Applied Sciences: Ffect of Soil-Structure Interaction On The Seismic

applied
sciences
Article
Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction on the Seismic
Response of Existing Low and Mid-Rise RC Buildings
Ibrahim Oz 1, * , Sevket Murat Senel 2, *, Mehmet Palanci 3 and Ali Kalkan 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Kirsehir Ahi Evran University, 40100 Kirsehir, Turkey
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Pamukkale University, 20160 Pamukkale, Turkey; akalkan@pau.edu.tr
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Arel University, 34537 Istanbul, Turkey;
mehmetpalanci@arel.edu.tr
* Correspondence: ibrahim.oz@ahievran.edu.tr (I.O.); smsenel@pau.edu.tr (S.M.S.)

Received: 23 October 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 25 November 2020
Abstract: Reconnaissance studies performed after destructive earthquakes have shown that seismic
performance of existing buildings, especially constructed on weak soils, is significantly low.
This situation implies the negative effects of soil-structure interaction on the seismic performance
of buildings. In order to investigate these effects, 40 existing buildings from Turkey were selected
and nonlinear models were constructed by considering fixed-base and stiff, moderate and soft soil
conditions. Buildings designed before and after Turkish Earthquake code of 1998 were grouped as old
and new buildings, respectively. Different soil conditions classified according to shear wave velocities
were reflected by using substructure method. Inelastic deformation demands were obtained by using
nonlinear time history analysis and 20 real acceleration records selected from major earthquakes were
used. The results have shown that soil-structure interaction, especially in soft soil cases, significantly
affects the seismic response of old buildings. The most significant increase in drift demands occurred
in first stories and the results corresponding to fixed-base, stiff and moderate cases are closer to each
other with respect to soft soil cases. Distribution of results has indicated that effect of soil-structure
interaction on the seismic performance of new buildings is limited with respect to old buildings.
Keywords: soil-structure interaction; nonlinear analysis; direct time history analysis; existing
buildings; seismic performance
1. Introduction
The determination of the seismic performance of existing buildings has gained very much
interest in recent years, and today there are a greater number of specifications and regulations
containing provisions on this issue [1]. The seismic behavior of a building is directly related to the
interaction between the three interconnected systems, which are superstructure, foundation and soil
medium surrounding the foundation system [2]. Advances and experiences in earthquake engineering,
reconnaissance surveys after strong earthquakes and academical studies about soil-structure interaction
(SSI) have shown that old buildings designed by limited knowledge are far from meeting the current
standards and performance objectives of new designs. Although there were studies in literature
suggesting the use of force-based computational approaches for the modeling of SSI [3], the application
of these methods has been very limited, and they have not found significant use in practice [1].
Particularly over the last two decades the widespread use of displacement-based methods,
which include nonlinear calculations such as static pushover analysis, provide to investigate SSI
beyond the elastic limits [3,4]. Realistic estimations of both displacement capacities and seismic drift
demands became possible by using nonlinear analysis methods. The damage observations and detailed
structural analyses have shown that SSI could significantly alter both the capacity and demand-related
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357; doi:10.3390/app10238357 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 2 of 21
structural parameters (e.g., vibration period, drift capacity, etc.) and hence the seismic performance of
buildings [5,6]. All these observations and findings have shown that SSI effects should be considered
necessary for the design and assessment of buildings.
Earlier studies of SSI contained complex arithmetic formulas relating to wave propagation in
several directions [1], and this approach made these studies difficult to comprehend. SSI is not covered
in the undergraduate level and therefore, it is difficult for many engineers to apply these methods in
design phase. While regulations and documents about SSI are available for engineers in countries
such as USA [7], these sources have guided earthquake engineers only to a limited extent. In many
countries, there are still no mandatory code regulations and directions that enforce the engineers to
consider the SSI effects in design and assessment of buildings.
SSI analyses are performed to investigate the effect of various soil conditions on the response
of structures under seismic actions. There are two approaches for the calculation of SSI, namely the
“direct” and “substructure” methods [8]. In the direct method, the structure and soil are modeled
within a single finite element network in which the nonlinearities of the superstructure and the soil are
represented as a whole, and structure and soil are analyzed together. On the other hand, direct method
requires considerable calculation efforts and analysis duration, and therefore, it is not suitable when
assessing a lot of buildings, as in the case of this study. The combined use of nonlinear time history
analysis and direct method makes this situation more complicated. In the “substructure method,”
on the other hand, the soil and the structure are considered as distinct systems. The behavior of the
foundation and soil is represented by dynamic stiffness and damping coefficients and the effect of
interaction between the soil and foundation is transmitted to the structure by means of dashpots and
springs. This method considerably shortens the duration of analysis since the soil is not modeled
directly. It is thus more favorable to use the substructure method in the studies when dealing with
a large number of buildings. In this study, a lot of buildings (40 buildings) were considered and
seismic response of these buildings under various soil conditions was investigated by using nonlinear
time history analyses. Therefore, substructure method is preferred to investigate effect of SSI by
considering the required efforts. Academical studies considering the SSI have increased in the United
States towards the end of the 2000s and some of them were summarized in the FEMA-440 report [3].
In this report, regulations and expressions are presented to explain how SSI can be considered in
nonlinear static analyses. The findings of these studies were also included in US code specifications [4].
However, the expressions in FEMA-440 [3] and the ASCE-2007 [4] regulations are not recommended
for nonlinear time history analyses and therefore this situation required new studies on this subject.
The results of subsequent studies related with the SSI in performance-based earthquake engineering
were summarized in 2012 and the method which can be used in non-linear time history analysis was
proposed [1]. This approach was also used in this study during the analyses of selected building
models and SSI was represented based on the expressions taken from these studies.
There are many other studies addressing the non-building type of structures in the literature.
Gazetas [9] proposed algebraic formulas and tables that could be used to calculate the dynamic
properties of foundations of different shapes. Mylonakis and Gazetas [6] discussed whether SSI effects
could be beneficial for structures. They have compared the seismic behavior of structures calculated
by using traditional methods and by considering SSI effects. The authors showed that an increase
in the natural vibration period may not always lead to a lower spectral acceleration response and
noted that this may result in an unsafe structural assessment. Mylonakis et al. [10] studied the seismic
analysis and design of bridge piers and proposed simple expressions for the calculation of kinematic
effects. Fatahi et al. [11] examined the seismic performance of empirical buildings with SSI and
showed that the seismic performance of buildings varied significantly depending on the soil conditions.
Shehata et al. [5] investigated the variations in SSI effects depending on the use of different demand
calculation methods in multi-story buildings. Their research has shown that seismic performance
evaluations are not within the reliable limits if the effects of SSI are ignored. Increasing number of
academical studies and engineering reports imply that in the next generation codes SSI modeling
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 3 of 21
will necessarily be required and consideration of SSI effects in design will be mandatory. However,
buildings constructed before these findings will still be the weak point of the cities that are prone to
seismic risk.
Turkey is an earthquake-prone country and the majority of existing building stock, which consist of
low and mid-rise reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, were designed without considering SSI. Therefore,
the main purpose of the present study is to investigate the effects of SSI on the seismic response
of existing buildings. For this purpose, 40 RC buildings selected from Turkey were investigated.
TEC-2007 [12] and TBEC-2018 [13] include the regulations which define the seismic performance
assessment of existing buildings. However, both Turkish earthquake codes do not comprise the
definitions or formulations which explain how to model SSI in design and assessment.
In this study, residential RC buildings that constitute three-, four-, five- and six-story buildings
were selected, and they were mainly classified into two groups as “old” and “new” buildings according
to their construction dates [14]. TEC-1998 [15] is accepted as the reference code to distinguish buildings
since this code applied the capacity design principle at the first time and considerably increased the
design forces and limited the displacement demands in terms of drift ratios. This situation significantly
differs the strength and stiffness capacity of existing buildings constructed before and after TEC-1998
in Turkey. Moreover, mandatory building control law, earthquake insurance and improvements in the
workmanship and material qualities after the 1999 Marmara earthquakes increased the safety of newer
buildings with respect to old ones.
Design projects of these new and old buildings (20 new, 20 old) were obtained from the
municipality archives in Denizli city. Moment-curvature analyses were performed for beams and
columns and member damage limits were determined by using the strain-based definitions of Turkish
Earthquake Code. Both 2007 and 2018 codes use the strain base damage assessment and, in both codes,
ultimate concrete compression strain (which is the major parameter that controls damage capacity
of the RC members) is limited to 1.8%. Non-linear building models were obtained by assigning the
plastic hinges to the critical sections of RC members. Capacity curves of inelastic building models were
obtained by using static pushover analyses and drift demands were calculated by using non-linear
time history analyses.
In fact, the aim of this study is not to evaluate or compare the non-linear modeling rules or
assumptions of any codes. The main objective of this study is to investigate and compare the effect of
SSI on the seismic capacity and demand calculations of existing buildings constructed on the various
soil conditions changing from stiff to soft. The main idea is to compare building capacity curves,
inelastic deformation demands, inter-story drift demands and overall seismic response of existing
buildings which have different story numbers, different stiffness and strength capacities, and different
soil conditions.
For this purpose, four different soil conditions were considered. Response of buildings
under fixed-base, stiff, moderate and soft soil cases were investigated. As mentioned previously,
the “Substructure Method” was employed to explore the effects of the SSI. In order to determine
the seismic demand generated by buildings on different soil conditions, 20 acceleration records
selected from major earthquakes were used. Accordingly, 3200 dynamic nonlinear time history
analyses (40 buildings, 4 different soil profiles and 20 acceleration records) were performed for
three-dimensional multi-story buildings models. Additionally, nonlinear static pushover analyses
were carried out to identify the effect of SSI on the capacity curves of selected buildings and the results
were compared.
2. Nonlinear Modeling of Existing Buildings

The majority of existing residential building stock of Turkey is composed of low and mid-rise RC
buildings. Therefore, in this study buildings were selected to reflect this situation and story numbers of
selected existing buildings vary between three and six. In the study, buildings were grouped according
to their story numbers and construction dates and each story group has five buildings. Distribution of
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 4 of 21
the story numbers and construction dates of selected buildings are presented in Table 1. It should be
stated that construction date of buildings has a crucial role since improvements in the workmanship
and material qualities increased the safety of new buildings. In both seismic codes, a force-based design
approach was used. However, capacity design principles were not considered in TEC-1975. One of
the most important differences between the codes is also that TEC-1998 enforced the use of “ultimate
strength design” for the analysis and design of RC cross-sections and this method is essential for the
application of capacity design principles. In TEC-1975, design spectrum was not defined, but lateral
seismic forces were calculated according to earthquake zone coefficient (Co ), seismic weight (W),
structural configuration system type (K), soil condition (S) and importance factor (I). Maximum lateral
force demand was recommended as 10% of seismic weight for the design of structures (Co = 0.1).
In both seismic codes, soil conditions were only considered to calculate corner periods of the spectrum.
Minimum allowable concrete strength was equal or higher than 16 MPa in TEC-1975, but this value
was increased to 20 MPa in TEC-1998. In TEC-1975, S220 steel class which has a yield strength of
220 MPa was allowed, but in TEC-1998, minimum S420 steel which has a yield strength of 420 MPa
was recommended. It can be said that new buildings have a greater stiffness, strength and ductility
capacity with respect to old buildings. By using such kind of classification, it is aimed to investigate
the effect of SSI on the new (98+) and old buildings (98−).
Table 1. Number of old and new existing buildings for which a soil-structure interaction (SSI) model
has been developed.
Number of Stories Old Buildings (98−) New Buildings (98+)

3 5 5
4 5 5
5 5 5
6 5 5
The structural properties of buildings, such as section dimensions, reinforcement details,

material properties, dead and live loads acting on the buildings were determined according to
their design projects. Investigation of RC design projects have revealed that concrete strength of old
buildings is mainly 16 MPa, and design projects of these buildings have shown that S220 steel class
with a yield strength (fy ) of 220 MPa is used for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. It was
also observed that stirrups were not used in the cross-section of members, and transverse reinforcement
spacing of the members was mainly 200 mm and this was even inadequate according TEC-1975 design
rules. Furthermore, design projects of buildings have shown that section dimensions of the columns
were reduced in the upper stories. Buildings designed according to TEC-1998 or higher have identical
steel class (S420) which yield strength is 420 MPa. However, concrete strengths were changed from
project to project. For this reason, concrete strength of new buildings is not identical, and they were
modeled according to their own concrete strengths. It was also observed that confinement details of
code provisions were applied to beam and columns in new buildings. In addition, column dimensions
were not reduced along the building height. In Figure 1 shows some pictures from the design projects
of a sample four-story building and a photo from field investigation is shown.
Strength and deformation capacities of members at critical sections were determined via
moment-curvature analyses. Stress-strain behavior of confined concrete was represented by Modified
Kent-Park model [16]. Since the purpose of the study is concentrated on the capacity and seismic
demand estimation of buildings, intermediate damage limits (Immediate Occupancy and Life Safety)
of structural members were not used. Collapse limits of members were obtained according to the
strain-based damage definition given in Equation (1). In this equation, limits were calculated depending
on the compression strains of confined concrete (εcc ) and tensile strain (εs ) of steel. Compression strain
regarding collapse limit is formulated by the amount of transverse reinforcement. In the equation,
confined concrete strain limits are expressed depending on the ratio of existing (ρs ) to required (ρsm )
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 5 of 21
volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio of members. While performing moment-curvature analyses,

both elongation in steel and compression in concrete were checked and collapse limit was determined
according to whichever came first. In other words, minimum curvature values were determined from
both expressions as indicated in Equation (1). In addition to flexural capacity of beams and columns,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
shear capacity of members was also checked for the possible shear failure of RC members [17]. 5 of 22

(b) (c)
(a)
Figure 1. Field investigations and photos of design projects ((a): Building picture, (b): Plan of building,
Figure 1. Field investigations and photos of design projects ((a): Building picture, (b): Plan of building,
(c): reinforcement details in the RC project).
(c): reinforcement details in the RC project).
Strength and deformation " capacities of members at ! critical ! sections were #determined via
ρs
moment‐curvature φcollapse = min φ@
analyses. εcc = 0.004behavior
Stress‐strain + 0.014 of confined φ@(εs = 0.06
≤ 0.018 ; concrete was ) represented (1)
by
ρsm
Modified Kent‐Park model [16]. Since the purpose of the study is concentrated on the capacity and
seismic demand estimation of buildings, intermediate damage limits (Immediate Occupancy and Life
3. SSI Modeling of Selected Buildings
Safety) of structural members were not used. Collapse limits of members were obtained according to
The effect of damage
the strain‐based SSI is much more significant
definition given in in low-rise (1).
Equation andIn stiffer
this buildings
equation, with respect
limits were tocalculated
high-rise
long period structures [1]. Buildings considered in this study are not high-rise structures, and therefore
depending on the compression strains of confined concrete (εcc) and tensile strain (εs) of steel.
it is expected that SSI would alter the response of examined buildings. The existing Turkish earthquake
Compression strain regarding collapse limit is formulated by the amount of transverse reinforcement.
code regulations do not require engineers to consider SSI effects, whether designing new buildings or
In the equation, confined concrete strain limits are expressed depending on the ratio of existing (ρ s)
determining
to required (ρ the seismic performances of existing buildings. Instead, the regulations mentioned above
sm) volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio of members. While performing moment‐
recommended the “Fixed-Base Approach” for both design and evaluation of buildings. As mentioned
curvature analyses, both elongation in steel and compression in concrete were checked and collapse
before, the primary aim of this paper is to determine SSI effects on the superstructures by considering
limit was determined according to whichever came first. In other words, minimum curvature values
the “Substructure Method.” Details of the substructure method can be found in the literature [8,18].
were determined from both expressions as indicated in Equation (1). In addition to flexural capacity
“Inertial Interactions” and “Kinematic Interactions” are two components, and they should be
of beams and columns, shear capacity of members was also checked for the possible shear failure of
considered in modeling of structures according to substructure method. Inertial interaction refers to the
RC members [17].
displacements and rotations occurring at the foundation level of the superstructure due to shear and
𝜌
moment related  effects. A𝑚𝑖𝑛 @ 𝜀 illustration
schematic 0.004 of 0.014
deformations0.018 ; @degree
for single 𝜀 0.06
of freedom system
(1)
𝜌
(SDOF) caused by the lateral forces is shown in Figure 2. As a result of this interaction, an elongation
of the natural vibration period of the structure is expected. Accordingly, this situation may have a
3. SSI Modeling of Selected Buildings
dramatic effect on the seismic response of the structure. The ratio vibration periods of fixed base to SSI
system for SDOF system can approximately be calculated by Equation (2).
The effect of SSI is much more significant in low‐rise and stiffer buildings with respect to high‐
rise long period structures [1]. Buildings considered in this study are not high‐rise structures, and
s
T0 k kh2
therefore it is expected that SSI would alter the response of examined buildings. The existing Turkish
= 1+ + (2)
T kz k yy
earthquake code regulations do not require engineers to consider SSI effects, whether designing new
buildings or determining the seismic performances of existing buildings. Instead, the regulations
mentioned above recommended the “Fixed‐Base Approach” for both design and evaluation of
buildings. As mentioned before, the primary aim of this paper is to determine SSI effects on the
superstructures by considering the “Substructure Method.” Details of the substructure method can
be found in the literature [8,18].
“Inertial Interactions” and “Kinematic Interactions” are two components, and they should be
and moment related effects. A schematic illustration of deformations for single degree of freedom
system (SDOF) caused by the lateral forces is shown in Figure 2. As a result of this interaction, an
elongation of the natural vibration period of the structure is expected. Accordingly, this situation
may have a dramatic effect on the seismic response of the structure. The ratio vibration periods of
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 6 of 21
fixed base to SSI system for SDOF system can approximately be calculated by Equation (2).
F m F m
m
z

uf
h
x
k y
k
kx
θ
kz kyy
(a) (b)

Figure 2. Typical lateral deformation of single degree of freedom system (SDOF) model according to
Figure 2. Typical lateral deformation of single degree of freedom system (SDOF) model according to
(a) fixed base, (b) SSI system.
(a) fixed base, (b) SSI system.
In Equation (2), T’ denotes the elongated period, k is the stiffness of the structure, kz is the stiffness
of the vertical spring, h is the effective modal 𝑇 height, 𝑘 which𝑘ℎcan2 be taken as two-thirds of the structure
height, and kyy is the stiffness of the rotational 1 (2)
𝑇 spring 𝑘𝑧 𝑘𝑦𝑦 y-axis.
about the
On the other hand, kinematic interaction defines the reduction in free-field ground motions at the
base In
dueEquation (2), T’ denotes
to stiff foundation the elongated
elements located onperiod,
or insidek is
thethe soilstiffness
medium. of The
the structure, kz is the
variation between
stiffness of the vertical spring, h is the effective modal height, which can be taken as two‐thirds of the
free-field and foundation input motion (UFIM ) is expressed by a transfer function representing the
structure height, and k
ratio of foundation to yy is the stiffness of the rotational spring about the y‐axis.
free-field motion. Two components cause these reductions. The first one is
On the other hand, kinematic interaction defines the reduction in free‐field ground motions at
the “Base Slab Averaging” which defines transition of spatially variable ground motions from soil
the base due to stiff foundation elements located on or inside the soil medium. The variation between
medium to foundation due to the stiffness and strength changes caused by the foundation system [1].
free‐field and
The second onefoundation input motion
is the “Embedment (UFIM
Effects” in) is
whichexpressed by a level
foundation transfer function
motions representing
are reduced because the
ratio of foundation to free‐field motion. Two components cause these reductions. The first one is the
of ground motion reduction along the depth of the foundation. In the present study, three different
“Base
soil Slab
types Averaging”
were examined,which namelydefines transition and
stiff, moderate, of spatially variable
soft. It should ground
be noted thatmotions from
soil types are soil
not
medium to foundation due to the stiffness and strength changes caused by the foundation system [1].
classified as A, B or D as described in the majority of seismic codes, they are only used to represent
The second one is the “Embedment Effects” in which foundation level motions are reduced because
different soil characteristics. Mean shear wave velocities (V s30 ) corresponding to these soil types in
of ground motion reduction along the depth of the foundation. In the present study, three different
each direction are given in Table 2 [19,20]. Selected V s30 values are determined according to study of
soil types were examined, namely stiff, moderate, and soft. It should be noted that soil types are not
(Pitilakis et al., 2013). Shear modulus of these soil conditions were calculated by using Equation (3).
this equation, Vs defines the shear wave velocity of soil, G denotes the soil shear modulus, and ρs
classified as A, B or D as described in the majority of seismic codes, they are only used to represent
In
different soil characteristics. Mean shear wave velocities (V
denotes the soil mass density. The mechanical properties suchs30 as) corresponding to these soil types in
mass densities and Poisson’s ratios of
each direction are given in Table 2 [19,20]. Selected V
soils used in this study are given in Table 3. s30 values are determined according to study of
(Pitilakis et al., 2013). Shear modulus of these soil conditions were calculated by using Equation (3).
s
In this equation, Vs defines the shear wave velocity of soil, G denotes the soil shear modulus, and ρ
G s
Vs = (3)
ρs
denotes the soil mass density. The mechanical properties such as mass densities and Poisson’s ratios
of soils used in this study are given in Table 3.
Table 2. Mean shear wave velocities for considered soils types.
Table 2. Mean shear wave velocities for considered soils types.
Shear Wave Velocities (Mean V
Shear Wave Velocities (Mean V s30 ) s30) Stiff
Stiff Moderate
Moderate Soft
Soft
Horizontal displacement (x) (m/s)
Horizontal displacement (x) (m/s) 720720 285
285 180
180
Horizontal displacement (y) (m/s)
Horizontal displacement (y) (m/s) 900900 360
360 224
224
Vertical displacement (z) (m/s)
Vertical displacement (z) (m/s) 720720 285
285 180
180
Rotation about x-axis (xx) (m/s)
Rotation about x‐axis (xx) (m/s) 1020
1020 405
405 255
255
Rotation about y-axis (yy) (m/s) 1080 430 270
Rotation about y‐axis (yy) (m/s) 1080 430 270
Torsion about z-axis (zz) (m/s) 1020 405 255
Torsion about z‐axis (zz) (m/s) 1020 405 255
densities (ρs ) and Poisson’s ratio of soil types.
Table 3. Mass
Stiff Moderate Soft

Mass density (ρs )
22 20 18
(KN/m3 )
Poisson’s ratio (γ) 0.25 0.33 0.42
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 7 of 21
Modeling of buildings according to the substructure method is essentially performed in two parts.
In the first part, the motion of the massless foundation system is calculated without the presence
of the superstructure. The second part consists of the application of motion to the structure where
soil properties are simulated by a group of equivalent springs and dashpots [21,22]. Equivalent soil
properties of the foundation-soil interface are represented with springs and dashpots. The stiffness
and damping of these springs and dashpots were calculated according to equations proposed by Pais
and Kaussel [18]. In the present study, stiffer springs (k2 , k3 , k4 ), which were calculated as a function
of interior springs (kz i ) and the stiffness intensity modifiers (Rk,xx –Rk,yy ) along the foundation edges
(Re L and Re B), are used to prevent the underestimation of rotational stiffness (Figure 3). Consequently,
the total stiffness of the foundation was determined. The symbols “L” and “B” represent the dimension
of the foundation system and they are taken as half of the actual dimensions. Re is the foundation
end length ratio which can be taken between 0.3 and 0.5. Damping intensities of dashpots (Figure 3,
cz i ) along the foundation edges were reduced by a damping intensity modifier (Rc,xx –Rc,yy ) to not
overestimate the foundation rotational damping (c2 , c3 , c4 ). A schematic illustration of link and dashpot
assignments to the foundation-soil interface is shown in Figure 3
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

Figure 3.3. Calculation
Figure Calculation and
and representation
representation ofof stiffness
stiffness and
and damping
damping expressions
expressions for
for the
the foundation
foundation
springs added to the foundation systems.
springs added to the foundation systems.
Foundation systems of the selected buildings have shallow foundation, and the foundation
Foundation systems of the selected buildings have shallow foundation, and the foundation
dimensions were determined according to design projects of the buildings. Both of the base slab
dimensions were determined according to design projects of the buildings. Both of the base slab
averaging and the embedment effects were taken into account by considering soil shear wave velocities,
averaging and the embedment effects were taken into account by considering soil shear wave
embedment depth of the foundation, and the natural vibration frequencies of structures. The results
velocities, embedment depth of the foundation, and the natural vibration frequencies of structures.
The results indicated that the ground motion reductions (Hu) caused by these effects can be neglected
for selected buildings since they can be considered as low‐ and mid‐rise buildings and they have no
basement. The values calculated for the embedment effects (ωD/Vs) for all of buildings are lower than
0.006 (Figure 4, left). As a result, the calculated ground motion reduction factors (Hu) are very close
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 8 of 21
indicated that the ground motion reductions (Hu ) caused by these effects can be neglected for
selected buildings since they can be considered as low- and mid-rise buildings and they have no
basement. The values calculated for the embedment effects (ωD/Vs ) for all of buildings are lower than
0.006 (Figure 4, left). As a result, the calculated ground motion reduction factors (Hu ) are very close to
1 which means that a significant reduction is not needed. A similar situation is also valid for the base
slab averaging effects (Figure 4, right). Consequently, obtained results indicate that selected ground
motions can directly be used for the nonlinear time history analysis of buildings according to both
cases (Figure 4).
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
Hu = uFIM/ug
0.6 0.6
Hu= uFIM/ug
0.4 0.4
Vapp/Vs=10
0.2 Translation 0.2
0.0 0.0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 4 8 12
ωD/Vs a0k= ω (BeA)/Vs

Figure 4. Ground motion reduction factors: (left) embedment effects, (right) base slab averaging
Figure 2012).
(NIST, 4. Ground motion reduction factors: (left) embedment effects, (right) base slab averaging
(NIST, 2012).
4. Effect of SSI on the Capacity and Demand Response of Existing Buildings
4. Effect of SSI on the Capacity and Demand Response of Existing Buildings
In this section, capacity-related parameters such as structural period, yield and ultimate (collapse)
displacement capacitycapacity‐related
In this section, of members and parameters
displacementsuch
demands of buildings
as structural are evaluated.
period, yield and ultimate
(collapse) displacement capacity of members and displacement demands of buildings are evaluated.
4.1. Effect of SSI on the Capacity Curves
4.1. Effect of SSI on the Capacity Curves
All building models were analyzed to determine the capacity curves of buildings according to
fixed-based assumption and SSI, and total of 160 (40 buildings × 4 different SSI modeling) analyses were
All building models were analyzed to determine the capacity curves of buildings according to
conducted via static pushover analysis. In this paper especially, the “Collapse Prevention” and “Yield”
fixed‐based assumption and SSI, and total of 160 (40 buildings × 4 different SSI modeling) analyses
limit states are investigated since one of the purposes of the current study is to determine whether
were conducted via static pushover analysis. In this paper especially, the “Collapse Prevention” and
consideration of SSI alters the capacity curves of the buildings.
“Yield” limit states are investigated since one of the purposes of the current study is to determine
Collapse prevention damage limits of buildings are determined by checking damage states of
whether consideration of SSI alters the capacity curves of the buildings.
columns, beams and the story shear forces. To define building collapse prevention limit, it is assumed
Collapse prevention damage limits of buildings are determined by checking damage states of
that at least 80% of beams in any story should not exceed the member collapse limit. The collapse of
columns, beams and the story shear forces. To define building collapse prevention limit, it is assumed
any column is accepted as the collapse prevention limit of the buildings. Shear force carried by the
that at least 80% of beams in any story should not exceed the member collapse limit. The collapse of
columns beyond the yield limit at both ends were checked and the contribution of these columns to the
any column is accepted as the collapse prevention limit of the buildings. Shear force carried by the
total shear capacity of each story was limited to 30%. Collapse prevention damage limit is determined
columns beyond the yield limit at both ends were checked and the contribution of these columns to
according to eachcapacity
the total shear rule andof building damage
each story was limit is attained
limited byCollapse
to 30%. whichever gives the lowest
prevention damage drift ratio.
limit is
After the
determined determination
according to each ofrule
capacity curves via
and building static pushover
damage analysis,
limit is attained by authors investigated
whichever gives the
whether capacity-related parameters were altered or not when the SSI was considered. Vibration periods
lowest drift ratio.
(T), ductility capacities
After the (µ) and of
determination proportion
capacity of drift ratios
curves corresponding
via static to yield, and
pushover analysis, ultimate
authors damage
investigated
levels
whether arecapacity‐related
used to evaluateparameters
and compare were thealtered
effect of
or SSI
not on building
when capacity
the SSI curves. InVibration
was considered. order to
explain the details of the applied procedure, BO20SN6 was selected among the considered
periods (T), ductility capacities () and proportion of drift ratios corresponding to yield, and ultimate buildings.
The first two letters of the building name refer to the design code of the building, and “BO” and “BN”
damage levels are used to evaluate and compare the effect of SSI on building capacity curves. In order
are used to represent
to explain oldof (98−)
the details and newprocedure,
the applied buildings (98+), respectively.
BO20SN6 The numbers
was selected among following these
the considered
letters indicate the order of the building in the inventory. “SN6” refers to the story
buildings. The first two letters of the building name refer to the design code of the building, and “BO” number of the
building.
and “BN” Inare
Figure
used 5, to
capacity curve,
represent old yield
(98−) and
and ultimate damage limits
new buildings (98+), of the BO20SN6
respectively. arenumbers
The plotted
according to each of the soil classes considered.
following these letters indicate the order of the building in the inventory. “SN6” refers to the story
number of the building. In Figure 5, capacity curve, yield and ultimate damage limits of the BO20SN6
are plotted according to each of the soil classes considered.
It can be seen from the figure that yield and ultimate damage levels of the building are shifted
left to right from stiff to soft soil types. A similar situation can also be observed for the initial part of
the capacity curve. This situation clearly explains the period elongations from stiff to soft soil profiles.
It should be stated that similar results were observed for all buildings in the inventory.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357
10 of 22
50% 50%
Collapse
Prevention
40% 40%
BO20SN6 Yield BN19SN6
30% Collapse 30% Fixed
Fixed
Vt/W
Vt/W
Prevention
Stiff Stiff
20% Yield 20%
Moderate
Moderate
10%
10% Soft
Soft
0%
0%
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50%
/H /H

Figure 5. Capacity curves and damage limits of selected old and new buildings.
Figure 5. Capacity curves and damage limits of selected old and new buildings.
It can be seen from the figure that yield and ultimate damage levels of the building are shifted left
In Figure 5, capacity curves of BO20SN6 and BN19SN6 buildings corresponding to different soil
to right from stiff to soft soil types. A similar situation can also be observed for the initial part of the
conditions are presented. Significant differences between the strength and deformation capacities of
capacity curve. This situation clearly explains the period elongations from stiff to soft soil profiles.
selected buildings clearly shows the effect of changing code regulations on the old (98−) and new
It should be stated that similar results were observed for all buildings in the inventory.
(98+) Inbuildings.
Figure 5, Figure
capacity 5 curves
clearly ofindicates
BO20SN6 that
and curves
BN19SN6 of fixed‐base
buildingsand stiff soil cases
corresponding are almost
to different soil
identical and capacity curve of moderate soil case is closer to them
conditions are presented. Significant differences between the strength and deformation capacities with respect to the soft soil
of
condition. Variation of capacity curves imply that the main difference occurs in the elastic slope of
selected buildings clearly shows the effect of changing code regulations on the old (98−) and new
the building and drift ratios corresponding to yield and collapse limits are significantly affected from
(98+) buildings. Figure 5 clearly indicates that curves of fixed-base and stiff soil cases are almost
SSI in the soft soil case. This figure also indicates that plastic drift capacities of the BO20SN6 building
identical and capacity curve of moderate soil case is closer to them with respect to the soft soil
are almost
condition. unchanged and
Variation of capacity the movement
curves imply of plastic
that thedeformation capacity,
main difference which
occurs in is
thecaused
elasticby the
slope
inertial interaction between structure and soil, can be explained by shifting
of the building and drift ratios corresponding to yield and collapse limits are significantly affected instead of increasing.
Previous
from SSI studies
in the soft have
soilalso
case.indicated this also
This figure inertial interaction,
indicates and hence
that plastic elongation
drift capacities ofof
thethe natural
BO20SN6
vibration period of the buildings [23].
building are almost unchanged and the movement of plastic deformation capacity, which is caused by
The studies of Velestos and Nair [24] and Bielak [25] investigated the dimensionless parameters
the inertial interaction between structure and soil, can be explained by shifting instead of increasing.
that control
Previous studies the vibration
have also period of the
indicated systems
this inertial in interaction,
SSI, and they andshowed that the most
hence elongation important
of the natural
parameter is (h/V sT), which is known as the structure to soil stiffness ratio. For typical reinforced
vibration period of the buildings [23].
concrete frame buildings on stiff soil, this ratio is usually less than 0.1 [23]. As this ratio increases, the
The studies of Velestos and Nair [24] and Bielak [25] investigated the dimensionless parameters
elongation
that controlof the the natural vibration
vibration period of period also increases.
the systems in SSI, and For this showed
they reason, that
elongation
the most of important
vibration
period resulting from inertial interaction should be taken into consideration
parameter is (h/Vs T), which is known as the structure to soil stiffness ratio. For typical reinforced when assessing the
seismic
concretebehavior of structures
frame buildings since
on stiff soil,the
thisvibration period of
ratio is usually lessthe building
than affects
0.1 [23]. the ratio
As this displacement
increases,
demand.
the elongation of the natural vibration period also increases. For this reason, elongation of vibration
period The natural period of the buildings in the inventory are determined for each soil type and story
resulting from inertial interaction should be taken into consideration when assessing the seismic
groups
behaviorfrom the analyses,
of structures since and mean period
the vibration periodvalues
of the of fixed‐base
building and
affects theelongated
displacement periods
demand.due to
different soil classes are shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 also shows that vibration periods increase with
The natural period of the buildings in the inventory are determined for each soil type and story
increasing story numbers as expected. This situation is valid for all soil types. Comparison of values
groups from the analyses, and mean period values of fixed-base and elongated periods due to different
in Figures 6 and 7 have shown that the elongation of the vibration period is much more significant in
soil classes are shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 also shows that vibration periods increase with increasing
the soft soil case and this behavior is identical both in new (98+) and old (98−) buildings (Figure 7).
story numbers as expected. This situation is valid for all soil types. Comparison of values in Figures 6
and 7 have shown that the elongation of the vibration period is much more significant in the soft soil
case and this behavior is identical both in new (98+) and old3(98−) 4 buildings
5 6 (Figure 7).
In addition to vibration 1.2 periods, elongation of displacement capacities corresponding to yield

1.02
0.96
0.88
and collapse limits (as shown 1.0 in Figure 5) were also investigated for all buildings and soil conditions.
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.74
0.73
0.72
0.8 of the vibration periods (T /T) and change in the yield drift ratios
Relation between elongation 0
0.62
0.58
0.58
0.57
T (sec)
(∆y 0 /∆y ) depending on the SSI are illustrated in Figure 8. In this figure, T0 and ∆y 0 notations represent
0.48
0.43
0.6
0.42
the vibration periods and yield displacements of stiff, moderate and soft soil cases, respectively.
0.4
T and ∆y notations, on the other hand, correspond to fixed-base case. Strong correlation between
0.2
(T0 /T) and (∆y 0 /∆y ) values explains the effect of SSI on the capacity (yield displacement) and demand
0.0
(period)-related structural parameters Fixed of the buildings.
Stiff Moderate Soft
Soil Class
Figure 6. Distribution of mean vibration periods according to story numbers and soil types.
The natural period of the buildings in the inventory are determined for each soil type and story
groups from the analyses, and mean period values of fixed‐base and elongated periods due to
different soil classes are shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 also shows that vibration periods increase with
increasing story numbers as expected. This situation is valid for all soil types. Comparison of values
in Figures 6 and 7 have shown that the elongation of the vibration period is much more significant in
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 10 of 21
the soft soil case and this behavior is identical both in new (98+) and old (98−) buildings (Figure 7).
3 4 5 6
1.2 11 of 22
1.02
0.96
0.88
1.0
0.82
0.81
0.80
0.74
0.73
0.72
1.4 98+ 0.8 1.4
0.62
98-
0.58
0.58
0.57
Fixed
T (sec)
1.2 1.2
0.48
0.43
0.6
0.42
Fixed
1 1 Stiff
0.4
T (sec)
T (sec)
0.8 Stiff 0.8

0.2 Moderate
0.6 Moderate 0.6
0.4 0.0 0.4 Soft
Fixed Soft Stiff Moderate Soft
0.2 0.2
3 St 4 St 5 St 6 St Soil Class 3 St 6 St
0 0
4 St 5 St
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 11 of 22
Figure 6. Distribution of mean vibration periods according to story numbers
Building Number
and soil types.
Building Number
Figure 6. Distribution of mean vibration periods according to story numbers and soil types.

1.4 98+ 1.4
98-
Figure 7. Distribution of vibration periods for all models according to story numbers and soil types.
Fixed
1.2 1.2
Fixed
1 1 Stiff
In addition to vibration periods, elongation of displacement capacities corresponding to yield
T (sec)
T (sec)
0.8 Stiff 0.8

and collapse limits (as shown in Figure 5) were also investigated for all buildings and soil conditions. Moderate
0.6 Moderate 0.6
Relation between elongation of the vibration periods (T′/T) and change in the yield drift ratios (
0.4 0.4 Softy′/y)
Soft
depending
0.2 on the SSI are 5 illustrated 0.2 figure, T′ and y′ notations represent the
in Figure 8. In this
3 St 4 St St 6 St 3 St 6 St
0 0
4 St 5 St
vibration periods and yield displacements of stiff, moderate and soft soil cases, respectively. T and
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
y notations, on the other hand, correspond to fixed‐base case. Strong correlation between (T′/T) and
Building Number Building Number

(y′/y) values explains the effect of SSI on the capacity (yield displacement) and demand (period)‐
related structural parameters of the buildings.
In addition to vibration periods, elongation of displacement capacities corresponding to yield
2.6
R² = 0.88
and collapse limits (as shown in Figure 5) were also investigated for all buildings and soil conditions.
2.2
Relation between elongation of the vibration periods (T′/T) and change in the yield drift ratios ( y′/y)
depending on the SSI are illustrated in Figure 8. In this figure, T′ and y′ notations represent the
1.8
vibration periods and yield displacements of stiff, moderate and soft soil cases, respectively. T and
y notations, on the other hand, correspond to fixed‐base case. Strong correlation between (T′/T) and
y'/y
1.4
(y′/y) values explains the effect of SSI on the capacity (yield displacement) and demand (period)‐
related structural parameters of the buildings.
1.0
2.6
0.6 R² = 0.88
2.2
0.2
0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
1.8 T'/T
y'/y
1.48. Correlation of shifted yield points and elongated vibration periods.

Figure
Figure 8. Correlation of shifted yield points and elongated vibration periods.
The effect of SSI

1.0on the plastic deformation capacity of buildings is also investigated. For this
The effect of SSI on the plastic deformation capacity of buildings is also investigated. For this
purpose,
purpose, plastic drift capacities
plastic drift capacities corresponding
corresponding to to stiff,
stiff, moderate and soft soft
moderate and (∆p 0 ) were
casescases ( divided into
p′) were divided
the ratios of fixed-base
0.6 case (∆
into the ratios of fixed‐base case (p ) and distribution of results is presented in Figure 9. Variation
p) and distribution of results is presented in Figure 9. Variation of of ∆p 0 /∆p
values indicates
p′/p values that effects
indicates of effects
that SSI on theof plastic
SSI on deformation
the plastic capacity of buildings
deformation are of
capacity insignificant
buildings andare
there is no 0.2between plastic deformation capacities and period elongations (T0 /T) due to SSI.
correlation
insignificant and there is no correlation between plastic deformation capacities and period
0.80
Effect of this situation can1.00 1.20
also be examined 1.40 the ductility
from 1.60 1.80
capacities of buildings.
elongations (T′/T) due to SSI.
T'/T
Increasing yield displacements and similar plastic drift capacities requires to decrease ductility
capacities of buildings. This disadvantage related with the SSI was also reported
Figure 8. Correlation of shifted yield points and elongated vibration periods. by Shakib and
Homei [26]. In order to investigate the extent of this problem, changes in the ductility ratios depending
on the (T0 /T) values are presented in Figure 10. Figure 10 clearly shows the considerable decrease in
The effect of SSI on the plastic deformation capacity of buildings is also investigated. For this
building ductility
purpose, capacities
plastic drift (µ0 /µ)
capacities due to effect of
corresponding moderate and soft cases (p′) were divided
SSI [21,22,26].
to stiff,
into the ratios of fixed‐base case (p) and distribution of results is presented in Figure 9. Variation of
p′/p values indicates that effects of SSI on the plastic deformation capacity of buildings are
insignificant and there is no correlation between plastic deformation capacities and period
elongations (T′/T) due to SSI.
1.4 R² = 0.05
1.2
1.0
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 0.8 11 of 21
p'/p
0.6
0.4
1.4 R² = 0.05
0.2
1.2
0.0
1.0
0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
0.8
p'/p T'/T
0.6
Figure 9. Correlation of shifted plastic limits and elongated vibration periods.
0.4
0.2
Effect of this situation can also be examined from the ductility capacities of buildings. Increasing
yield displacements 0.0and similar plastic drift capacities requires to decrease ductility capacities of
0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
buildings. This disadvantage related with the SSI was also reported by Shakib and Homei [26]. In
T'/T
order to investigate the extent of this problem, changes in the ductility ratios depending on the (T′/T)

values are presented in Figure 10. Figure 10 clearly shows the considerable decrease in building
ductility capacities (μ′/μ) due to effect of SSI [21,22,26].
Effect of this situation can also be examined from the ductility capacities of buildings. Increasing
1.2
R² = 0.74
yield displacements and similar plastic drift capacities requires to decrease ductility capacities of
buildings. This disadvantage related with the SSI was also reported by Shakib and Homei [26]. In
1.0
order to investigate the extent of this problem, changes in the ductility ratios depending on the (T′/T)
values are presented 0.8in Figure 10. Figure 10 clearly shows the considerable decrease in building
ductility capacities (μ′/μ) due to effect of SSI [21,22,26].
'/
0.6
1.2
0.4 R² = 0.74
1.0
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.60.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
'/
T'/T
0.4
Figure 10. Decrease in structure ductility capacities with SSI effects.
4.2. Effect of SSI on the0.2Displacement Response of Existing Buildings
4.2. Effect of SSI on the Displacement Response of Existing Buildings
To investigate the effect of SSI on the displacement response of buildings, nonlinear dynamic
0.0
analyses were performed. For this purpose, 20 real strong ground motions were selected [27].
0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
analyses were performed. For this purpose, 20 real strong ground motions were selected [27]. Some
Some attributes of selected records are given in Table T'/T4. Response spectrum of selected records and
attributes of selected records are given in Table 4. Response spectrum of selected records and their
their mean is drawn in Figure 11. The maximum spectral acceleration of the mean spectrum is around
mean is drawn in Figure 11. The maximum spectral acceleration of the mean spectrum is around 1.14
1.14 g and elastic spectral accelerations are higher than 1 g between the periods of 0.2 s to 0.6 s.
g and elastic spectral accelerations are higher than 1 g between the periods of 0.2 s to 0.6 s.
Effect of SSI on the displacement response of existing buildings was investigated by two different
4.2. Effect of SSI on the Displacement Response of Existing Buildings
earthquake demand parameters (EDPs): roof and inter-story drift ratios. Roof displacement is one of
Table 4. General properties of selected real earthquake records.
the most widely used parameters and it has wide applicability, especially for determining the seismic
performance of structures. However, seismic performance of buildings is determined Vmax/Aaccording
analyses were performed. For this purpose, 20 real strong ground motions were selected [27]. Some max to
Name of Acceleration Depth (km) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)
different seismic intensity or earthquake levels. Different earthquake levels can be
attributes of selected records are given in Table 4. Response spectrum of selected records and their (s)
recommended
for CAP‐RIO270 levels according
different performance 18.50 to building
0.39 40.58
importance in 47.44
the modern0.11
mean is drawn in Figure 11. The maximum spectral acceleration of the mean spectrum is around 1.14 seismic codes.
Earthquake CHI‐TCU74N
levels, on the other hand, 13.67 0.35 according
are described 39.54 to different
49.12 exceeding
g and elastic spectral accelerations are higher than 1 g between the periods of 0.2 s to 0.6 s. 0.12 probability
CHI‐TCU95W
levels. Considering 43.44
this situation, roof 0.38 ratios
drift demand 59.39
of existing80.09
buildings are0.16
investigated
COA‐PLE045
in a probabilistic manner. For this 8.50 0.59
purpose, cumulative 59.38
exceedance 14.36
probability
Table 4. General properties of selected real earthquake records. 0.10
of drift ratios is
calculated from the displacement demands of buildings which are subjected to 20 real earthquake
Vmax/Amax
records. InName of Acceleration Depth (km)
order to generalize obtained results,PGA (g)
cumulative PGV (cm/s)
exceedingPGD (cm)
probabilities are provided for
(s)
different building groups (new and old), story numbers and soil type which are modeled according to
CAP‐RIO270 18.50 0.39 40.58 47.44 0.11
the substructure method.
CHI‐TCU74N 13.67 0.35 39.54 49.12 0.12
CHI‐TCU95W 43.44 0.38 59.39 80.09 0.16
COA‐PLE045 8.50 0.59 59.38 14.36 0.10
LOM‐BRN090 10.30 0.50 43.79 13.03 0.09
LOM‐CYC285 21.80 0.48 43.91 81.28 0.09
LOM‐G03090 14.40 0.37 43.08 25.31 0.12
LOM‐SAR000 13.00 0.51 41.26 16.42 0.08
NOR‐CNP196
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 15.80 0.42 57.01 67.59 0.14 12 of 21
NOR‐LOS000 13.00 0.41 44.84 20.16 0.11
NOR‐LOS270 13.00 0.48 44.52 15.25 0.09
Table 4. General properties of selected real earthquake records.
NOR‐MU2035 20.80 0.62 41.93 16.57 0.07
NameNOR‐MUL009
of 19.60 0.42 55.74 55.98 0.14
Depth (km) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm) Vmax /Amax (s)
Acceleration
NOR‐ORR090 22.60 0.57 53.72 37.60 0.10
NOR‐ORR360 18.50
CAP-RIO270 22.60 0.39 0.51 40.58 51.32 47.44 31.36 0.10
0.11
CHI-TCU74N
NOR‐SAT180 13.67 13.30 0.35 0.48 39.54 65.88 49.12102.17 0.12
0.14
CHI-TCU95W 43.44 0.38 59.39 80.09 0.16
NPAL‐NPS210 8.20 0.59 72.12 13.45 0.12
COA-PLE045 8.50 0.59 59.38 14.36 0.10
KOC-DZC270 12.70 0.36 61.02 252.44 0.17
Effect of SSI on the displacement
LAN-CLVTR 21.20 response of 41.40
0.42 existing buildings
22.07 was investigated
0.10 by two
different earthquake demand parameters (EDPs): roof and inter‐story drift ratios. Roof displacement
LOM-BRN000 10.30 0.45 50.43 16.20 0.11
LOM-BRN090 10.30 0.50 43.79 13.03 0.09
is one of the most widely used parameters and it has wide applicability, especially for determining
LOM-CYC285 21.80 0.48 43.91 81.28 0.09
the seismic performance of structures. However, seismic performance of buildings is determined
LOM-G03090 14.40 0.37 43.08 25.31 0.12
according to different seismic
LOM-SAR000 13.00intensity 0.51
or earthquake levels. Different
41.26 16.42 earthquake 0.08levels can be
recommended for different 15.80
NOR-CNP196 performance 0.42
levels according
57.01 to building
67.59 importance in the modern
0.14
seismic codes. Earthquake levels, on the other hand, are described according to different exceeding
NOR-LOS000 13.00 0.41 44.84 20.16 0.11
NOR-LOS270
probability 13.00 this situation,
levels. Considering 0.48 roof drift
44.52demand 15.25 0.09buildings are
ratios of existing
NOR-MU2035 20.80 0.62 41.93 16.57 0.07
investigated in a probabilistic manner. For this purpose, cumulative exceedance probability of drift
NOR-MUL009 19.60 0.42 55.74 55.98 0.14
ratios is NOR-ORR090
calculated from the
22.60displacement
0.57demands 53.72
of buildings 37.60
which are subjected
0.10 to 20 real
earthquake records. In order to generalize obtained results, cumulative exceeding probabilities are
NOR-ORR360 22.60 0.51 51.32 31.36 0.10
provided NOR-SAT180 13.30 groups 0.48
for different building 65.88story numbers
(new and old), 102.17 and soil 0.14
type which are
NPAL-NPS210 8.20
modeled according to the substructure method. 0.59 72.12 13.45 0.12
2.5 CAP-RIO270 CHI-TCU74N

CHI-TCU95W COA-PLE045
KOC-DZC270 LAN-CLVTR
2.0
LOM-BRN000 LOM-BRN090
LOM-CYC285 LOM-G03090
1.5 LOM-SAR000 NOR-CNP196
Sa (g)
NOR-LOS000 NOR-LOS270
NOR-MU2035 NOR-MUL009
1.0 NOR-ORR090 NOR-ORR360
NOR-SAT180 NPAL-NPS210
Mean
0.5
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
T (sn)
Figure 11. Response spectrum of selected real ground motion records used in this study.
Figure 11. Response spectrum of selected real ground motion records used in this study.
In
In order
order to
to determine
determine cumulative
cumulative probability
probability of
of exceedance
exceedance curves,
curves, maximum
maximum displacement
displacement
demands of each building at roof level were determined and these demands were collected
demands of each building at roof level were determined and these demands were collected in the in the data
pool. In each data pool 100 drift ratios (5 buildings × 20 acceleration records) corresponding
data pool. In each data pool 100 drift ratios (5 buildings × 20 acceleration records) corresponding to to each
story group of new and old buildings were obtained and then they were ranked from
each story group of new and old buildings were obtained and then they were ranked from minimum minimum to
maximum.
to maximum. Minimum and maximum
Minimum values in
and maximum the data
values in pool
the represent therepresent
data pool drift ratiosthe
corresponding
drift ratios
probability of exceeding 100% and 0%, respectively. In order to compare the drift demands between
the fixed-base and SSI approaches, different exceedance probability levels were also considered.
For this purpose, drift ratios corresponding to probability of exceeding 50% and 10% levels were used.
Cumulative exceedance probabilities of three- to six-story buildings are plotted in Figures 12–15. It can
be seen from the figures that roof drift probabilities of the fixed-base approach and stiff soil conditions
are very similar, and they are mostly overlapped. Drift demands of moderate soil condition are closer
to fixed-base and stiff soil cases with respect to soft soil condition. These figures clearly show that roof
corresponding probability of exceeding 100% and 0%, respectively. In order to compare the drift
also considered. For this purpose, drift ratios corresponding to probability of exceeding 50% and 10%
demands between the fixed‐base and SSI approaches, different exceedance probability levels were
levels were used. Cumulative exceedance probabilities of three‐ to six‐story buildings are plotted in
also considered. For this purpose, drift ratios corresponding to probability of exceeding 50% and 10%
Figures 12–15. It can be seen from the figures that roof drift probabilities of the fixed‐base approach
levels were used. Cumulative exceedance probabilities of three‐ to six‐story buildings are plotted in
and stiff soil conditions are very similar, and they are mostly overlapped. Drift demands of moderate
Figures 12–15. It can be seen from the figures that roof drift probabilities of the fixed‐base approach
soil Sci.
Appl. condition are closer to fixed‐base and stiff soil cases with respect to soft soil condition. 13These
2020, 10, 8357 of 21
and stiff soil conditions are very similar, and they are mostly overlapped. Drift demands of moderate
figures clearly show that roof demands gradually increase due to SSI, and the most significant effect
soil condition are closer to fixed‐base and stiff soil cases with respect to soft soil condition. These
of SSI is observed on soft soil case in all story groups of new and old buildings.
figures clearly show that roof demands gradually increase due to SSI, and the most significant effect
demands gradually increase due to SSI, and the most significant effect of SSI is observed on soft soil
of SSI is observed on soft soil case in all story groups of new and old buildings.
case in all story groups of new and old buildings.
100% 100%
90% 90%
100%
100%
80% 80%
90%
90%
70% 70%
80%
80%
98+ 98-
60%
Probability
60% 70%
Probability
70%
98+ 50% 98-
50% 60%
Probability
60%
Probability
40% 40%
50%
50%
30% Fixed
30%
40%
40% Fixed
20% Stiff 20%
30% Stiff
30% Fixed Fixed
Moderate Moderate
10% Stiff 10%
20% Stiff
20% Soft Soft
Moderate 0% Moderate
0%
10% 10%
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5%
Soft
2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% Soft
2.0%
0% 0%
/H /H
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
/H /H

Figure 12. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the three‐story buildings.
Figure 12. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the three-story buildings.
Figure 12. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the three‐story buildings.
100% 100%
90%
100% 90%
100%
80%
90% 80%
90%
70%
80% 70%
80%
98+ 98-
60% 60%
Probability
Probability
70% 70%
50% 98+ 50% 98-
60% 60%
Probability
Probability
40%
50% 40%
50%
30%
40% 30%
40% Fixed
Fixed
20%
30% Stiff 20%
30% Stiff
Moderate
Fixed Fixed
Moderate
10%
20% Soft
Stiff 10%
20% Stiff
Soft
Moderate Moderate
0%
10% 0%
10%
Soft
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% Soft2.0%
0% 0%
/H /H
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
/H
Figure 13. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the four-story /H
buildings.
Figure 13. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the four‐story buildings.

Figure 13. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the four‐story buildings.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 1415 of 22
of 21
100% 100%
100% 100%
90% 90%
90% 90%
80% 80%
80% 80%
70% 70%
70% 98+ 70% 98-
60% 60%
Probability
Probability
60% 98+ 60% 98-
Probability
Probability
50% 50%
50% 50%
40% 40%
40% 40%
30% 30%
Fixed Fixed
30% 30% Stiff
20% Stiff
Fixed 20% Fixed
20% Moderate
Stiff 20% Moderate
Stiff
10% 10% Soft
Soft
Moderate Moderate
10% 10%
0% Soft 0% Soft
0%0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0%0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
0.0% 0.5% 1.0%
/H 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%
/H 1.5% 2.0%
/H /H

Figure 14. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the five‐story buildings.
Figure 14. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the five-story buildings.
Figure 14. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the five‐story buildings.
100% 100%
100% 100%
90% 90%
90% 90%
80% 80%
80% 80%
70% 70%
70% 98+ 70% 98-
60% 60%
Probability
Probability
98+ 98-
60% 60%
Probability
Probability
50% 50%
50% 50%
40% 40%
40% 40%
30% Fixed 30% Fixed
30% Stiff
Fixed 30% Stiff
20% 20% Fixed
20% Moderate
Stiff 20% Moderate
Stiff
10% 10% Soft
Soft
Moderate Moderate
10% 10%
0% Soft 0% Soft
0%0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0%0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%
/H 1.5% 2.0%
/H
/H /H
Figure
15. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the six-story buildings.
Figure 15. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the six‐story buildings.
Figure 15. Cumulative exceedance probability curves of the six‐story buildings.
Distribution of results also shows that probabilistic roof displacement demands in old buildings
(98−) are greater than new ones (98+), as expected. On the other hand, differences among the roof
demand curves of especially in five- and six-story buildings are relatively low with respect to other
demand curves of especially in five‐ and six‐story buildings are relatively low with respect to other
ones. In other words,
ones. In other the the
words, effect of SSIof
effect is SSI
much is more
much pronounced in low-rise
more pronounced in buildings having relatively
demand curves of especially in five‐ and six‐story buildings are relatively low with respect to other
low‐rise buildings having
higher
ones. stiffness
In other capacities and
words, the strength
effect ratios.
of SSI Thismore
is much situation is muchin
pronounced more evident
low‐rise in three-
buildings
relatively higher stiffness capacities and strength ratios. This situation is much more evident in three‐ and
having
four-story new buildings (98+). All these investigations have shown that relative effect of SSI
relatively higher stiffness capacities and strength ratios. This situation is much more evident in three‐ especially
and four‐story new buildings (98+). All these investigations have shown that relative effect of SSI
inand four‐story
soft soil case isnew
much more significant
buildings (98+). inthese investigations
All stiffer and stronger buildings.
have shown that relative effect of SSI
especially in soft soil case is much more significant in stiffer and stronger buildings.
Numerical evaluations of results have indicated that probabilistic roof drift ratios calculated for
especially in soft soil case is much more significant in stiffer and stronger buildings.
soft soil case can be 1.3 to 1.7 times greater than that of fixed-base case in three-story new buildings.
soft soil case can be 1.3 to 1.7 times greater than that of fixed‐base case in three‐story new buildings.
However, these ratios decrease to 1.2 to 1.3 in three-story old buildings depending on the probability
soft soil case can be 1.3 to 1.7 times greater than that of fixed‐base case in three‐story new buildings.
However, these ratios decrease to 1.2 to 1.3 in three‐story old buildings depending on the probability
ofHowever, these ratios decrease to 1.2 to 1.3 in three‐story old buildings depending on the probability
exceeding levels (50%, 10% and maximum (0%)). The same ratios in six-story old buildings range
of exceeding levels (50%, 10% and maximum (0%)). The same ratios in six‐story old buildings range
from 1.05 to 1.2. These numerical comparisons indicate that the relative effect of SSI is much more
of exceeding levels (50%, 10% and maximum (0%)). The same ratios in six‐story old buildings range
effective in stiffer and stronger low-rise buildings. It can be admitted that the obtained results show
effective in stiffer and stronger low‐rise buildings. It can be admitted that the obtained results show
consistency with the results obtained from similar studies in literature [21].
effective in stiffer and stronger low‐rise buildings. It can be admitted that the obtained results show
In addition to evaluation of roof drift ratios, effects of SSI on the inter‐story drift ratios are also
discussed. In Figures 16–23, mean inter‐story drift ratios are plotted for different building groups and
discussed. In Figures 16–23, mean inter‐story drift ratios are plotted for different building groups and
soil types. While calculating the inter‐story drift ratios, the same method was applied. One hundred
soil types. While calculating the inter‐story drift ratios, the same method was applied. One hundred
inter‐story drift ratios obtained from five buildings and 20 acceleration records were used and values
inter‐story drift ratios obtained from five buildings and 20 acceleration records were used and values
corresponding to probability of exceeding levels of 50%, 10% and maximum drift ratios were
corresponding
Sci. 2020, 10, 8357to probability of exceeding levels of 50%, 10% and maximum drift ratios
averaged. This method was repeated for each story group. Variation of inter‐story drift ratios clearly
Appl. 15 ofwere
21
averaged. This method was repeated for each story group. Variation of inter‐story drift ratios clearly
show that the most significant changes depending on the SSI occur at the bottom stories of the
show that the most significant changes depending on the SSI occur at the bottom stories of the
buildings [21] and the most evident increments are again observed in the soft soil case. All of these
In addition to evaluation of roof drift ratios, effects of SSI on the inter-story drift ratios are also
buildings [21] and the most evident increments are again observed in the soft soil case. All of these
figures indicate that inter‐story drift ratios are increased in the soft soil case in all probability levels.
discussed. In Figures 16–23, mean inter-story drift ratios are plotted for different building groups and
figures indicate that inter‐story drift ratios are increased in the soft soil case in all probability levels.
Inter‐story drift ratios at 50% probability level are lower than 0.5% and the difference between the
soil types. While calculating the inter-story drift ratios, the same method was applied. One hundred
Inter‐story drift ratios at 50% probability level are lower than 0.5% and the difference between the
soil types in terms of story drift ratios is not obvious.
inter-story drift ratios obtained from five buildings and 20 acceleration records were used and values
soil types in terms of story drift ratios is not obvious.
Drift ratios corresponding to probability of exceeding 10% are higher than that of 50% ratios and
corresponding to probability of exceeding levels of 50%, 10% and maximum drift ratios were averaged.
the effect of SSI becomes more apparent. Inter‐story drift ratios at this probability level can be close
This method was repeated for each story group. Variation of inter-story drift ratios clearly show that
the effect of SSI becomes more apparent. Inter‐story drift ratios at this probability level can be close
to 1% in soft soil cases. However, variations of drift demands have indicated that the effect of SSI is
the most significant changes depending on the SSI occur at the bottom stories of the buildings [21]
to 1% in soft soil cases. However, variations of drift demands have indicated that the effect of SSI is
not significant in upper stories and the response of upper stories is limited with respect to bottom
and the most evident increments are again observed in the soft soil case. All of these figures indicate
not significant in upper stories and the response of upper stories is limited with respect to bottom
stories. This situation is similar for all building groups and soil conditions. At this point, it should be
that inter-story drift ratios are increased in the soft soil case in all probability levels. Inter-story drift
stories. This situation is similar for all building groups and soil conditions. At this point, it should be
stated that drifts caused by the rotations at the base due to SSI were extracted while calculating the
ratios at 50% probability level are lower than 0.5% and the difference between the soil types in terms of
stated that drifts caused by the rotations at the base due to SSI were extracted while calculating the
inter‐story drift ratios of first stories.
story drift ratios is not obvious.
inter‐story drift ratios of first stories.
3 3 3
Fixed 3 Fixed 3 Fixed
3 Fixed Fixed
Fixed
Stiff Stiff Stiff
Stiff Stiff
Moderate Stiff
Moderate
Moderate 2 2
2 Moderate Moderate
Soft Moderate
Soft 2 2 Soft
2 Soft Soft
Story
Story
Soft %10 Max
Story
%50
Story
Story
%10 Max
Story
%50
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0%
i/hi 2.0%
i/hi
i/hi i/hi

Figure 16. Mean of inter‐story drift ratios corresponding to different exceedance probability levels for
Figure 16. Mean of inter-story drift ratios corresponding to different exceedance probability levels for
three‐story new buildings.
three-story new buildings.
three‐story new buildings.
3 3 3 Fixed
3 Fixed 3 Fixed 3 Fixed
Stiff
Fixed
Stiff Fixed
Stiff
Stiff
Moderate
Stiff
Moderate Stiff
Moderate
2 2 2 Moderate
Soft
Moderate
Soft Moderate
Soft
2 2 2 Soft
Soft Soft Max
Story
Story
Story
%50 %10
Max
Story
Story
Story
%50 %10
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0
0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% i/hi 2.0%
i/hi
i/hi i/hi
three-story old buildings.
three‐story old buildings.
three‐story old buildings.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 1617 of 22
of 21
4 4 4
Fixed Fixed Fixed
Stiff Stiff Stiff
Stiff Stiff Stiff
3 Stiff
Moderate 3 Stiff
Moderate 3 Stiff
Moderate
3 Moderate 3 Moderate 3 Moderate
Soft Soft Soft
Soft Soft Soft
Soft Soft Soft
Story
Story
Story
2 %50 2 %10 2 Max
Story
Story
Story
2 %50 2 %10 2 Max
Story
Story
Story
2 %50 2 %10 2 Max
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
00.0% 1.0% 2.0% 00.0% 1.0% 2.0% 00.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0%
i/hi i/hi i/hi
i/hi
i/hi
i/hi

the four‐story new buildings.
the four-story new buildings.
4 4 4
Fixed Fixed Fixed
Stiff Stiff Stiff
Stiff Stiff Stiff
3 Stiff
Moderate 3 Stiff
Moderate 3 Stiff
Moderate
Soft Soft Soft
Soft Soft Soft
Soft Soft Soft
Max
Story
Story
Story
2 %50 2 %10 2 Max
Story
Story
Story
2 %50 2 %10 2 Max
Story
Story
2 %50 2 %10 Story 2
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
00.0% 1.0% 2.0% 00.0% 1.0% 2.0% 00.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%
/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0%
/hi 2.0% /hi i/hi
/hi
/hi i/hi
/hi

the four‐story old buildings.
the four-story old buildings.
5 5 5
Fixed Fixed
Stiff Fixed
Stiff
Stiff
4 Stiff 4 Stiff 4 Stiff
Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Soft Moderate
3 Soft 3 3 Soft
3 Soft 3 Soft 3 Soft
Story
Story
Story
%50 %10 Max

Story
Story
Story
%50 %10 Max

Story
Story
Story
%50 2 %10 2 Max

2 2 2
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
00.0% 1.0% 2.0% 00.0% 1.0% 2.0% 00.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
i/hi 2.0%
i/hi i/hi i/hi
i/hi
i/hi
i/hi

the five-story new buildings.
the five‐story new buildings.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 17 of 21
18 of 22

Fixed Fixed Fixed
Stiff
Stiff Stiff
Stiff Stiff
Stiff
44 44 44
Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate
Soft Soft Soft
Story
Story
Story
%50 %10 Max
Story
Story
Story
%50 %10 Max
22 22 22
11 11 11
00 00 00
0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0%
i/h
i/hi
i i/h
i/hi
i i/h
i/hi
i
thethe five‐story old buildings.
the five‐story old buildings.
five-story old buildings.

Fixed Fixed Fixed
55 Stiff
Stiff 55 Stiff
Stiff 55 Stiff
Stiff
Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate
Soft Soft Soft
Story
Story
Story
%50 %10 Max
33 33 33
Story
Story
%50 %10 Story Max
22 22 22
11 11 11
0
0
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 00 00 19 of 22
0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 2.0%
i/h
i/hi
i/h
i/hi
i/h
i/hi
stories are more critical in old buildings (98−). However, in new buildings the SSI strongly aﬀected
i i i
the response of first stories and the place of the critical story moved to the first story. The ratio of
increment is much more significant in the first stories of new buildings with respect to old ones.
the six‐story new buildings.
the six-story new buildings.
the six‐story new buildings.
6
Distribution
Distribution of values
of indicates 6that
values indicates that the
the inter‐story
inter‐story
Fixed drift drift ratios 6 of stiff and moderate soil
ratios of stiff and Fixed
moderate soil
Fixed
conditions are
conditions are closer
closer to to the
the fixed‐base
fixed‐base case
case with
with respect
respect to
to ratios
ratios of
of soft
soft soil.
soil. Story
Story drifts
drifts
corresponding to the soft soil case are much more remarkable and the level of increment is much
corresponding to the soft soil case are much more remarkable and the level of increment is much
Moderate Moderate Moderate
more pronounced with respect to other cases. These observations about the effect of soil conditions
4 4
more pronounced with respect to other cases. These observations about the effect of soil conditions
4 Soft Soft
Soft
are compatible with the findings related to the probabilistic roof drift ratios presented in Figures 12–
are compatible with the findings related to the probabilistic roof drift ratios presented in Figures 12–
Story
Story
%10 Max
Story
15. 3
15. %50 3 3
Comparisons of probabilistic inter‐story drift ratios
Comparisons of probabilistic inter‐story drift ratios indicate that indicate that there
there are
are considerable
considerable
2
differences among the maximum 2
and other probabilistic drift ratios. 2 Effect of SSI is much more
more
differences among the maximum and other probabilistic drift ratios. Effect of SSI is much
evident on the maximum drift ratios and results have shown that maximum drifts can approximately
evident on the maximum drift ratios and results have shown that maximum drifts can approximately
1 than 1 50% drifts and two times from 1
be greater
be greater than four
four times
times from
from the
the 50% drifts and two times from the the 10%
10% drifts.
drifts. Graphical
Graphical
distributions show that these trends are almost similar in old (98−) and new (98+) buildings, but
distributions show that these trends are
0 0 almost similar in old (98−) and 0 new (98+) buildings, but
differences among the probabilistic drift demands are quite significant.
0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
differences among the probabilistic drift demands are quite significant. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
0.0% 1.0% 2.0%
Maximum inter‐story drift ratios of buildings resting on soft soils are mostly higher than 1.5%
i/hi  /h
Maximum inter‐story drift ratios of buildings resting on soft soils are mostly higher than 1.5%
i i i/hi

and maximum inter‐story drift ratios are generally accumulated at the first stories. This situation is
and maximum inter‐story drift ratios are generally accumulated at the first stories. This situation is
much
much more
Figure apparent
23. apparent
more in low‐rise
in low‐rise
Mean of inter-story buildings
driftbuildings (three‐ and
ratios corresponding
(three‐ and four‐story)
to four‐story)
different independent
exceedance probability
independent from
from the for
levels
the building
building
the six-story old buildings.
group. However, distribution of values has shown that drift demands of especially upper stories are
group. However, distribution of values has shown that drift demands of especially upper stories are
the six‐story old buildings.
higher in old buildings with respect to new ones (see Figures 21 and 23). Critical stories in five‐ and
higher in old buildings with respect to new ones (see Figures 21 and 23). Critical stories in five‐ and
six‐story old buildings
buildings are are the
the second
second stories
stories and
and SSI
SSI does
does not
5. Comparison of SSI Effects on the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings
six‐story old not change
change this
this situation.
situation. Decrease
Decrease in
in
column dimensions in the upper stories and the relatively higher vibration periods caused by upper
Obtained results clearly show that interaction between soil and the structure affects both
calculation of displacement capacities and demands in existing buildings. This situation implies that
seismic performance of these buildings should also be examined since the performance is determined
by comparing both capacity and demand.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 18 of 21
the effect of SSI becomes more apparent. Inter-story drift ratios at this probability level can be close to
1% in soft soil cases. However, variations of drift demands have indicated that the effect of SSI is not
significant in upper stories and the response of upper stories is limited with respect to bottom stories.
This situation is similar for all building groups and soil conditions. At this point, it should be stated
that drifts caused by the rotations at the base due to SSI were extracted while calculating the inter-story
drift ratios of first stories.
Distribution of values indicates that the inter-story drift ratios of stiff and moderate soil conditions
are closer to the fixed-base case with respect to ratios of soft soil. Story drifts corresponding to the soft
soil case are much more remarkable and the level of increment is much more pronounced with respect
to other cases. These observations about the effect of soil conditions are compatible with the findings
related to the probabilistic roof drift ratios presented in Figures 12–15.
Comparisons of probabilistic inter-story drift ratios indicate that there are considerable differences
among the maximum and other probabilistic drift ratios. Effect of SSI is much more evident on the
maximum drift ratios and results have shown that maximum drifts can approximately be greater
than four times from the 50% drifts and two times from the 10% drifts. Graphical distributions show
that these trends are almost similar in old (98−) and new (98+) buildings, but differences among the
probabilistic drift demands are quite significant.
Maximum inter-story drift ratios of buildings resting on soft soils are mostly higher than 1.5%
and maximum inter-story drift ratios are generally accumulated at the first stories. This situation
is much more apparent in low-rise buildings (three- and four-story) independent from the building
group. However, distribution of values has shown that drift demands of especially upper stories
are higher in old buildings with respect to new ones (see Figures 21 and 23). Critical stories in five-
and six-story old buildings are the second stories and SSI does not change this situation. Decrease in
stories are more critical in old buildings (98−). However, in new buildings the SSI strongly affected
the response of first stories and the place of the critical story moved to the first story. The ratio of
increment is much more significant in the first stories of new buildings with respect to old ones.
5. Comparison of SSI Effects on the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings

Obtained results clearly show that interaction between soil and the structure affects both calculation
of displacement capacities and demands in existing buildings. This situation implies that seismic
performance of these buildings should also be examined since the performance is determined by
comparing both capacity and demand.
Calculation of capacity curves revealed that interaction between soil and the structure shifts
the total displacement capacity of buildings instead of increasing them. Assessments performed
after pushover analyses show that plastic deformation capacity of buildings remains almost constant
(Figure 9) while yield displacements increase. Decreasing displacement ductilities corresponding to
soft soils are the indicator of this situation (Figure 10). Changes in the elastic slope of the building
capacity curves also imply the elongations in vibration periods and hence higher seismic displacement
demands in buildings (Figure 5). Figures 12–15 clearly represent this increase in demands from stiff
to soft soil sites. All these capacity- and demand-related changes in the results are the indicator of
possible seismic performance changes in selected buildings.
Seismic performance of investigated buildings was determined by using Turkish Earthquake
Code regulations and the effect of SSI on the collapse risk of old and new buildings was compared.
At this point, it should be reminded again that the aim of this study is not to investigate the seismic
performance of selected buildings according to one specific code regulations. The aim of this study is to
understand whether consideration of SSI can change the capacity and demand calculations (and hence
the performance estimations) of existing buildings. For this reason, the number of collapsed buildings
under various soil conditions was determined and compared.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 19 of 21

constructions (Figure 5) suppress the deteriorating effects of SSI and the effect of interaction becomes
limited on new buildings.
InFigure 24 also shows that in each soil condition seismic performance of old buildings decreases
Turkish Earthquake Code, seismic performance of buildings is determined by using strain-based
by the increasing number of stories. However, the ratio of collapsed buildings on soft soil to fixed‐
damage assessment method. Furthermore, accumulation of damages, whether in beams or columns,
base case indicates that the relative effect of SSI is much more significant in lower story buildings. In
contributes to damaged columns and the shear capacity of stories are additional factors which are
three‐story old buildings the ratio of collapsed buildings on soft soils (38%) is greater than two times
considered by the Turkish Earthquake Code for the seismic performance assessment. In Figure 24,
that of the fixed‐base case (17%). Differences between soft and moderate soil cases are much more
changes in the number of collapsed buildings located on stiff to soft soil sites are presented.
apparent with respect to moderate and stiff or stiff and fixed‐base cases.
Increasing damage trends show that interaction between soil and the structure is much more significant,
Distribution of collapsed buildings is presented in Figure 24 and these values clearly show that
especially in soft soils, and a number of collapsed buildings on soft soils sites are considerably higher
seismic performance of especially older constructions is significantly affected from the SSI. Results
than that of others. Figure 24 also reveals that the devastating effects of SSI are much more evident
have
in clearly revealed
old buildings that damage
with respect risk significantly
to new ones. Higher seismic increases in of
capacities soft
newsoil cases with (Figure
constructions respect 5)
to
moderate and stiff cases.
suppress the deteriorating effects of SSI and the effect of interaction becomes limited on new buildings.
56%
55%
54%
60.0%
50%
48%
Fixed Stiff Moderate Soft
Percentage of Collapses
47%
46%
44%
50.0%
40%
38%
40.0%
29%
28%
25%
23%
30.0%
19%
17%
20.0%
10.0%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.0%
3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6
98+ 98-

Figure 24. Distribution of number of collapse events for the existing buildings (%).
Figure 24. Distribution of number of collapse events for the existing buildings (%).
Figure 24 also shows that in each soil condition seismic performance of old buildings decreases by
6. Conclusions
the increasing number of stories. However, the ratio of collapsed buildings on soft soil to fixed-base case
Forty existing buildings constructed before and after in 1998 when the modern seismic design
indicates that the relative effect of SSI is much more significant in lower story buildings. In three-story
code of Turkey was implemented were investigated by considering soil‐structure interaction. Seismic
old buildings the ratio of collapsed buildings on soft soils (38%) is greater than two times that of the
response case
fixed-base of buildings was determined
(17%). Differences betweenby softusing non‐linear
and moderate time
soil history
cases analyses
are much and 20 strong
more apparent with
ground motions. Interaction between soil and
respect to moderate and stiff or stiff and fixed-base cases. the structure was modeled by applying the
substructure method
Distribution and four
of collapsed different
buildings cases classified
is presented according
in Figure 24 and to shear
these wave
values velocities
clearly show were
that
considered. Seismic displacement demands at roof and story levels were calculated for all buildings
seismic performance of especially older constructions is significantly affected from the SSI. Results have
under fixed‐base, stiff, moderate and soft soil conditions.
clearly revealed that damage risk significantly increases in soft soil cases with respect to moderate and
In addition to demand calculations by using non‐linear time history analyses, capacity curves of
stiff cases.
the buildings were obtained through static pushover analyses. By this method, drift ratios
6.corresponding to yield and ultimate levels were obtained for each soil case and for each building.
Conclusions
Then, displacement demands and building capacities were investigated, the effects of soil‐structure
Forty existing buildings constructed before and after in 1998 when the modern seismic design
interaction on existing buildings under various soil conditions were compared and the results are
code of Turkey was implemented were investigated by considering soil-structure interaction.
summarized below.
Seismic response of buildings was determined by using non-linear time history analyses and
The capacity curves obtained from the static pushover analyses of old and new buildings show
20 strong ground motions. Interaction between soil and the structure was modeled by applying
that the interaction between soil and the structure shifts the total displacement capacity of buildings
the substructure method and four different cases classified according to shear wave velocities were
instead of increasing it. Depending on the weak soil conditions, rotations at base increase and this
considered. Seismic displacement demands at roof and story levels were calculated for all buildings
situation increases the elastic drift ratios corresponding to the yield. In other words, plastic
under fixed-base, stiff, moderate and soft soil conditions.
deformation capacity of buildings remains almost constant while yield displacements increase.
In addition to demand calculations by using non-linear time history analyses, capacity curves of the
Decreasing displacement ductilities are the result of this situation. Changes in the elastic slope of the
buildings were obtained through static pushover analyses. By this method, drift ratios corresponding
buildings also increase the vibration periods and then the displacement demands of the buildings.
to yield and ultimate levels were obtained for each soil case and for each building. Then, displacement
Changes in the seismic demands were investigated by comparing the roof drift ratios
demands and building capacities were investigated, the effects of soil-structure interaction on existing
corresponding to exceedance probabilities of 50%, 10% and maximum. Distribution of values clearly
buildings under various soil conditions were compared and the results are summarized below.
indicated that most critical results were obtained under soft soil conditions, and results obtained from
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 20 of 21
The capacity curves obtained from the static pushover analyses of old and new buildings show that
the interaction between soil and the structure shifts the total displacement capacity of buildings instead
of increasing it. Depending on the weak soil conditions, rotations at base increase and this situation
increases the elastic drift ratios corresponding to the yield. In other words, plastic deformation capacity
of buildings remains almost constant while yield displacements increase. Decreasing displacement
ductilities are the result of this situation. Changes in the elastic slope of the buildings also increase the
vibration periods and then the displacement demands of the buildings.
Changes in the seismic demands were investigated by comparing the roof drift ratios corresponding
to exceedance probabilities of 50%, 10% and maximum. Distribution of values clearly indicated that
most critical results were obtained under soft soil conditions, and results obtained from the soft soil
cases were significantly separated from the others. Drift demands of moderate soil cases are closer to
fixed and stiff soil cases with respect to soft soil conditions. Relative demand increase under soft soil
case is much more evident in low story buildings with respect to higher ones.
Investigation of inter-story drift demands showed that first stories are mostly affected from the
weak soil conditions and in all cases most significant demand increase occurs at the first stories.
Increase in the maximum inter-story drift demand is much more evident with respect to ones
corresponding to 50% and 10% exceedance probabilities.
Effect of soil conditions on the number of collapsed buildings is also investigated and compared.
Distribution of results have shown that a number of collapsed buildings are almost similar in fixed-base,
stiff and even in moderate soil cases. However, under soft soil conditions the number of collapsed
buildings increase and the level of increment is much more significant in old and low story buildings.
A distinct increase in the number of collapsed three- and four-story buildings indicates that the fragility
of old and low story buildings on weak soil conditions is much higher. Performance of new buildings,
on the other hand, is not as critical as the old ones. Higher seismic capacities of new constructions
suppress the deteriorating effects of soft soil conditions and reduce the collapse risk of new buildings.
Author Contributions: S.M.S. conceived of the presented idea, supervised the work, and drafted the manuscript.
M.P. contributed to method of analysis and supervised the analytical computations. A.K. and I.O. designed the
nonlinear structural models and analyzed the buildings. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
GCR 12-917-21 Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures; National Institute of Standards and Technology:
Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2012.
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and
Other Structures; FEMA P-750-1/2009; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Washington, DC,
USA, 2009.
3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures; FEMA 440; Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA): Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
4. American Society of Civil Engineers ASCE. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings; ASCE/SEI 41-06;
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2007.
5. Shehata, E.; Ahmed, M.M.; Alazrak, T.M.A. Evaluation of soil structure-interaction effects of seismic response
demands of multi-story MRF buildings on raft foundations. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2015, 7, 11–30.
6. Mylonakys, G.; Gazetas, G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental? J. Earthq. Eng. 2000,
4, 277–301. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 21 of 21
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures; FEMA P-1050-1/2015; Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA): Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
8. Kausel, E. Early history of soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2010, 30, 822–832. [CrossRef]
9. Gazetas, G. Formulas and charts for impedances of surface and embedded foundations. J. Geotech. Eng. 1991,
117, 1363–1381. [CrossRef]
10. Mylonakys, G.; Nikolaou, S.; Gazetas, G. Footings under seismic loading: Analysis and design issues with
emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2006, 26, 824–853. [CrossRef]
11. Fatahi, B.; Tabatabaiefar, H.R.; Samali, B. Performance based assessment of dynamic soil-structure interaction
effects on seismic response of building frames. In Proceedings of the GeoRisk 2011: Geotechnical Risk
Assessment and Management, Atlanta, GA, USA, 26–28 June 2011; pp. 344–351.
12. Turkish Earthquake Code, TEC-2007. Specifications for Buildings to Be Built in Seismic Areas; Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement: Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
13. Turkish Building Earthquake Code, TBEC-2018. Turkish Earthquake Code: Specifications for Building Design
Under Earthquake Effects; Ministry of Public Works and Settlement: Ankara, Turkey, 2018.
14. Kalkan, A. Estimation of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Risk and Earthquake Insurance Rates in Existing
Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Science Department, Pamukkale University, Denizli,
Turkey, 2019.
15. Turkish Earthquake Code, TEC-1998. Specifications for Buildings to be Built in Seismic Areas; Ministry of Public
Works and Settlement: Ankara, Turkey, 1998.
16. Scot, B.D.; Park, R.; Priestley, M.J.N. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low
and high strain rates. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1982, 79, 13–27.
17. Palanci, M.; Kalkan, A.; Senel, S.M. Investigation of shear effects on the capacity and demand estimation of
RC buildings. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2016, 60, 1021–1038. [CrossRef]
18. Pais, A.; Kausel, E. Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffness of rigid foundations. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
1998, 7, 213–227. [CrossRef]
19. Tan, C.G.; Majid, T.A.; Ariffin, K.S.; Bunnori, N.M. Effects of site classification on empirical correlation
between shear wave velocity and standard penetration resistance for soils. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013,
284–287, 1305–1310. [CrossRef]
20. Pitilakis, K.; Riga, E.; Anastasiadis, A. New code site classification, amplification factors and normalized
response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2013,
11, 925–966. [CrossRef]
21. Raychawdhury, P. Seismic response of low-rise steel moment-resisting frame (SMRF) buildings incorporating
nonlinear soil–structure interaction (SSI). Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 958–967. [CrossRef]
22. Tahghighi, H.; Mohammadi, A. Numerical evaluation of soil-structure interaction effects on the seismic
performance and vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings. Int. J. Geomech. 2020, 20, 04020072. [CrossRef]
23. Stewart, J.P.; Seed, R.B.; Fenves, G.L. Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II: Empirical findings.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1999, 125, 38–48. [CrossRef]
24. Veletsos, A.S.; Nair, V.V. Seismic interaction of structures on hysteretic foundations. J. Struct. Eng. 1975,
101, 109–129.
25. Bielak, J. Dynamic behavior of structures with embedded foundations. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1975,
3, 259–274. [CrossRef]
26. Shakib, H.; Homaei, F. Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of the soil structure interaction effect on
seismic response of midrise setback steel buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 1827–2851. [CrossRef]
27. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center (PEER). PEER Ground Motion Database. Available online:
https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/ (accessed on 21 June 2019).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Applied Sciences: Ffect of Soil-Structure Interaction On The Seismic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Sciences: Ffect of Soil-Structure Interaction On The Seismic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Sciences: Ffect of Soil-Structure Interaction On The Seismic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357; doi:10.3390/app10238357 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

2. Nonlinear Modeling of Existing Buildings

Number of Stories Old Buildings (98−) New Buildings (98+)

The structural properties of buildings, such as section dimensions, reinforcement details,

volumetric transverse reinforcement ratio of members. While performing moment-curvature analyses,

Stiff Moderate Soft

In addition to vibration 1.2 periods, elongation of displacement capacities corresponding to yield

0.8 Stiff 0.8

0.8 Stiff 0.8

1.48. Correlation of shifted yield points and elongated vibration periods.

The effect of SSI

2.5 CAP-RIO270 CHI-TCU74N

2 %50 2 %10 Story 2

%50 %10 Max

%50 %10 Max

%50 2 %10 2 Max

55 Fixed 55 Fixed 55 Fixed

66 Fixed 66 Fixed 66 Fixed

%50 %10 Story Max

5. Comparison of SSI Effects on the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8357 19 of 21

You might also like