The Influence of Adjacent Buildings on Seismic Motion Field Considering Building-Site Interaction

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5221301/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Influence of Adjacent Buildings on Seismic Motion Field Considering Building-Site Interaction

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5221301/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Due to the interaction between buildings and sites during an earthquake, buildings can impact the seismic motion in their proximity. In this study, a nonlinear finite element model of building-site interaction considering soil nonlinearity is established by numerical simulation. The building-site interaction effects on the ground motion field around buildings are investigated under various site conditions and building dynamic properties. The seismic response spectra analysis results indicate that: (1) Buildings noticeably alter seismic response spectra nearby, generally reducing them at short periods and amplifying them at long periods. This effect is more pronounced on soft soil sites with lower shear wave velocities, resulting in up to 48% reductions compared to free-field conditions. (2) The presence of buildings changes the fundamental period of the building-site interaction system. Larger building masses on sites with lower shear wave velocities increase disturbances in seismic response spectra across all periods. (3) The building-site interaction effect on ground motion spectra diminishes gradually with increasing distance from buildings in surrounding areas. The larger building mass extended the influence range of building-site interaction, and this influence is more pronounced on soft sites. (4) Soil nonlinearity significantly increased the spatial variability and extent of building disturbances, especially for ground motions with long periods.

building-site interaction

ground motion field

nonlinear finite element model

response spectra ratio analysis

soil nonlinearity

With the development and utilization of urban space, the density of urban buildings continues to increase, imposing higher demands on seismic safety in engineering under high-density building conditions. Currently, seismic design for buildings often uses free-field ground motions as inputs. However, the seismic environment for new urban buildings differs significantly from free-field conditions due to the presence of surrounding existing buildings. The response of existing buildings under seismic actions transmits energy into the soil through building foundations, which interacts with seismic motions within the soil, further influencing the surrounding seismic motion field, known as the Building-Site Interaction effect (BSI effect). On this premise, neglecting the influence of existing buildings on ground motion field surround, and continuing to use free-field seismic motions as inputs for seismic design of new buildings may introduce uncertainties into urban building seismic fortification. Therefore, seismic input considering urban building-site effects has become a primary concern in studying urban seismic resilience.

During an earthquake, the vibrational energy of building structures response dissipates not only through their dynamic characteristics but also radiates into the soil through stress waves generated at the foundation. This dynamic interaction between the structure and the soil under seismic actions is known as the Soil-Structure Interaction effect (SSI effect) (Lou et al,2021). Due to this reason, the phenomenon that the seismic response of the structure itself is often smaller than expected has been observed in many studies (Wan et al,2023). Researchers have proposed mature methods for analyzing the seismic response of SSI systems (Vicencio et al,2024; Elgamal et al,2008). However, studies on such SSI effects often focus on the seismic response of structures, and the impact of SSI on ground motion fields is rarely considered. BSI as an extension and development of SSI pays more attention to the ground motion changes induced by stress wave radiation during the interaction between structures and soil.

Gueguen et al. (2000) designed an experiment to achieve free vibration of a structure by sudden loads and to capture the radiated wave field radiated by the building’s free vibrations using sensors placed on the site surface. The experiment confirmed that buildings significantly impact the seismic response of the site. Aldaikh et al. (2016) conducted vibration table tests by setting buildings with different building periods, which demonstrated that the dynamic interaction between buildings under earthquake excitation is inevitable. Through the analysis of peak acceleration, when there are other buildings with longer periods on the sides of a building, the vibration energy of the building propagates through the soil medium, and the seismic response of the building is significantly affected. Wang et al. (2023) studied the influence of building clusters on-site responses through a series of vibration table tests considering SSI effects. This study showed that the presence of structures reduced soil response compared to free-field conditions, with a maximum reduction of up to 40%, which is nonnegligible in engineering practice.

Wirgin et al. (1996) conducted numerical simulations in a soft-basin urban site of Mexico City demonstrating that the presence of buildings affects both the duration and amplitude of ground motions. The influence of buildings on surrounding sites correlates with various dynamic parameters of structures, and the scattered wave radiated by the building to the soil will only propagate within the surface layer of the soil due to the high impedance contrast of the soft surface layer with the stiffer foundation. Ghergu et al. (2009) analyzed the seismic response of urban area buildings under two-dimensional by modeling each building as SDOF systems with rigid foundations, revealing a significant correlation between the fundamental frequency of building clusters and the dynamic characteristics of each building, independent of the number of buildings constituting the cluster. Kato et al. (2021) performed numerical simulations of the Tuen Mun-Yuen Long basin in Hong Kong, finding a strong correlation between amplification factors of seismic ground response and soil depth. The site response amplitudes between different buildings exhibit varying degrees of increase when buildings are distributed concentrically. Specifically, the peak ground acceleration around sites surrounded by buildings increases nearly twofold compared to free-field conditions. Lu et al. (2018) proposed a new numerical calculation method in the time domain considering the influence of stress radiation at the bottom of the building foundation under seismic action. Based on this method, they conducted numerical simulations on building clusters at Tsinghua University using the open-source software SPEED (Mazzieri et al,2013). They observed anomalous seismic damage phenomena resulting from complex ground motion: Under the coupling interaction between ground motions and numerous building clusters, seismic responses of most buildings were reduced. Similar phenomena to certain anomalous seismic effects observed in the Friuli region of Italy in 1976 (where, under earthquake conditions, several adjacent buildings experienced vastly different degrees of damage) are highly comparable. Uenishi et al. (2010) interpreted this phenomenon by considering the complex interactions between partial building vibration energy and ground waves. Conversely, seismic responses of some buildings within clusters were amplified, leading to severe structural damage. Numerical simulation studies by Kato et al. (2022) on Kowloon subway stations in Hong Kong indicate that due to significant perturbations caused by tall buildings in the seismic field, closely spaced high-rise structures can amplify each other’s seismic demands through the SSI effect, meanwhile, surrounding low-rise structures suffer the greater damage than expected, which underscoring the necessity of considering architectural context when designing seismic-resistant structures in complex and congested urban environments. Chen et al. (2022) considering nonlinear elastoplastic soil, studied the seismic-structural interaction of urban building groups using the finite element method. The research indicates significant influences of BSI effect on surrounding seismic fields and nonlinear soil behavior amplifies these disturbances. In specific scenarios, ground motions are reduced by over 60% compared to free-field motions. Taddei et al. (2018) summarized several key factors that significantly influence seismic motion fields including building height, damping, density, mass, stiffness, geometric dimensions of foundations; shear wave velocity, density, and damping of site.

Researchers have made significant progress in studying the BSI effect. However, most studies focus on understanding how surface structures affect seismic response under specific scenarios. There is a lack of detailed analysis and research on the ground motion field characteristics surrounding buildings. In this article, the BSI effect from the perspective of seismic field characteristics around buildings is investigated. The building-surrounding ground motion fields simulated under various site conditions and building dynamic properties are compared with free fields in the aspect of response spectra. Based on the comparison, the influence patterns of existing structures on seismic fields are analyzed.

The 2D numerical model considering the BSI effect was established via the commercial finite element software ABAQUS as shown in Fig. 1. The model includes 2D single-layer soil with and without the structure (referred to as the work condition and free-field condition, respectively) on the upper part of the soil. SV waves vertically incident from the bottom are adopted, and CPE4 elements and B21 elements are used to discretize the site and the building, respectively.

Based on the studies by Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (Kuhlemeyer & Lysmer, 1969, 1973), the mesh accuracy of finite elements should be determined according to formula (1) during mesh division for mitigating the interference effects of finite element mesh accuracy on seismic wave propagation in soils, where \(\:L\) represents the size of the finite element mesh and \(\:{\lambda\:}_{min}\) is the minimum wavelength of the seismic wave propagating upward in the soil layer.

\(\:L\le\:\frac{1}{8}{\lambda\:}_{min}\)

(1)

In this simulation, the characteristic periods of the soil are controlled by varying Young’s modulus and mass, a single frame structure is employed for the upper building, where the characteristic period is controlled by mass. The El Centro wave is used to simulate the input seismic waves, the Fourier amplitude spectrum and acceleration time history of the simulated seismic motion are illustrated in Fig. 2, while the input seismic motion is scaled to 0.1g for simulation purposes. The Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model is employed to simulate the nonlinear behavior of the soil under seismic loading. In this study, the upper building is modeled using a linear-elastic constitutive model to prioritize computational efficiency and numerical accuracy, given that the primary focus is on investigating the seismic disturbance effects of buildings on the seismic field of the site rather than the seismic response of the buildings themselves. The parameters for the soil and the building used in this simulation are detailed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Detailed parameters of the site
Site	Density (kg/m³)	S wave velocity (m/s)	Period (s)
S1	2000	300	2.56
S2	2000	400	1.96
S3	1800	500	1.49
S4	2300	800	0.96
S5	1800	1000	0.5

Table 2

Detailed parameters of structure
Building	Mass (kg)	Period (s)
C1	3×10⁵	0.76
C2	5×10⁵	0.98
C3	7×10⁵	1.16
C4	9×10⁵	1.32
C5	1.1×10⁶	1.46
C6	1.3×10⁶	1.59
C7	1.5×10⁶	1.71
C8	1.7×10⁶	1.81
C9	1.9×10⁶	1.92

Artificial viscoelastic boundaries (Jing-bo L & Gu Y, 2006, 2007) as shown in Fig. 3, were applied at the truncation of the computational domain to address numerical instability caused by the reflection of incident seismic waves at the truncated boundaries of the soil finite element domain. This boundary simulates the propagation of seismic waves into an infinite domain by implementing springs and dampers at the truncation of the soil domain. The parameters of the boundary springs and dampers are determined by formulas (2)–(8), where \(\:E\) represents the Young’s modulus of the soil, \(\:\nu\:\) is the Poisson ratio, \(\:G\) is the shear modulus, \(\:\rho\:\) denotes the mass density of the soil, and \(\:{\alpha\:}_{T}\) and \(\:{\alpha\:}_{N}\) are the normal and tangential adjustment coefficients, respectively. \(\:R\) is the distance from the wave source to the artificial boundary point, and \(\:A\) is the influence area of the boundary spring and damper components.

\(\:G=\frac{E}{2\left(1+\nu\:\right)}\)	(2)
\(\:{c}_{s}=\sqrt{\frac{G}{\rho\:}}=\sqrt{\frac{E}{2\rho\:\left(1+\nu\:\right)}}\)	(3)
\(\:{c}_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda\:+2G}{\rho\:}}=\sqrt{\frac{E\left(1-\nu\:\right)}{\rho\:\left(1+\nu\:\right)\left(1-2\nu\:\right)}}\)	(4)
\(\:{K}_{T}=\frac{{\alpha\:}_{T}G}{R}A\)	(5)
\(\:{C}_{T}={\rho\:}{c}_{s}A\)	(6)
\(\:{K}_{N}=\frac{{\alpha\:}_{N}G}{R}A\)	(7)
\(\:{C}_{N}={\rho\:}{c}_{P}A\)	(8)

For the case of vertically incident SV waves at the bottom of a uniform finite element mesh simulating the soil, based on the Ma et al. (2020) recommended, the values for \(\:{\alpha\:}_{T}\) and \(\:{\alpha\:}_{N}\) are 0.5 and 1, respectively. A uniformly distributed unit pressure is applied at the boundary, constraining all degrees of freedom at the nodes where the springs and dampers are attached, and the reaction force at these nodes is calculated to obtain the node control area. For the lateral boundaries, \(\:R\) is taken as the distance from the wave source to the artificial boundary point, which is the vertical height from the bottom boundary node. For the bottom node, \(\:R\) is set to 4 times the soil layer thickness to meet the required accuracy. Additionally, the seismic input at the bottom is converted into equivalent loads at the boundary, replacing the direct seismic input at the bottom with node-centered equivalent loads to avoid errors during the input process. A numerical example is conducted to verify the accuracy of the artificial viscoelastic boundaries in simulating the propagation of seismic waves in an infinite domain.

A validation model of a scattering field with dimensions of 100m in length and 50m in height is established. The model Schematic diagram depicted in Fig. 4, is discretized using CPE4 elements, each measuring 1m in length and width. The artificial viscoelastic boundaries at the truncation zone simulate the propagation of seismic waves to infinity. Vertically incident SV waves are input as equivalent node loads at the bottom. Additionally, four seismic pickup points are placed in the soil to observe the seismic response of the site. The material parameters of the model and the displacement time history curves of the incident SV waves are detailed in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. 5.

Table 3

Detailed parameters of the validation model
ρ (kg/m³)	E (Pa)	ν	Vs(m/s)
1000	2.4×107	0.2	100

Figure 6 compares the seismic response at observation points under artificial viscoelastic boundary conditions against reference solutions with remote boundary conditions. Apart from minor oscillations observed in the later stages, the solutions under artificial viscoelastic boundary conditions closely match those under remote boundary conditions at all other time steps. This agreement arises because material damping was not included in the validation model, resulting in incomplete dissipation of seismic wave energy within the validation model over short durations. However, these oscillations diminish gradually over time, indicating that even without material damping in the soil, artificial viscoelastic boundaries can effectively simulate the propagation of most scattering waves to infinity. The results demonstrate that the application of spring-damping assembly comprising artificial viscoelastic boundaries at the truncation zone of the computational domain, coupled with the conversion of vertically incident SV waves into equivalent node loads is robust for seismic input in this study.

This study calculated 5% damped elastic seismic response spectra acceleration(Sa) for each point on the surface of the work condition and free-field condition, respectively. As shown in Fig. 7, upon observing the enveloped area of C5 condition at site S1(referred to as S1C5 site), it could be noted that significant disturbances in ground motion of the surrounding area occur after building participation. These disturbances are primarily concentrated in the short-period segment of 0-0.5s of Sa, manifested by the fact that the enveloped line of the work condition response Sa is entirely below the free-field condition Sa curve, indicating suppression of ground motion response. At the 0.5-1s period range, Sa approaches the level of the free-field condition. In the medium to long periods greater than 1s, significant amplification of Sa occurs in the site condition, with the maximum amplification approaching twice the level of the free-field condition. This finding is generally consistent with the amplification factor trends obtained by Evangelia et al. (2020), but it shows some discrepancies with actual records in the long-period range. This is explained by the fact that plane waves emanating from the foundation propagate outward and affect the free-field records. Figure 8 illustrates significant differences in Sa on different sites: on sites S4 and S5 representing hard soil conditions, both long-period amplification and short-period attenuation are significantly less than those on site S1 representing soft soil conditions. Overall, compared to the free-field condition, the Sa of the site condition exhibits amplification in the long-period segments and attenuation in the short-period segments.

As the shear wave velocity increases, the envelope area of Sa curves near the fundamental period of the site gradually disappears which means the spatial variability of amplification and attenuation effects in the Sa near the fundamental period of the site is significantly reduced. Simultaneously, the fundamental period progressively shifts towards the short-period direction, and the influence on the nearby Sa values becomes increasingly pronounced: In the case of the S5C5 site with a shear wave velocity of 1000m/s, the Sa near the fundamental period of the site shows no significant difference compared to the free-field condition. As shown in Fig. 9, on sites with higher shear wave velocities, the standard deviation of Sa under the same conditions is smaller compared to other sites. This indicates that as the shear wave velocity of the site increases, the spatial variability of Sa gradually decreases. Specifically, the standard deviation at the S5C5 site with a shear wave velocity of 1000 m/s is reduced by approximately 54% compared to the S2C5 site with a shear wave velocity of 400 m/s. Moreover, there is a strong correspondence between site wave velocity and the overall spatial variability of Sa. However, on the S1 site with a shear wave velocity of 300 m/s, the standard deviation between the S1C5 and S2C5 sites, which have similar shear wave velocities, differs by 32% due to soil nonlinearity. This indicates that soil nonlinearity significantly increases the spatial variability of building-induced Sa disturbances.

Equation 9 defines ratio Sa, which means the Sa amplification of work condition relative to free-field condition, referred to as \(\:{R}_{Sa}\), where, \(\:{S}_{a}^{SP}\) is Sa of specific ground-motion point, \(\:{S}_{a}^{FF}\) is Sa of free-field condition in the same point. As shown in Fig. 10, \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) curves become increasingly close to 1, which represents the level of free-field condition, with the shear wave velocity of the site increased. This indicates that the Sa disruption caused by buildings in the surroundings gradually diminishes across all periods. On the S1 site with the lowest shear wave velocity, a maximum decrease of 48% was observed. Furthermore, the period at which the Sa of different shear-wave velocity sites reaches the free-field level varies among scenarios. Generally speaking, the corresponding period at which the response spectrum value reaches the free-field level is longer for sites with a greater shear wave velocity.

\(\:{R}_{Sa}\left(T\right)={S}_{a}^{SP}\left(T\right)/{S}_{a}^{FF}\left(T\right)\)

(9)

Average \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) at each site exhibit a strong linear correlation with the mass of the building. The building exerts greater disturbance on the surrounding seismic motion as the mass increases. As shown in Figs. 11 and 12, within the short-period range of 0–1 seconds, the greater the mass of the building, the greater the amplification compared to the free-field condition. Conversely, within the long-period range of 1–6 seconds, the greater the mass of the building, the greater the suppression compared to the free-field. In all simulation results, a crossing period can be identified, denoted by the black dashed line in Fig. 12, different buildings on the same site exhibit a consistent influence on the Sa in the surrounding area at this period, thereby entering an inverse spectral amplification mode. The crossing period occurs consistently across different operational conditions on the same site and remains unaffected by variations in the building mass, demonstrating the dominant role of site conditions in the BSI effect. As shown in Fig. 12b, the crossing period slightly increases with increasing shear wave velocity of the site, generally falling within the medium to long period range and does not exceed 2s.

As shown in Fig. 13, the \(\:{R}_{Sa}\)(T0) continually increases with increasing distance, where, \(\:{R}_{Sa}\)(T0) means the Sa value at the fundamental period of the site. Considering that there is a more significant suppression at the fundamental periods of various sites compared to the free-field, this phenomenon indicates that as the distance increases, the attenuation effect of the buildings on the Sa near the fundamental period gradually diminishes. It is noted that resonance phenomena at the site fundamental periods expected in the Sa under operational conditions were not observed. Instead, a suppression effect was uniformly present across all sites compared to the free-field conditions. Among them, the S1 site with the lowest shear wave velocity of 300 m/s exhibited a reduction of 38%. Even at the S5 site with the highest shear wave velocity, also at 300 m/s, a 15% reduction in the Sa was observed. This phenomenon arises from considering the BSI effect where the building of varying mass contributes to seismic responses and leads to changes in the fundamental period of the site compared to its previous state, Furthermore, the resonance point is offset from the fundamental period of the site. As shown in Fig. 14a and Fig. 14b, the Sa value at various distances from the operational site exhibits amplification relative to the site center in medium to short periods, while demonstrating attenuation in periods exceeding 3 seconds compared to the site center. This contrast with Fig. 14c and Fig. 14d, depicting the ratio of Sa between the site center and free-field conditions, illustrates amplification in the short periods and a trend of suppression in the high-frequency range. This indicates that with increasing distance, the influence exerted by buildings gradually diminishes.

Figure 15 presents contour plots illustrating the spatial distribution of Sa and \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) relative to the corresponding free-field conditions across different distances and periods. On the contour map representing the S5 site with a shear wave velocity of 1000 m/s which is characteristic of stiff soil conditions, the \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) exhibit a consistent distribution throughout the site. Compared to the free-field Sa, which shows suppression in short periods but no significant amplification or reduction in other periods, the Sa across the entire site remains largely consistent. In contrast, on the contour map representing the S1 site with a shear wave velocity of 300 m/s, typical of soft soil conditions, noticeable fluctuations in the free-field Sa with distance can be observed which can be explained by the nonlinear behavior of the soft S1 site under seismic loading. At the S1C5 site, the presence of buildings mitigates the seismic response in the surrounding areas, resulting in reduced nonlinear behavior of the soil compared to the free-field conditions. Consequently, the short-period fluctuations in the Sa at site S1C5 are less pronounced. Furthermore, in the comparison of the \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) between site S1C5 site and the free-field condition it is observed that periodic fluctuations in the Sa appear more frequently in the longer periods, indicates that considering the BSI effect exhibit additional amplification effects on the Sa at longer periods, potentially leading to an underestimation of the seismic performance requirements for long-period structures on soft soil sites under nonlinear conditions.

Figure 16 illustrates on the contour map of \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) a noticeable reduction across all periods at the central location of the site. This indicates that under seismic loading, the interaction with buildings at this location dissipates seismic energy significantly more than in other areas of the site, resulting in a substantial decrease in seismic response and thereby affecting the Sa. However, this phenomenon is relatively weak on the site represented by S5, characteristic of stiff soil conditions. The reason lies in the BSI effect, where the building primarily feeds back vibrational energy into the soil in the form of stress wave radiation. On the one hand, due to the lower shear wave velocity at site S1, this stress wave radiation cannot propagate rapidly into the external infinite domain. On the other hand, this portion of energy cannot be dissipated effectively as in the linear phase due to the damping characteristics of the soil mass changed by the nonlinear behavior of the soil. Instead, it interacts significantly with seismic motions within the soil, leading to alterations in the seismic response of the site. However, these factors are weak on stiff soil sites like Sthe 5 site, hence significant building effects cannot be observed prominently in the \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) contour maps.

Based on the previous analysis, the most significant impact of buildings on the ground surface Sa is located at the center of the site. In this simulation, as a frequency domain analysis method for ground motion, the response spectrum exhibits considerable variability in spatial distance and frequency domain intensity. To determine the impact range of building-induced disturbances, the 90% level of the maximum diversity factor at the site center is chosen as the standard. Here, the maximum diversity factor at the site center, denoted as \(\:{DIV}_{Rsa}\), is determined by Eq. (11), where \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) represents the ratio of the response spectra between the scenario site and the free field; and \(\:{T}_{I}\) is the period corresponding to the maximum value of the acceleration response spectrum ratio at the specified seismic point at the site center.

As shown in Fig. 17a, it can be observed that the maximum influence range of buildings decreases continuously as the shear wave velocity of the site increases. In the influence range of buildings, the \(\:{R}_{Sa}\) tends to develop slowly in a linear trend as the distance increases. However, outside the influence range, the perturbation from buildings rapidly decays towards the free field level. Additionally, as depicted in Fig. 17b, the differences in perturbation range caused by different buildings on the same site are minimal, and the perturbation range from buildings under different conditions remains almost unchanged. This indicates that the perturbation range of the site's Sa is primarily influenced by the characteristics of the site itself when considering the BSI effect, which is consistent with the conclusion drawn by Chen et al. (2015): site variations have a significant impact on the seismic response of the entire system. As the site shear wave velocity decreases, the influence of the building on the surrounding seismic field becomes more pronounced and the influence range becomes larger.

In this article, a buildings-sites interaction system is established with viscoelastic artificial boundaries. Based on this model, the ground motion fields surrounding the building under various site conditions and building dynamic properties are simulated. The influence of adjacent buildings on seismic motion fields is investigated by comparing the seismic response spectra between the building-surrounding seismic fields and free fields. The conclusion could be summarized as follows:

The building-site interaction (BSI) effect has a significant impact on the Sa of ground motion around the building. Generally, the BSI effect decreases the spectral values at short periods and increases them at longer periods. This effect is especially pronounced on soft sites with lower shear wave velocity. As the shear wave velocity of the site increases, the spatial variability of building-induced spectral perturbation is significantly reduced, potentially by up to 50%. Additionally, soil nonlinearity leads to an increase in the spatial variability of building-induced seismic response spectra perturbations.

The BSI effect on seismic fields is dependent on the site conditions and building dynamic properties. Generally, the building tends to have a greater influence on ground motion response spectra across all periods when the shear wave velocity of the site decreases and the mass of the building increases. Although the site condition is dominant, the building affects the ground motion fields by altering the fundamental period of the BSI system. Furthermore, the disturbance patterns of BSI effect on ground motion response spectra are similar under different site conditions. It appears that there is a specific critical period for each site condition. During this critical period, all the amplification modes of Sa will undergo a reversal, meanwhile, the critical period is determined by field condition. The nonlinear behaviors of the soil amplify the disturbance intensity of the BSI effect on ground motion by up to 30%.

The impact of the BSI effect on seismic fields decays as the distance increases. The distance range over which the BSI effect has an impact depends largely on the site condition. For the same building, the impact range is greater on the softer site. On soft sites, the disturbances of ground motion fields by the BSI effect show fluctuations with distance, particularly for long-period ground motion. This phenomenon may be attributed to the interference of scattered waves by building with the incident seismic wave.

As a preliminary study, we focused on the BSI effect on the building-surrounding seismic field. The building’s structural nonlinearity is not considered in this study. Frankly, the energy dissipation capacity of the building-site interaction system is closely related to the building’s structural nonlinear behavior. What’s more, the article used only one ground motion (El-Centro ground motion) in the analysis and ignored possible impacts of the characteristics of ground motions. In future studies, we will incorporate a wider range of ground motions to obtain more general conclusions.

Author Contribution

Huang,Zhang,Cui wrote the main manuscript text , Chen prepared figures 1-6,Xie prepared figures 7-17 . All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Lou M, Wang H, Chen X, Zhai Y (2011) Structure–soil–structure interaction: Literature review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(12):1724–1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.07.008
Wan F, Zhou W, Liu D, Huo Y, Li H, Luo X, Yao S (2023) Seismic response of a stilted mid–story isolated structure in mountainous areas based on variable parameters soil–structure–interaction effect. Structures (Vol. 51, pp. 707–717). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.03.072
Vicencio F, Alexander NA (2024) Seismic evaluation of Site-City interaction effects between city blocks. Front Built Environ 10:1403642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2024.1403642
Elgamal A, Yan L, Yang Z, Conte JP (2008) Three-dimensional seismic response of Humboldt Bay bridge-foundation-ground system. Journal of structural engineering, 134(7), 1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:7(1165)
Gueguen P, Bard PY, Oliveira CS (2000) Experimental and numerical analysis of soil motions caused by free vibrations of a building model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6):1464–1479. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990072
Aldaikh H, Alexander NA, Ibraim E, Knappett J (2016) Shake table testing of the dynamic interaction between two and three adjacent buildings (SSSI). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 89:219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.012
Wang G, Wang Y, Pan P, Wang J (2023) Experimental and numerical investigation on seismic response of the soil-structure cluster interaction system. Eng Struct 285:116001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116001
Wirgin A, Bard PY (1996) Effects of buildings on the duration and amplitude of ground motion in Mexico City. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(3):914–920
Ghergu M, Ionescu IR (2009) Structure–soil–structure coupling in seismic excitation and city effect. Int J Eng Sci 47(3):342–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijengsci.2008.11.005
Kato B, Wang G (2021) Regional seismic responses of shallow basins incorporating site-city interaction analyses on high‐rise building clusters. Earthq Eng Struct Dynamics 50(1):214–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3363
Lu X, Tian Y, Wang G, Huang D (2018) A numerical coupling scheme for nonlinear time history analysis of buildings on a regional scale considering site-city interaction effects. Earthq Eng Struct Dynamics 47(13):2708–2725. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3108
Mazzieri I, Stupazzini M, Guidotti R, Smerzini C (2013) SPEED: SPectral Elements in Elastodynamics with Discontinuous Galerkin: A non-conforming approach for 3D multi‐scale problems. Int J Numer Methods Eng 95(12):991–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.4532
Uenishi K (2010) The town effect: dynamic interaction between a group of structures and waves in the ground. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:811–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-010-0102-9
Kato B, Wang G (2022) Seismic site–city interaction analysis of super-tall buildings surrounding an underground station: a case study in Hong Kong. Bull Earthq Eng 20(3):1431–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01295-7
Chen S, Liu Q, Zhai C, Wen W (2022) Influence of building-site resonance and building properties on site-city interaction: A numerical investigation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 158:107307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107307
Taddei F, Müller G, Lu X (2018) Towards a nonlinear discrete model for site-city interaction through a Sino-European synergy. 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16ECEE). mediaTUM - Media and Publication Server
Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 99(5):421–427. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001885
Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech Div 95(4):859–877. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEA3.0001144
Jingbo L, Yin GU, Yixin DU (2006) Consistent viscous-spring artificial boundaries and viscous-spring boundary elements. Chin J Geotech Eng 28(9):1070–1075
Gu Y, LIU JB (2007) 3D consistent viscous-spring artificial boundary and viscous-spring boundary element. Eng Mech 24(12):31–037
Ma S, Chi M, Chen H, Chen S (2020) Implementation of viscoelastic artificial boundary in ABAQUS and comparative study of seismic input methods. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 39, 1445–1457. https://doi.org/10.13722/j.cnki.jrme.2019.1068 China
Garini E, Anastasopoulos I, Gazetas G (2020) Soil, basin and soil–building–soil interaction effects on motions of Mexico City during seven earthquakes. Géotechnique 70(7):581–607. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.18.P.314
Chen QJ, Li WT (2015) Effects of a group of high-rise structures on ground motions under seismic excitation. Shock Vib 2015(1):821750 https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/821750

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
26 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
24 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Oct, 2024
Reviews received at journal
14 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
14 Oct, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 Oct, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
13 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
08 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
08 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
07 Oct, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Influence of Adjacent Buildings on Seismic Motion Field Considering Building-Site Interaction

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Numerical model and validation

3 Result

4 Conclusions

Declarations

Author Contribution

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1