Inelastic Response Spectrum for Foreshock - Mainshock - Aftershock Sequences

Document Type : Research Article


1 Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran, Iran

2 M.Sc., University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran


The effect of aftershocks on structures are not usually considered in seismic design codes. In addition to mainshock events, aftershocks can cause major damage to structures, especially to mainshock-damaged structures. Analysis of the characteristics of the mainshock, foreshocks, and aftershocks reveal differences in the ground motion parameters. Structures may undergo a variety of seismic waves with different characteristics that can increase the chance of seismic amplification. The present study examined the effects of aftershock as well as foreshocks events on the response of single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems with nonlinear behavior. This allowed inclusion of possible differences during calculation of the response spectrum for cases having foreshock and aftershock effects and those excluding these effects. To this end, 38 mainshocks from different seismic regions with moment magnitudes (Mw) greater than 3.5 were used. More than 168 time acceleration histories from mainshock, aftershock, and foreshock events were applied to evaluate the effects of aftershocks and foreshocks on the response spectrum. The parameters of post-yield stiffness ratio (hardening and softening), ductility factor, period, and site classification were taken into account during 121,000 nonlinear analyses on 60 SDOF models. The results show that the aftershocks as well as foreshocks have a significant effect on the response spectrum, increasing the structural response. Consequently, the effect of aftershocks must be considered in the development of design spectra in seismic codes and guidelines.


Main Subjects

  1. Abdollahzadeh G. R., Mohammadgholipour Ali and Omranian Ehsan, Seismic Evaluation of Steel Moment Frames Under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequence Designed by Elastic Design and PBPD Methods, 2018, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 23(2), DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1387198.
  1. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2006) Influence of long‐period filter cut‐off on elastic spectral displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9): 1145-1165.
  2. Amadio C., M. Fragiacomo and S. Rajgelj (2003). The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(2) 291–308.
  3. Aschheim M. and E. Black (1999). Effects of prior earthquake damage on response of simple stiffness-degrading structures. Earthquake Spectra, 15(1) 1–24.
  4. Boore D. M. and W. B. Joyner (1982). The empirical prediction of ground motion. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 72(6) 43-60.
  5. Chopra A. (2006). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall; New Jersey.
  6. Fragiacomo M., C. Amadio and L. Macorini (2004). Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions. Engineering Structures, 26(13), 2021-2035.
  7. Gallagher R. P., P. A. Reasenberg and C. D. Poland (1999). Earthquake aftershocks-entering damaged buildings. Funded by the U.S. Geological Survey as Part of the ATC-35 Research Utilization Project.
  8. Hatzigeorgiou G. D. and D. E. Beskos (2009). Inelastic displacement ratios for SDOF structures subjected to repeated earthquakes. Engineering Structures, 31(11) 2744-2755.
  9. Hatzigeorgiou G. D. and A. A. Liolios (2010). Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30(10) 1010-1025.
  10. Iancovici M. and I. Georgiana (2007). Evaluation of the inelastic demand of structures subjected to multiple ground motions. Journal of Structural Engineering, 4(2) 143-154.
  11. (2006). International Building Code. International Code Council, Inc., USA.
  12. Iervolino, M. Giorgio and E. Chioccarelli (2014). Closed-form aftershock reliability of damage-cumulating elastic perfectly-plastic systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 43(6) 13-25.
  13. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
  14. Jeon J. S. (2013). Aftershock vulnerability assessment of damaged reinforced concrete buildings in California. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.
  15. Luco N., P. Bazzurro and C. A. Cornell (2004). Dynamic versus static computation of the residual capacity of a mainshock-damaged building to withstand an aftershock. Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C. Paper No. 2405.
  16. Maeda M. and D. E. Kang (2009). Post-earthquake damage evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings, Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 7(3) 327-335.
  17. Mahin S. A. (1980). Effects of duration and aftershocks on inelastic design earthquakes, Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 677–680.
  18. Moustafa A. and I. Takewaki (2011). Response of nonlinear single degree of freedom structures to random acceleration sequences, Engineering Structures, 33(15) 1251-1258.
  19. National Research Institute for Earthquake Science and Disaster Prevention. K-NET homepage.
  20. (1999). Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  21. (1999). Strong Motion Database. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research. University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  22. Raghunandan M., A. B. Lie and N. Luco (2014). Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete frame structure, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 44(3) 419-439.
  23. Stewart J. P., and S. J. Chiou, J. D. Bray, R. W. Graves, P. G. Somerville and N. A. Abrahamson (2001). Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design, PEER 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  24. Sunasaka Y. and A. S. Kiremidjian (1993). A method for structural safety evaluation under mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences, Report No. 105, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University: Palo Alto, CA.
  25. Trifunace M. D. and A. G. Badly (1975). A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America 65(3) 581-626.
  26. Yeo G. L. and C. A. Cornell (2005). Stochastic characterization and decision bases under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering, Report NO. 149, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  27. Zhai C. H., W. Wei, C. ZhiQiang , Li and L. L. Xie (2013). Damage spectra for the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 45 1-12.
  28. Zhai C. H., W. P. Wen, S. Li, Z. Q. Chen, Z. Chang and L. L. Xie (2014). The damage investigation of inelastic SDOF structure under the mainshock–aftershock sequence-type ground motion, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 59(14) 30-41.
  29. Zhang S., G. Wang and W. Sa (2013). Damage evaluation of concrete gravity dams under mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 50 16-27.