Seismic Behavior Assessment of RC Precast Frame Damaged in Bojnord Earthquake 2017 Considering Soil-Structure Interaction Effects

Document Type : Research Article


1 School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran

2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran


Experiences of previous earthquakes show the effects of soil-structure interaction and behavior of beam-column connections on the seismic behavior of the building structures. In this research, seismic vulnerability assessment of RC precast Frames is investigated by consideration of the effect of soil-structure interaction and nonlinear behavior of beam-column connections. The RC precast building represented in this study, damaged in the Bojnord earthquake 2017 and located on the soil type II of Iranian seismic design code. The soil-structure interaction is modeled using the Beam-on-Nonlinear-Winkler foundation. In this procedure, an array of vertical q–z springs are used to capture vertical and rotational resistance of the foundation, while two springs, namely p–x and t–x, are placed horizontally to capture the passive and sliding resistance of the foundation, respectively. The seismic vulnerability and performance of RC precast frames are evaluated using nonlinear static pushover, nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses, and incremental dynamic analyses (IDA). The numerical models are developed using OpenSees software by consideration of the nonlinear behavior of the beam-column joints. The numerical results showed the significant role of soil-structure interaction and beam-column connections on the seismic vulnerability and performance of RC precast buildings. In fact, seismic vulnerability of RC precast buildings was increased by considering soil-structure interaction and beam-column connections effects.


Main Subjects

[1] J. Khazei, A. Amiri, M. Khalilpour, N‌U‌M‌E‌R‌I‌C‌A‌L A‌N‌A‌L‌Y‌S‌I‌S O‌F I‌N‌T‌E‌R‌A‌C‌T‌I‌O‌N B‌E‌T‌W‌E‌E‌N S‌O‌I‌L A‌N‌D L‌A‌R‌G‌E F‌O‌U‌N‌D‌A‌T‌I‌O‌N‌S, C‌O‌N‌S‌I‌D‌E‌R‌I‌N‌G S‌I‌Z‌E E‌F‌F‌E‌C‌T‌S, Sharif Journal of Civil Engineering, 34.2(4.1) (2019) 13-25.
[2] A. Mohammadi, H. tahghighi, Seismic Performance Assessment of RC MRF Buildings on Shallow Foundations Incorporating Soil-Structure Interaction, Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering (University of Tabriz), 48(93) (2019) 63-77.
[3] N. Rahgozar, N. Rahgozar, A.S. Moghadam, Controlled-rocking Braced Frame Bearing on a Shallow Foundation, in:  Structures, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 63-72.
[4] B. Goyez, L. Gerardo, Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on the Seismic Response of Low-Rise Eccentrically Braced Frames, (2017).
[5] M. Zare Aghblagh, H. Rahman Shokrgozar, An investigating into the effect of various modeling parameters on the behavior of special steel moment frames, Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering, (2018).
[6] H. Rahman Shokrgozar, M. Zare aghblagh, A.A. Khodaiee Ardabili, The effect of beam-column connections and soil on the seismic behavior of intermediate steel moment-resisting frames, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 6(Issue 2) (2019) 57-74.
[7] M.J. Givens, Dynamic soil-structure interaction of instrumented buildings and test structures, UCLA, 2013.
[8] A. Veletsos, Design concepts for dynamics of soil-structure interaction, in:  Developments in dynamic soil-structure interaction, Springer, 1993, pp. 307-325.
[9] J.P. Wolf, Soil-structure interaction, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ISBN 0 l3, 221565(9) (1985) 01.
[10] P. Raychowdhury, Nonlinear winkler-based shallow foundation model for performance assessment of seismically loaded structures, UC San Diego, 2008.
[11] Opensees, Open system for earthquke engineering simulation, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califonia, Brekely Ca,, (2016).
[12] R.W. Boulanger, C.J. Curras, B.L. Kutter, D.W. Wilson, A. Abghari, Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125(9) (1999) 750-759.
[13] B. Sbartai, Dynamic interaction of two adjacent foundations embedded in a viscoelastic soil, International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(03) (2016) 1450110.
[14] A.R. Sameti, M.A. Ghannad, Equivalent linear model for existing soil-structure systems, International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(02) (2016) 1450099.
[15] A.S. Hokmabadi, B. Fatahi, Influence of foundation type on seismic performance of buildings considering soil–structure interaction, International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, 16(08) (2016) 1550043.
[16] H.R. Tabatabaiefar, B. Fatahi, Idealisation of soil–structure system to determine inelastic seismic response of mid-rise building frames, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 66 (2014) 339-351.
[17] M. Mekki, S. Elachachi, D. Breysse, M. Zoutat, Seismic behavior of RC structures including soil-structure interaction and soil variability effects, Engineering Structures, 126 (2016) 15-26.
[18] M. Zare Aghblagh, K. Ardabili, A. Ali, Comparison the effect of soil and shallow foundation types on the seismic performance of low-rise special steel moment frames considering soil–structure interaction, Modares Civil Engineering journal, 18(6) (2019) 121-130.
[19] A. Yahyaabadi, R. Talebkhah, M. Adibi, Development of fragility curves for precast concrete frames comparing the methods of static pushover and incremental dynamic analysis, Sharif Jornal of Civil Engineering (sjce), (2020).
[20] S.M. Senel, A.H. Kayhan, Fragility based damage assesment in existing precast industrial buildings: A case study for Turkey, Structural engineering & mechanics, 11(1) (2010) 39.
[21] K.A. Korkmaz, A.E. Karahan, Investigation of seismic behavior and infill wall effects for prefabricated industrial buildings in Turkey, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 25 (3) (2010) 158-171.
[22] C. Casotto, V. Silva, H. Crowley, R. Nascimbene, R. Pinho, Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures, Engineering Structures, 94 (2015) 122-136.
[23] A. Babič, M. Dolšek, Seismic fragility functions of industrial precast building classes, Engineering Structures, 118 (2016) 357-370.
[24] M. Ercolino, D. Bellotti, G. Magliulo, R. Nascimbene, Vulnerability analysis of industrial RC precast buildings designed according to modern seismic codes, Engineering Structures, 15 (8) (2018) 67-78.
[25] J. Zhu, P. Tan, J. Jin, Fragility analysis of existing precast industrial frames using CFRP reinforcement, in:  2015 International conference on Applied Science and Engineering Innovation, Atlantis Press, 2015.
[26] M. Farzam, M. Barghian, B.A. Khah, Developing Fragility Curves for Precast Concrete Structures, Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering . 46(84) (2016) 51-61.
[27] M. Adibi, R. Talebkhah, A. Yahyaabadi, Simulation of cyclic response of precast concrete beam-column joints, Computers and Concrete, 24(3) (2019) 223-236.
[28] A. Yahyaabadi, M. Adibi, M.K. bakavoli, Analytical Assessment of Bojnord Earthquake on May 2017, Bojnord University 2017.
[29] Gazetas, Foundation Engineering Handbook. Fang, H.Y. edit. Van Nostrand Rienhold, (1991).
[30] D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 31(3) (2002) 491-514.
[31] D. Vamvatsikos, C.A. Cornell, The incremental dynamic analysis and its application to performance-based earthquake engineering, in:  Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2002.
[32] V.V. Bertero, Strength and deformation capacities of buildings under extreme environments, Structural engineering and structural mechanics, 53(1) (1977) 29-79.
[33] HAZUS-MH MR5, Earthquake loss Estimation Methodology Model, FEMA, Washington, D.C., (2005).
[34] Report No. FEMA P695, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,FEMA P695-Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, Washington, D.C, June 2009.
[35] O.C. Celik, B.R. Ellingwood, Seismic fragilities for non-ductile reinforced concrete frames–Role of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, Structural Safety, 32(1) (2010) 1-12.