Effects of Ground Motion Directionality on the Seismic Behavior of Mid-rise Concrete Buildings with Considering Unequal Live-Load Distribution in Height

Document Type : Regular Paper


1 M.Sc. of Earthquake Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran


The incident angle of ground motion is one of the sources of uncertainty in the seismic response of buildings. Moreover, understanding the structural response to the impose ground motion may cause significant changes in the maximum response of buildings. In order to investigate the influence of the spatial distribution of orthogonal components of earthquake strong motion on the structural responses, three 15-story buildings were analyzed in this study using the time-history method. A significant live load (750 kg/m2) is imposed at different vertical levels of the structures. The imposed load was combined with ground motion excitations in the range of 0 to 90 degrees. The response of structure was investigated using roof drift index and inter-story drift ratio. Results demonstrate the orientation of seismic excitation and considering the maximum values of roof drift index, which correspond to the critical direction increase roof drift index between 8 to 12 percent. Furthermore, the inter-story drift ratio increased between 30 to 33 percent due to the orientation of excitation and considering the maximum values of the inter-story drift ratio, which correspond to the critical direction.


Main Subjects

[1] Penzien, J., Watabe, M. (1974) “Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 3(4):365–73.
[2] Menun, C., Der Kiureghian, A.(1998) “A Replacement for the 30%, 40%, and SRSS Rules for Multicomponent Seismic Analysis”. Earthquake Spectra, 14(1):153–63.
[3] Wilson, EL., Suharwardy, I., Habibullah, A. (1995). “A Clarification of the Orthogonal Effects in a Three‚ÄźDimensional Seismic Analysis”. Earthquake Spectra, 11(4):659–66.
[5] Athanatopoulou, AM. (2005). “Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components”. Engineering Structures, 27(2):301–312.
[6] Rigato, AB., Medina, RA. (2007). “Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions”. Engineering Structures, 29(10):2593–601.
[7] Cantagallo, C., Camata, G., Spacone, E. (2012). “The Effect of the Earthquake Incidence Angle on Seismic Demand of Reinforced Concrete Structures”. In Lisboa; 2012.
[8] Emami, AR., Halabian, AM. (2015). “Spatial distribution of ductility demand and damage index in 3D RC frame structures considering directionality effects: Spatial Distribution of Ductility Demand and Damage Index”. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. 24(16):941–61.
[9] Reyes, JC. Kalkan, E. (2013). “Significance of Rotating Ground Motions on Behavior of Symmetric- and Asymmetric-Plan Structures: Part I”. Single-Story Structures. Earthq Spectra. 31(3):1591–612.
[10] MHUD. (2014). “Iranian National Building Code, part 10, steel structure design”. Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
[11] BHRC. (2014). “Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings: Standard no. 2800 (4th edition)”. Building and Housing Research Center.
[12] MHUD. (2014). “Iranian National Building Code, part 6, loads on buildings”. Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
[13] Baker, JW., (2007). “Quantitative Classification of Near-Fault Ground Motions Using Wavelet Analysis”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 97(5):1486–501.
[14] Berkeley, CSI., (2015) . “Computer Program ETABS Ultimate 2015”. Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, California.
  • Receive Date: 18 June 2017
  • Revise Date: 27 August 2017
  • Accept Date: 05 September 2017
  • First Publish Date: 01 February 2018