the effects of response spectra are evaluated considering only the site effect and the
SSI are exponentiated. Fig. 16 presents the structural response for the ground motion records at the soil free surface.
different considered geotechnical profiles along with the diagram of For the case of a seismic intensity level having a return period of 475
inter-storey drifts considering a homogeneous stratum (red). Also, years, Fig. 20 shows the spectra considering different cases of analysis:
shown in Fig. 17 are the results for the same geotechnical configuration (i) response spectrum of EC8 (black); (ii) mean response spectrum of
considering a seismic intensity having a PoE of 2% in 50 years (TR equal ground motion records selected in approach 2 (grey) that are compatible
to 2475 years). with the EC8 response spectrum; iii) average response spectra obtained
It is clear from Figs. 16 and 17 that the variability of the response for for the group of records selected in rock (bleu); iv) response spectra
the different stratifications tends to increase with the decrease of the obtained with the amplification homogeneous and stratified soil process
value of Vs30. Hence, the consideration of soil stratification is relevant (red and green, respectively). In addition to the response spectra, the
particularly when considering soils of a low rigidity. The above- fundamental period of vibration for building SB (0.9 s) is marked by a
described trends are valid for both seismic intensity levels. Evaluating dashed vertical line.
the results obtained for a Vs30 equal to 360 m/s for the different stratified Considering the spectra for a Vs30 equal to 360 m/s, there is an
profiles, the differential deformations induced in the building by the orderly lowering of the spectra resulting from the amplification process
seismic excitation subjected to the amplification process are inferior to compared to those obtained for the set of ground motion records
those obtained with the consideration of a homogeneous profile. This selected for soil type C (used in approach 2) following the EC8-based
observation is no longer valid when it comes to Vs30 equal to 180 m/s. method described in Section 3.3. The same trend was obtained in
For this case, the amplification process is relevant for certain stratifi terms of the inter-storey drift diagrams represented in Figs. 18 and 19.
cations (not all as in case of Vs30 equal to 360 m/s). However, it is worth verifying whether this relation could be totally
In order to reveal the site effect on the structural response, the results different if the analysed structure presented a greater rigidity. For this
obtained through approach 3 can now be directly compared with those hypothetical situation, the seismic demand through approach 3 would
recorded using approach 2, considering the same soil stiffness. Accord be severer even for high levels of S-wave velocities in the soil. Since the
ingly, Figs. 18 and 19 represent the inter-storey drift diagrams obtained ground motion records were selected for a wide range of periods (i.e.,
from both approaches and for the two considered seismic intensity 0.2 T1 to 2 T1), this conclusion holds valid for the selection of records for
levels. As far as approach 3 is concerned, two diagrams are plotted, one a structure having a smaller fundamental period of vibration (e.g., 0.5 s).
corresponding to the homogeneous profile (red) and the other (green) When considering a value of Vs30 equal to 180 m/s, there is also a
related to the average value of the diagrams referring to the ten adopted correspondence between the information collected from the response
geotechnical profiles. spectra and the outcomes of the structural analyses in terms of the inter-
From the scrutiny of Figs. 18 and 19, there is a common trend be storey drift diagrams. In fact, the response of the structure is expo
tween the two adopted seismic intensity levels, where the main differ nentiated when taking into account the site effect (approach 3), being
ences found in the subfigures stemmed from the soil stiffness. Excluding corroborated by the comparison of the ordinates of the response spectra
the differences observed between the different cases of approach 3, duly around the fundamental period of vibration of the structure. In this case,
discussed previously, the differences are notorious. When considering a unlike the previous one, it is for periods close to 0.9 s that there is a
value of 360 m/s for the soil stiffness parameter (represented by Vs30 in greater discrepancy between approach 2 and approach 3. These obser
this study), approach 2 gives rise to an outer envelope of the inter-storey vations bring the following question: does the soil factor amplitude
drift diagrams, excluding the top floor. This finding is no longer valid depends on the fundamental period of vibration of the structure? This
Fig. 15. S-wave velocity profiles considering a value of Vs30 equal to: a) 360 m/s and b) 180 m/s. Considering the geotechnical profiles presented above, the
amplification methodology described in Section 3.4 is applied in order to assess the ground motion records at the free surface level and then use these records as
seismic loads in the structural analyses.
84
Fig. 16. Peak inter-storey drift values (in %) obtained for building SB considering approach 3 and different geotechnical scenarios (TR = 475 years): a) Vs30 = 360 m/
s and b) Vs30 = 180 m/s.
Fig. 17. Peak inter-storey drift values (in %) obtained for building SB considering approach 3 and different geotechnical scenarios (TR = 2475 years): a) Vs30 = 360
m/s and b) Vs30 = 180 m/s.
Fig. 18. Comparison of the peak inter-storey drift values obtained for building SB considering approach 2 and approach 3 (TR = 475 years): a) Vs30 = 360 m/s and b)
Vs30 = 180 m/s.
point is explored in the following section. dependence of the soil factor on the fundamental period of vibration of
the structure, whereas in the EC8 [4] and its Portuguese National Annex
4.3. Soil factor [21] there is no reference to such dependency. In these design codes, the
site effect is only considered as a function of the soil type and the seismic
The analysis of the previous response spectra evidences a clear intensity level in an indirect way through the type of the seismic action
85
Fig. 19. Comparison of the peak inter-storey drift values obtained for building SB considering approach 2 and approach 3 (TR = 2475 years): a) Vs30 = 360 m/s and
b) Vs30 = 180 m/s.
Fig. 20. Response spectra (TR = 475 years): a) Vs30 = 360 m/s and b) Vs30 = 180 m/s.
typology. However, the American seismic loading provisions ASCE 7–10 and American standards, it is the aim of this section to investigate,
[34] takes into account the fundamental period of vibration of the although only qualitatively, the relationship between the soil factor, soil
structure in the definition of the soil factors. Furthermore, the seismic type, seismic intensity level as well as the fundamental period of vi
intensity level is also considered in an explicitly as opposed to EC8 and bration. For this purpose, the soil coefficients obtained by the ratio be
its Portuguese National Annex [4,21]. tween the response spectra of the ground motion records resulting from
Based on the above-mentioned discrepancies between the European the amplification process (as discussed in approach 3) and the response
Fig. 21. Soil factors for different Vs30 and seismic intensity levels: a) TR = 475 years and b) TR = 2475 years.
86
spectra of the selected ground motion records at rock level are shown in Table 5
Fig. 21. Soil factors for type C and ag = 1.5 m/s2 (TR = 475 years).
The curves of the soil factors depicted in Fig. 21 consider the four Standard
cases previously explored in approach 3. The calculation of the soil
Period (s) ASCE 7–10 EC8 - NA EC8
coefficients is still evaluated for two distinct seismic intensity levels,
associated with return periods of 475 years and 2475 years. From this short period 0.1 1.4 1.5 1.5
0.6
figure, three main relationships in the variation of the soil factors can be 1.0 1.7
indicated: i) dependence on the soil type, ii) dependence on seismic in
tensity level and iii) dependence on fundamental period of vibration.
As far as the soil type is concerned, Fig. 21a shows a clear direct - Using lumped-parameter models can be seen as a good option
relationship between soil stiffness and the absolute value of its factor for considering the compromise between accuracy of the solution and
the considered S-wave velocity levels. Note that the values of Vs30 pre reduction of the computational cost. Further studies aiming at
sented only the limits related to soil type C defined in EC8. As for the investigating and extending the validation of the proposed tool in
seismic intensity level, this parameter is inversely proportional to the different geotechnical formations are encouraged.
amplification factors. These trends of stiffness and seismic intensity level - Drifts when considering the SSI are even larger in the lower stories
variation are in accordance with the consulted regulations [4,21,34], than those of the fixed base case which is due to the fact that the
emphasising once more the high discrepancy in terms of maximum foundation movement (SSI) causes flexibility in the structural system
values shown in Fig. 21. and results in additional deformations at lower stories.
Finally, a clear dependence of the amplification factors on the - Soil stratification is a relevant parameter when a building is over
fundamental period of vibration is verified. In this respect and contrary lying soft soils (e.g., Vs30 = 180 m/s), therefore, a local geotechnical
to the European and Portuguese standards, which consider a constant study is recommended in order to determine its geotechnical profile
soil factor for all periods, the American standard makes the choice of the in order not to underestimate the demand on the structure.
soil factors as a function of the fundamental period of vibration of the - The main conclusion drawn with regards to the influence of the
structure. For the case depicted in Fig. 21a (soil type C and ag equal to fundamental period of vibration on the soil factors is that there is a
1.5 m/s2) and taking into account the dependence on the fundamental significant variance in the final value of the soil factors, which is
period of vibration exposed in the American Standard, the soil factors for accentuated by the decrease of the soil stiffness. Hence, from the
different periods are presented in Table 5. authors perspective, a reassessment of the soil factors, highlighting
Given the above-described results, there is a great difficulty, in the dependence of the fundamental period of vibration, is considered
design codes, in translating the coefficients obtained in the analyses as a topic of a worth future study.
carried out in the present paper, even if based on the dependence of the - It is worth mentioning that definite conclusions cannot be drawn
present period in the American Standard. It is clear that the large based on two buildings. Ongoing study on considering buildings
dispersion of Vs30 of soil C (180 m/s and 360 m/s) is a constraint to be designed with varying seismic intensity levels is being undertaken by
taken into account, expressed in the wide variation range of the co the authors.
efficients shown in Fig. 21.
Declaration of Competing Interest
5. Summary and conclusions
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
A comprehensive numerical model was used to investigate the in interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
fluence of the SSI and local soil conditions on the seismic response of two the work reported in this paper.
5-storey steel MRF buildings in terms of peak floor displacements and
peak inter-storey drifts under sets of ground motion records compatible Acknowledgements
with the EC8 elastic response spectrum for 10% and 2% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. The proposed model includes the simulation of The research reported in this paper has been developed under the
the main aspects of the problem, i.e., the propagation trough the ground ITERATE project “ECHO/SUB/2016/740181/PREV23 ITERATE -
and the reception of vibrations inside the buildings. It was found that the Improved Tools for Disaster Risk Mitigation in Algeria” funded by DG
consideration of the SSI effects is a key aspect for an accurate assessment ECHO - Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection from the European
of the seismic response of steel MRF buildings. If SSI analysis were Commission and SMARTER project - Seismic Urban Risk Assessment in
discarded, a relevant overestimation of the response would be obtained. Iberia and Maghreb (2017-2019), PTDZ/0002/2015, funded by
These aspects of SSI are not considered in the current design practice, “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia”.
mostly due to the absence of reliable nonlinear SSI modelling tech
niques. The main conclusions drawn from this study are listed as follows:
Appendix A
TCL code for the introduction of the soil properties defined in Eqs. (8)–(11) and the application of this load vector defined in Eq. (12).
Soil mass
Ms0 Ms1
set mValue0_V $Ms0_V; # write vertical soil mass value here set mValue1_V $Ms0_V; # write vertical soil mass value here
set mValue0_H $Ms0_H # write horizontal soil mass value here set mValue1_H $Ms0_H # write horizontal soil mass value here
set mValue0_R $Ms0_R; # write rocking soil mass value here set mValue1_R $Ms0_R; # write rocking soil mass value here
mass $nodeTag [expr $mValue0_H] [expr $mValue0_V] [expr $mValue0_R] mass $nodeTag [expr $mValue1_H] [expr $mValue1_V] [expr $mValue1_R]
87
Soil stiffness – Ks
set K_V $Ks_V; # write vertical stiffness of the spring here
set K_H $Ks_H; # write horizontal stiffness of the spring here
set K_R $Ks_R; # write rocking stiffness of the spring here
uniaxialMaterial Elastic $matTag1 [expr $K_H]
uniaxialMaterial Elastic $ matTag2 [expr $K_V]
uniaxialMaterial Elastic $ matTag3 [expr $K_R]
element zeroLength $EleTag $iNode $jNode -mat $matTag1 $matTag2 $matTag3 -dir $dir1 $dir2 $dir3
Soil dashpot
Cs0 Cs1
set Cd0_V $Cs0_V; # write viscous parameter of damper here set Cd1_V $Cs1_V; # write viscous parameter of damper here
set Cd0_H $Cs0_H; # write viscous parameter of damper here set Cd1_H $Cs1_H; # write viscous parameter of damper here
set Cd0_R $Cs0_R; # write viscous parameter of damper here set Cd1_R $Cs1_R; # write viscous parameter of damper here
set alpha 1; # write alpha parameter of Maxwell’s damping model here set alpha 1; # write alpha parameter of Maxwell’s damping model here
uniaxialMaterial Viscous $matTag1 [expr $Cd0_H] [expr $alpha] uniaxialMaterial Viscous $matTag1 [expr $Cd1_H] [expr $alpha]
uniaxialMaterial Viscous $matTag2 [expr $ Cd0_V] [expr $alpha] uniaxialMaterial Viscous $matTag2 [expr $ Cd1_V] [expr $alpha]
uniaxialMaterial Viscous $matTag3 [expr $ Cd0_R] [expr $alpha] uniaxialMaterial Viscous $matTag3 [expr $ Cd1_R] [expr $alpha]
element zeroLength $EleTAG $iNode $jNode -mat $matTag1 $matTag2 $matTag3 -dir element zeroLength $EleTAG $iNode $jNode -mat $matTag1 $matTag2 $matTag3 -dir
$dir1 $dir2 $dir3 $dir1 $dir2 $dir3
Load – Fs
set dt $dt; # write time increment here}
set maxTime $maxTime; # write max time of record
timeSeries Path $tsTag -dt $dt -filePath Fs.txt -factor [expr $factor]
pattern Plain $patternTag $tsTag {load $nodeTag (ndf $LoadValues)
References [16] Wolf JP. Foundation vibration analysis using simple physical models. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1994.
[17] Ibsen L, Liingaard M. Lumped-parameter models. Aalborg University 2006.
