Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Cumulative Damage of Structures under the

Mainshock-aftershock Sequences in the Near-fault
Region

Weiping Wen, Duofa Ji & Changhai Zhai

To cite this article: Weiping Wen, Duofa Ji & Changhai Zhai (2020): Cumulative Damage of
Structures under the Mainshock-aftershock Sequences in the Near-fault Region, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1754307

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1754307

Published online: 30 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20
JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2020.1754307

Cumulative Damage of Structures under the

Mainshock-aftershock Sequences in the Near-fault Region
Weiping Wena,b, Duofa Jia,b, and Changhai Zhaia,b
a
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Harbin, China; bKey Lab of Smart Prevention and Mitigation of Civil Engineering Disaster of the
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This manuscript quantifies the effects of aftershocks with pulse characteristics Received 1 March 2019
on the cumulative damage of structures. The revised randomization method is Accepted 7 April 2020
developed to generate the artificial mainshock-aftershock (MSAS) ground KEYWORDS
motions showing pulse characteristics. The efficiency of period normalization Cumulative damage;
is discussed from the point of view of dispersion, and the effects of the aftershock; near-fault; pulse
aftershocks are quantitatively studied. It is found that strong aftershock can characteristics; period
contaminate the efficiency of period normalization, and the effects of strong normalization
aftershocks in the near-fault region on cumulative damage can exceed 20%
and reach 40%. The equations are proposed for the prediction of damage
induced by pulse-like MSAS sequences.

1. Introduction
The damage potential of mainshock-aftershock (MSAS) ground motions has received
many attentions during the last decade, due to the cumulative damage induced by multiple
events. Some researchers focused on the responses of single degree of freedom (SDOF)
systems under the MSAS sequences, and proposed different kinds of spectral tools for the
performance evaluation or seismic design, such as inelastic displacement ratio
(Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos 2009; Zhai et al. 2015a), ductility demand (Goda and Taylor
2012; Hatzigeorgiou 2010a), strength reduction factor (or behavior factor) (Amadio,
Fragiacomo, and Rajgelj 2003; Hatzigeorgiou 2010a; Zhai et al. 2015b), input energy
(Zhai et al. 2016), and damage spectra (Wen et al. 2018b; Wen, Zhai, and Ji 2018a).
Some researchers (Ghosh, Padgett, and Sánchez-Silva 2015; Han, Li, and Van de Lindt
2014; Jalayer and Ebrahimian 2017; Jeon et al. 2015; Raghunandan, Liel, and Luco 2015;
Ruiz-García 2012; Ruiz-García and Negrete-Manriquez 2011; Shin, Kim, and Lee 2014;
Wen et al. 2017) also focused on the responses of multiple degree of freedom (MDOF)
systems under the MSAS sequences.
However, just a few works focused on the impact of MSAS sequences in the near-fault
region on the damage of structures. Hatzigeorgiou (2010a, 2010b) studied the seismic
responses of SDOF systems under the MSAS sequences in the near-fault region, and
proposed the ductility demand and behavior factor for the performance evaluation and
seismic design. Ruiz-García and Negrete-Manriquez (2011) as well as Ruiz-García (2012)
investigated the performance of a steel frame structure under the 14 near-fault as-recorded

CONTACT Duofa Ji jiduofa@hit.edu.cn School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090,
China
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 W. WEN ET AL.

seismic sequences captured during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and the results
indicated that near-fault MSAS ground motions induced higher seismic demand than
the far-field MSAS ground motions. The peak deformation is used in those studies to
quantify the cumulative induce by near-fault MSAS ground motions. However, it has been
found that aftershocks tend to cause many inelastic deformation reversals with non-peak
values, and the damage consists of those non-peak reversals should be incorporated into
the quantification of cumulative damage (Zhai et al. 2014). Although the work by Wen
et al. (2018a) studied the cumulative damage induced by global seismic sequences, the
impact of MSAS sequences in the near-fault region was ignored and proposed prediction
equation in that work was non-applicable for the MSAS sequences in the near-fault region.
Near-fault MSAS ground motions, in which mainshock and aftershock both show the
pulse-like characteristics, have been observed in several earthquakes (e.g. 1994 Northridge
earthquake, 1999 ChiChi earthquake, and 2010 Darfield earthquake). Due to the well-
known damage potential of pulse-like records, the near-fault MSAS ground motion tends
to cause more significant damage on the structures. Therefore, it is necessary to quantify
the cumulative damage induced by near-fault MSAS ground motions.
Based on the above discussions, this manuscript aims to quantify the cumulative
damage induced by near-fault MSAS sequences and propose a tool to predict this kind
of cumulative damage. The revised randomization method is developed to generate the
artificial near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground motion sequences based on recorded ground
motions. The effects of aftershocks on the cumulative damage are quantitatively studied,
and the prediction equation is finally proposed.

2. Ground Motions and Cumulative Damage

2.1. Ground Motions
The number of near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground motions recorded in the previous
earthquakes is very limited, and it is impossible to quantify the cumulative damage
induced by MSAS sequences statistically in the current stage with the as-recorded near-
fault pulse-like ground motions, because the variation in the MSAS ground motions
cannot be reliably incorporated with the limited ground motions. Thus, using artificial
MSAS ground motions is a reasonable alternative.
The artificial MSAS sequences are generated by replication and randomization methods
based on recorded ground motions. The replication method repeats the mainshock record
two or more times to generate the artificial MSAS sequences (Amadio, Fragiacomo, and
Rajgelj 2003), making the mainshock and aftershock in the same sequence possess the
identical characteristics of ground motion (e.g. amplitude, duration, and frequency con-
tent). The randomization method randomly combines two or more different ground
motions from the same group to generate the artificial MSAS sequences (Hatzigeorgiou
and Beskos 2009; Hatzigeorgiou 2010a, 2010b; Faisal, Majid, and Hatzigeorgiou 2013;
Ebrahimian et al. 2014; Li, Song, and Van De Lindt 2014; Raghunandan, Liel, and Luco
2015; Jeon et al. 2015; Jeon, DesRoches, and Lee 2016; Ghosh, Padgett, and Sánchez-Silva
2015; Zhai et al., 2015b). If we just look at a single artificial MSAS sequence, it seems that
the randomization method produces more realistic results than the replication method,
because the ground motion characteristics of mainshock and aftershocks in an individual
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 3

artificial sequence generated by the randomization method are different, which has been
observed in the as-recorded MSAS sequences. However, if we look at a group of artificial
MSAS sequences, the randomization method shows similar deficiency as the replication
method, because the former method makes the mean response spectra (and other kinds of
characteristics, e.g. duration and predominant period) of aftershock ground motions in
different artificial sequences be identical with those of corresponding mainshock ground
motions. Based on the results in references (Goda 2015; Wen, Zhai, and Ji 2018a) which
selected the as-recorded MSAS sequences in their studies, the mean response spectra of
aftershock ground motions are obviously lower than those of corresponding mainshock
ground motions.
In order to keep the advantage of randomization method on a single MSAS sequence,
and meanwhile remove the deficiency of this method on a group of MSAS sequences, two
different groups of near-fault pulse-like ground motions (denoted as groups 1 and 2 here)
are firstly collected as seeds to generate the artificial MSAS sequences. The seeds in the
group 1 are collected from the as-recorded mainshock records, and the seeds in group 2
are collected from the as-recorded aftershock records (generally recorded in the different
sequences or stations with those in group 1). Then, an artificial MSAS sequence can be
generated by combing one mainshock seed (randomly selected from group 1) and one
aftershock seed (randomly selected from group 2) together. Finally, this process is
repeated for all the seeds in groups 1 and 2. With this revised randomization method,
the ground motion characteristics of MSAS sequences are expected to be more realistic
from the point of view of single and group of artificial MSAS sequences. It should be
noted that the artificial sequences used in this manuscript are artificially created based on
recorded ground motions.
It is better to select the as-recorded seeds (mainshock records or aftershock records)
following the target spectra generated by GMPE (ground motion prediction equation).
However, there is no reasonable GMPE to simulate attenuation of aftershock ground
motions in the near-fault region, as well as the relationship between mainshock and
aftershock records in the near-fault region. Thus, we have to carefully collect the seeds
in groups 1 and 2, to make the mean spectra of the seeds in group 1 being larger than
those of the seeds in group 2, because the mean spectra of as-recorded mainshock records
are larger than those of corresponding as-recorded aftershock records.
All the seeds (i.e. 56 seeds in group 1 and 24 seeds in group 2) are identified as near-
fault pulse-like ground motions following the identification procedure based on significant
velocity half-cycles (Zhai et al. 2018). The mean spectral accelerations normalized by PGA
are shown in Fig. 1a, and the results are consistent with the phenomenon that the
response spectra in the moderate-long period region for the aftershocks decrease more
rapidly than those for the mainshocks (Goda 2015; Shin and Kim, 2017; Wen, Zhai, and Ji
2018a). In this manuscript, the predominant period of ground motion Tg, defined as the
period at which the spectral velocity of 5% damping ratio reaches the maximum value, is
used to characterize the frequency content of ground motion. Figure 1b presents the
distribution of Tg versus PGA, and Fig. 1c shows the distribution of Tg versus PGV. The
seeds in group 1 generally show the higher mean Tg than those in group 2. The values of
PGA and PGV are greater than 0.1 g and 30 cm/s respectively for all the seeds used in this
manuscript. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the detailed information on the seeds in groups 1
and 2, respectively. It should be noted that all the seeds are collected from the NGA West2
4 W. WEN ET AL.

Figure 1. Ground motions characteristics for the seeds in groups 1 and 2: (a) mean spectral acceleration
normalized by PGA; (b) distribution of Tg versus PGA; (c) distribution of Tg versus PGV.

database, and the record sequence number (RSN) of each seed is also provided in these
two tables; thus, more detailed information on each seed can be found in the NGA West2
database.
Following the above procedures, the artificial near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground
motions are generated by adding a time gap of 30 s between mainshock and aftershock,
and finally the total of 1344 artificial near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground motions are
obtained. The aim of adding 30 s is to simulate the realistic time between the mainshock
and aftershock.
Although the seeds are selected from different earthquakes and countries, the char-
acteristics of seeds (i.e., individual ground motions) for the mainshock and aftershock are
consistent with the recorded mainshock and aftershock records, as shown in Fig. 1a.
Besides, all the seeds were recorded from the crustal earthquakes, eliminating the effects of
earthquakes in the subduction zones. Using the revised randomization method proposed
in this manuscript and the seeds selected after considering the above issues, the generated
MSAS ground motions can be expected to reflect the characteristics of the realistic MSAS
ground motions.
It is well known that the mainshock is generally followed by a large number of
aftershocks, most of which has small magnitudes. This manuscript focuses on the
sequence consisting of mainshock and the strongest aftershock based on following two
reasons: (i) the cumulative damage is mainly induced by mainshock and the strongest
aftershock; (ii) including more aftershocks in the sequence would make the analysis
cumbersome that is not helpful for more transpicuous and practically useful conclusions.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5

Table 1. Detailed information on the seeds in group 1.

