The seismic nature of the soil in urban spheres is very susceptible to seismic ground failures caused by intricate soil conditions, extensive development, and outdated construction methods. However, structural solutions have always played the most important role in seismic design; growing evidence points to the importance of geotechnical engineering in the development of earthquake-resilient urban infrastructure. In this paper, a synthesis of geotechnical methods of earthquake resilience is given based on the seismic hazard evaluation, mitigation of liquefaction, ground improvement, foundation, and soil structure interaction. The analyzed literature shows that seismic demand in urban regions may differ by 24 times depending on the specific conditions of the soils in various micro zones. Sites that contain Vs30 less than 180 m/s are always highly amplified on the ground and prone to liquefaction. The techniques of liquefaction mitigation are proven to be very effective. Densification methods reduce the settlement by 30-50 %, drainage systems achieve 40-70 % reduction of excess pore water pressure, and soil stabilization methods yield up to 60-80 % settlement reduction. Ground improvement techniques increase the soil stiffness in the range of 1.5-3.0 times, whereas pile-raft foundation systems minimize seismic settlement, 20-40 % as compared to a shallow foundation. The fact that soil structure interaction is considered changes the structural natural periods by 10-30% by an important factor in seismic response. The results point out that the site-specific geotechnical interventions will be necessary to minimize the seismic damage and enhance the post-earthquake performance. The research offers a technical foundation of how to incorporate geotechnical solutions in the urban seismic resilience planning and aids the wise choice of safer and more sustainable cities.
Firoozi AA, Firoozi AA. Geotechnical innovations for seismic-resistant urban infrastructure. J. Civ. Eng. Urban. 2024;14(3):346-55.
2.
Yenidogan C. Earthquake-resilient design of seismically isolated buildings: A review of technology. Vibration. 2021 Jul 22;4(3):602-47.
3.
Zheng G, Cheng XS, Zhou HZ, Zhang TQ, Yu XX, Diao Y, Wang RZ, Yi F, Zhang WB, Guo W. Resilient evaluation and control in geotechnical and underground engineering. China Civ. Eng. J. 2022; 55:1-38.
4.
Urlainis A, Shohet IM. A comprehensive approach to earthquake-resilient infrastructure: integrating maintenance with seismic fragility curves. Buildings. 2023 Sep 6;13(9):2265.
5.
Shareef SS. Earthquake consideration in architectural design: Guidelines for architects. Sustainability. 2023 Sep 15;15(18):13760.
6.
Sojobi AO, Liew KM. Multi-objective optimization of high-performance concrete columns under compressive loading with potential applications for sustainable earthquake-resilient structures and infrastructures. Composite Structures. 2023 Jul 1; 315:117007.
7.
Qian, Z. H., Yuan, J. S., Shi, J., & Cao, X. Y. (2025). Recent Developments and Innovations in Resilient Infrastructure: Exploring Cutting-Edge Strategies, Technologies, and Practices. Buildings, 15(5), 792.
8.
Papatheodorou K, Theodoulidis N, Klimis N, Zulfikar C, Vintila D, Cardanet V, Kirtas E, Toma-Danila D, Margaris B, Fahjan Y, Panagopoulos G. Rapid earthquake damage assessment and education to improve earthquake response efficiency and community resilience. Sustainability. 2023 Dec 6;15(24):16603.
9.
Rezvani SM, Falcão Silva MJ, de Almeida NM. The Risk-Informed Asset-Centric (RIACT) Urban Resilience Enhancement Process: An outline and pilot-case demonstrator for earthquake risk mitigation in portuguese municipalities. Applied Sciences. 2024 Jan 11;14(2):634.
10.
Al-Janabi MA, Al-Jeznawi D, Yang TY, Bernardo LF, Andrade JM. Enhancing Structural Resilience for Sustainable Infrastructure: A global review of seismic isolation and energy dissipation practices. Sustainability. 2025 Aug 13;17(16):7314.
11.
Jamil T. Improved approaches in civil engineering for earthquake-resilient infrastructure in pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Science, Engineering, and Modern Research. 2023 Jun 30;3(1):123-50.
12.
Anastasiadis A, Mosoarca M. Earthquake resilient near zero energy buildings: attributes and perspectives. Sustainability. 2024 Mar 11;16(6):2317.
13.
Hore S, Alim MA, Hore R. Impact of Earthquakes on Soil Chemical Properties: A Review of Mechanisms, Changes, and Implications for Environmental and Structural Resilience. Earthquake. 2025;3(1):8575.
14.
Zhang Y, Fung JF, Cook D, Johnson KJ, Sattar S. Benefit–Cost Analysis for Earthquake-Resilient Building Design and Retrofit: State of the Art and Future Research Needs. Natural hazards review. 2024 Aug 1;25(3):03124001.
15.
Singh SV, Ghani S. A smarter approach to liquefaction risk: harnessing dynamic cone penetration test data and machine learning for safer infrastructure. Frontiers in Built Environment. 2024 Oct 25; 10:1495472.
16.
Putri MZ, Mase LZ, Amri K, Misliniyati R, Hardiansyah H, Refrizon R. Geospatial Modeling of Soil Plasticity Index and Water Content Distribution in Coastal Bengkulu: A Basis for Resilient Infrastructure Planning. Journal Innovation of Civil Engineering (JICE). 2025 Jul 7;6(1):1-1.
17.
Najar IA, Ahmadi R. Editorial scope: Geotechnical earthquake engineering edition. J. Civ. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2023 Sep;14(2):78-82.
18.
Fayaz M, Romshoo SA, Rashid I, Chandra R. Earthquake vulnerability assessment of the built environment in the city of Srinagar, Kashmir Himalaya, using a geographic information system. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. 2023 Apr 27;23(4):1593-611.
19.
Sadikoglu E, Demirkesen S, Dal O, Seker O, Nowak P, Toprak S. Fostering Sustainability and Resilience in Engineering Education and Practice: Lessons Learnt from the 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes. Sustainability. 2025 Feb 11;17(4):1470.
20.
Wilding AJ, Luna R. GIS-based geotechnical seismic hazard screening tool. InProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4) 2009 (pp. 2675-2678). IOS Press.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
