Soil–Structure Interaction Effects on Seismic Performance

and Earthquake-Induced Losses in Tall Buildings

Luis G. Arboleda-Monsalve, M.ASCE 1; Jaime A. Mercado, S.M.ASCE 2;
Vesna Terzic 3; and Kevin R. Mackie, F.ASCE 4

Abstract: This paper evaluated the seismic performance of hypothetical tall buildings by estimating intensity measures, engineering demand
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parameters, and earthquake-induced losses using a soil–structure interaction (SSI) numerical framework. Numerical models for 40-story
buildings were developed using OpenSees to study their seismic performance under the following modeling and building configuration
conditions: (1) fixed-base structural model, (2) model including SSI effects, (3) fixed-base model with shear walls, and (4) model including
shear walls and considering SSI effects. The buildings were assumed to be supported on subsurface conditions typical of downtown
Los Angeles. The natural period of the soil profile was parametrically studied; the larger its natural period, the lower were the seismic
demands of the building. The inclusion of shear walls caused a reduction of the natural period of the building and computed settlements
in relation to the buildings without a shear wall system. Considering SSI effects in the modeling approach changed the computed seismic
demands of the tall buildings in terms of maximum interstory drifts, peak story horizontal accelerations, and seismic-induced settlements.
Computed median direct economic losses for the 2,475-year mean return period increased as much as 33% by considering SSI effects in the
numerical analyses in relation to building losses ignoring those effects. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002248. © 2020 American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction and described the importance of including SSI in the numerical

Civil infrastructure experiences significant damage quantified in
terms of direct and indirect losses after an earthquake strikes.
Earthquake-induced losses are a major concern to owners and in-
surance companies because major earthquakes result in loss of life
and create significant societal disruption. The performance-based
earthquake engineering (PBEE) framework, described by Miranda
and Aslani (2003), is used to quantify the probabilistic response of
buildings using performance metrics that include not only engineer-
ing demand parameters (EDPs), but also individual building com-
ponent damage and losses. PBEE evaluation generally is performed
for low- and midrise buildings using fixed-base building models,
thus ignoring the influence of the foundation soils in the structural
seismic response (e.g., Jayaram et al. 2012; Molina Hutt et al. 2016;
Kolozvari et al. 2018). The influence of soil–structure interaction
(SSI) on the dynamic response of buildings needs to be assessed
to avoid unrealistic computation of EDPs. Mercado et al. (2019)
evaluated SSI effects in tall buildings using direct approaches
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction
Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2977-2544. Email: luis
.arboleda@ucf.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Con-
struction Engineering, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816. Email:
jamercado@knights.ucf.edu
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Construction En-
gineering Management, California State Univ., Long Beach, CA 90840.
Email: vesna.terzic@csulb.edu
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0003-1287-6520. Email: Kevin.Mackie@ucf.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 6, 2019; approved on
December 4, 2019; published online on March 11, 2020. Discussion period
open until August 11, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
simulations as opposed to using conventional fixed-base building
models. SSI effects are properly accounted for in the analysis when
soil strength and stiffness reduction (i.e., strength–stress–strain
soil response), soil damping evolution characteristics, and soil–
foundation–structure responses are modeled as a coupled system
(i.e., direct approach). The seismic response of soils is oversimpli-
fied by considering lumped spring systems to model strength and
stiffness reduction (softening) and damping evolution characteris-
tics of most soils. The PBEE approach provides a probabilistic
framework to quantify EDPs as a function of the intensity of the
seismic hazard: intensity measures (IM). Then, computed probabi-
listic seismic demand models are coupled with individual component
damage fragilities and repair scenarios to estimate earthquake-
induced losses. Several PBEE studies have evaluated the influence
of different structural configurations on loss estimation. For example,
Kolozvari et al. (2018) studied earthquake-induced losses of a
15-story building, evaluating the influence of shear walls on its seis-
mic performance. Median repair costs up to 24% were computed for
earthquakes with a 2,475-year mean return period. Molina Hutt et al.
(2016) assessed the seismic losses and repair time of 40-story build-
ings constructed in the mid-1970s and 1980s using the PBEE meth-
odology. They estimated median expected direct economic losses for
a 40-story steel moment-resisting frame structure up to 34% of the
replacement building cost at the 475-year mean return period hazard
level. Jayaram et al. (2012) evaluated the performance of new tall
buildings (i.e., 20-, 40-, and 42-story structures) and estimated
the losses associated with the building performance, finding direct
losses of as much as 27% of the replacement building cost at the
500-year mean return period hazard level. None of the aforemen-
tioned studies included SSI effects on the loss estimation.
This paper focused on the influence of SSI on the seismic
response and estimation of losses for hypothetical tall building
models using site-specific seismic hazard analyses and engineer-
ing demands computed with direct and continuum soil–structure
interaction approaches. It was hypothesized herein that the response

© ASCE 04020028-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

 of tall buildings to strong earthquake motions and the quantification
of losses largely are affected by the geotechnical characteristics of
the foundation soils. Four tall buildings models [i.e., (1) a fixed-base
building model, (2) a building model including SSI effects, (3) a
fixed-base building model with shear walls acting as the main lateral
load-resisting system, and (4) a building model including shear walls
and SSI effects] were developed in OpenSees version 2.5.0
(McKenna et al. 2000) to assess the influence of SSI on the seismic
performance of tall buildings. These numerical models were devel-
oped in two dimensions, considering torsion and eccentricity effects
on structures, and three-dimensional (3D) radiation patterns in the
soil are not considered. The analyses presented herein consider
earthquake-induced soil strength and stiffness reduction, damping
evolution characteristics of the supporting soils, and coupled soil–
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
foundation–structure system response. Quantifying discrepancies
on the structural response arising from the proposed modeling strat-
egies is key for the estimation of earthquake-induced losses in tall
buildings. The buildings were supported on highly nonlinear-
inelastic deformable materials. The baseline soil conditions of this
study corresponded to downtown Los Angeles; a generalized soil
profile was presented. These soil conditions were determined from
field investigation public records obtained from the California De-
partment of Transportation Digital Archive Geotechnical Data
(GeoDOG) and complemented with site investigations developed
for the construction of Metro stations in downtown Los Angeles
(AMEC 2013).
The IMs considered in this study were peak ground acceleration
(PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), Arias intensity (AI), and
Housner intensity (HI). Three earthquake hazard levels were con-
sidered, 50%, 10%, and 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years,
which resulted in 72, 475, and 2,475-year mean return periods, re-
spectively. The EDPs considered herein were peak story horizontal
accelerations, maximum interstory drifts, plastic rotation of the
shear walls, and maximum vertical displacements at the base of
the building. As part of the SSI analyses, the pressure-dependent
multiyield-surface (PDMY02) constitutive soil model was used.
The main structural components were modeled using linear elastic
elements, but the shear walls were modeled using the nonlinear
shear-flexure interaction multiple vertical line element model
(SFI-MVLEM) coded in OpenSees and proposed by Kolozvari et al.
(2015a, c). Parametrically, fixed-base building models and those
including SSI effects were compared in this research and conclu-
sions were drawn regarding the seismic response of the analyzed
structures. Transfer functions also were presented to provide insight
into the SSI influence on period lengthening characteristics of
the analyzed systems when foundation soils are included in the
analyses. The natural period of the soil was parametrically varied
to support the idea that SSI affects the seismic performance of tall
buildings and to assess the influence of different soil profile char-
acteristics on the structural response. The contribution of structural
and nonstructural building components to earthquake-induced di-
rect losses was studied in four building models placed on a soil
profile typical of downtown Los Angeles. The Performance Assess-
ment Calculation Tool (PACT version 3.1.1) (ATC 2012) was used
in this paper to estimate losses.
Local Geology and Subsurface Conditions
The Los Angeles basin is a sedimentary basin located south of
the Santa Monica mountains and within the Peninsular Range geo-
morphic province of southern California. This province trends
northward and is characterized by northwest trending faults.
The Los Angeles basin floor is characterized by unconsolidated
© ASCE 04020028-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
sediments from the Pleistocene and Holocene ages, and some local
formations from the Pliocene and Miocene ages are present in the
downtown Los Angeles area. The Pliocene and Miocene sedimen-
tary materials, commonly referred to as Fernando and Puente for-
mations, respectively, were identified on the geologic maps by
Lamar (1970) and Dibblee and Ehrenspeck (1991). These forma-
tions provide firm-ground conditions to the Los Angeles downtown
area. The subsurface soil stratigraphy and geotechnical character-
istics used herein corresponded to downtown Los Angeles and were
based on field exploration data in terms of standard Penetration
tests (SPTs), cone penetration tests (CPTs), and shear wave velocity
soundings (V s ). The collected information is publicly available in
the GeoDOG online tool developed by the California Department
of Transportation and was supplemented with geotechnical data for
the construction of three underground train stations in downtown
Los Angeles (AMEC 2013).
Fig. 1 presents the field investigation data used to summarize
the subsurface conditions up to 40 m under the ground surface
in the area of study, mainly consisting of artificial fills composed
of mixtures of silty to clayey sands and gravels deposited on top of
dense alluvium materials. Alluvium materials are denoted Qal1 and
Qal2 in the figure. Soil layer Qal2 has more fine-grained soils than
does layer Qal1. In addition to slight differences in particle size
between Qal1 and Qal2, the alluvium deposit layer from depths
5.5 to 15 m was divided to account for the approximate location
of the water table: 10.5 m from the ground surface. The relative
density of each soil layer was computed using the relationship pro-
posed by Meyerhof (1957), which correlates the results of SPT
blow counts (N SPT ) corrected for energy ratio, borehole diameter,
sampling method, rod length, and overburden pressure [i.e., ðN 1 Þ60
values]. The Qal2 layer has an average relative density (Dr ) larger
than 80%; thus, liquefaction phenomenon may not occur. However,
Karimi et al. (2018) showed that dense soils can soften signifi-
cantly, affecting the engineering demands in the superstructure and
the response of the foundation in terms of settlement and tilt. At
approximately 15.5 m from the ground surface, a very dense clayey
silt transitioning to siltstone is found. Soil contents in the figure
were obtained from sieve analyses in the geotechnical data of
AMEC (2013). Based on V s measurements of the topmost 30 m,
the computed natural frequency of the soil deposit was 3.2 Hz
(a natural period of 0.31 s). The soil profile was classified as site
class C (ASCE 2017) according to the V s measured for the topmost
30 m of the soil profile. The figure also compiles friction angle
values from laboratory direct shear and triaxial tests developed for
the soils in the area and values determined using the correlation
with N SPT proposed by Hatanaka and Uchida (1996).
Constitutive Soil Model and Structural Model
Characteristics
The numerical simulations were developed using OpenSees. The
soil domain was modeled using nine-node quadrilateral plane-
strain elements capable of simulating the dynamic response of a
solid–fluid fully coupled material based on the Biot (1962) theory
for porous media. The constitutive soil model used was PDMY02
(Elgamal et al. 2002; Yang et al. 2003, 2008). This constitutive soil
model is an elastoplastic model used to simulate the monotonic and
cyclic response characteristics (i.e., dilatancy or contraction and
nonflow liquefaction) of soils depending on the confining pressure.
The PDMY02 model defines the multiyield criterion as the number
of open conical yield surfaces (i.e., Drucker–Prager-type yield sur-
faces) with a common apex at the origin. The outermost surface
defines the shear strength envelope of the material. This soil model
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Summarized subsurface conditions corresponding to downtown Los Angeles area.

Table 1. PDMY02 constitutive soil parameters computed for proposed soil conditions
Parameter Description Fill Qal1 Qal2 Siltstone
k (m=s) Hydraulic conductivity 4.0 ×10−5 2.0 × 10−5 2.3 ×10−5 3.0 × 10−5
V s (m=s) Shear wave velocity 228.6 280.1 396.2 487.6
Dr (%) Relative density 75 96 91 85
e Void ratio 0.65 0.5 0.55 0.6
ρ (Mg=m3 ) Saturated soil mass density 1.93 1.98 2.06 2.01
Gmax;1;oct (MPa) Octahedral low-strain shear modulus 124.0 190.9 137.3 587.9
Br (MPa) Bulk modulus 342.0 417.1 998.1 1,547.7
ϕTXC (degrees) Friction angle under triaxial compression conditions 29.3 34.6 31.3 30.3
ϕPT (degrees) Phase transformation angle 24.3 29.6 26.3 25.3
ϒmax;r Maximum octahedral shear strain 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Pr0 (kPa) Reference confining pressure 101 101 101 101
d Pressure dependency coefficient 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
c1 Contaction rate parameter 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.004
c2 Fabric damage parameter 0.5 0.1 0.25 0.5
c3 Overburden stress effect parameter 0 0 0 0
d1 Dilation rate parameter 0.15 0.8 0.6 0.4
d2 Fabric damage parameter 3 3 3 3
d3 Overburden stress parameter 0 0 0 0
NYS Number of yield surfaces 20 20 20 20
liquefac1 Control liquefaction-induced perfectly plastic shear strain 1 1 1 1
liquefac2 Control liquefaction-induced perfectly plastic shear strain 0 0 0 0

uses nonlinear kinematic hardening principles and a nonassociative
flow rule to reproduce the dilative or contractive behavior of most
soils. The plastic flow in this model is purely deviatoric, and thus
no plastic volume changes take place under a constant stress ratio.
Although the soils in this study were not susceptible to liquefaction
because of their large relative density, the model was used to ac-
count for the soil stiffness degradation and shear strength mobili-
zation when subjected to earthquake-induced cyclic loading and to
study soil–foundation–structure interaction effects on the seismic
response of tall buildings.
The constitutive model parameters were determined using the
soil characteristics from the geotechnical field investigation program.
Table 1 presents the PDMY02 soil parameters and a brief description
of their physical meaning. The soil parameters Gmax;1;oct and Br were
computed using V s measurements. The model friction angle (ϕ), as-
sumed as the friction angle under triaxial compression conditions,
was determined using N SPT correlations and compared with a data-
base of laboratory direct shear and triaxial test results developed for
the soils in the Los Angeles downtown area. The parameters control-
ling the mechanisms of plastic shear strain accumulation and rate of
shearing-induced volume changes were selected based on previous
studies developed of medium-dense to dense sands (Khosravifar
et al. 2014; Karimi and Dashti 2015) and recommended values in
the OpenSees manual (Yang et al. 2008).
Four numerical models were developed to evaluate the seismic
response of tall buildings including SSI effects. The first two models
corresponded to a 40-story building numerically simulated assuming
fixed-base conditions or modeling the soil domain realistically in a

