Am Adio 2002

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:291–308 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.225)
The eects of repeated earthquake ground motions

on the non-linear response of SDOF systems
C. Amadio∗; † , M. Fragiacomo and S. Rajgelj

Department of Civil Engineering; University of Trieste; Piazz. Europa 1; 34127 Trieste; Italy
SUMMARY
In many parts of the world, the repetition of medium–strong intensity earthquake ground motions at
brief intervals of time has been observed. The new design philosophies for buildings in seismic areas are
based on multi-level design approaches, which take into account more than a single damageability limit
state. According to these approaches, a sequence of seismic actions may produce important consequences
on the structural safety. In this paper, the eects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the response
of single-degree-of-freedom systems (SDOF) with non-linear behaviour are analysed. A comparison is
performed with the eect of a single seismic event on the originally non-damaged system for dierent
hysteretic models in terms of pseudo-acceleration response spectra, behaviour factor q and damage
parameters. The elastic–perfect plastic system is the most vulnerable one under repeated earthquake
ground motions and is characterized by a strong reduction of the q-factor. A moment resisting steel
frame is analysed as well, showing a reduction of the q-factor under repeated earthquake ground motions
even larger than that of an equivalent SDOF system. Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: seismic analysis; repeated earthquake ground motions; single-degree-of-freedom system;
non-linear behaviour; behaviour factor; damage parameters
1. INTRODUCTION
The multi-level design approach has recently been proposed as a basic design philosophy
for buildings in seismic areas. The Eurocode 8 [1] requires that two fundamental criteria are
satised:
• Under non-destructive earthquake ground motions, no structural damage should occur and
only limited non-structural damage is acceptable (serviceability limit state). To achieve
this, the structure should remain elastic with limited interstorey drift under a moderate
earthquake ground motion (period of return of about 35–50 years).
∗ Correspondence to: C. Amadio, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Trieste, Piazz. Europa 1, 34127
Trieste, Italy.
† E-mail: amadio@univ.trieste.it
Received 18 April 2001
Revised 30 January 2002 and 5 June 2002
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 6 June 2002
292 C. AMADIO, M. FRAGIACOMO AND S. RAJGELJ
• For a severe earthquake ground motion (period of return of 475 years), a signicant
damage in both structural and non-structural elements is acceptable, but any collapse with
subsequent casualties must be avoided (ultimate limit state). To satisfy this criterion,
a signicant dissipative capacity of the structure under destructive earthquake ground
motions is recommended in order to avoid the collapse without excessive costs.
This in practice means a two-level verication, serviceability and ultimate limit states.
Mazzolani and Piluso [2], and Anastasiadis et al. [3] proposed three levels of verication: ser-
viceability, damageability and survivability limit states, with a return period of the earthquake
ground motion for each level equal to 10, 50 and 450 years, respectively. In the Vision 2000
Committee of SEAOC [4], four levels of structural performance were considered: fully oper-
ational, operational, life safety and near collapse for frequent, occasional, rare and very rare
earthquake ground motions, respectively. In the ATC40 proposition [5], a complete seismic de-
sign approach based on performance philosophy is presented. Dual or multi-level performance
objectives are considered (ve levels are generally recommended) and they can involve both
structural and non-structural performance levels. Structural performance levels can require the
immediate occupancy, damage control, life safety, limited safety and structural stability of the
building.
The study of seismic sequences, therefore, may be particularly important with regard to the
checks based on damage control and collapse of the structure. Seismic sequences characterized
by the repetition of medium-strong earthquake ground motions after short intervals of time
were recently observed in Romania, Italy, Mexico, Japan, Turkey, California, Taiwan, etc.
[6–8]. In such cases the structure, already damaged after the rst earthquake ground motion
and not yet repaired, may become completely inadequate at the end of the seismic sequence.
This accumulation of damage depends on the type of hysteretic structural behaviour and on
the characteristics of the seismic events.
Few researches have been done on this subject. Elnashai et al. [6] showed that the ductility
demand required by multiple earthquake ground motions can be signicantly higher than
that required by a single event. Muria Vila and Toro Jaramillo [7] studied the behaviour
of a building founded on soft soil under several low magnitude earthquake ground motions,
nding a continuous reduction in the lateral stiness. Decanini et al. [8] investigated the main
characteristics and the consequences of the seismic sequence that occurred in 1997 in the
central part of Italy, which caused considerable damage on the architectural heritage.
The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the dependence of damage accumulation in
the case of repeated seismic actions. To achieve this, a series of SDOF systems and a multi-
degree-of-freedom system are analysed. For the SDOF systems, dierent constitutive laws,
which represent the response of the most common structures usually employed in seismic
zones, are considered. The multi-degree-of-freedom system studied in this paper is a moment
resisting steel frame with three stories and two bays.
2. THE ANALYSED SDOF SYSTEMS
Single-degree-of-freedom systems can be considered representative of the seismic behaviour

of structures if these vibrate according to the rst mode. In this study a SDOF system with
dierent types and levels of degradation in the load–displacement law was considered. The
Copyright ? 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:291–308
EFFECTS OF REPEATED EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS 293
Figure 1. Hysteretic models of the analysed SDOF systems.
true load–displacement law of a structure is, in general, curvilinear and dependent on a large
number of parameters. However, it is possible to obtain a good estimate of the inelastic
response of several structural systems using relatively simple hysteretic models. In this paper,
hysteretic models are categorized as:
2.1. Non-degrading hysteretic models
Two models are usually considered: the elastic–perfect plastic model, denoted as EPP (Figure
1(a) when K1 = 0), and the bilinear one, denoted as EPH (Figure 1(a), with K1 ¿0). The EPP
model was used in this paper as a base model for studying the eect of degradation on the
inelastic response, since it represents the case with zero stiness and strength degradation. It
is representative of moment resisting frames where all the plastic hinges are simultaneously
formed under the seismic forces and the cyclic behaviour is stable (steel frames with rigid
joints, for example). The EPH model is characteristic of frames in which plastic hinges are
not simultaneously formed.
2.2. Degrading stiness hysteretic models
Hysteretic models that consider stiness degradation with and without pinching were intro-
duced and used by many researchers. In this study, two degrading stiness hysteretic models
without pinching were used:
(a) a model where the reduction of stiness in the unloading branch is linearly dependent
on the ductility and varies from the initial value K0 to the nal value K0 , being the
coecient of maximum degradation [9]. This model (Figure 1(b)) is characteristic of
composite frames with semi-rigid joints [10; 11];
(b) the Clough’s model [12] (Figure 1(c) when K1 = 0), which represents concrete frames
or masonry structures.
2.3. Degrading stiness and strength hysteretic model
The hysteretic model with stiness and strength degradation was used to study the eect of
strength degradation on the inelastic response (Figure 1(c)). It is representative of frames in
which second-order eects are meaningful.
4.00
Earthquake G2
2.00
a [m / s ]
2
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
0 40 80 120 160 200
t [s]
Figure 2. Sequence of three G2 earthquake ground motions.
Three dierent earthquake ground motions were considered: the SOOE El Centro 40 com-
ponent and two generated earthquakes, named G1 and G2, which are compatible with the
Eurocode 8 spectra for sti and soft soil, respectively. Each of the three ground motions, nor-
malized to the peak ground acceleration of the El Centro 40 component, was applied one, two
or three times. A gap of about 40 s between two consecutive events was considered for the
structure to cease moving. Real seismic sequences were not considered in this paper because
they are strictly dependent on the type of site. Moreover, successive real events present dif-
ferent characteristics, making the study very complex to perform and requiring a probabilistic
approach to solve the problem.
The integration of the non-linear equation of motion was performed on the basis of a
continuous acceleration history (Figure 2) using the Newmark’s linear acceleration method
with a time step dt = 0:01 s. The analysis was carried out for each system by varying the
yield force Fy , the available ductility 0 and the period in elastic phase T , by assuming a
constant damping ratio of 5% and neglecting the P– eect. From the time history of the
response, the following quantities were obtained:
— maximum relative displacement Sd ;

— maximum pseudo-acceleration Sa ;
— plastic dissipated energy E p ;
— viscous dissipated energy Ev ;
— input energy Ei .
These quantities were plotted against the period T for values of 0 equal to 2, 4 and 6,
corresponding respectively to low, medium and high ductility.
The behaviour factor or q-factor was also derived. The q-factor [13; 14], adopted by several
codes [1; 3], is used to approximate the results of a non-linear dynamic analysis by performing
an elastic analysis. The design response spectrum is obtained by dividing the elastic spectrum
by the q-factor to account for the inelastic energy dissipation of the real structure under
the seismic action. The q-factor can generally be dened as the ratio between the maximum
accelerogram that a structure can withstand without failure and the accelerogram for which a
rst yielding appears somewhere in the structure. It is therefore a measure of the structural
dissipative capacities under seismic actions. It depends on several aspects of the non-linear
behaviour of the structure, such as ductility, hysteretic cycle shape, dissipated energy, etc.
With reference to a ground motion acceleration history ug (t) with unit peak value, a series of
histories ug (t) was considered, where the multiplier represents the peak acceleration. The
behaviour factor was evaluated as the ratio between the value of the multiplier max that causes
the collapse of the structure (which for the SDOF system corresponds to the achievement of
the available ductility) and the multiplier y associated to the rst yielding:
max
q= (1)
y
The q-factor can also be considered, in a linear-elastic system, as the ratio between the
maximum base shear Qmax under the ground motion history max ug and the corresponding Qy
under y ug , that is
Qmax
q= (2)
Qy
Two damage parameters were moreover considered, the rst one in terms of ductility
−1
D = (3)
0 − 1
with 06D 61, and the second one in terms of ductility and plastic dissipated energy, as
proposed by Park and Ang [15; 16]:
max Ep
D P&A = + (4)
1; alw Fy 1; alw
where is the required ductility, 1; alw is the cyclic plastic amplitude in a dynamic test
where the structural failure is reached after one cycle, max is the plastic amplitude of the
widest required hysteretic cycle and a parameter assumed in the analysis equal to 0.15.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Non-degrading hysteretic models
In Figure 3, for the EPP model and EC40 earthquake ground motion, a comparison between
acceleration response spectra obtained by one, two or three events is shown for dierent
ductility levels. Analysing these responses, it is evident that repeated events generally require
a strength increase with respect to a single event, mainly for periods T = 0:1–1:5s. Conversely,
for longer periods (T ¿2 s) and particularly for high ductility systems, the response under
repeated earthquake ground motions is very similar to the response under only one earthquake
ground motion.
1.00 1.00
µ o= 2 Earthquakes µ o= 6
Earthquakes
0.80 1
0.80 1
2
2
3
3
0.60 0.60
Sa / g
Sa / g
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
T [s] T [s]
Figure 3. EPP model, acceleration response spectra under repeated events

for EC40 earthquake ground motion.
B'
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
q2 / q1
q3 / q1
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
(a)
0.50
(b) 0.50
(a)
0.40 0.40 A'
(b)
A B
0.30 0.30
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
T [s] T [s]
Figure 4. EPP model, q ratios for EC40 earthquake ground motion.
To point out how much the system degrades, it may be interesting to examine the trend
of the ratio qi =q1 between the q-factors under more than one event and only one event. This
ratio is equal to one if the system dissipates energy under the successive events without an
increase in ductility request. It is signicantly less than one if the hysteretic cycles are shifted
with respect to those under only one event, with a consequent increase in ductility request.
For a prexed ductility 0 , the ratios q2 =q1 and q3 =q1 (qi being the behaviour factor q for a
sequence of i events) are plotted against the period T in Figure 4. From this gure it can
6 6
Systems A Systems B
q1 q1
q3 q3
5 5
//
4 4
q
q
3 3
// ≈
2
≈ 2
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
µo µo
Figure 5. Behaviour factors for classes of systems A and B.
be noted that multiple events, in general, require a decrease in the q-factor that may become
meaningful. It is important to point out that the reduction in the ratio between q-factors is a
global measure of the damage accumulation, particularly signicant in the case of repeated
events.
A large variability with the period may be observed as well. Two classes of systems A and
B with periods TA and TB very close (Figure 4), characterized by a strong dierence in terms
of response for high ductility, are analysed in detail. The system represented by the point A
(period TA , high ductility) shows a high decay, whereas the system represented by the point
B (period TB , high ductility) shows no decay, in spite of the small dierence in terms of
periods.
For these classes of systems A and B, the plots of q1 , q3 versus the ductility 0 are shown
in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the plastic dissipated energy at the collapse for a single earthquake
ground motion and for three events in series (denoted as 1+2+3). For the last case the plastic
dissipated energies under the rst event (denoted as 1) or under the rst and second events
(denoted as 1 + 2) are shown as well. A strict similarity can be observed between the trend of
q1 (Figure 5, symbol ==) and the trend of the plastic dissipated energy under only one event
at the collapse (Figure 6, symbol ==). Also the trend of q3 (Figure 5, symbol ≈) is similar to
the trend of the plastic dissipated energy under the rst event of the three-earthquake ground
motion series that leads the structure to the collapse (Figure 6, symbol ≈). For ductility where
there is a strong variation in plastic dissipated energy, there is also a strong variation in the
q-factor. In particular, in Figure 5 the class of systems A shows an important q loss under
repeated earthquake ground motions with 0 ¿3, whereas for the class of systems B the loss
is limited to the range 0 = 2–5.
To justify this dierent behaviour, it can be noted in Figure 6 that, under three events,
the class of systems A dissipates under each event a plastic energy that is practically the
same as that dissipated under one event by structures with a ductility equal to 0 =2. This
~ ~
Figure 6. Plastic dissipated energy at the collapse for classes of systems A and B.
is true especially for high ductility. For example, a structure type A with 0 = 6 subjected
to three earthquake ground motions presents, under the rst event, about the same behaviour
in terms of energy as a structure with 0 = 3 subjected to one earthquake ground motion.
The class of systems B, instead, presents a dierent behaviour: ductile structures are not
penalized under repeated events, unlike those with low and medium ductility. For 0 = 2–4,
the plastic energy dissipated under two or three earthquake ground motions is less than the
energy dissipated under a single earthquake ground motion, and this zone is characterized by
a signicant decrease in the q-factor.
These dierences can be better observed in Figures 7(a) and 7(b), by analysing in detail
the behaviour of the structures A and B (both with 0 = 6) by means of the damage index
D and Park & Ang damage index DP&A . From Figure 7(a) it can be observed that, under
three EC40 type events, for the structure A the damage in terms of ductility D is on average
distributed in time, whereas the structure B essentially accumulates the damage during the
rst event. A comparison between Figures 7(a) and 7(b) shows that the curves of D and
DP&A are very close for the structure A , because of the small contribution of the plastic
dissipated energy under each earthquake ground motion. Instead, the trends of D and D P&A
are quite dierent for the structure B (Figure 7(b)), because of the considerable inuence of
the plastic dissipated energy.
This dierent behaviour can also be noted from Figures 8 and 9. In Figure 8 the trends
in time of dissipated energies are plotted for both types of structures under a sequence of
three EC40 earthquake ground motions that leads the systems to the collapse. In Figure 9 the
hysteretic cycles are plotted for both the structures A and B under the rst of three EC40
events and under only one EC40 event that leads to the collapse. It may be observed that
under the rst of three EC40 events the structure A dissipates a plastic energy much lower
compared to the plastic energy dissipated under only one EC40 event, whereas the structure
B practically shows the same cyclic response in both cases.
1.2 1.8
1.6
1.0
1.4
Park & Ang damage index

0.8 1.2
1.0
µ
0.6
D
0.8
0.4 Structure 0.6

A'
B' 0.4
0.2
Structure
A'
0.2 B'
0.0 0.0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
t [s] t [s]
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Damage indexes for structures A and B .
1.4 9
Structure A' 8 Structure B'

1.2 viscous viscous
plastic plastic
total 7 total
1.0
6
Energy [ joule /kg ]
Energy [ joule /kg ]
0.8 5
0.6 4
3
0.4
2
0.2
1
0.0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 8. Energy vs. time for structures A and B under a sequence

of three EC40 earthquake ground motions.
It is evident from these considerations that the q-factor depends on the ductility 0 in a
very complex way. In this dependence, structural period and frequency content of earthquake
ground motion play an important role. For the G1 and G2 earthquake ground motions, as an
example, the ratio q3 =q1 versus the period is shown in Figure 10. The comparison with the
2 2
First of three events for Structure A' Only one event for structure A'
1 1
F/Fy
F/Fy
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
δ/ δ y δ /δ y
2 2
First of three events for structure B'

Only one event for structure B'
1 1
F/Fy
F/Fy
0 0
-1 -1
-2 -2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
δ/δy δ /δ y
Figure 9. Hysteretic cycles for structures A and B .
response of Figure 4 emphasizes the variability of this parameter with the type of earthquake
ground motion.
For the sake of simplicity, a reduction in the q-factor, regardless of the structural period
T , may then be suggested to take into account the repetition of seismic events. The average
value over all periods and ductility minus 1.5 or 2 times the standard deviation was adopted,
obtaining for a type of earthquake ground motion xed a priori the limit values a and b of
Figures 4 and 10, represented by hollow circle and solid square lines and corresponding to
the fractile at 93.3 and 97.7% respectively.
For the EPP system, the a and b limit values obtained by averaging over all the exam-
ined earthquake ground motions and periods are reported in Table I for dierent values of
Ductility
Ductility
1.00 low 1.00
medium low
high medium
0.90 0.90
high
0.80 0.80
q3/q1
q3/q1
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
T [s] T [s]
Figure 10. EPP model, q ratios for G1 and G2 earthquake ground motions.
Table I. Limit average values for EPP system.

Ductility = 2 Ductility = 4 Ductility = 6 Average
q2=q1 a 0.610 0.661 0.646 0.639
b 0.540 0.604 0.592 0.579
q3=q1 a 0.494 0.475 0.511 0.493
b 0.418 0.396 0.443 0.419
ductility, along with the average values over the ductility. These results demonstrate that
the variability of the qi =q1 ratios with the ductility is very limited and the average values
may then be considered representative of the repeated earthquake ground motion eects on
structures.
The same comparisons carried out for the EPP model in terms of the q-factor were also
developed for the EPH model considering dierent hardening levels. In Figures 11 and 12,
considering a hardening branch with stiness K1 equal to 0.1 times the initial stiness of
the system K0 , the q-ratios are shown for dierent earthquake ground motion sequences. It
can be noted that the presence of the over-strength signicantly reduces the decrease in the
q-factor under repeated events, especially for high ductility. Structures with low ductility are,
instead, sensitive to repeated earthquake ground motions even if the fundamental period is
high (T = 2–3 s). This is particularly evident for the G2 earthquake ground motion, where the
frequency content is important for T ¿1:5 s. The average limit values a and b for this model
and all the analysed earthquake ground motions are shown in Table II.
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7
q3 / q1
q3 / q1
0.7
0.6
0.6
Ductility Ductility
low 0.5 low

0.5
medium medium
high
0.4 high
0.4
0.3
0.3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3
T [s] T [s]
Figure 11. EPH model, q ratios for EC40 and G1 earthquake ground motions (K1 =K0 = 0:1).
1.0
0.9
0.8
q3 / q1
0.7
0.6
Ductility
0.5 low
medium
0.4 high
0.3
0 1 2 3
T [s ]
Figure 12. EPH model, q ratios for G2 earthquake ground motion (K1 =K0 = 0:1).
3.2. Degrading stiness hysteretic models
The EPD system with a linearly degrading stiness and the Clough’s model were also
analysed. For the former, the limit value K2 of the stiness when = 0 was assumed equal
to [11]:
e
1
K2 = K0 (5)
0
Table II. Limit average values.

q3=q1
EPH a 0.799
b 0.756
EPD e = 0:35 a 0.607
b 0.533
EPD e = 0:70 a 0.712
b 0.603
EPD e = 1:00 a 0.738
b 0.650
Clough a 0.812
b 0.746
DS a 0.719
b 0.678
e = 0.35
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
q3 / q1
0.6
0.5
0.4 Ductility
0.3 low
medium
0.2
high
0.1
0 1 2 3
T [s]
Figure 13. EPD model, q ratios for EC40 earthquake ground motion.
where K0 is the initial stiness of the system, and e is a parameter linked to the degradation
of stiness. For both the EPD and Clough’s models, the presence of a degrading stiness
produces a favorable eect on the q-factor under repeated events. By analysing Figures 13,
14 and 15, the q3 =q1 ratios are on average greater than those of the EPP system. The reason
for this is the increase in the proper period in plastic phase and the consequent decrease in
the required strength for T ¿0:8–1 s (the acceleration spectrum decreases with T within this
range).
In Figures 13 and 14 the values e = 0:35, 0.70 and 1 are considered. When the degradation
of stiness is large (e = 1), the limit curves of the q3 =q1 ratio are higher with respect to the
e = 0.70 e = 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
q3 / q1
q3 / q1
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 Ductility 0.4 Ductility
low low
0.3 0.3
medium medium
0.2 0.2
high high
0.1 0.1
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
T [s] T [s]
Figure 14. EPD model, q ratios for EC40 earthquake ground motion.
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
q3 / q1
q3 / q1
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
Ductility Ductility
0.5 low 0.5 low
medium medium
0.4 0.4 high
high
0.3 0.3
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
T [s] T [s]
Figure 15. Clough’s model, q ratios for EC40 and G2 earthquake ground motions.
EPP model. The reduction in stiness due to the system deterioration therefore produces the
same eect as the strength increment in the EPH model. The limit values a and b, which
are calculated considering all the examined earthquake ground motions and are reported in
Table II, conrm this type of response.
3.3. Degrading stiness and strength hysteretic models
Lastly, a DS system, that is a Clough’s model characterized by a softening branch with

stiness K1 equal to 10% of the initial stiness K0 , was analysed. In this case an increase in
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
q3 / q1
q3 / q1
0.7
0.6
0.6
Ductility
Ductility 0.5
0.5 low
low
medium
medium 0.4
0.4 high
high
0.3 0.3
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
T [s] T [s]
Figure 16. DS model, q ratios for EC40 and G2 earthquake ground motions (K1 =K0 = −0:1).
strength demand (Figure 16) under repeated earthquake ground motions with respect to the
classical Clough’s model (Figure 15) can be observed. The reduction in strength when an
increase in displacement is required (Figure 1(c)) therefore penalizes the response in terms
of q-factor, which becomes similar to that of the EPP model. Table II reports the average
a and b values for all the analysed earthquake ground motions.
4. THE ANALYSED MOMENT RESISTING FRAME
In order to verify the correspondence between the response of SDOF systems and real multi-
degree-of-freedom systems, some results obtained from the analysis of a moment resisting
steel frame are reported in this Section. The analysed system is the three-storey, two-bay
rigid steel frame of Figure 17, characterized by Italian compact proles of steel Fe360. The
structure was designed according to the Eurocode 3 and 8 [17; 1], considering it as an unbraced
transversal frame of a parallel frames system at a distance of 6 m. The periods are: T1 = 0:934 s,
T2 = 0:305 s and T3 = 0:167 s. Distributed loads in the beams and second order eects were
considered in the analyses. Static and dynamic analyses were performed by the Abaqus code
using beam elements type B33, characterized by 3 Gauss’s points along the beam axis and 13
points in the cross-section [18]. In this way, the interaction between axial forces and bending
moments is automatically considered, with a control achieved directly on the stress-strain
material law. For the limit strain of steel, a value lim = 40 y was assumed, with y equal to
the yielding steel strain, which corresponds to a beam rotation ductility 0 of about 16.
The pushover response of the frame in terms of the load multiplier versus the top dis-
placement , under equivalent seismic forces, is shown in Figure 18 (continuous line). It is
characterized by a strong over-strength, since plastic hinges are not formed simultaneously.
The behaviour factor q, considered as the ratio between the ultimate and the rst yielding
maximum ground accelerations, is reported in Table III for the El Centro earthquake ground
IPE 300 IPE 300
HEB 240
HEB 260
HEB 240
3.5
IPE 330 IPE 330
HEB 240
HEB 260
HEB 240
3.5
IPE 360 IPE 360

HEB 240
HEB 260
HEB 240
4.0
6.0 m 6.0 m
Figure 17. Analysed steel frame.
3.0
2.5
µ=40
2.0
λ
1.5
1.0
0.5 elastic limit
0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20

δ [m]
Figure 18. Pushover frame response.
motion applied one, two or three times. Multiple events involve a strong reduction in the
q-factor also in this case (analogous results were obtained for the G1 and G2 earthquake
Table III. Behaviour factor for the analysed frame.

Abaqus EPP
q1 4.291 3.496
q2 3.031 2.270
q3 2.610 2.136
q2=q1 0.706 0.649
q3=q1 0.608 0.611
ground motions). By comparing these values with those obtained from an EPH SDOF system
equivalent to the frame in terms of static response, it was observed that the SDOF system
is not able to simulate the global frame response, because it underestimates the behaviour
factor decay. Only the EPP model shown in Figure 18 (dashed line), characterized by the
same total deformation energy of the real frame, has provided suciently adequate behaviour
factors and q2 =q1 , q3 =q1 ratios (see Table III).
In general, it was observed that SDOF systems are not able to correctly predict the actual
response of the frame. In fact, a SDOF system does not include the complex history of
opening and closure of the plastic hinges during an earthquake ground motion. In particular,
the interaction between rst and high vibration mode shapes, and the eect of axial forces in
the external columns cannot be considered by a SDOF system, which consequently shows a
lower decay of the q-factor with respect to a frame structure.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents some results regarding the behaviour of inelastic SDOF systems and a
rigid steel frame under repeated earthquake ground motions.
This analysis cannot be considered exhaustive. However, the rst results indicate that mul-
tiple events can imply a considerable accumulation of damage and a consequent reduction
in the q-factor. Many parameters inuence the response. The principal factors are: structural
period, type of earthquake ground motion and level of available ductility. In particular, by
comparing the results obtained for SDOF systems, it was observed that the EPP model is
characterized by a higher decay of the q-factor with respect to the EPH, EPD, Clough’s and
DS systems. For the sake of safety, the EPP system can then be considered as the controlling
model for the problem of repeated events. The two corresponding limit values a and b, which
represent the fractile at 93.3 and 97.7% of the q-factor distribution with the period, ductility
and type of earthquake ground motion, can dene these eects in a signicant way. They
should be determined as a function of the site, on the basis of a large number of possible
events.
The analysed steel frame has also shown a high decay of the q-factor. In this case, an
equivalent SDOF system is generally inadequate for correctly predicting the actual response
of the frame, underestimating the reduction of the q-factor.
Therefore, the modern design codes should consider a reduction in the q-factor and an
increase in the damage index in areas historically characterized by multiple seismic events.
The reduction in the q-factor should be applied in two types of verication:
— the collapse limit state;

— the limit states with damage control (functional, life safety, near collapse).
Further analyses are necessary for dierent structural typologies, especially for structures with
low ductility (masonry, for example), for both new and existing buildings. In this case the
eects of repeated events could be very important for the assessment of vulnerability and
seismic risk.
REFERENCES
1. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of
Structures. Brussels, 1997.
2. Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. A simplied approach for evaluating performance levels of moment-resisting steel
frames. Seismic Design Methodologies for the next Generation of Codes. Balkema: Rotterdam, Bled, 1997.
3. Anastasiadis A, Gioncu V, Mazzolani FM. Toward a consistent methodology for ductility checking. Third
International Conference STESSA 2000; Balkema: Rotterdam, Montreal, 2000; 443– 453.
4. Bertero VV. State-of-the-art report on design criteria. 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering;
Acapulco 1996; CD-ROM Paper No. 2005.
5. California Seismic Safety Commission. Seismic evaluation and retrot of concrete buildings. ATC40, Applied
Technology Council, November 1996.
6. Elnashai AS, Bommer JJ, Martinez-Pereira A. Engineering implications of strong-motion records from recent
earthquakes. 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering; Paris 1998; CD-ROM.
7. Muria Vila D, Toro Jaramillo AM. Eects of several events recorded at a building founded on soft soil. 11th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering; Paris 1998; CD-ROM.
8. Decanini L, Gavarini C, Mollaioli F. Some remarks on the Umbria-Marche earthquakes of 1997. European
Earthquake Engineering 2000; 3:18– 48.
9. Nethercot D, Zandonini R. Methods of prediction of joint behaviour: beam-to-column connections. In Stability
and Strength, Narayanan R (ed.). Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1989; 23 – 62.
10. Leon RT, Zandonini R. Composite Connection. In Constructional Steel Design. An International Guide, Patrick
J. Dowling, John E. Harding (eds). Reidar Bjorhovde. Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1992; 501–522.
11. Al Sulaimani GJ, Roessett JM. Design spectra for degrading systems. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE)
1985; 111(12):2611–2622.
12. Clough RW, Benuska KL, Wilson EL. Inelastic earthquake response of tall buildings. Third World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 2. New Zealand, 1965; 68–89.
13. Ballio G. European approach to design of steel structures. Proceedings of Hong Kong Fourth World Congress,
Hong Kong, 1990; 935–946.
14. Vidic T, Faifar P, Fischinger M. Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:507–521.
15. Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1985; 111(4):722–739.
16. Cosenza E, Manfredi G. A seismic design method including damage eect. 11th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering; Paris 1998; CD-ROM.
17. European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures; Brussels, 1992.
18. Hibbit, Karlsson, Sorensen. Abaqus version 5.7. User manual, 1997.

Am Adio 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Am Adio 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Am Adio 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2003; 32:291–308 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.225)

The eects of repeated earthquake ground motions

C. Amadio∗; † , M. Fragiacomo and S. Rajgelj

2. THE ANALYSED SDOF SYSTEMS

Single-degree-of-freedom systems can be considered representative of the seismic behaviour

Figure 1. Hysteretic models of the analysed SDOF systems.

2.1. Non-degrading hysteretic models

2.2. Degrading stiness hysteretic models

2.3. Degrading stiness and strength hysteretic model

Figure 2. Sequence of three G2 earthquake ground motions.

— maximum relative displacement Sd ;

3.1. Non-degrading hysteretic models

Figure 3. EPP model, acceleration response spectra under repeated events

Figure 4. EPP model, q ratios for EC40 earthquake ground motion.

Figure 5. Behaviour factors for classes of systems A and B.

Park & Ang damage index

0.4 Structure 0.6

Figure 7. Damage indexes for structures A and B .

Structure A' 8 Structure B'

Energy [ joule /kg ]

Figure 8. Energy vs. time for structures A and B under a sequence

First of three events for structure B'

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Figure 9. Hysteretic cycles for structures A and B .

Table I. Limit average values for EPP system.

low 0.5 low

3.2. Degrading stiness hysteretic models

Table II. Limit average values.

0.4 Ductility 0.4 Ductility

3.3. Degrading stiness and strength hysteretic models

Lastly, a DS system, that is a Clough’s model characterized by a softening branch with

4. THE ANALYSED MOMENT RESISTING FRAME

IPE 300 IPE 300

IPE 360 IPE 360

Figure 17. Analysed steel frame.

0.5 elastic limit

0.00 0.10 0.20

Figure 18. Pushover frame response.

Table III. Behaviour factor for the analysed frame.

The reduction in the q-factor should be applied in two types of verication:

— the collapse limit state;

You might also like