Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes

⁎
MARK
F. Hosseinpour , A.E. Abdelnaby
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA

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

Keywords: This study aims to overcome previous limitations and derive fragility curves for three RC (reinforced concrete)
Fragility curves buildings with different number of stories under multiple earthquakes. As-recorded seismic sequences in
Fiber-based modeling different regions around the world are employed and fiber-based modeling approach that captures degradation
Multiple earthquakes in concrete and reinforcing steel materials is used. The results indicate that considering damage from previous
RC frames
events, number of stories, and earthquake region significantly affect fragility curves.
Degradation

1. Introduction
Multiple earthquakes occur frequently all over the world. Structural
damage from multiple earthquakes have been reported in many recent
seismic sequences including Tohoku (Japan, 2011), Christchurch (New
Zealand, 2010–2011), Chile (2010), Chile (2014), Chile (2015), and
Nepal (2015). Hence, it is necessary to consider the effect of the damage
from an event and its impacts on the nonlinear behavior of structures
under subsequent events. Since usually the time spans between
successive seismic events (in one earthquake sequence) are short, hence
it is usually hard to retrofit a damaged structure due to preceding
shaking to withstand succeeding ground motions. Therefore, structures
suffer from significant stiffness degradation and strength deterioration
as a result of accumulated damage in a seismic sequence.
An important aspect of seismic investigation of the structures is
deriving fragility curves to determine the damage probability under
different earthquake intensities. Fragility relationships are a required
input for commercial loss assessment software. They are useful for
identifying the levels of damage reached in a structure under a
spectrum of earthquake intensities. This makes fragility curves an
important tool for probabilistic assessment of RC structures [1].
In recent years some researchers have investigated the effect of
multiple earthquakes on different aspects of nonlinear behavior of
structures [1–35]. Amadio et al. [2] investigated nonlinear behavior of
SDOF systems under multiple earthquakes. They employed different
hysteretic models and showed that multiple earthquakes can cause
significant damage accumulation. They also indicated that the most
vulnerability is related to the elastic-perfect plastic systems and hence
they can be considered as the controlling system. In this study, a
moment resisting steel frame was also analyzed under seismic se-
quences. Findings showed a more reduction in behavior factor for the
MDOF structure than the equivalent SDOF system is observed. One of
the important parameters employed in their study to compare hystere-
tic models was q-factor (behavior factor). This factor can be used to
approximate nonlinear dynamic analyses results from an elastic analy-
sis. In a study by Amadio et al. [36] the accuracy of N2 method and
equivalent linearization procedure for different hysteretic models were
evaluated. These methods are used to obtain the inelastic spectra.
Results of this study showed a more accurate approximation of inelastic
spectra when using N2 method which is obtained by a reduction in
elastic spectra using the q-factor. Rinaldin et al. [3] studied the
behavior of non and partially re-centering structures under seismic
sequences. They employed nonlinear SDOF systems to evaluate the
effect of repeated ground motions on the structures with different
hysteretic behavior and proposed some design rules for the buildings
under multiple earthquakes in seismic regions. Hatzigeorgiou and
Liolios [4] studied nonlinear behavior of RC frames under repeated
strong ground motions. They employed 45 seismic sequences to
investigate the inelastic behavior of eight RC frames including both
regular and vertically irregular structures. The results of this study
showed that the response and design of RC frames are significantly
affected by seismic sequences. They also proposed an empirical
expression to estimate the ductility demands under multiple earth-
quakes using a simple combination of ductility demands under single
earthquakes. Efraimiadou et al. [5] investigated the effect of aftershock
polarity analytically and studied structural pounding between adjacent
buildings under strong earthquakes. They proposed that the inelastic
seismic behavior of the structures is strongly affected by aftershock
polarity and the sign of the ground motions should be considered in
generating artificial sequences. Abdelnaby [6] and Abdelnaby and
Elnashai [7,8] studied the effects of multiple earthquakes on degrading
RC structures. They used fiber based models to investigate the nonlinear

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fhssnpur@memphis.edu (F. Hosseinpour).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.04.013
Received 25 February 2017; Received in revised form 9 April 2017; Accepted 17 April 2017
0267-7261/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby
Table 1
Multiple earthquakes.
Multiple earthquakes Mainshock (Date and Number of employed
Magnitude) sequences
Chile 2010 02/27/2010 – M8.8 4 curves that are based on numerical simulations are limited to a single
Chile 2014 04/01/2014 – M8.2 42
Chile 2015 09/16/2015 – M8.3 70
Christchurch 2010–2011 09/03/2010 – M7.1 132
Tohoku 2011 03/11/2011 – M9 194
Kumamoto 2016 04/15/2016 – M7 22
behavior of concrete structures under both artificial and as-recorded
seismic sequences. Based on the results of this study, degrading models
completely changed the response of the structures. Findings also
demonstrated that the nonlinear behavior of RC structures is signifi-
cantly affected by multiple earthquakes. Hatzivassiliou and Hatzigeor-
giou [9] studied the effects of seismic sequences on three-dimensional
reinforced concrete buildings. They observed that the seismic demands
are increased by multiple earthquakes [10]. The effects of different
aspects of nonlinear behavior of the RC buildings were considered by
Hosseinpour and Abdelnaby [10]. They used two 8 story buildings
(regular and vertically irregular buildings) and indicated that consider-
ing the vertical component of the earthquake, structure irregularity,
and damage from previous events may significantly change the
behavior of RC buildings. They also showed that earthquake direction
and aftershock polarity affect the responses of the irregular buildings.
Deriving fragility relationships under multiple earthquakes has also
been considered in some recent studies [1,11,12]. Li et al. [11] studied
collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to earthquake mainshock-
aftershock sequences and concluded that structural collapse capacity
may significantly reduce when the building is subjected to a high
intensity mainshock. They also observed that dispersion of the collapse
capacity is low, moderate and large for repeated sequence, randomized
sequence, and as-recorded sequence, respectively. Raghunandan et al.
[12] also studied aftershock collapse vulnerability of reinforced con-
crete frame structures. They indicated that if the building is extensively
damaged in the mainshock, there is a significant reduction in its
collapse capacity in the aftershock and hence the damage level from
the mainshock is an important parameter affecting the structural
behavior under multiple earthquakes. They also observed high disper-
sions in results for higher damage levels. Abdelnaby [1] investigated
fragility curves for RC frames subjected to Tohoku 2011 mainshock-
aftershocks sequences. He considered three different design approaches
including gravity, direct and capacity designs and showed that vulner-
Fig. 1. East-West seismic sequence in FKS009 station (Tohoku 2011).
223
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234
ability relationships of RC frames are significantly affected by multiple
earthquakes.
Although some studies have been performed so far to investigate the
structural behavior under seismic sequences and to derive fragility
curves, there are still some limitations. Most of the studies on fragility
earthquake event and the numerical models used do not contain
appropriate damage features that account for stiffness and strength
degradation due to repeated load excursions. A few studies that
consider multiple earthquake effects on fragility curves have been
recently conducted, however they are limited by oversimplifying their
numerical models. The employed models mostly include either system
level based or component level based models. System level based
models are the models considering the structure as single degree of
freedom. Although these models are simple, they have some deficits. In
system level based models, the localized behavior, force redistribution
and the effect of higher modes are neglected. It should be noted that
SDOF to MDOF transformations can be employed to capture MDOF
properties such as the effect of higher modes like the procedure used by
Guo and Chris [37] where they used a direct transformation procedure
to convert the performance spectra target solution to an equivalent
MDOF system. Component level based models or lumped plasticity
models have also been extensively used to show the behavior of the
MDOF structures under seismic sequences. Although these models are
not computationally expensive, they do not account for localized
degradation in strength and stiffness. In these models, the length of
the plastic hinges is considered as zero. Other than the beam and
column ends, the rest of the structure assumes to behave elastically.
Most of the present studies have also employed repeated or uncorre-
lated random earthquakes (artificial sequences) to form sequences used
to derive fragility curves. Since the characteristics of the mainshock and
aftershock, such as magnitude, intensity, frequency content, and
duration are different and characteristics of the ground motions are
different in different site conditions as well, using artificial sequences
leads to unreliable results [10]. Most of the present studies on fragility
curves of RC buildings are also limited to single events; hence, the effect
of subsequent events is neglected in these studies. The effects of
earthquake intensity type, vertical earthquake component, building
height (number of stories), and earthquake region are other important
deficits need more attention.
This study aims to employ a wide range of as-recorded seismic
sequences from different regions in the world including Japan [38],
Chile [39,40], and New Zealand [41] to investigate the vulnerability of
RC buildings under different mainshock and aftershock intensities. To
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 2. Employed frames with details.

include different degrading features in concrete and steel reinforce- multiple earthquakes. To evaluate the effect of the earthquake region,
ments, fiber based modeling approach is used. Fragility curves are then the fragility curves are also derived for each region separately. The
developed and compared for different performance levels considering effect of the building height on fragility curves is also examined and 3, 7

224
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 2. (continued)

and 12 story RC buildings are designed and modeled to represent low, acceleration) and Sa (spectral acceleration) are used as the intensity
mid, and high-rise buildings. The other important aspect of this study is measurements as well and the results are evaluated based on the
deriving fragility curves considering the vertical earthquake compo- coefficient of determination.
nent. To see the effect of the intensity type, both PGA (peak ground

225
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Table 2 quake characteristics are highly affected by the site condition, using
Natural periods of the first three modes. random sequences from uncorrelated events doesn’t seem to be reliable
as well. Employed as-recorded sequences in many present studies are
3-story 7-story 12-story
also limited to a small number of sequences and certain regions. This
T1 (s) T2 (s) T3 (s) T1 (s) T2 (s) T3 (s) T1 (s) T2 (s) T3 (s) study aims to use a wide range of real seismic sequences from different
parts of the world. For this purpose, 464 recorded sequences from Chile
0.4567 0.1553 0.1058 0.9576 0.3495 0.1998 1.4892 0.5531 0.3190
2010, Chile 2014, Chile 2015, Tohoku (Japan) 2011, Christchurch
(New Zealand) 2010–2011, and Kumamoto (Japan) 2016 are used.
Table 1 shows a brief description of the events and number of the
employed sequences. It should be noted that since so many aftershocks
(more than 2000) in different regions were considered in this study, the
aftershocks information are not provided in Table 1. Based on the
occurrence time, the records were put in sequences (see Fig. 1).

3. Models

Three RC structures including 3, 7, and 12 story building are

designed based on ASCE 7-05 to represent low, mid, and high-rise
buildings. The buildings are located at Oxford, Mississippi (seismic
category C). All the frames are considered as intermediate moment
resisting frames (behavior factor, R=5). The middle frames of the
buildings are selected to derive fragility curves. The gravity loads are
considered as dead and live loads according to ACI 318-14. Dead loads
include the self-weight of beams, columns, slabs, and walls. The
thickness of the slab and internal and external walls are considered as
150 mm, 150 mm, and 200 mm respectively. According to ACI 318-14,
live loads of 2.4 kN/m2 and 0.96 kN/m2 are employed for stories and
roof respectively. Normal weight concrete (22.56 kN/m3) with a
compressive strength of 30 MPa and steel reinforcements with a yield
strength of 414 MPa and elasticity modulus of 200 GPa are used in this
study. Fig. 2 shows the detail of the frames and the natural periods of
the first three modes are provided in Table 2.
The buildings are modeled based on material based modeling
approach using fiber-based finite element analysis tool, Zeus-NL [42].
To consider degradation in concrete, the plastic-damage model
proposed by Lee and Fenves [43] is employed. The concept of fracture-
energy-based multiple-hardening is used to represent tensile and
compressive damage independently. A thermodynamically consistent
scalar model is used to simulate the stiffness degradation and recovery.
Stiffness recovery scheme is introduced to simulate crack opening and
closure. In addition, the evolution of yield surface is controlled by the
strength function of effective strength that accounts for strength
deterioration due to existence of cracks parallel to the loading direction
[7]. To simulate the behavior of steel reinforcements, modified
Fig. 3. (a) Cyclic stress-strain behavior of steel under tension and compression [45] (b) Menegotto-Pinto steel model [44,45] is used to consider the Bauschin-
Uniaxial cyclic behavior of concrete model [43]. ger effect, inelastic buckling of reinforcements after crushing of
concrete cover, and reinforcement fracture. Fig. 3 shows cyclic stress-
Table 3 strain behavior of steel reinforcements and concrete.
Limit states.

Limit state Maximum drift (%)

4. Fragility curve

Fully operational 0.2 Fragility relationships are represented by two-parameter (median

Operational 0.5 and log-standard deviation) lognormal distribution functions. The
Life safe 1.5
equation for this function is given by:
Near collapse 2.5

2. Ground motions
Most of the present studies on nonlinear behavior of structures
under multiple earthquakes used either artificial or a limited number of
as-recorded sequences. Employed artificial sequences include replicate
and random earthquakes from uncorrelated events. Since the charac-
teristics of the mainshock and aftershock are different in terms of
duration, frequency content, and magnitude, using replicate earth-
quakes may lead to unreliable results. Furthermore, since the earth-
1 ⎛ GMI ⎞
P(Exceedance i /GMI) = Φ[ ln ⎜ ⎟]
βi ⎝ LSi ⎠ (1)
where P is the probability of exceedance of ith limit state based on
ground motion intensity (GMI), Φ is the probability density function of
normal distribution, βi is the normalized log-normal standard deviation,
and LSi is the median value that represented a GMI that has 50%
probability for occurrence of the ith limit state [1].
Fragility curves are derived based on four limit states in this study.
The limit states are considered according to Vision 2000, SEAOC
standard [46] and are based on maximum drifts as shown in Table 3.

226
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 4. Fragility curves for different cases (a) 3 story building (b) 7 story building (c) 12 story building.

Regarding the damage from previous events, four cases are considered
in this study. In the first case, the curves are derived based on
mainshock only (Mainshock), which has been considered in previous
studies. In the second case, the curves are derived for mainshock-
aftershocks (Sequence). To get the maximum intensity, both mainshock
and aftershocks are considered in this case. In the third case, the curves
are derived based on aftershocks only without considering the damage
from previous events (Aftershock (UD)). By getting fragility curves in
the first three cases, the difference between the mainshock and after-
shock characteristics can be investigated and highlighted and also their

227
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby
Fig. 4. (continued)
effect on whole sequence can be evaluated. The last case includes the
fragility curves based on aftershocks only, with considering the damage
due to the previous events (Aftershock (D)). As it was mentioned
earlier, most of the current buildings have been designed for a single
event and due to the small time span between multiple earthquakes,
there might not be enough time to retrofit the buildings. Therefore the
last case can be considered as the most important case to see the effect
of subsequent events on a damaged building and hence most of the
results in this study are shown based on this case.
Fragility curves are also derived and compared both for earthquakes
applied in horizontal and horizontal-vertical directions. To investigate
the effect of the earthquake region, the sequences are divided into 3
regions including Japan, Chile, and New Zealand and fragility curves
are derived for each region separately. The results are also examined for
3, 7, and 12 story buildings to see the effect of number of stories on the
probability of exceedance from different damage states. Both PGA (peak
ground acceleration) and Sa (spectral acceleration) are also employed to
study the effect of the earthquake intensity type on fragility curves.
5. Effect of previous events on fragility curves
Fragility curves were derived for different cases, as explained in the
previous section, and are shown in Fig. 4. As it can be seen in Fig. 4(a),
Aftershock (D) is the most critical case in all limit states in 3 story
building. Fig. 4(a) also indicates that the difference between fragility
curves generally increases as the damage state changes from Fully
Operational to Near Collapse. In all damage states, the Aftershock (UD)
has the lowest probability of exceedance. It can be clearly seen that
there is a significant difference between Mainshock and Aftershock
(UD) fragility curves. This highlights different characteristic of the
mainshocks and aftershocks and can be because aftershocks usually
contain a lower range of frequencies and have smaller durations. This
also causes the Sequence fragility curves be much closer to the
Mainshock fragility curves. Results also showed that the difference
between fragility curves for all cases in 7 and 12 story buildings is
228
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234
smaller than that of 3 story building (see Fig. 4(b,c)). This might be
because of higher story displacements that taller buildings experienced
under a single event, resulting in a lower increase in demands under
subsequent events. In other words, subsequent events had lower effects
on taller buildings. However, as it can be seen for most intensities in 7
and 12 story buildings, Aftershock (D) and Aftershock (UD) still have
the highest and lowest probability of exceedance respectively.
6. Effect of vertical earthquake component on fragility curves
Most of the previous studies in the field of earthquake engineering
have neglected the effects of vertical ground motion and are usually
guided by horizontal motion. The main reason for this practice is found
in circumstances that engineering structures are intended primarily for
vertical load transfer and thereby it is implied that they have sufficient
resistance to dynamic forces caused by vertical motion [47].
The effect of vertical earthquake component on fragility curves,
regarding multiple earthquakes, is another deficit needing more atten-
tion. For this purpose, in the present study, the fragility curves were
derived and compared for structures under only horizontal earthquake
direction and both horizontal and vertical earthquake directions. The
results indicated that the fragility curves remain almost unaffected by
vertical earthquake component (see Fig. 5).
Since the vertical component of the earthquake mostly affects the
vertical responses such as axial forces and number of plastic hinges in
columns [10], to thoroughly investigate vertical earthquake component
effect on fragility curves, damage parameters related to vertical
responses should also be considered. This is confirmed by some
previous studies [48–50]. Kim et al. [48] investigated the effect of
vertical earthquake component on RC bridge piers analytically and
concluded that considering vertical earthquake component can cause a
significant increase in the axial force variation leading to a reduction of
the shear capacity. Hatzigeorgiou and Pnevmatikos [49] also studied
the effect of vertical component of the earthquake on the seismic
pounding of adjacent planar RC frames and observed that the inter-
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 5. Aftershock (D) fragility curves considering vertical earthquake direction (a) 3 story building (b) 7 story building (c) 12 story building.

story drift ratios of the frames are slightly affected by the vertical
earthquake component, however the structural damage (considered as
Park- Ang damage index [51] in this study), is moderately affected by
the vertical earthquake component. Wilson et al. [50] conducted a
numerical analysis on a typical curved and skewed RC bridge under
vertical ground motion. They showed that the fluctuation of axial
compression resulting from the vertical earthquake component in the
pier-columns of the bridge substructure can lead to higher straining on
the concrete and rebar and therefore a reduction in pier-columns
capacity to resist shear and moment demands.

229
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 5. (continued)

Table 4
Coefficients of determination based on PGA and Sa.

Case Limit states 3 story building 7 story building 12 story building

PGA Sa PGA Sa PGA Sa

Mainshock Fully operational 0.980 0.983 0.946 1.000 0.933 1.000

Operational 0.950 0.940 0.827 1.000 0.577 1.000
Life safe 0.952 0.974 0.633 0.998 0.131 0.991
Near collapse 0.865 0.950 0.315 0.999 0.018 0.973

Sequence Fully operational 0.986 1.000 0.783 1.000 0.701 1.000

Operational 0.970 1.000 0.734 1.000 0.619 0.997
Life safe 0.948 0.996 0.664 0.998 0.098 0.996
Near collapse 0.892 0.932 0.388 0.997 0.020 0.990

Aftershock (UD) Fully operational 0.977 0.997 0.896 1.000 0.937 0.988
Operational 0.922 0.930 0.895 1.000 0.486 0.969
Life safe 0.911 0.946 0.744 0.978 0.263 1.000
Near Collapse 0.880 0.921 0.442 0.903 0.267 1.000

Aftershock (D) Fully operational 0.890 0.997 0.946 1.000 0.944 0.979
Operational 0.958 0.982 0.841 0.979 0.862 0.925
Life safe 0.927 0.992 0.723 0.978 0.126 1.000
Near collapse 0.919 0.964 0.723 0.858 0.103 1.000

7. Fragility curves based on earthquake intensity and number of
stories
Fragility curves are derived based on different earthquake intensi-
ties. The most widely used intensities include PGA and Sa. Since PGA is
not related to the structural characteristics and is the same for all
buildings in a certain earthquake, it may cause unreliable results. For
this purpose, fragility curves were derived based on both PGA and Sa in
this study. The results were compared based on the coefficient of
determination to evaluate how good the fitted lognormal distribution
function predicts the probability of exceedance based on earthquake
intensity. The coefficient of determination is between 0 and 1 for the
worst and best fits respectively. As it can be seen in Table 4, considering
PGA as the earthquake intensity generally works well for the 3 story
building. However considering a lognormal behavior for fragility
curves, PGA is not a good intensity measurement especially for Life
Safe and Near Collapse levels in 7 and 12 story buildings. As it can be
seen considering Sa as the earthquake intensity shows good results and
coefficients of determination are generally close to 1 for all buildings.
Therefore, it can be concluded that considering PGA as the intensity
measurement for taller buildings may lead to unreliable results.
To see the effect of the earthquake intensity from another point of
view and also along with the effect of number of stories, fragility curves
for different buildings were also derived and compared in the same

230
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 6. Aftershock (D) fragility curves for different number of stories based on Sa.

Fig. 7. Aftershock (D) fragility curves for different number of stories based on PGA.

plots and based on both Sa and PGA. Fig. 6 indicates that considering Sa
as the intensity measurement, structural vulnerability increases as the
number of stories increases. Fig. 7 also shows the fragility curves based
on PGA. As it can be seen, considering PGA as the intensity measure-
ment shows completely different results and 3 and 12 story buildings
show the highest and lowest vulnerability in most intensities. These
facts emphasize that fragility curves are very sensitive and are as a
function of many parameters which are directly related to the structural
properties as well as earthquake characteristics.
8. Fragility curves for different regions
Many of the previous studies on fragility curves (considering both
single and multiple earthquakes) employed limited as-recorded or

231
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234

Fig. 8. Aftershock (D) fragility curves for different regions (a) 3 story building (b) 7 story building (c) 12 story building.

artificial earthquake data from a certain region. Since earthquake
characteristics are highly affected by the earthquake region, this may
cause unreliable results. To see the effect of the earthquake region, the
earthquakes were divided into three regions including Japan (Tohoku
2011 and Kumamoto 2016), Chile (Chile 2010, Chile 2014, Chile 2015),
and New Zealand (Christchurch 2010–2011). The fragility curves were
derived for each region separately. Fig. 8 shows fragility curves in
different regions. As it can be seen the curves are highly affected by the
earthquake region in most limit states and significant differences even
around 100% are observed especially for Life Safe and Near Collapse

232
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby
Fig. 8. (continued)
limit states. It should be noted that to have more reliable results
concerning the effect of earthquake region, the data should be related
to a certain seismological setting and the reason that this study
employed different events for a certain region was because of the
scarcity of the as-recorded seismic sequences for a certain seismological
setting.
9. Conclusion
Fragility curves for RC frames under as-recorded seismic sequences
were evaluated in this study. The employed frames were modeled using
fiber based modeling approach considering different degrading features
in materials. The effect of different parameters including damage from
previous event, vertical earthquake component, earthquake region,
number of stories, and earthquake intensity on fragility curves were
examined and following results were obtained:
– Considering aftershock without any previous damage indicates the
lowest structural vulnerability in different limit states and this may
be because aftershocks usually have lower durations and contain
lower range of frequencies. However, considering damage from
previous events, aftershock fragility curves show the highest prob-
ability of exceedance in almost all limit states and earthquake
intensities.
– The difference between fragility curves in four cases decreases with
the increase of the number of stories and this can be because of the
higher story displacements in taller buildings under a single event.
– Vertical earthquake component does not affect the fragility curves
based on maximum inter-story drifts.
– Considering PGA as the intensity measurement works well for 3
story buildings. However, with the increase of the number of stories,
PGA may not be a good intensity measure to derive fragility curves.
Despite PGA, Sa works better for all buildings.
– Structural vulnerability increases with the increase of the number of
233
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234
stories.
– Fragility curves are highly affected by earthquake region and
therefore earthquake characteristics should be thoroughly evaluate
before deriving fragility curves.
It should be noted that the findings of this study are based on
structures with a certain design type. The fragility curves were also
derived based on maximum inter-story drifts. To thoroughly investigate
fragility curves regarding seismic sequences, structures with different
characteristics and design types as well as different structural demands
considering structural responses in all directions should be employed.
References
[1] Abdelnaby AE. Fragility curves for RC frames subjected to Tohoku mainshock-
aftershocks sequences. J Earthq Eng 2016. [just-accepted].
[2] Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S. The effects of repeated earthquake ground
motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2003;32:291–308.
[3] Rinaldin G, Scaramuzza L, Amadio C, Fragiacomo M Behaviour of non and partially
re-centering structures under repeated ground motions. In: Proceedings of the 16th
world conference on earthquake engineering. 16WCEE, Santiago, Chile, Paper
1928; 2017.
[4] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated
strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:1010–25.
[5] Efraimiadou S, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Structural pounding between adjacent
buildings subjected to strong ground motions. Part I: the effect of different
structures arrangement. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42(10):1509–28.
[6] Abdelnaby AE. Multiple earthquake effects on degrading reinforced concrete
structures (Doctoral dissertation). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois; 2012.
[7] Abdelnaby A, Elnashai A. Performance of degrading reinforced concrete frame
systems under Tohoku and Christchurch earthquake sequences. J Earthq Eng
2014;18(7):1009–36.
[8] Abdelnaby A, Elnashai A. Numerical modeling and analysis of RC frames subjected
to multiple earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2015;9(5):957–81.
[9] Hatzivassiliou M, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional
reinforced concrete buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;72:77–88.
[10] Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE. Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on
the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;92:706–25.
[11] Li Y, Song R, van de Lindt JW. Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to
F. Hosseinpour, A.E. Abdelnaby
earthquake mainshock–aftershock sequences. J Struct Eng 2014.
[12] Raghunandan M, Liel AB, Luco N. Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of
reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(3):419–39.
[13] Ruiz-García J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock–aftershock seismic
sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(2):621–34.
[14] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Investigation of story ductility demands of
inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2013;44:42–53.
[15] Zhang S, Wang G, Sa W. Damage evaluation of concrete gravity dams under
mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2013;50:16–27.
[16] Ruiz-García J, Aguilar JD. Aftershock seismic assessment taking into account
postmainshock residual drifts. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(9):1391–407.
[17] Di Sarno L. Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng
Struct 2013;56(11):673–81.
[18] Dong Y, Frangopol DM. Risk and resilience assessment of bridges under mainshock
and aftershocks incorporating uncertainties. Eng Struct 2015;83:198–208.
[19] Fakharifar M, Chen G, Sneed L, Dalvand A. Seismic performance of postmainshock
FRP/steel repaired RC bridge columns subjected to aftershocks. Compos Part B
2015;72:183–98.
[20] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames under
repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 2004;26(13):2021–35.
[21] Goda K. Nonlinear response potential of mainshock–aftershock sequences from
Japanese earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2012;102(5):2139–56.
[22] Han R, Li Y, van de Lindt J. Seismic risk of base isolated non-ductile reinforced
concrete buildings considering uncertainties and mainshock–aftershock sequences.
Struct Saf 2014;50:39–56.
[23] Han R, Li Y, Lindt J. Impact of aftershocks and uncertainties on the seismic
evaluation of non-ductile reinforced concrete frame buildings. Eng Struct
2015;100:149–63.
[24] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures
subjected to repeated earthquakes. Eng Struct 2009;31:2744–55.
[25] Li Q, Ellingwood BR. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame
buildings under main shock–aftershock earthquake sequences. Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2007;36(3):405–27.
[26] Loulelis D, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE. Moment resisting steel frames under
repeated earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2012;3(3–4):231–48.
[27] Mahin SA. Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquakes. In:
Proceedings of the seventh world conference on earthquakeengineering. Vol. 5;
1980. p. 677–80.
[28] Moustafa A, Takewaki I. Response of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom structures
to random acceleration sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33(4):1251–8.
[29] Ruiz-García J. Mainshock–aftershock ground motion features and their influence in
building's seismic response. J Earthq Eng 2012;16(5):719–37.
[30] Song R, Li Y, van de Lindt JW. Impact of earthquake ground motion characteristics
on collapse risk of post-mainshock buildings considering aftershocks. Eng Struct
2014;81:349–61.
[31] Yaghmaei-Sabegh S, Ruiz-García J. Nonlinear response analysis of SDOF systems
subjected to doublet earthquake ground motions: a case study on 2012
Varzaghan–Ahar events. Eng Struct 2016;110:281–92.
234
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 98 (2017) 222–234
[32] Zafar A, Andrawes B. Seismic behavior of SMA–FRP reinforced concrete frames
under sequential seismic hazard. Eng Struct 2015;98:163–73.
[33] Zhai CH, Wena W-P, Chen ZH, Lia SH, Xie L-L. Damage spectra for the
mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2013;45:1–12.
[34] Zhai CH, Wen WP, Li S, Chen Z, Xie LL. The damage investigation of inelastic SDOF
structure under the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2014;59:30–41.
[35] Aschheim M, Black E. Effects of prior earthquake damage on response of simple
stiffness-degrading structures. Earthq Spectra 1999;15(1):1–24.
[36] Amadio C, Rinaldin G, Fragiacomo M. Investigation on the accuracy of the N2
method and the equivalent linearization procedure for different hysteretic models.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2016;83:69–80.
[37] Guo JWW, Christopoulos C. Performance spectra based method for the seismic
design of structures equipped with passive supplemental damping systems. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2013;42(6):935–52.
[38] National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience. 〈http://www.
kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/〉 [Last access: 2/17/2017].
[39] National Seismological Center of Puerto Rico. [in Spanish]. 〈http://evtdb.csn.
uchile.cl/〉 [Last access: 2/17/2017].
[40] Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data. 〈https://www.strongmotioncenter.org/
〉 [Last access: 2/17/2017].
[41] GeoNet Processed Strong-motion Data. 〈ftp.geonet.org.nz/strong/processed/Proc〉.
[Last access: 4/28/16].
[42] Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou V, Lee D. Zeus NL — a system for inelastic analysis of
structures. Mid-America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Program Release September 2002; 2002.
[43] Lee J, Fenves G. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J
Eng Mech 1998;124(8):892–900.
[44] Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded reinforced concrete
plane frames including changes in geometry and nonelastic behavior of elements
under combined normal force and bending. In: Proceedings of the IABSE sympo-
sium on resistance and ultimate deformability of structures acted on by welldefined
repeated loads, Final report. Lisbon; 1973.
[45] Gomes A, Appleton J. Nonlinear cyclic stress–strain relationship of reinforcing bars
including buckling. Eng Struct 1997;19:822–6.
[46] SEAOC. Vision 2000 – performance based seismic engineering of buildings.
Sacramento, California: Structural Engineering Association of California; 1995.
[47] Varevac D, Draganić H, Gazić G. Influence of the vertical component of earthquake
on large span RC beams. Teh Vjesn 2010;17(3):357–66.
[48] Kim SJ, Holub CJ, Elnashai AS. Analytical assessment of the effect of vertical
earthquake motion on RC bridge piers. ASCE J Struct Eng 2011;137:252–60.
[49] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Pnevmatikos NG. On the seismic response of collided structures.
world academy of science, engineering and technology. Int J Civ Environ Struct
Constr Archit Eng 2014;8(7):794–8.
[50] Wilson T, Chen S, Mahmoud H. Analytical case study on the seismic performance of
a curved and skewed reinforced concrete bridge under vertical ground motion. Eng
Struct 2015;100:128–36.
[51] Park YJ, Ang AH-S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete.
ASCE J Struct Eng 1985;111:722–39.