Available online at: http://www.ijmtst.com/vol5issue09.

html

International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

ISSN: 2455-3778 :: Volume: 05, Issue No: 09, September 2019

Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple

Earthquakes
Shesalu D. Vadeo1 | M. V. Waghmare2

1,2Department of Civil Engineering, AISSMS COE, Pune-411004, Maharashtra, India

To Cite this Article

Shesalu D. Vadeo and M. V. Waghmare, “Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple Earthquakes”, International
Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology, Vol. 05, Issue 09, September 2019, pp.-60-65.

Article Info
Received on 19-August-2019, Revised on 16-September-2019, Accepted on 25-September-2019, Published on 01-Octoberr-2019.

ABSTRACT
Earthquakes in the past have shown that a strong mainshock is often followed by aftershocks forming
mainshock-aftershock series type of ground motions or multiple earthquakes. Aftershocks could occur after
days, months or even years and although they are normally smaller in magnitude, their intensity can be
large with different energy content than mainshock and pose a seismic hazard after a mainshock. The
general approach of seismic design of structures usually considers a single earthquake but recent studies
have shown that the mainshock aftershock records and interaction between these two should be evaluated
to determine the likely damage behavior and responses of structure.Due to successive shaking of the ground
over a short period of time, the damages in the structure gets accumulated and the structure becomes
vulnerable to collapse. To understand the behavior of structure under such repeated ground motions or
multiple earthquakes, non-linear time history analysis is carried out.
The present study considers a 12 storey reinforced concrete building. The building was analyzed for both
linear and nonlinear time history analysis for 5-time history ground motions considering mainshock and
mainshock-aftershock sequences. The material and geometric non linearities were accounted in terms of
hinges and p-delta effects. It was found that the mainshock-aftershock sequence of ground motion has
significant effect on the response of the structure in terms of top displacements and storey drifts. The
analysis was carried out by ETABS 2016.
Keywords: mainshock, aftershocks, nonlinear time history analysis, nonlinearities.

Copyright © 2019 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology
All rights reserved.

instance the earthquakes in California (Mammoth

I. INTRODUCTION
Multiple earthquakes occur at many regions of
the world where complex fault systems exist. These
fault systems usually do not relieve all
accumulated strains at once when the first rupture
takes place. Therefore, high stresses form at
different locations causing sequential ruptures
until the fault system is completely stabilized. This
leads to the occurrence of aftershocks after a large
mainshock. Aftershock sequences could last from
minutes to years and cause seismic hazard.For
Lakes, 1980; Coalinga, 1983; Whittier Narrows,
1987; Northridge, 1994), Italy (Friuli, 1976; Irpinia,
1980; Umbria-Marche, 1997; L’Aquila, 2009),
Japan (Kobe, 1995; Niigata, 2004; Tohoku, 2011)
were followed by aftershocks with equal or even
higher magnitudes, among others. These
sequences of earthquakes lead to accumulation of
stresses and damages on the structures. Due to
the short interval between successive seismic
events there is least possibility of repair and
retrofitting of the structure. Hence, the structure

60 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

 Shesalu D. Vadeo and M. V. Waghmare : Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple Earthquakes

undergoes inelasticdisplacements when subjected The building considered has 12 storeys, 4 bays
to repeated seismic ground motions. measuring 5m each in x-direction and 4 bays
Someresearchers have studied the inelastic or measuring 4m each in y-direction. Table I shows
nonlinear response of mainshock-aftershock the parameters considered for modeling the
(MSAS) sequence ground motions of SDOF systems structure. The 3D model of structure is shown in
(C. Amadio et al., 2002 and G. D Hatzigeorgiou and Fig.1.For the nonlinear modelling, moment M3
D.E Beskos, 2009). The behavior of reinforced hinges are provided for beams and interacting
concrete structures under repeated ground P-M2-M3 hinges for columns. To account for
motions of 2D bare frame models was investigated thecracking behavior of reinforced concrete,
and found that repeated seismic ground motions cracked reinforced section property factor of 0.35 is
leads to higher displacement demands as considered for beams and a factor of 0.7 is
compared to single ground motions (G.D. considered for column as per IS 16700:2017.
Hatzigeorgiou and A. A. Liolios, 2010). It was found
that the use of real earthquake data is vital for
evaluating the performance of structures under
seismic sequences to consider the source
mechanisms(Jorge Ruiz-Garcia, 2012).Analytical
investigations carried out earlier have shown that
seismic sequence increases the displacement
demands and accumulated damage (Chang-Hai
Zhai et al., 2015). To understand the behavior of
structure under such repeated seismic events, the
response of structure under mainshock aftershock
sequences is to be evaluated.

II. MODELLING

In this study, the response of a 3D reinforced

concrete frame is examined for linear and
nonlinear THA under MS and MS-AS sequences.

TABLE I. MODELLING PARAMETERS

Storey height 3m

Size of beam 450 mm x 300 mm

Fig. 1. Schematic 3D model of structure
Size of column 550 mm x 450 mm

Thickness of slab 125 mm III. GROUND MOTION DATA

Dead load
Live load
Wall load
Height of parapet
Load from parapet
Grade of concrete
Longitudinal reinforcement
Transverse reinforcement
Plan dimensions
1 kN/m2
The time history data are obtained from
3 kN/m2 Strong-Motion Virtual Data Center (VDC)
facilitated by The Consortium of Organizations for
11.73 kN/m
Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS),
1.2 m California.The five seismic sequence records have a
time gap of 2 seconds between successive
3.45 kN/ m
mainshock and aftershock seismic events which
M30 has zero ordinates of ground acceleration. The
ground motion records are tabulated in Table II.
Fe500
Only one aftershock has been considered for the
Mild 250 seismic sequence. The aftershock considered in
20 x 16 m this study occurs in a varying time span from three
minutes to two months. Fig. 2 shows the
acceleration time history of MS-AS sequences of
the five ground motion time histories. The ground

61 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

 Shesalu D. Vadeo and M. V. Waghmare : Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple Earthquakes

motion acceleration is considered in one horizontal

direction only i.e., x-direction for both MS and
MS-AS sequence.

TABLE II. GROUND MOTION DATA

Ground PGA
Time Event Magnitude (d)
motion (m/s2)
19:05
Chamoli MS 6.6 3.528
(28/03/1999)
19:36
AS 5.4 0.634
(28/03/1999)
23:42
Coalinga MS 6.5 5.90
(02/05/1983)
02:39 (e)
AS 6 9.2076
(22/07/1983)
El 06:33 Fig. 2. Acceleration time history
MS 6.8 0.3242
Alamo (09/02/1956)
07:25 IV. TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS
AS 6.1 0.1545
(09/02/1956)
Time-history analysis is a step-by-step analysis
Imperial 22:16
MS 6.5 7.704 of the dynamic response of a structure to a
Valley (15/10/1979)
specified loading that may vary with time. The
23:19
AS 5 0.11267 analysis may be linear or nonlinear. Time history
(15/10/1979)
analysis is used to determine the dynamic
Whittier 14:42
MS 6.1 0.4682 response of a structure to arbitrary loading. If the
Narrows (01/10/1987)
load includes ground acceleration, the
10:59
AS 5.3 0.210 displacements, velocities, and accelerations are
(04/10/1987)
relative to this ground motion. A 3D reinforced
frame is analyzed by linear and nonlinear time
history method considering mainshock and
mainshock-aftershock sequences.Firstly, linear
time history analysis is carried out where
nonlinearities are not considered. Secondly,
nonlinear analysis is carried out considering both
material and geometric nonlinearities. The hinges
(a) account for material nonlinearity and p-delta
effects account for geometric nonlinearity. The time
history analysis is carried out by using finite
element software ETABS 2016 and response
parameters, namely maximum storey
displacement, maximum storey drift and base
shear are compared.

(b) V. RESULTS

The results are obtained for all the five ground

motion time histories under MS and MSAS
sequences. The results are presented graphically
for each response parameter i.e., displacement,
drift and base shear. The responseof both linear
and nonlinear time history analysis is presented.
(c) The terms used in the graphs and table indicate
the following: -

62 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

 Shesalu D. Vadeo and M. V. Waghmare : Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple Earthquakes

1. LMS – Linear analysis under Mainshock observed for nonlinear THA. Comparing the
2.LMSAS- Linear analysis under responses for linear and nonlinear THA, an
Mainshock-Aftershock increase of 23% and 27% under MS and MSAS
3. NLMS – Nonlinear analysis under Mainshock respectively is observed. The maximum storey
4. NLMSAS – Nonlinear analysis under displacement of structure is found to be higher for
Mainshock-Aftershock nonlinear analysis under both MS and MSAS
5. THA- Time History Analysis sequences as compared to linear THA.
A. Maximum storey displacement B. Maximum storey drift

Table 1. Maximum storey displacement (mm) Table 2. Maximum storey drift

Linear THA Nonlinear THA Linear THA Nonlinear THA

Ground
Ground motion
motion
MS MSAS MS MSAS MS MSAS MS MSAS
Chamoli, 1999 116.61 137.01 143.52 173.42 Chamoli,
.0064 .0075 .0069 .0089
Coalinga, 1983 174.69 216.62 196.37 251.94 1999
Imperial Valley, Coalinga,
200.59 236.49 226.73 278.39 .0077 .0099 .0089 .0110
1979 1983
Whittier Narrows, Imperial
38.67 47.10 44.25 56.38 .0079 .0112 .0113 .0131
1987 Valley, 1979
El Alamo, 1956 26.38 26.89 27.20 31.98 Whittier
Narrows, .0020 .0026 .0029 .0041
1987
El Alamo,
.0009 .0010 .0011 .0012
1956

Fig. 3. Maximum storey displacement

Fig. 3 shows the maximum storey displacement of

building under MS and MSAS sequences. It is
observed that the displacements under MSAS
sequences are higher compared to single MS for
both linear and nonlinear THA. 24% increase in
maximum displacements under MSAS sequences Fig. 4. Maximum storey drift
as compared to corresponding MS for linear THA is
observed. 28% increase in maximum displacement It is observed that there is an increase of 37% in
under MSAS compared to corresponding MS is maximum drifts under MSAS sequences as
compared to single MS for linear THA. And 38%

63 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

 Shesalu D. Vadeo and M. V. Waghmare : Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple Earthquakes

increase in maximum drifts is observed under The decrease in base shear in nonlinear THA is as
MSAS compared to corresponding MS for nonlinear high as 52% as compared to linear THA for both MS
THA. Higher drifts are observed for both MS and and MSAS sequences.
MSAS sequences for nonlinear THA. Comparing It is observed that nonlinear THAgives higher
the drifts for linear and nonlinear THA, an increase responses while analyzing reinforced concrete
of 45% and 54% under MS and MSAS respectively structures as it takes into account the
is observed. nonlinearities of the structure.
C. Base shear
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Table 3. Base shear (kN)
The present study examined the response of a
Ground Linear THA Nonlinear THA reinforced concrete building subjected to MS and
motion MS MSAS MS MSAS MS-AS seismic events. The building is analyzed for
Chamoli, linear and nonlinear time history analysis.
6510 5371 3133 2764
1999 Accordingly, the following conclusions were drawn:
Coalinga,
5142 4114 3086 2777
1983 1. The maximum storey displacements and
Imperialvalley maximum drifts are higher under MSAS
, 8474 7472 6653 5976 sequences as compared to corresponding
1979 single MS due to stiffness and strength
Whittier degradation under successive ground motion.
Narrows, 3981 3583 2707 2263 2. The base shear under MSAS sequences is
1987 much lower as compared to single MS, as
El Alamo, there is continuous loss of stiffness and
1223 1100 713 640 strength under repeated ground motion
1956
leading to permanent deformations.

The response of building for nonlinear time

history analysis are observed to be higher as
compared to linear time history analysis. As
nonlinear THA considered both material and
geometrical nonlinearities taking into account the
nonlinear or inelastic behavior of the structure
which resulted in increase in strains beyond the
yield point.

Fig. 5. Base shear (kN)
It is observed that as the displacement increases
under MSAS sequences the base shear decreases
in both linear and nonlinear THA. The percentage
decrease in base shear under MSAS sequences as
compared to MS are 20% and 16% for linear and
nonlinear THA respectively.The decrease in base
shear under MSAS is due to loss of stiffness and
strength under repeated seismic ground motion.
REFERENCES
[1] C. Amadio, M. Frafiacomo and S. Rajgelj, “The effects of
repeated earthquake ground motions on the non-linear
response of SDOF systems”, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 32, 2002, pp.
291-308.
[2] Chang-Hai Zhai, Zhi Zheng, Shuang Li and Li-Li Xie,
“Seismic analysis of RCC building under
mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences”, Journal of Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 74, 2015, pp
46-55.
[3] F. Hosseinpour and A.E. Abdelnaby, “Effect of multiple
earthquakes on the non-linear behavior of RC structures”,
Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
92, 2017, pp. 706-725.
[4] George D. Hatzigeorgiou and Dimitri E. Beskos, “Inelastic
displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to
repeated earthquakes”, Journal of Engineering Structures,
Vol. 31, 2009, p. 2744-2755.
[5] George D. Hatzigeorgiou and Asterios A. Liolios,
“Nonlinear behavior of RC frames under repeated strong
ground motions”, Journal of Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 30, 2010, pp. 1010-1025.

64 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology

 Shesalu D. Vadeo and M. V. Waghmare : Nonlinear Analysis of RC Structure under Multiple Earthquakes

[6] Jorge Ruiz-Garcia, “Mainshock-aftershock ground motion

features and their influence in building’sseismic
response”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 16,
2012, pp. 719-737.
[7] Joanna Maria Dulinska and Izabela Joanna Murzyn,
“Dynamic behavior of a concrete building under a
mainshock-aftershock seismic sequence with a concrete
damage plasticity model”, Journal of Geomatics, Natural
Hazards and Risks, Vol. 7, 2016, pp. 25-34.
[8] L. Di Sarno, “Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic
structural response”, Journal of Engineering Structures,
Vol. 56, 2013, pp. 673-681
[9] Ruiqiang Song, Yue Li and John W. van de Lindt, “Impact
of earthquake ground motion characteristics on collapse
risk of post mainshock buildings considering aftershocks”,
Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 81, 2014, pp.
349-361
[10] Oyguc R., Toros C. and Adelnaby A. E., “Seismic behavior
of irregular reinforced-concrete structures under multiple
earthquake excitations”, Journal of Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 104, 2018, pp. 15-32
[11] IS 16700: 2017, “Criteria for Structural Safety of Tall
Concrete Buildings”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.

65 International Journal for Modern Trends in Science and Technology