applied

sciences
Article
Seismic Fragility for a Masonry-Infilled RC (MIRC) Building
Subjected to Liquefaction
Davide Forcellini

Dipartimento Economia e Tecnologia, Università di San Marino, Via Salita alla Rocca 44,
47890 San Marino, San Marino; [email protected]

Abstract: Historical earthquakes have documented that lateral spread and settlements are the most
significant damages induced by soil liquefaction. Therefore, assessing its effects on structural
performance has become a fundamental issue in seismic engineering. In this regard, the paper
proposes to develop analytical fragility curves of a Masonry-Infilled RC (MIRC) structure subjected to
liquefaction-induced damages. In order to reproduce the nonlinear cyclic behavior (dilation tendency
and the increase in cyclic shear strength) due to liquefaction, nonlinear hysteretic materials and
advanced plasticity models were applied. The findings herein obtained in terms of seismic fragility
of the MIRC building subjected to liquefaction may be implemented as guidelines or code provisions.

Keywords: analytical fragility curves; Masonry-Infilled RC (MIRC) Building; liquefaction; numerical

simulations; opensees





 1. Background
Citation: Forcellini, D. Seismic Liquefaction-induced damages were shown to be the principal cause of disruption of
Fragility for a Masonry-Infilled RC functionality, economic losses, direct and indirect costs for communities during many earth-
(MIRC) Building Subjected to quakes (Niigata, Japan, 1964; Dagupan City, Philippines, 1990; Chi-Chi, Taiwan, 1999; Japan,
Liquefaction. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117. 2011; Kocaeli, Turkey, 1999; and Christchurch, New Zealand, 2011). During these earthquakes,
https://doi.org/10.3390/
considerable evidence of liquefaction was produced in terms of ground effects (such as flow
app11136117
slides, lateral spreading, ground oscillations, sand boils), as well as severe soil structure interac-
tion (SSI) damages (such as sinking or tilting of heavy structures, failing of retaining systems,
Academic Editor: Marco
slumping of slopes and settlements of buildings). Therefore, the assessment of liquefaction
Francesco Funari
effects has become the fundamental object of pre- and post-earthquake analyses. The study of
such effects has been developed with many methodologies.
Received: 14 May 2021
Accepted: 23 June 2021
First of all, the effects of liquefaction were studied on empirical data in terms of
Published: 30 June 2021
settlements [1,2] and lateral spread [3,4]. Other contributions (e.g., [5,6]) proposed com-
prehensive methods based on relationships between selected soil parameters and lique-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
faction potential. However, as pointed out by [7], these approaches explored liquefaction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
susceptibility under free-filed conditions, without considering the damage to structures.
published maps and institutional affil- Bullock et al. [8,9] applied semi-empirical methods to predict liquefaction consequences.
iations. Secondly, some contributions proposed numerical simulations to assess the effects of
liquefaction. For example, Refs. [10,11] investigated the building response to liquefaction.
Numerical simulations were applied to study the effects of liquefaction to shallow-founded
buildings by [12,13] and by [14] that concentrated on the effects of several earthquakes
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
(Kocaeli 1999, Maule 2010, Christchurch 2011 and Tohoku 2011. Ref. [15] applied the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Finite Different Method to study the bearing capacity degradation of shallow foundations
This article is an open access article
on layered liquefiable soils. Other contributions performed numerical simulations to
distributed under the terms and study countermeasures to reduce liquefaction-induced effects. For example, Ref. [16]
conditions of the Creative Commons considered soil compaction and/or increase of permeability below and around the applied
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// surface load. Other methods were also investigated, such as stone columns that were the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ object of [17] and a preloading technique that was explored in [18]. Recently, Ref. [19]
4.0/). performed tridimensional (3D) numerical simulations to assess the effects of liquefaction

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11136117 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 2 of 16

during the 2012 Italian earthquake. Moreover, Ref. [20] demonstrated that 3D models are
necessary to obtain realistic estimations of liquefaction effects since 2D models may be over-
conservative. Anyway, 2D models are interesting because they allow for considering the
influence of soil parameters on liquefaction, saving computation time. Moreover, Ref. [21]
compared various approaches in order to assess the resulted responses. Recently, several
contributions (e.g., [22]) concentrated on liquefaction risk assessments, with particular
attention to the evaluation of post-seismic settlements in liquefiable soils [23]. In addition,
Ref. [24] considered the interaction between masonry with precast and reinforced concrete
confining elements. Bridges were also the object of several contributions, such as [25], that
investigated the effects of soil site amplifications and liquefaction on the failure mechanisms
of bridges by performing 2D numerical simulations of a 3D bridge-foundation system.
More recently, several contributions applied the probabilistic-based approach of
fragility curves to study liquefaction-induced effects on structures. For example, Ref. [26]
considered RC buildings subjected to liquefaction-induced differential displacements,
while in [27], curve modifiers were proposed to include nonlinearity connected with site
effects and SSI. The very recent [28] investigated the combination of ground shaking and
soil liquefaction together with SSI for RC frame buildings.
Following the latter contribution, the present paper aims to apply 3D numerical
models to assess the complex 3D structural behaviour of buildings under liquefaction. In
particular, fragility curves significantly represent the cumulative distribution of damage
and may be used to predict economic losses and provide helpful information on levels
of damage. Historically, fragility curves were developed as a tool to assess structural
damage [29,30], with many applications. For example, Ref. [31] proposes fragility curves
for investigating the role of inelastic dynamic soil–structure interaction. Fragility methods
were extensively used for several structural configurations. For example, they were applied
on masonry buildings by [32], a highway over-crossing bridge in [33], vital buildings
by [34], a concrete arch dam [35] and pile foundations [36].
This paper moves from this background to propose a probability-based assessment of
liquefaction of a Masonry-Infilled RC (MIRC) benchmark building. Several novelties are
addressed: (1) the high nonlinear numerical model allows for considering soil and struc-
tural nonlinearities, among the previous contribution; (2) the development of analytical
fragility curves to estimate the probability of liquefaction for such class of MIRC buildings
may be considered another novelty; (3) the outcomes may be useful for driving important
applications for professionals and implementations in code prescriptions. The paper is
organized into several sections: the case study is explained in Section 2. Methodology is
developed and described in Section 3, while the results are discussed in Section 4.

