Natural Hazards

, Volume 97, Issue 2, pp 841–860 | Cite as

Damage demands evaluation of reinforced concrete frame structure subjected to near-fault seismic sequences

  • Fujian YangEmail author
  • Guoxin Wang
  • Yang Ding
Original Paper


The design earthquake is usually specified as a single event in most of modern seismic codes. However, one earthquake is often followed by a series of aftershocks called seismic sequence. Such cases are quite common, especially in near-fault regions, which could cause additional accumulated damage to structures. In this paper, a new methodology for evaluating the effect of near-fault seismic sequences on the accumulated damage of reinforced concrete (RC) frame structure is proposed, in which different initial damage levels (i.e., postmainshock global damage index) of structure after the mainshock are considered. Meanwhile, a quantitative description of the damage demands and the relative intensity index between mainshock and aftershock are provided. For this purpose, the nonlinear dynamic response of an eight-story RC frame structure subjected to single earthquake and seismic sequence is compared in terms of structural performance indices (collapse capacity, story damage demands, postmainshock damage level and normalized hysteretic energy) and relative intensity index. The results indicated that seismic sequences lead to reduced collapse capacity of postmainshock-damaged structures. Moreover, the near-fault pulse-like aftershock records would induce larger structural story damage demands than ordinary (i.e., non-pulse-like) aftershock records. Furthermore, the relative intensity index proposed in this paper has significant effects on the structural story damage demands, incremental dynamic analysis curves of aftershock and normalized hysteretic energy.


Seismic sequence Near-fault ground motion Story damage demand Damage index Relative intensity index Reinforced concrete frame structure 



The authors gratefully appreciate the supports by National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period of China under Grant No. 2014BAL05B03 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51378092 and 51578113.


  1. Abdelnaby AE, Elnashai AS (2014) Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame systems under the Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthq Eng 18:1009–1036. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertero VV, Wang TY, Popov EP (1974) Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete flexural members with special web reinforcement. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  4. Cosenza E, Manfredi G (2000) Damage indices and damage measures. Prog Struct Eng and Mater 2(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durucan C, Durucan AR (2016) Ap/Vp specific inelastic displacement ratio for the seismic response estimation of SDOF structures subjected to sequential near fault pulse type ground motion records. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 89:163–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD (2013) Investigation of story ductility demands of inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 44:42–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L (2004) Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 26:2021–2035. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fragiadakis M, Papadrakakis M (2008) Modeling, analysis and reliability of seismically excited structures: computational issues. Int J Comput Methods 5(04):483–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GB50010-2010 (2010) Code for design of concrete structures. Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing, China. (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  10. GB50011-2010 (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings. Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing. (In Chinese) Google Scholar
  11. Goda K (2012) Nonlinear response potential of mainshock—aftershock sequences from Japanese earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(5):2139–2156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goda K, Taylor CA (2012) Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(15):2311–2330. Google Scholar
  13. Hatzigeorgiou GD (2010a) Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to multiple near-fault earthquakes. Comput Struct 88:309–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hatzigeorgiou GD (2010b) Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:170–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2009) Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 31:2744–2755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA (2010) Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1010–1025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatzivassiliou M, Hatzigeorgiou GD (2015) Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional reinforced concrete buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 72:77–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017a) Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:706–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017b) Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:222–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalkan E, Kunnath SK (2006) Effects of fling step and forward-directivity on seismic response of buildings. Earthq Spectra 22(2):367–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined concrete. J Struct Div ASCE 97(7):1969–1990Google Scholar
  22. Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Lobo R (1992) IDARC version 3.0: a program for the inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete structures. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Malhotra PK (1999) Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(11):1309–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1827–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazzoni S, Mckenna F, Michael H (2014) The OpenSees command language manual—version 2.4. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre Berkeley: University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Menegotto M, Pinto P (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete plane frames including changes in geometry and inelastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. In: IABSE Symposium on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by well-defined repeated Loads, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  27. Morfidis K, Kostinakis K (2017) The role of masonry infills on the damage response of R/C buildings subjected to seismic sequences. Eng Struct 131:459–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moustafa A, Takewaki I (2011) Response of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom structures to random acceleration sequences. Eng Struct 33:1251–1258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Park YJ (1984) Seismic damage analysis and damage-limiting design of R/C structures. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  30. Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK (1985) Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. J Struct Eng 111(4):740–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rinaldin G, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M (2017) Effects of seismic sequences on structures with hysteretic or damped dissipative behaviour. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 97:205–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruiz-García J (2012) Mainshock–aftershock ground motion features and their influence in building’s seismic response. J Earthq Eng 16:719–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruiz-García J, Aguilar JD (2015) Aftershock seismic assessment taking into account postmainshock residual drifts. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1391–1407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruiz-García J, Marín MV, Terán-Gilmore A (2014) Effect of seismic sequences in reinforced concrete frame buildings located in soft-soil sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 63:56–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tso WK, Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC (1992) Engineering implication of ground motion A/V ratio. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 11(3):133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UBC (1997) Structural engineering design provisions. In: International conference of building officials (ICBO), vol 2. Whittier, CAGoogle Scholar
  38. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang G, Wang Y, Lu W (2017) Damage demand assessment of mainshock-damaged concrete gravity dams subjected to aftershocks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhai CH, Wen WP, Li S, Chen Z, Chang Z, Xie LL (2013) Damage spectra for the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 59:30–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhai CH, Wen WP, Chen ZZ, Li S, Xie LL (2014) The damage investigation of inelastic SDOF structure under the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(2):1–12Google Scholar
  42. Zhai CH, Wen WP, Li S, Xie LL (2015) The ductility-based strength reduction factor for the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2893–2914. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang YQ, Chen J, Sun CX (2017) Damage-based strength reduction factor for nonlinear structures subjected to sequence-type ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:298–311. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore EngineeringDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations