Mathematical Modelling in Civil Engineering

Vol. 16-No. 3: 40-54-2021

Doi: 10.2478/mcee-2021-0014

A COMBINED-INDEX STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF EARTHQUAKE

INCIDENCE ANGLE ON THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF
REINFORCED CONCRETE PLAN-ASYMMETRIC BUILDINGS

Arif WEAAM – Doctoral student, Eng., Technical University of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering in
Foreign Languages, e-mail: [email protected]
Iolanda-Gabriela CRAIFALEANU – Assoc. Prof., PhD, Technical University of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Civil, Industrial and Agricultural Buildings, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: A study is performed to estimate the critical seismic incidence angle for a nine-story
reinforced concrete dual system building, categorized as plan-asymmetric, by considering a
combination of two demand parameters, the Maximum Inter-story Drift (MLID) along the height,
and the Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI). The influence of excitation directionality on the response
of the building was investigated by nonlinear dynamic analyses, by applying seven scaled bi-
directional ground motion records, oriented in eight incidence angles ranging from 0° to 315°, with
a 45° increment. The scaling was made for a peak ground acceleration PGA = 0.30g, according to
the elastic response spectrum specified for Bucharest by the Romanian seismic code P100-1/2013.
From the results, it was found that the most unfavourable response due to a specific seismic excitation
may occur at any angle of incidence, which is not necessarily 0° or 90°, and that the response depends
not only on the structural configuration, but also on the excitation characteristics. In addition, the
influence of the flexible edge (FE) on the structural demand in terms of SVI was studied. The
maximum values for SVI were obtained for the most critical angle of incidence, which is the one that
has the higher MLID values in the FE for all accelerograms.

Keywords: plan-asymmetric building, critical incidence angle, maximum inter-story drift, seismic
vulnerability index

1. Introduction

Numerous researchers have pointed out that the predominant excitation direction may not coincide
with one of the principal directions of the building, e.g. [1-7]. However, many of the previous
studies in this field have focused on buildings with linear behaviour, such as [1-3, 8, 9]. Almost
all seismic design codes take into account the simultaneous action of the two horizontal
components of the seismic excitation, by applying the 100%–30% combination rule, which
consists in applying 100% of the lateral seismic forces in the direction of one of the principal axes
and 30% on the other principal axis of the building. Applying the primary component of the
excitation in a direction other than that of the principal axes may result in increased internal forces
and stresses in the elements of the building [10, 11]. Eurocode 8 [12], by its clause 4.3.3.1(11)P,
also indicates that the orientation of the seismic force, if different from the principal axes of
buildings, may cause an increase of the seismic demand on buildings, as compared with the
application of the force along a principal axis. Moreover, for irregular buildings, in some cases, it
can be difficult to define the principal axes of the building. Previous research [13-17] has shown
that incidence angles that differ from the principal directions may lead to unfavourable dynamic
response. Given that the relevant directions of asymmetric buildings are not known a priori, the
assessment of the maximum structural demand should be done by computing the response for
several incidence angles.
To determine the most critical excitation angle, this study uses a simplified approach for the
seismic vulnerability evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings, based on the methodology of the
Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI), proposed by Kassem et al. in 2019 [18]. The methodology is
developed based on the Italian GNDT and on the European Macro-Seismic approaches, to which
some modifications are brought. The SVI is determined based on the weighting factors assigned
to the frame elements and on the number of plastic hinges developed due to the seismic action.
 41

According to the considered approach, the SVI is defined as a scaled linear combination (weighted
average) of performance measures of the hinges in the components, and is computed from the
performance levels of the components at the end of the nonlinear analysis [18]. The SVI
computation depends thus on the plastic hinges formation in beams and columns. Nonlinear static
and nonlinear dynamic analyses were performed to define the weight of each parameter, in order
to calculate the SVI for a seismic event of a specified intensity (expressed by the peak ground
acceleration, PGA). SVI ranges between 0 and 1 from the lowest to the highest vulnerability,
respectively, for a specific seismic intensity.
The present study investigates the impact of the incidence angle of the ground motion by
time-history analyses performed on a reinforced concrete (RC) multi-story building. The building,
categorized as plan-asymmetric, was designed for the seismic area of Bucharest, according to the
European and Romanian norms (Eurocode 2, Eurocode 8 and P100-1/2013 [19, 12, and 29].
The building was categorized as being irregular in plan, in both directions, according to
P100-1/2013, given that the maximum displacements, δmax, exceed the average of maximum and
minimum displacements, δavg, by more than 35% in both directions, as shown in in Tables 1 and
2. The re-entrant corner dimensions represent more than 10 % of the corresponding floor
dimensions (Ri > 10 %). Moreover, in the X direction, Ri (=A/L) =12 / 42 = 28 % > 10%, while in
the Y direction, Ri (=A/L) = 8.1 / 11.8 = 68% > 10%. In the mentioned relations, A is the dimension
of the re-entrant corner and L is the structure's plan dimension in the given direction.
Table 1
Criteria for irregularity in plan (X direction)
DX δmax δavg
Floor Level 35% δavg CHECK
(m) (mm) (mm)
Ground Floor 42 0.8 0.7 0.2 IR*
Level 1 42 2.6 2.1 0.7 IR*
Level 2 42 5.5 4.5 1.6 IR*
Level 3 42 9.3 7.5 2.6 IR*
Level 4 42 13.6 10.9 3.8 IR*
Level 5 42 18.3 14.6 5.1 IR*
Level 6 42 23.1 18.4 6.4 IR*
Level 7 42 27.9 22.2 7.8 IR*
Level 8 42 32.5 25.9 9.1 IR*

Table 2
Criteria for irregularity in plan (Y direction)
DY δmax δavg
Floor Level 35% δavg CHECK
(m) (mm) (mm)
Ground Floor 11.8 1 0.6 0.2 IR*
Level 1 11.8 3.3 2 0.7 IR*
Level 2 11.8 7.2 4.3 1.5 IR*
Level 3 11.8 12.3 7.3 2.6 IR*
Level 4 11.8 18.1 10.9 3.8 IR*
Level 5 11.8 24.4 14.7 5.1 IR*
Level 6 11.8 31 18.7 6.5 IR*
Level 7 11.8 37.5 22.7 7.8 IR*
Level 8 11.8 43.8 26.5 9.3 IR*
*
IR: Irregular; DX and DY: the building plan dimensions in X and Y directions, respectively.

The studied building was subjected to different scaled bi-directional ground motion records. The
PEER database was used to find the best matching earthquake records for a peak ground
acceleration PGA = 0.30 g, according to the elastic response spectrum specified for Bucharest by
 42

the Romanian seismic code P100-1/2013. The selected ground motions were applied along eight
incidence angles, ranging from 0° to 315°, with increments of 45°. Two demand parameters were
combined, i.e., the maximum inter-story drift (MLID) along the height of the building and the
estimated Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI), in order to predict the most critical incidence angle
of the seismic action.

2. Description of the building model

The investigated building is a nine-storey reinforced concrete structure located in Bucharest,

Romania. Two vertical longitudinal and transversal sections through the building and floor plans
for the typical floor and ground floor are shown in Figure 1. The 3D model of the building is shown
in Figure 2(a), while the column types are represented in different colours in Figure 2(b). The
height of the first and second storey is 3.0 m, whereas the height of the other storeys is 3.5 m. The
total building height is 30.5 m. The building has seven bays in the X-direction and two bays in the
Y-direction. The bay widths are 6 m in the X-direction and 3.7 m and 8.1 m in the Y-direction.
The dimensions of beam cross-sections are 0.85 x 0.35 m for the 8.1 m and 3.7 m spans (transversal
direction) and 0.25 x 0.50 m for the 6 m spans (longitudinal direction).
The structural system consists of RC shear walls and frames, being categorized as a dual system,
according to its conformation. The floor slabs are 0.20 m thick. Concrete class C30/37 was used
for walls and columns and C25/30 for beams and slabs. The corresponding moduli of elasticity,
Ecm, amount to 33 GPa and 31 GPa, respectively (EN1992-1-1:2004, Table 3.1). The structural
elements are considered as being cracked, with the bending stiffnesses equal to 0.5 of the stiffness
of the un-cracked elements (EN1998-1:2004, clause 4.3.1 (7)). Poisson’s ratio, ѵ, was taken equal
to zero, as prescribed by EN1992-1-1:2004, clause 3.1.3, for cracked concrete. Steel S500 Class
C was used. The structure was designed for high ductility class (DCH). The column dimensions
are illustrated in Table 3. These dimensions were varied in accordance with the building's design,
to achieve an economical solution. The total wall cross-section area satisfies the following
inequality, meant to reduce the effect of the shear force on the walls: Fb/Aw ≤ 2fctd [20]. In the
previous relation, Aw is the total area of the walls on the direction of the seismic force and fctd is
the concrete tensile design strength. It was assumed that all walls have rectangular cross-sections
with bw=0.25 m.
The building is classified as irregular in plan according to Eurocode 8 criteria. The basic behaviour
factor, q0, is 4.5 αu/α1 for DCH. For the considered structural type, kw =1, and the factor αu/α1 is
1.1, thus the corresponding q0 amounts to 4.95. The behaviour factor q (= 𝑞𝑜 kw) in both directions
is equal to 4.95.
The design of the building was performed by the modal spectrum analysis method, using the
ETABS finite element software [21]. The static and dynamic nonlinear analyses were performed
with the SAP2000 finite element software [22], given its superior capacity – in the utilized version
– to simulate the nonlinear behaviour of materials and structural components. As required by
EN1998-1:2004, clause 4.3.2, an accidental mass eccentricity of 5% of the plan dimensions of the
building was assumed in both horizontal directions, to account for uncertainty in the position of
masses. The directional combination of the horizontal responses was made using the SRSS rule,
according to P100-1/2013, clause 4.5.3.6.1(2)(b) and to EN1998-1:2004, clause 4.3.3.5.1(2)(b).
The investigated building was characterized by an Ω ratio (translation to rotation period for the
elastic analysis) of Ωx = 1.89 in the X direction and of Ωy = 1.59 in the Y direction. Consequently,
the building was considered as being torsionally stiff, with the response dominated by the
translational modes [23]. The natural periods and modal participating mass ratios for the first
three modes are shown in Table 4.
 43

Fig. 1 - Schematic vertical sections and floor plans of the studied building (dimensions in m)

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 – (a) 3D Structural model of the studied building, (b) column types
 44

Table 3
Summary of column sections (corresponding colours per type are shown in Fig. 2)*

Column sections (mm)

Floor Level Column section 1 Column section 2 Column section 3
(perimeter or corner) (corner or interior) (perimeter or corner)
Ground Floor 650x900 650x900 450x550
Level 1 550x850 550x850 450x550
Level 2 550x750 550x750 450x450
Level 3 450x650 450x650 450x550
Level 4 450x650 450x650 450x550
Level 5 450x550 450x550 450x550
Level 6 350x450 350x450 350x450
Level 7 350x450 350x450 350x450
Level 8 350x450 350x450 350x450
* Type 1: 650x900 (blue); Type 2: 550x850 (yellow); Type 3: 550x750 (gray); Type 4: 450x650 (light blue); Type 5:
450x550 (pink); Type 6: 350x450 (magenta).

Table 4
Natural period and modal participating mass ratios*

Mode Period (sec) UX UY Sum RZ

1 0.821 0.3483 0.0534 0.2519
2 0.692 0.0189 0.5887 0.2935
3 0.434 0.2988 0.0032 0.6479
* Individual for translation on X and Y directions and cumulative for Z direction.

3. Finite element modelling for nonlinear analysis

For the nonlinear analysis, the structure was modelled in SAP2000, a program that provides the
possibility of representing the inelasticity within the shear wall critical zones through a smeared
rebar, multi-layer shell element. The program can also predict the nonlinear dynamic behaviour of
3D frames, taking into consideration both geometric and material nonlinearities, by the use of
concentrated plastic hinges.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 - (a) Location of boundary elements, web shell elements and elastic zone of the walls, (b) nonlinear multi-
layer shell for boundary elements of walls W1, W2 and W3, as defined in SAP2000
 45

Shear walls were modelled with mesh sizes of 50x74 cm for walls with 3.7 m span and 50x60 cm
for walls with 6 m span. The stress-strain relation of Mander et al., 1988 [24] for confined and
unconfined concrete was used to model the nonlinear shell behaviour. For the unconfined concrete,
a strain at compressive strength of 0.0022 and an ultimate strain of 0.0035 were considered (EN-
1992-1-1, Table 3-1). For the confined concrete, the strain at compressive strength and the ultimate
strain were computed based on the confinement (transverse reinforcing) steel. The program
computes the values of the confined concrete compressive strength and the ultimate strain by a
trial-and-error algorithm [25]. For the reinforcement, the Kinematic model was used, with a strain
at the onset of strain hardening of 0.01 and an ultimate strain capacity of 0.09 (EN-1992-1-1, Table
C.1). Nonlinear multi-layer shell elements were used over the critical zone height, hcr. The hcr
value was taken as equal to 6 m, according to EN 1998-1, clause 5.4.3.4.2. For the shear walls,
two layers were adopted in the vertical and horizontal directions, to model reinforcement, as shown
in Figure 3. A lumped plasticity model was employed for columns and beams. For the beams, the
moment-rotation relationship was input in the program by utilizing the user-defined hinge property
type M3, while for the columns the user-defined hinge property type P-M2-M3, taking into account
the effects of the axial force and of bi-directional flexure, was used (Figure 4).

(a) (b)
Fig. 4 - (a) M3 plastic hinges at the ends of beam (3.7-meter span, ground floor level, frame B), (b) P-M2-M3 plastic
hinges at the ends of column (column C18, level 1).

4. Determining the performance level and the vulnerability

In order to compute the Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI) [18], the number of hinges formed in the
columns and in the beams was determined, for each performance level. In addition, the weighting
factor Xi was chosen, as shown in Table 2, for the considered performance levels. The SVI was
computed by using the performance levels of the structural members at the end of the nonlinear
analysis (the stage of the wall inelastic deformation was not considered in the computation of the
SVI). Differentiated importance factors were considered for beams and columns, with values of 1.0
and 1.5, respectively. The SVI was computed based on the formula in [18]:
1.5 ∑ 𝑁𝑖𝑐 𝑋𝑖 +1.0 ∑ 𝑁𝑖𝑏 𝑋𝑖
𝑆𝑉𝐼𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = ∑ 𝑁𝑖𝑐 +∑ 𝑁𝑖𝑏
(1)
where:
Nci is the number of plastic hinges formed in the columns,
Nbi is the number of plastic hinges formed in the beams,
Xi is the weighting factor, as shown in Table 5
I is the performance level number; with i taking values from 1 to 6 (Table 5).
 46

Table 5
Performance level weighting factors [18]

Performance level number Performance Level Weighting factor Xi

1 ˂B 0.000
2 B…IO 0.125
3 IO…LS 0.375
4 LS…CP 0.625
5 CP…C 0.875
6 C…D, D…E, > E 1.000

The performance levels in Table 5 are related to the characteristic points of the force-displacement
or moment-rotation curve, which are also illustrated in Figure 4, as defined in SAP2000 for the
plastic hinges at the ends of the beams and columns, respectively. Thus, point B defines the
initiation of the plastic behaviour, while IO, LS and CP, located between points B and C, represent
the Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention acceptance criteria in FEMA 356
[26] and ASCE 7-16 [27]. Points C, D and E reflect the load drop and, respectively, the residual
capacity of the plastic hinge up to the limit point E.
For the vulnerability categorization of reinforced concrete buildings based on the SVI, five
vulnerability levels (Green 1, Green 2, Orange 3, Orange 4, and Red 5) were proposed [28], to
assess the seismic performance of the buildings. This classification is shown in Table 6 [28]. The
vulnerability categorizations are linked with the observed damage, which is defined as Negligible,
Minor, Moderate, and Severe/Partial Collapse, as shown in Table 7 [28].
Table 6
RC buildings vulnerability classification according to SVI [28]
Green Orange Red
Vulnerability Level
1 2 3 4 5

SVI 0.10-0.20 0.20-0.40 0.40-0.55 0.55-0.70 0.70-1.00

SVI, mean 0.150 0.300 0.475 0.625 0.850
Table 7
Vulnerability Categories According to the Observed Damage [28]
Damage Categories Level Description
Negligible Green 1 Negligible to light damage
Minor Green 2 Light for structural element, and moderate for non-structural elements
Moderate Green 3 Moderate for structural element, and heavy for non-structural elements
Severe/Partial Collapse Orange 4 Heavy for both the structural and non-structural elements
Total Collapse Red 5 Total failure or collapse of the structure

5. Ground motion record selection

The acceleration response spectrum for Bucharest, according to P100-1/2013, with PGA = 0.3 g
(elastic response spectrum) was used as a target spectrum. The PEER database (NGA-West2) [30],
was used to find the best matching accelerograms. Seven ground motion records, with magnitudes
ranging from 6.6 to 7.2, were selected. This solution was applied given that a sufficient number of
local accelerograms from real earthquakes, compatible with the target spectrum, is not available.
The horizontal components were scaled in the SAP2000 program and then applied to the studied
building in a set of eight different directions (the cases β = 360° and β = 0° are the same). The
angles of incidence were from 0° to 315°, with respect to the relevant axis - assumed in this study
to be the X-axis - considering 45° increments. Each pair of ground motion components was
 47

decomposed in the 𝑋 and 𝑌 components. The 𝑋 and 𝑌 components were rotated with angle β about
the X-axis, as shown in Figure 5. The parameters of the selected ground motion records are
summarized in Table 8.

Fig. 5 - Set of values considered for the angle of incidence of accelerogram components
Table 8
The main parameters of the selected earthquakes records [PEER database – references with numbers]
Horizontal-1 Acc. Horizontal-2 Acc.
Earthquake Name Station Name Magnitude
Filename Filename
1 "Landers" 1992 "North Palm Springs Fire Sta 7.28 RSN3757_LANDE RSN3757_LANDE
#36" RS_NPF180 RS_NPF-UP
2 "Chuetsu-oki_ "Tokamachi Matsunoyama" 6.8 RSN5275_CHUETS RSN5275_CHUETS
Japan" 2007 U_NIGH01EW U_NIGH01NS
3 "Northridge-01" "Sunland-Mt Gleason Ave" 6.69 RSN1083_NORTH RSN1083_NORTH
1994 R_GLE170 R_GLE260
4 "Corinth Greece" "Corinth_ Greece" 6.6 RSN313_CORINTH RSN313_CORINTH
1981 _COR--L _COR--T
5 "Cape Mendocino" "Loleta Fire Station" 7.01 RSN3750_CAPEM RSN3750_CAPEM
1992 END_LFS270 END_LFS360
6 "Duzce Turkey" "Lamont 1061" 7.14 RSN1614_DUZCE_ RSN1614_DUZCE_
1999 1061-E 1061-N
7 "Loma Prieta" 1989 "Coyote Lake Dam - Southwest 6.93 RSN755_LOMAP_ RSN755_LOMAP_
Abutment" CYC195 CYC285

6. Influence of the incidence angle

Two demand parameters were studied in order to investigate the impacts of ground motion
orientation variability on structural demand:
 the maximum inter-story drift (MLID), along the height of the building;
 the Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI).
The inter-story drift ratio was evaluated for the studied building in the X and Y directions for the
Centre of Mass (CM) of the rigid floor diaphragms and at the Stiff Edge (SE) and the Flexible
Edge (FE) of the building. The edge having the highest ductility demand is the so-called “flexible
edge” FE, while the opposite is called the “stiff edge”, SE [31]. The locations of the FE and SE of
a plan-asymmetric building are dependent on the complex torsional behaviour in the nonlinear
 48

stage as well as on seismic action characteristics. The schematic plan of the building roof plan,
showing the stiff edge, SE, and the flexible edge, FE, is displayed in Figure 6. Table 9 shows the
SVI for all cases and for all considered accelerograms. Figures 7 and 8 show the MLID distribution
along the height and the SVI, for all ground motion records, in the FE and SE.

Fig. 6 - Schematic plan of the building at roof level

Table 9
Seismic vulnerability index (SVI) for all cases and for all accelerograms
Case 1, Case 2 , Case 3, Case 4, Case 5, Case 6, Case 7, Case 8,
SVI
β=0⁰ β=45⁰ β=90⁰ β=135⁰ β=180⁰ β=225⁰ β=270⁰ β=315⁰
Accelerogram
0.1605 0.1388 0.1250 0.1586 0.1640 0.1315 0.1260 0.1483
No. 1
Accelerogram
0.1270 0.1268 0.1250 0.1274 0.1269 0.1269 0.1250 0.1272
No. 2
Accelerogram
0.1268 0.1250 0.1250 0.1286 0.1268 0.1254 0.1250 0.2209
No. 3
Accelerogram
0.1268 0.1270 0.1250 0.1336 0.1312 0.1301 0.1250 0.1418
No. 4
Accelerogram
0.1250 0.1279 0.1275 0.1349 0.1289 0.1275 0.1250 0.1337
No. 5
Accelerogram
0.1597 0.1390 0.1405 0.1380 0.1596 0.1538 0.1432 0.1628
No. 6
Accelerogram
0.1338 0.1313 0.1272 0.1330 0.1329 0.1296 0.1320 0.1344
No. 7

a)

(b)
 49

(c)

(d)
Fig. 7 - MLID and SVI in the FE and SE obtained by varying the angle of incidence (refer to Figure 5) for
accelerograms: a) No. 1, b) No. 2, c) No. 3, d) No. 4

(a)

(b)
 50

(c)
Fig. 8 - MLID and SVI obtained in the FE, SE by varying the angle of incidence (refer to Figure 5) for
accelerograms: a) No. 5, b) No. 6, c) No. 7

7. Results

The main results on the impact of the incidence angle are summarized below. Figures 9 to 11
show the variation of the maximum inter-story drift (MLID) values with the angle of incidence
for the seven accelerograms considered, in the FE, SE, and CM respectively. Table 10 shows
the main results.
Table 10
Higher values of (SVI) at incidence angle for MLID

MLID Higher values

Accelerograms
FE-X FE-Y SE-X SE-Y CM-X CM-Y of SVI at β⁰
Accelerogram No. 1 180° 135° 45° 225° 180° 180° 180°
Accelerogram No. 2 180°, 315° 135° 0° 135° 0° 90° 135°
Accelerogram No. 3 315° 315° 90° 315° 315° 315° 315°
Accelerogram No. 4 315° 315° 270° 315° 315° 270° 315°
Accelerogram No. 5 180° 135° 315° 45° 180° 90° 135°
Accelerogram No. 6 0° 315° 0° 45° 0° 270° 315°
Accelerogram No. 7 0° 315° 0° 270° 0° 90° 315°
The positions of the SE and FE changed during earthquakes for cases 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7,
corresponding to angles of incidence of 45° , 90°, 180°, 225°, and 270°, respectively, as illustrated
in Table 11. This shows that the SE and FE may switch between one another during the
earthquakes, for some values of the incidence angles, due to the random occurrence of yielding,
which is seismic input dependent. The main results are presented also in Figures 12 to 15.

Table 11
Angles of incidence for which SE & FE positions changed during the earthquake
Accelerograms No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7
Angles of 45° 180° 45° 90° 45° 90° 45° 225° 45° 90° 45° 90° 45° 90°
incidence for 225° 225° 270° 225° 270° 225° 225° 225°
which SE & FE 270° 270°
changed
 51

Fig. 9 – Variation of MLID with the angle of incidence for the seven accelerograms considered, in the FE

Fig. 10 – Variation of MLID with the angle of incidence for the seven considered accelerograms, in the SE

Fig. 11 – Variation of MLID with the angle of incidence for the seven considered accelerograms, in the CM

Fig. 12 – Variation of MLID with the angle of incidence, for the seven considered accelerograms, in the FE (X and
Y directions)
 52

Fig. 13 - Variation of MLID with the angle of incidence, for the seven considered accelerograms, in the SE (X and
Y directions)

Fig. 14 - Variation of MLID values with the angle of incidence, for the seven considered accelerograms, in the
centre of mass, CM (X and Y directions)

Fig. 15 – Variation of the Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI) with the angle of incidence for all considered
accelerograms

8. Conclusions

This study focused on the seismic behaviour of a torsionally stiff, plan-asymmetric building,
aiming to assess the impact of the variation of earthquake incidence angles on the Seismic
Vulnerability Index (SVI) and on the Maximum Inter-story Drift (MLID) values. From the results
of the conducted analyses, the following conclusions were obtained:
1. For individual records, it was noticed that the incidence angle has a considerable impact
on the seismic demand in terms of MLID and SVI, showing that the responses depend not
only on the structural features but also on the incidence angle of the seismic action.
2. The largest SVI values occurred at the most critical angle of incidence, for each considered
ground motion. This angle is the one for which the highest MLID values were obtained in
the flexible edge of the building (FE). The above observation, which applies to all
 53

considered accelerograms, shows the influence of the FE on the overall structural response,
in terms of SVI.
3. In the Y direction, the stiff edge (SE) and flexible (FE) for all seven accelerograms
switched between one another at angles of incidence β=45° and β=225°. For 5 out of 7
accelerograms, the change occurred at β=90°, for 4 out of 7 accelerograms - at β=270°,
while for 1 out of 7 accelerograms - at β=180°. This shows a large variability of the critical
angle and also that the FS and SE may switch due to the random occurrence of yielding,
this being dependent also on the ground motion characteristics.
From the above, it can be concluded that determining the structural seismic performance and
damage based only on ground motions applied at principal directions may result in inaccurate
assessments. The combination of the two demand parameters, the maximum inter-story drift
(MLID) along the height of the building and the estimated Seismic Vulnerability Index (SVI),
showed the importance of the evaluation the influence of the FE and the SE on the structural
demand. In addition, the difficulty of correctly predicting the critical angles of incidence when
designing an irregular building was highlighted, given that the building response does not depend
only on the characteristics of the building, but also on those of the ground motion. This was
obvious from the different critical angles at which the highest SVI and MLID values occurred for
the different ground motions considered. Therefore, the use of a sufficient number of bi-
component representative accelerograms for the building site, as well as the detailed study of the
seismic response for various angles of incidence is definitely needed for such type of buildings.

References
[1] Smeby W. & Der Kiureghian(1985). Modal combination rules for multicomponent earthquake excitation.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 13(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290130103.
[2] Cheng F. Y. & Ger J. F. (1990). The effect of multicomponent seismic excitation and direction on response
behavior of 3-D structures. In Proceedings of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
20-24 May 1990 (pp. 5-14). California, Palm Springs.
[3] Lopez O.A. & Torres R. (1997). The critical angle of seismic incidence and maximum structural response.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26(9), 881-94. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-
9845(199709)26:9<881::AID-EQE674>3.0.CO;2-R.
[4] Lopez OA., Chopra AK. & Hernandez JJ. (2000). Critical response of structures to multicomponent earthquake
excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26(12), 1759-1778. DOI: 10.1002/1096-
9845(200012)29:12<1759::AID-EQE984>3.0.CO;2-K.
[5] Tezcan SS. & Alhan C. (2001). Parametric analysis of irregular structures under seismic loading according to the
new Turkish Earthquake Code. Engineering Structures, 23(6), 600–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00084-5.
[6] Khoshnoudian F. & Poursha M. (2004). Responses of three-dimensional buildings under bi-directional and
unidirectional seismic excitations. In Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering,
1-6 August 2004. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
[7] Athanatopoulou AM. (2005). Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components. Engineering Structures,
27(2), 301–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.011.
[8] Abdel Raheem S. E., Ahmed M. M. M., Ahmed M. M. & Abdel-shafy A. G. A. (2018). Evaluation of plan
configuration irregularity effects on seismic response demands of L-shaped MRF buildings. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 16(9), 3845–3869. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-018-0319-7.
[9] Tsourekas A. & Athanatopoulou A. & Kostinakis k. (2021). Maximum mean square response and critical
orientation under bi-directional seismic excitation. Engineering Structures, 233(1), 111881. DOI:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111881.
[10] Hosseini M. & Salemi A. (2008). Studying the effect of earthquake excitation on the internal forces of steel
building’s elements by using nonlinear time history analyses. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 12-17 October 2008. Beijing, China.
[11] Ahmet C., Ebru K. (2017). Earthquake incidence angle influence on seismic performance of reinforced
concrete buildings. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 35(4), 609-631. "Retrieved from
https://eds.yildiz.edu.tr/AjaxTool/GetArticleByPublishedArticleId?PublishedArticleId=2505 in July 2021".
[12] European Union, CEN. (2004). EC8 (EN1998-1:2004) - Guide to Design of structures for earthquake resistance
- Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels. European Committee for
Standardization.
 54

[13] Rigato A.B. & Medina R.A (2007). Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for inelastic single-
storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Engineering Structures, 29(10), 2593-2601. DOI:
10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.008.
[14] Nguyen V.T. & Kim D. (2013). Influence of incident angles of earthquakes on inelastic responses of asymmetric-
plan structures. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 45(3), 373-389. DOI: 10.12989/sem.2013.45.3.373.
[15] Magliulo G., Petrone C & Maddaloni G. (2014). Influence of earthquake direction on the seismic response of
irregular plan RC frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 13(2), 243-256. DOI:
10.1007/s11803-014-0227-z.
[16] Cantagallo C., Camata G. & Spacone E. (2015). Influence of ground motion selection methods on seismic
directionality effects. Earthquakes and Structures, 8(1), 185–204. DOI: 10.12989/eas.2015.8.1.185.
[17] Fujii K. (2020). Evaluating the Effect of the Directivity of Bidirectional Ground Motion on an Irregular Building:
The Former Uto City Hall. In Proceedings 9th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and
Complex Structures Lisbon, 15-16 December 2020 (pp. 156-165). Lisbon.
[18] Kassem M., Nazri F. & Farsangi E. (2019). Development of seismic vulnerability index methodology for
reinforced concrete buildings based on nonlinear parametric analyses. MethodsX, 6, 199-211. DOI:
10.1016/j.mex.2019.01.006.
[19] European Union, CEN. (2004). EC2 (1992-1-1: 2004) - Guide to Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1:
General rules and rules for buildings. Brussels. European Committee For Standardization
[20] Crainic L. & Munteanu M. (2013). Seismic Performance of Concrete Buildings. London, UK. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
[21] CSI (2017). ETABS [Structural and Earthquake Engineering Computer Software]. California: Computers and
Structures, Inc.
[22] CSI (2019). SAP2000 [Structural and Earthquake Engineering Computer Software]. California: Computers and
Structures, Inc.
[23] Anagnostopoulos S., Kyrkos M. & Stathopoulos K. (2015). Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: critical
review and state of the art. Earthquakes and Structures, 2(2), 305-377. DOI:10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.305
[24] Mander J. B., Priestley M. J. N. & Park R. (1988a). Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering, 114: 1804-1826. DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE) 0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804).
[25] SAP2000 (2010). Technical Note: Material Stress-Strain Curves. Computers and Structures, Inc. CSI Analysis
Reference Manual for SAP2000.
[26] FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Prepared by the
American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[27] ASCE 7-16 (2016). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston,
Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers.
[28] F.I. Belheouane & M. Bensaibi. (2013). Assessment of vulnerability curves using vulnerability index method
for reinforced concrete structures, World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Civ. Archit. Sci. Eng; 7:153–156.
[29] MDLPA. (2013). P100-1/2013-Seismic Design Code - Part 1: Design rules for buildings. Bucharest (in
Romanian).
[30] California Earthquake Authority, Caltrans Department of Transportation & Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
(2013, April). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). Retrieved Jun 17, 2021, from
https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/.
[31] Lavan O. & De Stefano M. (2013). Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures.
Vol. 24 (Netherlands: Springer) ISBN 978-94-007-5377-8.