You are on page 1of 10

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering


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

Performance capacity of damaged RC SDOF systems under multiple far- and T


near-field earthquakes
Ali Reza Manafpour , Parisa Kamrani Moghaddam

Civil Engineering Department, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigates the response of a RC SDOF system subjected to different orders of near- and far-field
Multiple earthquake records in multiple earthquakes. The degrading hysteresis characteristics of the system are based on a tested RC
Far-field records cantilever column. Twelve scenarios in two groups are considered and include those with the same first or
Near-field records second shock types. Various initial damage levels and final performance levels are included in terms of maximum
Pulse effects
drift value. For a meaningful comparison of the results, a new parameter is introduced as relative spectral
Relative capacity
acceleration capacity. The results confirm that the extent and direction of the residual drift under the first shock
plays an important role. It is concluded that the combination of near-field records results in a more critical
response. Additionally, the performance capacities under scenarios with pulse-like near-field records are lower
than that of no-pulse ones. The pulse effects increase as the second shock intensity increases.

1. Introduction the same building characteristics as before and will respond differently
to the next event. Traditionally, seismic resistant buildings are designed
In most seismic regions, buildings experience several earthquakes considering a single earthquake, known as the “design earthquake”. In
over their lifetimes. For buildings not repaired after an intensive seismic fact, damage accumulation caused by consecutive earthquakes is not
event, accumulation of damage is a real possibility. In general, a se- explicitly considered in the traditional seismic design of buildings.
quence of foreshock(s), main shock, and aftershock(s), or events from During the last two decades, the issue of multiple or consecutive
different seismic sources, can result in a multiple seismic case. Evidence earthquakes has been the subject of several research studies.
from past earthquakes demonstrates that multiple shocks may con- Fragiacomo et al. [4] conducted studies analyzing elastic- perfectly
siderably increase the extent of damage to a building. This has been plastic SDOF systems, moment resistant steel frames with rigid and
observed in several past earthquakes: In 2011, an aftershock of M6.0 semi-rigid joints, and a concentrically braced steel frame. They showed
caused extensive damage in an initially devastated region by the Van that damage in the systems subjected to repetitive earthquakes is sig-
Turkey M7.1 earthquake, and the Bayram hotel, hosting journalists and nificantly higher than those subjected to a single event. Additionally,
rescue workers, collapsed during this aftershock, [1]. Ten months later, they proposed a reduction for the behavior factor (q) in earthquake-
an earthquake of M6.4 hit the neighboring region of Ahar-Varzeghan in prone regions with a high probability of seismic events occurrence.
northwestern Iran, and 11 min later was followed by an aftershock of Hatzigeorgiou [5,6] assessed the performance of SDOF systems with
M6.3. Similar events resulting in accumulated damage due to con- inelastic hysteretic force-displacement relationships subjected to re-
secutive earthquakes have been observed worldwide. An earthquake peated earthquakes. The results showed that the deformation demands
that measured 7.3 on 12 November 2017 is the most recent major of the system are increased by repeated earthquakes. He also quantified
earthquake to strike on the Iran-Iraq border. Within two months of the ductility demand spectra and behavior factors for structures subjected
main shock, thousands of aftershocks have been reported in the region, to multiple earthquakes. He found that near-field and far-field earth-
three of which were magnitude 6.0, 6.2 and 6.2, and twenty ranged quakes impose different ductility demands. Faisal and co-workers [7]
from 5.0 to 5.6, [2,3]. focused on the influence of double, triple synthetic repeated earth-
Conceptually, once an earthquake hits a building, depending on the quakes on the maximum story ductility demands of three-dimensional
intensity of the earth- quake and the structural seismic design, the inelastic concrete frames. They concluded that maximum story ductility
building's strength and stiffness may degrade. Hence, it will not have demand increase about 40% in the repeated earthquakes.

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: a.manafpour@urmia.ac.ir (A.R. Manafpour), p.kamrani@urmia.ac.ir (P. Kamrani Moghaddam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.045
Received 6 March 2018; Received in revised form 29 August 2018; Accepted 29 September 2018
0267-7261/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Hatzigeorgiou and Liolios [8] studied the inelastic response of regular 2. Research methodology
and irregular RC frames and proposed an appropriate reduced behavior
factor to take into account multiplicity effects. In another study, Hat- PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering framework uti-
zigeorgiou and Beskos [9] presented a method to express the inelastic lizes the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) [29] approach to de-
displacement ratio assuming the effects of a viscous damping ratio, the termine system's seismic capacity, [30]. This methodology is capable of
period of vibration, a force reduction factor and the soil class. Goda and simulating sideway performance of structural systems. It can be used to
Taylor [10] calculated peak ductility demands of inelastic SDOF sys- study the response of structural systems considering a wide range of
tems employing a set of real and artificial sequences. Zhai et al. [11] behavior from elastic to highly inelastic behavior such as global dy-
investigated damage spectra of mainshock-aftershock sequence-type namic instability.
records and proposed a simplified equation to modify the related IDA curves can be depicted using Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
seismic spectra. They also in another research [12] defined a relative or elastic spectral acceleration/displacement corresponding to the
intensity of the aftershock ground motion to the main-shock ground structure's period of vibration (Sa/S d) as the intensity measure (IM)
motion. Their results indicated that the effect of aftershock ground versus the maximum transient lateral displacement, or drift, as a da-
motion with larger relative intensity on the response demand is gen- mage measure (DM). In this study, for the intensity measure, the elastic
erally more obvious for non-degrading system than for degrading response acceleration (S a) is preferred as it reflects the dynamic char-
system. acteristics of the structure in addition to earthquake characteristics.
Reinforced concrete (RC) structures, due to their inherent composite This paper investigates the effects of multiple earthquakes on the
characteristics, present a more complex degrading hysteresis behavior response of SDOF systems. For this purpose, the effects of residual drift
under strong earthquakes when compared to steel structures. from the first shock are initially evaluated based on the transient and
Abdelnaby [13,14] concluded that stiffness and strength degradation permanent drifts during the second shock. Twelve simulation scenarios
significantly affects the final deformations of RC frames subjected to are defined with each considering a combination of near-field and far-
consecutive earthquakes. Efraimiadou et al. [15] investigated adjacent field ground motions. Near-field ground motions include both pulse-like
reinforced concrete building frames under multiple earthquakes. They and no-pulse motions so that the pulse effects can also be investigated.
identified the effect of the polarity of aftershock on the total response of The results of this study are discussed based on the comparative as-
structures under multiple earthquakes. The phenomenon also con- sessment of the system subjected to single as well as multiple ground
firmed by Hatzivassiliou and Hatzigeorgiou [16] who studied for the motions.
first time seismic response of three-dimensional regular and irregular
structures subjected to real multiple earthquakes. Hosseinpour and
3. Modeling approach and validation
Abdelnaby [17] investigated the response of regular and irregular two-
dimensional RC structures to as-recorded seismic sequences. They also
The structural system used for this research study is a cantilever
found that aftershock polarity could considerably affect irregular
beam-column with a lumped mass at its free end. The characteristics of
structures.
the system are the same as those used in an experimental test by
Luco and co-workers [18,19] studied different damage indicators to
Saatcioglu and Grira, [31]. OpenSEES [32,33] is used to develop the
quantify damage under the main-shock. Their results show that drift
analytical model and calculate the response of the SDOF system. For
measure are more effective indicator than others, such as the number of
modeling purposes, material plasticity is modeled by a rotational spring
failed beams and columns, to predict the capacity reduction.
at the fixed end of the element. Spring properties are assigned as sug-
It is now well known that seismic ground motions recorded within
gested by Lignos and Krawinkler, [34]. Their proposed model can in-
the near-fault (NF) region of an earthquake are quite different from
clude basic strength deterioration, post-capping strength deterioration,
those within the far-field (FF). Normally in a seismic region, the loca-
unloading stiffness deterioration, and accelerated reloading stiffness
tions of the main-shock and its aftershocks are not necessarily the same.
deterioration in the response, which are essential in RC structures un-
Near-field seismic ground motions are mainly characterized by intense
dergoing seismic damages (red line in Fig. 1). The black line in Fig. 1
velocity and displacement pulses of relatively long periods, [20]. Sev-
shows the deterioration model with peak-oriented hysteretic response
eral other studies have discussed the characteristics of near-field velo-
for intended lumped plasticity, [34]. Additionally, the model includes
city and displacement time histories [21–25]. Li et al. [26] investigated
two cases of seismic sequences, a FF main-shock followed by a FF
aftershock and a FF main- shock followed by NF aftershock, for one
steel frame structure to evaluate the collapse fragility. They conclude
that although the mean structural collapse capacity for near-fault
aftershocks is smaller than that for far-fault aftershocks, the collapse
capacity appears to be more sensitive to FF aftershocks when the
building experiences severe damage from the main-shock. The study
only considers collapse performance level and lacks comprehensive
consideration of all combinations of near- and far-field record types as
well as pulse effects. Garcia and Manriquez [27] studied steel frames
under as-recorded FF and NF multiple earthquakes. They concluded
that under NF earthquakes the inter-story drift ratio is larger than when
under FF earthquakes. Despite the advantage of using real multiple
records the study is limited by the characteristics of earthquakes mostly
from a single event and therefore the record to record uncertainty is not
comprehensively taken into account.
This paper focuses on the response of a Reinforced Concrete Single
Degree of Freedom (RC SDOF) system to the different orders of multiple
near-field and far-field earthquakes. 22 far-field and 28 near-field re-
cords as suggested by FEMA P695, [28] are selected. The performance
evaluation is carried out for various first shock damage levels and Fig. 1. Cyclic behavior and backbone curve developed by Lignos and
second shock performance levels. Krawinkler [34].

165
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Fig. 2. Main characteristics of SDOF system (a) Overview of tested model (b) Schematic numerical idealization.

P-Delta effects to consider the geometric nonlinearity. The experimental source distance is reported to be 16.4 km. The soil Site Classes for near-
setup and representative numerical model are shown in Fig. 2. For field ground motions are B (rock sites, 2 records), C (15 Records) and D
validation purposes, the model is subjected to cyclic lateral load, and (11 records). From 28 near-field (Table 2) records fourteen near-field
the results are compared with those in the experimental study. This records include pulses (Pulse subset) and fourteen do not (No-Pulse
model is used in this study to evaluate the response of SDOF systems subset). The average site-source distance for near-field records is 4.2 km
under multiple seismic ground motions. (see Appendix A of FEMA P695 [28] for additional information).
Based on the details of the experimental specimen, the system has a
period of T = 0.53 s. The specimen dimensions and section details are 4.1. Scaling the first shock ground motions
presented in Fig. 2a. In the numerical modeling, the axial load of
1900 kN is first applied, and then lateral cyclic displacement is imposed The effects of multiple earthquakes become important when the first
at the free end of the column. The numerical model, which is shown in shock intensity is strong enough to create significant nonlinear de-
Fig. 2b, includes an elastic beam connected by a nonlinear rotational formations or when the second shock is strong enough to increase the
spring to the fixed base. Fig. 3 shows the results of the validation study damage level of the system. Hence, it is important to consider a range of
where the analytical results are compared with the experimental in damages from the first shock in order to study the ability of the system
terms of shear-force versus drift value. As it can be seen, the analytical to resist the second shock. In this study, the first shock damage level is
results are in a good agreement with the experimental work. defined in terms of the maximum transient drift ratio experienced by
the RC SDOF system during the first shock time history analysis.
4. Ground motions To determine the equivalent intensity of the earthquake under
consideration for each specified drift ratio, single earthquake IDA re-
FEMA P695 [28] has developed record selection criteria including; sults are used. In total, ten damage levels corresponding to specific first
magnitude, source type, site condition, etc. Based on these criteria 22 shock maximum drift ratios ranging from 0.5% to 5.0% are considered.
far-field records and 28 near-field records have been selected and Fig. 4 shows the IDA results for two sample records. Based on the
specified in FEMA P695. Each ensemble includes a sufficient number of aforementioned procedure, under single excitation of EQ. 04 and EQ.
records to rigorously evaluate the record-to-record variability. The 11 (see Table 1), equivalent PGA values are determined to be 0.621 g
magnitudes of the selected ground motions range from M6.5 to M7.9 and 0.446 g for the drift ratio of 5%. Since all of the earthquake records
with the average of M7.0. The records are downloaded from the strong have initially been normalized to PGA = 1.0 g, calculated PGA values
motion database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research are used as factors to scale the first shock. The calculated scaling factors
Center, [35]. For two-dimensional analyses carried out in this paper the for all earthquake ground motions are reported in Table 1 and Table 2
horizontal component with the largest PGA has been selected from each for all defined damage levels.
earthquake. From 22 far-field records (Table 1) sixteen records are
classified as Site Class D (stiff soil sites) and the remaining six are 5. First shock residual drift effects
classified as Site Class C (very stiff soil sites) and their average site-
Damage accumulation is the main reason for the collapse of struc-
tures under multiple seismic ground motions. One common indicator of
damage from an earthquake is the residual deformation of the structure.
To elaborate on the role of the residual deformations in describing the
accumulated damage under multiple near- and far-field earthquakes, a
special case is considered in this section.
For the purpose of this special case study, two recorded ground
motions, one recorded at near-field and the other at far-field, of a single
seismic event, the Cape Mendocino earthquake (1992), are selected.
The far-field (FF) record is designated in Table 1 by EQ. 08, and the
near-field (NF) record in Table 2 by EQ. 04. To simply illustrate the
sequential effects of earthquakes, the SDOF structural system is first
subjected to these FF or NF records with scaled intensity corresponding
to a specified damage level. The damaged systems are then subjected to
the same FF ground motions. The second shock record is applied with
Fig. 3. Validation of the numerical model: cyclic response comparison with BG- various intensity levels by means of incremental dynamic analysis, and
6 [31] experimental results. the responses are compared under multiple NFFF and FFFF

166
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Table 1
Record identification for FEMA P695 [28] far field records and scaling values for various initial damages.
EQ ID M Earthquake Station Recording Station PGA of the record to scale for various initial damages (g)

Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift
0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%

EQ. 01 7.1 Duzce, Turkey Bolu 0.05 0.15 0.18 0.29 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.43 0.45
EQ. 02 6.5 Imperial Valley Delta 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.30
EQ. 03 6.9 Kobe, Japan Shin-Osaka 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.25
EQ. 04 6.7 Northridge Beverly Hills- 0.12 0.24 0.31 0.36 0.40 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.58 0.62
Mulhol
EQ. 05 6.7 Northridge Canyon Country- 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.22
WLC
EQ. 06 6.6 San Fernando LA – Hollywood Stor 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.30
EQ. 07 6.5 Superstition Hills Hills Poe Road 0.06 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.43 0.48 0.51 0.54
(temp)
EQ. 08 7.0 Cape Mendocino Rio Dell Overpass 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26
EQ. 09 7.3 Landers Yermo Fire Station 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17
EQ. 10 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY101 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.30
EQ. 11 6.5 Imperial Valley El Centro Array #11 0.09 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.43 0.45
EQ. 12 7.5 Kocaeli, Turkey Duzce 0.04 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27
EQ. 13 6.9 Loma Prieta Capitola 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.36
EQ. 14 6.9 Loma Prieta Gilroy Array #3 0.08 0.19 0.25 0.34 0.42 0.49 0.57 0.65 0.71 0.79
EQ. 15 6.5 Superstition Hills El Centro Imp. Co. 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.27
EQ. 16 7.3 Landers Coolwater 0.04 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.25 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49
EQ. 17 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU045 0.07 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.43 0.49 0.54 0.59
EQ. 18 6.5 Friuli, Italy Tolmezzo 0.07 0.18 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.50 0.56 0.64 0.72 0.77
EQ. 19 7.5 Kocaeli, Turkey Arcelik 0.12 0.19 0.35 0.50 0.59 0.64 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.79
EQ. 20 7.4 Manjil, Iran Abbar 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.32 0.39 0.45 0.48 0.52
EQ. 21 7.1 Hector Mine Hector 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.31
EQ. 22 6.9 Kobe, Japan Nishi-Akashi 0.04 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.39 0.45 0.50 0.56 0.60 0.63

Table 2
Record identification for FEMA P695 [28] near field records and scaling values for various initial damages.
EQ ID M Earthquake Recording Station PGA of the record to scale for various initial damages (g)

Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift Drift
0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%

No Pulse Records Subset


EQ. 01 7.9 Denali, Alaska TAPS Pump Sta. 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12
#10
EQ. 02 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU067 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23
EQ. 03 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU084 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.22
EQ. 04 7.0 Cape Mendocino Cape Mendocino 0.13 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74
EQ. 05 6.8 Gazli, USSR Karakyr 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.38
EQ. 06 6.5 Imperial Valley-06 Bonds Corner 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.42
EQ. 07 6.5 Imperial Valley-06 Chihuahua 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.38
EQ. 08 7.5 Kocaeli, Turkey Yarimca 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.23
EQ. 09 6.9 Loma Prieta BRAN 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.28 0.32
EQ. 10 6.9 Loma Prieta Corralitos 0.06 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.32 0.36 0.41 0.46
EQ. 11 6.8 Nahanni, Canada Site 1 0.18 0.33 0.38 0.51 0.66 0.73 0.80 0.88 0.95 1.00
EQ. 12 6.8 Nahanni, Canada Site 2 0.08 0.21 0.31 0.42 0.58 0.71 0.81 0.89 0.97 1.05
EQ. 13 6.7 Northridge-01 LA - Sepulveda VA 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24
EQ. 14 6.7 Northridge-01 Northridge - Saticoy 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.34

Pulse Records Subset


EQ. 15 7.0 Cape Mendocino Petrolia 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.32 0.34
EQ. 16 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU065 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29
EQ. 17 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU102 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13
EQ. 18 7.1 Duzce, Turkey Duzce 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.28
EQ. 19 6.7 Erzican, Turkey Erzincan 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.27
EQ. 20 6.5 Imperial Valley-06 El Centro Array #6 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.28
EQ. 21 6.5 Imperial Valley-06 El Centro Array #7 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.24
EQ. 22 6.9 Irpinia, Italy-01 Sturno 0.09 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24
EQ. 23 7.5 Kocaeli, Turkey Izmit 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12
EQ. 24 7.3 Landers Lucerne 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23
EQ. 25 6.9 Loma Prieta Saratoga - Aloha 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.22
EQ. 26 6.7 Northridge-01 Rinaldi Receiving 0.13 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74
Sta
EQ. 27 6.7 Northridge-01 Sylmar - Olive View 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.38
EQ. 28 6.5 Superstition Hills-02 Parachute Test Site 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.24 0.32 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.42

167
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Table 3
Median Residual drift values (%) under FF and NF records scaled to various
maximum drifts.
Record Maximum Drift

0.5% 1% 1.5% 2% 2.5% 3% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5%

FF 0.02 0.022 0.61 1.11 1.57 1.94 2.54 3.11 3.69 4.17
NF 0.02 0.022 0.64 1.19 1.6 2.05 2.51 3.04 3.64 4.12

curves indicates that there are differences in the pattern of multiple


earthquake effects for three different initial damage levels. The differ-
ences are due to the type of the first shock, i.e. NF or FF, which is a
function of the extent and the direction of residual deformations from
the first shock, as discussed in the following sections.
For a more detailed evaluation, the time history response of se-
quences for two specified second shock intensity levels are presented
and discussed. Fig. 6 shows the drift time history under two types of
Fig. 4. An example of calculating the First Shock scale factor.
multiple earthquakes (scenario No.5 and No.6, Table 4). Two intensity
levels of the first shock and second shock are considered. As shown, the
first shock residual response to NF ground motion for a maximum drift
earthquakes. The results are shown in Fig. 5 for three different damage of 1% is significantly higher than the FF ground motion. It is obvious
levels (a, b and c). It is noted that the figure effectively shows the dif- that these records induce different residual drift values in opposite di-
ferences in IDA curves for a SDOF system subjected to the same second rections. At a higher intensity level of the first shock (corresponding to
shocks but previously damaged to the same level (in terms of maximum maximum drift of 3.5%), there are also some differences between re-
drift) by a near-field and far-field ground motion of the same seismic sulted residual drifts, but they occur in the same direction.
event. Based on the results from Fig. 6 and additional time history re-
As it can be seen from the Fig. 5-a, in the case where the maximum sponses, two important conclusions can be made: When the second
drift of the first shock is 1.0%, responses to the second shock are not shock intensity level is relatively low compared to the first shock
significantly different. In the intensity range of 0.5 g to 0.7 g, maximum (Fig. 6a, c, d), the first shock residual drift value significantly affects the
drift of the FFFF is slightly lower than the NFFF shocks. It is reversed for second shock drift value. In other words, first shock residual drift forms
intensities higher than 0.7 g. When the damage level from the first a major part of the second shock drift and affects the residual drift
shock is increased to a maximum drift of 2.5% (Fig. 5b), there is a direction at the end of the second shock; However, by increasing the
considerable difference between the IDA curves. The differences be- second shock relative intensity level (Fig. 6b), the residual drift from
come significant when the intensity level, in terms of spectral accel- the first shock has a minimal influence and can be ignored. These dif-
eration, exceeds 0.65 g. At this range, the maximum drift of the NFFF ferent effects from the residual drift result in different observations as
sequence is considerably higher than the FFFF one. For higher damage discussed earlier with regard to Fig. 5. Similar results are observed in
levels from the first shock (i.e. maximum drift of 3.5%) as shown in the cases of FFNF and NFNF scenarios, for which the second shock
Fig. 5c, again the differences between IDA curves are insignificant, records are NF.
except at low intensity levels which can be attributed to differences in For an additional illustration of the differences between NF and FF
residual drift under the first shock (see Table 3). A comparison of these records, Table 3 presents corresponding median residual drift values for

Fig. 5. Median IDA curves for Cape Mendocino sequences of FFFF and NFFF, at three damage levels under the first shock.

168
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Fig. 6. Comparing time history of drift response for multiple earthquakes with different first shocks (considering two different intensities for first and second shocks).

Table 4 first to fourth scenarios in Table 4). The single ground motions are also
Different scenarios of FF and NF records and number of analyses for each considered as consecutive earthquakes with the first record having zero
scenario. intensity. Nine alternatives are presented corresponding to nine target
Earthquake ID Simulation First Second Total no. of performance levels under multiple earthquakes, i.e. reaching to a
Scenario shock shock Analysis maximum transient drift of 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%. 2%. 2.5%, 3%, 3.5%, 4%
and 4.5% (a to i in the following figures, respectively) under the second
Single 1 FF – FF 1320
shock. In all alternatives, the SDOF system is initially subjected to ten
2 NF – NF 2520
3 NF-P – NF-P
damage levels under the first shock.
4 NF-NP – NF-NP To simplify the presentation of the results so that to have a mean-
Multiple 5 FFFF FF FF 290,400 ingful comparison between different scenarios, a parameter is defined
6 NFFF NF FF 369,600 as relative spectral acceleration (RSA). This parameter effectively de-
7 FFNF FF NF 554,400
fines the ratio of the median capacities of the second shock, in terms of
8 FFNF-P FF NF-P
9 FFNF-NP FF NF-NP spectral acceleration:
10 NFNF NF NF 705,600
NFNF-P NF NF-P Sa 1
11 RSA =
12 NFNF-NP NF NF-NP Sa 2 (1)

Where Sa1 and Sa2 are the median performance capacities of second
each maximum transient drift ratio. shock ground motions under two different intended sequences from
Table 4. Each point in Figs. 7–9 shows corresponding RSA value with
specific first shock damage level and second shock performance level.
6. Second shock performance capacity
To calculate RSA following procedure are carried out:
In this section, median performance capacity of the SDOF system is
1. Select records types for First shock and second shock according to
calculated for different performance levels considering NF and FF
multiple sequences. Performance capacity indicates the intensity level the intended scenarios, (Table 4)
2. Scale first shock record from the selected record type reaching the
of the second shock that brings the system to a certain performance
level defined by a drift value. target damage level, Table 1 and Table 2.
3. Apply scaled first shock to the structural system.
The synthesized sequences are generated by seeding the recorded
4. Apply second shock record by IDA procedure.
ground motions using different combinations of NF and FF sets. The
combinations are classified in twelve simulation scenarios, which are 5. Calculate IDA curve for produced sequence.
6. Calculate related capacity (S a) for intended performance level.
listed in Table 4. As shown in this table total number of required
nonlinear dynamic analyses for each first shock damage level is 7. Do step 4–6 for another second shock record.
8. Do step 2–7 for another first shock records.
192,000 and considering ten different damage levels it will add up to
9. Calculate median capacity, Sa1.
1,920,000.
Alternative comparative studies are considered in this section. First, 10. Do step 1–9 to calculate Sa2 .
11. The ratio RSA is then calculated based on Eq. (1).
the median performance capacities are compared for FFFF vs. FFNF and
NFFF vs. NFNF scenarios to study the sequence of ground motions with
the same first shock type. Additional studies are carried out to illustrate 6.1. Scenarios with the same first shock type
the effects of pulse-like records. Next, sequential earthquakes with the
same second shock type are studied for FFFF vs. NFFF and FFNF vs. The median performance capacity for multiple earthquakes with the
NFNF. same first shock types are considered in this section. Here, two alter-
To illustrate the sequential effects of the multiple earthquakes, natives are considered: scenarios with different second shocks in terms
comparisons are made with the relevant single earthquakes (see the of near-field or far-field; and scenarios with different second shocks in

169
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Fig. 7. RSA variation in scenarios with the same first shock, considering different initial damages under first shock and intended performance levels under second
shock.

terms of pulse-like or no-pulse records. versus NFNF. Each group refers to scenarios with the same first shock
type and different second shock record type sets (see Table 4).
6.1.1. Far-field versus Near-field second shocks Fig. 7, presents the results for relative spectral acceleration capacity
To demonstrate the effects of the second shock type on structural (RSA) for two cases, i.e. FFFF/FFNF and NFFF/NFNF. Each case shows
response to multiple earthquakes, two groups of comparisons with the the effects of initial damage extent on the relative system capacity
same first shock types are considered: FFFF versus FFNF and NFFF under far and near field earthquakes. Comparing two cases in this figure

Fig. 8. RSA variation in scenarios with different pulse and no-pulse NF second shocks, considering different initial damages under first shock and intended per-
formance levels under second shock.

170
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

Fig. 9. RSA variation in scenarios with the same second shock, considering different initial damages under first shock and intended performance levels under second
shock.

illustrates the effects of the first shock type (far-field or near-field) on Comparing two curves in Fig. 7, it is important to note that in almost
the relative capacity of the structural system under multiple earth- all figures (Fig. 7a–i) the RSA is generally the same for NFFF/NFNF and
quakes. The figure includes nine separate parts each for a specific FFFF/FFNF cases and two curves coincide. Similar RSA values mean
performance level under the second shock (Fig. 7a–i). that the effect of the type of first shock is minimal, and there-
It is worth noting that when the target performance level is lower fore,whether the initial damage was caused by near– or far-field records
than the first shock's residual drift, then no performance capacity is is inconsequential. It appears that the differences between two curves
reported for multiple earthquakes. For example as shown in Fig. 7b, at increases towards the end but there is no unique pattern.
drift values under the first shock higher than 1.5%, no RSA value is Based on Fig. 7 maximum RSA value is 1.8 and 1.61 for NFFF/NFNF
reported because the SDOF system suffers higher than 1% residual drift and FFFF/FFNF cases, respectively. This happens at performance level
under the first shock (see Table 3). The first point in all the graphs corresponding to 2% drift value (Fig. 7d). The largest difference be-
shows the effect of single earthquakes on the structural system since the tween RSA values for multiple and single earthquakes also happen at
maximum drift under the first shock is zero for these points. It can be this performance level, which shows a relative change of about 45%
seen that for these first points, the RSA values are about 1.1–1.44, and and 29% for NFFF/NFNF and FFFF/FFNF cases, respectively. Hence for
as expected, they are the same for both FFFF/FFNF and NFFF/NFNF multiple earthquakes the maximum near-field effects reaches to about
scenarios. Note that for all other initial damage levels, the value of RSA 49% of the single earthquake. Overall it is concluded that the NFNF
stays above the unity, i.e. NF always results in lower capacity, irre- combination is the most critical one for multiple earthquakes.
spective of initial damage level. This echoes similar conclusions in other
research studies emphasizing the importance of evaluating the effects of
6.1.2. Pulse-like versus No-pulse second shocks
the near-field ground motions.
This section focuses on the pulse effects of near-field ground mo-
An interesting conclusion may be made considering the differences
tions as second shocks combined with first shock types in multiple
in the trends of variation in RSA values. The increase from the original
earthquakes. For this purpose, scenarios are generated for two se-
value (when the damage from the first shock is zero) is an indication of
quences of ground motions all with NF records as the second shocks. As
amplification in near field effects. It can be seen that for lower per-
shown in Table 4, the seventh to ninth scenarios are those with FF as
formance levels of multiple earthquakes (i.e. second shock maximum
the first shock while in the tenth to twelfth scenarios, NF is used as the
drift of 0.5–2.5%), there is a sharp increase in the RSA value if the
first shock. Four of aforementioned scenarios in Table 4 separately in-
system's damage under the first shock is increased. As an example, in
clude NF records with No-pulse (NP) or Pulse (P) effects.
Fig. 7b between the mentioned ranges of drift ratio the value RSA is
Once again, to investigate how the results of multiple earthquakes
increased from 1.3 to 1.57. Depending on the type of the first shock,
are affected by pulse- like characteristics of near-field earthquakes, the
when the drift value is increased from 0% to 1.5% under the first shock,
RSA definition is used. Here, the intended sequences are FFNF-P vs.
this is about 21% increase in RSA value. In other words in multiple
FFNF-NP and NFNF-P vs. NFNF-NP. Hence, according to Eq. (1), Sa1 and
earthquakes the adverse effects of near field records are amplified as the
S a2 refer to pulse (P) and No-pulse (NP) record sets, respectively.
damage level from the first shock increases. At higher target drift levels
Fig. 8 presents the RSA derived from IDA for the aforementioned
(e.g. 3–4.5% drift in Fig. 7f–i) the increase of RSA value is smoother,
scenarios. Similar to previous section, the first points of each figure (a
meaning that the relative capacity is not affected by the level of initial
to i) in all cases represent RSA values for single pulse and no-pulse
damage.
earthquakes. A general conclusion from this figure is that the RSA

171
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

values are all below the unity, meaning that the performance capacity differences in the pattern of response to multiple earthquakes de-
under pulse-like records is lower than that of no-pulse records irre- pending on the record type (FF or NF) and the extent and direction of
spective of the level of damage under the first shock and irrespective of the residual deformation. More detailed considerations of this case
the intended performance level under the second shock. It is also noted study using time history results revealed that the extent of the residual
that since the RSA value reduces from nearly 0.90 to 0.6 (Fig. 8a–i), drift effects depends on the relative intensity of the second shock as
generally an increase in pulse effects is seen as the intended perfor- compared with that of the first shock. It was concluded that by in-
mance level under the second shock increases in terms of drift ratio. creasing the second shock relative intensity level, the residual drift from
At performance levels with higher drift values it appears that pulse the first shock has minimum influence and can be ignored.
effects are reduced when the damage from the first shock is close to or With regard to the effect of the record type on the response to
exceeds the intended performance level for the second shock (in terms multiple earthquakes, the following conclusions may be made using the
of drift). Again comparing two curves shows that the effect of the first RSA parameter:
shock type on RSA values does not seem to be significant or show a
clear trend for different damage levels. • Median capacity under second shock FF records is higher than that
of second shock NF records by approximately 10–80% depending on
6.2. Scenarios with same second shock type the performance level considered. Furthermore, maximum RSA va-
lues for the multiple scenarios with NF as first shock show about
Here, median performance capacity ratios for the scenarios with the 45% increase compared to single excitation, indicating multiple
same second shock type, FFFF vs. NFFF and FFNF vs. NFNF (see effects on the capacity values. This value is 29% for the case with FF
Table 4), are compared using the RSA definition. It is noted that: as the first shock. Therefore, the NFNF scenario is the most critical
one for multiple earthquakes. Additionally, all values of RSA are
• The RSA value of unity indicates that the first shock type has no above unity, which shows that NF as the second shock results in
effect on the system's capacity during the next shock. This means the lower capacity.
system suffers similar damage under first shocks of different types. • Under multiple earthquake scenarios, the RSA is generally similar
• Lower RSA values (less than 1) means that far-field first shocks
cause a higher level of damage than those in the near-field.
for the NFFF/NFNF and the FFFF/FFNF case. This means that for
these cases first shock record type make no significant changes to
the capacity values.
The results depicted in Fig. 9 show that the RSA value is generally • For lower performance levels of multiple earthquakes (i.e. second
close to one and its variations are small, except at the end of curves shock maximum drift of 0.5–2.5%), there is a sharp increase in the
when the damage level from the first shock is close to the target per- RSA value if the system's damage under the first shock is increased.
formance level in the second shock. Since for these analyses the same • The RSA values for FFNF-P vs. FFNF-NP and NFNF-P vs. NFNF-NP
target drift values under the first shock are used, it is generally expected shows that the performance capacity under pulse-like records are
that the structure will suffer the same initial level of damage and lower than that of no-pulse records, irrespective of level of damage
therefore the RSA value should remain at unity. Any change from the under the first shock and irrespective of intended performance level
unity is indicative of a possible deficiency in using the transient drift under the second shock. It is also shown that an increase in pulse
value as a real damage measure. It appears that the deficiency increases effects is generally seen as the intended performance level under the
as the damage level from the first shock increases. This results in some second shock increases in terms of drift ratio.
significant changes at the end of the curves. • For scenarios with the same second shock type (FFFF vs. NFFF and
The differences between two curves in Fig. 9 effectively show the FFNF vs. NFNF), it was shown that RSA is not always one. This ef-
effects of the second shock type on the extent of the effects from the first fectively means that the structures with similar initial damage in
shock. Comparing two curves in Fig. 9 shows that they are generally some limited circumstances suffer different levels of damage under
very close to each other, except maybe near to the end of the curves. the same set of second shocks. It seems that the transient drift is not
This means that in studying the effects of the first shock type in multiple necessarily a sufficiently accurate measure of damage for the study
earthquakes the second shock type is not so important, and the results of multiple earthquakes in all circumstances, more specifically when
can be similar using either FF or NF records as second shocks. the performance level under consideration is close to the damage
level under the first shock.
7. Conclusion
It is also concluded that in studying the effects of the first shock type
The study focused on the response of a reinforced concrete single in multiple earthquakes (scenarios with the same second shocks), the
degree of freedom system when subjected to multiple earthquakes second shock type is less important than the first shock type, and the
consisting of near-field and far-field records. The various performance results can be similar using either FF or NF records as second shocks.
levels were considered with varying levels of damage under the first The conclusions derived from this research were based on the study of a
shock. Additionally, pulse characteristics of the near-field records were single degree of freedom system with specific material and dynamic
taken into account. As an important parameter quantifying the level of characteristics. Despite extensive analyses, it is believed that additional
damage under the first shock, residual drift and its effects were also studies may be required in order to generalize these results for different
investigated. structural systems.
A new parameter was introduced as relative spectral acceleration
(RSA) capacity to facilitate the presentation and discussion of the re- Acknowledgements
sults. This parameter effectively defines the ratio of the second shock
median capacities for two different scenarios of multiple earthquakes. This study has been supported by Urmia University's Research
Using this parameter the effects of record type order, first shock damage Office Fund, Iran (No. 1124666). This support is gratefully acknowl-
level and second shock performance levels on the system's relative ca- edged.
pacities were investigated. RSA values were calculated in two groups:
scenarios with the same first shock type and those with the same second References
shock type. Within the first group, pulse-like effects were also included.
Considering the effects of residual drift on the response to multiple [1] Platt S, Drinkwater BD. Post-earthquake decision making in Turkey: studies of Van
earthquakes, it was shown by using a special case study that there are and İzmir. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 2016;17:220–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

172
A.R. Manafpour, P. Kamrani Moghaddam Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 116 (2019) 164–173

ijdrr.2016.03.010. reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(3):419–39.
[2] United States Geological Survey (USGS), 〈http://www.usgs.gov/〉. [19] Luco N, Gerstenberger MC, Uma SR, Ryu H, Liel AB, Raghunandan M. A metho-
[3] Iranian Seismological Center, 〈http://irsc.ut.ac.ir/bulletin.php〉. dology for post-mainshock probabilistic assessment of building collapse risk. In:
[4] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames under re- Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Building
peated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 2004;26:2021–35. https://doi.org/ an Earthquake Resilient Society, 14–16 April, Auckland, New Zealand, vol. 2011;
10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.08.005. 2011.
[5] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to multiple [20] Baker JW. Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet
near-fault earthquakes. Comput Struct 2010;88:309–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2007;97(5):1486–501.
compstruc.2009.11.006. [21] Somerville P, Graves R. Conditions that give rise to unusually large long period
[6] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault ground motions. Struct Des Tall Build 1993;2:211–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.
earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:170–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 4320020304.
soildyn.2009.10.003. [22] Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS. A mathematical representation of Near-fault
[7] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Investigation of story ductility demands of ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2003;93:1099–131.
inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng [23] Mavroeidis GP, Dong G, Papageorgiou AS. Near-fault ground motions, and the re-
2013;44:42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.08.012. sponse of elastic and inelastic single-degree-of-freedom(SDOF) systems. Earthq Eng
[8] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated Struct Dyn 2004;33:1023–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.391.
strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:1010–25. https://doi.org/10. [24] Bray JD, Rodriguez-Marek A. Characterization of forward-directivity ground mo-
1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.013. tions in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2004;24:815–28.
[9] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures [25] Mavroeidis GP, Papageorgiou AS. Effect of fault rupture characteristics on near-
subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31:2744–55. https://doi.org/ fault strong ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2010;100:37–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.07.002. 10.1785/0120090018.
[10] Goda K, Taylor C. Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong [26] Li Y, Song R, Lindt JW Van De. Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to
ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequences. ASCE J Struct Eng
2012;41(15):2311–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2188. 2014;140(12):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001019.
[11] Zhai CH, Wen WP, Chen ZQ, Li S, Xie LL. Damage spectra for the mainshock- [27] Ruiz-García J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2013;45:1–12. frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.10.001. sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33:621–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.
[12] Zhai CH, Wen WP, Li S, Chen ZQ, Chang Z, Xie LL. The damage investigation of 11.021.
inelastic SDOF structure under the mainshock-aftershock sequence-type ground [28] FEMA P695. Quantification of building seismic performance factors, Applied
motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2014;59:30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn. Technology Council (ATC). U.S.A: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.
2014.01.003. [29] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
[13] Abdelnaby A. Multiple earthquake effects on degrading reinforced concrete struc- 2002;31(3):491–514.
tures [PhD Dissertation]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 2012. [30] ASCE/SEI 41-13. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American
[14] Abdelnaby AE, Elnashai AS. Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2013.
systems under the Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthq Eng [31] Saatcioglu M, Grira M. Confinement of reinforced concrete columns with welded
2014;18:1009–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2014.923796. reinforcement grids. ACI Struct J 1999;96(1):29–39.
[15] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between ad- [32] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Fenves GL. OpenSees command language manual. Pac
jacent buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part II: the effect of multiple Earthq Eng Res (PEER) Cent 2005:264.
earthquakes. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42:1529–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/ [33] Mazzoni Silvia, McKenna Frank, Scott MichaelH, Fenves G. OpenSees users manual,
eqe.2284. PEER, University of California, Berkeley.
[16] Hatzivassiliou M, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional [34] Lignos D, Krawinkler H. Sidesway Collapse of Deteriorating Structural Systems
reinforced concrete buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;72:77–88. https://doi.org/ under Seismic Excitations. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Technical
10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.02.005. Report 177. Stanford Digital Repository; 2013. Available at: 〈http://purl.stanford.
[17] Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE. Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on edu/yg701cw5473〉.
the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;92:706–25. [35] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center. PEER strong motion database. 〈http://
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.11.006. peer/berkeley.edu/smcat〉.
[18] Raghunandan M, Liel AB, Luco N. Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of

173