Structural Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings: Closing Editorial
1
Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department, Universita’ degli Studi dell’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy
2
Norsk Treteknisk Institutt (Norwegian Institute of Wood Technology), 0373 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(17), 9374; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179374
Submission received: 25 August 2025
/
Accepted: 26 August 2025
/
Published: 26 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Structural Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings)
1. Background
Advances in computing and data have transformed seismic analysis from code-calibrated approximations toward performance-based verification, often anchored in nonlinear dynamics. Yet the profession still faces practical questions: When is nonlinear time–history analysis essential [1,2]? How should deterioration, pinching, and uncertainty be represented [3,4,5], and how is it possible to include observations from recent earthquakes [6,7]? What is the right fidelity for site effects and soil–structure interaction (SSI) [5]? And how should functional recovery and non-structural demands be treated alongside life safety criteria [5,8,9]? This Special Issue addresses these questions with methods, benchmarks, and case studies that connect modeling choices to design decisions, based on modern ground-motion models and selection methods [10,11,12,13].
2. Highlights from the Special Issue
A refined hysteresis model with variable pinching improves the simulation of degradation and damage, providing better agreement with cyclic tests and recorded responses (Contribution N.1). Design factors for reinforced concrete (RC) shear wall buildings on sloping terrain are evaluated through FEMA P695, highlighting directional effects and the need for calibrated reduction and amplification factors (Contribution N.2). Closed-form relationships clarify key parameters governing the mutual effects between base isolation and SSI, guiding isolation ratio selection across soil classes (Contribution N.3). For complex systems, multiaxial input, including vertical components, is shown to amplify responses of mega-sub-isolated structures and alter optimum design parameters (Contribution N.4). Analytical studies on inerter-equipped auxiliary masses, embedded through the soil, show the parameter windows where such devices provide meaningful reductions of seismic demand on frames (Contribution N.5).
A hybrid technique combining instrumentation with pushover-based eigenfrequency tracking supports immediate damage identification in braced steel frames after events (Contribution N.6). A monitored strengthening program for a soft-story building documents execution, quality control, and in situ performance verification (Contribution N.7).
Notably, field evidence from the 2023 Kahramanmaraş sequence underscores the compounded role of material quality, detailing, and construction practice in observed damage patterns and collapse (Contributions N.8 and N.9), reinforcing the case for robust material verification and enforcement.
In the area of retrofitting strategies, a composite CFT-based strengthening system for non-ductile RC frames demonstrates improved global behaviour in pseudo-dynamic testing and corresponding nonlinear analyses (Contribution N.10). Parametric studies on hooked stirrups quantify gains in ductility and energy dissipation for RC frames (Contribution N.11). For critical facilities, a pushover-based evaluation of an existing RC hospital shows how streamlined nonlinear statics can guide retrofit prioritization (Contribution N.12). Machine learning models (random forests and ANNs) are used to forecast component dynamic amplification factors from building properties and floor response spectra, offering rapid proxies for performance checks of non-structural components (Contribution N.13).
3. Main Takeaways
This Special Issue converges on a clear message: modelling detail must match the decision. Nonlinear time–history analysis is necessary when irregularity, deterioration and pinching, soil–structure interaction (SSI) and base-isolation coupling, or vertical/multiaxial input materially influence demand and damage; otherwise, well-calibrated modal or pushover procedures may suffice. Verification and validation—through hybrid simulation, targeted experiments, and instrumentation—are essential to translate models into dependable design tools. Materials and execution quality remain decisive; analytical rigour cannot compensate for poor concrete strength, inadequate detailing, or weak enforcement. Finally, functional recovery is governed as much by non-structural performance as by the primary system, making efficient prediction of floor accelerations and component demands central to resilient design.
In practical terms, the contributions advocate for (i) decision trees that right-size analysis effort (NLTHA vs. pushover/modal) in the presence of irregularity, degradation, and SSI/isolation coupling; (ii) validated hysteresis and deterioration laws, underpinned by open datasets and calibration protocols across materials, components, and assembled systems; (iii) routine consideration of vertical and multiaxial input where floor spectra, isolation performance, or collision risks govern; (iv) digital verification loops that fuse monitoring, model updating, and hybrid testing for rapid post-event assessment and targeted retrofitting; and (v) codifiable checks—including on-site tests—that feed directly into capacity models and acceptance criteria. We thank the authors and reviewers for advancing the state of the art and for helping practitioners choose the right analytical approach to deliver buildings that meet life safety objectives while protecting function and expediting recovery.
- 1.
- Contribution N.1—Hysteresis with variable pinching (damage simulation).Rabiepour, M.; Zhou, C.; Chase, J.G. A hysteresis model incorporating varying pinching stiffness and spread for enhanced structural damage simulation. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 724. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020724.
- 2.
- Contribution N.2—RC shear walls on sloping terrain (FEMA P695).Vielma, J.C.; Vielma-Quintero, J.C.; Diaz-Segura, E.G. Evaluation of seismic design factors in reinforced concrete shear wall buildings located on sloping terrain using FEMA P695 methodology. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6209. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15116209.
- 3.
- Contribution N.3—BI–SSI key parameters (closed-form guidance).Forcellini, D. Key parameters to model the mutual effects between base isolation (BI) and soil–structure interaction (SSI). Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11703. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142411703.
- 4.
- Contribution N.4—Multiaxial (incl. vertical) effects on mega-sub isolated structures.Yan, X.; Liu, J.; Lin, W.; Lan, G.; Mao, H. Dynamic response analysis of mega-sub isolated structures under multiaxial earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8692. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13158692.
- 5.
- Contribution N.5—Inerter-equipped auxiliary mass with soil interaction.Di Egidio, A.; Contento, A. Seismic benefits of a vibrating mass equipped with an inerter on frame structures due to soil interaction. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11156. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311156.
- 6.
- Contribution N.6—Hybrid “M & P” damage identification for braced steel frames.Makarios, T.; Bakalis, A.; Efthymiou, E. Seismic damage assessment of existing planar steel X- or V-braced frames using the hybrid “M and P” technique. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 8638. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14198638.
- 7.
- Contribution N.7—Monitored strengthening of a soft-story building (open ground floor).Iskhakov, I.;Yehuda, S.; Ribakov, Y. Methodology and monitoring of the strengthening and upgrading of a four-story building with an open ground floor in a seismic region. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 7581. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14177581.
- 8.
- Contribution N.8—Material quality vs. damage in the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes.Zengin, B.; Aydin, F. The effect of material quality on buildings moderately and heavily damaged by the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10668. https://doi.org/10.3390/app131910668.
- 9.
- Contribution N.9—Gölbaşı (Adıyaman) geotechnical & structural damages, 2023 sequence.Akar, F.; Işık, E.; Avcil, F.; Büyüksaraç, A.; Arkan, E.; İzol, R. Geotechnical and structural damages caused by the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Gölbaşı (Adıyaman). Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 2165. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14052165.
- 10.
- Contribution N.10—CCSS (CFT composite) retrofitting for RC buildings.Baek, H.-J.; Jung, J.-S.; Lee, K.-S.; Lee, B.-G. Seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings retrofitted with a new concrete filled tube composite strengthening system. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 13231. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132413231.
- 11.
- Contribution N.11—Hooked stirrups: ductility & energy dissipation gains.Karasin, I.B. Analytic investigation of hooked stirrups on seismic behavior of reinforced concrete 3D frame buildings. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11590. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132011590.
- 12.
- Contribution N.12—Pushover-based evaluation of an existing RC hospital.Kuria, K.K.; Kegyes-Brassai, O.K. Nonlinear static analysis for seismic evaluation of existing RC hospital building. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11626. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111626.
- 13.
- Contribution N.13—ML proxies (RF/ANN) for NSC dynamic amplification factors.Vyshnavi, P.; Challagulla, S.P.; Adamu, M.; Vicencio, F.; Jameel, M.; Ibrahim, Y.E.; Ahmed, O.S. Utilizing artificial neural networks and random forests to forecast the dynamic amplification factors of non-structural components. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11329. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132011329.
Author Contributions
A.A. and D.P.P. equally contributed to this research. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the contributing authors, reviewers, and the Editorial Office for their support.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Hamburger, R.O.; Moehle, J.P.; Baker, J.W.; Bray, J.D.; Crouse, C.B.; Deierlein, G.G.; Hooper, J.; Lew, M.; Maffei, J.; Mahin, S.A.; et al. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, Version 2.03. In PEER Report 2017/06; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, J.P.; Parker, G.A.; Harmon, J.A.; Atkinson, G.M.; Boore, D.M.; Darragh, R.B.; Silva, W.J.; Hashash, Y.M.A. Expert Panel Recommendations for Ergodic Site Amplification in Central and Eastern North America. In PEER Report 2017/04; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ibarra, L.F.; Medina, R.A.; Krawinkler, H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2005, 34, 1489–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lignos, D.G.; Krawinkler, H. Deterioration Modeling of Steel Components in Support of Collapse Prediction of Steel Moment Frames under Earthquake Loading. J. Struct. Eng. 2011, 137, 1291–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J.; Crouse, C.B.; Hutchinson, T.C.; Lizundia, B.; Naeim, F.; Ostadan, F. Soil–Structure Interaction for Building Structures. In Technical Report NIST GCR 12-917-21; NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Aloisio, A.; Rosso, M.M.; Di Battista, L.; Quaranta, G. Machine-learning-aided regional post-seismic usability prediction of buildings: 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquakes. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 91, 109526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloisio, A.; De Santis, Y.; Irti, F.; Pasca, D.P.; Scimia, L.; Fragiacomo, M. Machine learning predictions of code-based seismic vulnerability for reinforced concrete and masonry buildings: Insights from a 300-building database. Eng. Struct. 2024, 301, 117295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattar, S.; Kersting, R.; Arendt, L.; Bonowitz, D.; Comerio, M.; Davis, C.; Deierlein, G.G.; Johnson, K.J. Recommended Options for Improving the Built Environment for Post-Earthquake Reoccupancy and Functional Recovery Time. In Technical Report NIST SP 1254/FEMA P-2090; National Institute of Standards and Technology/FEMA: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NIST. Seismic Analysis, Design, and Installation of Nonstructural Components and Systems—Recommended Guidance. In Technical Report NIST GCR 17-917-44; NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- YBozorgnia, o.; Abrahamson, N.A.; Atik, L.A.; Ancheta, T.D.; Atkinson, G.M.; Baker, J.W.; Baltay, A.; Boore, D.M.; Campbell, K.W.; Chiou, B.S.-J.; et al. NGA-West2 Research Project: An Overview. Earthq. Spectra 2014, 30, 973–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.W.; Lee, C. An Improved Algorithm for Selecting Ground Motions to Match a Conditional Spectrum. J. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 22, 708–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analysis. In Technical Report NIST GCR 11-917-15; NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Marano, G.C.; Rosso, M.M.; Aloisio, A.; Cirrincione, G. Generative adversarial networks review in earthquake-related engineering fields. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2024, 22, 3511–3562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Aloisio, A.; Pasca, D.P. Structural Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings: Closing Editorial. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 9374. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179374
AMA Style
Aloisio A, Pasca DP. Structural Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings: Closing Editorial. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(17):9374. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179374
Chicago/Turabian StyleAloisio, Angelo, and Dag Pasquale Pasca. 2025. "Structural Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings: Closing Editorial" Applied Sciences 15, no. 17: 9374. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179374
APA StyleAloisio, A., & Pasca, D. P. (2025). Structural Analysis for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Buildings: Closing Editorial. Applied Sciences, 15(17), 9374. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15179374
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
