Incremental dynamic analysis reveals cumulative seismic damage reduces collapse margins in reinforced concrete shear wall buildings, indicating heightened vulnerability under repeated shaking.
Seismic design and assessment procedures generally represent earthquake demand using single-event ground-motion scenarios and may therefore overlook the cumulative damage caused by successive earthquakes. This study investigates the nonlinear seismic response and vulnerability of a seven-story reinforced-concrete (RC) shear wall building designed according to the Turkish Building Earthquake Code (TBEC-2018) under single-event and repeated-earthquake excitations. A three-dimensional nonlinear model was developed in ETABS, and eight bidirectional earthquake-record pairs were spectrally matched to the site-specific design spectrum. Incremental dynamic analyses were performed for the first-earthquake, second-earthquake, and combined first–second earthquake scenarios. In total, 855 bidirectional nonlinear time-history analyses were conducted, comprising 311 first-earthquake, 299 second-earthquake, and 245 combined-sequence analyses. The maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR) was adopted as the engineering demand parameter, considering the Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention drift limits of 0.5%, 1.0%, and 2.0%, respectively. At the selected reference intensity of Sa(T 1 , 5%) = 0.5 g, the combined sequences increased roof-displacement demands by approximately 5–15% in several records; however, the drift demands remained within the Immediate Occupancy range and well below the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention limits. The results indicate that repeated shaking has a limited influence at the selected reference intensity but becomes more significant in the strongly nonlinear range by reducing the remaining deformation capacity and collapse-prevention margin. The results evaluated through fragility curves indicate that the potential damage-amplifying effects of repeated earthquakes, particularly under higher-intensity shaking, should not be overlooked in earthquake-resistant structural design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuşoğlu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: