Structures 6 (2016) 85–98

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Influence of soil–structure interaction on fragility assessment of

building structures
Chara Ch. Mitropoulou a, Christos Kostopanagiotis a, Markos Kopanos a, Dennis Ioakim a, Nikos D. Lagaros b,⁎
a
ACE-Hellas, 6 Aigaiou Pelagous Street, GR-15341 Athens, Greece
b
Institute of Structural Analysis & Antseismic Research, Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9, Heroon Polytechniou Str.,
Zografou Campus, GR-15780 Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this work, 3D reinforced concrete (RC) and steel building structures have been considered for studying the ef-
Received 14 July 2015 fect of soil–structure interaction modelling on the structural fragility assessment of such structures. In particular,
Received in revised form 24 January 2016 three foundation models were considered: fixed model where soil–structure interaction is neglected, spring
Accepted 16 February 2016
model with single-node Winkler springs and pile foundation model where soil–structure interaction is simulated
Available online 24 February 2016
using beam and quadrilateral finite elements for the pile and soil numerical simulation, respectively. For the
Keywords:
assessment of the structural performance and the influence of the various soil–structure interaction numerical
Soil–structure interaction simulation models, fragility analysis is applied by considering four limit-states. For the purpose of the current
Fragility analysis study 3D, low-, mid- and high-rise RC and steel buildings are studied. The test examples employed in this
RC and steel structures study were designed first according to Eurocodes 2, 3 and 8 using the SCADA Pro analysis and design software
Nonlinear static analyses and then nonlinear static analyses were performed for developing the fragility curves. Comparing the outcome
Capacity spectrum of fragility analysis it was observed that for the case of the low- and mid-rise buildings, the structural perfor-
mance was not affected significantly by the foundation system. However, it was observed that the foundation
system contributes considerably to the overall structural performance of the high-rise structures examined.
© 2016 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and Ellingwood [37] presented the importance of fragility analysis in

Structural risk management, over the past decades, has gained in
modern society the attention of technical and economic decision cen-
tres [28,29]. The optimal management of the available resources aiming
to achieve sustainable economic administration requires proper tools
for assessing the consequences of hazardous events on the built envi-
ronment [4]. Risk management addresses this demand and indicates
the steps for the optimal choice implementation. Decision analysis and
risk assessment are the key steps for the concept of risk management
[5]. In an effort to establish a reliable procedure for assessing the seismic
risk of structural systems, so far, a lot of research work has been pub-
lished. Seismic fragility analysis is considered as the main ingredient
of the risk assessment procedure, since it represents a measure for de-
fining the safety margin of the structural systems.
A number of studies, where fragility analysis is used as an assess-
ment tool, have already been published. Among others, Shinozuka
et al. [34] studied the effect of the earthquakes on the performance of
transportation network systems by developing fragility curves. Wen
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Chara.Mitropoulou@ace-hellas.gr (C.C. Mitropoulou),
Christos.Kostopanagiotis@ace-hellas.gr (C. Kostopanagiotis),
Markos.Kopanos@ace-hellas.gr (M. Kopanos), Dennis.Ioakim@ace-hellas.gr (D. Ioakim),
nlagaros@central.ntua.gr (N.D. Lagaros).
consequence based engineering. A procedure relying on fragility analy-
sis was developed by Aslani and Miranda [2] that accounts for the un-
certainty in the characteristics of future earthquakes during seismic
response assessment. A risk assessment methodology for reinforced
concrete and unreinforced masonry structures was developed by
Kappos et al. [19], while Jeong and Elnashai [18] presented a methodol-
ogy, where fragility relationships with known reliability were derived
based on stiffness, strength and ductility. Pei and Van de Lindt [27]
proposed a probabilistic outline to estimate long-term economic loss
caused by earthquakes in timber frame structures. Cimellaro et al. [7]
predicted demands of structural and nonstructural systems by exploring
and quantifying the influence of spectrum-matched and amplitude-
scaled ground motions on the fragility curves of structures. Wong and
Harris [38] used fragility curves for the investigation of the efficiency
of a tuned mass damper to improve the ability of a structure to dissipate
energy. Mwafy [26] studied the impact of the vulnerability assessment
when implemented to high-rise buildings under numerous seismic sce-
narios and also studied the need for expanding this study to classes of
structures. Lagaros [22] studied a risk assessment framework for evalu-
ating building structures that allows considering sources of uncertainty
both on structural capacity and seismic demand.
The motivation of this study is to correlate structural systems of dif-
ferent sizes and the foundation system with seismic response and to
investigate the impact of uncertainties taken into account through

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2016.02.005
2352-0124/© 2016 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
86 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98
fragility analysis on the loss estimation in the case of steel and reinforced
concrete buildings. The multi-hazard loss estimation methodology of
HAZUS was used as the basis of this study. In particular, the influence
on the structural performance of soil–structure interaction (SSI) numer-
ical simulation models is studied in the framework of fragility analysis.
In particular, three foundation models are considered: fixed model
where soil–structure interaction is neglected, spring model where
soil–structure interaction is modelled with a single-node Winkler
springs and pile foundation model where soil–structure interaction is
simulated using beam and quadrilateral finite elements. For this pur-
pose, low-rise (LR), mid-rise (MR) and high-rise (HR) 3D reinforced
concrete and steel building structures have been considered, while for
assessing the structural performance fragility analysis was performed
for the case of four limit-states. The test examples considered were de-
signed first in accordance to Eurocodes 2, 3 and 8 using the SCADA Pro
[30] technical software, then nonlinear static analyses were carried out
by means of the OpenSees [24] computing platform and fragility curves
expressed in the form of a two-parameter lognormal distribution were de-
veloped. Since, the outcome of the analysis is to compute the long-term
probability that an engineering demand parameter (i.e. drift,
displacement etc.) developed into a building located at a certain region
will be exceeded, it is important to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed
methodology by calculating the mean annual frequencies (MAF) of the
limit-state exceedance. The assessment of the building structures was
based on the MAF values obtained after convolving the fragility curves de-
veloped with the hazard curve taken for the area of the city of San Diego,
California (latitude (N) 32.7°, longitude (W) −117.2°).
2. Foundation system design
In the present study three types of foundation systems were designed
and simulated numerically implementing different approaches, while fra-
gility analysis was performed on the combined superstructure–
foundation system in order to evaluate their influence on the performance
of the structure. The first two foundation systems examined correspond to
reinforced concrete shallow square footings connected with beams. Ac-
cording to the first case, the foundation system was modelled considering
fixed support conditions (see Fig. 1a), while in the second case SSI was
modelled using Winkler springs (see Fig. 1b). The design of the shallow
square footings was carried out according to Eurocode 7 for stiff soil type
(SD), using SCADA Pro [30] technical software. In particular, for these two
cases the soil profile was considered of well-graded clean sand (SW)
where more than half of the coarse fraction is smaller than 4.75 mm. The
third case corresponds to deep foundation with concrete piles and the
soil–pile interaction was modelled numerically considering beam and
four-node quadrilateral isoparametric finite elements (see Fig. 1c). Clay
soil condition was considered for the soil profile of the third case, and an
elastic–plastic material exhibiting plasticity in the deviatoric stress–strain
response only was employed. The design of the pile foundation (i.e. dimen-
sions and number of piles) was performed based on an optimization pro-
cedure that recently was presented [23] using the optimization computing
platform developed by one of the authors [21]. For all three cases, the foun-
dation systems were designed taking into account both static and earth-
quake induced loads from the superstructure.
2.1. Design of reinforced concrete shallow footings
The reinforced concrete shallow footings are designed according to
Eurocode 7 [10]. The seismic design forces should not exceed the design
bearing resistance defined for drained conditions that, without loss
of generality, were considered in the current study. The design bearing
resistance is given by the following expression:
Rd =A0 ¼ c 0  Nc  bc  sc  ic þq 0  Nq  bq  sq  iq þ0:5  γ 0  B 0  Nγ  bγ  sγ  iγ
ð1Þ
Fixed support Single-node
conditions Winkler springs
Δ Δ
P P
(a) (b)
P
Pile foundation
system
Piles
Translation
springs
Quadrilateral FE
for soil simulation
(c)
Fig. 1. (a) Fixed support condition, (b) spring foundation system, (c) pile foundation
system.
where Rd. is the resistance force, A′ is the design effective foundation
area, B′ is the effective foundation width, Nc, Nq, and Nγ are the bearing
capacity factors, bc, bq, and bγ are the design values of the factors for the
inclination of the base, ic, iq, and iγ are the inclination factors of the load,
sc, sq., and sγ are the shape factors of the foundation base, q′ the design
effective overburden pressure at the level of the foundation base, γ′
the design effective weight density of the soil below the foundation
level, and c, q, and γ stand for cohesion, surcharge and weight density,
respectively. Dimensions and steel reinforcement of the footings are cal-
culated according to Eurocode 2 [8].
2.2. Design of the pile foundation
The design procedure of the pile foundation adopted in this study
is also based on Eurocode 7 [11], where the various limit-states are
considered: bearing resistance failure of the pile foundation, loss
of overall stability, uplift or insufficient tensile resistance of the pile
foundation, structural failure of the pile in compression, failure in
the ground due to transverse loading of the pile foundation, tension,
bending, combined failure in the ground and in the pile foundation,
buckling or shear, combined failure in the ground and in the structure,
excessive heave, excessive settlement, unacceptable vibrations and
excessive lateral movement. In this study the piles were optimally
designed following the main design criteria, i.e.: (i) axial bearing ca-
pacity, (ii) acceptable settlements, (iii) strength of pile as a structural
element and (iv) lateral bearing capacity and acceptable horizontal
displacements.
According to Eurocode 7, the design value of the ultimate pile resis-
tance (Ru,d) is defined by the following expression:
Rpu;k Rsu;k
Ru;d ¼ þ ð2Þ
γ pR γ sR
where Rpu,k and Rsu,k are the characteristic values of the base and shaft
resistance, respectively; while the partial safety factors are set to
 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98
γpR = 1.6 and γsR = 1.3. For the application of an axial loading Vk, the
design value of an action Fd is equal to:
F d ¼ γG  P k þ γQ  Q k
where Pk = 0.8⋅ Vk and Q k = 0.2 ⋅ Vk are the characteristic values of the
permanent and variable actions respectively, while the corresponding
partial safety factors are set to γG = 1.0 and γQ = 1.3 according to the
factors R4 and formulation T4 of Eurocode 7 [11].
3. Numerical modelling
In this section details on the numerical simulation adopted for
modelling the superstructure and the soil structure interaction are
provided. A detailed discussion on the achievements of geotechnical in-
vestigation in the context of comprehensive technical ability, project
evaluation and analysis, hi-tech applications and engineering moni-
toring, and analyses several factors that have hindered the industry's
further development and alignment with international practise can be
found in the work by Zhang [39].
3.1. Superstructure
Nonlinear analysis, either static or dynamic, needs a detailed model-
ling of the regions of the structure, where inelastic deformations are ex-
pected to be developed. Two approaches can be adopted, the plastic-
hinge or the fibre approach. The fibre beam–column elements are
preferable since the plastic hinge approach has limitations in terms of
accuracy. Based on the fibre approach, every beam–column element
has various integration sections, each one divided into fibres. Concrete,
structural steel, or reinforcing bar material properties can be assigned
into each fibre. The sections are located either at the centre of the ele-
ment or at its Gaussian integration points. The advantage of the fibre
approach is that a simple uniaxial material model is used for every
fibre, allowing an efficient and easy implementation. This approach is
considered to be suitable and more reliable for inelastic beam–column
elements but is computationally demanding. When a displacement-
based formulation is adopted the discretization should be adaptively
modified having a denser mesh at the joints and a single elastic element
for the remaining part of the member. In the following numerical test
examples section, all analyses have been carried out by means of the
OpenSees [24] software and each member was modelled with force-
based beam–column elements.
For the structural steel a bilinear material model with pure kine-
matic hardening is adopted (Steel01), while geometric nonlinearity is
considered explicitly. Whereas, for modelling the concrete the modi-
fied Kent–Park model is employed (Concrete02), where the monotonic
envelope of concrete in compression follows the model of Kent and Park
[20] as extended by Scott et al. [31]. Inelastic element with pinned ends
is used for modelling the bracing members [36], while the transient
Fig. 2. (a) Foundation forces, (b) non-coupled Winkler model, (c) coupled Winkler model [3].
87
behaviour of the reinforcing bars was simulated with the Menegotto–
Pinto model [25], (Steel02).
ð3Þ 3.2. Modelling of single-node Winkler spring system
According to the second simulation approach of the foundation sys-
tem single-node Winkler springs (see Fig. 2) are considered. The force–
deformation relationship that corresponds to each spring is nonlinear
and they can be simulated with bilinear elastic–plastic relation. Fig. 3
depicts the generalized nonlinear force–displacement envelopes of the
soil modelled with springs and the idealized bilinear relationship for
stiff and soft soil type according to ATC-40 [3]. The component shown
in Fig. 3 represents a section of soil material beneath a shallow footing
or the lateral resistance of a pile cap in a deep foundation model.
The stiffness parameters Cz, Cx, and Cθy that correspond to each one
of the three springs that compose the single node spring element are
calculated as follows, according to ATC-40 [3]:
C z ¼ K z  ez ð4Þ
C x ¼ K x  ex ð5Þ
C θy ¼ K θy  eθy ð6Þ
where Kz, Kx, and Kθy are the surface stiffness parameters [16] and ez, ex,
and eθy the stiffness embedment parameters [16] in the vertical transla-
tion z, horizontal translation x (toward short side) and rotation along y
axis, respectively, for a rigid plate on a semi-infinite homogeneous elas-
tic half-space.
3.3. Modelling of soil–pile system
Clay type of soil was considered in this work for the case of the
third foundation system, discretized with four-node quadrilateral
isoparametric elements while beam elements are used for the simula-
tion of piles. An elastic–plastic material exhibiting plasticity only in
the deviatoric stress–strain response, is employed for clay soil condi-
tions. The volumetric stress–strain response is linear-elastic and is inde-
pendent of the deviatoric response. This material law can simulate
monotonic or cyclic response of materials whose shear behaviour is
insensitive to the confinement change, such as organic soils or clay
under undrained loading conditions. When gravity load is applied, the
material behaviour is linear elastic. While during the application of the
subsequent dynamic loading, the stress–strain response is considered
elastic–plastic. Plasticity is formulated based on the multi-surface
(nested surfaces) concept, with an associative flow rule, while the
yield surfaces are of the Von Mises type.
In order to take into account the inelastic behaviour of the piles
either the plastic-hinge or the fibre approach can be adopted [14]. In
the following numerical test examples section all analyses have been
performed using the OpenSees (2001) software, while the material
88 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98
Fig. 3. Bilinear relationship of force–deformation for each Winkler spring model [3].
models described above are used for concrete and steel reinforcement
of the pile. Spring elements are implemented for modelling the soil–
pile interface and the interaction between piles and surrounding soil.
With the use of these springs, the relative displacements between the
soil and each pile were simulated and therefore a more realistic model
was achieved. Tz springs were used for modelling the vertical compo-
nents of the pile interface and Py springs for the corresponding horizon-
tal components as shown in Fig. 4 [32]. More information about the
determination of the springs' stiffness and the corresponding values
can be found in studies [6]. All the nodes of the ground are fully
constrained along both x (horizontal) and y (vertical) directions, while
the side boundaries are constrained only along the x (horizontal) direc-
tion (see Fig. 5), more information about the stress–strain relations can
be found in [23].
4. Fragility analysis
The calculation of the limit state probabilities for a number of limit-
states is the main prerequisite in the earthquake risk assessment of
structures. The main scope is to obtain the limit-state probabilities of ex-
ceedance of a structural damage state.
4.1. Procedure
Each limit-state is described through an engineering demand pa-
rameter (EDP) that is considered as a reliable index of the structural
Tz spring
Py spring
Fig. 4. Components of the soil–pile interface (Tz and Py springs).
behaviour. The limit values of the maximum interstorey drift θmax that
have been proposed as representative measure for the limit-states by
HAZUS [17] are considered in this study. Thus, the mean annual
frequency of the θmax exceeding a limit value y is obtained from the fol-
lowing expression:
Z
vθ N y ¼ P ðθ max ≥yjIM ¼ xÞjdλIM ðxÞj ð7Þ
where vθN y is the annual rate of θmax exceeding the limit value y and λIM
is the hazard curve that represents the mean annual frequency of the
intensity measure exceeding x. In this study the hazard curve used
is depicted in Fig. 6. The region under examination was chosen to
be the city of San Diego, California (latitude (N) 32.7°, longitude
(W) − 117.2°), thus the hazard curve of Fig. 6 corresponds to this
area. The probability P(θmax ≥ y| IM = x) is the seismic fragility FR and is
defined as the limit-state probability, conditioned on a seismic intensity
measure IM, which may be stated with the peak ground acceleration or
any other variable that is consistent with the seismic hazard. In this
work the first mode spectral acceleration SA (T1, 5%) is used as the ap-
propriate intensity measure for the representation of the seismic
ground motion. Thus, the seismic fragility curves are from the following
expression:
F R ¼ P ðθ max ≥ yjSA ðT 1 ; 5%Þ ¼ xÞ: ð8Þ
As stated by Shinozuka et al. [33] the curves FR can be expressed in
the form of lognormal distribution function, where fragility curve for-
mulas are lognormal functions that describe the probability of reaching
or exceeding a specific limit-state given the earthquake occurrence. The
conditional probability of being in, or exceeding, a particular limit-state
y given the first mode spectral acceleration level, is defined by:
" !#
1 SA ðT 1 ; 5%Þ
F R;k ðθ max ≥ yjSA ðT 1 ; 5%ÞÞ ¼ Φ ln ð9Þ
βy μ SA ð T 1 ;5%Þ;y
where μSA( T1,5%),y is the median value of first mode spectral acceleration
at which the structure reaches the lower limit state of damage condition
y, βy is the standard deviation of the natural logarithm of first mode
spectral acceleration for the damage state y (calculated based on the
procedure described in [17]) and Φ is the standard normal cumulative
distribution function. For the purpose of this study, the structural per-
formance of the structure is estimated using the maximum interstorey
drift θmax as the engineering demand parameter, while the threshold
values of the corresponding limit-states (slight, moderate, extensive,
very heavy and collapse) can be found in Tables 1 and 2 [17]. HAZUS
provides drift values for multiple damage levels and different types of
building structures in terms of material, scale (number of storeys) and
the seismic design levels used — quality of construction implemented
(pre-, moderate- and high-code). Regarding soil effects, HAZUS takes
into account the local soil conditions in terms of amplification factors
to be applied to the response spectra characterizing the ground shaking.
MR and HR buildings have limit values of the drift based on LR drift limit
values reduced by factors of 2/3 and 1/2, respectively, to account for
higher-mode effects and differences between the average interstorey
drift and individual interstorey drift.
4.2. Nonlinear static analysis
The purpose of the nonlinear static procedure is to assess the struc-
tural performance in terms of strength and deformation capacity global-
ly as well as at the element level. The structural model is “pushed”
according to a lateral load pattern. In order to determine the target dis-
placement in multiple hazard levels one of the following methods is
adopted: the capacity spectrum method of ATC-40 [3], the N2 method
 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98 89

Fig. 5. Boundary constraints.

of EC8-Part 1 [12] and the coefficient method of ASCE-41 [1]. In the nu-
merical results that follow the capacity spectrum method was applied.
The capacity spectrum method (CSM), initially proposed by Free-
man [15], compares the capacity of a structural system to resist lateral
forces to the demand given by a response spectrum. The response spec-
trum represents the demand while the pushover curve represents the
available capacity. Among the three variations of the method discussed
in ATC-40, we examine Procedure A. The steps of the method are briefly
summarized as follows: (i) Perform pushover analysis and determine
the capacity curve in base shear (Vb) versus roof displacement of
the building (D). This diagram is then converted to acceleration–
displacement terms (AD) using an equivalent single degree of system.
The conversion is performed using the first mode participation factor
C0 (D⁎ = D / C0) and the modal mass (A = Vb / M). (ii) Plot the capacity
diagram on the same graph with the 5%-damped elastic response spec-
trum that is also in AD format. (iii) Select a trial peak deformation
demand dt⁎ and determine the corresponding pseudo-acceleration A
0
mean annual frequency of exceedance, (SA)
from the capacity diagram, initially assuming ζ = 5%. (iv) Compute
ductility μ = D⁎ / uy and calculate the hysteretic damping ζh as ζh =
2(μ − 1) / πμ. The equivalent damping ratio is evaluated from a relation-
ship of the form: ζeq = ζel + κζh, where κ is a damping modification
factor that depends on the hysteretic behaviour of the system. Update
the estimate of dt⁎ using the elastic demand diagram for ζeq. (v) Check
for convergence the displacement dt⁎. When convergence has been
achieved the target displacement of the MDOF system is equal to
d⁎ = C0dt⁎. μSA(T1,5%),y which is calculated from the capacity curve of the
structure for the various limit-states by means of the capacity spectrum
analysis described above.
4.3. Modelling uncertainty
Real-world structures are characterized by imperfections while ma-
terial properties and loading conditions are uncertain, which induce
deviations from their nominal state assumed by the design codes. It
is common in earthquake risk analysis to distinguish between uncer-

10 tainty that reflects the variability of the outcome of a repeatable exper-

iment and uncertainty due to ignorance. The latter one is referred as
-1
“randomness”, commonly known as “aleatory uncertainty”, which can-
10 not be reduced. On the other hand, both deterministic and probabilistic
approaches rely on model assumptions and parameters that rely on the
-2 existing state of knowledge related to the structural behaviour under
10
given conditions. There is uncertainty associated with these conditions,
which depends upon the state of knowledge that is referred as “epistemic
-3 uncertainty”. In this study various sources of uncertainty are considered:
10
on the seismic demand (aleatoric randomness) and on the structural ca-
pacity (epistemic uncertainty).
-4
10
Table 1
Maximum interstorey drift limit-states for RC building structures [17].
-5
10
Damage level Interstorey drift θmax (%)

C1L C1M C1H

-2 -1 0
10 10 10 Slight 0.50 0.33 0.25
S (T =1.0 sec,5%) (g) Moderate 1.00 0.67 0.50
A 1
Extensive 3.00 2.00 1.50
Collapse 8.00 5.33 4.00
Fig. 6. Hazard curve for SA (T1 = 1.0 s,5%).
90 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98

Table 2 deviation parameter that describes the variability of the threshold of

Maximum interstorey drift limit-states for steel structures [17]. damage state (y). Since the demand spectrum is dependent on building
Damage level Interstorey drift θmax (%) capacity, a convolution process (CONV) is required to combine their re-
S1L S1M S1H
spective contributions to total variability.

Slight 0.60 0.40 0.30

Moderate 1.20
Extensive 3.00
Collapse 8.00
Lognormal standard deviation values describe the total variability of
fragility curve damage states. Three primary sources contribute to the
total variability of any given state, namely, the variability associated
with the capacity curve (βC), the variability associated with the demand
spectrum (βD) and the variability associated with the discrete threshold
of each damage state (βT , y), as described in Eq. (10) (as suggested in
paragraph 6.3 of [17]):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
βy ¼ ðCONV ½βC ; βD Þ2 þ βT;y
where βy is the lognormal standard deviation parameter that describes
the total variability of damage state (y), βC is the lognormal standard de-
viation parameter that describes the variability of the capacity curve, βD
is the lognormal standard deviation parameter that describes the vari-
ability of the demand spectrum, and βT , y is the lognormal standard
5. Numerical examples
0.80 0.60
2.00 1.50
5.33 4.00 In this work, 3D reinforced concrete and steel building structures
have been considered in order to study the influence of different SSI
modelling systems in the structural performance of framed structures
by performing fragility analysis. Specifically, three different foundation
systems have been considered; (i) fixed foundation, where SSI is
neglected, (ii) single-node Winkler spring based SSI modelling system
and (iii) a deep foundation system with frictional piles. For this pur-
pose, six building structures have been considered for performing the
numerical investigation. Based on the model building types of HAZUS
[17], concrete moment (C1) and steel moment (S1) frame building
types are employed with 2 (low-rise), 4 (mid-rise) and 8 (high-rise)
stories. Depending on the construction material the six buildings
ð10Þ
are denoted as C1L, C1M and C1H for the case of reinforced concrete
and S1L, S1M and S1H for the steel building structures. Notation
(f) stands for fixed foundation conditions, (w) stands for the use
of single-node Winkler springs and (p) stands for the use of the pile
foundation system; for example, S1L(w) stands for the case of the LR
steel building using single-node Winkler springs for simulating the
SSI system.

