Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Identification of incremental seismic damage development in RC structures T

excited with sequence-type ground motions
⁎
Xiang Guoa, Zheng Hea,b, , Jingjing Xua
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Aftershocks usually come after a mainshock. However, controversy of the impact of aftershocks on structures
Mainshock-aftershock arises in previous studies. To further interpret the effect of sequence-type ground motions on reinforced concrete
Seismic damage (RC) structures, an incremental seismic damage (ISD) model is proposed based on the modified Park-Ang model.
Earthquake Based on the ISD model, an attempt is made to identify the coupling mechanism between ISD and recorded peak
Frequency component
response, the transition in periods and the characteristics of sequence-type ground motions. The analogous
Analogous resonance
Reinforced concrete frame
resonance-type aftershocks defined herein provides some assistance in addressing such mechanism. Smaller post-
yielding stiffness implies more sensitivity of damage to excitations with long periods. The mean period of a
sequence-type motion is found to have a distinct impact on the global damage development tendency. The
coupling effect on ISD development is comprehensively investigated by several single-degree-of-freedom systems
and two RC frames. A mainshock-induced damage tolerance or “threshold” is observed, implying no obvious ISD
is developed unless a significant increment in recorded peak response is caused. The reduced earthquake re-
sistance reserve caused by mainshocks is not always consistent with ISD development.

1. Introduction adverse effect of sequence-type ground motions might be under-esti-

Earthquakes typically take place in terms of sequence-type ground
motions. A series of aftershocks with varying magnitudes usually comes
after a major mainshock. These aftershocks would inevitably cause an
increase in seismic damage of structures which may already experience
some degree of damage during the mainshock [46]. This incremental
seismic damage (ISD) can make damage development more devastating
or even cause structural collapse, resulting in more casualties and
greater economic losses [1,52]. For example, the Christchurch Cathe-
dral suffered little damage during the mainshock with a magnitude of
Mw 7.1 on September 4, 2010, and collapsed five months later caused
by ISD during the aftershock with a smaller magnitude of Mw 6.2 (see
Fig. 1). It can be explained by the analogous resonance phenomenon
between the damaged building caused by the mainshock and the
spectral characteristics of the aftershock. However, due to the in-
herently complicated coupling mechanism between the inelastic
structural response, the transition in vibration properties and the
spectral parameters of ground motions, reasonably predicting ISD de-
velopment during aftershocks is still difficult. Most of the current design
procedures are primarily based on single ground motion input. The
mated. The need to gain insight into the coupling mechanism between
structures and ground motions becomes imperative, whether for ra-
tional damage assessment or reasonable prediction about post-earth-
quake resistance reserve.
In 1980, Mahin [39] took a recorded natural mainshock-aftershock
ground motion to investigate its influence on the response of an elasto-
perfectly plastic single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system. He believed
that aftershocks can cause an increase in the demand of hysteretic en-
ergy dissipation (HED) and ductility in structures. As clarified further
by Faisal et al. [13], such an increase could reach 30% to 40% for the
maximum story drift. Wen et al. [58] also observed an increase of 15%
in the fragility of a structure with the consideration of aftershocks.
Compared with a single ground motion, earthquake-induced damage
can be accumulated by multiple ground motions [2,3]. Conventional
design approaches based on a single ground motion cannot meet the
demand from sequence-type ones [16]. This issue should be seriously
treated in future design practice [26]. However, some different con-
siderations arise in the selection of mainshock-aftershock ground mo-
tions. Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos [27] believed that artificially gener-
ated mainshock-aftershock motions can cause a substantial increase in

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian
116024, China.
E-mail addresses: guoxfox@mail.dlut.edu.cn (X. Guo), hezheng@dlut.edu.cn (Z. He), xujingjing1116@126.com (J. Xu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.01.012
Received 5 October 2019; Received in revised form 1 December 2019; Accepted 9 January 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Guo, et al.
(a) Mw 7.1 2010-09-04
Fig. 1. Christchurch Cathedral before and after the mainshock-aftershock.
the peak ductility demand of SDOF systems. Moustafa and Takewaki
[42] also observed a significant increase in the damage of structures
excited by randomly generated multiple ground motions. Con-
troversially, with a sequence-type ground motion generated from one
motion record from the Northridge earthquake in 1994 and one from
the Mammoth Lakes earthquake in 1980, Ruiz-García and Negrete-
Manriquez [54] concluded that the influence of aftershocks is insig-
nificant. By using a fully natural sequence-type record from the Tohoku
earthquake, Goda et al. [22] also found that in more than half of cases,
aftershocks did not cause a substantial increase in the demand of SDOF
systems that were simulated by the Bouc-Wen [6,7], hysteretic model.
Substantial accumulative damage was observed only in rare cases. A
comparative analysis with artificially generated mainshock-aftershocks
indicates that the controversy may arise partly from the incomplete
database of sequence-type records [23], and partly from the inability to
consider variations in the spectral parameters of artificially generated
mainshock-aftershocks. The correlation of the frequency components
between mainshocks and aftershocks was found to be weak [54].
However, Ruiz-García et al. [53] believed that the relationship between
the predominant periods of an aftershock and the vibration properties
of a structure of concern after experiencing a mainshock greatly affects
the structural response and the corresponding ISD development during
aftershocks. Unfortunately, most observations above are dependent, to
some extent, on case studies. The complicated coupling mechanism
between the ISD, the transition of structural vibration periods during
mainshock-aftershock motions and the characteristic quantities, i.e., the
magnitude, spectral characteristics, and the duration of mainshock-
aftershock motions, are not deeply involved.
The ISD during aftershocks is believed to be caused by an increase in
the HED and/or an increment in the maximum deformation response.
The ISD can be described by some direct response-related quantities,
e.g., the maximum displacement, residual displacement, and maximum
ductility factor, etc. [22,41], or by some indirect response-based
quantities, e.g., the distribution of plastic hinges [45], cracking-failure
ratios [36], visualized damage indexes [8,41], and energy-based da-
mage indexes [62], etc. There are some other damage models based on
the macroscopic variations of the dynamic properties, e.g. periods
(frequencies) and modes, of a structure of concern before and after
earthquakes [10,21,29]. Such variations comprehensively reflect the
impact of accumulative HED, strength deterioration and stiffness de-
gradation (including the pinch effect) during hysteresis. However, these
macroscopic damage models are not able to characterize the instability
failure arises from in-process excessive deformation. In view of its clear
physical interpretation of two major damage mechanisms, i.e. recorded
peak displacement response and HED, the linear weighted model pro-
posed by Park and Ang [47] for describing the damage of reinforced
concrete (RC) components has already been developed as the most
465
Structures 24 (2020) 464–476
(b) Mw 6.2 2011-02-22
classic group of response-based damage models. To avoid an over-
estimate of the displacement-induced part when components remain
elastic, Kunnath et al. [32] made a minor improvement on the Park-Ang
model (called the MPA model) and extended it to the characterization
of section damage of RC beams and columns [33]. Some other mod-
ifications have also been made in previous studies [11,34] for different
purposes. By comparing four different engineering demand parameters,
the MPA model is chosen to characterize structural damage with the
excitation of mainshock-aftershock sequence-type ground motions [58]
and to generate the damage spectra for accounting for the influence of
mainshock-aftershock sequence ground motions [59]. However, under
some circumstances, the MPA model may give rise to unrealistic da-
mage predictions. The MPA model needs further modifications and
development prior to the description of the ISD at the component level
and structure level.
This paper attempts to gain insight into the relation between the ISD
caused by aftershocks, the transition in structural vibration properties
and the spectral parameters of ground motions. The MPA model which
reflects the basic two damage generation mechanisms, i.e. the accu-
mulative HED and the maximum displacement response, is capped
based on the physically reasonable S-type global damage development
tendency. The rationality of the component-level ISD and the predicted
global seismic damage using the capped MPA model are validated by a
4-story RC frame. The relation between the ISD and the periods of ex-
citations is identified by several bilinear SDOF systems. The observa-
tions from the studies on the SDOF systems about the influence of two
different types of aftershocks, i.e. the strength-type and analogous re-
sonance-type, on the ISD are validated by a low-rise and a high-rise RC
frames. When relevant test data become available, further validation
will be performed.
2. Global seismic damage with capped component damage model
2.1. Inherent features of global damage development
According to the classic definitions of the damage index, structural
seismic damage indexes should fall within the range between 0 and 1.0.
Structural failure can be declared when a damage index reaches 1.0, i.e.
the upper limit as shown in Fig. 2. Structural damage indexes are
generated based on either the variation of macroscopic vibration
parameters, i.e. periods and modes, before and after earthquake ex-
citations or some weighted combination of those response-based in-
dexes evaluated at lower levels [30]. Many relevant studies have in-
dicated that the indexes generated from either the former case
[5,20,21,29,38] or the latter [12,14,28,55] approximately comply with
the S-type logistic development curve shown in Fig. 2. However, the
global seismic damage indexes obtained from some response-based
X. Guo, et al.
Fig. 2. The typical S-type and J-type global seismic damage development
curves.
damage models [24,25,31,32,48] are observed to obey the J-type de-
velopment curve. Although structural failure is also believed to occur
when the seismic damage index approach 1.0 in those response-based
models, the damage development does not seem to converge. Ob-
viously, it violates some general rules behind the development tendency
of structural damage.
As ground motion intensity increases, global seismic damage de-
velopment will start from the zero-damage segment (0-A1) shown in
Fig. 3, companied by an damage acceleration stage. The acceleration
stage of structural damage development implies the rapid spread of
plastic (concrete cracking, compressive plasticity etc.) components
within a structure when it experiences damage at a minor level. As the
earthquake intensity measure (IM) increases, the increase of the
number of plastic components becomes gradually steady, and plasticity
development becomes more concentrated in several positions or floors.
A further increase in earthquake IM may still cause an increase in the
local damage of these plastic components. However, the global seismic
damage development rate tends to de-accelerate as it is approaching
structural collapse. Physically, the complete structural global seismic
damage development curve can be characterized by five segments, as
illustrated in Fig. 3 [29]. Correspondingly, five damage states can be
therefore defined, i.e., Intact (or slight) (0-A1), minor (A1-A2), mod-
erate (A2-A3), severe (A3-A4), and collapse (A4-A5). Point A1 indicates
the elastic limit of a structure of concern, IM1, where damage starts to
develop. The transition point, Atrans, implies the fastest damage devel-
opment rate in the entire process. The damage index at the asymptotic
line, D5, towards which the segment A4-A5 converges, is conventionally
taken as 1.0.
The above five-segment S-type global seismic damage development
rule can be attributed to four aspects, i.e. 1) the mechanism of damage
introduction. The damage caused by an earthquake will develop and
increase as its intensity increases; 2) limited resources. That is the
number of structural components within a building is limited; 3) limit
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of global seismic damage development.
466
Structures 24 (2020) 464–476
capacity. Structural damage varies between the intact (zero damage)
and failure state (fully damaged). Even for a structural component ex-
periencing plasticity, its deformability is still limited; and 4) the exit
mechanism (failure of structural components). Failure of any structural
components also indicates the loss of its load bearing capacity. It plays a
major role throughout the process. The redistribution process of in-
ternal forces released from failed components occurs in a similar way
until structural collapse.
2.2. Interpretation of component-level incremental seismic damage
The component-level modified Park-Ang damage (MPA) model
[32], D, is expressed as the linear weighting function of displacement-
induced and HED-induced damage, i.e.
φmax − φr E
D= +β h
φu − φr My φu (1)
where, φmax and φr are the maximum curvature and its recovery por-
tion of a section, respectively; φu is the ultimate curvature of a section
under monotonic loading; My is the yield moment of a section; Eh is the
accumulative HED during an earthquake; and β is a nonnegative ac-
cumulative HED factor. It is a function of normal compressive stress,
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and transverse reinforcement ratio.
However, for analytical convenience, some constant values of β are
suggested for RC columns and beams, depending on the feature of
hysteretic rules [56].
The MPA damage index is a process variable, determined by an
accumulative computation of HED and a renewal process of recording
the maximum response after each analytical step throughout time his-
tory analysis. Thus, the MPA model can be modified naturally to
characterize the ISD of RC structures caused by any sequence-type
ground motions. Fig. 4 illustrates the two mechanisms of ISD. If after-
shock only causes some in-cyclic hysteresis loops within the position
where the mainshock-caused vibration terminates (see Point T in
Fig. 4(b)) and no update is performed on the recorded maximum cur-
vature, φmax, only the incremental HED-induced ISD can be expected. If
the aftershock-caused vibration is strong enough, at some time instants,
to override the maximum curvature recorded during the mainshock
(see Fig. 4(b)), the incremental displacement-induced ISD should be
counted and also the incremental HED-induced ISD.
Thus, it is understandable that no obvious ISD may occur even when
a significant displacement response is observed during an aftershock
due to a small increment in recorded peak displacement response. From
the physical point of view, the incremental displacement-induced ISD is
more related to the changes in the unrecovery parts of the maximum
curvatures, φp,m and φp,a, before and after excitation by aftershocks,
which are determined by
Mmax,m
φp,m = φmax,m −
α1 EI (2)
Mmax,a
φp,a = φmax,a −
α2 EI (3)
where, Mmax,m and φmax,m are the maximum moment and curvature,
respectively, of a section recorded during a mainshock; Mmax,a and
φmax,a are the maximum moment and curvature, respectively, of a
section recorded during an aftershock; EI is the elastic flexural stiffness
of a cross section; and α1 and α2 are the stiffness reduction factors of the
unloading process that starts from the maximum response during the
mainshock and aftershock, respectively, depending on the maximum
curvature where the unloading process starts.
According to the discussion above, the ISD, ΔDa, caused by an
aftershock can be evaluated by replacing φmax-φr in Eq. (1) with
Δφp = φp,a-φp,m, i.e.,
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

(a) ISD caused by HED only (b) ISD caused by ij+ HED

Fig. 4. The two mechanisms of ISD.

ΔE
h,a
⎪ β My φu
⎧ φmax,a ⩽ φmax,m
ΔDa =
⎨ Δφp + β ΔE h,a φ
⎪ φu − φr My φu max,a > φmax,m
⎩ (4)

where, ΔEh,a is the incremental HED during the excitation by an

aftershock. Actually, the ISD model shown in Eq. (4) is the reformula-
tion of the MPA model in Eq. (1). The major reason for the re-
formulation is to further clarify the two ISD control mechanism and to
systematically identify the correlation among the intensities of main-
shock-aftershock ground motions, pre-damage caused by mainshocks
and the transition of vibration periods, and the spectral characteristics
of aftershocks, as discussed later.
Thus, the accumulative component-level total damage, Dseq, re-
sulting from a mainshock-aftershock is
Fig. 5. The damage development of BS I-I under the CHY029 mainshock.
Dseq = Dm + ΔDa (5)
ISD is introduced only when the intensity of the aftershock, i.e. the
where, Dm is the component-level seismic damage determined by Eq. spectral acceleration, Sa(T1), is greater than 0.18 g. Table 1 lists the
(1) under a mainshock. A component damage is taken as the maximum statistical results of the damage indexes of the total 56 sections of the 4-
of the sections at the Gaussian integration points located at its two ends. story frame under different damage states, with the averaged damage
For RC structures, five damage states of the component can be indexes of 0.005, 0.148, 0.617 and 0.905 corresponding to the states
suggested, i.e. intact (slight) (DS1), minor (DS2), moderate (DS3), se- DS2 to DS5. The results are obtained by the stresses of the steel fibers
vere (DS4) and collapse (DS5), according to some literature [35,49,60]. and the strains of the concrete fibers monitored at the sections of the
The latter four damage states roughly correspond with concrete beam-column joints. For concrete fibers, the strains corresponding to
cracking, yielding of reinforcement, crushing of concrete cover and cracking (DS2) and cover crushing (DS4) are taken as 0.0009 and
crushing of core concrete, respectively. The example 4-story frame in −0.004, respectively, and the strain corresponding to core concrete
Section 4 (see Fig. 19) designed in accordance with current Chinese crushing (DS5) is determined by the suggested method of Mander et al.
code [17] is used to validate the component-level ISD and the accu- [40] for each section. If the strain of any concrete fiber reaches a spe-
mulative component-level total damage. The sequence-type CHY029 cified value, the corresponding section damage state is approached and
records (CHY029 M and A-1) downloaded from the Pacific Earthquake the damage index is calculated by Eq. (5). If any steel fiber reaches yield
Engineering Research (PEER) Center strong motion database [50] are strength (fy), section yielding is declared and the corresponding damage
used in this analysis. Detailed information of the 4-story planar frame index is calculated by Eq. (5). A large scatter is observed for the DS2
can be found in section 4 and the study by He et al. [30]. and DS3 damage states. Based on the results listed in Table 1 and the
If the frame is excited by only the mainshock of the Chi-Chi earth- above-mentioned literature [35,49,60], the ranges of the damage in-
quake with increasing intensity level, i.e., the spectral acceleration at dexes for the five damage states are suggested and listed in Table 2.
the fundamental vibration period, Sa(T1)m, until structural collapse
[denoted as M in Fig. 5], the damage of the bottom section (BS I-I) (see
2.3. Weighted combination with capped component-level damage
Fig. 19 in Section 4) in the frame obtained from the incremental dy-
namic analysis (IDA) [57] develops comparatively slowly during the
The weighted form put forward by Park et al. [48] is used to de-
states below DS3. Once reinforcement yields, the damage development
termine structural global damage, Dg, based on component-level da-
becomes much faster until an index of 0.911 is reached. If two main-
mage, in which the weighting coefficients are evaluated by the relative
shock-induced damage scenarios in BS I-I are considered, i.e.,
proportions of the energy dissipated by a concerned component to that
Dseq = 0.10 and 0.50 caused by Sa(T1)m = 0.417 g and 0.526 g, re-
dissipated by whole structure. Eqs. (6)–(8) show the determination
spectively, some differences can be observed in the damage develop-
process, i.e.
ment curves of BS I-I with the increasing intensity level of aftershock
(denoted as M+(A-1)). A clear damage tolerance or “threshold” is n

observed as well as a substantial decrease in aftershock resistance. The Dg = ∑ λi Di

i=1 (6)
term “threshold” was first put forward by Wu [61], which was used to
define the phenomenon of the variations in the vibration frequency and where, Di and λi are the damage index and HED-dependent weighting
equivalent damping ratio in the test of axial-bending RC columns. The coefficient of the ith-story, respectively, determined by

467
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Table 1
The means and COVs of all sections at different damage states under CHY029 motion.
Damage state Mainshock only Mainshock-aftershock

Sa(T1)m = 0.417 g* Sa(T1)m = 0.562 g

Mean COV Mean COV Mean COV

Concrete cracks (DS2) 0.005 0.283 0.004 0.203 0.007 0.344

Reinforcement yields (DS3) 0.145 0.209 0.152 0.324 0.147 0.348
Concrete cover crushes (DS4) 0.610 0.069 0.614 0.121 0.626 0.119
Core concrete crushes (DS5) 0.901 0.041 0.894 0.036 0.921 0.046

*Spectral acceleration of the mainshock.

m m
⎛ Eh, i, j ⎞
Di = ∑ λi, j Di, j = ∑ D
⎜ ∑m Eh, i, j ⎟ i, j
j=1 j=1 ⎝ j=1 ⎠ (7)
m
∑ j = 1 Eh, i, j
λi = n m
∑i = 1 ∑ j = 1 Eh, i, j (8)

where, Di,j is the component-level damage index (M-φ relationship)

determined by Eq. (5); Eh,i,j and λi,j are the HED and HED-dependent
weighting coefficient of the jth-component in the ith-story; n is the
number of stories; and m is the number of components in the ith-story.
In accordance with the conventional rage of damage indexes, the
predicted indexes by the MPA model are supposed to vary 0 and 1.0, as
demonstrated by abundant experiments [32,47]. Only those indexes fall
within this range are believed to viable. However, as most damage
assessment is conducted after the completion of time history analyses Fig. 6. The uncapped and capped MPA component damage model.
(THAs), not any intervention occurs during the analytical process. In
view of the holistic concern about computational stability, con-
vergence, efficiency, and accuracy of THAs, some modifications arise
from the computerized implementation process are carried out on the
hysteretic models of structural components. That is, the physically de-
fined MPA model could be numerically modified in some cases, e.g.
IDARC program [56]. Such modifications can possibly cause some fic-
titious response predictions which should not be included in the da-
mage assessment. To obtain more reasonable predictions from the nu-
merical analyses by using the MPA model, the MPA model needs to be
capped. From other aspects, the capped MPA model can approximately
account for the analogous exit mechanism of failed components al-
though they cannot be removed physically from a structural model of
concern while the THAs are in process. Thus, the component-level da-
mage, D, calculated by Eq. (1) is capped during THA (see Fig. 6), i.e.
φmax − φr E Fig. 7. The code-specified response spectrum and the spectra of selected ground
D= + β h ⩽ 1.0 motions.
φu − φr My φu (9)

Note that even with the capped MPA model, the generated damage
predictions may not be very accurate in some cases due to limitations
related to the model itself. As the classic response-based component-
level damage model, this model is still believed to be helpful for gaining
insight into the mechanism of ISD development of RC components and
the resulting damage development of RC structures under sequence-
type earthquakes.
To demonstrate the rationality of the global damage model by the
weighted combination with the capped MPA model, four ground
motions (without aftershocks) selected based on the code-specified
design spectrum [17] (see Fig. 7) are used to excite the aforementioned
4-story RC frame. The two curves from the uncapped and capped MPA
models (see Fig. 8) are similar under damage state DS3. Once one beam
fails, the uncapped model results in a nearly linear increase in the
global damage index with increasing earthquake intensity, not showing
any tendency to converge. The index reaches 1.0 while all the columns
are still working. The typical J-type damage development curve is

Table 2
Component damage descriptions and suggested ranges of damage indexes.
Damage states Descriptions Damage index

Intact (DS1) Uncracked concrete, fully elastic 0.0

Minor (DS2) Minor concrete cracks, insignificant compressive plasticity 0.0 ~ 0.10
Moderate (DS3) Obvious cracks, significant compressive plasticity, yielding of reinforcement 0.10 ~ 0.50
Severe (DS4) Concrete cover crushes, strain hardening of reinforcement, buckled reinforcement 0.50 ~ 0.90
Collapse (DS5) Core concrete crushes, ruptured reinforcement 0.90 ~ 1.0

468
X. Guo, et al.
Fig. 8. Relationship between global damage development and the maximum
story drift ratio of the 4-story frame under the Chi-Chi TCU129 ground motion.
Fig. 9. Global damage development of the 4-story frame under three ground
motions.
Fig. 10. Relationship between global damage development and plasticity de-
velopment.
observed in this case. With the uncapped MPA model, the earthquake
resistance of RC structures is significantly underestimated. A desirable
agreement is observed between the global damage predictions using the
capped MPA model and the maximum story drift response of the 4-story
frame. The capped MPA model has modified the approximately linear
relation between global seismic damage and the uncapped MPA com-
ponent damage. After the failure of several beam sections, structural
collapse is eventually triggered by the failure of columns, having a
damage index close to 1.0 when the maximum story drift curve starts to
diverge. The reasonability of the capped MPA model is thus demon-
strated. The maximum story drift ratio under the near-collapse state is
also very close to 4 percent as specified for the limit in the FEMA 356
guideline [15]. Such a development tendency can be found in the case
of the other three ground motions, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
469
Structures 24 (2020) 464–476
Fig. 10 also shows the increase of the ratios of plastic and failed
sections to all the sections of the frame under the Chi-Chi TCU089
earthquake, as spectral acceleration, Sa(T1), increases. The plastic sec-
tion ratio curve also complies with the S-type curve. The two curves
even agree well if the damage index is less than 0.60. As damage de-
velops further, the global damage index tends to become more speci-
fically related to the development of the failed sections, which even-
tually causes collapse. Fig. 10 also implies the characteristics of the
sparse distribution of plastic sections. Even under structural collapse,
only approximately 25 percentage of sections failed, and more than 30
percentage of sections remained intact.
3. Relation between ISD and the characteristic parameters of
earthquake
The duration of earthquake excitations can cause an increase in ISD
through accumulated HED during hysteresis. However, more significant
ISD in an RC structure is generally induced by an increased response
amplitude caused by either an aftershock with relatively high intensity
(called the strength-type aftershock) or by an aftershock having pre-
dominant periods close to the vibration periods of the structure (called
the analogous resonance-type aftershock). A strength-type aftershock
can exert great inertia forces on structures that can surpass the max-
imum response recorded during the mainshock. However, this type of
aftershock has a relatively small dynamic amplification factor due to
the sharp differences in the characteristic periods of a structure of
concern and aftershocks. The analogous resonance phenomenon usually
occurs in the second type of aftershock [54], which means that a sub-
stantial increase in structural response amplitude may be generated
even for aftershocks without high intensity.
3.1. Influential factors on structural damage
For the sake of discussion, the bilinear hysteretic model illustrated
in Fig. 11 with some different parameters is only used to identify the
interaction mechanism between the vibration periods of a damaged
bilinear structural system and the predominant period of dynamic ex-
citations. A series of harmonic excitations with varying periods are used
to approximately simulate a natural ground motion with complex fre-
quency components. The effect of each frequency component on the
damage of the SDOF systems can be identified. Any two excitations
with different periods can be used to construct a sequence-type ex-
citation. In Fig. 11, K0 and K′ are the initial stiffness and post-yielding
stiffness, respectively. The elastic vibration periods, T, of the SDOF-I, II
and III systems are 0.4sec, 0.4sec, and 0.8sec, respectively. The post-
yielding vibration periods, T′, of the three systems are 0.8sec, 1.2sec,
and 1.6sec, respectively. The damage model used here is not capped,
and the accumulative HED factor, β, is taken as 0.10.
The displacement response of the SDOF-I system (see Fig. 12(a))
clearly shows two peaks around the periods of the system, i.e., T = 0.4 s
Fig. 11. A bilinear hysteretic model with stiffness degradation.
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Fig. 12. Displacement and HED of the SDOF-I system excited by each single harmonic excitation.

Fig. 13. Damage indexes of the SDOF-I and SDOF-II systems excited by each single harmonic excitation.

and T′=0.8 s. The peak occurs first at Td/T = 1.0 if the system is in the
elastic state with relatively low-intensity excitations. As the PGA of
excitations increases, the peak moves rightward, close to the post-
yielding period, T′=0.8 s, of the system. In the case of HED, its domi-
nant part is also located near T′=0.8 s. As also indicated by Fig. 12,
either structural response or HED is almost dominated by the interval
between the elastic period, T, and the post-yielding period, T′. This
situation can be simply explained by the theory of resonance. The
distribution of the damage indexes within the range of the frequencies
of all harmonic excitations also verifies these observations (see Fig. 13).
Smaller post-yielding stiffness indicates more sensitivity of the damage
indexes to those excitations having long periods. A larger interval be-
tween T and T′ implies a broader dominant bandwidth of response and
damage, as observed by Fig. 13.
To investigate the influence of the mainshock on the ISD, the SDOF-I Fig. 14. ISD of the SDOF-I system with different mainshock-induced damage
system is excited with some artificially treated mainshock-aftershock under a harmonic excitation of 0.03 g.
harmonic excitations. A mainshock with four different amplitudes
causes the system to experience damage, Dm, equal to 0, 0.2, 0.4 and type ground motions, mainshock-induced damage and structural vi-
0.6. Then, this damaged system is subjected to a series of harmonic bration properties are believed to be influential for subsequent damage
excitations with a constant PGA level of 0.03 g and varying periods development during aftershocks.
from 0.1sec to 1.5sec. The ISD is found to exhibit the most sensitive
range between the two periods (see Fig. 14). More severe mainshock- 3.2. Selection of frequency component parameters
induced damage makes the system more sensitive to excitations with
relatively longer periods. In other respects, a damaged structural system The spectral characteristics of natural ground motions are much
can make the structure less sensitive, from the standpoint of ISD, to more complex than harmonic excitations. Three frequency component
subsequent excitations near its elastic vibration periods. Fig. 14 also parameters, i.e., the predominant period of acceleration ground motion,
implies a smaller increase in the ISD of a system having heavier TpA, the characteristic period of design response spectrum, Tg [18] and
mainshock-induced damage. Figs. 12–14 indicate that even if a system the mean period, Tm [51], are chosen to investigate their relations with
has experienced severe damage under the mainshock, the aftershock- damage development. Both TpA and Tg are defined based on the re-
induced ISD can still be controllable if structural vibration periods can sponse acceleration spectrum with a damping ratio of 5%. The TpA re-
be moved far from the predominant periods of earthquakes. In addition, flects the local quantity of the most prominent frequency component of
the intervals of the vibration periods of a structural system under dif- the acceleration response spectrum of a ground motion. The mean
ferent states, including elastic, elastoplastic and near-collapse states, period, Tm, is defined based on a ground motion of concern itself, which
are crucial for determining the possible sensitive bandwidth of periods is expressed by the weighted combination of the Fourier amplitudes
to earthquakes. The amplitude and spectral characteristics of sequence- within a specified frequency range as follows [51]:

470
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Fig. 15. Correlation between structural damage index and TpA under single earthquake.

Fig. 16. Correlation between structural damage index and Tg under single earthquake.

Fig. 17. Correlation between structural damage index and Tm under single earthquake.

l
∑k = 1 Ck2/ fk
Tm = l
∑k = 1 Ck2 (10)

where, l is the number of discretized frequency points; fk is the fre-

quency at the kth-point, varying between 0.25 Hz and 20 Hz; and Ck is
the amplitude of the discrete Fourier transformation corresponding to
the frequency point fk. According to the value of Tm, ground motions
can be classified as short-period (S) (Tm ≤ 0.5 s) and long-period mo-
tions (L) (Tm > 0.5 s) [37].
To reduce the so-called motion-to-motion variance during the in-
vestigation, a total of 205 ground motions having various spectral
characteristics are randomly selected from the PEER Strong Motion
Database [50] and the NIED strong-motion seismograph networks [43],
and the PGA levels of all motions are adjusted to 0.05 g. Figs. 15–17
Fig. 18. Correlation between ISD and Tm under mainshock-aftershocks.
show the distributions of the damage indexes of the SDOF-I and SDOF-
III systems under all single excitations in the case of the three frequency
component parameters. Note that if the predominant period, TpA, is
applied, most of the indexes of both systems are concentrated within

471
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Fig. 19. Elevations of two RC frames (unit: mm).

Table 3
Information about selected mainshock-aftershock sequence-type ground motions.
Date Station M/A1 Mw2 PGA (g) Type3 Tm (s) Ds4 (s)

Chi-Chi earthquake 1999-09-20 CHY024 M 7.6 0.278 L 0.890 24.14

A-1 5.9 0.0313 S 0.300 16.66
A-2 6.2 0.187 L 1.200 18.06
CHY029 M 7.6 0.277 L 0.885 32.55
A-1 5.9 0.0454 S 0.320 10.24
A-2 6.2 0.0705 L 1.211 9.08
CHY035 M 7.6 0.252 L 0.842 27.90
A-1 5.9 0.0251 S 0.409 7.80
A-2 6.2 0.2001 L 0.963 9.61
Tohoku earthquake 2011-03-11 MYG004 M 9.0 2.755 S 0.200 79.71
A 7.5 0.0977 S 0.180 62.39
MYG010 M 9.0 0.468 S 0.457 55.63
A 7.5 0.0485 L 0.821 71.40
Nepal earthquake 2015-04-25 Kanti Path, Kathmandu M 7.8 0.160 L 1.440 82.61
2015-05-12 A 7.3 0.0775 L 1.450 85.29
Christchurch earthquake 2010-09-04 ASHS M 7.1 1.656 S 0.417 20.48
2011-02-22 A 6.2 0.927 L 0.542 29.78

1
Mainshock/aftershock; 2Magnitude; 3S: Tm ≤ 0.5sec; L: Tm > 0.5sec; 4Energy-based duration [4].

the range between 0 and the elastic vibration periods, T1, showing the
least correlation with structural vibration properties (see Fig. 15). When
the characteristic period, Tg, is applied, the distributions of the indexes
become comparatively more reasonable. However, the most severe
damage is still concentrated at a smaller period than T1 (see Fig. 16). If
the mean period, Tm, is adopted, this distribution becomes the most
credible. The maximum damage appears near T1, and the indexes tend
to decrease gradually as |Tm–T1| increases (see Fig. 17), consistent with
those observations achieved. Thus, the mean period, Tm, is selected as
the frequency component parameter in the later discussion.
The selected ground motions also act as aftershocks, and the PGA
levels of the motions are adjusted to 0.15 g. With the mean period, Tm,

472
X. Guo, et al.
Fig. 20. The response spectra of the selected mainshocks and aftershocks.
Fig. 18 shows the distribution of the ISD indexes, ΔDa, of the SDOF-I
system under all motions as aftershocks, with the mainshock-induced
damage index, Dm, equal to 0.6. As a result of damage development, the
sensitive period of the system, Ts, switches from 0.4sec to 0.6sec, ex-
hibiting a clear correlation between the ISD indexes and the mean
periods, Tm, of ground motions. Thus, these observations can be used to
account for the analogous resonance phenomenon that induces sig-
nificant ISD in RC structures under sequence-type ground motions. The
mainshock-induced damage triggers the transition of vibration prop-
erties and results in the occurrence of analogous resonance phenomena
during aftershocks.
4. Verification
To verify the observations from the SDOF systems above, a low-rise
(4-story) RC frame and a high-rise (12-story) RC frame (see Fig. 19) are
designed in accordance with the current Chinese code [17] and have a
design fortification intensity of 8 degree, a first seismic design group
and a site classification of II. The roof dead load and roof live load are
taken as 7 kN/m2 and 0.7 kN/m2, respectively. The floor dead load and
floor live load are taken as 5kN/m2 and 2.5 kN/m2, respectively. The
specified yield strengths of longitudinal and transverse reinforcements
in all components are 335 MPa and 300 MPa, respectively. The concrete
cover is 30 mm and the concrete grade is C30. The OpenSees program
[44], developed by the PEER Center, is used to model the frames by the
nonlinearBeamColumn fiber elements with Concrete02 and Steel02
materials for simulating the behavior of concrete and steel, respec-
tively. Both the two materials are capable of describing the stiffness
degradation while the Concrete02 material can also account for the
strength degradation. Information on the section and reinforcement of
all components can be found elsewhere [30]. The lower three vibration
periods of the 4-story frame are 0.98 s, 0.31 s, and 0.17 s, respectively.
For the 12-story frame, the lower three periods are 2.06 s, 0.70 s, and
Fig. 21. Total damage development of the 4-story frame under Chi-Chi CHY029 mainshock-aftershock ground motion.
473
Structures 24 (2020) 464–476
0.41 s, respectively. Ten sequence-type ground motions (see Table 3)
are selected deliberately from four earthquake events, i.e. Chi-Chi
earthquake [50], Tohoku earthquake [43], Nepal earthquake [9] and
Christchurch earthquake [19]. The motion records are selected by
several rules, i.e. 1) records are corrected before they are officially
available; 2) the far-field records are preferred; 3) the magnitudes of
Richter scale of all records are not lower than M5.0; 4) the PGA levels of
all mainshocks are not less than 0.10 g; 5) records can exhibit a sig-
nificant variation in spectral characteristics and durations. According to
the mean period, the selected ground motions can be classified as L type
and S-type, as listed in Table 3. It is noteworthy that both the main-
shock and aftershock from the Nepal earthquake have extremely longer
mean periods than others. Comparatively, the mean periods of the
mainshock and aftershock from the Christchurch earthquake are much
shorter. The PGA levels of some aftershocks (CHY024 A-2, CHY035 A-2,
and ASHS A) are greater than 0.10 g while others are not (CHY024 A-1,
CHY029 A-1, CHY029 A-2, CHY035 A-1, MYG004 A, MYG010 A, and
Kanti Path A). All the mainshocks and aftershocks are scaled during the
analyses. To achieve a closer relation with structural response, the
spectra acceleration, i.e. Sa(T1), is used as an intensity measure in all
the analyses. The response spectra of the selected mainshocks and
aftershocks are shown in Fig. 20.
Figs. 21 and 22 show the development of total damage of the two
frames with different degrees of mainshock-induced damage (MD), i.e.,
0, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6, and two different aftershock combinations, i.e.,
CHY029-L [M+(A-2)] and CHY029-S [M+(A-1)]. All the damage de-
velopment curves of the 4-story and 12-story frames, under the ex-
citation of the short-period CHY029-S motion, tend to become closer as
the intensity of the aftershock increases until collapses take place
around spectral accelerations, Sa(T1), equal to 1.2 g and 0.55 g, re-
spectively, regardless of the degree of mainshock-induced damage. In
this situation, the CHY029-S ground motion should be treated as one
strength-type aftershock for the two frames. When replaced with the
long-period CHY029-L ground motion, the ultimate earthquake re-
sistance of the two frames is dramatically reduced. As far as the 4-story
frame is concerned, the CHY029-L motion is a typical analogous re-
sonance-type aftershock. The so-called damage tolerance or
“threshold”, as mentioned previously, is also clearly shown in Figs. 21
and 22. The ISD occurs only if a certain level of aftershock intensity is
exceeded. Because of the existence of the damage threshold, the da-
mage development rates of different mainshock-induced damage sce-
narios beyond the moderate stage are different. It is interesting that the
4-story frame without any mainshock-induced damage undergoes ex-
traordinarily faster damage development than other cases (see
Fig. 21(b)).
To account for the observations from Fig. 21(b), Table 4 lists the
lower three periods of the 4-story frame under three long-period
aftershocks. Two mainshock-induced damage states, i.e., DS1 and DS3,
are considered. The fundamental period of the frame without any
mainshock-induced damage increases from 0.98 s to 1.33 s when
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Fig. 22. Total damage development of the 12-story frame Chi-Chi CHY029 mainshock-aftershock ground motion.

Table 4 increment in the recorded maximum response amplitude, not simply

The lower three periods of the 4-story frame before and after three aftershocks the absolute displacement response.
(Sa(T1) = 0.34 g).
Damage caused Mode CHY024-L CHY029-L CHY035-L 5. Conclusions
by mainshock (Tm = 1.20 s) (Tm = 1.21 s) (Tm = 0.96 s)
An insight is taken to investigate the relation between incremental
Before After Before After Before After
seismic damage (ISD) development, the transition of vibration proper-
(s) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
ties in structures, and the features of sequence-type ground motions.
DS1 = 0 (intact) 1st 0.98 1.31 0.98 1.33 0.98 1.28 Some observations are obtained as follows:
2nd 0.31 0.35 0.31 0.37 0.31 0.36
3rd 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.18 (1). As indicated by the component-level modified Park-Ang (MPA)
DS3 = 0.20 1st 1.28 1.48 1.28 1.55 1.22 1.41
(moderate) 2nd 0.34 0.41 0.34 0.48 0.33 0.42
damage model, aftershocks can be classified as strength-type and
3rd 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.18 0.22 analogous resonance-type aftershocks. The rationality of ISD with
the capped MPA model is demonstrated. By this, a damage toler-
ance or “threshold” is observed in all the numerical results, as
excited by the CHY029-L motion, very close to the mean period, Tm, of confirmed by Wu [61] in the test of axial-flexure RC columns. It
the motion, i.e., Tm = 1.21 s. The analogous resonance phenomenon is implies that no obvious ISD is introduced until a significant in-
believed to occur during the vibration process. As a result, the response crement in structural response caused by either type of strong
of the 4-story frame is amplified, and damage develops much faster aftershocks.
than before. When the mainshock-induced damage becomes 0.20, the (2). The five-segment S-type development rule of the global seismic
fundamental period of the frame increases from 0.98 s to 1.28 s. When damage of RC structures is verified. The so-called exit mechanism
the CHY029-L motion terminates, the fundamental period of the frame plays a major role throughout global seismic damage development.
increases to 1.55 s, far above the mean period, Tm = 1.21 s, of the The global damage predictions using the capped MPA component
motion. damage model exhibit desirable agreement with both the max-
Fig. 23 shows the total damage development of the 12-story frame imum story drift response and the plasticity development of cross
excited by the other eight mainshock-aftershock motions, where dif- sections.
ferent mainshock-induced damage levels are considered, i.e., 0, 0.2, (3). The investigation on the three bilinear SDOF systems indicates that
0.4, and 0.6. Although these motions differ greatly from each other, all the interval between the vibration periods before and after yielding
the damage development curves comply with the S-type curve regard- greatly influences structural responses and damage indexes.
less of the mainshock-induced damage degree. The damage indexes of Smaller post-yielding stiffness implies more sensitivity of damage
all cases at the near-collapse state are beyond 0.9, and the corre- indexes to the excitations with a long period. Even experienced
sponding maximum story drifts are also close to the specified limit in severe damage in a mainshock, the ISD caused by aftershocks is
the EMA 356 guideline [15]. The impact of mainshock-induced damage still controllable if structural vibration periods can be deviated far
on subsequent damage development during an aftershock has a strong from the mean period of motions. It is the mainshock-induced
relation with the spectral characteristics and duration of the aftershock. damage that causes the transition of vibration periods and the
For the ground motions of the Chi-Chi and Christchurch earthquakes, analogous resonance in aftershocks. The amplitudes and spectral
such an impact seems to be insignificant if the aftershock intensity is characteristics of sequence-type motions, and the transition of
above a certain level (see Fig. 23 (a)–(d) and (h)). However, for other structural dynamic properties are influential for determining the
motions (see Fig. 23(e)–(g)), such impacts become significant, espe- ISD.
cially for the ground motion from the Nepal earthquake (see Fig. 23(g)). (4). As indicated by the example RC frames, the reduction in earth-
These motions have relatively longest mean periods or durations, which quake resistance caused by mainshocks does not always increase
are most unfavorable for the frame with some mainshock-induced da- obviously as damage developments. As aftershock intensity in-
mage. Note that severe mainshock-induced damage does not always creases, all the global seismic damage development curves with
cause a significant reduction in post-mainshock resistance (see Figs. 21 different mainshock-induced initial damage tend to get close to-
and 22(a), 23(c), (d), (g), (h)). Thus, in the investigation of the ISD gether. The mean period of sequence-type ground motions tends to
development of RC frames excited by sequence-type ground motions, have a significant impact on the global damage development of RC
the transition of structural vibration properties during the motions and structures under some circumstances. From the aspect of seismic
the mean period of the motions should be considered simultaneously. It design practice for major projects, in order to mitigate the so-called
is observed that higher damage tolerance or “threshold” is generated analogous resonance, the transitioned vibration periods, especially
from greater mainshock-induced damage. The ISD relies mostly on an the fundamental vibration period, of a structure of concern that

474
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Fig. 23. Global seismic damage development of the 12-story frame under several mainshock-aftershock ground motions.

experiencing substantial damage under rare-level earthquakes Declaration of Competing Interest

should be controlled to deviate, as far as possible, from the mean
period of sequence-type ground motions which can be evaluated by The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
site hazard analysis. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

475
X. Guo, et al. Structures 24 (2020) 464–476

Acknowledgement [31] Hindi RA, Sexsmith RG. A proposed damage model for RC bridge columns under
cyclic loading. Earthquake Spectra 2001;17(2):261–90.
[32] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Abel JFA. Computational tool for evaluation of seismic
This research is financially supported by the Natural Science performance of reinforced concrete buildings. Comput Struct 1991;41(1):157–73.
Foundation of China (Grant No. 51878123) and the Fundamental [33] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Lobo RF. IDARC version 3.0: a program for the inelastic
Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. DUT19G208). damage analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Technical Report NCEER-92-
0022. New York; 1992.
[34] Kumar S, Usami T. Damage evaluation in steel box columns by cyclic loading tests. J
References Struct Eng 1996;122(6):626–34.
[35] Ladjinovic D, Folic R. Application of improved damage index for designing of
earthquake resistant structures. In: 13th WCEE, Vancouver, B.C. Canada; 2004;
[1] Abdelnaby AE, Elnashai AS. Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame
Paper No. 2135, 1–15.
systems under the Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthquake
[36] Li Q, Ellingwood BR. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame
Eng 2014;18(7):1009–36.
buildings under main shock–aftershock earthquake sequences. Earthquake Eng
[2] Abdelnaby AE, Elnashai AS. Numerical modeling and analysis of RC frames sub-
Struct Dyn 2007;36(3):405–27.
jected to multiple earthquakes. Earthquakes Struct 2015;9(5):957–81.
[37] Li Y, Song R, Van De Lindt JW. Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to
[3] Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S. The effects of repeated earthquake ground
earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequences. J Struct Eng 2014;140(12):04014095.
motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
[38] Lu X, Huang Z, Zhou Y. Global seismic damage assessment of high-rise hybrid
2003;32(2):291–308.
structures. Comput Struct 2011;8(3):311–25.
[4] Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity, seismic design for nuclear power plants.
[39] Mahin SA. Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquake. In:
Cambridge (MA), USA: MIT Press; 1970.
Proceedings of the seventh world conference on earthquake engineering, Istanbul,
[5] Azhdary F, Shabakhty N. Probabilistic evaluation of damage index of steel moment
Turkey 1980; 5, 677–9.
frames at different performance levels. J Appl Sci Agr 2013;8(3):213–23.
[40] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
[6] Baber TT, Noori MN. Random vibration of degrading pinching systems. J Eng Mech
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
1985;111(8):1010–26.
[41] Moshref A, Khanmohammadi M, Tehranizadeh M. Assessment of the seismic ca-
[7] Bouc R. Forced vibration of mechanical systems with hysteresis. In: Proceedings of
pacity of mainshock-damaged reinforced concrete columns. Bull Earthq Eng
the 4th conference on non-linear oscillations, Prague, 1967.
2017;15(1):291–311.
[8] Burton HV, Sreekumar S, Sharma M, Sun H. Estimating aftershock collapse vul-
[42] Moustafa A, Takewaki I. Response of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom structures
nerability using mainshock intensity, structural response and physical damage in-
to random acceleration sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(4):1251–8.
dicators. Struct Safety 2017;2017(68):85–96.
[43] NIED. http://www.kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/. National Research Institute for Earth
[9] CESMD. http://strongmotioncenter.org/. Center for Engineering Strong Motion
Science and Disaster Prevention, Japan, 2017.
Data. Sacramento and Menlo Park, California, USA, 2017.
[44] OpenSees, version 2.5.0, Computer software, Berkeley, CA, Pacific Earthquake
[10] DiPasquale E, Cakmak AS. Identification of the serviceability limit state and de-
Engineering Research Center. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/, 2017.
tection of seismic structural damage. Technical Report, NCEER-88-0022, New York,
[45] Oyguc R, Toros C, Abdelnaby A. Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced-concrete
1988.
structures under multiple earthquake excitations. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
[11] Fajfa P. Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue.
2018;2018(104):15–32.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21(10):837–48.
[46] Oyarzo-Vera C, Chouw N. Effect of earthquake duration and sequences of ground
[12] Erduran E, Yakut A. Drift based damage functions for reinforced concrete columns.
motions on structural responses. In: 10th international symposium on structural
Comput Struct 2004;82(2–3):121–30.
engineering for young experts, Changsha, Hunan, China; 2008.
[13] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Investigation of story ductility demands of
[47] Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J
inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Struct Eng 1985;111(4):722–39.
Eng 2013;44(1):42–53.
[48] Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete
[14] Faleiro J, Oller S, Barbat AH. Plastic–damage seismic model for reinforced concrete
buildings. J Struct Eng 1985;111(4):740–57.
frames. Comput Struct 2008;86(7–8):581–97.
[49] Park YJ, Ang AHS, Wen YK. Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings.
[15] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Earthquake Spectra 1987;3(1):1–26.
Report No. FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[50] PEER Strong Motion Database. https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/. Pacific Earthquake
USA, 2000.
Engineering Research (PEER) Center, Berkeley, California, USA; 2017.
[16] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames under re-
[51] Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JD. Simplified frequency component estimates of
peated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 2004;26(13):2021–35.
earthquake ground motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(2):150–9.
[17] GB50011−2010. Code for seismic design of buildings. Beijing, China: China
[52] Rupakhety R, Olafsson S, Halldorsson B. The 2015 Mw 7.8 Gorkha earthquake in
Architecture & Building Press; 2010. (in Chinese).
Nepal and its aftershocks: analysis of strong ground motion. Bull Earthquake Eng
[18] GB18306-2001. Seismic. parameter zoning map of China. Beijing, China: China
2017;15(7):1–30.
Architecture & Building Press; 2001. (in Chinese).
[53] Ruiz-García J, Marín MV, Terán-Gilmore A. Effect of seismic sequences in re-
[19] GeoNet. http://info.geonet.org.nz/x/TQAdAQ. New Zealand Strong Motion
inforced concrete frame buildings located in soft-soil sites. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
Database, New Zealand, 2019.
2014;63:56–68.
[20] Ghobarah A. On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In:
[54] Ruiz-García J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation: proceedings of the
frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic
international workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 2004; 28, 321–332.
sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(2):621–34.
[21] Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A. Response-based damage assessment of
[55] Scotta R, Tesser L, Vitaliani R, Saetta A. Global damage indexes for the seismic
structure. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28(1):79–104.
performance assessement of RC structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
[22] Goda K, Wenzel F, Risi RD. Empirical assessment of non-linear seismic demand of
2009;38(8):1027–49.
mainshock–aftershock ground-motion sequences for Japanese earthquakes. Front
[56] Valles RE, Reinforn AM, Kunnath SK, Li C, Madan A. IDARC 2D Version 4.0: a
Built Environ 2015;2015(1):1–6.
program for the inelastic damage of buildings. Report No. NCEER-96-0010,
[23] Goda K, Taylor CA. Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York
ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Eng Struct
at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; 1996.
Dyn 2012;41(15):2311–30.
[57] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct
[24] Gunturi SKV, Shah HC. Building specific damage estimation. In: Earthquake en-
Dyn 2002;31(3):491–514.
gineering tenth world conference, Balkema, Rotterdam; 1992.
[58] Wen W, Zhai C, Ji D, Li S, Xie L. Framework for the vulnerability assessment of
[25] Guo J, Wang JJ, Li Y, Zhao WG, Du YL. Three dimensional extension for Park and
structure under mainshock-aftershock sequences. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
Ang damage model. Structures 2016;7:184–94.
2017;101:41–52.
[26] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated
[59] Wen W, Zhai C, Ji D. Damage spectra of global crustal seismic sequences con-
strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2010;30(10):1010–25.
sidering scaling issues of aftershock ground motions. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
[27] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures
2018;47(10):2076–93.
subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31(11):2744–55.
[60] Williams M, Sexsmith R. Seismic damage indices for concrete structures: a state-of-
[28] Hanganu AD, Onate E, Barbat AH. A finite element methodology for local/global
the-art review. Earthquake Spectra 1995;11(2). 319-249.
damage evaluation in civil engineering structures. Comput Struct
[61] Wu B. Experiment and analysis for the damage of R.C. structures under mainshock
2002;80(20):1667–87.
and aftershocks, Ph.D. thesis, Harbin Architectural and Civil Engineering Institute;
[29] He Z, Guo X, Zhang YT, Ou XY. Global seismic damage model of RC structures based
1993. (in Chinese).
on structural modal properties. J Struct Eng 2018;144(10):04018171.
[62] Zhai C, Wen W, Chen Z, Li S, Xie L. Damage spectra for the mainshock–aftershock
[30] He Z, Ou XY, Ou JP. A macro-level global seismic damage model with the con-
sequence-type ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2013;45(1):1–12.
sideration of higher mode. Earthquake Eng Eng Vib 2014;13(3):425–36.

476