[1] Hanazato T, Watabe M, Theofanopoulos N, Tohdo M, Satoh A, Shinada S,
[18] Lopes P, Costa PA, Calçada R, Cardoso AS. Influence of soil stiffness on building
Minamiguchi C, A study on earthquake ground motions during the Mexican
vibrations due to railway traffic in tunnels: Numerical study. Comput Geotech
Earthquake of September 19, 1985, in Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on
2014;61:277–91.
Earthquake Engineering. August 2-9, 1988: Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan.
[19] PEER. OpenSees: Open system for earthquake engineering simulation, Pacific
[2] Seed RB, Dickenson SE, Idriss IM. Principal geotechnical aspects of the 1989 Loma
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
Prieta earthquake. Soils Found 1991;31(1):1–26.
2006.
[3] Borcherdt RD. Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco bay.
[20] MATLAB R2019b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA., United States, 2020.
Bull Seismol Soc Am 1970;60(1):29–61.
[21] NP ENV 1998-1 Portuguese National Annex to Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
[4] EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8, Design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1:
earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules seismic actions and rules for buildings.
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for
Instituto Portugês da Qualidade. 2010: Lisboa, Portugal.
Standardization, Brussels, CEN, 2005.
[22] Araújo M, Castro JM. A Critical Review of European and American Provisions for
[5] Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A. New code site classification, amplification
the Seismic Assessment of Existing Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings.
factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion
J Earthquake Eng 2018;22(8):1336–64.
database. Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11(4):925–66.
[23] EN 1993-1-1. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1.1: General rules and
[6] Kausel E. Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2010;
rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization. Brussels: CEN; 2005.
30(9):822–32.
[24] Elghazouli, A.Y., Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel
[7] Clouteau D, Cottereau R, Lombaert G. Dynamics of structures coupled with elastic
framed structures. Bulletin of Structural Engineering. 8: p. 65 89, 2010.
media – A review of numerical models and methods. J Sound Vib 2013;332:
[25] Castro JM, Dávila-Arbona FJ, Elghazouli AY. Seismic design approaches for panel
2415–36.
zones in steel moment frames. J Earthquake Eng 2008;12(S1):34–51.
[8] Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Publ. Prentice Hall; 1996.
[26] Scott MH, Fenves GL, McKenna F, Filippou FC. Software patterns for nonlinear
[9] Raychowdhury P. Seismic response of low-rise steel moment-resisting frame
beam-column models. J Struct Eng 2008;134(4):562–71.
(SMRF) buildings incorporating nonlinear soil-structure interaction (SSI). Eng
[27] Spacone E, Ciampi V, Filippou F, A beam element for seismic damage analysis,
Struct 2011;33(3):958–67.
Report No UCB/EERC-92/07, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University
[10] Ghandil M, Behnamfar F. Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils
of California, Berkeley, CA, 1992.
considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2017;92:203–14.
[28] Petrini L, Maggi C, Priestley MJN, Calvi GM. Experimental verification of viscous
[11] Karapetrou ST, Fotopoulou SD, Pitilakis KD. Seismic vulnerability assessment of
damping modeling for inelastic time history analyzes. J Earthquake Eng 2008;12:
high rise non-ductile RC buildings considering soil-structure interaction effects.
125–45.
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2015;73:42–57.
[29] Priestley MJN, Grant DN. Viscous damping in seismic design and analysis.
[12] Behnamfar F, Banizadeh M. Effects of soil-structure interaction on distribution of
J Earthquake Eng 2005;9:229–55.
seismic vulnerability in RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2016;80:73–86.
[30] Charney FA. Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures. J Struct
[13] Mitropoulou CC, Kostopanagiotis C, Kopanos M, Ioakim D, Lagaros ND. Influence
Eng 2008;134(4):581–92.
of soil-structure interaction on fragility assessment of building structures.
[31] EN 1990:2002 Eurocode: Basis of structural design, CEN, 2002.
Structures. 2016;6:85–98.
[32] Macedo L, Castro JM. SelEQ: An advanced ground motion record selection and
[14] Shakib H, Homaei F. Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of the soil-
scaling framework. Adv Eng Softw 2017;114:32–47.
structure interaction effect on seismic response of mid-rise setback steel buildings.
[33] Wolf JP. Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall;
Bull Earthq Eng 2017;15:2827–51.
1985.
[15] Andersen L. Assessment of lumped-parameter models for rigid footings. Computers
[34] ASCE 7-10: minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, Reston, VA:
Struct 2010;88(23–24):1333–47.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010.
88

Modelling of Soil-Structure Interaction in OpenSees

Uploaded by

Modelling of Soil-Structure Interaction in OpenSees

Uploaded by

Structures 30 (2021) 75–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect