Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions

George D. Hatzigeorgiou a,, Asterios A. Liolios b
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, GR-67100 Xanthi, Greece
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, GR-67100 Xanthi, Greece

a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an extensive parametric study on the inelastic response of eight reinforced concrete
Received 19 December 2009 (RC) planar frames which are subjected to forty five sequential ground motions. Two families of regular
Received in revised form and vertically irregular (with setbacks) frames are examined. The first family has been designed for
6 April 2010
seismic and vertical loads according to European codes while the second one only for vertical loads, to
Accepted 12 April 2010
study structures which have been constructed before the introduction of adequate seismic design code
provisions. The whole range of frames is subjected to five real seismic sequences which are recorded by
the same station, in the same direction and in a short period of time, up to three days. In such cases,
there is a significant damage accumulation as a result of multiplicity of earthquakes, and due to lack of
time, any rehabilitation action is impractical. Furthermore, the examined frames are also subjected to
forty artificial seismic sequences. Comprehensive analysis of the created response databank is
employed in order to derive important conclusions. It is found that the sequences of ground motions
have a significant effect on the response and, hence, on the design of reinforced concrete frames.
Furthermore, it is concluded that the ductility demands of the sequential ground motions can be
accurately estimated using appropriate combinations of the corresponding demands of single ground
motions.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction damage. The second limitation of these codes is the exclusive

The past four decades have seen a rapid development of
knowledge in seismic analysis and design of reinforced concrete
(RC) framed structures. Various rational approaches have been
proposed, which are mainly based on the inelastic materials
behaviour. The majority of modern seismic design codes, as for
example the European code EC8 [1], permit the structural
nonlinearity. However, even these codes have their drawbacks
where two of them are important. The first is that the structural
behaviour is usually estimated by a rather irrational manner.
More specifically, the design procedure is divided into two stages
[1,2]: evaluation of member internal forces by linear analysis of
the whole structure followed by the ultimate limit state design of
individual cross-sections assuming the ideal nonlinear properties
of the materials. This design procedure provides no verification of
the compatibility between the isolated member and the member
as part of the whole structure. Nowadays, where the capabilities
of the structural modelling are much larger, an engineer can
perform analyses which give considerably better predictions
of stresses, displacements, limit loads and mechanisms of the
 Corresponding author. Tel./fax: + 30 25410 79373.
E-mail address: gchatzig@env.duth.gr (G.D. Hatzigeorgiou).
adoption of the isolated and rare ‘design earthquake’ while the
influence of repeated earthquake phenomena is ignored. Despite
the fact that the problem has been qualitatively acknowledged [3],
very few studies have been reported in the literature regarding
the multiple earthquake phenomena. To be sure, Amadio et al. [4]
examined the effect of repeated earthquake ground motions on
the nonlinear response of single degree of freedom (SDOF)
systems. However, as the authors themselves recognized, their
work cannot be considered exhaustive since they examined only
one natural and two artificial ground motions. Recently, Hatzi-
georgiou and Beskos [5] and Hatzigeorgiou [6,7] examined the
influence of multiple earthquakes in numerous SDOF systems and
found that seismic sequences lead to increased displacement
demands in comparison with the ‘design earthquake’. However,
these works are concerned with SDOF and not with RC framed
structures. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is only
one work that has evaluated the effect of repeated earthquakes on
concrete structures where an RC bridge is examined under one
real and one artificial seismic sequence [8]. Thus, the need for the
development of an efficient methodology for the inelastic ana-
lysis of RC framed structures, as multi-storey buildings, under
sequential ground motions is apparent.
This paper presents an extensive parametric study on the
inelastic response of eight reinforced concrete planar frames

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.04.013
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025 1011

under forty five seismic sequences. This study employs, for the
first time, as-recorded seismic sequences to determine the
nonlinear behaviour of RC framed structures. More specifically,
the first five multiple earthquakes have been recorded by the
same station, in the same direction and in a short period of time,
up to three days. In such cases, there is a significant damage
accumulation as a result of multiplicity of earthquakes, and due to
lack of time, any rehabilitation action is impractical. Furthermore,
the examined RC frames are also subjected to forty artificial
seismic sequences. Two families of regular and vertically irregular
(with setbacks) frames are examined. The first family of frames
has been designed for seismic and vertical loads according to
European codes while the second one for vertical loads only, to
study structures which have been constructed before the
introduction of adequate seismic design code provisions. The
time-history responses of these concrete frames are evaluated by
means of the structural analysis software RUAUMOKO [9].
Comprehensive analysis of the created response databank is
employed in order to derive significant conclusions. More
specifically, this study focuses on the results which are related
to the following critical parameters: local or global structural
damage, maximum displacements, interstorey drift ratios, devel-
opment of plastic hinges and response using the incremental
dynamic analysis (IDA) method [10]. The last one is also known as
dynamic pushover analysis [10] and can be characterized as one of
the most accepted methods for determining seismic response.
It has been used in many applications as for evaluation of
the seismic performance of structures [11], for studies related to
damage measure [12] and for the validation of simplified proce-
dures for the prediction of approximate IDA curves [13,14].
However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the IDA technique
has not yet been applied to examine the structural behaviour of

Fig. 1. Frames A1 and B1 properties.

1012 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025

RC structures under multiple or sequential ground motions.
Examining the results of this study, it is found that the sequences
of ground motions have a significant effect on the response and,
hence, on the design of reinforced concrete frames. Additionally,
the accumulation of permanent displacements due to multiple
earthquakes is also examined. Finally, a simple and effective
combination of ductility demands of single events is proposed to
estimate the corresponding demand of the sequential ground
motions.
2. Description of structures and modelling
a high-seismicity region of Europe considering both gravity and
seismic loads where a design/peak ground acceleration (PGA) of
0.2 g and soil class B according to EC8 [1] are assumed. These
structures have been designed for the following loading combina-
tions [1,15]:
a) 1.35G +1.50Q
b) 1.00G + cQ+ 1.00E
c) 1.00G + cQ 1.00E
where G, Q and E correspond to dead, live and earthquake
loads, respectively, and c is the combination coefficient for live
load, assumed to be c ¼1.00 in this study.

Four structures (Family A—Frames: A1, A2, A3 and A4) are Most of the existing reinforced concrete buildings were
considered to represent low-rise (three-storey) and medium-rise designed according to early seismic provisions or, sometimes,
(eight-storey) RC buildings for study. They consist of four typical without applying any seismic provision. In order to examine such
beam–column RC frame buildings without shear walls, located in buildings designed for gravity only, another family of structures

Fig. 2. Frames A2 and B2 properties.

 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025
(Family B—Frames: B1, B2, B3 and B4) is also considered. Thus,
this group has been designed only for the aforementioned first
loading combination.
Families A and B have the same geometry and loads but they
have different reinforcement. This paper, examining these
families of structures, does not focus into a rigorous comparison
between them but mainly into the effect of multiple earthquakes
on both of them. The case of shear failure is not examined here
assuming adequate transverse reinforcement. However, the
transverse reinforcement of older RC frames appears to be
very light for columns and for this reason the confinement of
concrete is not taken into account for Family B. It is well-known
that the cross-sectional dimensions of frames designed for
seismic loading tend to be larger than those that are not designed
to resist seismic forces. However, the identical geometry
and loads allow the comparison of structural responses between
them since their elastic dynamic properties (periods of vibration,
etc.) are also identical. The dead loads (excluding self-weight) and
live loads are equal to 20 and 10 kN/m, respectively, and are
directly applied on the beams. All floors are assumed to be rigid in
plan to account for the diaphragm action of concrete slabs.
Material properties are assumed to be 20 MPa for the concrete
compressive strength (concrete grade C20) and 500 MPa for the
Fig. 3. Frame A3 properties.
1013
yield strength of both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements
(steel grade S500s). Both the examined 3- and 8-storey buildings
have 3 equal bays with total length equal to 15 m. Typical
floor-to-floor height is equal to 3.0 m, while for the first floor of
the 8-storey buildings the height is equal to 4.0 m. The
characteristic interior frames of these structures, as shown in
Figs. 1–6, represent 2-D models of these buildings. Modal
properties of the first three modes are given in Table 1. The
column and beam dimensions used in this study are typical
frame element proportions in the existing buildings. The
3-storey buildings are 9.0 m in elevation. All their beams are
30 cm  40 cm, all their columns are square with side 30 cm and
the selected longitudinal reinforcement amount (number of bars
and diameters in mm) and arrangement, is shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
The 8-storey buildings are 25.0 m in elevation. All beams have
width equal to 30 cm and height equal to 40–60 cm, all columns
are square with side 30–40 cm and the selected longitudinal
reinforcement, i.e., amount (number of bars and diameters in
mm) and arrangement, is shown in Figs. 3–6. It is evident that the
reinforcement amount for columns of Family A buildings is higher
than that of Family B buildings. This difference has to do with the
concept of capacity design, i.e., strong columns–weak beams.
More specifically, the design of columns of Family A structures
1014 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025
Fig. 4. Frame B3 properties.
satisfies the following condition of y4.4.2.3 of EC8 [1], at all joints
of beams with columns:
X X
MRc Z 1:3 MRb
P P
where MRc and MRb are the sums of the design values of the
moments of resistance of the columns and beams framing
the joint, respectively. This provision is waived at the top level
of the examined buildings of Family A.
The behaviour factors, q, for the seismic design of Family A
buildings are compatible with the provisions of y5.2.2.2 of EC8 [1]
and satisfy the ductility capacity medium (DCM) criteria. More
specifically, regular buildings A1 and A3 have been designed for
q¼3.9, while buildings A2 and A4 for q¼ 0.8  3.9¼ 3.12, since
according to the abovementioned provisions, for buildings which
are not regular in elevation, the value of behaviour factor should
be reduced by 20%.
Reduced values of member moments of inertia, Ief, were
considered in the design to account for the cracking; for beams
Ief ¼0.5Ig and for the columns Ief ¼ 0.9Ig, where Ig is the moment of
inertia of the corresponding gross section [16].
An inelastic structural multi-degree of freedom (MDOF)
system with viscously damped force-deformation relationship
is used to investigate the structural response for actual records.
The dynamic equilibrium equation of these systems is given in
incremental form [17]
ð1Þ
Mu€ þ C u_ þ K T u ¼ Mag ð2Þ
where M is the mass matrix, u the relative displacement vector,
C the viscous damping matrix, KT the tangent (inelastic) stiffness
matrix, ag the acceleration vector of the ground motion and the
upper dots stand for time derivatives. The solution of the equation
of motion has been performed using the RUAUMOKO program [9],
which is an advanced program for seismic analysis of framed
structures. A brief description of the modelling details is provided
in the following.
A two-dimensional model of each structure is created in
RUAUMOKO [9] to carry out nonlinear dynamic analysis. The soil-
structure interaction phenomenon is not taken into account,
considering fixed base conditions. Second-order effects (P D
effects) are taken into account. Beam and column elements are
modelled as nonlinear frame elements with lumped plasticity by
defining plastic hinges at both ends of the beams and columns. On
the beams, axial forces were assumed to be zero since all floors
are assumed to be rigid in plan to account for the diaphragm
action of concrete slabs. Characteristic input data for strength that
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025
Fig. 5. Frame A4 properties.
are required by RUAUMOKO [9] are the bending moment–axial
force interaction diagrams for columns and bending strength
values for beams. In this work and for each column and beam, the
program RESPONSE-2000 [18] is used for the section modelling. It
should be noted that for the entire group of analyses and
members, the modified Takeda [19,20] hysteretic model is
adopted. The parameters of this model are affected by the end
resistances of beams and columns, which are obviously different
for each family of structures resulting in different adopted
hysteresis models. Thus, stiffness and strength degradation are
taken into account in family B buildings, which exhibit descend-
ing stiffness after yielding. An explanation of these parameters
and the shape of the hysteresis model are analytically presented
in the RUAUMOKO user manual by Carr [9]. Another critical
parameter which is required has to do with the plastic hinge
length to relate the rotation values with the curvatures. Several
plastic hinge lengths have been proposed in the literature. In this
work and without loss of generality, the simplest approach, which
has been proposed by Park and Paulay [21], is adopted where the
plastic hinge length, lph for each member is equal to half of its
section’s height, H, i.e.
lph ¼ 0:5H
1015
3. Seismic input
3.1. Real seismic sequences
The first strong ground motion database that has been used
here consists of five real seismic sequences, which have been
recorded during a short period of time (up to three days), by the
same station, in the same direction, and almost at the same fault
distance. These seismic sequences are namely: Mammoth Lakes
(May 1980–5 events), Chalfant Valley (July 1986–2 events),
Coalinga (July 1983–2 events), Imperial Valley (October 1979–2
events) and Whittier Narrows (October 1987–2 events) earth-
quakes. The complete list of these earthquakes, which were
downloaded from the strong motion database of the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center [22], appears in
Table 2. These records are compatible with the soil class B, and
therefore compatible with the design process as mentioned in the
previous section. Every sequential ground motion records from
the PEER database becomes a single ground motion record (serial
array) where between two consecutive seismic events a time gap
is applied, which is equal to 100 s. This gap has zero acceleration
ordinates and is absolutely enough to cease the moving of any
ð3Þ structure due to damping. Thus, Fig. 7 shows the time histories of
1016 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025

Fig. 6. Frame B4 properties.

Table 1 3.2. Artificial seismic sequences

Dynamic characteristics of structures: periods and mass participation factor (MPF).

Structure First mode Second mode Third mode Sum of The second strong ground motion database that has been used
(MPFs) here consists of forty artificial seismic sequences. More specifi-
T1 (s) (MPF) T2 (s) (MPF) T3 (s) (MPF) cally, 10 artificial accelerograms are considered to generate 20
synthetic sequences of two events and 20 synthetic sequences of
Frame A1 0.6382 (0.891) 0.2048 (0.092) 0.1215 (0.017) (1.000)
Frame A2 0.5001 (0.853) 0.2037 (0.127) 0.1308 (0.020) (1.000)
three events. The single ground motions are compatible with the
Frame A3 1.2330 (0.800) 0.4718 (0.143) 0.2651 (0.042) (0.985) design process, i.e., with Type 1 spectrum of EC8 [1], Soil B local
Frame A4 0.9673 (0.731) 0.4469 (0.194) 0.2746 (0.055) (0.980) conditions and PGA¼0.2 g, as shown in Fig. 9, and are generated
Frame B1 0.6382 (0.891) 0.2048 (0.092) 0.1215 (0.017) (1.000) by the specialized software SRP [23]. Between two consecutive
Frame B2 0.5001 (0.853) 0.2037 (0.127) 0.1308 (0.020) (1.000)
seismic events a time gap is also applied in this case to cease the
Frame B3 1.2330 (0.800) 0.4718 (0.143) 0.2651 (0.042) (0.985)
Frame B4 0.9673 (0.731) 0.4469 (0.194) 0.2746 (0.055) (0.980) moving of any structure due to damping.

the examined seismic sequences. The elastic spectra for this data-
base and for viscous damping ratio x ¼5%, an appropriate value
for RC structures [1], are presented in Fig. 8. For compatibility
reasons with the design process (Section 2), the seismic sequences
are normalized to have maximum PGA equal to 0.2 g (Table 2,
right column). Thus, the aforementioned sequential ground
motions are multiplied by: 0.4525 (Mammoth Lakes), 0.4474
(Chalfant Valley), 0.2729 (Coalinga), 0.9050 (Imperial Valley) and
0.9434 (Whittier Narrows).
4. Results
The inelastic behaviour of the examined RC framed structures,
which are subjected to the abovementioned five real and forty
artificial seismic sequences, is investigated in this section. This
study focuses on the following basic design parameters: local or
global damage index according to Park and Ang approach [24],
maximum horizontal floor displacements and interstorey drift
ratios. Furthermore, the development of plastic hinges and the
structural response according to advanced methods as the
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025 1017

Table 2
Seismic input data.

No. Seismic sequence Station Comp. Date (time) Magnitude (ML) Recorded PGA (g) Normalized PGA (g)

1 Mammoth Lakes 54099 Convict Creek N–S 1980/05/25 (16:34) 6.1 0.442 0.200
1980/05/25 (16:49) 6.0 0.178 0.081
1980/05/25 (19:44) 6.1 0.208 0.094
1980/05/25 (20:35) 5.7 0.432 0.195
1980/05/27 (14:51) 6.2 0.316 0.143
2 Chalfant Valley 54428 Zack Brothers Ranch E–W 1986/07/20 (14:29) 5.9 0.285 0.128
1986/07/21 (14:42) 6.3 0.447 0.200
3 Coalinga 46T04 CHP N–S 1983/07/22 (02:39) 6.0 0.605 0.165
1983/07/25 (22:31) 5.3 0.733 0.200
4 Imperial Valley 5055 Holtville P.O. HPV315 1979/10/15 (23:16) 6.6 0.221 0.200
1979/10/15 (23:19) 5.2 0.211 0.191
5 Whittier Narrows 24401 San Marino N–S 1987/10/01 (14:42) 5.9 0.204 0.192
1987/10/04 (10:59) 5.3 0.212 0.200

Fig. 7. Ground acceleration records of the examined seismic sequences.

1018 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025

Fig. 8. Response spectra of the examined seismic sequences.

incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) technique are also investi- where dm is the maximum deformation of the element, du the
gated. Finally, the development of permanent displacements is ultimate deformation, b a model constant parameter (usually,
R
also investigated. b ¼0.05–0.20) to control strength deterioration, dEh the hysteretic
energy absorbed by the element during the earthquake and Py the
4.1. Determination of cumulative damage yield strength of the element. In this work, parameter b is set equal
to 0.20, as suggested by Bertero and Bertero [25]. This damage
The Park–Ang model [24] is the best known and most widely model can also be extended to the storey and overall scales (global
used damage index (DI), which is defined as a combination of damage index), by summation of damage indices using appropriate
maximum deformation and hysteretic energy multiplication weights. Park–Ang indices for various damage states
Z are shown for completeness reasons in Table 3, which are adopted
dm b from Ref. [26]. Fig. 10a depicts the local DI for the base joint of the
DI ¼ þ dEh ð4Þ
du du Py left base column of Frame A2, for the Mammoth Lakes seismic
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025 1019

sequence. Furthermore, Fig. 10b shows the global DI, for the whole
Frame B2, under the Whittier Narrows earthquakes. It is evident
that, in any case, seismic sequences lead to increased damage, both
in local and global level. Therefore and according to Table 3, the
seismic sequences can qualitatively and quantitatively upgrade the
structural damage. However, the majority of the existing
investigations examine these parameters only for the ‘idealized’
case of isolated earthquakes.
4.2. Maximum displacements and ductility demands
The maximum horizontal displacement profiles, both for single
and sequential ground motions appear in Fig. 11. More specifically,
the Frames A2, A3, A4 and B1, under the Mammoth Lakes, Coalinga
and Chalfant Valley seismic sequences are examined. It is found that
due to the multiplicity of earthquakes, increased displacement
demands are required, in any case under consideration. It is well-
known that inelastic flexible systems present permanent
displacements for single strong earthquakes. For any other
oncoming ground motion, permanent displacements are obviously
cumulated [5–7] and therefore the maximum displacements appear
to be increased. Furthermore, the maximum displacements are
directly related to the ductility demands. The cumulative ductility,
due to sequential ground motions, is analytically examined in
Section 5, where an empirical expression is proposed to determine
it by the corresponding demands of single earthquakes.
4.3. Interstorey drift ratio (IDR)
The interstorey drift ratio (IDR) is the maximum relative
displacement between two stories normalized to the storey
height. It should be mentioned that from the analysis of test data
on components and small-scale structures, it was found that an
IDR value smaller than 1% corresponds to damage of non-
structural components, while values of IDR larger than 4% may
result in irreparable structural damage or collapse [27]. Generally,
the IDR does not account for effects of cumulative damage due to
repeated inelastic deformation [28]. However, the examined IDR
values include the multiplicity earthquakes effect. Examples of
IDR values appear in Fig. 12, both for single and sequential ground
motions. It is evident that seismic sequences lead to larger IDR in
comparison with the corresponding single events. Additionally,
despite the limitation of damage into non-structural elements in
the case of single/isolated earthquakes (IDRo1%), the sequential
ground motions lead to structural damage, i.e. IDR41%.

4.4. Development of plastic hinges

The final development/distribution of plastic hinges of Frames

A1 and B2, under the Imperial Valley and Mammoth Lakes seismic
sequences appears in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. The formation
Fig. 9. Response spectra of the examined seismic sequences. of plastic hinges in columns of the non-ductile Frame B2 is

Table 3
The relation between damage index and damage state [26].

Degree of damage Physical appearance Damage index State of building

Slight Sporadic occurrence of cracking o 0.10 No damage

Minor Minor cracks; partial crushing of concrete in columns 0.10–0.25 Minor damage
Moderate Extensive large cracks; spalling of concrete in weaker elements 0.25–0.40 Repairable
Severe Extensive crashing of concrete; disclosure of buckled reinforcement 0.40–1.00 Beyond repair
Collapse Partial or total collapse of building 41.00 Loss of building

Fig. 10. Local and global damage index according to the Park and Ang model [24].
1020 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025

Fig. 11. Maximum horizontal displacement profiles under single and sequential ground motions.

Fig. 12. Maximum interstorey drift ratios (IDR) under single and sequential ground motions.

obvious. It should be noted that due to the multiplicity of earth-
quakes, the distribution of plastic hinges seems to be different
than the corresponding one for single/isolated seismic events,
both for Frames A1 and B2.
4.5. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) technique for sequential
ground motions
All the examined structures have been analyzed using the IDA
technique. Fig. 15 shows selected results for Family-A buildings
under the real and artificial, single and multiple strong ground
motions. It is evident that the seismic sequences lead to
noticeably different response in comparison with the corres-
ponding single seismic events and require increased displacement
demands, in any case under consideration. As it is expected, the
increased displacement demands lead to higher values of drift and
damage. The primary goal of IDA is to quantify the reserve
capacity of a structure against collapse. Since the analyses take
into account the collapse state considering stiffness and strength
degradation, the IDA seems to be very useful for this study.
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025 1021

Frame A1
Imperial Valley 5055 Holtville P.O. (HPV315)

1979/10/15 (23:16) _ PGA = 0.200g 1979/10/15 (23:19) _ PGA = 0.191g

Seismic sequence _ PGA=0.200g

Fig. 13. Plastic hinges distribution for single and sequential ground motions—Frame A1.

Frame B2
Mammoth Lakes - 54099 Convict Creek (N-S)

80/05/25 (16:34) _ PGA = 0.200g 80/05/25 (16:49) _ PGA = 0.081g

80/05/25 (19:44) _ PGA = 0.094g 80/05/25 (20:35) _ PGA = 0.195g

80/05/27 (14:51) _ PGA = 0.143g Seismic sequence _ PGA = 0.200g

Fig. 14. Plastic hinges distribution for single and sequential ground motions—Frame B2.
1022 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025
Fig. 15. Application of IDA for sequential ground motions—Family A buildings.
Assuming that the collapse state is represented by extremely
large horizontal displacements, Fig. 15 shows, for the examined
structures and PGA’s, that the collapse appears only for the cases
of seismic sequences and not for the ‘isolated’ single ground
motions.
4.6. Development of permanent displacements for sequential ground
motions
In order to satisfy the targeted performance levels under pre-
defined seismic hazard levels, the permanent displacement
should be accurately estimated. In this work, it is found that the
multiplicity of earthquakes strongly influences the permanent
displacements and therefore multiple earthquakes phenomena
should be taken into account to achieve dependable estimation of
permanent displacements. Fig. 16 shows selected results for
structures subjected to real and artificial seismic sequences where
the time history of horizontal displacement for the top of these
structures is presented. The accumulation of permanent
displacement is obvious, in any case under consideration.
5. Estimation of ductility demands for multiple earthquakes
This section examines the estimation of ductility demands
for sequential strong ground motions. As shown in Section 4,
multiple earthquakes require increased displacement and ducti-
lity demands in comparison with the corresponding single events.
The global displacement ductility factor, m, can be defined in
terms of the maximum displacement umax at the top level of the
examined buildings and the corresponding yield displacement uy,
as [16,17]
umax
m¼ ð5Þ
uy
The definition of yield displacement is that according to Paulay
[29]. In order to estimate the cumulative ductility for a sequence
of strong ground motions, various empirical expressions can be
developed. This work proposes the following simple and rational
relation:
X
n
mseq ¼ 1 þ½ /mi 1Sp 1=p ð6Þ
i¼1
where the cumulative ductility, mseq, for a sequence of strong
ground motions consists of n-seismic events, results from the
corresponding ductility demands, mi, for each one of them.
Furthermore, p is a parameter controlling the combination of
single ductilities and / S symbolizes the Macauley brackets used
here in order to eliminate the influence of weak ground motions,
i.e., those for mi o1. For example, for a triple seismic sequence
with m1 41.0, m2 o1.0 and m3 o1.0, Eq. (6) provides with the
expected ductility demand, mseq ¼ m1. Parameter p can be equal to
1.0, for a simple and direct summation of ductility demands, or
2.0, which corresponds to the square root of the sum of the
squares—SRSS combination rule, a well-known procedure in
earthquake engineering to obtain seismic design response. These
two simple cases are portrayed in Fig. 17a and b where the ‘exact’
dynamic inelastic analyses results, for the aforementioned 20
cases of real records ( ¼4 frames  5 real seismic sequences), are
compared with the empirical ones of Eq. (6). It is evident that the
abovementioned values lead to overestimated (for p ¼1.0) or
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025
Fig. 16. Permanent displacements.
underestimated (for p ¼2.0) cumulative ductility demands. In
order to achieve the best fit for parameter p and for the examined
structures, this work uses the nonlinear solver of the MS-EXCEL
program, which gives the optimum value of parameter
p ¼1.3048 ffi1.3. Therefore, Eq. (6) becomes
" #1=1:3
X
n transverse reinforcement and thus in many cases, the case of
mseq ¼ 1 þ /mi 1S1:3
i¼1
Table 4 presents the ductility demands for the well-designed
RC frames (Family-A), both for the single events and the seismic
sequences under consideration. Furthermore, the estimated
cumulative ductility demands using Eq. (7) are also shown in
Table 4 (in parentheses). Moreover, Fig. 17c illustrates the relation
between the ‘‘exact’’ cumulative ductility demands and those of
the model of Eq. (7). It is clear that the proposed combination of
ductility demands of single events is in good agreement with the
results obtained from the dynamic inelastic analyses considering
directly the sequential ground motions. The aforementioned
process is also applied for the cases of artificial seismic sequences.
Thus, Fig. 17d shows the ‘exact’ and the estimated cumulative
ductility demands for 40 cases (¼4 frames  10 artificial seismic
sequences), also for p¼1.3. It is evident that empirical Eq. (7) can
also be adopted for artificial seismic sequences giving reliable
estimation of cumulative ductility demands.
Building structures are typically governed by drift limits
[10,12,25,28] and therefore, according to the principles of
displacement-based design method, a high accuracy estimation
of displacements is required. Adopting the proposed method,
erroneous response characteristics for the structures are avoided
1023
since all the significant seismic events are taken into account. It
should be noted that Eq. (7) can be applied to the well-designed
frames according to Eurocodes [1,2]. On the other hand, a similar
expression for buildings designed only for gravity seems to be
problematic since these structures in reality exhibit a great
variability in their reinforcement details and in the amount of
ð7Þ
shear failure is unavoidable.
In order to control the ductility demands m (and therefore the
structural damage), one can adopt appropriate/reduced behaviour
factors, q, in the case of sequential ground motions. This reduction
in the behaviour factor should be considered in earthquake-prone
regions, where the reappearance of seismic events may have a
high probability of occurrence. For example, according to the
well-known Newmark–Hall [30] method, behaviour factors can
be related with ductility demands as
8
>
<pm for T 40:5 sec
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
q¼ 2m1 for 0:1 o T o 0:5 sec ð8Þ
>
:
1 for T o0:03 sec
The fundamental periods of vibration of the examined
structures (see Table 1) are greater than 0.5 s. Thus, examining
the case of medium- to long-periods of vibration (T40.5 s), the
behaviour factor is assumed to be equal to the ductility demand, a
state which is also known as equal displacement rule. Therefore, in
order to achieve the target/design ductility, m, which is smaller
than the cumulative ductility mseq, one should apply a reduced
behaviour factor, qred where qred oq. For a given sequential
ground motion and target ductility demand, the qred should be
1024 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025

Fig. 17. Comparison of various models with exact results for cumulative ductility demands.

Table 4
Single, mi, and cumulative ductility demands, mseq, of sequential ground motions.

Event Frame A1 Frame A2 Frame A3 Frame A4

Mammoth Lakes—54099 Convict Creek (N–S)

1980/05/25 (16:34)—m1 3.47 5.91 6.97 8.51
1980/05/25 (16:49)—m2 1.42 3.26 3.66 2.53
1980/05/25 (19:44)—m3 1.75 3.14 2.78 2.57
1980/05/25 (20:35)—m4 1.67 3.78 2.89 2.78
1980/05/27 (14:51)—m5 1.43 2.91 3.91 3.36
Exact mseq—(Model—Eq. (7)) 4.79 (4.54) 11.06 (10.85) 11.79 (11.85) 11.32 (11.94)

Chalfant Valley—54428 Zack Brothers Ranch (E–W)

1986/07/20 (14:29)—m1 1.42 1.60 1.48 1.46
1986/07/21 (14:42)—m2 4.40 2.36 5.21 3.17
Exact mseq—(Model—Eq. (7)) 4.62 (4.57) 2.74 (2.71) 5.46 (5.40) 3.51 (3.39)

Coalinga—46T04 CHP (N–S)

1983/07/22 (02:39)—m1 1.81 2.62 3.03 1.76
1983/07/25 (22:31)—m2 4.33 6.94 4.85 2.89
Exact mseq—(Model—Eq. (7)) 5.18 (4.73) 8.33 (7.76) 5.70 (6.08) 3.19 (3.32)

Imperial Valley—5055 Holtville P.O. (HPV315)

1979/10/15 (23:16)—m1 2.70 3.77 4.15 7.64
1979/10/15 (23:19)—m2 2.89 3.68 1.33 1.99
Exact mseq—(Model—Eq. (7)) 4.11 (4.06) 5.32 (5.65) 4.25 (4.27) 8.24 (8.06)

Whittier Narrows—24401 San Marino (N–S)

1987/10/01 (14:42)—m1 5.00 4.95 4.27 3.38
1987/10/04 (10:59)—m2 2.38 2.70 1.40 1.67
Exact mseq—(Model—Eq. (7)) 5.60 (5.75) 5.74 (5.93) 4.70 (4.43) 3.58 (3.72)
 G.D. Hatzigeorgiou, A.A. Liolios / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30 (2010) 1010–1025
obtained through an iterative and time-consuming process, which
requires re-design of RC structures in every step. As a practical
alternative, the approximation
! general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings 2005; European
m Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
qred ffi q ð9Þ
mseq des
can sufficiently used. Finally, the designer can also use empirical
expressions to estimate behaviour factors proposed for SDOF
systems under multiple earthquakes [7].
6. Conclusions
This paper examines the inelastic behaviour of planar RC
frames under sequential strong ground motions. Two families of
regular and vertically irregular (with setbacks) frames, which
have been designed either for vertical or both for vertical and
seismic loads, are examined. A detailed study of the problem leads
to the following conclusions:
1. Multiple earthquakes require increased displacement de-
mands in comparison with single seismic events. Furthermore,
the seismic damage for multiple earthquakes is higher than
that for single ground motions. These characteristics are very
important and should be taken into account for the seismic
design of structures either by the conventional force-based or
especially by the more recent displacement-based design
method, which requires a high accuracy estimation of
displacements. Therefore, the traditional seismic design pro-
cedures, which are essentially based on the isolated ‘design
earthquake’, should be reconsidered since the multiple earth-
quakes phenomenon cannot be ignored.
2. Sequential ground motions strongly affect the development/
distribution of plastic hinges, which can be different than that
for the case of single/isolated seismic events.
3. The incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) technique under
sequential ground motions has been investigated for the first
time. It is found that the seismic sequences lead to quite
different responses than the corresponding ones for single
seismic events. Furthermore, for the examined structures and
PGA’s, the collapse appears only for the cases of seismic
sequences and not for the ‘isolated’ single ground motions.
4. A simple and effective empirical expression, which combines
the ductility demands of single ground motions, can be used to
estimate cumulative ductility demands due to sequential
ground motions. There is good correlation between the
cumulative ductility evaluation procedure and the exact
ductility demands from dynamic inelastic analyses. This was
demonstrated for the cases of three-storey and eight-storey,
regular and vertically irregular well-designed reinforced
concrete frames. In order to provide a general-acceptable
empirical expression for RC framed structures, additional
investigation is required.
5. The ductility demands of structures appear to be increased
under sequential ground motions. These demands can be
controlled using appropriately reduced behaviour factors,
taking into account the multiplicity effect of earthquakes.
1025
References
[1] EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance; Part 1:
[2] EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: design of concrete structure; Part 1-1: general rules
and rules for buildings 2004; European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
[3] Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A. Engineering implications of
strong-motion records from recent earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 11th
European conference on earthquake engineering; 1998.
[4] Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S. The effects of repeated earthquake ground
motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn 2003;32:291–308.
[5] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF
structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31:2744–55.
[6] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Ductility demand spectra for multiple near- and far-fault
earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2010;30:170–83.
[7] Hatzigeorgiou GD. Behaviour factors for nonlinear structures subjected to
multiple near-fault earthquakes. Comp Struct 2010;88:309–21.
[8] Lee DH, Kim D, Lee K. Analytical approach for the earthquake performance
evaluation of repaired/retrofitted RC bridge piers using time-dependent
element. Nonlinear Dyn 2009;56:463–82.
[9] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO—inelastic dynamic analysis program. Christchurch,
New Zealand: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury;
2008.
[10] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 2002;31:491–514.
[11] Zareian F, Krawinkler H. Assessment of probability of collapse and design for
collapse safety. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:1901–14.
[12] Jalayer F, Franchin P, Pinto PE. A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability
analysis of RC frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:2059–79.
[13] Han SW, Chopra AK. Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the
modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35:
1853–1873.
[14] Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment
of plan-asymmetric buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 2007;36:2021–41.
[15] EN 1991-1-1 Eurocode 1: actions on structures, Part 1-1: general actions-
densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings 2002; European Commit-
tee for Standardization, Brussels.
[16] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. Wiley: New York; 1992.
[17] Chopra A. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake
engineering, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.; 2006.
[18] Bentz EC, Collins MP. RESPONSE-2000 v1.0.5, /http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/
 bentz/homeS. Last access: 2009/07/18.
[19] Takeda T, Sozen M, Nielsen N. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
earthquakes. J Struct Div ASCE 1970;96(12):2557–73.
[20] Otani S. Hysteretic models for reinforced concrete for earthquake analysis.
J Fac Archit 1981;XXXVI(2):125–59.
[21] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. New York: John Wiley&
Sons; 1975.
[22] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER Strong Motion
Database. /http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcatS. Last access: 2009/07/15.
[23] Karabalis DL, Cokkinides GJ, Rizos DC. Seismic Record Processing (SRP)
Program, Version 1.03. Report of the College of Engineering, University of
South Carolina, Columbia, 1992.
[24] Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete.
J Struct Div ASCE 1985;111(4):722–39.
[25] Bertero RD, Bertero VV. Performance-based seismic engineering: the need for
a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
2002;31:627–52.
[26] Ang AHS. Seismic damage assessment and basis for damage-limiting design.
Probabilistic Eng Mech 1988;3:146–50.
[27] Sozen MA. Review of Earthquake response of reinforced concrete buildings
with a view to drift control. State-of-the-Art in Earthquake Engineering,
Turkish National Committee on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey,
1981; 383–418.
[28] Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A. Response-based damage assessment of
structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1999;28:79–104.
[29] Paulay T. Torsional mechanism in ductile building systems. Earthquake Eng
Struct Dyn 1998;27:1101–21.
[30] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. California: Earth-
quake Engineering Research Institute; 1982.