5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m

5.0 m
5.0 m

5.0 m
5.0 m

5.0 m
5.0 m

5.0 m
5.0 m

5.0 m
5.0 m

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. The plan view of the (a) RC and (b) steel frame.
 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98
5.1. Description of the superstructure
The superstructures of the 3D frame-foundation systems examined,
were designed with the use of the SCADA Pro technical software, fol-
lowing the design requirements of EC2 [8], EC3 [9] and EC8-Part 1
[12], by means of a trial and error procedure aiming to achieve the
relatively minimum required dimensions of the structural elements,
i.e. the minimum initial material cost. The trial and error design proce-
dure initialized with the same initial design having the same minimum
dimensions of the beams and the columns. The minimum dimensions
considered were: columns 25 × 25 cm2 and beams 25 × 30 cm2 (for
the case of RC structures, while a similar procedure was followed for
the steel building structures). In the framework of the trial and error
procedure, the dimensions of the columns and the beams were in-
creased gradually until fulfilling the requirements of the Eurocodes.
Beams and columns that fail to meet the constraints imposed by
Eurocodes were increased in size according to the following procedure:
(i) columns: increase the smallest dimension of the columns cross-
section by 5 cm and if column constraints are not yet satisfied a second
increase takes place of the second dimension by 5 cm. This rule is re-
peated until satisfying all the constraints, (ii) beams: at first, the height
of the beam is increased by 5 cm and if constraints of the structural per-
formance are not yet satisfied, the width of the web is increased by 5 cm
(the upper limit value of the web was 35 cm). The sequence of gradually
increased dimensions is repeated until satisfying all the constraints,
similarly with the columns.
The plan view of the reinforced concrete and steel frame building
structures is depicted in Fig. 7a and b, respectively; while Fig. 8 shows
the elevation view of all test examples (low-, mid- and high-rise). The
material properties assumed are: class C16/20 for the concrete (cylin-
drical strength of 16 MPa and Young's modulus equal to 30 GPa), class
5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 8th floor
3.0 m
3.0 m
3.0 m
3.0 m
4th floor
3.0 m
3.0 m
2nd floor
3.0 m
4.0 m
Fig. 8. The elevation view of the two, four and eight-storey RC and steel frame considering
fixed foundation system.
91
S500 for the steel reinforcement (yield stress of 500 MPa and Young's
modulus equal to 210 GPa) and class S355 for the structural steel of
(yield stress of 355 MPa and Young's modulus equal to 200 GPa).
Compared to the confined one, the cylindrical strength of the uncon-
fined concrete was reduced by 20%. The slab thickness is considered
equal to 16 cm, while a distributed permanent load of 1.5 kN/m2
and an imposed load of 2.5 kN/m2 are applied. The lateral forces im-
posed by the EC8-Part 1 [12] were derived from the design response
spectrum (5%-damped elastic spectrum divided by the behaviour fac-
tor q = 3.0 for the reinforced concrete and q = 4.0 for the steel test
examples, respectively) at the fundamental period of the structure.
The base shear is obtained from the response spectrum of soil type
D (loose-to-medium cohesionless soil, with S = 1.35, ΤB = 0.20 s,
ΤC = 0.80 s and ΤD = 2.00 s) and PGA of 0.24 g. The foundation sys-
tems were designed to conform with EC8-Part 5 [13], and the action
effects for the foundation elements were derived on the basis of capacity
design considerations account for the development of overstrength.
Material damping varies with the nature of the soil and the intensity
of shaking. Since more accurate determinations were not available,
the foundation damping was taken into account in accordance to EC8-
Part 5 [13].
The cross sections of the beams, columns and bracings and the foun-
dation geometry for the second foundation case (i.e. for the embedded
foundation the buildings were designed as if they were founded on a
rigid slab) are summarized in Table 3 for the RC test examples and in
Table 4 for the steel test examples. In Tables 3 and 4, the designs are
denoted as C1ij and S1ij stands for the reinforced concrete and the
steel test examples, respectively where i = L, M and H for the 2-storey,
4-storey and 8-storey test example, respectively; and j = (f), (w) and
(p) for the fixed, Winkler spring and pile foundation systems, respective-
ly. For the case of the RC building structures, comparing the three designs
it can be observed that although the cross-sectional dimensions of the
columns are the same for all three designs (i.e. (f), (w) and (p)), they dif-
fer with respect to the longitudinal reinforcement the designs with
Winkler springs, they were designed with 15% to 20% less reinforcement
compared to the other two designs. As it will be presented in following
parts of the study, the structural capacity is affected by this difference
in conjunction with the different simulation approach adopted for the
soil–structure interaction.
5.2. Design of the foundation system
Depending on the foundation setup a different approach has been
accounted for in the design process. In the fist case, corresponding to
the fixed foundation, the boundary condition of the columns are imple-
mented as fixed in SCADA Pro during the design procedure restricting
all six DOFs of the nodes at the ground level (fixed supports). The SSI
modelling system where single-node Winkler springs were used for
the representation of the soil is presented in Fig. 9a, while the stiffness
parameters of the single-node Winkler springs were calculated based
on the expressions given previously. In particular, for the C1L(w) they
are as follows (Cz, Cx, Cθy) = (143,132, 120,584, 868,346), for the
C1M(w) they are as follows (Cz, Cx, Cθy) = (165,026, 146,427,
1,590,441) and for the C1H(w) they are as follows (Cz, Cx, Cθy) =
(203,485, 186,819, 3,387,680). A similar procedure was carried out
for the case of the steel and the corresponding values for the
S1L(w) are as follows (Cz, Cx, Cθy) = (132,733, 107,683, 641,144), for
the S1M(w) they are as follows (Cz, Cx, Cθy) = (163,876, 144,168,
1,546,137) and for the S1H(w) they are as follows (Cz, Cx, Cθy) =
(203,485, 186,819, 3,387,680). These Winkler springs were imple-
mented into SCADA Pro during the design procedure. Due to reasons
of uniformity there is an option in SCADA Pro software that imposes
the same dimensions to all foundations based on the worst-case de-
sign, this option was used for all buildings studied herein.
In the third case, corresponding to deep foundation system with fric-
tional piles, a rather different approach was followed. Using the designs
92 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98

Table 3
Designs for the RC structures.

Structure Structural elements Geometry b/h (cm) Steel reinforcement (B500c)

C1L Design C1L(f) C1L(w) C1L(p)

Slabs d = 16 cm
Beams 25/55 Bottom: 4Ø14 Bottom: 4Ø14 Bottom: 4Ø14
Columns 45/45 Corner: 16Ø20 Corner: 16Ø20 Corner: 16Ø20
Middle: 20Ø20 Middle: 16Ø20 Middle: 20Ø20
Footings – 180/180/60 –

C1M Design C1M(f) C1M(w) C1M(p)

Slabs d = 16 cm
Beams 25/55 Bottom: 4Ø14 Bottom: 4Ø14 Bottom: 4Ø14
Columns 60/60 Corner: 20Ø20 Corner: 16Ø20 Corner: 20Ø20
Middle: 28Ø20 Middle: 24Ø20 Middle: 28Ø20
Footings – 230/230/60 –

C1H Design C1H(f) C1H(w) C1H(p)

Slabs d = 16 cm
Beams A to F = 30/60 Bottom: 4Ø14 Bottom: 4Ø14 Bottom: 4Ø14
G to H = 25/55
Columns 80/80 Corner: 20Ø20 Corner: 16Ø20 Corner: 20Ø20
Middle: 28Ø20 Middle: 24Ø20 Middle: 28Ø20
Footings – 300/300/60 –

obtained for the fixed foundation the vertical and horizontal loads im- Thus, both horizontal (Lx) and vertical (Ly) dimensions of the mesh,
posed to the superstructure have been defined. As mentioned previous- change for each new design. The total width Lx of the mesh is defined
ly, the pile foundation system was designed based on an optimization by the relations:
procedure [23] where reinforced concrete injected frictional piles are
used. In this procedure, the resistance developed in the peak of the Lx ¼ Lstruct þ 4  Lpile
ð11Þ
pile is not taken into account, because the 40 m ground layer considered when Lpile ≥ Lstruct
in the study is wide enough to be considered as of infinite length, as well
as the length of the frictional piles required, to receive the loads from or
the superstructures of the study, is much less than 40 m. The design
variables of the pile foundation system design optimization problem
Lx ¼ 5  Lstruct
are the following (Fig. 9b): pile length (Lpile), pile diameter (D) and ð12Þ
when Lpile b Lstruct
number of piles (Npiles), while the constraint functions considered
are: (i) pile diameter D: 0.80 ≤ D ≤ 2.20, (ii) axial distance between
where for each side of the structure, the mesh is extended by two times
the piles s: 2.5D ≤ s ≤ 6D, (iii) length of piles Lpile: min{5.00 m,
the length of the piles, and the total vertical dimension Ly of the mesh is
5D} ≤ Lpile ≤ 40.00 m and (iv) maximum settlement of the pile-head
δx(max) = 2 cm. Due to the nature of the problem, a dynamic mesh gen- assumed two times the length of the piles (Fig. 10):
erator is required in order to create a finite element mesh both for pile
members and soil. For a given superstructure of a particular width Lstruct, Ly ¼ 2  Lpile : ð13Þ
a number of piles is assigned beneath the superstructure. The length of
each pile Lpile changes along with its diameter D and the number of piles The optimum design procedure of the pile foundation resulted in the
Npiles until the optimization process converges to the optimal design. following designs: 3 cylindrical piles with diameter 0.60 m, cover thick-
ness 5 cm with longitudinal steel reinforcement 40Ø32 located at the
perimeter of the piles in depth 10.5 m in the case of the C1L(p), also
Table 4 in 4 cylindrical piles with diameter 0.85 m, cover thickness 5 cm with
Designs for the steel structures. longitudinal steel reinforcement 40Ø32 located at the perimeter of the
Structure Structural elements Standard steel section type piles in depth 12.5 m in the case of the C1M(p)and in 5 cylindrical
piles with diameter 1.20 m, cover thickness 5 cm with longitudinal
S1L Design S1L(f) S1L(w) S1L(p)
Slabs d = 16 cm
steel reinforcement 40Ø32 located at the perimeter of the piles in
Beams IPE 330 IPE 360 IPE 330 depth 17.0 m in the case of the C1H(p). This information is summarized
Columns HEB 280 HEB 280 HEB 280 in Table 5. The resulted optimized designs for the pile foundation were
Bracings L 200 × 200 × 16 implemented into SCADA Pro during the design procedure. For the case
Footings – 150/150/60 –
of deep foundation system with frictional piles, a piled raft foundation
S1M Design S1M(f) S1M(w) S1M(p) is implemented. The number of piles along the two dimensions of the
Slabs d = 16 cm layout of the structural system is a design variable (based on the formu-
Beams IPE 500 IPE 500 IPE 500
lation of the optimization problem), this is the reason why the piles are
Columns HEB 340 HEB 340 HEB 340
Bracings L 200 × 200 × 16 not located below the structural columns. Pile caps, capping beams, and
Footings – 220/220/60 – ground beams are designed to transfer loading from the superstructure
to the heads of the piles, and to withstand pressures from the soil be-
S1H Design S1H(f) S1H(w) S1H(p)
Slabs d = 16 cm neath and on the sides of the capping members. In this study, in order
Beams IPE 550 IPE 550 IPE 550 to ensure that the loads of the superstructure are transferred to the
Columns HEB 900 HEB 900 HEB 900 foundation system continuous capping beams are used that tie the
Bracings L 200 × 200 × 16 piles together. The effect of foundation flexibility and that of the rotation
Footings – 300/300/60 –
of the foundation system has been taken into account only in foundation
 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98 93

5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m 5.0 m

3.0 m
3.0 m

3.0 m
3.0 m

3.0 m
3.0 m

4.0 m
4.0 m

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. (a) layout of the four-storey RC and steel frame considering foundation system with Winkler spring elements, (b) layout of the four-storey RC and steel frame considering pile deep
foundation system.

system cases 2 and 3 where both effects are considered through the
simulation models used.
5.3. Analysis results
Fig. 11(a) to (c) presents the capacity curves derived by nonlinear
static analyses for the two-storey, four-storey and eight-storey rein-
forced concrete structures, respectively. In the case of the LR RC struc-
tures the capacity curves for the designs with fixed C1L(f) and pile
foundation systems C1L(p) almost coincide while they appear to have
higher structural capacity compared to C1L(w). In the case of the MR
RC structure, the designs with fixed foundation system C1M(f) presents
the highest structural capacity, while comparing the three designs
(i.e. C1M(f), C1M(w) and C1M(p)) in terms of capacity curves they al-
most coincide for the elastic part. In the case of the HR RC structure,
comparing the three designs (i.e. C1H(f), C1H(w) and C1H(p)) in
terms of capacity curves, it can be observed that they differ significantly.
In particularly, among the three designs C1H(p) depicts the highest
structural capacity while C1H(w) the lowest one. This observation
is justified by the fact that the designs (corresponding to the three
foundation systems) differ in terms of steel reinforcement of the
columns. Based on the notation provided previously with respect to

Fig. 10. Mesh dimensions.

94 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98

Table 5 5.4. Risk assessment

Results for the optimized piled foundation system.

Design Npiles D (m) Lpile (m) Longitudinal reinforcement In this part of the study the designs combined with the various SSI
C1L(p) 3×3 0.60 10.5 40Ø32
modelling systems were assessed by performing fragility analysis for
C1M(p) 4×4 0.85 12.5 40Ø32 four limit-states. The fragility analysis is based on four limit-states ac-
C1H(p) 5×5 1.20 17.0 40Ø32 cording to HAZUS [17], these limit-states are given in Tables 1 and 2
S1L(p) 3×3 0.55 9.0 35Ø32 with respect to the maximum interstorey drift θ% and the corre-
S1M(p) 4×4 0.80 11.0 35Ø32
sponding limit values differ for frames with two, four and eight sto-
S1H(p) 5×5 1.10 15.0 35Ø32
reys. Indicatively, the fragility curves for the steel structures are given
in Figs. 13 to 15. The values of the coefficients of variation βy of Eq. (9)
the longitudinal reinforcement of the columns (see Table 3), the designs that are used in the fragility analysis are 0.75, 0.70 and 0.70 for the LR,
with Winkler springs were designed with 15% to 20% less reinforcement MR and HR structures, respectively. The coefficient of variation values
compared to the other two designs in the RC, therefore as expected they have been defined based on the procedure described in HAZUS [17]
appear to be more vulnerable. Similar to the RC structures, Fig. 12(a) (see also Eq. (10)). Indicatively, as it can be seen from Fig. 13(a) cor-
to (c) shows the capacity curves of the two-storey, four-storey and responding to design S1L(p), for SA (T1,5%) equal to 0.3 (g) the ex-
eight-storey steel structures, respectively, derived by means of non- ceedance probability varies from 4.1, 5.6, 9.5 and 32.7% for the
linear static analyses. As it can be observed, the capacity curves de- slight, moderate, extensive and collapse limit-states, respectively. A
rived for all designs of LR and MR steel structures almost coincide; similar trend is observed for all three buildings and their corresponding
thus, it can be said that their structural performance is not affected designs considered.
by the foundation system considered. However, in the case of the HR Since the result of the analysis would be to compute the long-term
steel structures, although the capacity curves derived for designs probability that a limit-state will be exceeded in a building located at
S1H(f) and S1H(w) almost coincide, the one achieved for the design a specific region, it is important to evaluate the influence of the SSI foun-
S1H(p) where the pile foundation is considered depicts the worst per- dation systems in terms of the mean annual frequencies (MAF) of limit-
formance among the three designs in terms of structural capacity. In state exceedance. Tables 6 to 8 show the mean annual frequencies
general, it can be said that high-rise buildings exhibit complicated be- obtained after convolving the fragility curves with the hazard curve of
haviour and the corresponding capacity curves show larger variations. Fig. 6, as suggested by Eq. (7). In order to calculate the MAF values of
In accordance to this remark, both Figs. 11 and 12 depict a trend Tables 6 to 8, the hazard curve of Fig. 6 is modified for each structure
where the high-rise structural models seem to be more sensitive to in order to account for the variation of the structural period. The region
the model adopted for simulate the soil–structure interaction as it was under examination was chosen to be the city of San Diego, California
also observed in the work by others (for example, by [35]). (latitude (N) 32.7°, longitude (W) −117.2°), thus the hazard curve of

Fig. 11. The capacity curves of the RC structures (a) C1L, (b) C1M and (c) C1H.
 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98 95

Fig. 12. The capacity curves of the steel structures (a) S1L, (b) S1M and (c) S1H.

Fig. 6 corresponds to this area. For the LR RC building, the differences with fixed support system (i.e. C1L(f)) is up to 20% for some of the
with reference to MAF of the two designs (where the foundation system limit-states. In particular, the differences of design C1L(p) are negligible
is taken into account, i.e. C1L(w) and C1L(p)) compared to the design for the extensive and collapse limit-states while for design C1L(w) it is

Fig. 13. The fragility curves of the LR steel structure for the (a) fixed, (b) Winkler spring and (c) pile foundation systems.
96 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98

Fig. 14. The fragility curves of the MR steel structure for the (a) fixed, (b) Winkler spring and (c) pile foundation systems.

Fig. 15. The fragility curves of the HR steel structure for the (a) fixed, (b) Winkler spring and (c) pile foundation systems.
 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98 97

Table 6 the pile foundation dominates among the three foundation systems
Mean annual frequency exceeding limit-states for the test case C1L. considered with respect to the structural performance in the case of
Design Damage state the eight-storey reinforced concrete structure, while the fixed founda-
Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse
tion dominates in the case of the eight-storey steel structure.
Furthermore, it should be noticed that the mean annual frequencies
C1L(f) 5.78E−03 1.89E−03 1.13E−03 9.27E−04
obtained for the three reinforced concrete structures differ in a rather
C1L(w) 6.93E−03 2.26E−03 1.33E−03 1.07E−03
C1L(p) 6.55E−03 2.04E−03 1.13E−03 9.30E−04 systematic way for the four limit-states for the case of the single-node
Winkler spring soil–structure interaction system while deviation from
this rule is detected for the case of pile foundation that compared to
Table 7
the fixed foundation system a slight increase on the values of the
Mean annual frequency exceeding limit-states for the test case C1M. mean annual frequency is observed for the low-rise building and reduc-
tion for the mid- and high-rise ones.
Design Damage state

Slight Moderate Extensive Collapse

C1M(f) 2.57E−02 9.25E−03 3.26E−03 2.64E−03

C1M(w) 2.82E−02 1.04E−02 3.72E−03
C1M(p) 1.79E−02 8.44E−03 3.28E−03
increased up to 20% for the first three limit-states (slight, moderate and
extensive). For the MR RC building, the differences with reference to
MAF of the two designs (i.e. C1M(w) and C1M(p)) compared to design
C1M(f) is up to 45% for some of the limit-states. In particular, MAF
for design C1M(w) is increased by 10% to 16% compared to design
C1M(f) for the four limit-states; while, although the differences of de-
sign C1M(p) are negligible for the extensive and collapse limit-states,
MAF is decreased by 10% and 45% for the moderate and slight limit-
states, respectively. Finally, for the HR RC building, the differences
with reference to MAF of the two designs (i.e. C1H(w) and C1H(p))
compared to design C1H(f) is up to 90% for some of the limit-states. In
particular, MAF for design C1H(w) is increased by 65% to 90% compared
to design C1H(f) for the four limit-states, while for the case of design
C1H(p) MAF is decreased by 3% and 25% for four limit-states. Similar ob-
servations are provided for the steel building structures.
6. Conclusions
In this work fragility curves derived for different limit-states of 3D
reinforced concrete and steel building structures with two, four and
eight storeys are developed, considering three soil–structure interaction
systems. Fragility analysis was performed for four limit-states according
to the multi-hazard loss estimation methodology of HAZUS against
earthquake. In particular, the three soil–structure interaction systems
considered are the fixed model where soil–structure interaction is
neglected, the model where foundation effects are taken into account
using single-node Winkler springs and a pile foundation system. The
drift limit-state fragility curves developed cover the whole range of
structural damage from serviceability, to life safety and finally to the
onset of collapse. For this purpose three reinforced concrete and three
steel 3D buildings are considered.
Comparing the capacity curves for each one of the nine designs of
the RC structures as wells as the nine designs of the steel structures it
can be observed that in the case of the two and four storey structures
for both RC and steel frames, the structural performance is not affected
significantly by the foundation system. However, in the case of the
eight-storey structures, the structural performance of the superstruc-
ture is affected by the type of the foundation system. More specifically,
Table 8
Mean annual frequency of exceedance for the test case C1H.
Design Damage state
Slight Moderate Extensive
C1H(f) 8.73E−02 3.92E−02 1.60E−02
C1H(w) 1.64E−01 7.24E−02 2.62E−02
C1H(p) 8.48E−02 3.27E−02 1.29E−02
Acknowledgement
3.05E−03
2.64E−03 This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European
Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national fund (Grant no. ACPAD538)
through the Operational Program “EMPLOYMENT AND VOCATIONAL
TRAINING-Business Support for the employment of highly qualified
personnel” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)-Re-
search Funding Program: Advanced Computational Procedures for
Analysis and Designs of structures. Investing in knowledge society
through the European Social Fund.
References
[1] ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings (prepublica-
tion edition) Structural Engineering Institute. American Society of Civil Engineers;
2006.
[2] Aslani H, Miranda E. Probability-based seismic response analysis. Eng Struct 2005;
27(8):1151–63.
[3] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, volume 1: chapter
10 — foundation effects. Redwood City: Applied Technology Council; 1996.
[4] Augusti G, Borri C, Niemann H-J. Is Aeolian risk as significant as other environmental
risks? Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2001;74:227–37.
[5] Beck JL, Porter KA, Shaikhutdinov RV, Au SK, Mizukoshi K, Miyamura M, et al. Impact
of seismic risk on lifetime property value. Caltech, Pasadena, CUREE-KAJIMA Joint
Research Program PHASE IV, Report EERL; 2002. p. 2002–4.
[6] Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. Seismic soil–pile-
structure interaction experiments and analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1999;
125(9):750–9.
[7] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, D'Ambrisi A, De Stefano M. Fragility analysis and seismic
record selection. J Struct Eng 2011;137(3):379–90.
[8] EC2. Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures — part 1–1: general rules and rules
for buildings. European Committee for StandardisationBrussels, Belgium: The
European Standard EN 1992-1-1; 2004.
[9] EC3. Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures — part 1–1: general rules and rules for
buildings. European Committee for StandardisationBrussels, Belgium: The European
Standard EN 1993-1-1; 2005.
[10] EC7-Annex D. Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design — part 1: general rules. European
Committee for StandardisationBrussels, Belgium: The European Standard EN 1997-
1(Annex D); 2004.
[11] EC7. Eurocode 7. Geotechnical design — part 1: general rules. European Committee
for StandardisationBrussels, Belgium: The European Standard EN 1997-1; 2004.
[12] EC8-Part 1. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance — part 1:
general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for
StandardisationBrussels, Belgium: The European Standard EN 1998-1; 2004.
[13] EC8-Part 5. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance — part 5:
foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. European Committee
for StandardisationBrussels, Belgium: The European Standard EN 1998-5; 2004.
[14] Eid HT, Bani-Hani K. Settlement of axially loaded piles entirely embedded in rock —
analytical and experimental study. Geomech Geoeng 2012;7(2):139–48.
[15] Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity spectrum method. Proceedings of the
6th US national conference on earthquake engineering; 1998.
[16] Gazetas G. Foundation vibrations. In: Fang HY, editor. Foundation engineering
handbook. 2nd ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991. p. 553–93.
[17] HAZUS-MH MR1. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology earthquake model.
Washington, DC: FEMA-National Institute of Building Sciences; 2003.
[18] Jeong SH, Elnashai AS. Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental
response quantities. Eng Struct 2007;29(6):1238–51.
[19] Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos C, Penelis G. A hybrid method for the
vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2006;4(4):
Collapse 391–413.
9.56E−03 [20] Kent DC, Park R. Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div 1971;97(7):
1.66E−02 1969–90.
[21] Lagaros ND. A general purpose real-world structural design optimization computing
7.79E−03
platform. Struct Multidiscip Optim 2014;49:1047–66.
98 C.C. Mitropoulou et al. / Structures 6 (2016) 85–98
[22] Lagaros ND. Risk assessment of steel and steel–concrete composite 3D buildings
considering sources of uncertainty. Earthq Struct 2014;6(1):19–43.
[23] Letsios C, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M. Optimum design methodologies for pile
foundations in London. Case Stud Struct Eng 2014;2:24–32.
[24] McKenna F, Fenves GL. The OpenSees Command Language Manual — version 1.2.
Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of California;
2001.
[25] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete
plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements
under combined normal force and bending. Proceedings, IABSE symposium on resis-
tance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well defined repeated
loads; 1973. p. 15–22.
[26] Mwafy A. Analytically derived fragility relationships for the modern high-rise
buildings in the UAE. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2012;21(11):824–43.
[27] Pei S, van de Lindt JW. Methodology for earthquake-induced loss estimation: an
application to woodframe buildings. Struct Saf 2009;31(1):31–42.
[28] Porter KA. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its uses in seismic perfor-
mance evaluation and risk-management decision-making, a doctoral dissertation.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University; 2000.
[29] Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS, LeGrue JS. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and
its use in performance evaluation. Earthq Spectra 2001;17(2):291–312.
[30] SCADA Pro, http://www.scadapro.com, (last accessed December 2015).
[31] Scott BD, Park R, Priestley MJN. Stress–strain behaviour of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI J 1982;79:13–27.
[32] Sherif K, Elgamal A. Modelling of the Humboldt-Bay Bridge. San Luis Obispo, UCSD:
Cal Poly; 2003.
[33] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Lee J, Naganuma T. Statistical analysis of fragility curves.
J Eng Mech 2000;126(12):1224–31.
[34] Shinozuka M, Murachi Y, Dong X, Zhou Y, Orlikowski MJ. Effect of seismic retrofit of
bridges on transportation networks. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2003;2(2):169–79.
[35] Sun J, Tetsuro O, Zhao Y, Wang W. Lateral load pattern in pushover analysis. Earthq
Eng Eng Vib 2003;2(1):99–107.
[36] Tremblay R. Inelastic seismic response of steel bracing members. J Constr Steel Res
2002;58(5–8):665–701.
[37] Wen YK, Ellingwood BR. The role of fragility assessment in consequence-based
engineering. Earthq Spectra 2005;21(3):861–77.
[38] Wong KKF, Harris JL. Seismic damage and fragility analysis of structures with tuned
mass dampers based on plastic energy. Struct Des Tall Special Build 2012;21(4):
296–310.
[39] Zhang Z-M. Achievements and problems of geotechnical engineering investigation
in China. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B A 2011;12(2):87–102.