Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Soil-structure interaction analyses of shallow-founded structures on a

potential-liquefiable soil deposit
Davide Forcellini
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soil liquefaction has been observed worldwide during historical earthquakes. Liquefaction-related phenomena
Shallow foundation induce damages, functional disruptions and considerable replacement expenses for structures. This paper aims to
Numerical simulations model the effects of liquefaction on several structural configurations founded on shallow foundations by per­
Opensees
forming 3 dimensional (3D) numerical simulations. The soil is modelled with non-linear hysteretic materials and
Liquefaction
Non-linearity
advanced plasticity models that can reproduce the observed strong dilation tendency and increase in cyclic shear
stiffness and strength. The paper applies OpenSeesPL to investigate the complex non-linear analyses of soil-
structure interaction (SSI) with liquefaction. 3D structural performance (in term of drifts and floor displace­
ments) of benchmark buildings founded on shallow foundations were performed and herein discussed.

1. Background the cumulative effect of volumetric strains. Nevertheless, liquefaction-

Dramatic consequences of liquefaction have been proved during
historical earthquakes, such as Niigata, Japan 1964, Dagupan City,
Philippines 1990, Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999, Japan 2011, Kocaeli, Turkey
1999 and Christchurch, New Zealand, 2011. The most dangerous effects
connected to such phenomenon have resulted mainly in correspondence
with structural configurations based on shallow foundations. The main
effects consisted of structural settlements, lateral spreading, bearing
capacity reductions. The consequent damages, disruption of functions
and replacement expenses can be significantly reduced by counter­
measures and mitigations, as shown in Refs. [1,8,22,28,34]. In order to
design such strategies, the realistic assessment of the structural perfor­
mance and soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects needs to be considered.
In particular, the seismic response of shallow-founded structures de­
pends on the modification of the stress field around the foundation, as
described by applying empirical procedures ([21,38,39]). The
state-of-the-practice largely estimates building settlements by adopting
empirical procedures based on one-dimensional (1D) analyses of set­
tlements in free-field conditions, away from buildings [26]. In this
background, still many researchers investigated liquefaction without
considering the effects on the structure, for example [9,13,19,29–31,33,
35–37].
Even if these approaches can be extremely detailed, they may un­
derestimate shear-induced deformations in the soil beneath shallow
foundations because they can only capture the settlements as results of
induced displacement mechanisms result from SSI. In particular,
recent studies ([4,5]) demonstrated that SSI-induced effects (e.g.
ratcheting, bearing capacity failures, soil deformations due to partial
drainage) are consequences of shear deformation. In addition [18],
demonstrated that 1D site response analyses are used to capture
free-field soil behaviour but they generally underestimate settlements
due to a simplified assessment of soil volumetric compressibility.
Two-dimensional (2D) numerical simulations are generally advan­
tageous since they simplify the problem with plain strain conditions.
However, these assumptions may undervalue excess pore pressure
definition and thus the building settlements. For example, when soil
response is evaluated by 2-D models, the structure is performed as a
frame (by preserving its inertial characteristics) but deformations
cannot be assessed completely. These 2D-models can lead to overly
conservative estimations of the detrimental liquefaction-induced effects
in the soil and in the structural components. In this regard [26], per­
formed comparative analyses between various approaches as to
compare the accuracy in terms of soil response (e.g. time history of
settlement and horizontal acceleration). For example [2], assessed the
induced building settlements due to liquefaction is modelled with 2D
numerical simulations suggesting the need of further research and
detailed assessment of 3D numerical modelling of liquefaction effects.
The complex mechanism of liquefaction may be fully described only
by considering fundamental outcomes that predict the structural
behaviour under liquefaction, such as building period elongation,

E-mail address: dfor295@aucklanduni.ac.nz.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106108
Received 30 September 2019; Received in revised form 20 February 2020; Accepted 22 February 2020
Available online 3 March 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Forcellini Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

drifts) even if the structures were modelled only with SFODs.

Several elements of novelty are presented in this paper. (1) Over­
coming previous studies by considering the effects of soil deformation
along the height of the structures and by assessing the 3-D behaviour of
the system (soil þ structure). (2) The models may be realistically used to
assess soil deformations in a spatial domain to evaluate rotations and
overturning moments along the principal axes of the structure (longi­
tudinal, transversal and vertical) as well as torsional effects (responsible
for rocking components and bearing capacity reductions). In this regard,
when foundations settle inside the soil, the corresponding part of the soil
below the foundation liquefies, losing its bearing capacity. Therefore, a
detailed description of such 3D variability of the shear capacity of the
foundation is fundamental to assess the stability of the entire system due
to liquefaction. (3) Assessing the importance of slenderness of structures
based on a homogenous layer of a potential-liquefiable soil.

2. Case studies

The structural response to liquefaction depends on multiple param­

eters, for example [18], demonstrated that structural settlements are
Fig. 1. 3D mesh. proportional to the building contact pressure and the height/width
ratio. In this paper several configurations have been selected in order to
study the effects of the building slenderness, by considering all the
foundations with identical dimensions. The difference between the three
structural models consists of the increasing number of floors and
therefore the increase of the building contact pressures on the soil.
Figs. 1 and 2 show the considered benchmark structures (named S1, S2
and S3), based on rigid shallow foundations (0.50 m thickness). Table 1
shows the vibrational periods and correspondent mass participation
ratios (in brackets). A 20m-thick and uniform layer was performed and
the development of pore pressure along its depth is herein calculated
and discussed. The soil fundamental period was estimated with the
linear formulation [20] to be 0.55 s and S1 was chosen to be stiffer than
the soil, while S2 and S3 are more flexible.
The study was divided into two steps. First, a calibration study was
performed in order to assess pore pressure generation and reproduce the
typical liquefaction outcomes (section 4). The second step consists of
Fig. 2. Boundary conditions. performing highly non-linear dynamic analyses with OpenSees PL. The
input motion was selected from the Italian Accelerometric Archive [14]
and it consists of the east-west (E-W) acceleration (epicentral distance:
Table 1
9.3 km), during the 1979 Val Nerina (Italy) earthquake (Fig. 3a-b). This
Structural characteristics.
input is defined on a presumed rigid bedrock (classified with soil A* by
Structure S1 S2 S3 the Italian code) and was here applied at the base of the model along the
n floor 2 4 6 longitudinal direction (x-axis). This input was chosen in accordance
H [m] 6.80 13.60 20.40 with the previous study [12].
H/B 0.92 1.84 2.76
Bearing Pressure [kPa] 135 280 425
T1x [s] 0.341 (91.77%) 0.679 (86.47%) 1.027 (84.44%) 3. Finite element models
T1y [s] 0.331 (86.67%) 0.635 (86.93%) 0.947 (85.06%)
T2x [s] – 0.202 (10.13%) 0.318 (9.99%) Opensees PL [25] was applied to build the finite element models
T2y [s] 0.224 (3.48%) 0.200 (8.37%) 0.307 (9.30%)
(FEM). Fig. 1 shows the performed 3D meshes that were the same for the
free field case and for all the three structural configurations (S1, S2 and
settlements, drifts and tilts. This is possible with three-dimensional (3D) S3). These meshes were calibrated with a convergence study and Table 2
fully coupled non-linear numerical models that perform SSI, providing shows the details regarding the increasing number of nodes and ele­
many insights, as described in Refs. [6,7,16,17,23,24,32]. For example ments. The simulations of highly non-linear liquefaction analyses
[3], showed that liquefaction modelling demands robust numerical require a robust and reliable tools and numerical convergence was
models since its complexity is generally not compatible with simple solved by dividing the analyses into four sub-steps, following the
analytical formulations. approach proposed in Ref. [12].
The aim to realistically assess the role of SSI with liquefaction effects The benchmark structures were chosen to have fundamental periods
by performing OpenSeesPL from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering in the typical range of residential buildings (Table 1). The number of
Research (PEER) Center. This platform takes advantage of the latest floors (floor height: 3.40 m, total heights: 6.80 m; 13.60 m and 20.40 m)
developments in databases, models and computing. For example [18] was increased to assess several values of H/B (0.92, 1.84 and 2.76,
performed a fully coupled, three-dimensional (3D), non-linear finite respectively for S1, S2 and S3). The structural schemes consist of 4x3
element analyses of SDOFs founded on liquefiable soils. The model was columns (4 in longitudinal direction (8 m spaced) and 6 in the trans­
shown to capture many outputs (e.g. the mechanism of excess pore versal direction (10 m spaced)) with a shear-type behaviour and plan
pressure, accelerations, displacements, settlements, tilts and inter story and vertical regularity. The dynamic characteristics of the structures are
obtained by applying the seismic masses at each floor. The structures

2
D. Forcellini Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

Fig. 3. Input motion: Cassia east-west (E–W) component and spectrum.

Table 2
Convergence study: meshes.
Number of nodes Number of elements

Mesh 1 8096 9228

Mesh 2 31860 35868
Mesh 3 52452 56898

Table 3
Structural material parameters.
Parameter Value

Young Modulus (kN/m2) 3.5 � 107

Shear modulus (kN/m2) 1.73 � 107
Cross section Area (m2) 0.12
Inertial moment (m4) 9 � 10-4 Fig. 4. Calibration of soil material: comparison between laboratory test results
(green line) [40], and Opensees numerical simulations (orange). (For inter­
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
Table 4 to the Web version of this article.)
Material parameters.
Foundation Soil W
(28.4 m � 34.4 m) represent recurrent typologies for residential build­
3
ings and can be particularly vulnerable because their bearing capacity
Mass density (kN/m ) 24 17
depends only on contact pressures and not on frictional mechanisms (as
Reference Shear modul (kPa) 1.25 � 107 5.50 � 104
Reference Bulk modul (kPa) 1.67 � 107 1.50 � 105 in cases of deep foundations). The performed foundations were
considered rigid by linking all the nodes at the base of the columns
together and to the soil domain, by applying equaled of [27]. Horizontal
were assumed to be linear elastic and modelled with elastic-beam col­ rigid beam-column links were set normal to the column longitudinal axis
umn elements (Table 3). The bearing pressure on the base of the foun­ to simulate the interface between the column and the foundations. The
dations was increased from 135 to 425 kPa. foundations were designed by calculating the eccentricity (the ratio
Foundation characteristics (depth, size and form) significantly between the overturning bending moment at the foundation level and
modify the vertical pressures in correspondence with soil layers and the vertical forces) in the most detrimental condition of minimum ver­
affect liquefaction consequences on the complex system (soil þ struc­ tical loads (gravity and seismic loads) and maximum bending moments.
ture). The performed 0.50m-depth rectangular concrete foundations Pressure Independent Multiyield ([25,27], Table 4) was used to simulate

3
D. Forcellini Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

Table 5 change. In this regard, plasticity is defined only with the deviatoric
Soil material parameters. stress-strain response that is independent of the volumetric stress-strain
Parameter Value response (considered linear-elastic). The formulation is based on the
3 multi-surfaces (nested) theory, an associative flow rule and non-linear
Mass density (kN/m ) 19.58
Reference Shear modul (Pa) 5.8 � 107 shear stress-strain backbone curves that are represented by hyperbolic
Reference Bulk modul (Pa) 7.9 � 107 relations and two material constants (low-strain shear modulus and ul­
Shear Wave velocity (m/s) 172.91 timate shear strength), [25,27].
Friction Angle (� ) 30 Soil model is built up on the two-phase material u-p formulation [42]
Permeability (m/s) 10-8
Peak angle (� ) 30
(where u is displacement of the soil skeleton and p is pore pressure) and
c1 0.07 based on the following assumptions: (1) small deformation and rotation
d1 0.4 and solid and fluid density remain constant in both time and space; (2)
d2 2 porosity is locally homogeneous and constant with time; (3) soil grains
l1 10
are incompressible; (4) solid and fluid phases are accelerated equally
l2 0.01
l3 1 [8]. The 20-m layer soil was simulated with Pressur­
eDependMultiYield02 [25,27] model, based on the multi-yield-surface
plasticity framework and developed by Ref. [41] in order to reproduce
the foundations (with an equivalent concrete material) and the sur­ the mechanism of cycle-by-cycle permanent shear strain accumulation
rounding infill layer soil (named soil W). This model consists of a in clean sands. The model was originally calibrated with centrifuge
non-linear hysteretic material [41] with a Von Mises multi-surface ki­ model tests and consolidated undrained cyclic triaxial tests (VELACS No.
nematic plasticity model to simulate monotonic or cyclic response of 40–58) and with centrifuge experiments on single degree of freedom
materials whose shear behaviour is insensitive to the confinement (SDOF) [4]. In order to calibrate the parameters, dynamic centrifuge

Fig. 5. Locations (Plan view).

Fig. 6. Effects of the locations on ru values for the three configurations (S1, S2 and S3).

4
D. Forcellini Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

Fig. 7. Comparison between configurations in correspondence with different locations.

tests were here performed on the 20-m liquefiable soil layer by consid­
ering several vertical consolidation pressures. Fig. 4 shows the com­
parison between the performed numerical simulations (orange points)
and laboratory tests (green line, [40]). Table 5 shows the adopted pa­
rameters, such as the low-strain shear modulus and friction angle, as
well as parameters to control the contraction (c1), dilatancy (d1 and d2)
and the level of liquefaction-induced yield strain (l1, l2 and l3), [40].
The 3D soil models consist of 118.4 � 124.4 m (20 m thick) meshes, built
up with 31860 nodes and 35868 non-linear node BrickUP elements [27]
to simulate dynamic response of solid-fluid fully coupled material. For
each element: 20 nodes describe the solid translational degrees of
freedom, while the eight-corner nodes represent the fluid pressure 4
degrees-of-freedom (DOF). For each node: DOFs 1, 2 and 3 represent
solid displacement (u) and DOF 4 describes fluid pressure (p), that is
Fig. 8. Comparison between ru time histories (at foundation centre).
recorded using OpenSees Node Recorder [27] at the corresponding
integration points. The dimension of the elements was increased from
the structure to the lateral boundaries that were modelled to behave in
pure shear and located far away from the structures.

Fig. 9. S1: period elongation.

5
D. Forcellini Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

Fig. 10. –S2: period elongation.

Fig. 11. –S3: period elongation.

Fig. 12. Settlement time histories. Fig. 14. S1: Longitudinal drift time histories at various floors.

Fig. 13. Normalized tilt time histories. Fig. 15. S2: Longitudinal drift time histories at various floors.

Boundary conditions (Fig. 2) were defined by adopting the Penalty
method with a tolerance value of 10-4, chosen as a compromise to be
large enough to ensure strong constrain conditions but not too large to
avoid problems associated with conditioning of the system of equations.
Base boundaries (20 m depth) were considered rigid. Vertical direction
(described by the 3rd DOF) was constrained in correspondence with all
the boundaries (at the base and lateral), while longitudinal and trans­
versal directions were left unconstrained in correspondence with the
lateral boundaries (in order to allow shear deformations). The water
level was considered at the surface (0 m depth) of the meshes. Hydraulic
conditions were defined in correspondence with the nodes of the applied
finite elements by concentrating the water pressures on the 4th DOF
[27] that were blocked during the gravity analyses (step 1, [12]) and
then released when hydraulic conditions were applied (step 2–3, [12]).
The definition of the mesh dimensions followed the approach already
adopted ([10–12]) and based on indications ([3,15,18]). In order to

6
D. Forcellini Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108

4. FEM validation

This section aims to validate the finite element (FE) model by

considering several steps. Firstly, pore pressure generation was assessed
in order to validate hydraulic assumptions. Secondly, dynamic effects of
soil deformability were verified by considering period elongation.

4.1. Step 1: ru-values

The first step of the analyses consisted of computing the pore pres­
sure ration (ru) as the ratio between the total pore pressure and the total
overburden pressure. Different verticals in correspondence with point O
Fig. 16. S3: Longitudinal drift time histories at various floors. (at the mesh center), A (3 m distance), B (12 m distance) and C (34 m
distance) and at several depths (Fig. 5) for every models (FF, S1, S2 and
S3) were considered. Superficial points (0 m depth) were not be
considered since the first 0.50 m is occupied by the foundation. ru takes
the highest value at shallow layers and decreases with depth due to
increased vertical effective stresses. Consequently, it is easier for shal­
lower layers to trigger liquefaction (ru values are close to 1) because
vertical stresses are smaller than those in correspondence with deeper
layers. When the structure is present (S case), vertical stresses increase
below the foundation, leading to the reduction of ru values around the
foundation (in points O, A). In correspondence with B and C (outside the
building footprints) the behavior is similar to that registered in corre­
spondence with FF because the presence of the structure have no sig­
nificant effects.
Fig. 6 shows the effects of locations on ru values for the three con­
figurations (S1, S2 and S3). The results show that the various structures
Fig. 17. Longitudinal drift ratio time histories (top floor). affect the vertical stresses below the foundations. In correspondence
with FF conditions, ru values have similar trends for all the considered
positions, meaning that FF conditions are respected along the models
Table 6 and that the meshes perform properly. When the structures are consid­
Maximum longitudinal displacements. ered, the superficial layers are affected by the vertical pressures and ru
Long. Disp. (cm) S1 S2 S3 values decreases depending on H/B value. It is worth to notice that S1
Floor 6 – – 7.95
trends do not differ significantly from FF ones (reaching conditions close
Floor 5 – – 2.29 to liquefaction), while in correspondence with heavier structures (S2
Floor 4 – 7.83 1.83 and S3), ru-values reduce in superficial layers. Therefore, the case of a
Floor 3 – 5.33 3.10 rigid low-rise building (S1) is shown to be more detrimental than the
Floor 2 9.55 2.62 1.65
cases of slender buildings (S2 and S3) where neglecting the presence of
Floor 1 2.54 0.41 0.65
Base 1.54 0.18 1.86 the structure can become conservative.
Fig. 7 shows the trends of ru values in correspondence with the
performed configurations. When points are sufficiently distant from the
assess that the meshes can simulate free-field conditions in correspon­ center (point C), ru values were not influenced by the structures (ru-
dence with lateral boundaries, accelerations at the top of the S1, S2 and values were similar to those registered in correspondence with FF). For
S3 meshes were compared with the FF ones. They were found to be these points, ru reaches the highest value at shallow layers and it de­
identical, confirming the effective performance of the mesh. creases with depth. Shallow soil layers underneath building foundations

Fig. 18. –Maximum Longitudinal displacement (Envelope) along the structures (relative height).

7
D. Forcellini
are affected by vertical effective stresses (due to presence the structure).
The bigger the vertical stresses are, the more the potential of liquefac­
tion decreases, reducing the risk of damages. H/B values particularly
drives the time histories of ru value (Fig. 8) in correspondence with the
centre of the foundation (point O), with values at the end of the transient
of 0.648, 0.751 and 0.857, for S3, S2 and S1 respectively.
4.2. Step 2: period elongation
The second validation step consists of assessing the effects of soil
deformability on period elongation. Transfer functions (TF) were
calculating as the ratio between the acceleration at ground surface (0.00
m depth) and the ones at the top of the structures, along the longitudinal
components. Figs. 9–11 compares the behaviour of S1, S2 and S3 for the
case of fixed base conditions and of deformable soils. When soil
deformability was neglected (fixed base conditions), TF peaks were
shown to occur in correspondence with the fundamental periods of the
structures (Table 1). When SSI effects are considered, they occur for
bigger values than the original periods (period elongation, [20]). It is
worth to note that in case of S1, TF shows an amplification when soil
deformability was considered. This phenomenon does not occur for S2.
In the case of S3, TF shows a smoother trend (if compared with S1 and
S2), that is particularly due to the rocking behaviour. These
Figures show that SSI plays a significant role in period elongations that is
strictly connected with the mutual characteristics of the structures and
the input motion, as previously discussed in Refs. [11,12,18].
5. Results
This paragraph discusses the role of H/B ratio on liquefaction and its
effects on the structural performance. In this regard, the performed FEM
models performed the realistic responses of the complex system soil-
foundation-structure in terms of significant parameters that describe
the structural performance (such as displacements at various floors and
total inter story drifts). It is worth to consider that deviatoric de­
formations in the soil are the principal responsible of structural settle­
ments and rotations that affect the dynamic interaction between the
structure and the soil and become significantly severe in case of
liquefaction.
Fig. 12 shows the time histories of the settlements in correspondence
of the centre of the foundation. The structures settle after 3 s and they
overpass the FF values (permanent settlement: 22.9 cm). In particular,
S1 and S2 time histories show permanent settlements (around 25.5 cm
and 27.8 cm respectively) that represent the plastic damage due to
liquefaction. For S3, it is more difficult to consider a permanent (plastic)
value of the settlement, demonstrating that the deformations depend
potentially do not depend on liquefaction.
Fig. 13 shows differential foundation settlements (tilts) normalized
by the width (along the longitudinal direction: 7.4 m) for the various
configurations, depending on the levels of liquefaction registered by
each of them. In correspondence with S1, there is a significant concen­
tration of tilt (almost 1.50–2.10%) when liquefaction occurs (at around
3–4 s), while S2 and S3 show significantly smaller (almost half) values.
The presence of tilts below the foundation is the cause of significant
overturning moments that affect the structural performance in terms of
story displacements and inter story drifts (Figs. 14–16), calculated as the
ratio between the relative longitudinal displacement and the height of
the floor from foundation level. As shown in Ref. [18], structural drifts
are due to the foundation rocking and to the column flexural distortion.
It is worth to note that S3 exhibits big tilts (1.20–1.30%) during all the
transient, demonstrating that these values depend on the high value of
H/B (as shown in Ref. [18]), but not on liquefaction effects. It is also
important to see that S2 seems to have an intermediate behaviour.
Fig. 17 shows the comparison between the top drifts (maximum
values: 1.404%, 0.575% and 0.39%, for S1, S2 and S3, respectively).
Even if S1 is a rigid, low-rise building, peak displacements at the top
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108
(9.53 cm) is bigger than those registered for the other structures (7.83
cm and 7.95 cm for S2 and S3, respectively, shown in Table 6). For S3
top floor drifts depend on the dynamic structural response only, while S2
has an intermediate behaviour with smaller peak values that those in
correspondence with S1 but that remain significant even at the end of
the input motion (plastic deformations and permanent damage). Fig. 18
shows the envelope of the maximum displacements calculated for each
floor. The vertical axis plots the ratio between the position of the floor
and the total height of the building. It is possible to see that S1 values are
bigger than those in correspondence with S2. In correspondence with S3,
structural dynamic responses become more significant than those
strictly due to liquefaction, as shown in the previous paragraphs.
Overall, the performed 3D numerical simulations show that lique­
faction is connected with the H/B ratio that affects the vertical stresses
and thus generation of pore pressure inside the soil. The results
demonstrated that under the conditions investigated here, a rigid
structure (S1) can experience more significant levels of deformation
than the slender ones (S2 and S3) and that these deformations are direct
consequences of liquefaction. S2 showed an intermediate behaviour
where liquefaction seemed to have worthless effects. The performance
of the most flexible structure (S3) is shown to be driven more by the
structural and dynamic characteristics than by liquefaction.
6. Conclusions
The paper investigates the effects of liquefaction on several struc­
tural configurations by analysing 3D soil-structure models built up with
OpenSeesPL. The results are the consequences of several mechanisms
known globally as SSI and ru value were calculated to verify liquefaction
activation (when ru ¼ 1). The principal novelty of the paper consists of
performing detailed 3D models of both the soil and the structure,
overcoming the previous contributions where only the soil (free-field
studies) or some equivalent structures (single degree of freedom) were
analysed. The effects of liquefaction were calculated in correspondence
with the soil, the foundations and the structures. Structural performance
was assessed in terms of displacements and drifts at various floors.
Overall, the paper demonstrates that a rigid, low-rise building can
experience bigger liquefaction-induced effects than what occurs to
slender buildings (S2 and S3), showing the role of H/B ratio. Even if the
findings are limited to the considered conditions, they can potentially be
useful to propose formulations that include H/B ratio inside code pro­
visions. In this regard, future parametric numerical simulations of the
response of shallow-founded structures on different potential-liquefiable
soil deposits and subjected to other input motions will be performed.
Declaration of competing interest
There is no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS. “Site response, soil-structure interaction and structure-
soil-structure interaction for performance assessment of buildings and nuclear
structures” technical report, MCEER 15-0002. University of Buffalo; 2015.
[2] Borozan J, Alves Costa P, Rom~ ao X, Quintero J, Viana da Fonseca A. Numerical
modelling of the dynamic response of liquefiable deposits in the presence of small
scale buildings. In: Computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake
engineering (COMPDYN) conference, Crete Island, Greece, 15-17 June 2017; 2017.
[3] Coleman JL, Bolisetti C, Whittaker AS. Time-domain soil-structure interaction
analysis of nuclear facilities. Nucl Eng Des 2016;298:264–70. 2016.
[4] Dashti S, Bray JD, Pestana JM, Riemer M, Wilson D. Mechanisms of seismically
induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136:151–64.
[5] Dashti S, Bray JD. Numerical simulation of building response on liquefiable sand.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;139(8):1235–49.
[6] Elgamal A, Lu J, Yang Z. Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations
and remediation: 3D numerical simulation. J Earthq Eng 2005;9(1):17–45.
[7] Elgamal A, Yang Z, Lai T, Kutter BL, Wilson DW. Dynamic response of saturated
dense sand in laminated centrifuge container. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2005:
598–609. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:5(598).
D. Forcellini
[8] Elgamal A, Lu J, Forcellini D. Mitigation of liquefaction-induced lateral
deformation in sloping stratum: three-dimensional numerical simulation.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2009;135(11):1672–82.
[9] Figini R, Paolucci R. Integrated foundation-structure seismic assessment through
non-linear dynamic analyses. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2016;(56):1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eqe.2790.
[10] Forcellini D. Cost Assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge
with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-016-9953-0.
[11] Forcellini D. Seismic Assessment of a benchmark based isolated ordinary building
with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-017-0268-6.
[12] Forcellini D. Numerical simulations of liquefaction on an ordinary building during
Italian earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-
00666-5. 20 May 2012.
[13] Iida M. Three-dimensional non-linear soil building interaction analysis in the
lakebed zone of Mexico City during the hypothetical Guerrero Earthquake. Earthq
Eng Struct Dynam 1998;27:1483–502. 1998.
[14] ITACA 1.1, 2011. ITalian ACcelerometric Archive; 1972-2011. version1.1, http
://itaca.mi.ingv.it/ItacaNet/.
[15] Jesmani M, Fallahi AM, Kashani HF. Effects of geometrical properties of
rectangular trenches intended for passive isolation is sandy soils. Earth Sci Res
2012;1(2):137–51.
[16] Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK, Andrianopoulos KI. Numerical
analysis of liquefaction-induced bearing capacity degradation of shallow
foundations on a two-layered soil profile. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2013;44:90–101.
2013.
[17] Karamitros DK, Bouckovalas GD, Chaloulos YK. Insight into the seismic
liquefaction performance of shallow foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013:
599–607. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000797.
[18] Karimi Z, Dashti S. Seismic performance of shallow-founded structures on
liquefiable ground: validation of numerical simulations using centrifuge
experiments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016;142(6).
[19] Koutsourelakis S, Prevost JH, Deodatis G. “Risk assessment of an interacting
structure–soil system due to liquefaction”. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2002;31:
851–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.125.
[20] Kramer SL. In: Hall William J, editor. “Geotechnical earthquake engineering”,
prentice-Hall, international series in civil engineering and engineering mechanics;
1996.
[21] Liu L, Dobry R. Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1997;123(6):557–67.
[22] Lopez-Caballero FL, Farahmand-Razavi AM. Numerical simulation of liquefaction
effects on seismic SSI. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2008;28:85–98. 2008.
[23] Lopez-Caballero FL, Farahmand-Razavi AM. Numerical simulation of mitigation of
liquefaction seismic risk by preloading and its effects on the performance of
structures. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2013;49:27–38. 2013.
[24] Lopez-Caballero, et al. Numerical evaluation of earthquake settlements of road
embankments and its mitigation by preloading. Int J Geom, ASCE 2016;16(5):
C4015006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000593. 2016.
[25] Lu J, Elgamal A, Yang Z. OpenSeesPL: 3D lateral pile-ground interaction, user
manual, beta 1.0. http://soilquake.net/openseespl/; 2011.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 133 (2020) 106108
[26] Luque R, Bray JD. Dynamic analysis of a shallow-founded building in Christchurch
during the canterbury earthquake sequence” 6th international conference on
earthquake geotechnical engineering (ICEGE). 2015 [Christchurch, New Zealand].
[27] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. Open system for earthquake
engineering simulation, user command-language manual. Berkeley: Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California; 2009. OpenSees
version 2.0, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual.
[28] Montoya-Noguera S, Lopez-Caballero F. “Numerical modeling of discrete spatial
heterogeneity in seismic risk analysis: application to treated ground soil
foundation” georisk: assessment and management of risk for. 2016 Eng Syst
Geohazards 2016;10(1):66–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17499518.2015.1058957.
[29] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or
detrimental? J Earthq Eng 2000;4:277–301.
[30] Pecker A, Paolucci R, Chatzigogos CT, Correia Aa, Figini R. The role of non-linear
dynamic soil-foundation interaction on the seismic response of structures. Bull
Earthq Eng 2013;12(3):1157–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9457-0.
[31] Pitilakis D, Dietz M, Wood DM, Clouteau D, Modaressi A. Numerical simulation of
dynamic soil-structure interaction in shaking tab. testing. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2008;28(6):453–67. 2008.
[32] Popescu R, Prevost JH, Deodatis G, Chakrabortty P. Dynamics of nonlinear porous
media with applications to soil liquefaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2006;26(6 –
7):648–65.
[33] Rayhani MT, El Naggar MH. Physical and numerical modeling of seismic soil-
structure interaction in layered soils. Geotech Geol Eng J 2012;30(2):331–42.
[34] Regnier J, et al. International benchmark on numerical simulations for 1D,
nonlinear site response (PRENOLIN): verification phase based on canonical cases.
2016 Bull Seism Soc Am SSA 2016;106(5):2112–35. https://doi.org/10.1785/
0120150284.
[35] Renzi S, Madiai C, Vannucchi G. A simplified empirical method for assessing
seismic soil-structure interaction effects on ordinary shear-type buildings. Soil
Dynam Earthq Eng 2013;55:100–7.
[36] S�
aez E, Lopez-Caballero F, Modaressi-Farahmand-Razavi A. Inelastic dynamic soil-
structure interaction effects on moment-resisting frame buildings. Eng Struct 2013;
51:166–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.01.020.
[37] Saouma V, Miura F, Lebon G, Yagome Y. A simplified 3D model for soil-structure
interaction with radiation damping and freefield input. Bull Earthq Eng 2011;9(5):
1387–402.
[38] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.
J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 1971;97(SM9):1249–73.
[39] Tokimatsu K, Seed H. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake
shaking. J Geotech Eng 1987;113(8):861–78.
[40] Tonni L, Forcellini D, Osti C, Gottardi G. Modelling liquefaction phenomena during
the May 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy) earthquake (Mod� elisation des ph�enom�enes
de liqu�efaction pendant le tremblement de terre du 2012 en Emilia-Romagna
(Italie)). ISBN 978-0-7277-6067-8. XVI Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure
and Development (ECSMGE). 2015. Edinburgh, England, 13-17 September 2015.
[41] Yang Z, Elgamal A, Parra E. A computational model for cyclic mobility and
associated shear deformation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2003;129(12):1119–27.
[42] Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Paul DK, Shiomi T. Static and dynamic
behavior of soils: a rational approach to quantitative solutions: I. Fully saturated
problems. Proc R Soc London Ser A 1990;429:285–309.