© ASCE 04020028-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Soil–structure–foundation interaction finite-element models of the tall buildings.
continuum and direct form. The other two models corresponded to
the same hypothetical tall building but included shear walls in the
middle bay acting as the main lateral load-resisting mechanism, thus
causing a reduction in the building flexibility.
Fig. 2 presents the finite-element discretization of the two soil–
structure interaction models developed in OpenSees. The buildings
had 40 stories and 5 bays. Both buildings had height and width of
120 and 30 m, respectively. Beams and columns had lengths of 6.0
and 3.0 m, respectively, and were modeled using linear elastic el-
ements (i.e., elasticBeamColumn elements in OpenSees). Cross
sections were assumed to be W27 × 161 and W24 × 104 for col-
umns and beams, respectively, to assign specific values of area and
moment of inertia to the structural elements in the model. A 1.5-m-
thick concrete mat foundation was added to the base of the model
as a linear elastic element with an elastic modulus of 31 MPa. Mat
foundation and structural elements were connected using the same
node; therefore, they shared the same three degrees of freedom.
The shear walls were modeled using the SFI-MVLEM proposed
by Kolozvari et al. (2015a, c). This model captures the interaction
between axial-flexural and shear behavior of RC structural walls
and columns under cyclic loading. The SFI-MVLEM uses ad-
vanced constitutive relationships for concrete and steel materials
available in OpenSees, such as ConcreteCM (Chang and Mander
1994) and the Giuffre–Menegotto–Pinto uniaxial strain-hardening
material model Steel02 (Filippou et al. 1983). The shear wall dis-
cretization in the vertical and horizontal directions consisted of two
elements per story height and six macrofibers, respectively. This
model has been used successfully for nonlinear dynamic analysis
of RC fixed-base buildings (e.g., Zhang and Li 2017; Kolozvari
et al. 2018) and is presented in this study for the first time in
coupled SSI systems. The shear walls reduce the natural period
of the structure as a result of adding a stiff lateral load-resisting
mechanism to the structure. Further characteristics of this model,
shear wall design, and model parameters adopted herein were given
by Kolozvari et al. (2015b) and Kolozvari and Wallace (2016).
© ASCE 04020028-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
The buildings initially were modeled assuming fixed-base con-
ditions. Then the soil domain was added, and the mat foundation
nodes were tied to the soil nodes using master/subordinate node
constraints, which implied zero relative movement (i.e., no gapping
or sliding) and perfect friction at the interface (i.e., no interface
elements). On the left and right sides of the model, tied degrees
of freedom were applied to the nodes at the same elevation. The
bottom boundary of the soil domain was modeled assuming that
the nodes were fixed against displacements in the vertical direction.
At the bottom left corner of the model, a Lysmer and Kuhlemeyer
(1969) dashpot was utilized to account for the compliance of the
underlying elastic medium. The dashpot properties were selected
to represent the siltstone material found from the geotechnical test-
ing reports (i.e., V s ¼ 700 m=s and mass density ¼ 2.5 Mg=m3 ).
The dashpot coefficient was 1,750 Mg=s. The finite-element mesh
was discretized to have element sizes varying from 1.0 to 2.5 m.
This represented 8–10 elements/wavelength to avoid numerical
dispersion. The finer parts of the mesh were used for the soil clus-
ters underneath and surrounding the buildings. Although the model
considered elastoplastic soil behavior and built-in constitutive
model damping, a 5% Rayleigh damping proportional to the mass
and committed elements stiffness was supplemented to account for
damping at small strain values of the soil. Ground motions were in-
put to the model using the uniform excitation technique in OpenSees.
Intensity Measures
Earthquake ground motion time histories of various levels of inten-
sity were selected to evaluate the structural response of the hypo-
thetical buildings. The ground motions, used subsequently for
the computation of EDPs, were selected following FEMA P-58
(FEMA 2012). Ten ground motion records per hazard [72, 475,
and 2,475-year mean return periods (i.e., 50%, 10%, and 2% prob-
abilities of exceedance in 50 years, respectively)] were selected
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 using the PEER ground motion database tool (PEER 2014) to
match the conditional mean spectrum (CMS) proposed by Baker
(2011). The CMS relates the spectral amplitude at a given period
associated to an earthquake magnitude (M), distance from the
earthquake to the site of interest (R), and normalized residual from
a ground-motion model prediction (ε) of the pseudospectral accel-
eration (Sa). These can be obtained from a deaggregation analysis
to predict ground motions at the site of interest, based on a prob-
abilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). Local effects associated
with the acceleration amplification of earthquakes with periods
larger than 2.0 s in the Los Angeles Basin (Graves and Aagaard
2011) were not included. Fig. 3 presents the deaggregation analysis
for the Los Angeles downtown area showing the contribution of
active and potential sources to the seismic hazard. The analyses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
were developed using a Site class C based on ASCE 7.16 (2017)
according to the V s soundings. The deaggregation analyses were
performed using the USGS tool (2008). The results show that
the 72-year mean return period has an approximate M ¼ 6.52
and R ¼ 22.89 km. The 475-year mean return period is represented
by M ¼ 6.74 and R ¼ 12.78 km. The 2,475-year mean return
period has an approximate M ¼ 6.88 and R ¼ 9.51 km. Fig. 4
shows the ground motions selected and scaled to match the com-
puted target CMS at a period of 4.0 s. This period was chosen
to approximately match the expected first-mode natural period
of the hypothetical 40-story structures studied herein. CMS was
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation analysis for downtown Los Angeles for different hazard levels: (a) 72 years; (b) 475 years; and
(c) 2,475 years.
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Conditional mean spectra at a given Sa (T ¼ 4.0 s) for 10 selected ground motions per return period: (a) 72 years; (b) 475 years; and
(c) 2,475 years.
© ASCE 04020028-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
computed based on the associated M, R, and ε for each hazard
level. Table 2 presents the selected earthquakes from the PEER
ground motion database and its characteristics such as M, R, scale
factor based on CMS, mechanism (i.e., type of faulting), PGA,
PGV, AI, HI, and predominant natural frequency for each return
period. Based on the CMS, the PGAs were approximately 0.16,
0.28, and 0.38 g for the 72, 475, and 2,475-year mean return peri-
ods, respectively.
For each ground motion, the intensity measures PGA, PGV, AI,
and HI were computed (Table 2) and correlated with the Sa at 4.0 s
of the CMS. The CMS Sa values at 4.0 s were 0.04, 0.16, and
0.31 g for the 72, 475, and 2,475-year mean return periods, respec-
tively. Fig. 5 shows the relationship for the site-specific soil con-
ditions considered for different IM levels. The figures show the
Pearson’s r correlation coefficient of the relationship between the
IM and the Sa at 4.0 s of the CMS. This linear correlation coef-
ficient measures the strength and the direction of a linear relation-
ship between the two variables. The worst fit in terms of intensity
measures are found for the PGA. PGAs are less suitable to relate the
frequency content and duration of an earthquake and tend to under-
estimate the ground motion intensity. Accumulated measures such
as AI and HI are more representative of the earthquake intensity
than are peak acceleration values of an earthquake because they
contain the information of the entire time history (Housner 1975;
Newmark 1975).
(c)
(c)
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 2. Selected horizontal earthquake acceleration time histories from PEER ground motion database
Return Scale factor
period NGA based on R PGA PGV AI HI Frequency V s30
(year) No. Earthquake Year record CMS Mw (km) Mechanism (g) (m=s) (m=s) (m) (Hz) (Period s) (m=s)
72 1 Denali Alaska 2002 2,115 1.33 7.9 126.3 Strike slip 0.1 0.13 0.48 0.34 12.9 (0.07) 376
2 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,560 2.8 7.62 63.8 Reverse oblique 0.12 0.18 0.87 1.01 2.89 (0.34) 463
3 Duzce Turkey 1999 1,613 1.87 7.14 25.7 Strike slip 0.1 0.11 0.15 0.31 5.73 (0.17) 782
4 Hector Mine 1999 1,776 2.05 7.13 56.4 Strike slip 0.14 0.15 0.47 0.63 3.33 (0.30) 359
5 Hector Mine 1999 1,836 3.39 7.13 42.0 Strike slip 0.22 0.24 0.8 0.69 6.92 (0.14) 635
6 Chalfant Valley-02 1986 549 1.03 6.19 14.3 Strike slip 0.26 0.2 0.53 0.77 3.94 (0.25) 303
7 San Fernando 1971 68 0.69 6.61 22.7 Reverse 0.16 0.15 0.32 0.55 5.39 (0.18) 316
8 Superstition Hills-01 1987 718 1.31 6.22 17.5 Strike slip 0.17 0.17 0.45 0.66 7.69 (0.13) 179
9 Loma Prieta 1989 802 0.49 6.93 7.5 Reverse oblique 0.25 0.2 0.35 0.87 6.13 (0.16) 380
10 Landers 1992 850 1.75 7.28 21.8 Strike slip 0.3 0.34 2.16 1.06 5.46 (0.18) 359
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

