Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic evaluation of non-seismically detailed RC buildings in Pakistan: performance and damage accumulation under repeated earthquakes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the general practice of performance-based seismic assessment and dynamic analysis of building structures, the recorded ground motions from past earthquake events are selected and modified according to the site conditions and hazard level of the project’s site. For this purpose, only the mainshock earthquake event is considered for the analysis while neglecting the foreshocks and aftershocks. However, in several real cases, especially for existing RC buildings with non-seismic detailing, low- to moderate-magnitude foreshocks and aftershocks may also affect the seismic performance. Several studies have shown that the application of repeated earthquake events may lead to damage accumulation and significant seismic losses, even if the structure is at a life safety performance level. This study examines the seismic performance of mid-rise RC frame structures in Pakistan under repeated earthquakes. For this purpose, a representative case study building has been selected for the detailed analysis after surveying typical existing RC buildings in Pakistan. The detailed nonlinear finite element model is constructed and subjected to several cases of repeated earthquakes with different intensity levels. The seismic performance in terms of key demand parameters is evaluated for single earthquake scenarios (mainshock only) and seismic sequences (foreshock, mainshock, and aftershock). The results showed the application of seismic sequences has a negligible effect on the peak seismic force and displacement demands of the buildings compared to the single mainshock event. However, an increase in seismic performance indicators, including residual displacements and inelastic hysteretic energy, is observed. Resultantly, an increase in structural damage (quantified in terms of material cracking, yielding, crushing, etc.) is also observed for ground motion sequences compared to the single ground motion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelnaby AE, Elnashai AS (2014) Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame systems under the Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthquake Eng 18:1009–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adiyanto MI, Faisal A, Majid TA (2011) Nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete building under repeated earthquake excitation. In: International conference on computer and software modeling, IPCSIT

  • Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S (2003) The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschheim M, Black E (1999) Effects of prior earthquake damage on response of simple stiffness-degrading structures. Earthq Spectra 15:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BCP S (2007) Building codes of Pakistan seismic provisions government of Islamic republic of Pakistan Ministry of housing and works, Islamabad

  • CEDIM (2020) https://www.cedim.kit.edu/english/index.php. Accessed 31 August 2020

  • Di Sarno L (2013) Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng Struct 56:673–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sarno L, Pugliese F (2020) Seismic fragility of existing RC buildings with corroded bars under earthquake sequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 134:106169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sarno L, Wu J-R (2020) Seismic assessment of existing steel frames with masonry infills. J Constr Steel Res 169:106040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A (1998) Engineering implications of strong-motion records from recent earthquakes. In: 11th European conference on earthquake engineering

  • Engineers A (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7:10

    Google Scholar 

  • ETABS (2011) Computers and Structures, Inc, ETABS Nonlinear v9.7.4, Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System, Version 9.7.4, Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkeley, CA

  • Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L (2004) Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 26:2021–2035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:1363–1367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2009) Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 31:2744–2755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA (2010) Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1010–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatzivassiliou M, Hatzigeorgiou GD (2015) Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional reinforced concrete buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 72:77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017) Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:706–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IRIS Earthquake Browser (2020) https://ds.iris.edu/ieb/index.html. Accessed 31 August 2020

  • Jalali SA, Amini A, Mansouri I, Hu JW (2021) Seismic collapse assessment of steel plate shear walls considering the mainshock–aftershock effects. J Constr Steel Res 182:106688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khansefid A (2021a) Lifetime risk-based seismic performance assessment of buildings equipped with supplemental damping and base isolation systems under probable mainshock-aftershock scenarios. Structures 34:3647–3666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khansefid A (2021b) An investigation of the structural nonlinearity effects on the building seismic risk assessment under mainshock–aftershock sequences in Tehran metro city. Adv Struct Eng 24:3778–3791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lay T (2018) A review of the rupture characteristics of the 2011 Tohoku-oki Mw 9.1 earthquake. Tectonophysics 733:4–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo Q, He M, Chen F, Li Z (2021) Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of timber-steel hybrid structures subjected to mainshock-aftershock sequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 141:106532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahin SA (1980) Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 7th world conference on earthquake engineering. pp 677–680

  • Malik UJ, Najam FA, Khokhar SA, Rehman F, Riaz RD (2024) Advancing seismic resilience: Performance-based assessment of mid-rise and high-rise engineered cementitious composite (ECC) Buildings. Case Stud Constr Mater 20:e02732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114:1804–1826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadgholipour A, Billah AHMM (2024) Performance-based plastic design and seismic fragility assessment for chevron braced steel frames considering aftershock effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 178:108440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oleng M, Ozdemir Z, Pilakoutas K (2024) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment framework for Uganda: a stochastic event-based modelling approach. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01856-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyguc R, Toros C, Abdelnaby AE (2018) Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced-concrete structures under multiple earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 104:15–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perform 3D (2006) Computers and Structures, Inc, Perform 3D, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures User Guide, Version 4, Computers and Structures, Inc, Berkeley, CA

  • Raghunandan M, Liel AB, Luco N (2015) Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:419–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman AU, Rasheed A, Najam FA, Zaman S, Rana IA, Aslam F, Khan SU (2021) An updated earthquake catalogue and source model for seismic hazard analysis of Pakistan. Arab J Sci Eng 46:5219–5241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riaz RD, Malik UJ, Shah MU, Usman M, Najam FA (2023) Enhancing seismic resilience of existing reinforced concrete building using non-linear viscous dampers: a comparative study. Actuators 12(4):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/act12040175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi A, Tertulliani A, Azzaro R, Graziani L, Rovida A, Maramai A, Pessina V, Hailemikael S, Buffarini G, Bernardini F (2019) The 2016–2017 earthquake sequence in Central Italy: macroseismic survey and damage scenario through the EMS-98 intensity assessment. Bull Earthq Eng 17:2407–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-García J (2014) Discussion on “effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response.” Eng Struct 58:110–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-García J, Negrete-Manriquez JC (2011) Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences. Eng Struct 33:621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen J, Ren X, Zhang Y, Chen J (2019) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of frame-core tube building under seismic sequential ground motions by a supercomputer. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 124:86–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shokrabadi M, Burton HV (2018) Risk-based assessment of aftershock and mainshock-aftershock seismic performance of reinforced concrete frames. Struct Saf 73:64–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shokrabadi M, Burton HV, Stewart JP (2018) Impact of sequential ground motion pairing on mainshock-aftershock structural response and collapse performance assessment. J Struct Eng 144:04018177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UBC (1997) Uniform building code international conference of building officials, Whittier, California

  • USGS (2020) Earthquake Hazards Program. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. Accessed 31 August 2020

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:491–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Sieh K, Tun ST, Lai K, Myint T (2014) Active tectonics and earthquake potential of the Myanmar region. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 119:3767–3822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Wen W, Zhai C (2020) Vulnerability assessment of a high-rise building subjected to mainshock–aftershock sequences. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 29:e1786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu Z, Hu M (2019) Neotectonics, active tectonics and earthquake geology: terminology, applications and advances. J Geodyn 127:1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Government Irrigation Department Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

    Saima Munir

  2. Department of Structural Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Saima Munir, Fawad Ahmed Najam, Umair Jalil Malik & Ather Ali

  3. Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Sector H-12, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Irfan Ahmad Rana

  4. School of Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science, University of British Columbia, Okanagan, Kelowna, V1V 1V7, Canada

    Fawad Ahmed Najam

  5. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77004, USA

    Asad ur Rahman

Authors
  1. Saima Munir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fawad Ahmed Najam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asad ur Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Umair Jalil Malik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Irfan Ahmad Rana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ather Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fawad Ahmed Najam.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Informed Consent

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Munir, S., Najam, F.A., Rahman, A.u. et al. Seismic evaluation of non-seismically detailed RC buildings in Pakistan: performance and damage accumulation under repeated earthquakes. Bull Earthquake Eng 22, 4547–4579 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01935-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01935-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation