See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304612730

The Inelastic Input Energy Spectra for Main Shock–Aftershock Sequences

Article  in  Earthquake Spectra · June 2016

DOI: 10.1193/121315EQS182M

CITATIONS READS

24 320

6 authors, including:

Changhai Zhai Duofa Ji

Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology
116 PUBLICATIONS   1,120 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   166 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Weiping Wen Lei Weidong

Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology
36 PUBLICATIONS   417 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

structure design View project

Masonry-infilled RC frames View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Weiping Wen on 15 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Inelastic Input Energy Spectra for
Main Shock–Aftershock Sequences
Changhai Zhai,a),b) Duofa Ji,a),b) Weiping Wen,a),b) Weidong Lei,c)
Lili Xie,a),d) and Maosheng Gongd)

This study investigates the input energy spectra for inelastic single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) systems under main shock–aftershock sequences. The input
energy spectra quantitatively reveal the effects of aftershocks on input energy,
which verifies the necessity of incorporating aftershocks in energy-based seismic
design. The investigation selects the sequences including one aftershock or two
aftershocks respectively, according to the proposed criteria for selecting earth-
quake records. Then, the input energy for sequences is normalized by mass,
m, and expressed in terms of the equivalent velocity, V E,seq . Next, the variation
of V E,seq is studied in consideration of the hysteretic models, ductility values,
periods of vibration, site conditions, relative intensities of aftershocks and
number of aftershocks. The results indicate that the effects of aftershocks on
input energy are significant in almost the whole period region. Finally, a simpli-
fied expression of input energy is proposed for incorporating aftershocks in
energy-based seismic design. [DOI: 10.1193/121315EQS182M]

INTRODUCTION
In conventional seismic design, it is necessary to deal with the coupling between the
loading effect of earthquake and the resistance of structure, which makes the seismic design
quite cumbersome. A more rational seismic design approach, which aims to overcome this
problem, is to interpret the loading effect of earthquake in terms of the input energy (Decanini
and Mollaioli 1998, Amiri et al. 2008, Benavent-Climent et al. 2010, López-Almansa et al.
2013). Some investigations (Hori and Inoue 2002, Chai 2005) pointed out that the input
energy correlate with structural cumulative damage well. Therefore, a reliable approximation
of inelastic input energy is of critical importance. In the earlier works (Housner 1959, Fajfar
et al. 1991), the input energy was empirically estimated from the recorded ground motions,
and the proposed expressions were usually given in terms of some peak-motion parameters
such as the maximum relative velocity. Later, several investigations (Decanini and Mollaioli
2001, Manfredi 2001, Ordaz et al. 2003, Kalkan and Kunnath 2007, Dindar et al. 2015) were
devoted to acquire the input energy demands in simple systems, and to provide recommenda-
tions on how to use these demands in energy-based seismic design. The energy spectrum was

a)
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control (Harbin Institute of Technology), Ministry of Education,
Heilongjiang, Harbin 150090, China
b)
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
c)
Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China
d)
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics,
China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China

2149
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 32, No. 4, pages 2149–2166, November 2016; © 2016, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
2150 ZHAI ET AL.

recently incorporated in Japanese law (BSL 2005), and there are some nations, trying to
implement the energy spectrum in the national building codes (Benavent-Climent et al.
2002, Amiri et al. 2008, Tselentis et al. 2010).
The existing earthquake records indicated that many aftershocks were triggered by strong
main shock. For example, about 100 aftershocks with the moment magnitude greater than 6.0
were recorded after the main shock of Tohoku earthquake on 11 March, 2011 (Goda 2012,
Goda et al. 2013). The time interval between the main shock and the first aftershock is so
short that it is impossible for the main shock–damaged structures to be repaired before the
occurrence of the subsequent aftershocks (CENC 2008, KiK-net 2009). In this scenario, the
strong aftershocks potentially aggravate the damage of the structures. This phenomenon, well
known as the damage accumulation, has been confirmed in the post-earthquake field recon-
naissance (Priestley 1988). Therefore, the overall effects of seismic sequences on the
response of structures, rather than those of the sole main shock, should be taken into account
in the seismic design. Unfortunately, the current seismic design codes just consider the main
shock and ignore the danger of aftershocks (ICC 2006).
In order to assess the additional damage induced by aftershocks, some efforts (Das and
Gupta 2007, Iancovici and Georgiana 2007, Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos 2009, Hatzigeorgiou
2010, Goda and Taylor 2012) were devoted to investigate the inelastic response spectra for
SDOF systems under sequence ground motions, such as the inelastic displacement ratio,
ductility demand and behavior factor, and some other efforts (Li and Ellingwood 2007,
Hatzigeorgiou and Liolios 2010, Moustafa and Takewaki 2010, Ruiz-García and
Negrete-Manriquez 2011) were devoted to investigate the effects of aftershocks on
multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems.
Recently, Zhai et al. (2013a) investigated the constant strength damage spectra for
sequence ground motions, and the normalized hysteretic energy were incorporated into
the Park-Ang index. But, the study on energy spectra for main shock–aftershock
(MSAS) sequences has not been reported in the reference (Zhai et al. 2013a). Later,
Zhai et al. (2014) investigated the constant strength normalized hysteretic energy spectra
for MSAS sequences, and indicated that the energy response of structures could efficiently
reflect the additional damage induced by aftershocks. However, Zhai’s investigation is only
involved in the effects of aftershocks on the normalized hysteretic energy, which is
only applicable for seismic performance evaluation of the existing structures. It means
that the effect of aftershock has not been properly considered in energy-based seismic design.
Thus, it is necessary to further study the energy spectra for MSAS sequences to propose a
formula for incorporating aftershocks in energy-based seismic design.
This study focuses on the input energy spectra for MSAS sequences. Four hysteretic
models are used to simulate the overall characteristics of structures. The aftershock ground
motions are scaled to different intensity levels with the peak ground acceleration (PGA). In
order to investigate the input energy (E I,seq ) for seismic sequences with different numbers of
aftershocks, one aftershock or two aftershocks are respectively included in sequences. The
input energy (E I,seq ) for MSAS sequences is normalized by mass m and expressed in terms of
the equivalent velocity V E . Finally, a simplified expression of V E is proposed to facilitate the
application of energy spectra in seismic practice for MSAS sequences
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2151

DEFINITIONS OF ENERGY RESPONSE PARAMETERS

The equation of motion for a SDOF system, subjected to a unidirectional horizontal
ground motion, is written as following (Uang and Bertero 1990):
ð ð ð ð
mv̈dv þ c_vdv þ f s dv ¼  mv̈g dv
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;62;597 (1)

where, m is the mass of structure, v̈ is the relative acceleration, c is the damping coefficient, v_
is the relative velocity, f s is the resisting force and v̈g is the ground acceleration.
The term on the right-hand side of Equation 1 represents the relative input energy, that is:
ð
E I ¼  mv̈g dv (2)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;62;510

The input energy can be normalized by mass m and expressed in terms of the equivalent
velocity V E (Uang and Bertero 1990, Benavent-Climent et al. 2010):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V E ¼ 2E I ∕m (3) EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;62;442

Four different hysteretic models are used in this study: (1) The elastic-perfectly-plastic
(EPP) model representing the non-degrading system; (2) the modified clough (MC) model
simulating the flexural behavior, which exhibits stiffness degradation at reloading (Miranda
and Ruiz-García 2002, Zhai et al. 2013b); (3) the pinching (PH) model simulating the rein-
forced concrete structures with open or closed cracks, or the steel structures with connection
slip behavior (Rahnama and Krawinkler 1993); (4) the stiffness strength degradation (SSD)
model based on the three-parameter model (Kunnath et al. 1990), which represents the global
behavior of systems in stiffness degradation and strength deterioration during reloading
branches.
The inelastic SDOF systems are considered with a set of 79 periods of vibration, in the
range 0.1 s to 2.0 s with the fixed interval 0.05 s and in the range 2.0 s to 6.0 s with the fixed
interval 0.1 s. The viscous damping ratio is assumed to be 5%. Five ductility values, μ ¼ 2, 3,
4, 5 and 6, are selected to represent different ductility performances.
In this manuscript, the input energy is calculated by gradually reducing the applied
strength of SDOF system from the corresponding elastic strength demand until the specified
μ is achieved within a certain tolerance (1% is used here). The equivalent velocities are
denoted as V E,ms for the main shock in the seismic sequence, while the equivalent velocities
are denoted as V E,seq for the seismic sequence.

GROUND MOTIONS
It has been noted that the strong aftershock dominates the additional damage of structure.
Thus, only strong aftershock ground motions are included in the MSAS sequences. Two
groups of sequences are used. In the first group, just one aftershock ground motion is
included in the MSAS sequences. In the other group, two different aftershock ground
motions are included in the MSAS sequences. In this way, the influences caused by the num-
ber of aftershocks on the input energy could be studied for the purpose of comparison.
2152 ZHAI ET AL.

First, the recorded main shock and aftershock ground motions are collected from the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Next Generation Attenuation
(NGA) relationships database (http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/). Then, the ground motions
satisfying the following characteristics are combined together to constitute the MSAS
sequences. The criteria for selecting earthquake records are proposed as: (1) there are enough
geological and geotechnical information at the recording station, where the acceleration
device was located; (2) the ground motion was recorded at the free field station, or on
the ground level of the building; (3) for the sequences including one aftershock, the
PGA of main shock and aftershock are all greater than 0.1 g; (4) for the sequences including
two aftershocks, the PGA of main shock ground motion is greater than 0.1 g, and the PGA of
every aftershock ground motion is greater than 0.05 g. Finally, 218 recorded MSAS
sequences including one aftershock and 91 recorded MSAS sequences including two after-
shocks are selected respectively.
The site classification method of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is used to char-
acterize the site conditions of ground motions. Tables 1 and 2 show the information of
the selected MSAS sequences that including one aftershock and two aftershocks, respec-
tively. It should be noted that the PEER database has limited records on site class A
under the given conditions, and limited amounts of the qualified recorded MSAS sequences
on site classes B and E. Thus, all the MSAS sequences used in this study are recorded on site
classes C and D.
The vibration of building structure gradually ceases during the time interval between the
main shock and the first aftershock. After that, the structure begins to shake again at the first
occurrence of aftershock. To simulate the real situation, the time gap 100 s is applied between
two consecutive seismic ground motions. This time gap is sufficient for the vibration of any
civil structures to cease, due to the damping of structure (Hatzigeorgiou 2010a, 2010b). The
PGA ratio between the aftershock ground motion and the main shock ground motion,
PGAas ∕PGAms , is adopted to measure the relative intensity of aftershock ground motion,
where PGAas stands for the peak ground acceleration of aftershock ground motion, and
PGAms stands for the peak ground acceleration of main shock ground motion. Three different

Table 1. Information of the MSAS sequences including one aftershock used in this manuscript

Number of ground
Main shock Aftershock motions
Earthquake
event Time MW Time MW Site class C Site class D
Imperial Valley 1979-10-15,23:16 6.53 1979-10-15,23:19 5.01 0 19
Northridge 1994-01-17,12:31 6.69 1994-01-17,12:32 6.05 1 8
1994-03-20,21:20 5.28 13 19
1999-09-20,17:57 5.9 7 3
1999-09-20,18:03 6.2 32 8
Chi-Chi 1999-09-20 7.62 1999-09-20,21:46 6.2 15 6
1999-09-20,00:14 6.2 18 24
1999-09-20,23:52 6.3 30 15
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2153

Table 2. Information of the MSAS sequences including two aftershocks used in this manuscript

Chi-Chi main Number of ground

shock First after shock Second after shock motions

Time MW Time MW Time MW Site class C Site class D

1999-9-20 7.62 1999-09-20,17:57 5.9 1999-09-20,18:03 6.2 3 4
1999-09-20,21:46 6.2 0 2
1999-09-22,00:14 6.2 1 1
1999-09-25,23:52 6.3 2 0
1999-09-20,18:03 6.2 1999-09-20,21:46 6.2 6 2
1999-09-22,00:14 6.2 11 6
1999-09-25,23:52 6.3 12 0
1999-09-20,21:46 6.2 1999-09-22,00:14 6.2 2 2
1999-09-25,23:52 6.3 5 4
1999-09-22,00:14 6.2 1999-09-25,23:52 6.3 14 14

levels of the relative intensity (i.e., PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5, 0.8, 1.0) are considered for each
sequences including one aftershock. The relative intensity PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 1.0 is used to
simulate the extreme case in which the aftershock ground motion has the same intensity as the
main shock ground motion.
For each sequences including two aftershocks, the aftershock ground motions are scaled
to two different levels of the relative intensity (i.e., PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5, 0.8). It is well
known that the intensities of the aftershock ground motions are dependent on the magnitude,
the rupture distance and the site conditions. Thus in the sequences including two aftershocks,
the intensities of first aftershock and second aftershock ground motion are generally different
and may vary significantly with the earthquake magnitude and rupture distance. In order to
simplify the problem, the two aftershock ground motions in this kind of sequences are scaled
to the same intensities. The relative intensity PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.8 is used to simulate the
extreme case in which the seismic sequence includes two strong aftershocks.

SCALING CRITERIA FOR THE INPUT ENERGY

Dindar et al. (2015) discussed the relation between the input energy and PGA for single-
event cases, as follows:

E PGA
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e4;62;203

I ¼ ðPGA∕0.1gÞ2  E 0.1g
I m (4)

where, E 0.1g
I is the mass-normalized input energy for the benchmark seismic intensity
(PGA ¼ 0:1 g).
However, Dindar’s investigation is only applicable to the case of relative input energy for
single-event cases. Thus, it is necessary to verify the application of Equation 4 in the case of
relative input energy for multiple-event cases. The nonlinear dynamic time history analyses
are performed with the Chi-Chi seismic sequence recorded on the station CHY029 (Table 3).
Figure 1 presents the input energy time histories for EPP system (T ¼ 1.0 s) under a set
2154 ZHAI ET AL.

Table 3. The detailed information about the Chi-Chi seismic sequence recorded on CHY029
station

Main shock Aftershock

Station Component Earthquake event Time MW Time MW

CHY029 East-West Chi-Chi 1999-09-20 7.62 1999-09-20,23:52 6.3

of given conditions (the sequence ground motion recorded on the station CHY029,
PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5 and ductility value μ ¼ 2), for five different scaling PGAms values.
For the convenience of presenting the results, the input energy ratio is defined as the ratio
of the input energy for main shock with different PGAms level to the input energy for main
shock with the benchmark PGAms , 0.1 g. By comparing the input energy time histories in
Figure 1, the quadratic relation between the input energy ratio and ratio of the considered
PGAms to the benchmark PGAms (0.1 g) is observed. For instance, the input energy ratios are
4, 9, 16 and 36 respectively for PGAms levels, 0.2 g, 0.3 g, 0.4 g, and 0.6 g (the corresponding
ratios of the considered PGAms over the benchmark PGAms (0.1 g) are 2, 3, 4, and 6). The
quadratic relation between the input energy ratio and ratio of the considered PGAms to the
benchmark PGAms (0.1 g) could be observed in the input energy time histories for all the 309
sequences.
Based on this scaling relation, the input energy for high intensity values could be scaled
with respect to certain level of PGAms (0.1 g is considered in this paper), as follows:

2 0.1g
E PGA
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e5;41;345

I,seq ¼ ðPGAms ∕0.1gÞ  E I,seq  m

ms
(5)

where, E 0.1g
I,seq is the mass-normalized input energy for sequence ground motions with the
benchmark seismic intensity (PGAms ¼ 0.1 g).

Figure 1. The input energy time histories of SDOF system (T ¼ 1.0 s) for EPP system under a
set of given conditions (the sequence ground motion recorded on the station CHY029,
PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5, ductility value μ ¼ 2), with five different scaling PGAms .
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2155

The relation between the equivalent velocity V E,seq and PGAms for sequence ground
motions can be deduced from Equations 3 and 5, as follows:
0.1g
V PGA
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e6;62;615

E,seq ¼ ðPGAms ∕0.1gÞ  V E,seq

ms
(6)

where, V 0.1g
E,seq is the equivalent velocity for sequence ground motions with the benchmark
seismic intensity (PGAms ¼ 0.1 g).

INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA

In this section, the main shock in sequences are scaled to 0.1 g. It should be noted that, for
brevity of the study, V 0.1g
E,seq is abbreviated to V E,seq .

MEAN V E,seq
A total amount of 1,464,660 input energy indices of four hysteretic models are computed
for 309 MSAS sequences, 79 periods of vibration, 5 levels of ductility value and 3 levels of
the relative intensity. It should be noted that, for the purpose of brevity, the sequences includ-
ing one aftershock are used to study V E,seq in the following sections except the Effects of
Aftershocks section, in which the effects of seismic sequences on V E,seq are investigated
by using the sequences including one aftershock and two aftershocks.
Figure 2 shows the mean V E,seq for EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the
sequences including one aftershock, PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), on two different site classes.
It can be observed that the mean V E,seq for the constant ductility show the same general
trend regardless of the site conditions. In the short period region, the mean V E,seq are sig-
nificantly dependent on the period of vibration, increasing sharply with the increase of the
period of vibration. In the medium-long period region, the mean V E,seq are moderately depen-
dent on the period of vibration, increasing slowly with the increase of the period of vibration.
In the long period region, the mean V E,seq are strongly dependent on the period of vibration,
decreasing with the increase of the period of vibration.

Figure 2. The mean V E,seq for EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the sequences includ-
ing one aftershock and PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), on two different site classes: (a) Site C; (b) Site D.
2156 ZHAI ET AL.

In the whole period, the mean V E,seq are moderately dependent on the ductility values μ,
decreasing slowly with the increase of the ductility values μ. For structures located on site
class D, the mean V E,seq decrease from 0.44 to 0.43 as the ductility values μ increases from 2
to 6 at the period of vibration T ¼ 1 s, likewise, the mean V E,seq decrease from 0.48 to 0.40 as
the ductility values μ increases from 2 to 6 at the period of vibration T ¼ 4 s, as shown in
Figure 2b.

DISPERSION OF V E;seq
Figure 3 illustrates the COVs of the V E,seq for EPP system, under a set of given conditions
(the sequences including one aftershock and PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), on two different site
classes.
In the whole period region, the COVs are significantly dependent on the variation of the
period, increasing with the increase of the period of vibration except for the short period
region in Figure 3a, in which the COVs decrease with the increase of the period of vibration.
Except few COVs on site class D, all the COVs in Figure 3 are smaller than 0.9. In general,
the COVs of V E,seq on different site classes show the similar trend, and the differences of
COVs on two different site classes are small. It can be found that the COVs are relatively
insensitive to the ductility values μ, however, sensitive to the period of the vibration. For
example, as shown in Figure 3a, at the shorter fixed period of vibration T ¼ 0.3 s, the
COVs decrease from about 29% for μ ¼ 2 to 26% for μ ¼ 6, however, at the longer
fixed period of the vibration T ¼ 4 s, the COVs increase from 79% for μ ¼ 2 to 74% for
μ ¼ 6. From the comparison, the difference in COVs caused by period of vibration is
quite big, while the difference in COVs caused by ductility values μ is quite small.

EFFECTS OF SITE CONDITIONS

Figure 4 shows V E,seq on the given site normalized by the mean V E,seq on all site classes
for EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the sequences including one aftershock and

Figure 3. COVs of V E,seq for EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the sequences includ-
ing one aftershock and PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), on two different site classes: (a) Site C; (b) Site D.
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2157

Figure 4. The mean V E,seq on a given site normalized by the mean V E,seq on all site classes for
EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the sequences including one aftershock and
PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), for two different site classes: (a) Site class C; (b) Site class D.

PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), for two different site classes. The results in this figure provide a mea-
sure of error that might be produced by ignoring the influence of site conditions in the process
of evaluating V E,seq for ground motions on different site classes.
In general, the ratios in Figure 4a are characterized by being greater than 1.0 in the short
period region. It indicates that the error of underestimation is produced, when V E,seq for struc-
tures on site class C is evaluated by using the mean V E,seq for structures on all site classes. The
ratios in the short period region in Figure 4b indicate that the error of overestimation is produced,
when V E,seq for structures on site class D is approximated by using the mean V E,seq for structures
on all site classes. For structures with medium-long or long periods, the level of underestimation
or overestimation is high (e.g., being 20%), so that the effects of site conditions could not be
neglected in the medium-long and long period regions. However, the ratios in Figures 4a and 4b
are approximately close to 1.0 in the short period region, meaning that the influence of site
conditions on V E,seq is negligible (e.g., being 6%) in the short period region.

EFFECTS OF AFTERSHOCKS
In order to study the effects of aftershocks on V E , the ratios of V E,seq for MSAS sequences
to V E,ms for the corresponding main shock ground motion are calculated for each sequences,
each period of vibration, each ductility value and each relative intensity PGAas ∕PGAms .
Figure 5 shows the mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms for EPP system, under a set of given conditions
(the sequences including one aftershock on site class C and μ ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), with dif-
ferent relative intensity levels. From Figure 5, it can be seen that all the mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms are
greater than 1.0, meaning that the aftershock ground motion enlarges V E . Also, by checking
all the curves shown in Figure 5, it can be seen that the mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms increase as the ratio
PGAas ∕PGAms increases, and the mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms in the short period region are greater
than those in the medium-long period. It can be observed that the aftershock would more
significantly influence V E for the structures with short periods than for the structures with
medium-long periods.
2158 ZHAI ET AL.

Figure 5. The mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms for the EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the
sequences including one aftershock on site class C, and μ ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), with different values
of PGAas ∕PGAms : (a) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5; (b) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.8; (c) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 1.0.

The above results show that the effects of aftershocks on V E should not be ignored. With
the increase of PGAas ∕PGAms , the effects of aftershocks on V E generally increase from 5% to
16% for the most of the period region in the analysis, in which the degree of the increase is
more obvious for the short period region. From Figure 5, it can be seen that the effects of
aftershocks on E I generally increases from 10% to 35%, when PGAas ∕PGAms increases from
0.5 to 1.0 for the sequences including one aftershock.
It is well known that more than one aftershock happen after the main shock. It means that
the main shock ground motion on a given site is generally followed by a series of aftershock
ground motions. The influences of sequences including two aftershocks on V E are investi-
gated. Figure 6 shows the mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms for EPP system, under a set of given conditions
(the sequences including two aftershocks on site class C and μ ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), with
different relative intensity. The results in Figures 5 and 6 can be used to investigate
V E,seq for the sequences with different numbers of aftershocks. The mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms in
these two figures are of the similar trends with the variation of period, ductility value
and relative intensity. With the increase of PGAas ∕PGAms , the effects of aftershocks on
V E generally increases from 10% to 20% for the most of the period region in the Figure 6,
in which the degree of the increase is more obvious for the short period region. From Figure 6,
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2159

Figure 6. The mean V E,seq ∕V E,ms for EPP system, under a set of given conditions (the sequences
including two aftershocks on site class C, and μ ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), with different relative inten-
sities: (a) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5; (b) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.8.

the effects of aftershocks on E I generally increase from 20% to 40%, when PGAas ∕PGAms
increases from 0.5 to 0.8 for the sequences including two aftershocks.
Figure 7 shows the ratios of mean V E,seq for the sequences including two aftershocks to
the mean V E,seq for the sequences including one aftershock for EPP system, under a set of
given conditions (site class C and μ ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), with different relative intensity.
V E,3seq and V E,2seq are denoted as the sequences including two aftershocks and one after-
shock, respectively. In Figure 7, it can be seen that ratios for PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5 and
PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.8 show the similar trend. In the short period region, ratios are strongly
dependent on the period of vibration and decrease as the period of vibration increases, while
ratios are relative insensitive to the variation of period of vibration in the medium-long period

Figure 7. The ratios of mean V E,seq for the sequences including two aftershocks to the mean V E,seq
for the sequences including one aftershock for EPP system, under a set of given conditions (site
class C, and μ ¼ 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), with different relative intensities: (a) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5;
(b) PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.8.
2160 ZHAI ET AL.

region. The MSAS sequences including two aftershocks cause larger input energy with
respect to the sequences including one aftershock for all the ratios in Figure 7 being larger
than 1.0. It means that the two aftershocks have more obvious effects on V E,seq .
The aftershocks have more significant influence on the structures with short periods than
for the structures with other periods. The same trend for other response measures (i.e., peak
ductility demand, inelastic displacement ratio) can be found in literatures (Hatzigeorgiou and
Beskos 2009, Goda 2012, Goda and Taylor 2012, Zhai et al. 2014). In comparison with the
results in literatures (Hatzigeorgiou and Beskos 2009, Goda 2012, Goda and Taylor 2012,
Zhai et al. 2014), the aftershocks have more significant influence on input energy than on
other response measures, such as peak ductility demand, inelastic displacement ratio.
Furthermore, the energy could efficiently reflect the whole damage process of structures
under MSAS sequences. Therefore, the input energy is an appropriate parameter to evaluate
the additional damage due to aftershocks.

EFFECTS OF MODELS
In order to investigate the effects of models on the mean V E,seq for MSAS sequences, the
analysis on the mean V E,seq for different models and different ductility values are performed.
Figure 8 shows the mean V E,seq for four different hysteretic models, under a set of given con-
ditions (the sequences including one aftershock on site class C, PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), with
two different ductility values.
In Figure 8, it can be seen that the mean V E,seq in the short period region are relatively
insensitive to the hysteretic models, by contrast, the mean V E,seq in the medium-long period
region are relatively sensitive to the hysteretic models. The effects of models on the mean
V E,seq in the analysis are more critical for the structure in high ductility values μ than for the
structure in low ductility values μ. For example, at the lower ductility value μ ¼ 2 at T ¼ 4 s
shown in Figure 8a, the difference of the mean V E,seq among the four given models is limited
in the range 0.30 to 0.32, by contrast, at the higher ductility value μ ¼ 4 at the same period

Figure 8. The mean V E,seq for four different hysteretic models, under a set of given conditions
(the sequences including one aftershock on site class C, and PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), with two
different ductility values: (a) μ ¼ 2; (b) μ ¼ 4.
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2161

T ¼ 4 s shown in Figure 8b, the difference of the mean V E,seq among the same four given
models is enlarged to the range 0.26 to 0.30. In this study, the EPP system is chosen, since it
encompasses other hysteretic models as shown in Figure 8.

THE PROPOSED INPUT ENERGY EQUATION

The curve of the input energy spectra as a function of the period of vibration can be
simplified as a generic curve shown in Figures 9 and 10. As it can be seen from Figure 10,
the four critical points, ð0.1, aÞ, ðT 1 , bÞ, ðT 2 , cÞ and ð6, dÞ, are dependent on the period of
vibration and ductility value. The generic variation of V E,seq versus the period is proposed to
be mathematically expressed by the following equations for different period ranges:
8
< a þ ðb  aÞðT  0.1Þ∕ðT 1  0.1Þ 0.1s ≤ T ≤ T 1
V 0.1g
E,seq ¼ b þ ðc  bÞðT  T 1 Þ∕ðT 2  T 1 Þ T 1 ≤ T ≤ T 2 (7)
:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e7;62;514

c þ ðd  cÞðT  T 2 Þ∕ð6  T 2 Þ T 2 ≤ T ≤ 6.0s

where, T is the period of vibration, V 0.1g
E,seq is the mass-normalized input energy for the bench-
mark seismic intensity (PGA ¼ 0.1 g).

Figure 9. Comparison between the computed results and the mean V E,seq for EPP system,
under a set of given conditions (the sequences including one aftershock on site class C,
PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), with different ductility values: (a) μ ¼ 2; (b) μ ¼ 4; (c) μ ¼ 5; (d) μ ¼ 6.
2162 ZHAI ET AL.

Figure 10. Comparison between the computed results and the mean V E,seq for EPP system, under
a set of given conditions (the sequences including one aftershock on site class D,
PGAas ∕PGAms ¼ 0.5), with different ductility values: (a) μ ¼ 2; (b) μ ¼ 4; (c) μ ¼ 5; (d) μ ¼ 6.

In this manuscript, the initial values of T 1 and T 2 are estimated by the input energy spec-
tral shape in different soil conditions, different ductility values, different relative intensities
and different numbers of the aftershocks. The whole period are divided into three parts by T 1
and T 2 . Subsequently, a lot of least-square regression trials and the corresponding error ana-
lysis are performed, and the best fitting scheme is selected based on the error analysis. Para-
meters a, b, c and d, are computed by the least-square regression analysis (Bates and Watts
1998) for the best fitting scheme.
The mean (50%) level of input energy spectra has been used widely in energy-based
seismic design (e.g., Fajfar and Vidic 1994, Decanini and Mollaioli 1998, 2001, Manfredi
2001, López-Almansa et al. 2013, Lu et al. 2013). Thus, the mean level of input energy
values is conventionally adopted in this manuscript. The values of a, b, c, d, T 1 , and T 2
of mean V E,seq for the sequences including one aftershock and two aftershocks are summar-
ized in Tables A1 and A2 (see the online Appendix), respectively. However, given the uncer-
tainties associated with ground motions, there is substantial scatter in the evaluated seismic
demands of a structure, and their distribution is quite skewed (Yi et al. 2007). Therefore,
mean spectra alone are insufficient for performance-based seismic design of structures.
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2163

The mean-plus-one standard deviation (84.1%), which was assumed to be the lognormal
distribution (Chopra 2007), is also provided for users, who wish to have more conservative
values (e.g., Benavent-Climent et al. 2002, 2010, Dindar et al. 2015). The values of a, b, c, d,
T 1 , and T 2 of 84.1% V E,seq spectra for the sequences including one aftershock and two after-
shocks are summarized in Tables A3 and A4 (see the online Appendix). Users can choose
input energy spectra with different probabilities according to different seismic design require-
ments. Figures 9 and 10 show the comparison between the computed mean V E,seq from
Equation 7 and the statistical results for the sequences including one aftershock on site classes
C and D, respectively. It can be seen that, in general, the proposed simplified equation
provides good estimates of the mean V E,seq .
This study aims to develop an input energy demand spectra for the cases with different
soil conditions, ductility values, relative intensities and numbers of aftershocks. The use of
the proposed input energy spectra together with the period, relative intensity and mass of the
structure would help engineers approximate the input energy demand for the structure under
sequences. For the structures whose nonlinear dynamic responses are dominated by the first
vibration mode, the results in this paper can give a good estimate of their seismic perfor-
mance. For the structures whose higher vibration modes have significant contribution to
the nonlinear dynamic responses, modification of the results in this paper is necessary to
account for the influences of higher vibration modes, which would be worth of being further
investigated.

CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the input energy spectra have been investigated for MSAS sequences. The
input energy for MSAS sequences is normalized by mass m and expressed in terms of equiva-
lent velocity V E,seq . The equivalent velocities V E,seq are computed for MSAS sequences, and
subsequently statistical study is performed. The main shock in sequences is scaled to 0.1 g
and the corresponding equivalent velocities are denoted as V 0.1g E,seq . The EPP hysteretic model
is used in the proposed spectra for the sake of being conservative in the study. The following
conclusions are drawn from this investigation:
1. In the whole period, the mean V E,seq varies with the period of vibration of the SDOF
system in three different modes. In short period region, the mean V E,seq is extremely
dependent on period of vibration of the SDOF system, increasing quickly with the
increase of the period of vibration. In medium-long period region, the mean V E,seq is
properly dependent on period of vibration of the SDOF system, increasing slowly
with the increase of the period of vibration. In long period region, the mean V E,seq is
dependent on period of vibration of the SDOF system, decreasing with the increase
of the period of vibration. Furthermore, the increase of ductility values μ always
leads to the decrease of the mean V E,seq and vice versa.
2. The COVs of V E,seq significantly change with the variation of the period of vibration
in the whole period region. The COVs are not sensitive to the ductility values μ and
site classes. The effects of site conditions on V E,seq is negligible in medium-long
period region. In short and long period regions, the effects of site conditions on
V E,seq is high. The MSAS sequences would increase V E,seq , comparing with the
case in which the sole the main shock ground motion is considered.
2164 ZHAI ET AL.

3. A simplified expression of V E,seq is proposed as three piecewise functions of period

of vibration. The parameters in these equations are dependent on the site conditions
and the level of ductility value μ. By comparing the V E,seq computed from the pro-
posed expression and the mean V E,seq for EPP system under MSAS sequences
including one aftershock, a good agreement between the computed the statistical
results is achieved.
4. Energy-based seismic design is a promising approach for the realization of
performance-based seismic deign. The input energy spectra provided in this
study could be used to examine the effects of aftershocks on the structure
and to evaluate the damage of structure under MSAS sequences, which is impor-
tant in the energy-based seismic design.
It should be noted that the influences of sites classes A, B, and E are not considered in this
manuscript. Thus further studies are needed to incorporate the influences into the predictive
model of input energy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and
suggestions. This investigation is supported by the Scientific Research Fund of Institute of
Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (No. 2016A01), the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51322801 51238012 and 91215301), the Program for
International Science and Technology Cooperation Projects of China (No. 2012DFA70810),
the National Science and Technology Major Project (2013zx06002001-09) and Shenzhen
Science and Technology Planning Program (No. JCYJ20140417172417171). These supports
are greatly appreciated.

APPENDIX
Please refer to the online version of this paper to access the supplemental tables in the
Appendix.

REFERENCES
Amiri, G. G., Darzi, G. A., and Amiri, J. V., 2008. Design elastic input energy spectra based on
Iranian earthquakes, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 35, 635–646.
Bates, D. M., and Watts, D. G., 1988. Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications, Wiley,
New York.
Benavent-Climent, A., Pujades, L. G., and López-Almansa, F., 2002. Design energy input spectra for
moderate-seismicity regions, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 31, 1151–1172.
Benavent-Climent, A., López-Almansa, F., and Bravo-González, D. A., 2010. Design energy
input spectra for moderate-to-high seismicity regions based on Colombian earthquakes,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30, 1129–1148.
Building Standard Law (BSL), 2005. Notification no. 631 of the ministry of land, infrastructure,
transport and tourism, Earthquake-Resistant Structural Calculation Based on Energy Balance,
Tokyo, Japan.
Chai, Y. H., 2005. Incorporating low-cycle fatigue model into duration-dependent inelastic
design spectra, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 34, 83–96.
THE INELASTIC INPUT ENERGY SPECTRA FOR MAIN SHOCK–AFTERSHOCK SEQUENCES 2165

China Earthquake Networks Center (CENC), 2008, available at http://www.csndmc.ac.cn/

newweb (last accessed 1 December 2015).
Chopra, A. K., 2007. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Third Edition, New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 876 pp.
Das, S., Gupta, V. K., and Srimahavishnu, V., 2007. Damage-based design with no repairs for
multiple events and its sensitivity to seismicity model, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 36, 307–325.
Decanini, L. D., and Mollaioli, F., 1998. Formulation of elastic earthquake input energy spectra,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 27, 1503–1522.
Decanini, L. D., and Mollaioli, F., 2001. An energy-based methodology for the assessment of
seismic demand, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21, 113–137.
Dindar, A. A., Yalçin, C., Yüksel, E., Özkaynak, H., and Büyüköztürk, O., 2015. Development of
earthquake energy demand spectra, Earthquake Spectra 31, 1667–1689.
Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., and Fischinger, M., 1991. On the energy input into structures, in Proceed-
ings, the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 81–92.
Fajfar, P., and Vidic, T., 1994. Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 23, 523–537.
Goda, K., 2012. Nonlinear response potential of main shock-aftershock sequences from Japanese
earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 102, 2139–2156.
Goda, K., and Taylor, C. A., 2012. Effects of aftershocks on peak ductility demand due to strong
ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering & Struc-
tural Dynamics 41, 2311–2330.
Goda, K., Pomonis, A., Chian, S. C., Offord, M., Saito, K., Sammonds, P., Fraser, S., Raby, A.,
and Macabuag, J., 2013. Ground motion characteristics and shaking damage of the 11th March
2011 Mw 9.0 Great East Japan earthquake, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11, 141–170.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., and Beskos, D. E., 2009. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures
subjected to repeated earthquakes, Engineering Structures 31, 2744–2755.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., 2010a. Behavior factors for nonlinear structures subjected to multiple near-
fault earthquakes, Computers and Structures 88, 309–321.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., 2010b. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault earth-
quakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30, 170–183.
Hatzigeorgiou, G. D., and Liolios, A. A., 2010. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated
strong ground motions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30, 1010–1025.
Hori, N., and Inoue, N., 2002. Damaging properties of ground motions and prediction of max-
imum response of structures based on momentary energy response, Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics 31, 1657–1679.
Housner, G. W., 1959. Behavior of structures during earthquakes, Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division 85, 109–129.
Iancovici, M., and Georgiana, I., 2007. Evaluation of the inelastic demand of structures subjected
to multiple ground motions, Structural Engineering 4, 143–154.
International Code Council (ICC), 2006. International Building Code, Whittier, CA.
Kalkan, E., and Kunnath, S. K., 2007. Effective cyclic energy as a measure of seismic demand,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 11, 725–751.
Kunnath, S. K., Reinhorn, A. M., and Park, Y. J., 1990. Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic
response of R/C structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 116, 996–1017.
2166 ZHAI ET AL.

Kiban-Kyoshin Network (KiK-net), 2009, Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention, available at http://www.kik.bosai.go.jp (last accessed 1 December 2015).
Li, Q., and Ellingwood, B. R., 2007. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel
frame buildings under main shock-aftershock earthquake sequences, Earthquake Engineering
& Structural Dynamics 36, 405–427.
López-Almansa, F., Yazgan, A. U., and Benavent-Climent, A., 2013. Design energy input spectra
for high seismicity regions based on Turkish registers, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11,
885–912.
Lu, S., Li, S., Zhai, C. H., and Xie, L. L., 2013. Effects of hanging wall and footwall on demand
of structural input energy during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Earthquake Engineering
and Engineering Vibration 12, 1–12.
Manfredi, G., 2001. Evaluation of seismic energy demand, Earthquake Engineering & Structural
Dynamics 30, 485–499.
Miranda, E., and Ruiz-García, J., 2002. Influence of stiffness degradation on strength demands of
structures built on soft soil sites, Engineering Structures 24, 1271–1281.
Moustafa, A., and Takewaki, I., 2010. Modeling critical ground-motion sequences for inelastic
structures, Advances in Structural Engineering 13, 665–679.
Ordaz, M., Huerta, B., and Reinoso, E., 2003. Exact computation of input-energy spectra from
Fourier amplitude spectra, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 32, 597–605.
Priestley, M. J. N., 1988. The Whittier Narrows, California earthquake of October 1, 1987-
damage to the I-5/I-605 separator, Earthquake Spectra 4, 389–405.
Rahnama, M., and Krawinkler, H., 1993. Effects of soft soil and hysteresis model on seismic
demands, Report No. 108, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA.
Ruiz-García, J., and Negrete-Manriquez, J. C., 2011. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault main shock-aftershock seismic sequences,
Engineering Structures 33, 621–634.
Tselentis, G. A., Danciu, L., and Sokos, E., 2010. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in
Greece-Part 2: Acceleration response spectra and elastic input energy spectra, Natural
Hazards and Earth System Science 10, 41–49.
Uang, C. M., and Bertero, V. V., 1990. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures, Earthquake
Engineering & Structural Dynamics 19, 77–90.
Yi, W. J., Zhang, H. Y., and Kunnath, S. K., 2007. Probabilistic constant-strength ductility
demand spectra, Journal of structural engineering 133, 567–575.
Zhai, C. H., Wen, W. P., Chen, Z. Q., Li, S., and Xie, L. L., 2013a. Damage spectra for the main
shock-aftershock sequence-type ground motions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
45, 1–12.
Zhai, C. H., Wen, W. P., Zhu, T. T., Li, S., and Xie, L. L., 2013b. Inelastic displacement ratios for
design of structures with constant damage performance, Engineering Structures 52, 53–63.
Zhai, C. H., Wen, W. P., Li, S., Chang, Z. W., and Xie, L. L., 2014. The damage investigation of
inelastic SDOF structure under the main shock-aftershock sequence-type ground motions, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 59, 30–41.
(Received 13 December 2015; accepted 15 May 2016)

View publication stats