{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017552916881775942, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004646360351058337, 'mean_word_length': 5.946236559139785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Probabilistic evaluation of soil–foundation–structure interaction effects on seismic structural response

Complex seismic behaviour of soil–foundation–structure (SFS) systems together with uncertainties in system parameters and variability in earthquake ground motions result in a significant debate over the effects of soil–foundation–structure interaction (SFSI) on structural response. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of foundation flexibility on the structural seismic response by considering the variability in the system and uncertainties in the ground motion characteristics through comprehensive numerical simulations. An established rheological soil‐shallow foundation–structure model with equivalent linear soil behaviour and nonlinear behaviour of the superstructure has been used. A large number of models incorporating wide range of soil, foundation and structural parameters were generated using a robust Monte‐Carlo simulation. In total, 4.08 million time‐history analyses were performed over the adopted models using an ensemble of 40 earthquake ground motions as seismic input. The results of the analyses are used to rigorously quantify the effects of foundation flexibility on the structural distortion and total displacement of the superstructure through comparisons between the responses of SFS models and corresponding fixed‐base (FB) models. The effects of predominant period of the FB system, linear vs nonlinear modelling of the superstructure, type of nonlinear model used and key system parameters are quantified in terms of different probability levels for SFSI effects to cause an increase in the structural response and the level of amplification of the response in such cases. The results clearly illustrate the risk of underestimating the structural response associated with simplified approaches in which SFSI and nonlinear effects are ignored. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.