Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional reinforced

concrete buildings
Maria Hatzivassiliou a, George D. Hatzigeorgiou b,n
a
Freelance consulting engineer, Thessaloniki, Greece
b
School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Repeated earthquakes strongly affect the inelastic response of structures and cause in many cases more
Received 21 January 2015 adverse effects in comparison with the corresponding single ground motions, such as the accumulation
Accepted 7 February 2015 of structural and non-structural damage as well as the increment of deformation demands. Numerous
Available online 25 February 2015
research studies have been recently published in the pertinent literature to investigate this phenomenon
Keywords: but most of them are limited either to single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems or to two-dimensional
Three-dimensional seismic analysis multi-degree-of freedom (2-D MDOF) systems such as multi-storey planar framed structures. With
Reinforced concrete buildings special regard to reinforced concrete (RC) buildings, this study investigates for the first time the inelastic
Multiple earthquakes response of three-dimensional (3-D) structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. More specifically,
two three-storey and two five-storey RC buildings, which are regular and irregular along their height, are
examined under five real strong multiple earthquakes where their two horizontal components as well as
the vertical one are taken into account. The investigation focuses on the examination of the maximum
displacements, maximum residual displacements, maximum interstorey drift ratio, maximum residual
interstorey drift ratio, damage indices and ductility demands. Finally, the building structures under
consideration are analyzed for different siting configurations to investigate the effect of earthquake
direction incident. It is concluded that the multiplicity of earthquakes should be taken into account for
the reliable seismic design of reinforced concrete structures.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Numerous research studies can be mentioned here examining the

Seismic sequences take place frequently at many regions world-
wide. As a consequence, the accumulated strains at active seismic
faults are not released outright at the first rupture, but sequential
ruptures take place leading to repeated earthquakes. In many cases,
there is a significant damage accumulation as a result of multiplicity
of earthquakes and frequently, due to lack of time between succes-
sive seismic events, any rehabilitation process seems to be unfeasible.
There are numerous examples of buildings worldwide where the
structural damage has been accumulated due to multiple earth-
quakes. For example, one can mention the recent Christchurch (NZ)
seismic sequence where the Canterbury Television and the Pyne
Gould Corp. buildings were damaged due to the first strong earth-
quake (4 Sept. 2010) and then collapsed during the second successive
strong ground motion (22 Feb. 2011). Although the recognized
observable fact for multiple earthquakes, the modern seismic design
codes have not considered adequately this phenomenon and they
typically focus on the single and rare ‘design earthquake’.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 30 2610 367769
E-mail address: hatzigeorgiou@eap.gr (G.D. Hatzigeorgiou).
effects of repeated earthquake phenomena on single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) systems. One can mention the works of Amadio
et al. [1] and Luco et al. [2] where the effects of repeated earthquakes
on nonlinear SDOF systems were examined and quantified. Further-
more, Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos [3] proposed appropriate inelastic
displacement ratios for the case of seismic sequences. Additionally,
Hatzigeorgiou [4–6] studied the ductility demands and behavior
factors for nonlinear SDOF systems subjected to multiple near-fault
and far-field earthquakes. Moustafa and Takewaki [7] and Takewaki
et al. [8] examined simple stochastic models representing repeated
seismic sequences. In addition, various research studies investigated
the effects of multiple earthquakes on multi-degree of freedom
(MDOF) systems. One can mention here the works of Fragiacomo
et al. [9], Li and Ellingwood [10], Hatzigeorgiou and Liolios [11] and
Ruiz-Garcia and Negrete-Manriquez [12], which have examined steel
framed structures and Loulelis et al. [13], Faisal et al. [14], Efraimia-
dou et al. [15], Di Sarno [16] and Abdelnaby and Elnashai [17] which
have focused on multi-storey reinforced concrete frames. It is worth
noticing that all these studies, i.e., Refs [9–17], have been limited to
two-dimensional/planar structures while according to the best of the
authors' knowledge, there is not research work that has examined
the effects of repeated earthquakes on three-dimensional reinforced

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.005
0267-7261/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
78 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Z
Y
X

Fig. 1. 3-storey regular building.

Z
Y
X

Fig. 3. 5-storey regular building.

Z
Y
X

Fig. 2. 3-storey irregular building.

concrete (RC) structures. Thus, the need for the development of an

efficient methodology for the inelastic analysis of three-dimensional
RC buildings under repeated earthquakes is apparent.
This study investigates the behavior of three-dimensional RC
structures under multiple earthquakes. For this objective, the non-
linear dynamic response of four three-dimensional RC buildings
under five real seismic sequences is investigated. These multiple
earthquakes have been recorded by the same station and in a short
period of time, up to three days. The time-history responses of
building structures under consideration subjected to the aforemen-
tioned seismic sequences are computed using Ruaumoko structural
analysis program [18]. The study focuses on the most critical
structural parameters such as the structural damage, maximum
displacements, permanent displacements and interstorey drift ratios.
Additionally, the building structures under consideration have been Z
analyzed for different siting configurations to examine the effect of Y
earthquake direction incident. Examining the results of this study,
X
very important conclusions and outcomes are found.

Fig. 4. 5-storey irregular building.

2. Description of structures and modeling assumptions
2.1. Description of structures
In this research study, four three-dimensional buildings are
investigated. The first two frames have 3 storeys, where the first
one is regular and the second one is irregular along its height,
while the other two frames have 5 storeys and they are also
regular and irregular along their height. The examined 3- and
5-storey buildings have 2 equal bays in each direction (x and y)
with total length equal to 10.40 m. The 3-storey irregular building
has a setback on the third floor and the 5-storey irregular building
has setbacks on its fourth and fifth floor. Typical floor-to-floor
 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88
height is equal to 3.0 m. The columns have square sections
and their sectional dimension for the whole set of buildings are
40  40 cm, 50  50 cm and 60  60 cm. The dimensions (section
width/height) of beams for the 3- and 5-storey regular buildings
are 25  50 cm and of beams for the 3- and 5-storey irregular
buildings are 25  60 cm, 25  55 cm and 25  50 cm. The 3-D
models of the structures are shown in Figs. 1–4, which also depict
the numbering of nodes and elements.
The steel reinforcement selection and placement are shown in
Figs. 5–7, where due to lack of space, only the 3-storey irregular
building is illustrated.
The structures are made by reinforced concrete with concrete grade
C20/25 and longitudinal and transverse reinforcements with grade
B500C. The structures are analyzed and designed for earthquake loads
(E) with peak ground acceleration PGA¼ 0.24 g and soil class B, using
StereoSTATIKA structural analysis program [19], according to Euro-
codes EC2 [20] and EC8 [21]. The structural analysis and design takes
into account dead loads, G, live loads, Q, earthquake loads, E, as well as
any probable loading combination according to the aforementioned
structural codes. The combination coefficient ψ of live load Q is taken
equal to 0.3 in this study. The selection of steel longitudinal rebars
considers the concept of week beams-strong columns of EC8 [21], i.e.,
X X
M Rc Z 1:3 M Rb
P P
where M Rc and M Rb are the sum of the resistance moments of
columns and beams at every beam–column joint, respectively.
It should be noted that the behavior factor for concrete buildings
with regular elevations is q¼3.6 while for irregular buildings, the
Fig. 5. 1st ground floor.
79
value of behavior factor should be reduced by 20%, as clarified by the
provisions of EC8 [21]. Therefore, structures which are not regular in
elevation and examined herein such as structures in Figs. 2 and 4,
have q¼0.8  3.6¼2.88.
2.2. Nonlinear structural behavior
The behavior of a well-designed RC member under cyclic loading
can be adequately described by a hysteretic model without pinching.
In this work, the hysteresis model of Takeda is adopted (see Fig. 8),
which is available in the library of Ruaumoko program [18], assuming
the following parameters: unloading parameter α ¼0.25 for beams
and α ¼0.50 for columns, reloading parameter β ¼ 0 both for columns
and for beams, and post-yield stiffness ratio r¼ 0.01 for all structural
members. Ruaumoko program [18] has adopted the concentrated
plasticity approach where the inelastic response results are depended
on the plastic hinge length, lph. This length define the relation between
rotation and the curvature, and without lost of generality, it is assumed
that for each member is equal to the half of its section's height H (or
width B in perpendicular direction), i.e., lph ¼ H/2 (or lph ¼B/2) [11].
2.3. Other modeling assumptions
ð1Þ
A three dimensional model of each structure is created in
RUAUMOKO [18] to perform nonlinear dynamic analysis. The Ray-
leigh approach for damping is used where the damping matrix can
be expressed as a linear combination of mass and stiffness matrices
of the structures [22]. Columns and beams are modeled with lumped
80 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Fig. 6. 2nd floor.

Fig. 7. 3rd floor.

 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 81

plasticity elements by defining plastic hinges at both ends of them, as
mentioned above. It is assumed that, due to diaphragm action of
concrete slabs, beams cannot deform along their axis. Furthermore,
the expected cracking of a concrete section can be taken into account
considering its effective (reduced) moment of inertia, Ieff, i.e., for
beams Ieff ¼ 0.35Ig and for columns Ieff ¼0.60Ig [11], where Ig is the
moment of inertia of the gross section. It should be noted that the
probable flexibility of soil is ignored, assuming fixed base conditions.
Finally, the XTRACT program [23] is used for the section modeling,
i.e., to evaluate the moment-curvature response.
2.4. The effect of earthquake direction incident
Regarding to siting, four different cases are examined for each
irregular building to investigate the effect of earthquake direction
incident. More specifically, four different angles between the princi-
pal axes of the structures (see global coordinates system XYZ in
Figs. 1–4) and the recorded components of the earthquake excitations
are investigated: a) 01, b) 901, c) 1801, and d) 2701. The regular
buildings, due to their symmetry in X–Y plane, are analyzed without
the aforementioned siting rotation. For example, Fig. 9 depicts the
4 different configurations under consideration for the 3-storey
irregular building while similar representation can be shown for
the 5-storey irregular building.
3. Seismic input
This work examines five real seismic sequences, which are namely:
Mammoth Lakes (May 1980 – 5 single seismic events), Chalfant Valley
(July 1986 – 2 single seismic events), Coalinga (July 1983 – 2 single
seismic events), Imperial Valley (October 1979 – 2 single seismic
events) and Whittier Narrows (October 1987 – 2 single seismic events).
Each earthquake consists of three components, i.e., the two hor-
izontal records and the vertical one. For the earthquakes under
consideration, the horizontal component with the higher peak ground
acceleration (PGA) is set as Component (1) while the other one as
Component (2). Furthermore, the vertical axis corresponds to Compo-
nent (3). The complete list of these seismic events is shown in Table 1
and the corresponding records have been downloaded from the strong
motion database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)

Table 2
Scaling factors.

Structure Mammoth Chalfant Coalinga Imperial Whittier

Lakes Valley Valley Narrows

3-storey 1.369 0.521 0.592 1.590 2.939

regular
3-storey 1.189 0.641 0.454 0.908 1.564
irreg.
5-storey 1.816 0.744 1.051 1.262 1.230
regular
5-storey 1.212 0.572 0.886 1.293 1.852
irreg.
Fig. 8. The modified Takeda hysteresis model [18].

Fig. 9. Different siting configurations for the 3-storey irregular structure.

Table 1
Seismic input data – real seismic sequences.

No. Seismic sequence Station Date (time) Code name Recorded PGA (g)

1 Mammoth Lakes 54099 Convict Creek 1980/05/25 (16:34) MA1 0.442

1980/05/25 (16:49) MA2 0.178
1980/05/25 (19:44) MA3 0.219
1980/05/25 (20:35) MA4 0.432
1980/05/27 (14:51) MA5 0.316
2 Chalfant Valley 54428 Zack Brothers Ranch 1986/07/20 (14:29) CH1 0.285
1986/07/21 (14:42) CH2 0.447
3 Coalinga 46T04 CHP 1983/07/22 (02:39) CO1 0.605
1983/07/25 (22:31) CO2 0.733
4 Imperial Valley 5055 Holtville P.O. 1979/10/15 (23:16) IM1 0.253
1979/10/15 (23:19) IM2 0.211
5 Whittier Narrows 24401 San Marino 1987/10/01 (14:42) WI1 0.204
1987/10/04 (10:59) WI2 0.212
82 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Fig. 10. Local damage index according to the Park-Ang model.

 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 83

Center [24]. This table also provides with the code names of ground
motions examined herein, e.g., CO1, CO2 and COT correspond to the first
and second single (individual) Coalinga seismic events as well as their
seismic sequence, respectively (i.e., COT¼CO1þCO2, etc.). For compat-
ibility reasons between the seismic analysis and seismic design [25], the
aforementioned seismic events have been appropriately scaled to give,
for the fundamental period of each structure, identical spectral accel-
eration (for Component (1)) with the design spectrum of EC8 [20]. Thus,
all these ground motions are multiplied by appropriate factors, which
are shown in Table 2. It is evident that these factors ranged between
0.454–2.939 (i.e., about 0.5–3.0). These values can be characterized as
rational and acceptable according to the basic principles of engineering
seismology, which do not allow extreme (very high or very low) scale
factors to multiply the seismic records [26]. Every sequential ground
motion from the PEER database [24] is constructed as a unique seismic
record (serial array) where between two successive seismic events a
time gap of one hundred seconds is applied which has zero ordinates of
ground acceleration. This gap is enough to calm down the motion of
any building due to damping. Every structure is analyzed both for single
Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 3-storey reg. bldg (000)
earthquakes and seismic sequences. Furthermore, every irregular
structure has been analyzed for all the examined siting configurations
that have been presented in Section 2.4.
4. Selected results
This section presents selected results that have to do with the
inelastic behavior of the examined RC three-dimensional buildings
under repeated earthquakes. The section focuses on damage indices,
maximum horizontal displacements, interstorey drift ratios, residual
horizontal displacements, residual interstorey drift ratios and ductility
demands. Finally, the time-history of horizontal displacements for the
top storey of the structures is also examined.
4.1. Structural damage
In order to quantify the structural damage of the reinforced
concrete structures under investigation, the Park-Ang [27] damage
Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (180)

0.1 0. 1
2 2
0. 1 0. 1

p. (m)
0
. (m)

0
0.0 0.0
8 8
Max. X- disp

is
0. 0 0.0

Max. Y-d
6 6
0.0 0. 0
4 4
0.0 0.0
2 2
0 0
M .00 M .00
3 MA AT 3 MA AT
MA 5 MA 5
2 MA 4 2
St St MA 4
ore MA 3 or MA 3
y 1 MA 2 ey 1 2
1 MA
1

Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey reg. bldg (000) Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey irreg. bldg (090) Chalfant Valley earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (000)

0. 0
5
0.
0. 12
12 0.0

. (m)
0. 4
0. 10
(m)

10 0.0

Max. X- disp
(m)

0. 3
0. 08
sp.

08
p.

0. 0. 0
Max. Y- di

06 2
Ma x. Y-d is

0.
06 0.
5 04 0.0
0. 1
5 04 4 0.
02
0. 0.0
4 02 3 0. CH 0
3
Sto

00 T
MA

3 0. 2
MA

00
rey
Sto

CH
T
MA

St 2
MA

2 1 or 2
MA

4
rey

MA

A3

ey
T
MA

MA
5
MA

CH
2

1 1
MA

1
1
3
MA

2
1

Chalfant Valley earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (090) Chalfant Valley earthquakes / 3-storey irreg. bldg (180) Imperial Valley earthquakes / 3-storey reg. bldg (000)

0. 0 0. 0
0.0 5 8
5 0. 0
7
. (m)

0.0 0. 0 0. 0
(m)

4 6
(m)

4
Max. Y-disp

0. 0
5
.

0. 0
Max. X-disp.

0 .0
Max. X- disp

3 0.0
3 4
0.0
0. 0 3
0.0 2 0. 0
2 2
0.0
0.0 0.0 1
1 1 0.0
0
0.0 3 IM
0.0 0 T
3 CH 0 3 CH
T 2 IM
T St 2
CH or
St 2 CH St 2 ey 1 IM
ore 2 or 2 1
ey
y CH 1 CH
1 1 1

Fig. 11. Maximum horizontal displacements: single seismic events vs. seismic sequences.
84 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88

Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey reg. bldg (000) Mammoth Lakes earthquakes / 5-storey irreg. bldg (000)

0. 0
6

disp. (m)
0. 0.0
06 5

)
s. d isp. (m
0. 0. 0
05 4

.
Max. Y-Res
0. 0.0
04 3
0. 0.0
03 2

Max. Y-Re
0. 0
0. 1
5 02 0
0. 5 MA . 00
4 01 MA T
4 MA 5
3 0.
00 3 MA 4
Sto

MA
St
2 or MA 3
MA
2
rey

MA

ey
T
2
MA

MA
5
1 1
4
MA

1
3
MA

2
1

Coalinga earthquakes / 5-storey reg. bldg (000) Coalinga earthquakes / 5-storey irreg. bldg (000)

0.0 0.0
4 4
disp . (m)

. disp. (m)
0.0 0.0
3 3

0.0
Ma x X-Re s.

0. 0

Max. Y-Res
2 2

0.0 0.0
1 1

0.0 0. 0
0 5 CO 0
5 CO T
4 T 4
3 CO
3 CO St 2
St 2 ore 2
or 2 y CO
e y CO 1 1
1 1

Fig. 12. Maximum residual displacements under single and sequential ground motions.

Fig. 13. Time history of horizontal top displacement for 3-storey bldg under Mammoth Lakes earthquakes.

index (DI) is computed. This DI takes into account both the maximum
deformation and the hysteretic energy of structural members and
can be defined as
μm bEh
DI ¼ þ ð2Þ
μu My φu
where μm represents the maximum ductility of the element, μu is
its ultimate ductility, b is a model constant parameter (usually,
b¼0.05–0.20) to control strength deterioration, Eh is the hysteretic
energy absorbed by the element during the earthquake, and Μy is
the yield moment of the element. In this work, parameter b is set
equal to 0.05 [11] and the ductility is defined in terms of curvature.
Fig. 10 shows the DI for single seismic events and seismic sequences
for characteristic structural members (the members' numbering is
depicted in Figs. 1–4). It is obvious that seismic sequences cause an
increment of DI in comparison with single seismic events.
 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88
4.2. Maximum horizontal displacements
The maximum displacements, both for single and for sequen-
tial ground motions, are shown in Fig. 11 for various characteristic
cases of structures, siting configurations and multiple earthquakes.
The examined structures subjected to strong motions present
Fig. 14. Time history of horizontal top displacement for 3-storey bldg under
Imperial Valley earthquakes.
Fig. 15. Maximum IDR under single and sequential ground motions.
85
permanent displacements, which are accumulated during oncom-
ing earthquakes and therefore the maximum displacements
appear to be increased for the case of seismic sequences in
comparison with the case of single earthquakes. These findings
have been observed for all the examined structures, for any case of
siting (for irregular structures) and almost for the entire set of the
examined real seismic sequences under consideration. Finally, it
can be easily concluded examining Fig. 11 that every structure
under consideration may be excited in a different manner for each
individual earthquake, or equivalently, a single earthquake from a
specific seismic sequence can be the most intense for a structure
and less critical for another structure, but for the most of the cases,
seismic sequences generally lead to higher and more intense
response in comparison with the ‘worst’ single earthquakes.
4.3. Maximum residual displacements
Similarly to the aforementioned maximum displacements, seismic
sequences strongly affect residual displacements, too. This phenom-
enon is clearly shown in Fig. 12, which presents selected results, and
this is compatible with the findings of previous research studies that
have to do with single-degree-of-freedom systems [3,6] or planar
multi-storey building structures [11,15,16].
Figs. 13 and 14 show the time history of horizontal displacements
occurring at the top of the structures. It is obvious that residual
displacements are accumulated during the seismic sequence. This
86 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88
Fig. 16. Residual IDR for 3-storey irregular bldg under Mammoth Lakes earthquakes.
Fig. 17. Residual IDR for 5-storey irregular bldg under Mammoth Lakes earthquakes.
finding is also compatible with the conclusions of previous studies
[11,16].
4.4. Interstorey drift ratio (IDR)
One of the most critical structural parameter is the interstorey
drift ratio (IDR). This ratio can be defined as the maximum relative
displacement between two successive stories normalized to the
storey height and it has been related to the structural or non-
structural damage [28]. Fig. 15 presents typical characteristic
examples for the IDR where it is evident that seismic sequences
lead to higher drifts in comparison with the corresponding single
ground motions.
4.5. Residual interstorey drift ratio
Another critical parameter is the residual interstorey drift ratio
(Res.IDR), which has to do with the permanent deformation of a
structure that remains after a strong ground motion. This para-
meter is useful to evaluate the seismic performance of a structure
after a strong earthquake and the potential damage that the
structure has sustained [29,30]. Figs. 16 and 17 clearly show that
seismic sequences cause increased residual IDR.
4.6. Ductility demands
A suitable approach to quantify the severity of inelastic
response is the ductility demand, μ, which can be defined in
terms of displacement, and rotation or curvature. This study
presents results that are exclusively based on curvature ductility
demand, mϕ, which can be defined as the ratio of ultimate
curvature, ϕu, to yield curvature, ϕy, as
ϕp
ϕu
μϕ ¼ ¼ 1þ ð3Þ
ϕy ϕy
where ϕp is the plastic curvature. This section focuses on the
increment of ductility demands due to the multiplicity of earth-
quakes. Without loss of generality, the inelastic response of
5-storey irregular building under the Mammoth Lakes seismic
sequence is examined in the following. Thus, Fig. 18 shows the
ductility demands both for single earthquakes and for seismic
sequence examining member no. 1 (ground floor column, see
Fig. 4). In order to examine the effect of earthquake direction
incident, Fig. 18 depicts the ductility demands for the whole set of
incident angles, i.e., for 01, 901, 1801 and 2701, as mentioned and
analyzed in Section 2.4. It is evident that each incident angle leads
to different response in comparison with the other cases under
 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88 87

MA1 90
MA2 90
140 140

120 120
135 45 135 45
100 100

80 80

60 60
40 40

Ductility demands
Ductility demands

20 20
0 180 0 0 180 0
20 20
40 40
60 60
80 80
100 100
225 315 225 315
120 120
140 140
270 270
MA3 90
MA4 90
140 140
120 120
135 45 135 45
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
Ductility deman ds

Ductility demands

20 20

0 180 0 0 180 0
20 20
40 40
60 60
80 80
100 100
225 315 225 315
120 120
140 140
270 270

MA5 MAT
90
140
120
135 45
100
80
60
40
Ductility demands

20
0 180 0
20
40
60
80
100
225 315
120
140
270

Fig. 18. Ductility demands under single and sequential ground motions, for angles 01, 901, 1801, and 2701.
88 M. Hatzivassiliou, G.D. Hatzigeorgiou / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 72 (2015) 77–88
consideration. Furthermore, it is obvious that the multiplicity of
earthquakes leads to increased ductility demands in comparison
with the corresponding individual seismic events. Therefore, the
repeated earthquakes phenomenon as well as the 3-D character of
structural modeling, seismic loading and response should be taken
into account for the seismic design of RC structures.
5. Conclusions
This paper examined the inelastic behavior of regular and
irregular three-dimensional RC structures subjected to multiple
earthquakes. Additionally, the irregular buildings were analyzed
for different angles between the principles axes of structures and
the components of earthquakes. According to this investigation,
the following conclusions can be highlighted:
1. The displacements occurring in the top of the structures for the
seismic sequences are higher than those for the corresponding
single seismic events. In some cases, the displacements for
the case of repeated earthquakes appear to be doubled or
even more.
2. The residual displacements increase and accumulated when
the structures are subjected to multiple earthquakes. Similarly,
residual interstorey drift ratios are increased when a structure
is subjected to repeated earthquakes. In some cases, these
displacements and ratios can be increased tenfold or more in
comparison with the more intense single ground motion.
3. Multiple earthquakes lead to accumulated structural damage.
In some cases, damage indices for structural members can be
increased fivefold or more in comparison with the more
intense single ground motion. Furthermore, it is found that,
many structural members can behave elastically during indivi-
dual ground motions while they behave inelastically during a
seismic sequence, i.e., they are damaged. This noteworthy
phenomenon has mainly to do with the redistribution of
internal forces and the alteration of lateral stiffness of buildings
during the first strong ground motion and therefore the
structure appear to have different dynamic characteristics
during the oncoming earthquakes.
4. The ductility demands during seismic sequences are increased
in relation with single ground motions. Similarly to the pre-
vious conclusion, in some members, although that there is no
need to endow them with adequate ductility capacities during
the individual seismic events, in the case of seismic sequence
the ductility demands appear to be increased. Furthermore, this
phenomenon is strongly depended on the siting configuration
of the building and therefore, the three-dimensional character
of structural modeling, of seismic loading as well as of response
should be taken into account for the seismic design of RC
structures.
References
[1] Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S. The effects of repeated earthquake ground
motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2003;32:291–308.
[2] Luco N, Bazzurro P, Cornell CA, Dynamic versus static computation of the
residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an after-
shock. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineer-
ing. Vancouver, Canada: 2004Paper 2405.
[3] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF struc-
tures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31:2744–55.
[4] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault
earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:170–83.
[5] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to
multiple near-fault earthquakes. Comput Struct 2010;88:309–21.
[6] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demands control under repeated earthquakes
using appropriate force reduction factors. J Earthq Tsunami 2010;4(3):231–50.
[7] Moustafa A, Takewaki I. Response of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom
structures to random acceleration sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(4):1251–8.
[8] Takewaki I, Moustafa A, Fujita K. Response of nonlinear SDOF structures to
random acceleration sequences. In: Takewaki I, Moustafa A, Fujita K, editors.
Improving the earthquake resilience of buildings. London: Springer; 2013.
p. 135–49.
[9] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames under
repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 2004;26:2021–35.
[10] Li Q, Ellingwood BR. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel
frame buildings under main shock-aftershock sequences. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2007;36:405–27.
[11] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under
repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:1010–25.
[12] Ruiz-Garcia J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing
steel frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock
seismic sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33:621–34.
[13] Loulelis D, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Moment resisting steel frames under
repeated earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2012;3(3-4):231–48.
[14] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Investigation of story ductility demands
of inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2013;44:42–53.
[15] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between
adjacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part II: the effect of
multiple earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1529–45.
[16] Di Sarno L. Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response.
Eng Struct 2013;56:673–81.
[17] Abdelnaby A, Elnashai A. Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame
systems under Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthq Eng
2014;18(7):1009–36.
[18] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO– inelastic dynamic analysis program. Christchurch, New
Zealand: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury; 2008.
[19] Pi-systems international/stereoSTATIKA. 〈http:/www.pi.gr〉. [accessed 13.12.2013].
[20] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 2: design of concrete
structure; part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings; EN 1992-1-1,
Brussels. 2004.
[21] European Committee for Standardization, Eurocode 8: design of structures for
earthquake resistance; part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for
buildings, EN 1998-1; EN 1998-1, Brussels. 2005.
[22] Chopra A. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake
engineering. 3rd ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc; 2006.
[23] IMBSEN software systems/Xtract. 〈http:www.imbsen.com〉. [accessed 15.08.2014].
[24] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER strong motion database.
〈http:www.peer.berkeley.edu/smcat〉. [accessed 15.08.2014].
[25] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2002;31:491–514.
[26] Baker JW. The conditional mean spectrum: a tool for ground motion selection.
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2010;137:322–31.
[27] Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete.
J Struct Divi ASCE 1985;111(4):722–39.
[28] Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A. Response-based damage assessment of
structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28:79–104.
[29] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Papagiannopoulos GA, Beskos DE. Evaluation of maximum
seismic displacements of SDOF systems from their residual deformation. Eng
Struct 2011;33:3422–31.
[30] Christidis AA, Dimitroudi EG, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Maximum seismic
displacements evaluation of steel frames from their post-earthquake residual
deformation. Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11:2233–48.