2. Case Study
In order to study the complex mechanism of liquefaction on a MIRC structural con-
figuration, OpenSees PL [37,38] was applied to reproduce the system (soil + foundation
+ structure), as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 3 of 16
Appl. Sci.Sci.
Appl. 2021, 11,11,
2021, x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 3 of
3 of1616

Figure 1. 1.
Figure 3D3D
model: uniform
uniform
model: soil
soil
uniform layer
layer
soil (blue),
(blue),
layer infill
(blue), (yellow).
infill (yellow).

Figure
Figure 2. Structural
2. 2.
Figure Structural 3D model.
3D3D
Structural model.
model.

2.1. Soil
2.1. Soil Model
Model
2.1. Soil Model
The 3D mesh (118.4 × 124.4 m) was described with 31860 nodes and 35868 BrickUP,
The 3D
The 3D mesh
mesh(118.4
(118.4 × 124.4 m)m)
× 124.4 was
wasdescribed
describedwith
with31860
31860nodes
nodes andand 35868
35868 BrickUP,
BrickUP,
consisting of 8-nodes isoparametric elements that allow to consider both the displacements
consisting
consistingofof8-nodes
8-nodesisoparametric
isoparametricelements
elementsthatthatallow
allowtotoconsider
considerboth boththethedisplace-
displace-
(longitudinal, transversal and vertical: degree of freedom: 1, 2 and 3) and the pore pressure
ments
ments (longitudinal,
(longitudinal, transversal
transversaland
and vertical: degree
vertical: degree ofof
freedom:
freedom: 1, 1,
2 and
2 and 3)3)and
andthe pore
the pore
(degree of freedom: 4) to simulate the dynamic response of a solid–fluid fully coupled
pressure
pressure(degree
(degreeofoffreedom:
freedom:4)4)totosimulate
simulatethethedynamic
dynamicresponse
responseofofa asolid–fluid
solid–fluidfully
fully
material (Biot theory [38]). The dimensions of the elements inside the mesh followed the
coupled
coupled material
material(Biot
(Biot theory, [38]).
theory, The
[38]). Thedimensions
dimensions ofof
the elements
the elements inside
insidethe
themesh
mesh fol-
fol-
previous contributions [19,20] and the performance of the lateral boundaries was verified
lowed
lowedthe theprevious
previouscontributions
contributions[19,20]
[19,20]and
andthe
theperformance
performanceofofthe thelateral
lateralboundaries
boundaries
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 4 of 16

by comparing the accelerations at the top of the mesh with those obtained under Free Field
(FF) conditions to reproduce wave mechanisms. Mesh discretization was derived from and
considering 120 m/s as the lowest shear wave velocity, and 10 Hz as maximum frequency,
following suggestions from [39]. The backbone curves of the infill and foundation soil are
shown in Figures 3 and 4, while the material parameters in Tables 1 and 2, by considering
the values adopted in [40,41]. Particular attention to boundary conditions was consid-
ered: (1) absorbing boundaries were applied at the base to dissipate the radiating waves;
(2) in order to model the elastic half-space below the mesh, the base nodes were set free
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW to move along longitudinal and transversal directions, while vertical direction was fixed; 5
(3) lateral nodes were constrained to simulate pure shear by applying period boundaries
and to ensure free field conditions. At the lateral nodes, penalty method (tolerance: 10−4 )
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
was adopted to avoid problems with equations system conditions [20].

Figure
Figure 3.3.Backbone
Backbonecurve
curve(infill
(infill soil).
soil).
Figure 3. Backbone curve (infill soil).

Figure 4. Backbone curve (20 m layer).

Figure 4. Backbone curve (20 m layer).

Table 1. Infill soil parameters.

2.2. Structural Model
The benchmark MIRC structure was calibrated to be representative
Parameter Value of a residential
Figure 4.
3-storey concrete Backbone
building with3
curve (20 m
masonry layer).
walls and previously modeled [20] as Building
Mass density (kN/m ) 17.0
1 (B1) that is built up with
Reference shear modulus (kPa)three floors (3.4 m each, total height: 10.2
3.83 × 10 4 m), 4 columns in
2.2. Structural
longitudinal Model
direction
Reference (8 m spaced)
bulk modulus (kPa) and 2 ones in transversal 1.50 direction
× 10 (10 m spaced). The
5

columns Shear
and the beams
wave were
velocity modeled with fiber sections, by applying
(m/s) 150 Concrete02 mate-
The benchmark Friction MIRC (◦ )structure was calibrated to be27representative of a reside
rial for the core and angle
the cove (Figure 5a,b, Table 3). The unloading slope (at maximum
3-storey concrete
strength) and thebuilding
Permeability with
(m/s)
initial slope masonry
are related withwalls
a ratioand previously
of 0.1. The10
−7
bars weremodeled [20]byas Buil
represented
1 (B1) thatmaterial
Steel02 is built(see upTable
with4)three
and 0.01floors (3.4 maseach,
was chosen the ratiototal height:
between 10.2 m),
post-yield 4 column
tangent
longitudinal
and initialdirection
elastic tangent(8 m(Figure
spaced) and 2 ones
6). Following [38],inthe
transversal directionwere:
transition parameters (10 mR0spaced)
=
15, CR1 and CR2 = 0.925 and 0.15, respectively, as suggested
columns and the beams were modeled with fiber sections, by applying Concrete02 m by [38]. Figure 7 shows the
diagram moment-curvature of the section. Table 5 shows the characteristics of the ele-
rial for the core and the cove (Figure 5a,b, Table 3). The unloading slope (at maxim
ments in terms of cross sections and reinforcement details. Diagonal elasticBeamColumn
strength) and[38]
elements thewere
initial
usedslope
to modelare related withwalls
the masonry a ratio(bothoflongitudinally
0.1. The barsand were represente
transver-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 5 of 16

Table 2. 20 m soil parameters.

Parameter Value
Mass density (kN/m3 ) 19.58
Reference shear modulus (kPa) 5.80 × 104
Reference bulk modulus (kPa) 7.90 × 104
Shear wave velocity (m/s) 173
Friction angle (◦ ) 30
Permeability (m/s) 10−8
Peak angle (◦ ) 30
c1 0.07
d1 0.4
d2 2
l1 10
l2 0.01
l3 1

2.2. Structural Model

The benchmark MIRC structure was calibrated to be representative of a residential 3-
storey concrete building with masonry walls and previously modeled [20] as Building 1 (B1)
that is built up with three floors (3.4 m each, total height: 10.2 m), 4 columns in longitudinal
direction (8 m spaced) and 2 ones in transversal direction (10 m spaced). The columns and
the beams were modeled with fiber sections, by applying Concrete02 material for the core
and the cove (Figure 5a,b and Table 3). The unloading slope (at maximum strength) and the
initial slope are related with a ratio of 0.1. The bars were represented by Steel02 material
(see Table 4) and 0.01 was chosen as the ratio between post-yield tangent and initial elastic
tangent (Figure 6). Following [38], the transition parameters were: R0 = 15, CR1 and CR2 = 0.925
and 0.15, respectively, as suggested by [38]. Figure 7 shows the diagram moment-curvature
of the section. Table 5 shows the characteristics of the elements in terms of cross sections and
reinforcement details. Diagonal elasticBeamColumn elements [38] were used to model the
masonry walls (both longitudinally and transversally) and with selected properties taken from
Table C8A.2.1 [42] and described in Table 6. In this regard, this may be considered a limited
assumption since the interaction between frame and infill walls depends on the model adopted
to simulate the infill wall behavior. In particular, this is due to the complexity of the problem
and the computational burden required to complete the analyses, generally simplified models
are employed to account for the nonlinear behavior of the superstructure, as shown in [43].

Table 3. Concrete02 (Core and Cover) characteristics.

Parameter Core Cover

Compressive strength at 28 days (kPa) −4.63 × 104 −2.76 × 104
Strain at maximum strength (%) −3.484 × 10−3 −2.00 × 10−3
Crushing strength (kPa) −4.66 × 104 0
Strain at crushing strength (%) −3.57 × 10− 3 −6.00 × 10−3
Tensile strength (kPa) 4.68 × 103 3.86 × 103
Tension softening stiffness (kPa) 1.86 × 106 1.93 × 106

Table 4. Steel02 (Bars) characteristics.

Parameter Bars
Yield strength (kPa) 4.55 × 105
Initial elastic tangent (kPa) 2.00 × 108
Strain-hardening ratio 0.01
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2021,
Sci. 11,11,
2021, 6117FOR PEER REVIEW 66ofof1616
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, xx FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

0
0
(kPa)
stress(kPa)

-0.070
-0.070 -0.050
-0.050 -0.030
-0.030 -0.010
-0.010 0.010
0.010 0.030
0.030 0.050
0.050 0.070
0.070
-10,000
-10,000
shearstress

-20,000
-20,000
shear

-30,000
-30,000
shear strain
shear strain (%)
(%)
(a)
(a)
4,000
4,000
3,500
3,500
(kPa)
stress(kPa)

3,000
3,000
2,500
2,500
shearstress

2,000
2,000
1,500
1,500
1,000
shear

1,000
500
500
0
0
0.000
0.000 0.002
0.002 0.004
0.004 0.006
0.006 0.008
0.008 0.010
0.010 0.012
0.012
shear strain
shear strain (%)
(%)
(b)
(b)
Figure 5.Shear
Figure5.5.
Figure Shearstress
Shear stressvs.
stress vs.shear
vs. shearstrain
shear strainrelationship
strain relationshipfor
relationship for(a)
for (a)Concrete02:
(a) Concrete02:Cover;
Concrete02: Cover;(b)
Cover; (b)Concrete02:
(b) Concrete02:Core.
Concrete02: Core.
Core.

800,000
800,000
(kPa)
stress(kPa)

400,000
400,000
shearstress

0
0
-0.150
-0.150 -0.100
-0.100 -0.050
-0.050 0.000
0.000 0.050
0.050 0.100
0.100 0.150
0.150
-400,000
shear

-400,000

-800,000
-800,000
shear strain
shear strain (%)
(%)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Shear
Shear stress
stress vs.
vs. shear
shear strain
strain relationship
relationship for
for Steel02:
Steel02: Bars.
Bars.
Figure 6. Shear stress vs. shear strain relationship for Steel02: Bars.
 Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 11,11,
2021,
2021, 6117 PEER REVIEW
x FOR 7 of7 of
1616

Figure
Figure 7. 7. Moment-Curvature.
Moment-Curvature.

