International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-020-00529-0 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

The Effect of Nonlinear Soil–Structure Interaction on the Ductility

and Strength Demands of Vertically Irregular Structures
Hamid Asadi-Ghoozhdi1 • Reza Attarnejad1

Received: 5 January 2020 / Revised: 22 May 2020 / Accepted: 25 May 2020 / Published online: 8 June 2020
Ó Iran University of Science and Technology 2020

Abstract
Soil–structure interaction (SSI) is key to the elastic and inelastic seismic responses of buildings. In this research, the
ductility and strength demands of vertically irregular MDOF buildings, considering nonlinear SSI effects, are paramet-
rically investigated. The superstructure is modeled as a nonlinear multi-story shear building, and the beam on nonlinear
Winkler foundation (BNWF) concept is employed to simulate the response of shallow foundations. Specifically, combined
stiffness–strength irregularities are introduced by reducing lateral properties at a specific story of the regular (reference)
models. Soil–structure systems with 5, 10, and 15 stories are analyzed under three sets of earthquake records corresponding
to different soil classes. A wide range of key parameters including number of stories, fundamental period, level of
inelasticity, aspect ratio, and site class are scrutinized through nonlinear time history analyses. The results reveal that SSI
can reduce the strength and ductility demands of the vertically irregular structures, especially those with short periods. This
beneficial effect becomes even more significant for systems with low ductility ratios. It is also concluded that the median
ductility demand increases in the modified story owing to the softness/weakness of the first story. Furthermore, this
increase due to the code strength regularity limit reached up to 78% and 36% in fixed-base and flexible-base conditions,
respectively. Finally, simplified equations are proposed to estimate the maximum ductility demands of regular and irregular
structures with flexible-base conditions.

Keywords Vertical irregularity  Soil–structure interaction  Ductility demand distribution  Nonlinear dynamic analysis 
Site class  Strength demand

1 Introduction
Functional or architectural limitations may cause structural
irregularities, among which the non-geometric vertical
irregularities generally occur due to the non-uniform dis-
tribution of mass, stiffness, or strength along the height of a
building. Such irregularities happen particularly in base-
ments, where large open spaces are allocated to parking,
lobbies, or shops. The soft/weak story mechanism can lead
to severe damage and collapse, as evidenced by experi-
ences and observations during past earthquakes, such as the
& Reza Attarnejad
attarnjd@ut.ac.ir
Hamid Asadi-Ghoozhdi
h_asadi@ut.ac.ir
1
School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
1989 Loma Prieta, the 1994 Northridge, the 1995 Kobe,
and the 1999 Izmit disasters as well as the recent earth-
quakes in Kumamoto, Japan and the Iran–Iraq border.
The effects of vertical irregularities on the linear and
nonlinear responses of structures have been considerably
studied, with results showing that these irregularities
increase the seismic demand of structures [1–5]. The
irregularity limits imposed by the 1994 Uniform Building
Code (UBC) in terms of structural stiffness, strength, and
mass as well as their effects on the maximum ductility
demand of irregular structures was evaluated [1]. Al-Ali
and Krawinkler [2] investigated the influence of vertical
irregularities on height-wise variations in seismic demand
and found that mass irregularity effects are less severe than
those of vertical stiffness and strength irregularities. The
effects of vertical irregularities on seismic demands of a
frame designed in accordance with the philosophy of
strong column-weak beam were determined [3]. Under this

123
1210
configuration, plastic hinges are permitted to develop only
at the beam ends and the base of the columns. Introducing a
soft and/or weak story increases drift demands in modified
and neighboring stories but decreases drift demands in
other stories. The effects of mass, stiffness, strength, and
coupled stiffness-strength irregularities under different
intensities of ground motions were studied [4]. By
expressing all limit state capacities using a common
intensity measure, the reference and modified structures
were subjected to a set of earthquake records scaled to
several intensity levels. Simple equations were proposed
for rapidly estimating variations in critical inter-story drift
demands due to coupled stiffness–strength irregularities
[6]. The modification of the ductility reduction factor for
vertically irregular structures under pulse-like ground
motions was suggested [7], which significantly reduces the
aforementioned factor, thereby enabling control over the
ductility demands of structures with vertical irregularities
[8]. Researchers have also evaluated the reliability of
concrete moment frames with vertical stiffness or strength
irregularities using probabilistic methods [9, 10]. Numeri-
cal investigations under seismic base excitation have been
devoted to the elastic and inelastic responses of a class of
nonlinear oscillators that represent structural systems with
relatively rigid superstructures on a soft ground story
[11, 12]. The concept of direct displacement-based seismic
design (DDBD) has been applied to several vertically
irregular reinforced concrete (RC) frames [13]. Moreover,
a parametric study of simplified two-DOF models was
carried out to investigate the seismic responses of struc-
tures with soft or weak stories [14]. Despite the value
presented by these studies, however, they were conducted
under the assumption that structures are built on strong
rock foundations (fixed-base conditions).
In reality, the flexibility of soil beneath a structure and
the soil–foundation–structure interaction can affect the
seismic behaviors of buildings. Soil–structure interaction
(SSI) initially changes the seismic input motion applied to
a system—a phenomenon known as kinematic interaction.
Second, the dynamic characteristics of a soil–structure
system are changed, with such an alteration always
accompanied by an increase in natural period. In addition,
the energy radiation of waves propagating away from a
structure in semi-infinite soil media generally increases
soil–structure damping [15]. Most parametric studies on
inelastic soil–structure systems focused on single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) structures (e.g., [16–19]). The seismic
behavior of a reference wind turbine was evaluated con-
sidering SSI effects [20]. In recent years, a number of
studies have been conducted to investigate the drift and
ductility demands of multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
structures, taking into account soil flexibility generally on
the basis of a regular distribution of stiffness and strength
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
over the height of structures [21–24]. The influence of
peripheral wall openings in the basement and the number
of basement floors on the seismic response of buildings
with braced framed system was studied by considering SSI
[25].
The effects of SSI on the strength reduction factor (SRF,
denoted as Rl) have been extensively investigated over the
last decade. A parametric study was carried out to deter-
mine the SRF of elasto-plastic SDOF systems, considering
both site and interaction effects [26]. The results showed
that SSI generally decreases the SRF. Rl for MDOF soil–
structure systems were estimated using proposed simplified
equations that are a function of fixed-base fundamental
periods, ductility ratios, number of stories, and other
important SSI parameters [27]. Lu et al. [28] also studied
the performance-based design of MDOF shear buildings
with consideration for SSI effects and used the results as
basis in introducing two design factors that capture strength
demands of SDOF and MDOF systems. It should be noted
that foundation uplift and soil yielding were not considered
in the above studies.
The effects of foundation uplift on the linear and non-
linear responses of SDOF systems were evaluated [29, 30],
and the results showed a decrease in base shear, drift, and
ductility demand as well as an increase in top displace-
ment. Based on the seismic responses of low-rise steel
frames to which nonlinear SSI was incorporated using the
beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) approach,
it was ascertained that foundation uplifting and soil yield-
ing reduces the ductility demands of buildings [31]. The
BNWF concept was also employed in a parametric study
regarding the influence of nonlinear SSI on the displace-
ment amplification factor (C1) [32]. The results indicated
that the equations suggested in current rehabilitation codes
underestimate top displacement demands in the presence of
foundation rocking and uplifting.
Relatively few studies have been dedicated to the
influence of SSI on vertically irregular buildings. An
assessment was conducted on the two-story, two-bay
asymmetric frame by considering the effects of material
(soil and superstructure) yielding and geometric (uplifting
and P-D) nonlinearities [33]. It was concluded that foun-
dation uplift and soil yielding strongly reduce inter-story
drift and increase total displacements of soil–structure
systems. Nonlinear analysis of a three-dimensional model
was performed for evaluating the seismic responses of
setback steel buildings in a probabilistic framework [34]. It
was observed that SSI reduces seismic capacity and
amplifies the drift demands of flexible-base setback
buildings. An investigation was also carried out on the
probabilistic seismic performance of non-geometric verti-
cally irregular steel buildings, with SSI effects taken into
account [35], and a more recent study clarified the
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
influence of linear SSI on the ductility demands of verti-
cally irregular structures [36].
Most of the above-mentioned examinations centered on
case studies or regular structures and inadequately eluci-
dated the effects of SSI on the seismic demands of verti-
cally irregular systems. Parametric studies that account for
the effects of vertical irregularities and nonlinear SSI are
also rare. The present study aims to assess the influence of
SSI on the ductility and strength demands of vertically
irregular structures. To this end, shear building structures
are subjected to three sets of ground motions for site
classes C, D, and E in fixed-base and flexible-base condi-
tions. Effects of number of stories, design ductility, fun-
damental period, soil flexibility, site class, aspect ratio, and
the irregularity ratio on ductility demand distribution are
extensively evaluated. For practical applications, simplified
expressions are proposed to compute maximum ductility
demands of regular and vertically irregular buildings with
flexible bases.
2 Soil–Structure Systems
2.1 Reference Structural Models
Contrary to discussions regarding the limitations of well-
known shear beam models, these representations have been
widely used in seismic analyses of multi-story regular (e.g.,
[27, 28, 37]) and irregular [6, 7] buildings, because they
effectively capture both nonlinear behaviors and higher
mode effects and are therefore suitable for extensive
parametric studies due to simplicity and low computational
cost. The structures assessed in this study are 5-, 10-, and
15-story shear-type models, with mass assumed to be
concentrated at each floor level. Story height is set at
3.5 m, and the total structural mass is considered uniformly
distributed along the height of a structure. The force–dis-
placement relationships in shear beams are specified using
the Takeda hysteretic rule with a strain hardening of 5%
(Fig. 1). This model represents the cyclic behaviors of non-
deteriorating (ductile) RC members.
All the reference models (fixed-base regular structures)
are first designed in accordance with the Iranian seismic
code of practice (i.e., Standard No. 2800) [38] and ASCE
7-10 [39]. The lateral stiffness of each story is assumed
proportional to its shear strength, which is distributed over
height on the basis of the code-specified lateral load pat-
tern. The total stiffness of a structure is calculated in a way
that accorded a specified target fundamental period to the
building. The base shear strength of MDOF structures is
also determined in accordance with the presumed target
ductility of the fixed-base models in a trial-and-error pro-
cess. Note that ASCE 7-10 and the Iranian seismic code
1211
Force
α K0
Vy
Kμ =K0.μβ
K0
Deformation
dy dm
Strain hardening ratio (α)
Unloading stiffness parameter (β)
-Vy
Fig. 1 Takeda hysteretic model
have similar patterns as regards the vertical distribution of
lateral seismic forces. In general terms, the seismic design
force (Fx) applied to each level x, due to response in the
first mode of vibration can be expressed as:
w x hk
Fx ¼ Pn x k V ð1Þ
i¼1 wi hi
where V is the total base shear of an MDOF structure; wi
and hi are the effective weight imposed on level i and the
height of the floor at level i from the base, respectively.
Parameter n denotes the number of stories, and the k-ex-
ponent is a function of the fundamental period of a building
(T1). Using the Rayleigh method, 5% damping is assigned
to the first mode of vibration and the vibration mode with at
least a 90% cumulative mass participation.
2.2 Vertically Irregular Models
A structural irregularity is defined as a change in the
geometric characteristics or parameters of mass, stiffness,
and strength. The limits on vertical stiffness and strength
irregularities in the Iranian seismic code [38] and ASCE
7-10 [39] are similar. These limits are described as follows:
1. Lateral stiffness irregularity: If the lateral stiffness of a
story is less than 70% of that in the story above it or
less than 80% of the average stiffness of the three
stories above it, this level is referred to as a ‘‘soft
story.’’ If these values decrease to 60% and 70%,
respectively, then the story is described as an ‘‘ex-
tremely soft story.’’
2. Lateral strength irregularity: A story in a building is
called a ‘‘weak story’’ if the lateral strength of a story is
less than 80% of that in the story above it. If the value
decreases to 65%, then the story is described as an
‘‘extremely weak story.’’
123
1212 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228

Given the fact that a change in stiffness is generally NEHRP classification, whose properties are presented in
associated with an alteration in strength in most practical Table 1. The rigid foundation was assumed to be rectan-
concrete frames, this study focuses on coupled stiffness– gular with foundation width B-to-length L (B/L) ratios of
strength irregularities, which are introduced separately in 0.4, 0.75, and 1.0 for the 5-, 10-, and 15-story structures,
two locations along the height of a building, namely the respectively. The soil beneath the foundation is replaced by
first story and the top story. Vertical irregularities are a set of spring-damper elements (Fig. 3). The horizontal
created by applying three modification factors. As shown dynamic stiffness of shallow foundation is modeled using a
in Fig. 2, irregular structures emerged from the reduction parallel spring-damper pair, whose coefficients are calcu-
in stiffness and strength parameters at the first story; that is, lated using the equations proposed by Gazetas [43]:
the parameters decreased by 90%, 80%, and 65% of those "  0:85 #
qVs2 L B
found on the upper (second). For irregularity at the roof kh ¼ 2 þ 2:5 ; ch ¼ qVs Ab ð2Þ
level, the stiffness and strength values were assumed to be 2m L
0.9, 0.8, and 0.65 times those of the reference regular
where q, t, and Vs represent the soil density, Poisson’s
structures. These modification factors are denoted by k.
ratio, and effective shear wave velocity of soil, respec-
Note that a fair comparison of the responses of regular and
tively, and Ab is the area of the foundation. Vertical soil
irregular structures necessitates equality in the main char-
springs were modeled through one-dimensional, zero-
acteristics of the buildings, such as fundamental periods,
length springs. The QzSimple2 material is used in the
base shear strengths, and damping properties [3]. Accord-
OpenSees (Open System for Earthquake Engineering
ing to Fig. 2, stiffness was uniformly scaled by coefficient
Simulation) software to define the nonlinear inelastic
gk for all the stories, thereby keeping the irregularity ratio
behaviors of the vertical springs. The behaviors of this
constant and maintaining the same period across the reg-
material were derived on the basis of the pile-calibrated
ular and irregular structures. Similarly, for a soft first story,
backbone curves developed by Boulanger et al. [44] and
the shear strengths were scaled uniformly to obtain an
were calibrated against a set of shallow foundation tests
irregular frame with the same yield base shear as that found
[41]. The initial vertical stiffness of the footing is derived
in a regular frame.
as follows [43]:
"  0:75 #
2.3 Soil–Foundation Model GL B
kv ¼ 0:73 þ 1:54 ð3Þ
1m L
The BNWF approach is used to model the behavior of
shallow foundation resting on a semi-infinite medium—a where G is the shear modulus of soil. As depicted in Fig. 3,
concept that has been widely implemented in previous the stiffness of the end region springs and end length ratio
studies (e.g., [40–42]). This method enables the simulta- are determined in such a way as to produce rotational
neous incorporation of geometric nonlinearity (foundation stiffness of the shallow foundations. The end length ratio is
uplift) and material nonlinearity (soil yielding) effects. The adapted from Harden et al. [40], who recommended this
selected soil types are classes C, D, and E according to the variable as a function of L/B. Generally, an increase in
spring stiffness Rk can be calculated as a function of
foundation end length ratio Re in the following manner:
 
12kh 3
kzi BL3  ð1  2Re Þ Lend
Rk;h ¼ 3
; Re ¼ ð4Þ
1  ð1  2Re Þ L

Equation (4) was derived by matching the moment

produced by the springs for a unit foundation rotation to
rotational stiffness kh. The stiffness and damping of the
surface foundation for rocking motion that are used to
define the soil–foundation model are described as follows:
 0:15
3qVs2 0:75 L
kh ¼ ðIb Þ ; ch ¼ qVa Ib ð5Þ
1m B
where Ib is the moment of inertia of the surface foundation
about the transverse axis. The coefficients of the vertical
Fig. 2 Introducing coupled stiffness–strength irregularity at the first damper elements as part of the q-z material can be evalu-
story ated thus:

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228 1213

Table 1 Soil properties used in this study

Soil type Mass density (q) Shear wave velocity (Vs0) Poisson’s ratio (t) Soil damping (ng)

C 1.9 t/m3 400 m/s 0.33 0.04

D 1.8 t/m3 200 m/s 0.4 0.07
E 1.7 t/m3 120 m/s 0.45 0.09

Center [47]. All the ground motions were obtained from

earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 6 and with the
m closest distance to fault ruptures exceeding 9 km. The main
characteristics of the selected ground motions are sum-
marized in Table 2. Three sets of ground motions corre-
sponding to site classes C, D, and E are used, and each set
m of the earthquakes consists of 20 seismic excitations. Fig-
Htot ×h ure 4 depicts the acceleration response spectra of 20
ground motions in each set in comparison with the corre-
sponding Iranian design spectrum.
All the ground motions in each set were scaled to the
m elastic design spectrum [design-basis earthquake (DBE)
level] in such a way as to guarantee that the spectral
Rigid elastic
element acceleration of an earthquake record matched the target
spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of a struc-
ture. Note that kinematic interaction effects can be
Zero-length
kend kmid kend Zero-length neglected for shallow foundations subjected to vertically
elements element
(QZSimple2 Lend Lmid Lend
(Equivalent propagating shear waves. Therefore, free-field ground
material) linear)
motions can serve as the foundation input motion.
L

Fig. 3 Soil–MDOF structure model
ch
ciz ¼ PðS=2Þ
2 i¼1 ðile Þ2
where le denotes the non-normalized spring spacing. A
minimum of 25 springs along the length of a footing is
suggested to ensure numerical stability and reasonable
accuracy [45]. Note that the hysteretic damping of soil
material is explicitly included in the model. The vertical
bearing capacity of the underlying soil is calculated for
each system to acquire safety factors of 3 and 5 under
gravity loads. In other words, the capacity of the BNWF
springs is obtained with a presumed factor of safety against
vertical loading.
3 Selected Ground Motions
A total of 60 earthquake ground motions with different
characteristics were chosen from FEMA-440 [46] for site
classes C, D, and E; these data were derived from the
database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
4 Key Parameters
The seismic responses of soil–structure systems depend on
ð6Þ the characteristics of the superstructure, soil, and input
motion. The influence of these factors can be described
using the following key parameters:
1. Fixed-base period (T1): This is a fundamental period
ranging from 0.3 to 1.5 s for 5-story structural models,
0.5 to 2.5 s for 10-story structural models, and 1.0 to
3.0 s for 15-story structural models, with intervals of
0.1 s implemented to cover actual ranges for practical
structures.
2. Design ductility of the structure (lt): Reference regular
structures are designed on the basis of target ductility
levels of 1, 2, 4, and 6. Note that the ductility demand
of i-th story li is calculated as:
dmi
li ¼ ð7Þ
dyi
where dmi and dyi are the i-th maximum inter-story
displacement and yield displacement of the same story,
respectively.

123
1214 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228

Table 2 Characteristics of the ground motions used in this study (a) Ground motions recorded on site class C (b) Ground motions recorded on
site class D (c) Ground motions recorded on site class E (soft soil)
Date Earthquake M Station Distance (km)* Component PGA (cm/s2)

(a)
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro, Parachute Test Facility 12.69 315 200.2
02/09/71 San Fernando 6.5 Pasadena, CIT Athenaeum 25.47 90 107.9
02/09/71 San Fernando 6.5 Pearblossom Pump 38.97 21 133.4
06/28/92 Landers 7.5 Yermo, Fire Station 23.62 0 167.8
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 APEEL 7, Pulgas 41.86 0 153.0
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Gilroy#6, San Ysidro Microwave site 18.33 90 166.9
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Saratoga, Aloha Ave. 8.50 0 494.5
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Gilroy, Gavilon College Phys Sch Bldg 9.96 67 349.1
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Santa Cruz, University of California 18.41 360 433.1
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 San Francisco, Diamond Heights 71.33 90 110.8
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Fremont, Mission San Jose 39.51 0 121.6
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Monterey, City Hall 44.35 0 71.6
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Yerba Buena Island 75.17 90 66.7
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Anderson Dam, Downstream 20.26 270 239.4
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy, Gavilon College Phys Sci Bldg 14.84 67 95.0
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy#6, San Ysidro Microwave Site 9.86 90 280.4
07/08/86 Palmsprings 6.0 Fun Valley 14.24 45 129.0
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Littlerock, Brainard Canyon 46.58 90 70.6
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Castaic, Old Ridge Route 20.72 360 504.2
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Lake Hughes#1, Fire station#78 35.81 0 84.9
(b)
06/28/92 Landers 7.5 Yermo, Fire Station 23.62 270 240.0
06/28/92 Landers 7.5 Palm Springs, Airport 36.15 90 87.2
06/28/92 Landers 7.5 Pomona, 4th and Locust, Free Field 117.5 0 65.5
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Los Angeles, Hollywood Storage Bldg. 24.03 360 381.4
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Santa Monica City Hall 26.45 90 866.2
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Los Angeles, N. Westmoreland 26.73 0 393.3
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Gilroy 2, Hwy 101 Bolsa Road Motel 11.07 0 394.2
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Gilroy 3, Sewage Treatment Plant 12.82 0 531.7
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Hayward, John Muir School 52.68 0 166.5
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Agnews, Agnews State Hospital 24.57 0 163.1
10/01/87 Whittier Narrows 6.1 Los Angeles, 116th St School 23.29 270 288.4
10/01/87 Whittier Narrows 6.1 Downey, County Maintenance Bldg. 20.82 180 193.2
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro#13, Strobel Residence 21.98 230 136.2
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 Calexico, Fire Station 10.45 225 269.6
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy#4, 2905 Anderson Rd 11.54 360 341.4
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy#7, Mantnilli Ranch, Jamison Rd 12.07 0 183.0
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy#2, Keystone Rd. 13.69 90 207.9
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy#3 Sewage Treatment Plant 13.02 90 189.8
02/09/71 San Fernando 6.5 Los Angeles, Hollywood Storage Bldg. 21.20 90 207.0
02/09/71 San Fernando 6.5 Vernon, Cmd Terminal Building 4814 Loma Vista 49.9 277 104.6
(c)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood Shores) 43.80 90 277.6
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood Shores) 43.80 360 63.0
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Larkspur Ferry Terminal 94.60 270 134.7
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Larkspur Ferry Terminal 94.60 360 94.6
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Redwood City (APEEL Array Stn. 2) 43.23 43 270.0

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228 1215

Table 2 (continued)
Date Earthquake M Station Distance (km)* Component PGA (cm/s2)

10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Redwood City (APEEL Array Stn. 2) 43.23 133 222.0
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Treasure Island (Naval Base Fire Station) 77.42 0 112.0
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Treasure Island (Naval Base Fire Station) 77.42 90 97.9
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Emeryville, 6363 Christie Ave. 76.90 260 254.7
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Emeryville, 6363 Christie Ave. 76.90 350 210.3
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 San Francisco, International Airport 58.65 0 231.5
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 San Francisco, International Airport 58.65 90 322.7
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Outer Harbor Wharf 74.26 35 281.4
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Outer Harbor Wharf 74.26 305 265.5
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Title & Trust Bldg. (2-story) 72.20 180 191.3
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Title & Trust Bldg. (2-story) 72.20 270 239.4
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro Array 3, Pine Union School 12.85 140 260.9
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro Array 3, Pine Union School 12.85 230 216.8
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood Shores) 53.89 40 45.1
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood Shores) 53.89 310 66.7
*
Closest distance to fault rupture

Individual ground motions Design Spectrum

3 3 3
Site Class C Site Class D Site Class E
Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec) Period (sec) Period (sec)

Fig. 4 Elastic response spectra of ground motions in each set with the corresponding design spectrum for site classes C, D, and E

3. Soil flexibility: Soil shear wave velocity (Vs0) is set at qult BL

FSv ¼ ð9Þ
120, 200, and 400 m/s, for site classes C, D, and E, Nu
respectively.
where qult denotes the ultimate vertical bearing
4. Aspect ratio of the building: This parameter is defined
capacity, and Nu is the applied gravity load. This factor
as:
was employed in modeling clearly different foundation
H behaviors, from uplifting-dominated (high FSv) to
s¼ ð8Þ
ðL=2Þ sinking-dominated (low FSv) responses.
where H  represents the effective height of the MDOF Other parameters are less important and can be assigned
structure and can be approximated as 70% of the total for conventional buildings using typical values [19, 21].
height of the structure, according to the provisions of One such parameter is the ratio of foundation mass to the
ATC3-06 [48] and ASCE 7-10. total mass of the structure, which is assumed to be 0.1.
5. Vertical factor of safety (FSv): The static factor of
safety against vertical loading is defined as:

123
1216
5 Methodology and General Procedures
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted directly in the
time domain using the OpenSees [49] software of the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. The
dynamic analysis was performed under earthquake ground
motion after the application of gravity load and initial
foundation settlement due to vertical loading. Soil–struc-
ture systems were subjected to 60 ground motions recorded
on site classes C, D, and E provided by FEMA-440 [46].
For each ground motion representing a specific site class, a
family of 12,900 soil–structure systems covering 5-, 10-, and
15-story models with different fixed-base periods and a wide
range of predefined key parameters were considered. The
systems included vertically irregular and reference regular
structures in fixed-base and flexible-base conditions with
aspect ratios of 2, 3, 5; FSv values of 3 and 5; design ductility
ratios of 1, 2, 4, and 6; irregularity ratios of 0.9, 0.8, and 0.65;
two irregularity positions at the first story and roof level; and
three soil types C, D, and E. It should be mentioned that the
ranges of some key parameters, such as the fundamental
period, may be regarded as wider than their practical values to
cover all possible systems.
For each system, the yield strength demand of a regular
structure in the fixed-base state was first calculated for a
given design ductility under each earthquake ground
motion. For any given case, the base shear strength of
superstructure Vy was calculated via iteration to reach the
target ductility for the fixed-base models within an accu-
racy of 2%. Then, the ductility demand of each soil–
structure system was calculated, in which the yield strength
of the superstructure was similar to that of a fixed-base
model. That is, the effects of irregularities and nonlinear
SSI on ductility demand were evaluated. The procedure
described above is summarized as follows (Fig. 5):
1. Shear building models are defined with consideration
of the number of stories.
2. The fundamental period and design ductility of a fixed-
base regular system are selected.
3. The stiffness and strength of the MDOF structure are
distributed along the height of the building in accor-
dance with the code-specified lateral load pattern. The
total stiffness and base shear strength of the structure
must be scaled to achieve a target fundamental period
and target ductility ratio, respectively.
4. An earthquake ground motion is chosen from three sets
of records corresponding to different soil classes
5. A nonlinear time history analysis is performed on
reference structures in fixed-base conditions under the
given earthquake record, and Vy is calculated to
achieve the presumed design ductility with 2%
tolerance.
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
6. The soil–structure system with the same yield strength
as that calculated in Step 5 is subjected to the selected
free-field ground motion, and ductility demand distri-
bution along the height of the system is computed.
Note that the selected shear wave velocity and soil
parameters correspond to the soil type chosen in step 4.
7. An initial irregular structure is created, with reductions
in stiffness and strength parameters applied at the first
story or roof level of a building (applying the k factor).
8. The total stiffness and strength of the irregular
structure are then scaled so that the fundamental period
and base shear strength become similar to those of the
corresponding reference model (through the coeffi-
cients gk and gs shown in Fig. 2).
9. The final irregular structure with the base shear
strength obtained from step 5 is excited by the selected
earthquake record in fixed-base and flexible-base
conditions.
6 Effects of SSI on Ductility Demand
Distribution
This section comprehensively explains the effects of ver-
tical irregularities and SSI on the ductility demand distri-
bution of the MDOF structures. It also presents the separate
evaluations of the influence of the predefined key
parameters.
6.1 Effect of Irregularity Ratio
The effects of irregularity ratio k on the ductility demands
of the 10-story models are illustrated for fixed-base and
flexible-base shear buildings. As the irregularity ratio (k)
decreases, the degree of irregularity increases, indicating
that the structures soften/weaken. Figure 6 shows the mean
values obtained from 20 ground motions recorded on site
class D. The results are derived for both fixed-base and
flexible-base models with soft/weak first stories, T1 = 1 s,
s = 3, FSv = 3, and design ductility levels of 1, 4, and 6.
The abscissa is the averaged ductility demand, and the
vertical axis is the relative height of a structure. Figure 6
indicates that as the irregularity ratio increases, median
ductility demand increases at the first story but decreases in
the other stories for both fixed-base and flexible-base
irregular buildings. This trend is intensified by increasing
the structural nonlinearity, so a target ductility of lt = 6
causes the collapse of the first story. For the low ductility
structures (elastic state), the ductility demand in a modified
story is similar to that in the regular cases, and the ductility
demand in the upper stories decreases. In addition, non-
linear SSI is beneficial for irregular structures and reduces
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
Select: n , T1 and μt
Assign initial stiffness Ktot and strength Vy,tot , and
distribute them along the height of the structures
Scale total stiffness to achieve the target period T1
Adjust
Vy,tot
Select a ground motion from three sets of records
Perform nonlinear time history analysis for fixed-base
reference structures under the given earthquake
Calculate stories ductility ratio μi
No | μma x -μt |≤ Yes
Tolerance
Fig. 5 Flowchart of the general procedure for evaluation ductility demands of flexible-base MDOF buildings
Fig. 6 Effect of irregularity ratio on height-wise distribution of averaged ductility demand for 10-story structures with soft first story and
T1 = 1 s
the seismic demand of the modified story. As the irregu-
larity ratio and nonlinearity of a system increase, this
positive effect is amplified in the modified story of the
irregular structure. In other words, SSI effects diminish
structural ductility demand in a localized manner when the
level of inelasticity increases. This finding can be
1217
Select: s , FSv and λ
Calculate input parameters for the Winkler model
Analyze soil- structure system with the same yield
strength (Vy,tot) under the selected record and compute
the ductility demands of the soil–structure system
Create the initial irregular structure by reducing stiffness
and strength parameters at the first or roof story
(apply λ factor)
Scale the total stiffness and strength of the irregular
structure (by the coefficients ηk and ηs )
Analyze the final irregular structure under the selected
earthquake ground motion considering SSI.
generalized as long as the level of increase in ductility does
not lead to collapse. Nonlinear SSI also leads to a more
uniform distribution of ductility demand along the height
of the building.
As previously stated, ASCE 7-10 [39] stipulates stiff-
ness and strength regularity limits of 0.7 and 0.8,
123
1218
respectively. Thus, based on the obtained results, a weak
story limit (k = 0.8) imposed on the first story in fixed-base
and flexible-base conditions corresponded to increases in
ductility demands of the modified story up to 78% and
36%, respectively.
6.2 Effect of Irregularity Position
To evaluate the effects of irregularity position on the
height-wise distribution of ductility demand, 10-story shear
building models exposed to earthquakes recorded on site
class D with and without SSI effects are considered. The
results correspond to three target ductility ratios (lt = 1, 2,
and 4), k = 0.8, T1 = 1 s, FSv = 3, and aspect ratio = 3
(Fig. 7). Two irregularities at the first story and roof level,
as well as the corresponding regular model, are examined.
As seen, the irregularity at the roof increases the demand of
this story, whereas the responses of the other stories are the
same as those observed in the regular cases. However, the
ductility demand distribution in this case is more non-
uniform than for irregularity at the first story. Similar to the
case of irregularity at the first story, an increase in the level
of inelasticity causes collapse mechanism at the modified
story. Moreover, the influence of irregularity on ductility
demands at stories further away from the irregular story
significantly depends on the location of the irregularity. In
Fig. 7 Effect of irregularity position on height-wise distribution of averaged ductility demand for 10-story structures with T1 = 1 s
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
the case of irregularity at the first story, the ductility
demands of the upper stories decrease, as with the obser-
vations discussed in the previous section. Nevertheless, a
weak top story exerts negligible effects on the seismic
response of the other stories. SSI can reduce the ductility
demand of the irregular structures, especially in the mod-
ified story, regardless of whether the irregularity is at the
first story or roof level. As a result, the ductility demand
distribution along the height of the soil–structure systems
becomes more uniform than the distribution in the corre-
sponding fixed-base model.
6.3 Effect of Fundamental Period
Figure 8 depicts the effects of the fundamental period on
the averaged ductility demand of the 10-story vertically
irregular systems. The conditions imposed on both fixed-
base and flexible-base structures are three target ductility
demands (lt = 1, 2, and 6), four fundamental periods (0.5,
1, 1.5, and 2.5 s), k = 0.9 at the base, FSv = 3, and s = 3. It
is observed that increasing the fundamental period results
in a more non-uniform distribution of ductility demand
along the height of the structures. The ductility demand of
the soft first story owing to foundation uplift visibly
decreases at T1 = 0.5 s. The reduction in such demand due
to soil flexibility is more prominent in the structures with
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
Fig. 8 Effect of fundamental period on height-wise distribution of averaged ductility demand for 10-story structures with k = 0.9 at the first story
short periods. This finding is attributed to the fact that a
soft superstructure and a high target ductility ratio acquire
low SSI effects. In the elastic state, an almost uniform
distribution of ductility demand exhibits in the structures
with short periods. By increasing the level of inelasticity,
ductility demand distribution for all ranges of periods
becomes more non-uniform. Ductility demand distribution
does not significantly depend on periods for structures that
experience large inelastic deformations. The ductility
demand concentration at the first story due to vertical
irregularities diminishes in significance for the long-period
structures.
6.4 Effect of Number of Stories
To compare the responses of the 5-, 10- and 15-story
structures, the story ductility demands of the fixed-base and
flexible-base shear buildings are investigated. The results
shown in Fig. 9 are for the structures with a fundamental
period (T1 = 0.1n), three target ductility ratios (lt = 1, 2,
and 6), FSv = 3, and s = 3 under 20 ground motions
recorded on site class D. The dimensionless frequency is
kept constant for different structures, and only the effects
of the number of stories are observed. As seen, SSI effects
reduce the ductility demands of the shear buildings, espe-
cially those with low ductility ratios. Another important
point is that soil flexibility exerts a more significant effect
1219
on the reduction in ductility demand for the 5-story soil–
structure systems compared with the other structures. As
the number of stories increases, the height-wise distribution
of ductility demand becomes more non-uniform, demon-
strating higher mode effects. These outcomes are more
pronounced for highly nonlinear structures. Note that the
maximum ductility demand generally occurs at the top
story.
6.5 Effect of Site Class
The influence of different site classes on the ductility
demand distribution along the height of fixed-base and
flexible-base structures is presented in Fig. 10. The results
are for the 10-story irregular buildings with three target
ductility ratios (lt = 1, 2, and 6), k = 0.9, T1 = 1 s, FSv-
= 3, and aspect ratio = 3. The averaged values for 20
earthquakes corresponding to each site class are given. It
can be seen that for the fixed-base structures, the ductility
demand is generally higher for site class E than for the
other stiff soil profiles. By increasing inelastic behavior,
this trend is intensified at the first story but is less pro-
nounced at the upper stories. Therefore, the site effects can
be evaluated in the fixed-base conditions. On the basis of
the site and SSI effects, the reduction in the ductility
demand of the soil–structure systems is typically more
noticeable in soft soil conditions. Accordingly, despite the
123
1220 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228

Fig. 9 Effect of number of stories on height-wise distribution of averaged ductility demand for regular systems with T1 = 0.1n

Fig. 10 Effect of site class on height-wise distribution of averaged ductility demand for 10-story structures with T1 = 1 s

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
Fig. 11 Effect of aspect ratio and FSv on height-wise distribution of averaged ductility demand for 10-story structures with T1 = 1 s
greater ductility demand in the fixed-base structures loca-
ted on site class E, the SSI effects in this case yield the least
ductility demand. Such demand for both fixed-base and
flexible-base buildings may be considered insensitive to
soil type as inelasticity level increases.
6.6 Effects of Factor of Safety and Aspect Ratio
Figure 11 compares the ductility demand distributions of
the soil–structure systems for three aspect ratios and vari-
ous combinations of FSv and target ductility ratios. The
results are averaged values for the 10-story structures with
k = 0.9, T1 = 1 s, and subjected to 20 ground motions
recorded on site class E. It is shown that the positive
influence of SSI is more prominent as the aspect ratio
increases (i.e., slender building). The trend is less signifi-
cant in the structures suffering from large inelastic defor-
mations. This observation is compatible with the results of
Ganjavi and Hao [21]. As the nonlinearity of the system
increases, further reduction in ductility demand occurs at
the first story. Moreover, the ductility demands of the soil–
structure systems with low FSv are less than those of the
buildings with high FSv. This result can be ascribed to the
fact that decreasing FSv softens soil–foundation–structure
system.
1221
7 Evaluation of Ductility Demand
Distribution Using Coefficient of Variation
For an improved assessment of the ductility demand dis-
tribution along building height, the coefficient of variation
(COV) can be used, which is defined as the ratio of the
standard deviation of story ductility demand to the mean
ductility level of all stories. In this regard, the lower the
COV of story ductility demands, the greater the uniformity
in ductility demand distribution and the better the perfor-
mance of a structure. The influence of irregularity ratios on
the COV of story ductility demands in fixed-base and
flexible-base structures is depicted in Fig. 12. Mean COV
values are derived for the 10-story models with s = 3,
FSv = 3, and three ductility ratios (1, 2, and 6) as well as 20
ground motions recorded on site class E. The abscissa in
Fig. 12 is the fundamental period of the fixed-base struc-
tures and the vertical axis is the averaged COV of story
ductility demands. For both the fixed-base and flexible-
base structures, the COV generally increases as structural
irregularity intensifies, especially for the buildings with
short periods within the elastic range. In the inelastic
range, two distinct segments are separated at the threshold
period, which is related to the target ductility ratio. In the
first segment at a period of nearly less than 1.5 s, the
123
1222
Fig. 12 Effect of irregularity ratio on averaged COV of story ductility demands for 10-story structures with s = 3
ductility demand distribution becomes non-uniform with
increasing irregularity ratio. The results show a high COV
for the irregular structures with lt = 6 given the collapse of
the first story, as described in Sect. 6.1. For periods longer
than this characteristic period, the COV of the story duc-
tility demands in the irregular structures is lower than that
of the demands in the regular ones. Moreover, the COV of
the story ductility demands for the long-period SSI systems
is greater than that of the structures characterized by short
periods. On these bases, then, SSI effects more visibly
influence the decrease in COV for the short-period
structures.
8 Effect of SSI on the Strength Demands
of Vertically Irregular Structures
The effects of SSI on the elastic and inelastic strength
demands of the MDOF structures are discussed in this
section. Total shear strength is calculated in a way that the
maximum ductility demand among all stories reaches the
desired target value for fixed-base and flexible-base
buildings. Figure 13 shows the strength demands of the
regular and irregular 10-story structures under 20 ground
motions recorded on site class D. The results are the
average of the strength demands obtained under all ground
motions and normalized by the total structural mass times
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
PGA of each record. The horizontal axis is the fixed-base
fundamental period of a structure. In this case, the struc-
ture-to-soil stiffness ratio is kept constant for all periods
and is defined as:
xfix H 
a0 ¼ ð10Þ
Vs
where xfix is the natural frequency of the fixed-base
structure. It should be noted that the practical range of this
parameter is from zero for the fixed-base structure to about
2 for systems with dominant SSI effects. Accordingly, a0 is
set at 0.75 and 1.5 for site classes D and E, respectively.
Figure 13 illustrates the results for the 10-story shear
buildings with fundamental periods ranging from 0.5 to
2.5 s; target ductility ratios of l, 2, and 6; FSv = 5; aspect
ratio = 3; and irregularity ratios of 0.9, 0.8, and 0.65, as
well as the corresponding regular model. As shown, non-
linear SSI generally reduces the strength required to
acquire the target ductility ratio. However, the rate of this
reduction is more remarkable for structures with elas-
tic behavior or low ductility ratios. This finding is consis-
tent with the results reported by Ghannad and Jahankhah
[26]. In addition, strength demand decreases as the irreg-
ularity ratio increases, which is compatible with the results
presented in Sect. 6. It is also observed that the strength
required at each ductility level is inversely proportional to
the fundamental period of the structure.
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228 1223

Fig. 13 Effect of irregularity ratio on normalized strength demand for 10-story structures with s = 3 subjected to ground motions corresponding
to the site class D

Fig. 14 Normalized strength demand of 10-story structures for site class D and E with and without inclusion of SSI effect (solid line: Fixed-base,
dashed line: Flexible-base)

To investigate the effects of site class, the strength
demands of the regular 10-story structures are determined
(Fig. 14), including the averaged strength demands of site
classes D and E. As seen, SSI exerts significant effects in
site class E because of the greater a0 in this case. Therefore,
the influence of SSI on the reduction in the strength
demand is more noticeable in site class E. This tendency is
more apparent for the soil–structure systems with short
periods and low ductility ratios. As a result, the strength
reduction factor is lower in the soil–structure systems than
in the fixed-base buildings. This finding indicates that using
the fixed-base strength reduction factor leads to an under-
estimation of the ductility demand of soil–structure sys-
tems and cannot generate the target ductility ratio.

123
1224 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228

9 Estimation of the Maximum Ductility
Demands of MDOF Soil–Structure Systems
In this section, the simplified expressions are proposed for
estimating the maximum ductility demands of regular and
irregular structures, with considering SSI effects. First, a
parabolic function is developed to estimate the maximum
ductility demand of the flexible-base regular systems
(lSSI
Reg ). Then, the ratio of the maximum ductility demand of
the flexible-base irregular structures (lSSI
Irg ) to that of the
regular ones (lSSI
Reg ) is regressed. The equations are given as:
lSSI
Reg ¼ 2
lt ðaTfix þ bTfix þ cÞ
lSSI
Irg e purpose, a large number of soil–structure systems with a
¼ dTfix
lSSI
Reg
where Tfix and lt are the fundamental period and target
ductility ratio for fixed-base structures, respectively; a, b,
and c are the constant coefficients associated with influ-
encing parameters and can be obtained from Tables 3 and 4
for the regular buildings. Also, coefficients d and e in
Eq. (12) are calculated from the following expressions:
d ¼ d1 þ d2 k þ d3 lt þ d4 s
e ¼ e1 þ e2 k þ e3 lt þ e4 s
The coefficients di and ei (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) in Eqs. (13) and
(14) are found through a nonlinear regression analysis and
are listed in Tables 5 and 6.
Figure 15 shows the comparison of the averaged duc-
tility demand ratios from the numerical analyses with those
calculated using Eq. (11). The results are plotted for the
10- and 15-story regular buildings with s = 3,
corresponding to three target ductility demands and site
classes D and E. As seen, the expression can accurately
predict the ductility demands of the regular soil–structure
systems. The efficiency and accuracy of Eqs. (11) and (12)
in estimating the maximum ductility demands of irregular
structures with flexible base are also demonstrated in
Fig. 16.
10 Conclusion
A comprehensive parametric study was performed to
ð11Þ evaluate the effects of nonlinear SSI on the ductility and
strength demands of vertically irregular structures. For this
ð12Þ
wide range of key parameters were subjected to three sets
of ground motions corresponding to different soil classes.
The results of this study are summarized as follows:
1. The median ductility demand increases in the modified
story but decreases in the other stories due to the
softness/weakness of the first story for both fixed-base
and flexible-base buildings. However, seismic demand
in the lower stories is insensitive to irregularity at the
ð13Þ
roof level. It was shown that the code weak story limit
ð14Þ (k = 0.8) imposed on the first story increases the
ductility demand of the modified story up to 78% and
36% in fixed-base and flexible-base conditions,
respectively.
2. In general, SSI can considerably reduce the seismic
demand of the regular and irregular structures, espe-
cially for systems with short periods. This beneficial
effect was further observed at the modified story with
increasing the level of inelasticity. In other words, the

Table 3 Coefficients a, b and c to be used in Eq. (11) for 10-story structures

s=2 s=3 s=5
ai bi ci ai bi ci ai bi ci

Site class C
lt= 1 - 0.029 0.123 0.856 - 0.044 0.190 0.781 - 0.048 0.234 0.720
lt= 2 - 0.081 0.289 0.707 - 0.113 0.419 0.578 - 0.131 0.522 0.431
lt= 4, 6 - 0.125 0.43 0.61 - 0.121 0.42 0.61 - 0.130 0.467 0.553
Site class D
lt= 1 - 0.152 0.592 0.396 - 0.116 0.469 0.495 - 0.089 0.385 0.535
lt= 2 - 0.212 0.855 0.068 - 0.180 0.740 0.166 - 0.131 0.586 0.254
lt= 4, 6 - 0.248 1.019 - 0.070 - 0.232 0.917 0.093 - 0.151 0.705 0.146
Site class E
lt= 1 - 0.150 0.764 - 0.036 - 0.121 0.645 0.093 - 0.083 0.533 0.144
lt= 2 - 0.110 0.667 - 0.119 - 0.085 0.581 - 0.025 - 0.058 0.511 0.0
lt= 4, 6 - 0.078 0.607 - 0.108 - 0.127 0.743 - 0.145 - 0.090 0.652 - 0.132

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228 1225

Table 4 Coefficients a, b and c to be used in Eq. (11) for 15-story structures

s=3 s=5
2
ai bi ci R ai bi ci R2

Site class D
lt= 1 - 0.033 0.221 0.608 0.97 - 0.046 0.253 0.621 0.97
lt= 2 - 0.061 0.403 0.271 0.96 - 0.083 0.465 0.292 0.96
lt= 4, 6 - 0.091 0.548 0.135 0.94 - 0.116 0.618 0.142 0.90
Site class E
lt= 1 - 0.142 0.789 - 0.216 0.99 - 0.151 0.806 - 0.126 0.98
lt= 2 - 0.080 0.533 - 0.144 0.99 - 0.112 0.700 - 0.204 0.99
lt= 4, 6 - 0.078 0.626 - 0.348 0.97 - 0.145 0.909 - 0.454 0.98

Table 5 Coefficients di and ei in Eqs. (13) and (14) for 10-story nonlinear SSI effects indicated that the ductility
irregular structures demands of the soil–structure systems generally
i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 decrease with the softening of soil.
4. For the fixed-base and flexible-base models, increasing
Site class C inelastic behavior leads to greater non-uniformity in
di 0.4293 0.5826 - 0.0248 - 0.0440 ductility demand distribution compared to the corre-
ei - 1.0114 0.9949 - 0.0728 0.1049 sponding elastic model. As expected, SSI effects
Site class D become less significant for highly nonlinear structures.
di 0.1973 0.8482 - 0.0489 - 0.0157 5. The ductility demands of the soil–structure systems
ei -0.4466 0.4831 - 0.0515 0.0279 with low FSv are generally smaller than those of the
Site class E buildings with high FSv. Soil flexibility and foundation
di 0.6201 0.5512 - 0.0208 - 0.0566 uplift exert more pronounced effects in the structures
ei - 1.1971 1.1514 - 0.1045 0.0688 with large aspect ratios (i.e., slender buildings).
6. For the structures with short periods, the averaged
COV of story ductility demands decreases as soil
flexibility increases, meaning a more uniform distribu-
Table 6 Coefficients di and ei in Eqs. (13) and (14) for 15-story tion of ductility demand than that found in the
irregular structures
corresponding fixed-base model. Increasing irregular-
i=1 i=2 i=3 i=4 ity ratio and inelasticity level (i.e., target ductility
Site class D
ratio) are normally accompanied by an increase in the
di 0.0020 1.0770 - 0.0497 - 0.0078
averaged COV of story ductility demands.
ei - 0.3009 0.3076 - 0.0232 0.0095
7. Nonlinear SSI reduces the strength required to achieve
the desired ductility ratio (elastic or inelastic). How-
Site class E
ever, this trend is less prominent as the inelasticity
di 0.4572 0.8078 - 0.0390 - 0.0667
level intensified. Therefore, SSI decreases the strength
ei - 0.8257 0.7483 - 0.0734 0.0610
reduction factor, and using the fixed-base strength
reduction factor leads to an underestimation of the
ductility demand of soil–structure systems. This find-
effects of SSI diminish structural ductility demand in a ing would be more critical for buildings located on soft
localized manner for the structures that undergo soil (e.g., site class E).
substantial inelastic deformations. Moreover, SSI 8. Simplified and efficient expressions were also provided
effects generate a more uniform distribution of ductil- to estimate the maximum ductility demands of regular
ity demand along building height in comparison with and irregular soil–structure systems through nonlinear
the corresponding fixed-base model. regression analyses.
3. The fixed-base structures experience greater ductility Note that the above-mentioned findings are based on a
demand under the ground motions recorded on site parametric study of shear-type MDOF buildings with
class E than in stiffer soil profiles. The site and coupled stiffness–strength irregularities located on shallow

123
1226 International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228

n = 10, Data n = 10, Polynomial regression

n = 15, Data n = 15, Polynomial regression
1.5 2 4
μt =1 μt =2 μt =4
1.5 3

Site Class D
1
μ Reg
SSI

1 2
0.5
0.5 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
1.5 2 4
μt =1 μt =2 μt =4
1.5 3

Site Class E
1
μ Reg
SSI

1 2
0.5
0.5 1

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Tfix Tfix Tfix

Fig. 15 Comparison of the mean ductility demand ratios from numerical analyses with those calculated using Eq. (11) for regular soil–structure
systems with s = 3

n = 10, Data n = 10, Regressed

n = 15, Data n = 15, Regressed

3 3
s =3 s=5

Site Class D
2 2
SSI
µIrg

1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
3 3
s =3 s=5
Site Class E

2 2
SSI
µ Irg

1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
Tfix Tfix

Fig. 16 Comparison of the mean ductility demand ratios from numerical analyses with those calculated using Eqs. (11) and (12) for irregular
buildings with k = 0.8 and lt = 4

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
foundations, which may not apply to other irregularity
types. In a general sense, the findings are limited by the
range of key parameters interrogated, such as superstruc-
ture, soil, and input motion. Moreover, only inertial inter-
action effects were considered in this paper, and kinematic
interaction was disregarded in the modeling. This
assumption is commonly accepted for shallow foundations
subjected to vertically propagating shear waves. Further
studies on RC frames should be performed to evaluate the
following: (1) other types of vertical irregularities, (2) the
impact of material degradation, (3) structures with
embedded foundations, and (4) the effects of pulse-like,
near-fault ground motions.
References
1. Valmundsson EV, Nau JM (1997) Seismic response of building
frames with vertical structural irregularities. J Struct Eng
123(1):30–41. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)
123:1(30)
2. Al-Ali AAK, Krawinkler H (1998) Effects of vertical irregularity
on the seismic behaviour of building structures. Report No. 130,
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
University, Stanford
3. Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK (2004) Seismic response of ver-
tically irregular frames: response history and modal pushover
analyses. J Struct Eng 130(8):1177–1185. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:8(1177)
4. Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D, Papadrakakis M (2006) Evalua-
tion of the influence of vertical irregularities on the seismic
performance of a nine-storey steel frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
35(12):1489–1509. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.591
5. Habibi A, Asadi K (2017) Development of drift-based damage
index for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames with set-
back. Int J Civil Eng 15(4):487–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40999-016-0085-3
6. Sadashiva VK, MacRae GA, Deam BL (2012) Seismic response
of structures with coupled vertical stiffness–strength irregulari-
ties. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(1):119–138. https://doi.org/10.
1002/eqe.1121
7. Zhou J, Bu G, Wang H, Cai J (2013) Modification of ductility
reduction factor for vertically irregular structures subjected to
pulse-like ground motions. Adv Struct Eng 16(4):641–652.
https://doi.org/10.1260/1369-4332.16.4.641
8. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake
resistance, part 1, general rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings. European Committee for Standardizations, Brussels
9. Mondal G, Tesfamariam S (2014) Effects of vertical irregularity
and thickness of unreinforced masonry infill on the robustness of
RC framed buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(2):205–223.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2338
10. Zhou J, Zhao W, Mao W (2015) Least favorable probability of
failure for 5- and 10-story RC frame structures with vertical
irregularities. J Earthquake Eng 19(7):1158–1180. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13632469.2015.1025315
11. Zeris C (2015) Seismic response of rocking oscillators on a soft
story: elastic response. J Struct Eng 141(8):04014196. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001157
12. Zeris C, Scodeggio A (2019) Seismic performance of rocking
oscillators on a soft story: inelastic response. J Struct Eng
1227
145(9):04019087. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.
0002350
13. Giannakouras P, Zeris C (2019) Seismic performance of irregular
RC frames designed according to the DDBD approach. Eng
Struct 182:427–445
14. Tena-Colunga A, Hernández-Garcı́a DA (2020) Peak seismic
demands on soft and weak stories models designed for required
code nominal strength. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 129:105698. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.037
15. Wolf JP (1985) Dynamic soil–structure interaction. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs
16. Bielak J (1978) Dynamic response of non-linear building–foun-
dation systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 6(1):17–30. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eqe.4290060104
17. Müller FP, Keintzel E (1982) Ductility requirements for flexibly
supported antiseismic structures. In: Proceedings of the seventh
european conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, Greece
18. Avilés J, Pérez-Rocha LE (2003) Soil–structure interaction in
yielding systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(11):1749–1771.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.300
19. Mahsuli M, Ghannad MA (2009) The effect of foundation
embedment on inelastic response of structures. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 38(4):423–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.858
20. Vatanchian M, Shooshtari A (2018) Investigation of soil–structure
interaction effects on seismic response of a 5 MW wind turbine. Int J
Civil Eng 16(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-016-0059-5
21. Ganjavi B, Hao H (2012) A parametric study on the evaluation of
ductility demand distribution in multi-degree-of-freedom systems
considering soil–structure interaction effects. Eng Struct
43:88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.006
22. Khoshnoudian F, Attarnejad R, Paytam F, Ahmadi E (2015)
Effects of forward directivity on the response of soil–structure
systems. Proc Inst Civil Eng Struct Build 168(9):664–679. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.13.00076
23. Tomeo R, Pitilakis D, Bilotta A, Nigro E (2018) SSI effects on
seismic demand of reinforced concrete moment resisting frames.
Eng Struct 173:559–572
24. Ganjavi B, Gholamrezatabar A, Hajirasouliha I (2019) Effects of
soil–structure interaction and lateral design load pattern on per-
formance-based plastic design of steel moment resisting frames.
Struct Design Tall Spec Build 28(11):e1624. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tal.1624
25. Tehranizadeh M, Barkhordari MS (2018) Effect of peripheral
wall openings in basement and number of basement floors on the
base level of braced framed tube system. Int J Civil Eng
16(9):1157–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0270-z
26. Ghannad MA, Jahankhah H (2007) Site-dependent strength
reduction factors for soil–structure systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
27(2):99–110
27. Ganjavi B, Hao H (2014) Strength reduction factor for MDOF
soil-structure systems. Struct Design Tall Spec Build
23(3):161–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1022
28. Lu Y, Hajirasouliha I, Marshall AM (2016) Performance-based
seismic design of flexible-base multi-storey buildings considering
soil–structure interaction. Eng Struct 108:90–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.11.031
29. Yim C-S, Chopra AK (1984) Earthquake response of structures
with partial uplift on winkler foundation. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 12(2):263–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290120209
30. Ghannad MA, Jafarieh AH (2014) Inelastic displacement ratios
for soil–structure systems allowed to uplift. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 43(9):1401–1421. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2405
31. Raychowdhury P (2011) Seismic response of low-rise steel
moment-resisting frame (SMRF) buildings incorporating nonlin-
ear soil–structure interaction (SSI). Eng Struct 33(3):958–967.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.017
123
1228
32. Khanmohammadi M, Mohsenzadeh V (2018) Effects of foun-
dation rocking and uplifting on displacement amplification factor.
Earthquake Eng Eng Vib 17(3):511–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11803-018-0459-4
33. Anastasopoulos I, Gelagoti F, Spyridaki A, Sideri J, Gazetas G
(2014) Seismic rocking isolation of an asymmetric frame on
spread footings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(1):133–151.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001012
34. Shakib H, Homaei F (2017) Probabilistic seismic performance
assessment of the soil–structure interaction effect on seismic
response of mid-rise setback steel buildings. Bull Earthq Eng
15(7):2827–2851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0087-9
35. Homaei F, Shakib H, Soltani M (2017) Probabilistic seismic
performance evaluation of vertically irregular steel building
considering soil–structure interaction. Int J Civil Eng
15(4):611–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0165-z
36. Asadi-Ghoozhdi H, Attarnejad R (2018) Evaluation of ductility
demand distribution in vertically irregular frames allowed to
uplift. In: 16th european conference on earthquake engineering
(16ECEE), Thessaloniki, Greece
37. Hajirasouliha I, Doostan A (2010) A simplified model for seismic
response prediction of concentrically braced frames. Adv Eng
Softw 41(3):497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.
10.008
38. BHRC (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design
of buildings (Standard 2800), 4th edn. Building and Housing
Research Center, Tehran
39. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures: ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston
40. Harden CW, Hutchinson T, Martin GR, Kutter BL (2005)
Numerical modeling of the nonlinear cyclic response of shallow
foundations. Report No. 2005/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering (2020) 18:1209–1228
41. Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC (2009) Performance evaluation
of a nonlinear Winkler-based shallow foundation model using
centrifuge test results. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
38(5):679–698. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.902
42. Gajan S, Raychowdhury P, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL, Stewart
JP (2010) Application and validation of practical tools for non-
linear soil–foundation interaction analysis. Earthquake Spectra
26(1):111–129. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3263242
43. Gazetas G (1991) Formulas and charts for impedances of surface
and embedded foundations. J Geotech Eng 117(9):1363–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)117:9(1363)
44. Boulanger RW, Curras CJ, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A
(1999) Seismic soil–pile–structure interaction experiments and
analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(9):750–759. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(750)
45. Gajan S, Hutchinson TC, Kutter BL, Raychowdhury P, Ugalde
JA, Stewart JP (2008) Numerical models for analysis and per-
formance-based design of shallow foundations subjected to
seismic loading. Report No. 2007/04, Pacific Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley
46. FEMA (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures. Report No. FEMA 440, Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency, prepared by Applied Technology Council,
Washington, DC
47. PEER (2019) Ground motion database. Available: https://nga
west2.berkeley.edu/
48. ATC (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic
regulations for buildings. ATC 3-06, Applied Technology
Council, California
49. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G (2009) Open system
for earthquake engineering simulation (opensees) user command-
language manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley