Main Article Content

Saddouki Souheyla
Djarir Yahiaoui
Rafik Demagh


In most current seismic design on bridges, only mainshock actions are considered without incorporating the effect of mainshock-aftershock (MA) sequences and interaction soil-pile.However, a large mainshock usually triggers numerous aftershocks in a short period. This paperstudy the effect of mainshock-aftershock sequences on the behavior of interaction Soil-pile-structure system (ISPS). abeam on nonlinearWinkler foundation (BNWF) model is usingand subjected to non-linear static analysis and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) leading finally to the fragility curves which are developed. These analyses aim to capture the collapse state of structures under aftershock events preceded by various mainshock levels. Results obtained from capacity curve, incremental dynamic and fragility curves of ISSP system.The analytical results show that in the MA sequences,for dense soil the vulnerable of mainshock-aftershock (MS-AS) loading are more damage due to mainshock loading for all diameter of the pile and the mass. For soft soil   are more vulnerable to damage due to mainshock-aftershock (MS-AS) loading.  But in the stiff clay the effect of mainshock-aftershock (MS-AS) loading for all the diameter of pile and  for masse are neglected.

Keywords:bridge,interaction soil-pile-structure, Winkler foundation, dynamic analysis, fragility curves,mainshock-aftershock.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Souheyla, S., Yahiaoui, D., & Demagh, R. (2023). SEISMIC FRAGILITY EVALUATION OF SOIL-PILE-STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTS SUBJECTED TO MAINSHOCK-AFTERSHOCK RECORDS. International Journal for Computational Civil and Structural Engineering, 19(3), 92–113.


C.E. Administration, Earthquake Site Work Outline and Technical Guidelines, Earthquake press, Beijing, 1998

Chang L, Peng F, Ouyang Y, Elnashai AS, Spencer Jr BF. Bridge seismicretrofit program planning to maximize postearthquake transportation networkcapacity. J Inf Syst 2012;18(2):75–88. DOI:

USGS, United states geological survey, 2012. <>

Li Y, Song R, Van De Lindt JW. Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to earthquake mainshock–aftershock sequences. J Struct Eng 2014. DOI:

Zhang J, Makris N. Kinematic response functions and dynamic stiffnesses of bridgeembankments. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2002;31:1933–66 DOI:

Kotsoglou A, Pantazopoulou S. Bridge–embankment interaction under transverse ground excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36:1719–40. DOI:

Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G. Footings under seismic loading: analysis anddesign issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil DynamEarthqEng2006;26:824–53. DOI:

Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte JP. Three-dimensional seismic response ofHumboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. J Struct Eng 2008;134:1165–76. DOI:

Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial ordetrimental? J Earthq Eng 2000/07/01 2000;4:277–301. DOI:

Stefanidou SP, Sextos AG, Kotsoglou AN, Lesgidis N, Kappos AJ. Soil-structureinteraction effects in analysis of seismic fragility of bridges using an intensity-basedground motion selection procedure. Eng Struct 2017;151:366–80. DOI:

Ucak A, Tsopelas P. Effect of soil–structure interaction on seismic isolated bridges.J Struct Eng 2008;134:1154–64. DOI:

Jeremi´c B, Kunnath S, Xiong F. Influence of soil–foundation–structure interactionon seismic response of the I-880 viaduct. Eng Struct 2004/02/01/2004;26:391–402. DOI:

] Xiang N, Alam MS. Comparative seismic fragility assessment of an existing isolatedcontinuous bridge retrofitted with different energy dissipation devices. J BridgeEng 2019;24:04019070.L. Su, H.-P. Wan, Y. Dong, D. M. Frangopol, and . DOI:

Yang C-SW, Werner SD, DesRoches R. Seismic fragility analysis of skewed bridges in the central southeastern United States. Eng Struct 2015/01/15/2015;83: 116–28. DOI:

Rahmani A, Taiebat M, Liam Finn WD, Ventura CE. Evaluation of substructuring method for seismic soil-structure interaction analysis of bridges. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2016/11/01/2016;90:112–27. DOI:

Xie Y, DesRoches R. Sensitivity of seismic demands and fragility estimates of a typical California highway bridge to uncertainties in its soil-structure interactio modeling. Eng Struct 2019/06/15/2019;189:605–1 DOI:

Noori HR, Memarpour MM, Yakhchalian M, Soltanieh S. Effects of ground motion directionality on seismic behavior of skewed bridges considering SSI. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019/12/01/2019;127:105820. DOI:

Mallick M, Raychowdhury P. Seismic analysis of highway skew bridges with nonlinear soil–pile interaction. Transport Geotech 2015/06/01/2015;3:36–47. DOI:

Carbonari S, Morici M, Dezi F, Gara F, Leoni G. Soil-structure interaction effects in single bridge piers founded on inclined pile groups. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2017/ 01/01/2017;92:52–67. DOI:

Gonz´ alez F, Padron ´ LA, Carbonari S, Morici M, Aznarez ´ JJ, Dezi F, et al. Seismicresponse of bridge piers on pile groups for different soil damping models and lumped parameter representations of the foundation. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 2019;48:306–27. DOI:

Vlassis A, Spyrakos C. Seismically isolated bridge piers on shallow soil stratum with soil–structure interaction. Comput Struct 2001;79:2847–61. DOI:

Ajamy, A., Asgarian, B., Ventura, C.E., Zolfaghari, M.R.: Seismic fragility analysis of jacket type offshoreplatforms considering soil-pile-structure interaction. Eng. Struct. 174, 198–211 (2018). DOI:

/j.engstruct.2018.07.066 DOI:

Ajamy, A., Zolfaghari, M.R., Asgarian, B., Ventura, C.E.: Probabilistic seismic analysis of offshore platformsincorporating uncertainty in soil–pile–structure interactions. J. Constr. SteelRes. 101, 265–279 (2014). DOI: DOI:

Shafieezadeh, A., DesRoches, R., Rix, G.J., Werner, S.D.: Three-dimensional wharf response to far-field andimpulsive near-field ground motions in liquefiable soils. J. Struct. Eng. 139(8), 1395–1407 (2013). DOI:

Stefanidou, S.P., Sextos, A.G., Kotsoglou, A.N., Lesgidis, N., Kappos, A.J.: Soil-structure interaction effectsin analysis of seismic fragility of bridges using an intensity-based ground motion selection procedure.

Eng. Struct. 151, 366–380 (2017). DOI:

Chara, C., Mitropoulou, C.C., Kostopanagiotis, C., Kopanos, M., Ioakim, D., Lagaros, N.D.: Influence of soilstructure interaction on fragility assessment of building structures. In: Structures, pp. 85–98. Elsevier (2016). DOI:

Wang, X., Ye, A., Ji, B.: Fragility-based sensitivity analysis on the seismic performance of pile-group supported bridges in liquefiable ground undergoing scour potentials. Eng. Struct. 198, 109427 (2019). DOI:

program SeismoStruct v7 (SeismoSoft and 2022)

Calabrese, A., Almeida, J. P., & Pinho, R. (2010). Numericalissues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frameelements for seismic analysis. Journal of EarthquakeEngineering, 14(S1), 38–68. DOI:

Menegotto, M., & Pinto, P. E. (1973). Method of analysis forcyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending moment(pp. 15–22). Lisbon, Portugal: IASBE Proceedings

Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confinedconcrete. Struct Eng 1998;114(8):1804–26. DOI:

Richart, F. E., Brandtzæg, A., & Brown, R. L. (1928). A studyof the failure of concrete under combined compressivestresses. University of Illinois Bulletin, 26(12).

Pyke RM. Nonlinear soil models for irregular cyclic loadings. J Geotech Eng Div,ASCE 1979;105(6):715–26. DOI:

Allotey N, Naggar MH El. A consistent soil fatigue framework based on the number of equivalent cycles. Geotech Geol Eng 2007;26(1):65–77. DOI:

Allotey N, Naggar MH El. Generalized dynamic Winkler model for nonlinear soil–structure interaction analysis. Can Geotech J 2008;45(4):560–73. DOI:

Brandenberg SJ, Boulanger RW, Kutter BL, Chang D. Behavior of pile foundations inlaterally spreading ground during centrifuge tests. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng2005;131(11):1378–91. DOI:

Dezi F, Carbonari S, Leoni G. A model for the 3D kinematic interaction analysis ofpile groups in layered soils. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(11):1281–305 . DOI:

Dezi F, Carbonari S, Morici M. A numerical model for the dynamic analysis of inclined pile groups: a numerical model for

the dynamic analysis of inclined pile groups. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2016;45(1):45–68. the dynamic analysis of inclined pile groups. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2016;45(1):45–68. DOI:

Vamvatsikos Dimitrios, Cornell C Allin. Incremental dynamic analysis. EarthquakeEng Struct Dyn 2002;31(3):491–514 DOI:

Mander JB, Dhakal RP, Mashiko N, Solberg KM. Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic financial risk assessment of bridges. Eng Struct2007;29(10):2662–7 DOI:

Chomchuen Prakit, Boonyapinyo Virote. Incremental dynamic analysis with multimodes for seismic performance evaluation of RC bridges. Eng Struct2017;132:29–43 DOI:

Kazemi F, Mohebi B, Yakhchalian M. Evaluation of the P-delta effect oncollapsecapacity of adjacent structures subjected to far-field ground motions.CivilEngJ2018;4(5):1066–73. DOI:

performance ofadjacent pounding structures using viscous dampers. In: The16thEuropeanConference on Earthquake Engineering; 2018. p. 18–21.

Kostov M. Seismic fragility analyses. In “Regional Workshop On ExternalEventsPSA 6-10 November 2000, Sofia,” 2000.

Duan X, Pappin JW. “A procedure for establishing fragility functions for seismicloss estimate of existing buildings based on nonlinear pushover analysis,”in14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing: China; 2008. p. 12–7.

Kumitani S, Takada T. Probabilistic assessment of buildings damage consideringaftershocks of earthquakes. 14th World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering.2008.

Haran Pragalath DC, Davis R, Sarkar P. Reliability evaluation of RC framebytwomajor fragility analysis methods. Asian J. Civil Eng. (BuildingAndHousing)2015;16:47–66.

Ioannou Ioanna, Douglas John, Rossetto Tiziana. Assessing the impact of groundmotion variability and uncertainty on empirical fragility curves.SoilDynEarthquake Eng 2015;69:83–92. DOI:

Kappos Andreas J, Panagopoulos Georgios, Panagiotopoulos Christos,Penelis Gregorios. A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of R/CandURM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2006;4(4):391–413. DOI:

Muntasir Billah AHM, Shahria Alam M. Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2015;11(6):804–32. DOI:

Ibrahim Yasser E, El-Shami Mostafa M. Seismic fragility curves for mid-risereinforced concrete frames in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. IES J PartA:CivilStructEng 2011;4(4):213–23. DOI:

Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H-K, Kim S-H. Nonlinear static procedurefor+fragilitycurvedevelopment.JEngMech2000;126(12):1287–95. DOI:

Shinozuka M, Feng M, Kim H, Uzawa T, Ueda T. “Statistical analysis offragilitycurves. Technical Report.“ Multidisciplinary Center for EarthquakeEngineeringResearch,MCEER-032003.

Xue Q, Wu C-W, Chen C-C, Chen K-C. The draft code for performance-based seismic design of buildings in Taiwan. Eng Struct 2008;30(6):1535–47. DOI:


Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.