Azimuth
RSN Earthquake Time(yyyy/mm/dd, hh:mm) Mw Distance (km) (degree) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) Tg (s)
29 Parkfield 1966/06/28, 04:26 6.19 6.27 065 0.48 74.93 0.56
77 San Fernando 1971/02/09, 14:00 6.61 1.81 164 1.23 112.38 1.10
126 Gazli, USSR 1976/05/17, – 6.80 5.46 000 0.61 65.31 0.98
143 Tabas, Iran 1978/09/16, – 7.35 2.05 344 0.85 121.10 4.78
159 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 0.65 003 0.37 35.32 1.14
171 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 0.07 000 0.31 71.68 2.52
173 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 8.6 050 0.17 47.49 3.72
179 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 7.05 230 0.36 76.47 3.92
180 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 3.95 230 0.38 90.44 3.17
181 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 1.35 230 0.44 109.71 3.34
182 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 0.56 230 0.46 109.15 3.20
183 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 3.86 230 0.45 49.06 3.89
184 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 5.09 270 0.35 71.15 2.52
185 Imperial Valley-06 1979/10/15, 23:16 6.53 7.5 225 0.25 48.70 3.96
451 Morgan Hill 1984/04/24, 21:15 6.19 0.53 285 1.30 80.69 0.74
459 Morgan Hill 1984/04/24, 21:15 6.19 9.87 230 0.43 49.18 0.74
461 Morgan Hill 1984/04/24, 21:15 6.19 3.48 240 0.31 39.33 0.74
496 Nahanni, Canada 1985/12/23, – 6.76 4.93 330 0.32 33.03 0.43
527 N. Palm Springs 1986/07/08, 09:20 6.06 12.03 135 0.20 40.89 1.78
614 Whittier Narrows-01 1987/10/01, 14:42 5.99 20.79 180 0.30 37.54 0.58
645 Whittier Narrows-01 1987/10/01, 14:42 5.99 24.54 010 0.26 32.81 0.62
764 Loma Prieta 1989/10/18, 00:05 6.93 10.97 090 0.28 41.92 1.33
779 Loma Prieta 1989/10/18, 00:05 6.93 3.88 000 0.56 94.62 0.64
802 Loma Prieta 1989/10/18, 00:05 6.93 8.5 090 0.32 42.57 3.79
803 Loma Prieta 1989/10/18, 00:05 6.93 9.31 270 0.33 61.48 1.10
821 Erzican, Turkey 1992/03/13, 17:18 6.69 4.38 000 0.52 83.87 1.95
829 Cape Mendocino 1992/04/25, 18:06 7.01 14.33 270 0.39 43.76 1.18
879 Landers 1992/06/28, 11:58 7.28 2.19 000 0.78 31.86 3.45
900 Landers 1992/06/28, 11:58 7.28 23.62 270 0.24 51.36 1.26
953 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 17.15 009 0.42 58.89 0.78
960 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 12.44 000 0.41 42.93 0.51
982 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 5.43 292 0.59 99.00 1.00
1003 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 27.01 110 0.44 38.88 0.43
1045 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 5.48 046 0.45 92.66 1.90
1051 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 7.01 194 1.29 103.42 0.64
1054 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 7.46 −999 0.66 75.13 1.09
1063 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 6.5 228 0.84 165.87 0.97
1081 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 19.05 090 0.39 37.93 0.63
1085 Northridge-01 1994/01/17, 12:31 6.69 5.19 288 0.49 74.50 1.79
1119 Kobe, Japan 1995/01/16, 20:46 6.90 0.27 000 0.69 68.25 1.60
1120 Kobe, Japan 1995/01/16, 20:46 6.90 1.47 000 0.61 127.06 1.17
1148 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999/08/17, – 7.51 13.49 090 0.15 39.53 5.22
1158 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999/08/17, – 7.51 15.37 180 0.31 58.79 3.64
1161 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999/08/17, – 7.51 10.92 000 0.24 50.26 3.96
1171 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999/08/17, – 7.51 3.12 090 0.38 79.41 6.45
1176 Kocaeli, Turkey 1999/08/17, – 7.51 4.83 060 0.27 65.67 4.24
1482 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 19.89 000 0.14 53.96 5.28
1485 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 26 090 0.47 36.66 0.39
1487 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 35 090 0.30 41.54 0.89
1489 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 3.76 090 0.29 47.89 9.07
1492 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 0.66 000 0.42 118.39 8.19
1493 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 5.95 090 0.22 41.29 9.47
1505 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 0.32 090 0.57 176.48 9.27
1510 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 0.89 090 0.33 88.23 4.34
1519 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 6.98 090 0.13 40.75 7.77
1548 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 1999/09/20, – 7.62 13.13 090 0.14 72.99 7.21
Note: value of −999 means unknown information.

The relative spectral accelerationÑSa defined by Wen et al. (2017), which is the ratio of
Sa of the aftershock to that of mainshock, is used here to scale the aftershock ground
6 W. WEN ET AL.

Table 2. Detailed information on the seeds in group 2.

Azimuth
RSN Earthquake Time(yyyy/mm/dd, hh:mm) Mw Distance (km) (degree) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) Tg (s)
250 Mammoth Lakes-06 1980/05/27, 14:51 5.94 16.03 090 0.41 33.84 0.73
407 Coalinga-05 1983/07/22, 02:39 5.77 8.46 270 0.87 42.09 0.47
412 Coalinga-05 1983/07/22, 02:39 5.77 16.05 045 0.60 34.70 0.56
415 Coalinga-05 1983/07/22, 02:39 5.77 9.51 360 1.08 39.64 0.64
415 Coalinga-05 1983/07/22, 02:39 5.77 9.51 270 0.84 44.07 0.65
418 Coalinga-07 1983/07/25, 22:31 5.21 10.89 090 0.73 37.48 0.22
1728 Northridge-06 1994/03/20, 21:20 5.28 12.96 228 0.65 35.11 0.3
2495 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-03 1999/09/20, 18:03 6.20 22.37 090 0.47 69.86 1.01
2627 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-03 1999/09/20, 18:03 6.20 14.66 090 0.52 59.25 0.63
2628 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-03 1999/09/20, 18:03 6.20 7.62 090 0.47 35.37 0.57
2658 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-03 1999/09/20, 18:03 6.20 12.83 090 0.95 39.64 0.4
2734 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-04 1999/09/20, 21:46 6.20 6.2 000 0.35 38.11 0.42
8064 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 3.26 334 0.37 51.32 1.37
8090 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 4.35 266 0.24 35.17 1.7
8118 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 9.06 213 0.22 33.01 0.61
8118 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 9.06 123 0.20 44.62 2.88
8119 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 1.98 180 0.59 74.76 1.45
8119 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 1.98 270 0.67 82.00 1.42
8123 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 5.13 092 0.71 86.47 0.95
8130 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 5.6 220 0.31 69.83 0.97
8130 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 5.6 130 0.34 69.43 2.82
8157 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 3.36 206 1.46 96.83 0.7
8158 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 6.12 350 0.88 40.78 0.1
8158 Christchurch, NZ 2011/02/21, 23:51 6.20 6.12 260 0.78 35.40 0.09

motion. For each sequence, the aftershock ground motion is scaled to three relative levels
respectively (i.e. ÑSa = 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0). In order to avoid the bias induced by over-scaling,
and the maximum scaling factor is limited as 5.0 based on the results from Wen, Zhai, and
Ji (2018a).

2.2. Computation of Cumulative Damage

The inelastic SDOF systems, which are capable to reflect the basic damage characteristics
of MDOF structures and easy to change the dynamic parameters, are used in this
manuscript. The periods of SDOF systems vary from 0.1 to 6.0 s with an interval of
0.1 s, and the damping of system is represented with viscous damping ratio being 5%. The
strength reduction factor R, used to measure the relative lateral strength of a system, is
defined as:
mSa
R¼ (1)
Fy
where m is the mass, Sa is spectral acceleration, and Fy is the yield strength. The values of
R vary from 2 to 6 to account for the effects of different yield strength.
The modified Park-Ang damage index (Kunnath, Reinhorn, and Lobo 1992) compre-
hensively considers the damage caused by the maximum deformation and hysteretic
energy, and the latter includes the contribution of deformation reversals having non-
peak values to the final damage of structure. Thus, it is expected to account for the
aftershock-induced additional damage (with respect to the mainshock-induced damage)
better than other measures (Zhai et al. 2014). It is defined as:
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 7

μ1 EH
DI¼ þβ (2)
μu 1 Fy μu xy

where μ is the ductility factor caused by earthquakes; μu is the ultimate ductility demand
of structure under monotonic loading, and μu = 10 is used as reference value; β is
a parameter to measure the contribution of hysteretic energy dissipation to the damage.
The median value of β (i.e. β = 0.15) (Cosenza et al., 1993) is used as a reference value in
this manuscript.
As shown in Equation (2), the recoverable deformation in the first term is removed,
making the value of damage index being zero when no damage occurs. Besides, this
damage index has been widely used due to its simple form and comparison with observed
seismic damage. Although several issues still exist (e.g. determination of μu and β) in the
definition of this damage index, it is the most reasonable index to quantify the cumulative
damage induced by earthquakes, while cumulative damage is the most important conse-
quence for MSAS sequences.
The hysteretic behavior of structure under the ground motion is simulated with four
different hysteretic models: (i) Elastic-Perfectly-Plastic (EPP) model; (ii) Modified Clough
(MC) model; (iii) Pinching model, which is proposed by Rahnama and Krawinkler (1993);
and (iv) Stiffness Strength Degradation (SSD) model, developed from three parameter
model (Kunnath, Reinhorn, and Lobo 1992).
The EPP model, which has been used in the field of earthquake engineering extensively
due to its simplicity, is used here to represent the non-degrading systems. The MC model
is used to consider the stiffness degradation at the reloading path and to simulate the
flexural behavior of reinforcement concrete (RC) structures. The PH model proposed by
Rahnama and Krawinkler (1993) is used here to simulate the pinching behavior of non-
ductile RC structure. The value of the ratio of the pinching target strength to the yield
strength is 0.4, following the suggestion by Rahnama and Krawinkler (1993). The SSD
model based on the three-parameter model (Kunnath, Reinhorn, and Lobo 1992) is used
to represent the global behavior of systems exhibiting stiffness and strength degradations
during reloading branches. The strength degradation rule firstly applied in the three-
parameter model is used here, and the degradation parameter β is the same as that in
Equation (2). It is noteworthy that just the cyclic strength degradation is considered in the
SSD model, and the in-cycle strength degradation is neglected. No unloading stiffness
degradation and pinching behavior are presented in the SSD model, in order to better
quantify the effects of strength degradation.
In order to quantitatively study the effect of near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground
motions on the damage of structure, the ratio of mean DI computed in this manuscript
to the mean DI of non-pulse-like MSAS ground motions, denoted as DIpulse/DInon-pulse,
are computed. The non-pulse-like MSAS ground motions are selected from the database
used by Wen et al. (2018a). Figure 2 shows the results of DIpulse/DInon-pulse for the systems
with R = 4. It can be seen that pulse-like MSAS ground motions induce larger cumulative
damage in the period region with T < 3.0 s, and this phenomenon may due to the fact that
the predominant periods of seeds in Tables 1 and 2 are lower than 3.0 s. The values of
DIpulse/DInon-pulse can exceed 1.2 and reach 1.6, indicating that the effects of near-fault
pulse-like MSAS ground motions on the damage of structures can exceed 20% and
reach 60%.
8 W. WEN ET AL.

Figure 2. Comparison of cumulative damage induced by pulse-like and non-pulse-like MSAS ground
motions: (a) EPP model, R = 4; (b) MC model, R = 4.

3. Effects of Period Normalization

In this manuscript, the period normalization is carried out by normalizing the funda-
mental periods of systems (i.e., T) with the predominant period of a mainshock ground
motion (i.e., Tg, ms). After applying the period normalization, the horizontal axis of the
spectra is the normalized period (i.e., T/Tg, ms). Similar to the Section 2.2, the values of
T/Tg, ms are first prescribed to vary from 0.1 to 6.0 with an interval of 0.1. Then, the value
of T can be computed with known Tg, ms and normalized period. Finally, the cumulative
damage of systems can be computed with known T and MSAS ground motions.
The period normalization was generally used to better characterize the effects of
frequency content of pulse-like ground motions on the responses of structures
(Iervolino, Chioccarelli, and Baltzopoulos 2012; Ruiz-García 2011; Wen et al. 2014). The
efficiency of period normalization is discussed here for the case of sequential ground
motions. Because two or more single records are included in a MSAS ground motion, the
seismic demand of a structure under the MSAS ground motion is affected by the ground
motions characteristics (e.g. frequency content and amplitude) of multiple records in this
sequence. The efficiency of period normalization also depends on the intensity and
predominant period of an aftershock ground motion. This section will focus on this
issue and present the comparisons between the dispersion of cumulative damage for the
period of vibration with or without normalization.
Figure 3 shows the results of coefficient of variation (COV) for the cumulative damage of
systems with R = 4 under the MSAS ground motions. The results of COV for the EPP model
(representing non-degrading systems) and MC model (representing degrading systems) are
both shown in this figure. The results indicate that period normalization can produce clearly
lower dispersion with respect to the case without the period normalization for most of the
systems in the whole period region, confirming the necessity and efficiency of the period
normalization again. However, the differences of COV between the cases with and without
the period normalization in Fig. 3b are smaller than those in Fig. 3a, and the period
normalization even produces larger dispersion for a few periods due to the effects of strong
aftershocks. The same phenomenon can also be observed by the comparison between the
Fig. 3c,d, indicating that the efficiency of period normalization is significantly decreased by
the strong aftershock (e.g. ÑSa = 1.0 in this case). Strong aftershock ground motions have
more significant effects on the dispersion of cumulative damage and thus largerÑSa can
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 9

Figure 3. Results of COV for the damage spectra of systems with R = 4 under the MSAS ground
motions: (a) EPP model,ÑSa = 0.5; (b) EPP model,ÑSa = 1.0; (c) MC model,ÑSa = 0.5; (d) MC model,ÑSa
= 1.0.

contaminate the efficiency of period normalization. This phenomenon due to the fact that
the frequency content of aftershock record is generally different from that of corresponding
mainshock record, and aftershock record would amplify the dispersion of results for the
normalized system with the predominant period of mainshock record. Meanwhile, pulse
effect and larger amplitude generally produce results with larger dispersion. Thus, the
phenomena shown in Fig. 3 are the results comprehensively affected by the pulse effect
and larger amplitude in aftershock record.

4. Effects of Aftershocks
The effects of aftershocks on the cumulative damage of systems are quantified by the ratio of the
damage induced by MSAS sequence to that of mainshock only (i.e. DIseq/DIms). Figure 4 shows
the values of DIseq/DIms for various combinations. The values of DIseq/DIms for the EPP systems
under the earthquake sequences withÑSa = 0.8 are shown in Fig. 4a. The values of DIseq/DIms
generally increase in the whole normalized period region when the R increases, indicating that
the aftershocks have more significant relative effects on the systems with larger R.
In the period region where the period of system is smaller than the predominant period of
mainshock ground motion (i.e. T/Tg, ms<1.0), the larger values of DIseq/DIms can be observed
for larger T/Tg, ms. The maximum value of DIseq/DIms is observed around T/Tg, ms = 1.0,
meaning that aftershocks induce most significant damage accumulation for systems with
T/Tg, ms around 1.0. This phenomenon attributes to the fact that the predominant period of
mainshock ground motion better characterizes the damage induced by the mainshock pulse-
10 W. WEN ET AL.

Figure 4. Effects of aftershocks on the damage spectra: (a) EPP model,ÑSa = 0.8; (b) EPP model, R = 4;
(c) R = 4,ÑSa = 0.8.

like ground motion, and the local reduction of damage induced by near-fault mainshock at
T/Tg, ms = 1.0 is more significant than that of damage induced by near-fault MSAS sequence,
which is also affected by frequency and amplitude of aftershock record with pulse effect. The
values of DIseq/DIms are approximately independent of T/Tg, ms in the normalized period
region of T/Tg, ms >1.5.
The results in Fig. 4b quantify the effects of aftershocks with variousÑSa on the damage of
EPP systems with R = 4. The effects of aftershocks withÑSa = 0.5 are smaller than 20%, while
this kind of effect can exceed 20% and reach 40% for strong aftershocks (e.g. ÑSa  0:8) for
the systems with T/Tg, ms >0.5. The results in Fig. 4c quantify the effects of aftershocks with
ÑSa = 0.8 on the damage of various hysteretic models with R = 4. The values of DIseq/DIms are
generally greater for EPP systems than for degrading systems (i.e. MC, PH, and SSD systems),
indicating that aftershocks with pulse characteristics have more significant effects on the
damage of EPP systems, when EPP and degrading systems have same values of β and μu.
Degrading systems tend to experience less full hysteresis cycles than EPP systems. Moreover,
degrading systems tend to experience more low-amplitude inelastic deformation reversals
when they are subjected to aftershocks. These characteristics of degrading systems are the
major reason behind the phenomenon that the effect of pulse-like aftershocks is more
pronounced for the EPP system with respect to that of the degrading systems.

5. Prediction Equation
In order to develop a stable prediction equation, the damage indices for different cases of
β (i.e. from 0.05 to 0.25 with an interval of 0.05) and μu (i.e. from 6 to 14 with an interval
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 11

of 2) are further computed. These values of β and μu had been used by many researchers
(Cosenza et al., 1993; Bozorgnia and Bertero 2003; Decanini, Bruno, and Mollaioli 2004;
Kunnath, Reinhorn, and Lobo 1992; Negro 1997; Panyakapo 2004; Tiwari and Gupta
2000; Warnitchai and Panyakapo 1999). A total of about 32 million damage indices
(corresponding to 1344 MSAS ground motions with pulse characteristics, 60 normalized
periods, 4 hysteretic models, 4 relative intensity levels of aftershock, 5 values of β, and 5
values of μu) are firstly obtained by nonlinear dynamic analysis. Then, the mean damage
for various cases is used to develop a prediction equation.
The prediction equation for the mean of statisitical results is proposed by the two-step
regression analysis. The prediction equation is firstly formulated as a function of normal-
ized period T/Tg, ms and strength reduction factor R. The basic model of prediction
equation should satisfy the following boundary conditions:
DIðT=Tg;ms ; R ¼ 1Þ ¼ 0 (3)

DIðT=Tg;ms ! 0; R > 1Þ ¼ 1 (4)

DIðT=Tg;ms ! 1; R > 1Þ ¼ f ðRÞ (5)

The expression of the prediction equation is proposed as:
( ) ( "  2 #)
b  ðR  1Þc e T
DI ¼ a þ  ðR  1Þ þ f  exp 3 lnð Þ  0:1
ðT=Tg;ms Þd Tg;ms
 ðR  1Þe (6)
where a, b, c, d, e, and f are regression parameters. The first term in Equation (6) captures
the variation of DI as the function of T/Tg, ms and R. Meanwhile, the second term accounts
for the local reduction of DI around the normalized period of T/Tg, ms = 1.0.
Regression analysis shows that the values of c, d, and e are generally stable for
variousÑSa , β and μu, and Table 3 summarizes the results for c, d, and e.
The parameters a, b, and f are further regressed as the function of ÑSa , β, and μu
following Equations (7)-(9), respectively, and the regression results are summarized in
Table 4.
ln a ¼ a1 þ a2  ln μu þ a3  β þ a4  expða5  ÑSa Þ (7)

ln b ¼ b1 þ b2  ln μu þ b3  β þ b4  expðb5  ÑSa Þ (8)

lnðf Þ ¼ f1 þ f2  ln μu þ f3  β þ f4  expðf5  ÑSa Þ (9)

Table 3. The values of regression parameters c, d, and e used in equation (6).

Hysteretic model c d e
EPP 0.50 1.53 1.10
MC 0.29 1.56 1.02
PH 0.19 1.51 1.01
SSD 0.18 1.54 1.04
12 W. WEN ET AL.

Table 4. The values of regression parameters ai, bi, and fi (i = 1–5) used in equations (7)-(9).
Regression results (i = 1–5)
Hysteretic model Regression parameter 1 2 3 4 5
EPP ai 0.133 −1.12 2.11 0.0778 1.63
bi −1.036 −1.11 2.47 0.0275 2.47
fi −0.329 −1.11 2.65 0.0295 1.97
MC ai 0.290 −1.13 1.74 0.0100 2.75
bi −0.548 −1.11 2.42 0.0435 1.82
fi −0.238 −1.11 2.33 0.0563 0.81
PH ai 0.337 −1.14 1.33 0.0017 3.91
bi −0.146 −1.13 1.78 0.0286 1.96
fi −1.619 −1.13 1.68 1.6126 0.02
SSD ai 0.258 −1.13 1.70 0.0094 2.69
bi −0.275 −1.12 2.10 0.0370 1.80
fi −2.201 −1.12 2.13 2.0960 0.02

With the Equations (6)-(9), one can predict the cumulative damage induced by the near-
fault pulse-like MSAS ground motions for various cases. Figure 5 compares the statistical
results with prediction results for the case of β = 0.15 and μu = 10, and a good agreement
can be observed, confirming the validation of the proposed prediction equation.

6. Conclusions
This manuscript aims to quantify the cumulative damage induced by MSAS sequences in
the near-fault region and propose a tool to predict this kind of cumulative damage.
Artificial near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground motions are firstly generated by the revised

Figure 5. Comparisons between statistical results and prediction results for the case of β = 0.15 and μu
= 10: (a) EPP systems,ÑSa = 0.8; (b) EPP systems, R = 4; (c) degrading systems,ÑSa = 0.8.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 13

randomization method (i.e. combing two random records which are belong to two
different ground motion groups, respectively). The effects of period normalization are
discussed from the point of view of dispersion and mean. The effects of the pulse-like
aftershock ground motions on the damage of structures are quantitatively studied. The
prediction equation is finally proposed for the mean of statistical results. The main
findings are as follows:

(1) The effect of near-fault pulse-like MSAS ground motions on the damage of
structure can exceed 20% and reach 60% with respect to the non-pulse-like
MSAS ground motions.
(2) The efficiency of period normalization gradually disappears with the increase of the
intensity of aftershock ground motion (i.e. strong aftershocks can contaminate the
efficiency of period normalization).
(3) Aftershocks have the most significant effects on the damage of systems whose
periods close to the predominant period of mainshock ground motion. The effects
of aftershocks are approximately independent of T/Tg, ms in the period region of
T/Tg, ms >1.5.
(4) The effects of aftershocks withÑSa = 0.5 are smaller than 20%, while this kind of
effect can exceed 20% and reach 40% for strong aftershocks (e.g. ÑSa  0:8) in the
moderate-long normalized period region (e.g. T/Tg, ms >0.5).

It should be noted that the above conclusions are based on the results corresponding to
four hysteretic models and modified Park-Ang damage index adopted in this manuscript.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for thorough reviews, which helped to improve
the technical quality and presentation of this article. The supports from the Scientific Research Fund
of Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (2017D09), National
Natural Science Foundation of China (51708161, 51825801, 51938004) and China Postdoctoral
Science Foundation (2016M601430, 2018T110305) are also appreciated.

Funding
This work was supported by the Scientific Research Fund of Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake
Administration [2017D09]; National Natural Science Foundation of China [51708161, 51825801, 51938004];
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M601430, 2018T110305].

References
Amadio, C., M. Fragiacomo, and S. Rajgelj. 2003. The effects of repeated earthquake ground
motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 32 (2): 291–308. doi: 10.1002/eqe.225.
Bozorgnia, Y., and V. V. Bertero. 2003. Damage spectra: Characteristics and applications to seismic
risk reduction. Journal of Structural Engineering 129 (10): 1330–40. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9445(2003)129:10(1330).
14 W. WEN ET AL.

Cosenza, E., G. Manfredi, and R. Ramasco. 1993. The use of damage functionals in earthquake
engineering: A comparison between different methods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 22 (10): 855–68. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290221003.
Decanini, L. D., S. Bruno, and F. Mollaioli. 2004. Role of damage functions in evaluation of
response modification factors. Journal of Structural Engineering 130 (9): 1298–308. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1298).
Ebrahimian, H., F. Jalayer, D. Asprone, A. M. Lombardi, W. Marzocchi, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi.
2014. A performance-based framework for adaptive seismic aftershock risk assessment.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 43 (14): 2179–97. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2444.
Faisal, A., T. A. Majid, and G. D. Hatzigeorgiou. 2013. Investigation of story ductility demands of
inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 44: 42–53. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.08.012.
Ghosh, J., J. E. Padgett, and M. Sánchez-Silva. 2015. Seismic damage accumulation in highway
bridges in earthquake-prone regions. Earthquake Spectra 31 (1): 115–35. doi: 10.1193/
120812EQS347M.
Goda, K. 2015. Record selection for aftershock incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44 (7): 1157–62. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2513.
Goda, K., and C. A. Taylor. 2012. Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong
ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 41 (15): 2311–30.
Han, R., Y. Li, and J. Van de Lindt. 2014. Seismic risk of base isolated non-ductile reinforced
concrete buildings considering uncertainties and mainshock–aftershock sequences. Structural
Safety 50: 39–56. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.03.010.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D. 2010a. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault earthquakes.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (4): 170–83. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.10.003.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D. 2010b. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to multiple
near-fault earthquakes. Computers & Structures 88 (5–6): 309–21. doi: 10.1016/j.
compstruc.2009.11.006.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., and D. E. Beskos. 2009. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures
subjected to repeated Earthquakes. Engineering Structures 31 (11): 2744–55. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2009.07.002.
Iervolino, I., E. Chioccarelli, and G. Baltzopoulos. 2012. Inelastic displacement ratio of near-source
pulse-like ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 41 (15): 2351–57.
Jalayer, F., and H. Ebrahimian. 2017. Seismic risk assessment considering cumulative damage due to
aftershocks. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 46 (3): 369–89. doi: 10.1002/
eqe.2792.
Jeon, J. S., R. DesRoches, and D. H. Lee. 2016. Post-repair effect of column jackets on aftershock
fragilities of damaged RC bridges subjected to successive earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics 45 (7): 1149–68. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2700.
Jeon, J. S., R. DesRoches, L. N. Lowes, and I. Brilakis. 2015. Framework of aftershock fragility
assessment–case studies: Older California reinforced concrete building frames. Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44 (15): 2617–36. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2599.
Kunnath, S. K., A. M. Reinhorn, and R. F. Lobo. 1992. “IDARC Version 3.0: A program for the
inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete structures.” National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Technical report no. NCEER-92-
0022.
Li, Y., R. Song, and J. W. Van De Lindt. 2014. Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to
earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequences. Journal of Structural Engineering 140 (12):
04014095. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001019.
Negro, P. 1997. Experimental assessment of the global cyclic damage of framed R/C structures.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1 (3): 543–62. doi: 10.1080/13632469708962377.
Panyakapo, P. 2004. Evaluation of site-dependent constant-damage design spectra for reinforced
concrete structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 33 (12): 1211–31. doi:
10.1002/eqe.396.
 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 15

Raghunandan, M., A. B. Liel, and N. Luco. 2015. Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of
reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 44 (3):
419–39. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2478.
Rahnama, M., and H. Krawinkler. 1993. “Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic
demands.” John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center 108.
Ruiz-García, J. 2011. Inelastic displacement ratios for seismic assessment of structures subjected to
forward-directivity near-fault ground motions. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 15 (3): 449–68.
doi: 10.1080/13632469.2010.498560.
Ruiz-García, J. 2012. Mainshock-aftershock ground motion features and their influence in build-
ing’s seismic response. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 16 (5): 719–37. doi: 10.1080/
13632469.2012.663154.
Ruiz-García, J., and J. C. Negrete-Manriquez. 2011. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences.
Engineering Structures 33 (2): 621–34. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.021.
Shin, J., J. Kim, and K. Lee. 2014. Seismic assessment of damaged piloti-type RC building subjected
to successive earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43 (11): 1603–19.
doi: 10.1002/eqe.2412.
Shin, M., and B. Kim. 2017. Effects of frequency contents of aftershock ground motions on
reinforced concrete (RC) bridge columns. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 97: 48–59.
Tiwari, A. K., and V. K. Gupta. 2000. Scaling of ductility and damage-based strength reduction
factors for horizontal motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 29 (7): 969–87.
doi: 10.1002/1096-9845(200007)29:7<969::AID-EQE948>3.0.CO;2-N.
Warnitchai, P., and P. Panyakapo. 1999. Constant-damage design spectra. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 3 (3): 329–47. doi: 10.1080/13632469909350350.
Wen, W., C. Zhai, and D. Ji. 2018a. Damage spectra of global crustal seismic sequences considering
scaling issues of aftershock ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 47
(10): 2076–93. doi: 10.1002/eqe.3056.
Wen, W., C. Zhai, D. Ji, S. Li, and L. Xie. 2017. Framework for the vulnerability assessment of
structure under mainshock-aftershock sequences. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 101:
41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.07.002.
Wen, W., D. Ji, C. Zhai, X. Li, and P. Sun. 2018b. Damage spectra of the mainshock-aftershock
ground motions at soft soil sites. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 115: 815–25. doi:
10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.016.
Wen, W. P., C. H. Zhai, S. Li, Z. Chang, and L. L. Xie. 2014. Constant damage inelastic displace-
ment ratios for the near-fault pulse-like ground motions. Engineering Structures 59: 599–607. doi:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.11.011.
Zhai, C., C. Li, S. Kunnath, and W. Wen. 2018. An efficient algorithm for identifying pulse-like
ground motions based on significant velocity half-cycles. Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 47 (3): 757–71. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2989.
Zhai, C., D. Ji, W. Wen, W. Lei, L. Xie, and M. Gong. 2016. The Inelastic Input Energy Spectra for
Main Shock–Aftershock Sequences. Earthquake Spectra 32 (4): 2149–66. doi: 10.1193/
121315EQS182M.
Zhai, C., W. Wen, D. Ji, and S. Li. 2015a. The influences of aftershocks on the constant damage
inelastic displacement ratio. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 79: 186–89. doi: 10.1016/
j.soildyn.2015.08.011.
Zhai, C. H., W. P. Wen, S. Li, and L. L. Xie. 2015b. The ductility-based strength reduction factor for
the mainshock-aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13
(10): 2893–914. doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9744-z.
Zhai, C. H., W. P. Wen, S. Li, Z. Chen, Z. Chang, and L. L. Xie. 2014. The damage investigation of
inelastic SDOF structure under the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 59: 30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.01.003.