475 1 Kobe Japan 1995 1,100 2.08 6.9 24.8 Strike slip 0.46 0.44 2.51 1.32 2.55 (0.39) 256
2 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,196 2.43 7.62 41.9 Reverse oblique 0.13 0.51 1.23 0.85 2.89 (0.34) 210
3 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,237 2.94 7.62 58.4 Reverse oblique 0.23 0.3 2.6 1.9 2.25 (0.44) 180
4 Hector Mine 1999 1,762 1.62 7.13 41.8 Strike slip 0.29 0.45 2.27 1.48 7.82 (0.12) 382
5 Chi-Chi Taiwan-04 1999 2,746 3.31 6.2 33.0 Strike slip 0.17 0.36 1.06 1.49 4.2 (0.23) 253
6 Taiwan SMART1(45) 1986 570 2.25 7.3 56.0 Reverse 0.16 0.16 0.91 0.72 6.1 (0.16) 309
7 Denali Alaska 2002 2,113 2.37 7.9 53.0 Strike slip 0.13 0.27 1.15 0.57 12.2 (0.08) 382
8 Chi-Chi Taiwan-06 1999 3,313 3.74 6.3 58.8 Reverse 0.33 0.29 1.12 1.54 2.72 (0.36) 221
9 Taiwan SMART1(45) 1986 576 2.78 7.3 55.1 Reverse 0.29 0.27 1.95 0.88 6.1 (0.16) 327
10 Superstition Hills-02 1987 729 1.31 6.54 23.8 Strike slip 0.23 0.41 1.31 1.43 7.82 (0.12) 179
2,475 1 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,476 1.93 7.62 28.0 Reverse oblique 0.3 0.72 2.14 1.44 4.73 (0.21) 406
2 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,534 3.02 7.62 15.9 Reverse oblique 0.39 1.0 10.8 4.38 1.55 (0.64) 409
3 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,199 3.64 7.62 35.4 Reverse oblique 0.32 0.99 6.28 3.41 1.55 (0.64) 192
4 Imperial Valley-06 1979 171 1.96 6.53 0.07 Strike slip 0.62 1.4 3.33 3.53 1.46 (0.68) 264
5 Chi-Chi Taiwan-03 1999 2,507 3.45 6.2 24.4 Reverse 0.5 1.0 5.0 4.41 3.71 (0.26) 258
6 Superstition Hills-02 1987 729 2.57 6.54 23.8 Strike slip 0.46 0.81 5.03 2.8 7.82 (0.12) 179
7 Kobe Japan 1995 1,121 3.08 6.9 27.7 Strike slip 0.49 0.65 10.13 3.73 1.21 (0.82) 256
8 Kobe Japan 1995 1,114 1.77 6.9 3.31 Strike slip 0.62 1.6 5.53 6.0 0.84 (1.19) 198
9 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,541 2.08 7.62 12.3 Reverse oblique 0.39 0.88 6.77 2.93 3.28 (0.30) 493
10 Chi-Chi Taiwan 1999 1,496 3.43 7.62 10.4 Reverse oblique 0.54 1.5 10.4 3.53 1.99 (0.50) 403

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Relations between Sa at 4.0 s of the CMS and each IM: (a) PGA; (b) PGV; (c) AI; and (d) HI.

© ASCE 04020028-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

 Natural Periods of Proposed Numerical Models
Fig. 6 presents elastic transfer functions computed to identify peri-
ods and modes of vibration of the four building models. These
transfer functions were determined as the ratio of the frequency
response of nodes on top of the structure (i.e., 40th story) to the
input time history frequency response. Frequency responses were
computed by applying the fast Fourier transform (FFT) to the out-
put acceleration time histories. A total of 30 earthquakes were used
to compute the transfer functions, and the average trendline results
are highlighted in the figure.
The hypothetical tall building modeled as a fixed-base structure
had a predominant natural period of 4.2 s (i.e., natural frequency ¼
0.24 Hz). This period was obtained from an eigenvalue analysis
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
performed in OpenSees and was confirmed by the transfer func-
tions. Higher modes also can be identified with the transfer func-
tions; the second and third modes were 1.3 and 0.7 s, respectively
[Fig. 6(a)]. When adding the soil domain, which consisted of pre-
dominantly competent alluvium deposits (Fig. 1), the building
slightly elongated its predominant natural period to approximately
4.6 s (i.e., natural frequency ¼ 0.21 Hz). This represents a 10%
~
period lengthening (i.e., T=T ¼ 1.1). Higher modes had negligible
period lengthening. Fig. 6(b) shows the transfer function of the
building when shear walls were added in its middle bay. This stiff-
ening effect caused a 14% reduction of the natural period of the
building (i.e., natural period decreased from 4.2 to 3.6 s). Higher
periods also were reduced. Adding the soil domain to the building
with shear walls caused a 20% period lengthening, i.e., T=T ~ ¼ 1.2
[Fig. 6(d)]. Given the competent soil conditions of this study
(i.e., Dr > 85% for the fill, Qal1, and Qal2 soil layers), the numeri-
cal output of the fixed-base building model and the corresponding
model adding the competent soil domain could lead to similar dy-
namic responses. NIST (2012) stated that period lengthening for
tall buildings can be neglected, but in this study, given the soil con-
ditions and adopted structural configuration, period lengthening of
as much as 20% seems plausible. Stewart et al. (1999) stated that
for high-rise structures with significant higher-mode response,
period lengthening can be neglected. For the fixed-base tall build-
ing model analyzed herein, the modal mass participation ratios
were computed as 74.6%, 14.3%, and 3.8% for the first, second,
and third vibration modes, respectively. The large modal mass
20
rd
15 3 Mode = 0.7s 2nd Mode = 1.3s
Transfer Function (Roof/input history)
10
5 5
(a) 0
25 0 1 2
nd
2 Mode = 1.3s
20
rd
15 3 Mode = 0.7s
10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3
(c) Period (s)
Fig. 6. Transfer functions for: (a) fixed-base building; (b) fixed-base building with shear walls; (c) building including SSI effects; and (d) building
with shear walls including SSI effects.
© ASCE
participation of the first-mode shows that the computed period
lengthening is possible due to the small participation of higher
modes, which is in agreement with Stewart et al.’s (1999) findings.
Engineering Demand Parameters for Hypothetical
Tall Buildings
For the aforementioned building models and selected ground mo-
tions, the EDPs evaluated, to quantifying potential discrepancies on
the structural response, were the interstory drift ratio (IDR), peak
story horizontal acceleration, and building settlement. Those EDPs
were selected herein to describe the performance of the structure
and study their importance when quantifying damage states and
losses using the PBEE methodology. Fig. 7(a) shows means values
of computed maximum interstory drifts. The interstory drifts do not
represent postearthquake residual drifts. These curves represent the
computed mean values of the 10 earthquakes for each hazard level.
Fig. 7(b) shows mean values of computed peak story horizontal
accelerations for the four building models and three hazard levels.
The accelerations presented were obtained using absolute recorders
from OpenSees. As expected, the 2,475-year mean return period
hazard produced the largest demands on the building models: maxi-
mum 1.75% and 1.2 g for computed mean interstory drifts and
mean peak story horizontal accelerations, respectively. Comparing
fixed-base models only (i.e., ignoring SSI effects), significant re-
duction of interstory drift distribution along building height was
computed as a result of adding the shear wall system. This stiffen-
ing effect reduced 14% the natural period of the building. Negli-
gible changes in the interstory drifts over the building height for
the three hazard levels were computed when modeling explicitly
the continuum soil domain. The inclusion of the continuum soil
domain affected the computed building response, as reflected by
the increase in maximum peak story horizontal acceleration distri-
bution along building height. The building model without shear
walls and considering SSI effects (Fig. 7, dashed-dotted line cor-
responding to largest natural period of 4.6 s) caused the largest peak
story horizontal accelerations. Conversely, the fixed-base model
(Fig. 7, solid line) resulted in the smallest computed peak story
horizontal accelerations. The inclusion of SSI effects in the numeri-
cal modeling changed the distribution of the peak story horizontal
20
1st Mode = 4.2s 1st Mode = 3.6s
3rd Mode = 0.5s
15
10 2nd Mode = 1.0s
(b) 0
3 4 5 6 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
∼ ∼
T/T = 1.1 nd
2 Mode = 1.1s T/T = 1.2
20
1st Mode = 4.6s
15
3rd Mode = 0.5s 1st Mode = 4.3s
10
4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(d) Period (s)
04020028-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 7. Computed seismic EDPs along the height for each building model and hazard level: (a) envelope of maximum interstory drifts ; and (b) peak
story horizontal accelerations.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. EDPs at Sa (T ¼ 4.0 s) of the CMS: (a) interstory drifts; (b) peak horizontal acceleration; and (c) settlements.

accelerations and the interstory drifts along the building height.
This was more noticeable for the models considering SSI effects
in the 2,475-year hazard level.
Fig. 8 shows the maximum computed EDPs among all the sto-
ries of the building models for each set of ground motions grouped
in terms of Sa at T ¼ 4.0 s of the CMS. These relations are rep-
resented for each building model along with a power-law functional
fit to the data. The parameters of the functional fit [i.e., EDP ¼
aðSaÞb ], a and b, were determined using least-squares analysis.
The largest computed interstory drift ratio among the set of earth-
quakes was 2.5%. For comparison purposes, maximum allowable
interstory drifts are 2.0% of the story height for a Risk Category I
or II according to ASCE 7.16 Table 12.12.1 (ASCE 2017). The
2,475-year mean return period hazard levels may lead to unaccept-
able performance of this hypothetical structure in terms of inter-
story drift ratios, which warrants the addition of the shear wall
system to reduce the natural period of the building and thus reduce
the interstory drift ratios [Fig. 8(a), dashed and dotted lines below
solid and dashed-dotted lines for interstory drift]. For the build-
ing models considered herein, the maximum computed interstory
drift levels barely changed by considering SSI effects; however,
noticeable changes in their distribution along the building height
were computed [Fig. 7(a)]. The peak seismic-induced horizontal
accelerations increased when SSI effects were considered in the

© ASCE 04020028-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

 Table 3. Parameters for power regression equations relating EDPs with pseudoacceleration at 4.0 s of CMS for each tall building model
Interstory drift Peak horizontal acceleration Settlement
Model type a b R2 σln x a b R2 σln x a b R2 σln x
Fixed-base model 7.29 1.07 0.77 0.86 3.11 1.11 0.67 0.72 N/A N/A
Model including SSI effects 7.26 1.09 0.72 0.79 3.12 0.85 0.67 0.62 0.75 1.42 0.70 1.04
Fixed-base shear walls model 5.38 1.03 0.81 0.76 2.25 0.75 0.73 0.59 N/A N/A
Model with shear walls including SSI effects 4.59 0.92 0.84 0.67 3.75 0.83 0.68 0.6 0.33 1.01 0.65 1.02

numerical model. The addition of a stiff shear wall system to the
building models increased their peak horizontal acceleration re-
sponse compared with those of the building models without shear
walls.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The coefficient of correlation, R2 , for each EDP-hazard level rela-
tionship also is presented in the Table. To describe the dispersion of
the variables, the lognormal standard deviation is presented in the
Table. These equations are presented to describe the variation of

A geotechnical EDP that is related to possible damages on the
building is the maximum vertical displacement (i.e., settlement)
computed at the base of the mat foundation. Fig. 8(c) presents the
variation of maximum settlement computed for each building
model including SSI effects as a function of Sa (T ¼ 4.0 s) of the
CMS. Maximum settlements of 0.24 m were computed for the
2,475-year mean return period condition. The addition of a shear
wall system (which reduced the building’s natural period) reduced
the building settlements to 0.18 m (i.e., 25% reduction). This out-
come is applicable to the soil and structural conditions considered
in this paper, because seismic-induced settlements depend on nu-
merous factors, including presence of liquefiable soils, input mo-
tion characteristics, in situ conditions and stress history of the soil
deposit, and configuration of the soil–foundation–structural system.
The soils studied herein were not susceptible to liquefaction (Fig. 1),
as verified by computed excess pore-water pressure ratios less than 1
for all building models. Several authors, such as Yang et al. (2003),
Howell et al. (2015), and Karimi and Dashti (2016), have shown that
the PDMY02 model tends to underpredict seismic-induced settle-
ments due to underestimation of the coefficient of the volumetric
compressibility.
Table 3 presents both parameters for the power-fit equations, a
and b, which were obtained using power-fit regression analyses.
EDPs with the Sa of the CMS for each hazard level. Parameter
a represents a scaling factor of the fitting curve, which shifts ver-
tically as a increases. Parameter b determines the rate of growth or
decay of the function. The larger the flexibility of the building, re-
flected in large computed natural vibration periods, generally the
larger was the a value.
Parametric Variation of Soil Profile
To understand the role that the strength characteristics of the soil
domain plays in EDP-IM relationships at the Sa (T ¼ 4.0 s) of the
CMS, a variation of soil parameters was performed to modify the
natural period of the soil profile. Fig. 9 shows the parametric varia-
tion of shear wave velocities and friction angles used to further
study the influence of soil properties in SSI effects on the building
response; V s and ϕ were parametrically varied by 100 m=s and 5°,
respectively, from the values adopted in the previous section. This
variation yielded three soil profiles in terms of the predominant soil
natural period: (1) Soil type C with T ¼ 0.3 s, (2) Soil type C with
T ¼ 0.4 s (i.e., soil profile adopted in the remaining sections of the
paper), and (3) Soil type D with T ¼ 0.6 s. These natural periods
were calculated according to the V s measured for the topmost 40 m
of the soil profile, which is consistent with the maximum depth
considered in numerical simulations. Constitutive soil parameters
were recalculated for the cases of predominant soil natural period
T ¼ 0.3 s and 0.6 s and are presented in Table 4.
The tall building models without shear walls were used to quan-
tify SSI in IM-EDP relationships given the assumed parametric
variation of the soil profile. Fig. 10 shows for each hazard level
the computed EDPs for the Sa of the CMS at 4.0 s. The stiffer
the soil, i.e., small natural period of the soil profile (T ¼ 0.3 s

Table 4. PDMY02 constitutive soil parameters recomputed for

parametrically modified soil conditions
Soil Parameter Fill Qal1 Qal2 Siltstone
Soil type C, V s (m=s) 328.6 380.1 496.2 587.6
T ¼ 0.3 s Dr (%) 84 98 96 99
Gmax;1;oct (MPa) 256.3 351.5 623.2 853.5
Br (MPa) 560.1 606.2 1,240.0 1,780.1
ϕTXC (degrees) 34.6 40.8 36.9 35.8
ϕPT (degrees) 29.6 35.84 31.9 30.8
Soil type D, V s (m=s) 128.6 180.1 296.2 387.6
T ¼ 0.6 s Dr (%) 70 85 82 89
Gmax;1;oct (MPa) 39.2 78.9 222.1 371.5
Fig. 9. Parametric variation of shear wave velocities and friction angles Br (MPa) 137.1 217.6 705.5 1,238.2
to study role of soil domain on EDP-IM relationships at Sa (T ¼ 4.0 s) ϕTXC (degrees) 24.4 29.2 26.3 25.3
of the CMS. ϕPT (degrees) 19.4 24.2 21.3 20.3

© ASCE 04020028-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

 (a) (b)
Fig. 10. EDPs at Sa (T ¼ 4.0 s) of the CMS arising from changes in soil profile from Class C to Class D: (a) interstory drifts; (b) peak horizontal
acceleration; and (c) settlements.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in the figure), the larger were the computed interstory drift ratios
and peak horizontal accelerations (Fig. 10, dashed lines above
dashed-dotted lines). Smaller interstory drifts and peak story hori-
zontal accelerations were computed by changing the soil type from
C to D. Maximum interstory drift ratios of 3.1% were calculated
for the soil with T ¼ 0.3 s, which represents an 8% increase with
respect to those in Fig. 8. In this parametric study, by lowering
shear wave velocities (i.e., increasing natural vibration period of
the soil profile), large degradation of the shear modulus and large
mobilized shear strains in the soil caused by the earthquake were
expected. This implies large hysteretic damping in the soil domain
due to the large shear strains (Seed and Idriss 1970), and thus,
smaller acceleration of the ground motion through the structure and
reduction of seismic structural demands. The large damping asso-
ciated with a flexible foundation soil (i.e., Soil type D in this case)
causes a reduction of the computed seismic demands in the building
(Fig. 10, dashed-dotted line). Slight differences were computed in
the peak story horizontal accelerations for the soil conditions cor-
responding to T ¼ 0.3 and 0.4 s. Increasing the flexibility of the
soil, reflected in larger natural period [Fig. 10(c)], caused maxi-
mum computed settlements up to 0.5 m for the 2,475-year mean
return period condition, which implies an increase of 150% with
respect to the values in Fig. 8. Excessive differential settlements
leading to large interstory drifts can trigger architectural, func-
tional, and structural damage of structural and nonstructural com-
ponents of tall buildings, leading to large seismic-induced losses
that affect the PBEE decision-making framework. Because typical
downtown Los Angeles area soil profiles period are closer to 0.4 s
(for the topmost 40 m), this was adopted in the remaining sections
of the paper.
Loss Analyses for Tall Building Models
The PBEE methodology evaluates at each story level the response
of structural and nonstructural components susceptible to seismic
damage. These structural and nonstructural components have an
associated fragility function, defined as the probability of exceed-
ing a particular damage stage at a certain level of the EDP. FEMA
(2012) compiled fragility functions and consequence data based on
occupancy models, including multiunit residential, commercial, hos-
pitality, and education (FEMA 2012). Selected structural and non-
structural components considered for the tall building models studied
herein along with their quantities are given in Table 5. Structural and
nonstructural components and quantities were selected based on case
histories and typical values from buildings with similar use and oc-
cupancy reported in FEMA P-58 (FEMA 2012). Quantities were
© ASCE 04020028-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
(c)
compared with and adjusted from similar studies of earthquake-
induced losses in tall buildings, such as Ramirez and Miranda (2009)
and Molina Hutt et al. (2016). The selected fragility functions were
grouped depending on the EDPs used to define damage. Interstory
drifts and peak story horizontal accelerations were selected as the
main engineering input demands in the PBEE evaluation conducted
on the four tall building models. For the model including the shear
wall system, shear wall rotation also was considered as an EDP. The
curvature of the wall was obtained by linearizing the strain between
the top and bottom of the element. The curvature was assumed to be
constant over the height of the wall; therefore the wall rotation was
computed as the curvature multiplied by the height. Large values
of peak story horizontal accelerations tend to affect nonstructural
components (e.g., suspended ceilings and pendant lighting) more
than structural components, which are negatively impacted by large
values of interstory drifts (e.g., exterior walls and structural steel con-
nections). Computed losses related directly to seismic-induced set-
tlements were not included in the analyses. Foundation deformations
represent a source of losses that is not considered in the typical PBEE
loss analysis. Larger losses than those computed herein are expected
because settlements can affect structural and nonstructural building
components.
The loss analyses were performed using PACT version 3.1.1
(ATC 2012), which performs Monte Carlo simulations to calculate
losses. PACT can be used to account for various uncertainties in
loss estimations using Monte Carlo simulation procedure. In this
study, 2,000 realizations were required to reach stable loss assess-
ment results. For each realization, fragility functions and EDPs
were used to compute damage states. PACT uses simulation results,
demand models, and component damage fragilities to determine
damage states for each structural and nonstructural building com-
ponent. Subsequently, PACT assigns quantities necessary to re-
mediate damage in terms of costs and mobilization times using
consequence functions. Repair costs for building components at
each hazard level are summed for each realization to obtain the cu-
mulative distribution function of losses. Repair time can be com-
puted using the assumption that the floors are repaired in series or
parallel.
In addition to information related to EDPs and fragility func-
tions of building components, input parameters such as estimated
total replacement cost and time of the building, typical occupancy,
floor area, and story height need to be input to perform loss analy-
ses. The total replacement cost of the building was assumed as
$130 million, based on $3,550=m2 ($330=ft2 ) replacement cost
typical for tall buildings with floor area of approximately 900 m2.
The total replacement time was estimated as 730 days: 2 weeks=
story plus 200 days of demolition and redesign (Molina Hutt 2017).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 5. Selected fragility functions and quantities related to engineering demand parameters
Quantity per direction
Fragility number Component description per FEMA P-58 Floor level Units L T ND EDP
B1031.001 Bolted shear tab gravity connections All EA 40 40 — IDR (rad)
B1031.001a Bolted shear tab gravity connections All EA 56 56 — IDR (rad)
B1031.011c Steel column base plates, column W > 300 plf First EA 12 12 — IDR (rad)
B1035.021b Post-Northridge connection beam depth ≤ W27 All EA 4 4 — IDR (rad)
B1035.031b Post-Northridge connection beam depth ≤ W27 All EA 8 8 — IDR (rad)
B2022.036 Midrise stick-built curtain wall All 32 ft2 64.55 64.55 — IDR (rad)
C1011.001b Wall partition All 100 linear ft 3.87 3.87 — IDR (rad)
C1011.001c Wall partition, full height All 100 linear ft 0.97 0.97 — IDR (rad)
C2011.001f Prefabricated steel stair that accommodate drift All EA 1 — — IDR (rad)
C3011.001b Wall finishes All 100 linear ft 0.37 0.37 — IDR (rad)
B1031.021b Welded column splices, column 150 plf < W < 300 plf c
EA 12 12 — IDR (rad)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B1044.102aa Slender concrete wall, 18 in. thick, 12 ft high, 20 ft long First 7 floors 144 ft2 13.45 13.45 — PHR
C3027.002 Raised access floor, seismically rated All 100 ft2 — — 7.20 PFA
C3032.003a Suspended ceiling (Ip ¼ 1.0), A < 250 ft2 All 250 ft2 — — 8.71 PFA
C3032.003b Suspended ceiling (Ip ¼ 1.0), 250 < A < 1,000 ft2 All 600 ft2 — — 3.63 PFA
C3032.003c Suspended ceiling (Ip ¼ 1.0), 1,000 < A < 2,500 ft2 All 1,800 ft2 — — 2.42 PFA
D1014.011 Traction elevator First EA — — 11.00 PFA
D2021.023a Cold or hot potable water piping, D > 2.5 in: All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.15 PFA
D2021.023b Cold or hot potable water piping, D < 2.5 in: All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.15 PFA
D2022.013a Heating hot water piping, D < 2.5 in: All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.81 PFA
D2022.013b Heating hot water piping, D < 2.5 in: All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.81 PFA
D2022.023a Heating hot water piping, D > 2.5 in: All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.29 PFA
D2022.023b Heating hot water piping, D > 2.5 in: All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.29 PFA
D2031.013b Sanitary waste piping All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.55 PFA
D3031.013o Chiller capacity: 350 to <750 t First 500 t — — 1.00 PFA
D3031.023o Cooling tower capacity: 350 to <750 t First 500 t — — 1.00 PFA
D3041.011c HVAC galvanized sheet metal ducting, A < 6 ft2 All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.73 PFA
D3041.012c HVAC galvanized sheet metal ducting, A > 6 ft2 All 1,000 linear ft — — 0.19 PFA
D3052.013o Air handling unit capacity: 25,000 to <40,000 ft3 =min First 30,000 ft3 — — 5.00 PFA
D4011.023a Fire sprinkler water piping All 1,000 linear ft — — 1.94 PFA
D4011.053a Fire sprinkler drop standard threaded steel All 100 — — 0.87 PFA
D5012.013o Motor control center First EA — — 8.00 PFA
D5012.023n Low voltage switchgear capacity: 100–350 A All 225 A — — 2.00 PFA
D3031.013n Chiller capacity: 350 to <750 t Roof 500 t — — 1.00 PFA
D3031.023n Cooling tower capacity: 350 to <750 t Roof 500 t — — 1.00 PFA
D3052.013n Air handling unit capacity: 25,000 to <40,000 ft3 =min Roof 30,000 ft3 — — 5.00 PFA
D5012.013n Motor control center Roof EA — — 8.00 PFA

Note: EA = each; L = longitudinal; T = transverse; ND = nondirectional; PFA = peak floor acceleration (g); plf = pound per linear foot; and PHR = plastic hinge
rotation. 1 ft = 0.3048 m; 1 in. = 0.0254 m; and 1 lb = 0.45 kg.
a
These fragility functions were updated and included in the model with shear walls.
b
These fragility functions were not included in the model with shear walls.
c
This fragility function was assigned to the following floors: 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22th, 25th, 28th, 31th, 34th, and 37th.

The population type for the 40-story buildings was assumed as
commercial office, and the quantities for the fragility functions
were determined at the 50th percentile level. For each hazard level
and building model, economic losses were computed by integrating
repair losses over all components at each story of the building
(FEMA 2012). Large postearthquake residual drifts were not com-
puted due to the predominantly elastic structural behavior of the tall
building models. Thus, collapse scenarios and mechanisms are not
discussed. Cost of engineering designs, demolition, and other field
activities prior to construction were not included in the computation
of building replacement cost because this paper focuses only on
estimating differences in direct losses from the proposed numerical
tall building models including soil–structure interaction effects on
their seismic response.
Fig. 11 shows cumulative distribution functions of the direct
losses for each tall building model and seismic hazard level. Those
direct losses were calculated based on the fragility functions in
Table 5. Indirect losses associated with repair time were not explic-
itly accounted for in the analyses. The computed direct losses did
not vary significantly for the 72-year hazard level. Less than 0.3%
in direct losses were computed among the building models for 50th
percentile cumulative distribution function. The same analyses
yielded 50th percentile losses up to 0.6% of the total building
replacement costs for the 475-year hazard level when SSI effects
were included in the tall building model. The values in Fig. 11
slightly underestimate losses in relation to other reported fixed-base
structural models that include material and geometric nonlinearities
in the structural behavior (e.g., Jayaram et al. 2012; Molina Hutt
et al. 2016; Kolozvari et al. 2018). Large differences in losses were
computed for the 2,475-year hazard level. Maximum median losses
computed for building models subjected to 2,475-year mean return
period earthquakes were 5.4% of the total replacement cost of the
building. By including SSI effects, the median direct economic
losses increased up to 33% in relation to building losses ignoring
SSI with shear walls effects for the 2,475-year mean return period.
For a given probability level in Fig. 11(c), the largest losses were
computed for the building models without shear walls because
those buildings had the largest engineering demands for such a

© ASCE 04020028-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

 (a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11. Cumulative distribution functions of earthquake-induced losses for each tall building model and seismic hazard level: (a) 72-year mean
return period; (b) 475-year mean return period; and (c) 2,475-year mean return period.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

separating structural (i.e., interstory drift and plastic rotation-

Fig. 12. Median total repair direct losses for each tall building model
and seismic hazard level.
large earthquake [Fig. 8(a), interstory drifts from CMS Sa
(T ¼ 4 .0 s) equal to 0.31 g]. Regardless of the seismic hazard level,
including SSI effects in the analyses and the lack of a lateral load-
resisting shear wall system triggered the largest earthquake-induced
losses. Overall, the smallest losses were computed for the tall build-
ings with lateral load-resisting shear wall systems modeled using a
fixed-base approach. In practical application, this conventional mod-
eling approach can lead to unconservative designs or unrealistic pre-
dictions of earthquake-induced direct losses. These findings are
consistent with the computed transfer functions and inherent flexi-
bility associated with the natural periods of each building model.
The contribution of structural and nonstructural components to
the seismic-induced losses is presented in Fig. 12 for each tall build-
ing model and earthquake hazard level. This was accomplished by
sensitive) and nonstructural (i.e., acceleration-sensitive) building
components. The results computed for the 72-year mean return
period showed that the main contribution to the median losses arises
from damage of nonstructural components. This is because very
small interstory drift ratios (up to 0.6%) were computed for this
hazard level. For the 2,475-year mean return period, structural com-
ponents dominated the computed median losses regardless of the
adopted tall building model. The inclusion of a shear wall lateral
load-resisting system, modeled using the SFI-MVLEM, reduced
the computed total repair losses (compare Bar graphs 1 and 3 with
Bar graphs 2 and 4 for the 2,475-year mean return period). Further-
more, inclusion of a shear wall system to the tall building consid-
erably reduced the structural contribution to the losses (observe
the size reduction of the shaded regions of Models 1 and 2 in relation
to Models 3 and 4 in Fig. 12) but increased the nonstructural con-
tribution (observe the increase in size of the unshaded regions of
Models 1 and 2 in relation to Models 3 and 4). Considering SSI ef-
fects in the tall building models triggered larger median total repair
losses (compare Bar graphs 1–2 and 3–4 for any return period).
Fig. 13 shows cumulative distribution functions of repair time
for each tall building model and seismic hazard level. Building re-
pair time represents the necessary time to achieve building reoccu-
pancy and full operational level of the building after an earthquake.
The repair times were computed assuming that floors are repaired
in series. This assumption is conservative (i.e., it tends to overesti-
mate repair time), and the results are presented to comparatively
evaluate repair times computed with each tall building model rather
than to provide accurate predictions of repair time. The maximum
median (i.e., 50th percentile) computed repair time for the 72-year
mean return period was 27 days for the tall building model with a
shear wall system and considering SSI effects. The 475-year mean

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13. Cumulative distribution functions for repair time for each tall building model and seismic hazard levels: (a) 72-year mean return period;
(b) 475-year mean return period; and (c) 2,475-year mean return period.

© ASCE 04020028-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028

 return period earthquake caused tall building repair times of as
much as 45 days, for the tall building models considering SSI ef-
fects. Computed median recovery time for the 2,475-year mean re-
turn period earthquake level was 340 days for the building with no
shear walls. In terms of direct losses and repair time, it was shown
that neglecting the effects of SSI and the lateral load-resisting sys-
tem in the tall building models yields a response that is not
representative of the actual seismic behavior. In Fig. 13, the
fixed-base tall building model (i.e., solid line) shifts from being
the model with the shortest predicted repair times to the model with
the largest estimated repair times as the seismic hazard level in-
creases. In general, the inclusion of SSI in the numerical modeling
provides larger and perhaps more-realistic estimates of direct losses
and repair time.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper presented the results of numerical simulations of
hypothetical tall building models used to determine the earthquake-
induced losses associated with three engineering demand parame-
ters: interstory drift ratios, peak story horizontal accelerations, and
shear wall rotations. The reduction of the natural period of the
coupled soil–structure system by adding a lateral load-resisting
shear wall also was studied in this paper. A parametric variation
of the soil profile was performed to assess its contribution to the
seismic response of the tall buildings. The numerical simulations
considered three seismic hazard levels and were performed using
OpenSees and the PDMY02 constitutive model for foundation soils
and the SFI-MVLEM model for the shear wall system. From this
study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Computed transfer functions from acceleration output and input
time histories were used in this study to identify the natural per-
iods and vibration modes for the tall building models. The in-
clusion of the soil domain in a tall building model changed its
predominant natural period from 4.2 to 4.6 s. First-mode natural
period lengthening was obtained for all models due to the in-
clusion of SSI effects. Higher vibration modes had negligible
impact on the computed period lengthening. Inclusion of the
shear walls decreased by 14% the natural period of the building
(i.e., natural period reduction from 4.2 to 3.6 s).
2. Amplification of peak story horizontal accelerations was com-
puted for the tall building models by considering SSI effects. This
was obtained regardless of the seismic hazard level. The com-
puted interstory drift levels slightly decreased by considering SSI
effects in the building models. Maximum seismic-induced settle-
ments of approximately 0.18 m were computed for the building
with stiff lateral load-resisting shear wall system. Considering SSI
effects on the seismic response of tall buildings is desirable to
avoid unrealistic predictions of earthquake-induced EDPs.
3. Considering a stiff lateral load-resisting shear wall system in the
building models increased the acceleration response and re-
duced significantly the interstory drift ratios in relation to the
building models without shear walls. Tall building models with
shear walls reduced the building settlements by approximately
25%. Current practice tends to favor the inclusion of core shear
walls to stiffen the lateral loading response behavior of tall
buildings. Thus, modeling shear walls leads to a reduction of
the seismic-induced interstory drift ratios and settlements. How-
ever, for those buildings with a large number of acceleration-
sensitive components, shear walls should be used and analyzed
carefully.
4. Parametric variations of the initial site natural period of the
downtown Los Angeles soil profile changed significantly the
© ASCE 04020028-13
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
computed seismic demands of the tall building without shear
walls. The smaller the natural period of the soil, the larger were
the computed interstory drift ratios. The results also showed that
the larger the natural period of the soil, the smaller were the
computed peak story horizontal accelerations. Increasing the
natural vibration period of the soil caused large damping and
degradation of the shear modulus (i.e., large mobilized shear
strains in the soil caused by the earthquake). As expected, large
earthquake-induced settlements were computed for flexible
soils (i.e., those with large natural periods). These findings also
can be expected with soils that can experience similar earth-
quake performance and period lengthening during earthquakes.
5. Regardless of the seismic hazard level, including SSI effects in
the analyses and the lack of a lateral load-resisting shear wall
system triggered the largest earthquake-induced losses. In gen-
eral, the smallest losses were computed for the tall buildings
with a lateral load-resisting shear wall system modeled using
a fixed-base approach. This modeling approach of tall buildings
could lead to unrealistic predictions of earthquake-induced di-
rect losses. For the specific conditions assumed herein, com-
puted median direct economic losses for the 2,475-year mean
return period increased as much as 33% when considering
SSI effects in the numerical analyses in relation to building
losses ignoring those effects. Academics and practitioners are
encouraged to include SSI effects when analyzing seismic per-
formance and losses of tall building in high seismicity areas.
These findings are consistent with the computed transfer func-
tions and natural periods of each building model.
6. Interstory drift- and plastic rotation-sensitive structural compo-
nents dominated the computed median losses regardless of the
adopted building model for strong earthquakes. Small-intensity
earthquakes produced damage mostly to nonstructural compo-
nents as computed with the median losses. By adding a shear
wall system to the tall building models, interstory drifts de-
creased but peak horizontal accelerations increased. This com-
bined effect caused a general decrease of total direct losses, but
an increase of nonstructural damage in relation to tall buildings
without a lateral load-resisting shear wall system. In general, the
addition of SSI effects to the tall building models triggered lar-
ger losses compared with other fixed-base models. The authors
recommend considering SSI effects in tall building models to
avoid underestimation of earthquake-induced direct losses.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this work was provided by National Science
Foundation Grant No. CMMI-1563428. The support of Dr. Joy
Pauschke and Dr. Richard Fragaszy, program directors at the
National Science Foundation, is greatly appreciated. The authors
acknowledge Ahmadreza (Reza) Mortezaie and Sharid K. Amiri
at Caltrans for their valuable comments and encouragement to ac-
complish the goals of this paper.
References
AMEC. 2013. Final geotechnical data report. Regional connector transit
corridor project. Contract No. E0119. Los Angeles: Metro.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 ASCE. 2017. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings
and other structures. ASCE 7.16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ATC (Applied Technology Council). 2012. Performance assessment com-
putation tool (PACT). Redwood City, CA: ATC.
Baker, J. W. 2011. “Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground-motion
selection.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (3): 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215.
Biot, M. A. 1962. “Generalized theory of acoustic propagation in porous
dissipative media.” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 34 (9A): 1254–1264. https://doi
.org/10.1121/1.1918315.
Chang, G. A., and J. B. Mander. 1994. Seismic energy based fatigue dam-
age analysis of bridge columns. Part 1: Evaluation of seismic capacity.
NCEER Technical Rep. No. NCEER-94-006. New York: National
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
Dibblee, T. W., and H. E. Ehrenspeck. 1991. Geologic map of the Holly-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Columbia University on 03/11/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wood and Burbank (south 1/2) quadrangles, Los Angeles, California.
Map Scale: 1:24,000. Los Angeles: Dibblee Geological Foundation.
Elgamal, A., Z. Yang, and E. Parra. 2002. “Computational modeling of
cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
quake Eng. 22 (4): 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)
00022-2.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. Seismic perfor-
mance assessment of buildings. FEMA P-58. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Filippou, F. C., E. P. Popov, and V. V. Bertero. 1983. Effects of bond
deterioration on hysteretic behaviour of reinforced concrete joints. Re-
port to the National Science Foundation. Richmond, CA: Earthquake
Engineering Research Center.
Graves, R. W., and B. T. Aagaard. 2011. “Testing long-period ground-
motion simulations of scenario earthquakes using the Mw 7.2 El
Mayor-Cucapah mainshock: Evaluation of finite-fault rupture charac-
terization and 3D seismic velocity models.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
101 (2): 895–907. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100233.
Hatanaka, M., and A. Uchida. 1996. “Empirical correlation between pen-
etration resistance and internal friction angle of sandy soils.” Soils
Found. 36 (4): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.4_1.
Housner, G. W. 1975. “Measures of severity of earthquake ground shak-
ing.” In Proc., 1st US National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. Oak-
land, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Howell, R., E. M. Rathje, and R. W. Boulanger. 2015. “Evaluation of sim-
ulation models of lateral spread sites treated with prefabricated vertical
drains.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (1): 04014076. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001185.
Jayaram, N., N. Shome, and M. Rahnama. 2012. “Development of earth-
quake vulnerability functions for tall buildings.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 41 (11): 1495–1514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2231.
Karimi, Z., and S. Dashti. 2015. “Numerical and centrifuge modeling of
seismic soil–foundation–structure interaction on liquefiable ground.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (1): 04015061. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001346.
Karimi, Z., and S. Dashti. 2016. “Seismic performance of shallow founded
structures on liquefiable ground: Validation of numerical simulations us-
ing centrifuge experiments.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (6):
04016011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001479.
Karimi, Z., S. Dashti, Z. Bullock, K. Porter, and A. Liel. 2018. “Key pre-
dictors of structure settlement on liquefiable ground: A numerical para-
metric study.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 113 (Mar): 286–308. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.03.001.
Khosravifar, A., R. W. Boulanger, and S. K. Kunnath. 2014. “Effects of
liquefaction on inelastic demands on extended pile shafts.” Earthquake
Spectra 30 (4): 1749–1773. https://doi.org/10.1193/032412EQS105M.
Kolozvari, K., K. Orakcal, and J. W. Wallace. 2015a. “Modeling of cyclic
shear-flexure interaction in reinforced concrete structural walls. I:
Theory.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (5). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001059.
Kolozvari, K., K. Orakcal, and J. W. Wallace. 2015b. Shear-flexure inter-
action modeling for reinforced concrete structural walls and columns
under reversed cyclic loading. PEER Rep. No. 2015/12. Berkeley, CA:
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
© ASCE 04020028-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2020, 146(5): 04020028
Kolozvari, K., V. Terzic, R. Miller, and D. Saldana. 2018. “Assessment of
dynamic behavior and seismic performance of a high-rise rc coupled
wall building.” Eng. Struct. 176 (Apr): 606–620. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.100.
Kolozvari, K., T. A. Tran, K. Orakcal, and J. W. Wallace. 2015c. “Modeling
of cyclic shear-flexure interaction in reinforced concrete structural
walls. II: Experimental validation.” J. Struct. Eng. 141 (5): 04014136.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001083.
Kolozvari, K., and J. W. Wallace. 2016. “Practical nonlinear modeling of re-
inforced concrete structural walls.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (12): G4016001.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001492.
Lamar, D. L. 1970. Geology of the Elysian Park-Repetto Hills area, Los
Angeles County, California. Special Rep. No. 101, Map Scale 1:24,000.
Sacramento, CA: California Division of Mines and Geology.
Lysmer, J., and R. L. Kuhlemeyer. 1969. “Finite dynamic model for infinite
media.” Eng. Mech. Div. 95 (1882): 167–188.
McKenna, F., G. L. Fenves, M. H. Scott, and B. Jeremic. 2000. Open sys-
tem for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). Berkeley, CA:
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California,
Berkeley.
Mercado, J. A., L. G. Arboleda-Monsalve, and V. Terzic. 2019. “Seismic
soil-structure interaction response of tall buildings.” In Proc., Geo-
Congress 2019, 118–128. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061
/9780784482100.013.
Meyerhof, G. 1957. “Discussion on research on determining the density of
sands by penetration testing.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 110. London: Butterworths
Scientific.
Miranda, E., and H. Aslani. 2003. Probabilistic response assessment for
building-specific loss estimation. PEER Rep. No. 2003/03. Berkeley,
CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Molina Hutt, C. 2017. Risk-based seismic performance assessment of
existing tall steel framed buildings. London: Univ. College London.
Molina Hutt, C., I. Almufti, M. Willford, and G. Deierlein. 2016. “Seismic
loss and downtime assessment of existing tall steel-framed buildings
and strategies for increased resilience.” J. Struct. Eng. 142 (8):
C4015005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001314.
Newmark, N. 1975. “Seismic design criteria for structures and facilities
trans-Alaska pipeline system.” In Proc., 1st US National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Institute.
NIST. 2012. Soil-structure interaction for building structures. Rep. No.
NIST/GCR 12-917-21. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research). 2014. “PEER ground
motion database.” Accessed February 20, 2019. https://ngawest2
.berkeley.edu.
Ramirez, C. M., and E. Miranda. 2009. Building-specific loss estimation
methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engi-
neering. Rep. No 171. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake En-
gineering Center.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1970. Soil moduli and damping factors
for dynamic response analyses. Technical Rep. No. EERRC-70-10.
Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Stewart, J. P., R. B. Seed, and G. L. Fenves. 1999. “Seismic soil-structure
interaction in buildings. II: Empirical findings.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 125 (1): 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)
125:1(38).
USGS. 2008. 2008 interactive deaggregation, v3.3.1. Washington, DC:
USGS.
Yang, Z., A. Elgamal, and E. Parra. 2003. “Computational model for cyclic
mobility and associated shear deformation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 129 (12): 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2003)129:12(1119).
Yang, Z., J. Lu, and A. Elgamal. 2008. OpenSees soil models and solid-
fluid fully coupled elements: User’s manual. San Diego: Univ. of
California San Diego.
Zhang, Q., and Y. Li. 2017. “The performance of resistance progressive
collapse analysis for high-rise frame-shear structure based on Open-
Sees.” Shock Vib. 2017: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3518232.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.