Structural(Core
Table3.5.Concrete02
Table elements
andcharacteristics.
Cover) characteristics.
Sections
Parameter Dimensions Core Bars
Cover
CompressiveA-Astrength at 28 days (kPa) 40 × 60 −4.63 × 104 8 Φ−2.76
18 + 8×Φ1018
4

Strain at B-B
maximum strength (%) 35 × 50−3.484 × 10−3 6 Φ−2.00
18 + 6× Φ 18
10−3
C-C 40 × 40 10 Φ 18
Crushing
D-D
strength (kPa) 45 × 45
−4.66 × 104 0
14 Φ 18
Strain at crushing strength (%) −3.57 × 10−3 −6.00 × 10−3
Tensilecharacteristics.
Table 6. Masonry strength (kPa) 4.68 × 103 3.86 × 103
Tension softening stiffness (kPa) 1.86 × 106 1.93 × 106
Parameter Masonry
Table 4. Steel02Mass
(Bars)density (kN/m3 )
characteristics. 18.0
Young modulus (kPa) 1.50 × 106
Shear modulus Parameter
(kPa) 5.00 × 105 Bars
Yield
Compressive strength
strength (kPa)(kPa) 3
4.55
3.00 × 10 × 105
Shear Strength (kPa)
Initial elastic tangent (kPa) 70 2.00 × 108
Strain-hardening ratio 0.01
2.3. Foundation Model
Table 5.The
Structural elements
foundation (28.4 m × 34.4 m, 0.5 m) was chosen in order to represent the most
slabcharacteristics.
vulnerable typology to earthquakes, since its strength depends only on contact pressures,
Sections Dimensions Bars
without frictional resistance (as it occurs for piles foundations). The rigid concrete slab was
modeled by applying A-Aequaled of [38] to connect the × 60 at the base8ofՓthe
40nodes 8 Փ18 with
18 +columns
B-B 35 × 50 6 Փ
those of the soil domain. In order to simulate the interface between the columns 18 + 6 Փ18and the
C-C
slab, horizontal rigid links were defined, following 40 × 40
[41]. 10 Փ
The foundation slab 18 modelled
was
D-D 45 × 45 14
elastically with an equivalent material that simulates the concrete and implementingՓ 18 the
Pressure-Independent Multi-Yield model (PIMY), Table 7 (more details in [38]). The design
Table 6. Masonry
of the characteristics.
foundation consisted in assessing the eccentricity for the most severe condition:
minimum vertical loads (gravity and seismic loads) and maximum bending moments.
Parameter Masonry
Table 7. Foundation Mass density (kN/m ) 18.0
3
characteristics.
Young modulus (kPa) 1.50 × 106
Parameter
Shear modulus (kPa) Bars 5.00 × 105
MassCompressive
density (kN/m 3
strength
) (kPa) 24.0 3.00 × 103
Reference shear
Shear modulus
Strength(kPa)
(kPa) 1.25 × 107 70
Reference bulk modulus (kPa) 1.67 × 107
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 8 of 16

3. Methodology
The seismic vulnerability of structures has been defined with several approaches and,
in the last decades, the probabilistic-based approaches have been particularly developed.
Among these, developing of analytical fragility curves has been one of the most applied
in order to consider several sources of uncertainties in the demand and capacity defini-
tions. Many contributions proposed fragility curves for RC buildings [44–46], masonry
buildings [47,48] and for different typologies of structures [49] and infrastructures [50].
Fragility curves graphically represent the relationship between the probability of
exceedance
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of a determined level of damage and the intensity of different seismic scenarios. 9 of 16
In particular, Ref. [29] proposed to consider four limit states (slight, moderate, extensive,
complete). It is worth noting that the development of fragility curves helps to account for
several sources of variabilities, such as the dispersion due to the record-to-record and the
have significant
intra-model dispersion
variability and of intensities
that relative totothe
significantly
definition affect
of thethe dynamic
damage characteristics
states. In addition,
of therecent
most system. developments in probabilistic approaches of the seismic assessment have been
Therefore,
proposed, such IDA nonlinear analyses were performed and since they were particularly
as [51,52].
challenging and time-consuming,
In the present paper, PGA is selected it was necessary
as Intensityto apply
Measure four subsequent
(IM), scaled tosub-steps
multiple
[19,20]. In step 1, the soil alone was loaded and linear properties
levels from zero to 1.0 g, with steps of 0.1 g, by applying the approach called (weight, shear and bulk
Incremental
modulus) were considered.
Dynamic Analysis (IDA), by The[53].presence
The seismic of the water (0.00was
vulnerability m depth)
assessed was introduced
herein by consid- in
step
ering2.(1)
In the
steppotential
3, the structure was added
of liquefaction and structural
at foundation levelloads wereofapplied.
in terms Theand
settlement soil(2)
prop-
the
erties wereperformance
structural changed from in elastic
terms of to top-floor
plastic (indrift.
25 load steps). Finally, in the last steps, the
dynamic analyses
Ten input were performed
motions (Figure 8) from and Newton
the PEERLine NGA Search algorithm
database was used to in-
(http://peer.berkeley.
crease the speed of the solution [38]. In order to save computational
edu/nga/, accessed on 25 June 2021) were selected by following the Eurocode time, the longitudinal
8, Part 1
components
prescriptionsof[54] theininput
ordermotions were considered
to be compatible with the only and applied
code-specified at the base
spectrum of life-
for the the
safety limit state (corresponding to an earthquake with a return period of 475 years, lat.:
model.
42.333The N,study
14.246 E., S = 1.50714,
assumes Tb = 0.257 s, quantities
that the probabilistic Tc = 0.770 were
s, Tddefined
= 2.538,inCcterms
= 2.02847 [54]).
of lognor-
Figure
mal 8 showsdeviation
standard the selected(β), elastic response
the median (µ) spectra (5% damping)
of the lognormal and intensity
seismic the meanmeasure
spectral
ordinates.
(PGA). Note that
Therefore, the mean
linear spectrum
regressions were(calculated
built up fromamongthe the selectedIDA
performed ones) is included
analyses and
between the − 10% and +30% of the code-based spectral shape,
the probability of exceedance for a specific intensity (PGA) was calculated as: as prescribed in [54]. Table 8
shows the characteristics of the selected input motions in terms of Magnitude (Mw), closest
ln(PGA) − µ
distance, peak-to-peak velocity 𝑃𝐷 ≥ 𝐶𝑖|𝑃𝐺𝐴
(PPV), = Փ peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak
pulse period, (1)
ground velocity (PGV) and peak ground displacement (PGD). β The inputs are divided into 5
Near-Field (NF) and 5 Far-Field (FF) motions, in order to explore the importance of source
where:
Pdistance in earthquake
is the probability of thescenarios.
structural In addition,
damage the set was
(D) exceeding selected
the to have
i-th damage statesignificant
(C);
dispersion of intensities to significantly affect
ϕ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function. the dynamic characteristics of the system.

2.5
BPT
BRN
ERZ
2.0
PET
RRS

1.5 ATM
Sa (g)

BOL
CHY
1.0 MUL
YER
MEAN
0.5 CODE
-10%
+30%
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T (s)

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Selected
Selected input
input motions.
motions.

Table 8. Input motions characteristics.

Stations PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)

NF Superstition Hills BPT 0.45 112.05 52.49
NF Loma Prieta BRN 0.48 55.78 11.69
NF Erzincan ERZ 0.52 84.00 27.68
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 9 of 16

Table 8. Input motions characteristics.

Stations PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD (cm)

NF Superstition Hills BPT 0.45 112.05 52.49
NF Loma Prieta BRN 0.48 55.78 11.69
NF Erzincan ERZ 0.52 84.00 27.68
NF Cape Mendocino-Petrolia PET 0.59 48.35 21.99
NF Northridge RRS 0.83 160.40 29.72
FF Friuli Tolmezzo ATM 0.45 30.82 5.08
FF Duzce-Bolu BOL 0.46 56.53 23.09
FF Chy Chy CHY 0.18 115.09 68.81
FF Northridge BH MUL 0.27 58.99 13.16
FF Landers-Yermo YER 0.24 51.48 43.83

Therefore, IDA nonlinear analyses were performed and since they were particu-
larly challenging and time-consuming, it was necessary to apply four subsequent sub-
steps [19,20]. In step 1, the soil alone was loaded and linear properties (weight, shear and
bulk modulus) were considered. The presence of the water (0.00 m depth) was introduced
in step 2. In step 3, the structure was added and structural loads were applied. The soil
properties were changed from elastic to plastic (in 25 load steps). Finally, in the last steps,
the dynamic analyses were performed and Newton Line Search algorithm was used to
increase the speed of the solution [38]. In order to save computational time, the longi-
tudinal components of the input motions were considered only and applied at the base
of the model.
The study assumes that the probabilistic quantities were defined in terms of lognormal
standard deviation (β), the median (µ) of the lognormal seismic intensity measure (PGA).
Therefore, linear regressions were built up from the performed IDA analyses and the
probability of exceedance for a specific intensity (PGA) was calculated as:

ln(PGA) − µ
 
P[ D ≥ Ci | PGA] = Φ (1)
β

where:
P is the probability of the structural damage (D) exceeding the ith damage state (C);
Φ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function.

4. Results
In this section, the developed analytical fragility curves are presented and discussed,
by considering the potentiality of liquefaction (with the settlement at the foundation level)
and the structural fragility by considering the inter-story drifts, respectively, for the soil
and for the structure. In particular, the structural damage was considered conservatively
defined with the limit states proposed for High and Moderate Code Seismic concrete mo-
ment frame (see [29]): Slight, Moderate, Extensive and Complete Damage (corresponding
with drift: 0.33%, 0.58%, 1.56% and 4%), named here LS1, LS2, LS3 and LS4, respectively.
More details are available in [43].

4.1. Soil Results

Liquefaction condition was defined when the pore pressure ration (ru) reaches the
unit value (ru = 1), ru being the ratio between the pore pressure increase and the initial
vertical effective overburden stress. Activation of liquefaction was assessed at the center of
the foundation since the presence of the structure mostly affects this point, as demonstrated
in [20]. Liquefaction potential assessment is shown here by considering the profile of
the maximum settlement for the most severe input motion (RRS), Figure 9. The linear
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 10 of 16

regression is plotted and R2 coefficient was chosen to indicate the quality of correlation,
and calculated as: !2
2 1 ∑(x − µx )(y − µy )
R = (2)
n−1 σx σy

where:
n is the number of results;
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
µxand µy are the mean for the x and y values; 11 of 16
σx and σy are the standard deviation for the y values.

Figure 9. Settlement Vs soil depth (input motion: RRS).

Figure 9. Settlement Vs soil depth (input motion: RRS).
In this case, R2 = 0.7702, meaning a good correlation between the variables (PGA
and settlements). The slope of the fragility curve depends on the lognormal 0 standard
deviation
-3.5 (β): -3
high values
-2.5 increase-2the probabilities
-1.5 at-1low IMs,-0.5
decreasing0 the proba-
bility at high IMs. The central tendency of the fragility curve instead is-0.5 defined by the
median value (µ): bigger values mean higher probability of exceeding a specific dam-
age state. This study considers the serviceability level SLS1 (1/25), as -1 a requirement
for all structure of importance level 2 or above, following the New Zealand code (NZS
1170.0:2002). The values of β and µ (0.9254 and 0.98 g, respectively)-1.5 are calculated
ln (s)

among the results of the analyses (Figure 10). Therefore, the developed fragility curve
is shown in Figure 11, showing that the curve represents a severe increase -2 for low
intensities. For example, given an input of PGA = 0.175 g (considerably low value of in-
tensity), the probability of exceedance is 0.666. These values confirmed-2.5 what is shown
in [20]: rigid and heavy superstructure are significantly detrimental for liquefaction,
due to the aggravating vertical stresses. -3

-3.5
ln (PGA)

Figure 10. Soil results: relationship between PGA (ln) and settlement (ln).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 11 of 16

Figure 9. Settlement Vs soil depth (input motion: RRS).

0
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
-0.5

-1

-1.5
ln (s)

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5
ln (PGA)
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
Figure 10. Soil Figure
results:
10.relationship between between
Soil results: relationship PGA (ln)
PGAand
(ln)settlement (ln).(ln).
and settlement

Figure 11. Analytical fragility curve for serviceability level SLS1 (1/25).
Figure 11. Analytical fragility curve for serviceability level SLS1 (1/25).
4.2. Structural Results
4.2. Structural Results
Figure 12 shows the relationships between the base shear force and the longitudinal
Figure 12 (lateral
displacement shows the relationships
spread) between
at the central columnthe base shear
of the forcefor
model and the motion
input longitudinal
RRS,
displacement
considered as(lateral spread)
a reference. It isatworth
the central column
noticing of the
the large model for input
displacements duemotion RRS,
to the cyclic
considered as a reference.
mobility induced It is worth
by liquefaction noticing
in the soil. Itthe large displacements
is important to consider due to such
that the cyclic
high
mobility
non-linear mechanism was reproduced by the 3D numerical model that is shown to benon-
induced by liquefaction in the soil. It is important to consider that such high able
linear mechanism was reproduced by the 3D numerical model that is shown to be able to
reproduce the tendency for dilation and thus the large shear excursions during the strong
shake. Then, the top-floor drifts were calculated as the ratio between the longitudinal dis-
placements and the total height of the building. Figure 13 shows the results of the IDA
analyses in terms of PGA and drift and the corresponding value of R2 (equal to 0.8178 and
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 12 of 16

to reproduce the tendency for dilation and thus the large shear excursions during the strong
shake. Then, the top-floor drifts were calculated as the ratio between the longitudinal
displacements and the total height of the building. Figure 13 shows the results of the IDA
analyses in terms of PGA and drift and the corresponding value of R2 (equal to 0.8178 and
calculated from formula (2)) that shows the quality of the linearization among the obtained
data. Horizontal lines represent the limit states LS1, LS2, LS3 and LS4 (longitudinal drift:
0.33%, 0.58%, 1.56% and 4%, respectively), whose exceedance is probabilistically connected
with a certain amount of structural damage. Table 9 shows the comparison between the
values of β and µ for the four considered limit states: β varies relatively, meaning that the
level of uncertainties (the slope of the curves) is similar for every limit state. The analytical
fragility curves are shown in Figure 14 for LS4, LS3, LS2 and LS1. In particular, for a
relatively low value of PGA equal to 0.20 g, the probabilities are: 0.0384, 0.182, 0.692 and
0.942, respectively, for LS4, LS3, LS2 and LS1, showing that PE values vary significantly.
The difference between LS1 and LS2 curves decreases for PGA bigger than 0.40 g, while
LS3 and LS4 curves are different at all the intensities. The resulted fragility curves may be
compared with those derived by [28], where 2- and 3-storey buildings were considered. In
particular, the herein resulted values of the median values are relatively close to the 2-storey
results for LS1 and LS2. For LS3 and LS4, the calculated values are more similar to those
. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW resulted for 4-storey floors. However, if we compare these results with those presented 13 of
in [28] qualitatively, it is possible to see that the presented curves shift toward more fragile
behaviour because of the presence of soft soils that increase the vulnerability of the system
(soil + structure) to liquefaction-induced effects, due to soil nonlinearity, as shown in [27].
represent theitcomplex
Overall, phenomenon
is worth noting of liquefaction
that the proposed numericalby reproducing
models represent thedynamic
complexnonline
effects. This makes
phenomenon the developed
of liquefaction analytical
by reproducing fragility
dynamic curves
nonlinear conservative,
effects. This makesespecially
the
developed analytical fragility curves conservative, especially at low
low intensities where the studied building was found to be particularly vulnerable. intensities where the T
studied building was found to be particularly vulnerable. The findings are limited to the
findings are limited to the specific case study but the 3D numerical model may be appli
specific case study but the 3D numerical model may be applied to assess other cases with
to assess other
different cases with of
characteristics different characteristics
the soil and of the structure.ofThis
thewill
soilbeand of theofstructure.
the object future and This w
be themore
object of future
extended and more extended studies.
studies.

FigureFigure 12. Displacement

12. Displacement vs.Base
vs. Base Shear
Shear (Input motion:
(Input RRS).
motion: RRS).

9. Lognormal values.
Table Table
9. Lognormal values.
Parameters LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4
Parameters LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4
Median value (µ) 0.101 g 0.164 g 0.306 g 0.446 g
Median
Standard value
deviation (β) (µ) 0.433 0.101
0.382g 0.164 g
0.464 0.306 0.478
g 0.446 g
Standard deviation (β) 0.433 0.382 0.464 0.478
 Figure 12. Displacement vs. Base Shear (Input motion: RRS).

Table 9. Lognormal values.

Parameters LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 13 of 16
Median value (µ) 0.101 g 0.164 g 0.306 g 0.446 g
Standard deviation (β) 0.433 0.382 0.464 0.478

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16

Figure 13.
Figure Structural results:
13. Structural results: relationships
relationships between
between PGA
PGA (g)
(g) and
and top-floor
top-floor drifts
drifts (%).
(%).

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60
PE

0.50

0.40

0.30
LS4
0.20 LS3
LS1
0.10
LS2
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
PGA (g)

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Fragility
Fragility curves
curves for
for the
the structure
structure (top-floor
(top-floor drift).
drift).

5. Conclusions
The paper developed fragility curves for a MIRC structure subjected to liquefaction,
investigating the role of soil deformability both for the soil (in terms of settlements at the
foundation level) and for the structure (in terms of drifts at the top level). Fragility curves
show (1) the role of SSI on the seismic vulnerability of the system (soil + structure) and
that (2) structural drifts that affect the dynamic behaviour are mainly due to deformations
in the soil. The proposed FEM model was demonstrated to reproduce the 3D mutual in-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 14 of 16

5. Conclusions
The paper developed fragility curves for a MIRC structure subjected to liquefaction,
investigating the role of soil deformability both for the soil (in terms of settlements at the
foundation level) and for the structure (in terms of drifts at the top level). Fragility curves
show (1) the role of SSI on the seismic vulnerability of the system (soil + structure) and that
(2) structural drifts that affect the dynamic behaviour are mainly due to deformations in the
soil. The proposed FEM model was demonstrated to reproduce the 3D mutual interaction
between the soil, the foundation and structure. The presented outcomes are limited to
the considered conditions (in terms of soil profile and direction of input motion), but may
potentially be useful for design and pre- and post-earthquake assessments. In particular,
the model of infill RC structures can be refined by considering more sophisticated material
models and computational modeling strategies. This will be the object of future studies.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ishihara, K.; Yoshimine, M. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes. Soils Found.
1992, 32, 173–188. [CrossRef]
2. Tokimatsu, K.; Seed, H.B. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 1987,
113, 861–878. [CrossRef]
3. Youd, T.L.; Hansen, C.M.; Bartlett, S.F. Revised multilinear regression equations for prediction of lateral spread displacement.
ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2002, 28, 1007–1017. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, J.; Zhao, J.X. Empirical models for estimating liquefaction-induced lateral spread displacement. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2005, 25, 439–450. [CrossRef]
5. Xue, X.; Yang, X. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Nat. Hazards 2014, 71,
2101–2112. [CrossRef]
6. Xue, X.; Yang, X. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by support vector machines approaches fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
method. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 2015, 75, 153–162. [CrossRef]
7. Juang, C.H.; Fang, S.Y.; Khor, E.H. First order reliability method for probabilistic liquefaction triggering analysis 410 using CPT. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2006, 132, 337–349. [CrossRef]
8. Bullock, Z.; Dashti, S.; Liel, A.B.; Porter, K.; Karimi, Z. Assessment Supporting the Use of Outcropping Rock Evolutionary
Intensity Measures for Prediction of Liquefaction Consequences. Earthq. Spectra 2019, 35, 1899–1926. [CrossRef]
9. Bullock, Z.; Karimi, Z.; Dashti, S.; Porter, K.; Liel, A.; Franke, K. A physics-informed semi-empirical probabilistic model for the
settlement of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Géotechnique 2019, 69, 406–419. [CrossRef]
10. Dashti, S.; Bray, J.D.; Pestana, J.M.; Riemer, M.; Wilson, D. Mechanisms of Seismically Induced Settlement of Buildings with
Shallow Foundations on Liquefiable Soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010, 136, 151–164. [CrossRef]
11. Dashti, S.; Bray, J.D. Numerical Simulation of Building Response on Liquefiable Sand. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013, 139,
1235–1249. [CrossRef]
12. Dashti, S.; Karimi, Z. Ground Motion Intensity Measures to Evaluate I: The Liquefaction Hazard in the Vicinity of Shallow-
Founded Structures. Earthq. Spectra 2017, 33, 241–276. [CrossRef]
13. Karimi, Z.; Dashti, S.; Bullock, Z.; Porter, K.; Liel, A. Key predictors of structure settlement on liquefiable ground: A numerical
parametric study. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 113, 286–308. [CrossRef]
14. Bray, J.D.; Dashti, S. Liquefaction-induced building movements. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 1129–1156. [CrossRef]
15. Karamitros, D.K.; Bouckovalas, G.D.; Chaloulos, Y.K.; Andrianopoulos, K.I. Numerical analysis of liquefaction-induced bearing
capacity degradation of shallow foundations on a two layered soil profile. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 44, 90–101. [CrossRef]
16. Elgamal, A.; Lu, J.; Yang, Z. Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations and remediation: 3D numerical simulation.
J. Earthq. Eng. 2005, 9, 17–45. [CrossRef]
17. Elgamal, A.; Lu, J.; Forcellini, D. Mitigation of Liquefaction-Induced lateral deformation in sloping stratum: Three-dimensional
Numerical Simulation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009, 135, 1672–1682. [CrossRef]
18. Lopez-Caballero, F.L.; Farahmand-Razavi, A.M. Numerical simulation of mitigation of liquefaction seismic risk by preloading
and its effects on the performance of structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 49, 27–38. [CrossRef]
19. Forcellini, D. Numerical simulations of liquefaction on an ordinary building during Italian (20 May 2012) earthquake. Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 2019, 17, 4797–4823. [CrossRef]
20. Forcellini, D. Soil-structure interaction analyses of shallow-founded structures on potential liquefiable soil deposit. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2020, 133, 106108. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 15 of 16

21. Chiaradonna, A.; Bilotta, E.; d’Onofrio, A.; Flora, A.; Silvestri, F. A simplified procedure for evaluating post-seismic settlements
in liquefiable soils. In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics V: Liquefaction Triggering, Consequences, and Mitigation;
American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 51–59.
22. Lopez-Caballero, F.L.; Farahmand-Razavi, A.M. Numerical simulation of liquefaction effects on seismic SSI. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2008, 28, 85–98. [CrossRef]
23. Luque, R.; Bray, J.D. Dynamic analysis of a shallow-founded building in Christchurch during the Canterbury Earthquake
sequence. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (ICEGE), Christchurch,
New Zealand, 1–4 November 2015.
24. Drobiec, Ł.; Jasiński, R.; Mazur, W.; Rybraczyk, T. Numerical Verification of Interaction between Masonry with Precast Reinforced
Lintel Made of AAC and Reinforced Concrete Confining Elements. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5446. [CrossRef]
25. Aygün, B.; Dueñas-Osorio, L.; Padgett, J.E.; DesRoches, R. Efficient Longitudinal Seismic Fragility Assessment of a Multispan
Continuous Steel Bridge on Liquefiable Soils. J. Bridge Eng. 2011, 16, 93–107. [CrossRef]
26. Fotopoulou, S.; Karafagka, S.; Pitilakis, K. Vulnerability assessment of low-code reinforced concrete frame buildings subjected to
liquefaction-induced differential displacements. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 110, 173–184. [CrossRef]
27. Petridis, C.; Pitilakis, D. Fragility curve modifiers for RC dual buildings to include nonlinear site effects and SSI. Earthq. Spectra
2020, 36, 1930–1951. [CrossRef]
28. Karafagka, S.; Fotopoulou, S.; Pitilakis, D. Fragility assessment of non-ductile RC frame buildings exposed to combined ground
shaking and soil liquefaction considering SSI. Eng. Struct. 2021, 229, 111629. [CrossRef]
29. Holmes, W. HAZUS-MH MR3 Multi-Hazard. Loss Estimation Methodology, Technical Manual; Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA): Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
30. FEMA. HAZUS-MH MR5: Technical Manual; FEMA: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
31. Sáez, E.; Lopez-Caballero, F.; Razavi, A.M.-F. Effects of the inelastic dynamic soil-structure interaction on the seismic vulnerability.
Struct. Saf. 2011, 33, 51–63. [CrossRef]
32. Chie, N.; Clementi, F.; Formisano, A.; Lenci, S. Comparative fragility methods for seismic assessment of masonry buildings
located in Muccia (Italy). J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100813. [CrossRef]
33. Kwon, O.-S.; Elnashai, A.S. Fragility analysis of a highway over-crossing bridge with consideration of soil-structure interactions.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2010, 6, 159–178. [CrossRef]
34. Ranjbar, P.R.; Naderpour, H. Probabilistic evaluation of seismic resilience for typical vital buildings in terms of vulnerability
curves. Structures 2020, 23, 314–323. [CrossRef]
35. Liang, H.; Tu, J.; Guo, S.; Liao, J.; Li, D.; Peng, S. Seismic fragility analysis of a High Arch Dam Foundation System based on
seismic instability failure mode. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 130, 105981. [CrossRef]
36. Forcellini, D. Analytical Fragility Curves of Pile Foundations with Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI). Geosciences 2021, 11, 66.
[CrossRef]
37. Lu, J.; Elgamal, A.; Yang, Z. OpenSeesPL: 3D Lateral Pile-Ground Interaction, User Manual, Beta 1.0. 2011. Available online:
http://soilquake.net/openseespl/ (accessed on 25 June 2021).
38. Mazzoni, S.; McKenna, F.; Scott, M.H.; Fenves, G.L. Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, User Command-Language
Manual. 2009. Available online: http://opensees.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/manuals/usermanual (accessed on 25 June 2021).
39. Bolisetti, C.; Whittaker, A.S.; Coleman, J.L. Linear and nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis of buildings and safety-related
nuclear structures. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 107, 218–233. [CrossRef]
40. Tonni, L.; Forcellini, D.; Osti, C.; Gottardi, G. Modelling liquefaction phenomena during the May 2012 Emilia-Romagna (Italy)
earthquake (Modélisation des phénomènes de liquéfaction pendant le tremblement de terre du 2012 en Emilia-Romagna (Italie)).
In Proceedings of the XVI Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development (ECSMGE), Edinburgh, UK, 13–17
September 2015.
41. Forcellini, D. Analytical fragility curves of shallow-founded structures subjected to Soil Structure Interaction (SSI) effects. Soil
Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 141, 106487. [CrossRef]
42. Ministero delle Infrastrutture E dei Trasporti. Circolare 2 Febbraio 2009, n. 617 Istruzioni per L’applicazione Delle «Nuove Norme
Tecniche per le Costruzioni» di cui al Decreto Ministeriale 14 Gennaio 2008; GÉODE: Padova, Italy, 2009.
43. Gaetani d’Aragona, M.; Polese, M.; Prota, A. Stick-IT: A simplified model for rapid estimation of IDR and PFA for existing
low-rise symmetric infilled RC building typologies. Eng. Struct. 2020, 223, 111182. [CrossRef]
44. Borzi, B.; Pinho, R.; Crowley, H. Simplifed pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng.
Struct. 2008, 30, 804–820. [CrossRef]
45. Polese, M.; Verderame, G.M.; Mariniello, C.; Iervolino, I.; Manfredi, G. Vulnerability analysis for gravity load designed RC
buildings in Naples-Italy. J. Earthq. Eng. 2008, 12, 234–245. [CrossRef]
46. Del Gaudio, C.; Di Ludovico, M.; Polese, M.; Manfredi, G.; Prota, A.; Ricci, P.; Verderame, G.M. Seismic fragility for Italian RC
buildings based on damage data of the last 50 years. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 2023–2059. [CrossRef]
47. Erberik, M.A. Generation of fragility curves for Turkish masonry buildings considering in392 plane failure modes. Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 2008, 37, 387–405. [CrossRef]
48. Rota, M.; Penna, A.; Magenes, G. A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic
nonlinear analyses. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 1312–1323. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6117 16 of 16

49. Pitilakis, K.; Crowley, H.; Kaynia, A.M. SYNERG-G: Typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic
risk. Geotech. Geol. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 27, 1–28.
50. Mina, D.; Forcellini, D.; Karampour, H. Analytical fragility curves for assessment of the seismic vulnerability of hp/ht unburied
subsea pipelines. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 137, 106308. [CrossRef]
51. Pulatsu, B.; Gonen, S.; Ergdogmus, E.; Lourenco, P.B.; Lemos, J.V.; Prakash, R. In-plane structural performance of dry-joint stone
masonry Walls: A spatial and non-spatial stochastic discontinuum analysis. Eng. Struct. 2021, 242, 112620. [CrossRef]
52. Parisi, F.; Sabella, G. Flow-type landslide fragility of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Eng. Struct. 2021, 131, 28–43.
[CrossRef]
53. Vamvatsikos, D.; Cornell, C.A. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2002, 31, 491–514. [CrossRef]
54. CEN, European Committee for Standardisation. TC250/SC8/ Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures,
Part 1.1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, PrEN1998-1; CEN, European Committee for Standardisation:
Brussels, Belgium, 2003.