Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Three-dimensional response of steel moment-resisting buildings under T

seismic sequences
⁎
Jorge Ruiz-Garcíaa, , Saman Yaghmaei-Sabeghb, Edén Bojórquezc
a
Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, 58040 Morelia, Mexico
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
c
Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Calz. de las Américas y Boulevard Universitarios, Cd. Universitaria, 80040 Culiacán, Mexico

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examines the response of three-dimensional (3-D) steel moment-resisting buildings having 3-, 9-, and
Three-dimensional response 20-story height under bi-directional attack of real seismic sequences with different earthquake ground motion
Seismic sequence features. For this purpose, 3-D analytical models were developed for each building, which include or not include
Gravity frames interior gravity frames. The fracture behavior in beams included in perimeter moment-resisting frames and the
Fracture
bending capacity of interior beams in gravity frames was taken into account in the modeling process. The seismic
Angle of incidence
response of the 3-D building models, in terms of lateral interstory drift demands, was also compared with the
response of their corresponding two-dimensional (2-D) bare frame model to highlight differences in modelling
criteria. It is shown that differences among 2-D and 3-D building models depend on the type of seismic sequence.
When differences arise, it is clearly illustrated that the 3-D building models experience different response than
the 2-D model. Between the 3-D models, it is shown that the seismic response is different, with differences
depending on the angle of incidence of the orthogonal components of the seismic sequences and the number of
stories. This study demonstrates that the modelling approach in 3-D models has significant influence in seismic
response of steel framed-buildings under seismic sequences.

1. Introduction
Civil engineering structures located in seismic regions are not ex-
posed to a single seismic event (i.e. mainshock), but also to a seismic
sequence consisting on foreshocks, mainshock, and aftershocks. For in-
stance, following the September 3, 2010 Canterbury earthquake
(M = 7.0), a strong aftershock (M = 6.3) was felt on February 21, 2011
that hit the City of Christchurch causing severe damage to buildings in
the Financial District [1]. It should be noted that besides aftershocks,
structures could be subjected to rare sequence events such as doublet
mainshock earthquake ground motions (i.e., in this investigation,
“doublet earthquakes” refers to a pair of seismic events which take place
closely spaced in time and location). For instance, a moderate earthquake
ground motion with Mw = 6.4 took place in the North Western area of
Iran on August 11, 2012, which was followed by an aftershock
(Mw = 4.9) just 6 min later. Eleven minutes after the first event, the
affected area was struck by another moderate seismic event (Mw = 6.3)
coming from a different seismogenic source [2]. Regardless of the nature
of the seismic sequence, the seismic events following the mainshock
(referred to as aftershocks throughout this paper) could have detrimental
effects in already-damaged structures such as buildings and bridges.
From the above motivation, it has been an increasing interest at
studying the effect of mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences on the
response of civil engineering structures in the last 15 years. With parti-
cular emphasis on the response of multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
analytical models, Refs. [3–29,38,39] have offered insights about the
performance of structures modelled as MDOF systems under seismic se-
quences. However, it should be noted that previous investigations on the
effect of seismic sequences in MDOF systems employed two-dimensional
(i.e. planar, 2-D) analytical models, and very few employed three-di-
mensional (3-D) analytical models [10,12,17,28].
For instance, Ruiz-García [10] examined the seismic response of a
three-dimensional 3-story steel building1 with perimeter moment-re-
sisting frames subjected to a set of seismic sequences composed by real

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jruizgar@stanfordalumni.org (J. Ruiz-García).
1
The 3-story building is included in a family of steel buildings designed as part of the SAC steel project [30] for three sites in the United States. In particular, this
case-study building was designed as standard office buildings located in stiff soil for the Los Angeles area following the seismic design requirements of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) edition 1994.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.050
Received 17 March 2018; Received in revised form 11 July 2018; Accepted 17 August 2018
0141-0296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

(i.e. as-recorded) earthquake ground motions recorded during the

September 4, 2010 and the February 22, 2011 earthquakes in New
Zealand. The real seismic sequences were applied to the case-study
building model with five different angles of incidence (0, 22.5, 45, 67.5
and 90°). He noticed that the angle of incidence has an effect on the
largest interstory drift demands, particularly under the aftershock at-
tack, and that a better understanding about the effect of seismic se-
quences should be envisioned looking at the three-dimensional re-
sponse of buildings.
Similarly, Faisal et al. [12] studied the response of one-bay three-
dimensional analytical models representative of reinforced concrete
(RC) buildings designed with six levels of behavior factors, q, having 3-,
6-, 12-, and 18-story height under a set of artificial seismic sequences
with a mainshock ground motion and one-or-two aftershocks with
three-different amplitude ratios (e.g. first case only included the
mainshock, while the second case included a mainshock-aftershock pair
scaled at identical amplitude to match the design spectra included in
Eurocode 8 for soil type B). The authors reported that peak ductility
demands in the generic building models increased as a consequence of
the aftershocks and as the behavior factor increased.
More recently, Hatzivassiliou and Hatzigeorgiou [17] examined the
response of four three-dimensional analytical models of RC buildings
under a set of five as-recorded mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences.
The selected RC buildings had 3- and 5-story height, including a regular
and an irregular (seatback-type) representation in elevation for each
building. The authors also rotated the mainshock-aftershock pairs to 90,
180, and 270° to access the influence of the sequence angle of in-
cidence. From their study, they concluded that the aftershocks excita-
tions systematically increase seismic demand parameters such as in-
terstory drift ratio and residual drift ratio, as well as the damage index,
which depended from the height-wise configuration (with or without
seatback configuration).
It should be mentioned that the examination of the three-dimen-
sional (3-D) analytical response of steel buildings subjected to only
mainshock-earthquake ground motion excitations has also been re-
ported in few works [e.g. 31–34]. For instance, MacRae and Mattheis
[31] noted that the response of a three-story 3-D building model1
having perimeter moment-resisting frames might be different to that of
the corresponding simplified 2-D building model when subjected to a
single far-field and near-fault orthogonal pairs of earthquake ground
motions. The authors argued that differences arise from the fact that the
contribution of interior frames (e.g. gravity frames in the American
practice), the contribution of orthogonal exterior moment resisting
frames, among other factors, are not considered in a 2-D analysis. In a
companion study, MacRae and Tagawa [32] redesigned the case-study
three-story steel building1 to substitute original wide-flange column
sections and interior gravity frames (i.e. with interior beams having
shear-tab connections to the columns) with box-type hollow square
column sections and beams having fully-restrained beam connections to
the columns in all frames. The authors developed 3-D and corre-
sponding 2-D analytical models to be subjected to the same earthquake
ground motions. Results showed that the 2-D analytical model under-
estimated the peak drift response with respect to the 3-D model. It
should be mentioned that the authors also applied the orthogonal
earthquake ground motions pairs to an angle of incidence of 45°.
Years later, Reyes and his co-workers [33,34] studied the effect of
the participation of interior gravity frames and the connection-type to
columns of interior beams (i.e. perfectly-pinned, PP, and semi-rigid, PR)
on several lateral strength and displacement seismic demands of 3-, 9-,
Fig. 1. Plan view of the steel buildings considered in this study (moment-re-
and 20-story three-dimensional steel building models. The authors
sisting beams in thick black line, shear-type interior beams aligned with the
modelled the moment-rotation behavior of the connections through a
column axes in thin black line): (a) 3-story, (b) 9-story, (c) 20-story.
smooth hysteretic model that account for rounded hysteresis loops and
kinematic hardening, but it does not include strength degradation.
Their results indicated that the corresponding 2-D representation of the differences when PR connections are modeled in the interior gravity
case-study buildings may overestimate the interstory lateral shears and frames. It should be mentioned that the influence of the angle of in-
displacements with respect to the 3-D analytical models, with larger cidence in the seismic demands of the 3-D models was not included as

400
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

Fig. 2. Three-dimensional building models considered in this study without (left) and with (right) interior gravity beams and columns: (a) 3-story, (b) 9-story, (c) 20-
story.

1000 Table 1
800 First-mode periods of vibration [in seconds] of the 2D and 3D building models
600 (3D stands for building model with only perimeter frames, while 3DCG refers to
400 building models with perimeter frames and interior frames) considered in this
Moment [k-in]

investigation.
200
0 Building models 2D 3D 3DGC
-200 3-story 1.02 0.99 0.77
-400 9-story 2.15 2.16 2.02
-600 20-story 3.78 3.83 3.72
-800
-1000
-5.0E-04 -2.5E-04 0.0E+00 2.5E-04 5.0E-04 should be included in nonlinear analysis if column damage, or elastic
and inelastic torsional behavior is of relevance. Ghersi and Rossi [41]
Curvature [in/in]
concluded that the inelastic response of one-story in-plan irregular
Fig. 3. Moment-curvature hysteretic behavior assumed for beams experiencing systems having one symmetry axis is affected only in a minor way by
weld fracture (i.e. beams drawn in thick lines in Fig. 1). the bi-directional seismic excitation, although the results are more
scattered and significant increment of ductility demand in the elements
part of their study. along the asymmetric direction may sometimes arise. Athanatopoulou
Further previous studies employing mainshock-only earthquake [42] concluded that the same earthquake ground motion lead to dif-
ground motions to examine the influence of the angle of incidence on ferent critical angle of incidence for different response quantities (e.g.
the seismic behavior of 3-D inelastic multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) horizontal displacements), while different earthquake ground motions
analytical models have been reported [e.g. 40–44]. For instance, Cruz have different critical angle of incidence for the same response quan-
and Cominetti [40] noted that bi-directional earthquake excitation tity. Particularly, he identified that the critical value for a response

401
J. Ruiz-García et al.
Fig. 4. Comparison of capacity curves between 2-D and 3-D building models (3D stands for building model with only perimeter frames, while 3DCG refers to building
models with perimeter frames and interior frames): (a) 3-story building, (b) 9-story, (c) 20-story.
quantity as large as 80% larger than the response produced when the
seismic components are applied along the structural axes. Years later,
Rigato and Medina [43] concluded that the application of bi-directional
earthquake excitation along the principal axes (0° and 90°) of inelastic
single-story MDOF systems underestimate the peak inelastic displace-
ment demand when compared to those obtained at other angles of in-
cidence [43]. For instance, they reported that the ratio of the peak
inelastic deformation obtained for a given angle of incidence to the
maximum inelastic deformation with an angle of incidence of 0° and 90°
tends to increase with fundamental period and varies, on average, be-
tween 1.1 and 1.6 for torsionally balanced (i.e. with co-centric center of
strength, rigidity and mass) and torsionally unbalanced (i.e. with ec-
centric center of mass with respect to the center of strength and ri-
gidity) models. More recently, Magliulo et al. [44] found that the in-
cidence angle of excitation significantly influences the response of one
4-story regular and two 5-story irregular 3-D building models re-
presentative of reinforced concrete buildings. They found that the cri-
tical angle of incidence (i.e. the angle that increases the response) de-
pends on the engineering demand parameter and the intensity of the
earthquake ground motion. Particularly, the critical angle of incidence
increases up to 15% de displacement demand, while it increases up to
30% the plastic hinge rotation.
Thus, there is still a need of investigating the response of 3-D
structures under real (i.e. as-recorded) mainshock-aftershock se-
quences, particularly steel buildings. The main purpose of this paper is
to gain further understanding on the effects of real (i.e. as-recorded)
mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences in the response of 3-D framed
steel buildings, which imply that the bi-directional attack of the se-
quences is explicitly taken into account in the analysis. For this purpose,
3-D analytical models of three steel buildings having 3-, 9-, and 20-story
were subjected to a set of mainshock-aftershock sequences recently
recorded worldwide. Two 3-D analytical models were prepared for each
building, which include or not include the participation of the interior
gravity frames. In addition, a two-dimensional (2-D) analytical model
was developed for each building to provide a context of the differences
between the seismic response between 2-D vs 3-D models. It should be
402
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414
mentioned that main observations derived from this study are con-
strained to steel framed buildings, which might differ from the 3-D
response of steel buildings having different structural system (e.g. steel
buildings having concentric or eccentric braces).
2. Three-dimensional steel frames considered in this study
2.1. Building description
For the purpose of examining the influence of the angle of incidence
of seismic sequences in the nonlinear response of buildings, selection of
an adequate structure is highly important. Unlike other studies focused
on the influence of the angle of incidence in simplified 3D models (i.e.
one-story models, or one-bay multi-story models) this investigation
chose a family of well-documented multi-bay steel buildings designed
for the SAC project to evaluate the performance of typical steel office
buildings in Los Angeles area prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake
[30]. The case-study buildings have 3-, 9-, and 20-story height with
different floor plans as illustrated in Fig. 1. As usual in the US design
practice, the buildings include the exterior moment-resisting frames
(indicated with thick lines), while the interior frames (indicated with
thin lines), are designed to support gravity loading (with shear-type
connections and gravity columns). Detailed information about the de-
sign process and member sizes can be found elsewhere [e.g. 30].
2.2. Modeling
In this investigation, two three-dimensional (3-D) centerline models
of each case-study buildings were developed using the nonlinear dy-
namic analysis computer program RUAUMOKO3D [35]. The first ana-
lytical model only includes the perimeter frames as shown in the left
side of Fig. 2, while the second analytical model additionally included
the interior beams and columns (i.e. gravity columns) as illustrated in
the right side of the same figure. In this study, 3D stands for the 3-D
building model with only perimeter frames, while 3DCG refers to 3-D
building models with perimeter frames and interior frames. Additional
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

Table 2
Ground motion characteristics of the mainshock-afterchock sequences employed in this study.
Earthquake Magnitude Station ID Station Name MO-DY-YR Comp. PGA Tm
(HR:MN) [cm/s2] [s]

Mammoth Lakes 6.0 COC Convict Creek 05-25-80 090 408.4 0.32
(16:34)
6.0 05-25-80 180 433.0 0.24
(16:34)
5.7 05-25-80 090 157.3 0.42
(16:49)
5.7 05-25-80 180 174.8 0.41
(16:49)
5.9 05-25-80 090 214.6 0.46
(19:44)
5.9 05-25-80 180 204.1 0.33
(19:44)
5.7 05-25-80 090 372.3 0.23
(20:35)
5.7 05-25-80 180 423.9 0.20
(20:35)
5.7 05-26-80 090 130.1 0.41
(18:58)
5.7 05-26-80 180 97.4 0.32
(18:58)
5.7 05-27-80 090 260.6 0.38
(14:51)
5.7 05-27-80 180 309.5 0.31
(14:51)
Coalinga 5.8 46T04 CHC 07/22/1983 000 317.9 0.31
(2:39)
5.8 07/22/1983 090 593.3 0.27
(2:39)
5.2 07/25/1983 000 422.7 0.29
(22:31)
5.2 07/25/1983 090 718.3 0.30
(22:31)
5.3 03/20/1994 318 421.9 0.30
(21:20)
Christchurch CBGS Christchurch Botanic Gardens 03/09/2010 N89W 146.6 0.80
02/22/2011 N89W 519.1 1.05
03/09/2010 S01W 170.9 1.30
02/22/2011 S01W 422.3 0.79
Tohoku 9.0 FKS004 Iitate 03/11/2011 EW 528.1 0.18
(14:46)
9.0 03/11/2011 NS 556.3 0.17
(14:46)
7.1 04/07/2011 EW 316.1 0.10
(23:32)
7.1 04/07/2011 NS 492.6 0.12
(23:32)
7.0 07/11/2011 EW 209.8 0.10
(17:16)
7.0 07/11/2011 NS 206.1 0.12
(17:16)
Varzaghan-Ahar 6.4 Varzaghan 08/11/2012 L 441.5 0.58
6.4 08/11/2012 T 347.3 0.39
6.3 08/11/2012 L 503.3 0.32
6.3 08/11/2012 T 533.7 0.32

interior fictitious columns (i.e. they do not provide additional lateral
strength and stiffness to the 3-D model) were included to carry vertical
(gravity) loading of the 3D building models that do not include interior
gravity frames (left side of Fig. 1). Rigid diaphragm behavior was as-
sumed at each floor for both building models.
Additionally, two-dimensional (2-D) centerline models of the case-
study buildings were created for comparing their seismic response with
that of their corresponding 3-D model with the computer program
RUAUMOKO2D [36] as part of this study. Due to symmetry in both
directions, the 2-D building models included only the perimeter (ex-
terior) frame in the X-direction together with an additional fictitious
column (commonly known as gravity column). The fictitious column
carries the vertical (gravity) loading from the rest of building (i.e.
vertical loading carried by the interior gravity columns) and is attached
to the exterior frame model through rigid frame elements to experience
the same lateral deformation at each floor. However, the fictitious
column does not provide the additional lateral stiffness from the in-
terior gravity columns. Under this modeling approach, the 2-D frame
model carries half of the seismic mass at each floor level. It should be
mentioned that this modeling strategy has been employed in several
prior studies [e.g. 3–5,7–9,12,15,16,18–20,22–30,37–39].
For the 2-D and 3-D models, beams and columns (both in the
perimeter and interior frames) were modeled as frame elements which
concentrate their inelastic response in nonlinear rotational springs

403
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

Fig. 5. Seismic sequences considered in this study: (a) 1980 Mammoth Lakes (USA), (b) 1983 Coalinga (USA), (c) 2010/2011 Canterbury (New Zealand), (d) 2011
Tohoku (Japan), (e) 2012 Varzaghan-Ahar (Iran).

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
3DGC_MA
0.9 0.9 0.9
3D_MA
0.8 0.8 0.8
2D_MA
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
3DGC_M
0.3 0.3 3DGC_M 0.3
3DGC_MA 3DGC_MA
0.2 3D_M 0.2 3D_M 0.2
3D_MA 3D_MA
0.1 2D_M 0.1 2D_M 0.1
2D_MA 2D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]

(a)
z/ H z/ H z/ H
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 3DGC_M
0.3 3DGC_M 0.3 3DGC_M-MA 0.3 3DGC_MA
3D_M 3D_M
0.2 3DGC_MA 0.2 3D_M-MA 0.2
3D_MA
3D_MA 2D_M
0.1 2D_M 0.1 0.1 2D_M
2D_MA 2D_MA 2D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]

(b)
Fig. 6. Comparison of inter-story drift demand under mainshock (M) and mainshock-aftershock sequence (MA) computed for the 2D and 3D building models (X
direction) subjected to the sequences recorded at: (a) COC station (1980 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes), (b) CHC station (1983 Coalinga earthquakes), (c) CBGS
station (2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes), (d) FKS04 station (2011 Tohoku earthquakes), (e) Varzaghan station (2012 Varzaghan-Ahar earthquakes).

404
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
3DGC_M
0.9 0.9 0.9 3DGC_MA
3D_M
0.8 0.8 0.8
3D_MA
0.7 0.7 0.7 2D_M
2D_MA
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
3DGC_M 0.3 3DGC_M
0.3 0.3
3DGC_MA 3DGC_MA
0.2 3D_M 0.2 3D_M 0.2
3D_MA 3D_MA
0.1 2D_M 0.1 2D_M 0.1
2D_MA 2D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
(c)

z/ H z/ H z/ H
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 3DGC_MA 0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2 0.2

3D_MA
0.1 0.1 0.1
2D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
(d)
z/H z/H z/H
1.0 1.0 1.0
3DGC_MA
0.9 0.9 0.9
3D_M
0.8 0.8 0.8 3D_M
0.7 0.7 0.7 2D_MA
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 3DGC_MA 0.3

3DGC_MA 3D_M
0.2 0.2 0.2
3D_MA 3D_MA
0.1 0.1 0.1
2D_MA 2D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
(e)
Fig. 6. (continued)

located at their ends that are connected through an elastic element (i.e.
Giberson one-component beam-column model as implemented in
RUAUMOKO [35,36]. This computer software has been validated with
respect to experimental results, particularly for steel buildings that
concentrate the inelasticity at its member ends [51]. To model the
hysteretic behavior of the steel columns, a non-degrading bilinear
moment-curvature relationship with strain-hardening ratio equal to 1%
was assigned to the nonlinear springs, that also considers biaxial load-
flexural bending interaction. The columns at the ground were assumed
fixed at their bases. The beam hysteretic behavior was modeled through
a bilinear moment-curvature relationship with strain-hardening ratio
equal to 1% that includes strength degradation due to weld fracture as
it can be seen in the backbone curve shown in Fig. 3. In RUAUMOKO
[35,36], the loss of strength after yielding is based on the number of

405
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.9 0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7 0.7

0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 0.3

3DGC_M 3DGC_M 3DGC_M
0.2 3DGC_MA 0.2 3DGC_MA 0.2 3DGC_MA
0.1 3D_M 0.1 3D_M 0.1 3D_M
3D_MA 3D_MA 3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
(a)
z/H z/H z/H
1.0 1.0 1.0
3DGC_M
0.9 3DGC_MA 0.9 0.9
0.8 3D_M 0.8 0.8
3D_MA
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
3DGC_MA 3DGC_M
0.2 0.2 3DGC_M 0.2 3DGC_MA
0.1 0.1 3D_MA 3D_M
0.1
3D_M 3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
(b)
z/H z/H
1.0 1.0 1.0
3DGC_M
0.9 0.9 0.9
3DGC_MA
0.8 3D_M 0.8 0.8
3D_MA 0.7 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 0.3

3DGC_M 3DGC_M
0.2 0.2 3DGC_MA 0.2 3DGC_MA
3D_M 0.1 3D_M
0.1 0.1
3D_MA 3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
(c)
Fig. 7. Comparison of inter-story drift demand under mainshock (M) and mainshock-aftershock sequence (MA) computed for the three-dimensional building models
subjected to the sequences recorded at (from left-to-right) COC station (1980 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes), CHC station (1983 Coalinga earthquakes), CBGS station
(2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes): (a) 3-story building, (b) 9-story building, and (c) 20-story building.

inelastic cycles and the curvature ductility at the element level. Based ductility of 8.5; after that, it is assumed a residual flexural bending
on the examination of 53 full-scale tests of steel beam-to-columns that capacity equal to 35% of the plastic moment up to a curvature ductility
exhibited weld fracture, Filiatrault et al. [37] recommended that the of 10.5. Flexural moment capacity for beams and columns was de-
loss of strength begins at a curvature ductility of 4.3 up to a curvature termined using actual yield strength capacity of 337.8 MPa (49.2 ksi)

406
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

500 500
400 aftershock a) 400 b)
300 300
Moment [kip/n]

Moment [kip/in]
200 200
100 100
0 0
-100 -100
-200 -200
-300 -300
-400 -400
-500 -500
-6.E-04 -4.E-04 -2.E-04 0.E+00 2.E-04 4.E-04 6.E-04 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Curvature [in/in] Time [s]
Fig. 8. (a) Hysteretic moment-curvature response of three interior beams with shear-tab connections of the 3-story 3DGC models, (b) bending moment time-history.

z/H z/H z/H

0.9 0.9 0.9
a) b) c)
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 3DGC_M 0.2 0.2
3DGC_MA
0.1 3D_M 0.1 0.1
3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
0.9 0.9
0.8 d) 0.8 e)
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 9. Influence of angle of incidence in IDR of the 3-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CBGS station: (a) 0°, (b)
22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

and 399.9 MPa (57.6 ksi), respectively. However, additional strength
and stiffness due to floor slab contribution in beams was neglected.
Experimental studies carried out by Liu and Astaneh-Asl [49]
showed that shear tab (i.e. shear-type) connections commonly found in
interior gravity frames have moment capacity that cannot be neglected
for the seismic performance of steel buildings. Therefore, Thus, bending
strength provided by the shear connections of the gravity beams with
shear-tab connections (i.e. beams in thin lines in Fig. 1) was explicitly
considered in 3-D models including gravity frames. It was assumed that
the shear connection provides 20% and 10% of the expected moment
capacity in the positive and negative direction, respectively, as re-
commended in Refs. [30,50]. The strength in positive bending (com-
pression side) is larger to partially account for the contribution of slab
[49]; however, the proposed values are conservative due to the limited
experimental evidence and inherent uncertainty. Therefore, the hys-
teretic behavior of gravity beams with shear tab connections was
modeled through a bilinear moment-curvature relationship with strain-
hardening ratio equal to 1%. Similarly, to the exterior beams, the
hysteretic model also includes strength degradation (to simulate that
strength degradation begins after reaching the peak moment capacity
due to loss of composite action of the beam with the concrete slab [49]),
and a residual moment capacity plateau (to simulate that after losing
the composite action, the beam behaves as a bare beam [49]). The end
of the residual bending capacity plateau is associated to fracture of the
tab and/or bolts [49].

407
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

0.9 0.9 0.9
a) b) c)
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 3DGC_M 0.2 0.2
3DGC_MA
0.1 3D_M 0.1 0.1
3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
0.9 0.9
0.8 d) 0.8 e)
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 10. Influence of angle of incidence on IDR of the 3-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CHC station: (a) 0°, (b)
22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

2.3. Comparison of capacity curves
Before conducting dynamic analyses, conventional modal analyses
was performed to determine the first-mode period of vibration of the
case-study building models, which are reported in Table 1. As expected,
three-dimensional models that include perimeter and interior frames
have slightly larger stiffness and, consequently, slightly shorter first-
mode period of vibration than the three-dimensional models with only
perimeter frames. Additionally, nonlinear static (pushover) analyses
were carried out to investigate the features of capacity curves. Fig. 4
shows a comparison of the capacity curves obtained for both models in
the X-direction. Consistently with Ref. [31], the 3-D 3-story models
have larger base shear capacity with respect to the 2-D model. How-
ever, the post-yielding base shear capacity of the three-dimensional
models is not significantly different with respect to the 2-D building
model for the 9-, and 20-story models. This can be explained since the
concentration of deformation in the lower stories of these building
models and that the interior beams yield early along that their limited
bending capacity is also exhausted early. It can be also seen that the 9-,
and 20-story 3-D building models have similar initial lateral stiffness
than their 2-D counterparts. Including the interior gravity frames adds
up 7% and 3% additional lateral stiffness (i.e. comparing fist-mode
periods of vibration).
3. Seismic sequences considered in this study
Main focus of this investigation was to examine the 3-D response of
the case-study steel building models subjected to seismic sequences. For
this purpose, as-recorded seismic sequences were preferred instead of
artificial seismic sequences and, furthermore, as-recorded seismic se-
quences with different ground motion characteristics were selected
instead of using a set of sequences from specific seismic-sequence sce-
nario (e.g. mainshock-aftershock earthquake ground motions gathered
from the 1994 Northridge earthquake [8]). For this purpose, five as-
recorded historical seismic sequences were considered in this in-
vestigation. The sequences were gathered from recording stations
during the 1980 Mammoth Lakes (USA), the 1983 Coalinga (USA), the
2010/2011 Canterbury (New Zealand), the 2011 Tohoku (Japan), and
the 2012 Varzaghan-Ahar (Iran) earthquakes. Table 2 reports the list of
seismic sequences and relevant ground motion features. For instance,
Fig. 5 shows the acceleration time-histories of each seismic sequence. It
should be mentioned that this study only considered the sequence re-
corded in the Varzaghan station composed by the two mainshocks that
occurred on August 11, 2012 in the North-Western region of Iran. Si-
milarly, this investigation only included the earthquake ground motions
recorded during the September 3, 2010 Canterbury earthquake
(Mw = 7.0) and the strong aftershock on February 21, 2011
(Mw = 6.1), even though lower-magnitude aftershocks occurred in this
time interval. From the table, it can be noticed that the 1980 Mammoth
Lakes, the 1980 Coalinga, the 2010/2011 Christchurch, and the 2011
Tohoku sequences include five, one, one, and two aftershock events.
4. Response under seismic sequences
In order to review the influence of mainshock-aftershock sequences
in the response of the case-study steel buildings, a series of nonlinear
dynamic analyses were carried out for each frame model when sub-
jected to the selected as-recorded seismic sequences. Three-dimensional

408
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 a) 0.9 b) 0.9 c)
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
3DGC_M
0.2 3DGC_MA 0.2 0.2
0.1 3D_M 0.1 0.1
3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
1.0 1.0
0.9
d) 0.9 e)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 11. Influence of angle of incidence on IDR of the 9-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CBGS station: (a) 0°, (b)
22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

analyses were carried out with the software RUAUMOKO3D [35], while
the two-dimensional analyses were performed with the software RUA-
UMOKO2D [36]. A Rayleigh damping model that uses the current
stiffness matrix at any time-step as the tangent stiffness matrix, as im-
plemented in RUAUMOKO2D [35] and RUAUMOKO3D [36] was em-
ployed for performing nonlinear response history analysis (RHA) of the
case-study 2D and 3D building models. For this damping model, a
modal damping ratio equal to 3% of critical was assigned to the first
and second modes for the 3-story building models, and to the first and
fifth mode for the 9- and 20-story building models. Although other
damping formulations has been examined and recommended in the
literature for nonlinear RHA [e.g. 45–48], evaluating the influence of
the damping model in the seismic response of the case-study buildings
was beyond the scope of this study. The well-known Newton constant
average acceleration method available in RUAUMOKO [35,36] to solve
the dynamic equations of equilibrium. The time-step was set as 0.001 s,
which was enough to reach convergence. During the analysis, local P-
delta effects were included (i.e. large displacement analysis). For per-
forming dynamic analysis, it should be noted that there is a time-gap
having zero acceleration ordinates between the as-recorded mainshock
and the aftershock acceleration time-history to ensure that the systems
reach their rest position, which varies depending on the number of
stories (i.e. the longer the period of vibration, the larger the time-gap).
4.1. Two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional response
At a first stage, a comparison between the peak inter-story drift
ratio, IDR, in the X-direction of the 3-D building models and their
corresponding 2-D frame models was conducted as part of this study.
For this task, the same horizontal component of the sequence was ap-
plied in the X-direction of the 3-D models. Fig. 6(a)–(e) shows a com-
parison between the height-wise distributions of IDR, for the 2-D and 3-
D building models with different number of stories (3-story, 9-story,
and 20-story, from left-to-right graphs) under each sequence reported in
Table 2. In these figures, the height-wise distribution of IDR is pre-
sented as a function of the normalized height, z/H (where z is the height
from the ground and H is the total height), which allow comparing the
level of IDR of building models with different number of stories. As it
might be expected, the seismic response among the building models is
different for each number of stories and for each sequence. It should be
noted that the effect of the aftershock at the FKS04 and VRZ stations is
practically negligible for the three building models. From the results
obtained from the remaining sequences, several observations arise: (1)
for a given sequence, the aftershock does not always increase the IDR in
the building models (e.g. the response of the 20-story and the 9-story
building models under the sequences recorded at COC and CHC sta-
tions, respectively), (2) the increment of IDR due to the aftershock
depends on the building’s height (e.g. the response of the 3-, 9-, and 20-
story models under the sequence recorded at COC station), (3) the
modeling approach is very important in the amplitude of the IDR de-
mands; particularly, the 2-D frame models not always trigger larger IDR
demands with respect to the 3-D models, which is consistent with an
earlier observation done by McRae and Mattheis [31].

409
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
a) b) c)
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
3DGC_M
0.2 3DGC_S 0.2 0.2
0.1 3D_M 0.1 0.1
3D_S
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
1.0 1.0
0.9 d) e)
0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 12. Influence of angle of incidence on IDR of the 9-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the VRZ station: (a) 0°, (b)
22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

4.2. Influence of three-dimensional modeling
As discussed previously, the case-study steel buildings were mod-
eled following two modeling approaches. For identifying their influence
on the lateral drift response, a comparison of the height-wise drift
profiles, obtained from the square sum of the squares of the drift re-
sponse in both X- and Y-direction, of the three selected buildings under
consideration under the sequences recorded at COC, CHC, and CBGS
stations, respectively, is shown in Fig. 7. In general, it can be seen that
the earthquake sequence gathered at CBGS station led to larger drift
responses than those from the COC and CHC stations for the three
buildings. For this earthquake sequence, it is noteworthy that the am-
plitude of the drift response depends on the three-dimensional mod-
eling approach. For instance, the 3- and 9-story three-dimensional
models including interior frames (3DGC) trigger larger drift demands
than the three-dimensional models without interior frames (3D) in spite
of having slightly larger initial lateral stiffness due to the contribution
of interior beams and columns. This behavior can be explained since
interior beams with shear-tabs connections reach their yield bending
capacity early, and their bending capacity is even exhausted under the
mainshock, as it is shown in Fig. 8 for three first-story interior beams of
the 3-story 3DGC building model under the sequence gathered at CHC
station.
4.3. Influence of angle of incidence
The effect of bi-directional ground shaking of the selected sequences
was examined in this investigation. For this purpose, the two horizontal
components of the mainshock and the mainshock-aftershock sequence
were applied at angles of incidence equal to 0°, 22.5°, 45°, 67.5°, and
90° with respect to the X-direction of each building model. For instance,
Fig. 9 illustrates the influence of the angle of incidence in the total
height-wise distribution of peak inter-story drift demands, IDR, com-
puted from the square root of the sum of squares of de IDRs in the X-
and Y-direction, of the 3-story 3-D building models under the sequences
recorded at the CBGS station. It can be seen that the aftershock in-
creases the IDR demands for both 3-D building models (with gravity
frames, 3DGC, and without gravity frames, 3D), but the amount of in-
crement depends on the building model and the angle of incidence. In
general, the 3D model trigger larger increment than the 3DGCmodel.
However, the effect of the aftershock triggers larger IDR demands for
the 3DGC model that its counterpart when it is subjected to the
earthquake records gathered at CHC station as shown in Fig. 10. Similar
plots for the 3-D models of the 9-story building under the sequences
gathered at CBGS, VRZ, and CHC stations are shown in Figs. 11–13. It
should be noted that the modelling approach does not have a significant
effect on the amplitude and height-wise of IDR when the 3-D models are
subjected to the sequences from the CHP station, unlike those when
they are dynamically excited by the sequences from the CBGS and VRZ
stations. It should be mentioned that the difference between the IDR
response for the 20-story building models was only noticeable under the
sequences recorded at CBGS and CHC stations, which is shown in
Figs. 14 and 15. Interestingly, it can be seen that although both 3-D
models exhibit similar IDR height-wise distributions, the difference
between the response under the mainshock and the mainshock-after-
shock sequence depends on the modeling approach. For example, there
is no difference when the model only includes perimeter frames, while
the IDR is increased when the model includes perimeter and interior

410
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 a) 0.9
b) 0.9 c)
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
3DGC_M
0.2 3DGC_MA 0.2 0.2
0.1 3D_M 0.1 0.1
3D_MA
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
1.0 1.0
0.9
d) 0.9
e)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 13. Influence of angle of incidence on IDR of the 9-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CHC station: (a) 0°, (b)
22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

frames. This can be explained since the participation of the interior
beams in the 3DGC model only occur during the mainshock and it is
exhausted during the aftershock attack. In general, it was noted that the
angle of incidence of the sequences did not significantly modify the IDR
profiles, but the peak IDR response can be found at angles different to
0°, as it is shown in Fig. 16 for the 9- and 20-story 3-D models. From the
same figure, it can also be seen that the maximum increment due to the
aftershock depends on the angle of incidence (e.g. at 22.5° and 45° for
the 3D and 3DGC models of the 9-story building).
5. Conclusions
This paper summarized an investigation on the three-dimensional
response of 3-, 9-, and 20-story steel moment-resisting buildings under
real mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences, with the particular
objectives of evaluating the effects of the modeling approach of the
case-study steel buildings, by including or not including the interior
gravity frames, and the angle of incidence of the orthogonal sequences
recorded at the same station. Emphasis was given to strength-degrading
features in the beams with moment-resisting connections and interior
beams with shear-tab connections. The following conclusions are drawn
from this study.
depends on the modelling approach of the 3-D building models (i.e.
including or not including the interior gravity frames).
• When the aftershock increases the peak lateral drift demands, the
increment depends on the modelling of the 3-D building models (i.e.
including or not including the interior gravity frames).
• When subjected to orthogonal seismic sequences applied to five
different angles of incidence, it was shown that the angle of in-
cidence has an effect on the largest interstory drift demands, parti-
cularly under the aftershock attack. When the aftershock increases
the IDR, the increment depends on the angle of incidence and the
modelling approach of the 3-D building models (i.e. including or not
including the interior gravity frames).
In general, this study showed the importance of the modelling ap-
proach in the seismic response under seismic sequences of three-di-
mensional building models, an issue barely investigated in the litera-
ture. Similarly, it confirms the necessity of using as-recorded seismic
sequences from the same seismic scenario, since the drift response of
the 3-D building models highly depended on the earthquake ground
motion features of the seismic sequences.
Acknowledgements

• The peak lateral drift response of the two-dimensional (2-D) and
three-dimensional (3-D) case-study steel buildings under as-re-
corded seismic sequences might be different, and very different
under some sequences, depending on the number of stories and the
ground motion features of the seismic sequence. This difference also
The author would like to express his gratitude to the National
Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) in México for the fi-
nancial support provided to develop the research reported in this paper.
Special thanks are given to the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de
Hidalgo, University of Tabriz, and Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa.

411
J. Ruiz-García et al. Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
3DGC_M
0.9 a) 3DGC_MA 0.9 b) 0.9 c)
3D_M
0.8 0.8 0.8
3D_MA
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
1.0 1.0
0.9 d) 0.9 e)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 14. Influence of angle of incidence on IDR of the 20-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CBGS station: (a) 0°,
(b) 22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

z/H z/H z/H

1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 a) 0.9 b) 0.9 c)
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
3DGC_M
0.2 0.2 0.2
3DGC_MA
0.1 3D_M 0.1 0.1
3D_M
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
IDR [%] IDR [%] IDR [%]
z/H z/H
1.0 1.0
0.9 d) 0.9 e)
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
IDR [%] IDR [%]

Fig. 15. Influence of angle of incidence on IDR of the 20-story 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CHC station: (a) 0°, (b)
22.5°, (c) 45°, (d) 67.5°, and (e) 90°.

412
J. Ruiz-García et al.
2.5
2.0
1.5
IDR [%]
IDR [%]
1.0
3DGC_MA
3DGC_M
0.5
3D_MA
3D_M
0.0
0.0 22.5 45.0 67.5 90.0
angle of incidence [°]
a)
Fig. 16. Variation of IDR with respect to the angle of incidence of 3-D building models under the bidirectional attack of sequences recorded in the CBGS station: (a) 9-
story model, (b) 20-story model.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.050.
References
[1] Kam WY, Pampanin S, Elwood K. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete
buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttelton) earthquake. Bull New Zealand
Soc Earthq Eng 2011;44(4):239–78.
[2] Yaghmaei-Sabegh S. Time–frequency analysis of the 2012 double earthquakes re-
cords in North-West of Iran. Bull Earthq Eng 2014;12:585–606.
[3] Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L. Seismic response of steel frames under re-
peated earthquake ground motions. Eng. Struct 2004;26:2021–35.
[4] Lee K, Foutch DA. Performance evaluation of damaged steel frame buildings sub-
jected to seismic loads. J. Struct Eng 2004;130(4):588–99.
[5] Li Q, Ellingwood BR. Performance evaluation and damage assessment of steel frame
buildings under main shock-aftershock sequences. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2007;36:405–27.
[6] Ruiz-García J, Moreno JY, Maldonado IA. Evaluation of existing Mexican highway
bridges under mainshock-aftershock seismic sequences. In: Proceedings of the 14th.
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Paper 05-02-0090;
2008.
[7] Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA. Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated
strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2010;30:1010–25.
[8] Ruiz-García J, Negrete-Manriquez JC. Evaluation of drift demands in existing steel
frames under as-recorded far-field and near-fault mainshock-aftershock seismic
sequences. Eng Struct 2011;33:621–34.
[9] Ruiz-García J. Mainshock-aftershock ground motion features and their influence in
building’s seismic response. J Earth Eng 2012;33:621–34.
[10] Ruiz-García J. Three-dimensional building response under seismic sequences. In:
Proceedings of the 2013 World Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, Jeju, South Korea; 2013.
[11] Di Sarno L. Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng
Struct 2013;54.
[12] Faisal A, Majid TA, Hatzigeorgiou G. Investigation of story ductility demands of
inelastic concrete frames subjected to repeated earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2013;44:42–53.
[13] Han R, Li Y, van de Lindt J. Assessment of seismic performance of buildings with
incorporation of aftershocks. J Perform Constr Facil 2014;29(1).
[14] Tesfamariam S, Goda K, Mondal G. Seismic vulnerability of RC frame with un-
reinforced masonry infill due to mainshock-aftershock earthquake sequences.
Earthq Spectra 2014;31(3):1427–49.
[15] Díaz-Martínez G, Ruiz-García J, Terán-Gilmore A. Response of structures to seismic
sequences corresponding to Mexican soft soils. Earthq Struct 2014;7(6):1241–58.
[16] Ruiz-García J, Marín MV, Terán-Gilmore A. Effect of seismic sequences in re-
inforced concrete frame buildings located in soft-soil sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2014;63(10):56–68.
[17] Hatzivassiliou M, Hatzigeorgiou GD. Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional
reinforced concrete buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2015;72:77–88.
[18] Raghunandan M, Liel AB, Luco N. Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of
reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2015;44(3):419–39.
[19] Jeon JS, DesRoches R, Lowes LN, Brilakis I. Framework of aftershock fragility as-
sessment–case studies: older California reinforced concrete building frames. Earthq
Eng Struct Dyn 2015;41:1477–93.
[20] Han R, Li Y, van de Lindt J. Impact of aftershocks and uncertainties on the seismic
evaluation of non-ductile reinforced concrete frame buildings. Eng Struct
2015;100:149–63.
[21] Nazari N, van de Lindt JW, Li Y. Effect of mainshock-aftershock sequences on
woodframe building damage fragilities. J Perform Constr Facil
413
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
3DGC_MA
3DGC_M
0.5
3D_MA
3D_M
0.0
0.0 22.5 45.0 67.5 90.0
angle of incidence [°]
b)
2015;29(1):04014036.
[22] Abdelnaby A, Elnashai AS. Numerical modeling and analysis of RC frames subjected
to multiple earthquakes. Earthq Struct 2015;9(5):957–81.
[23] Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby A. Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earth-
quakes. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;98:222–34.
[24] Abdelnaby A. Fragility curves for RC frames subjected to Tohoku mainshock-
aftershocks sequences. J Earthq Eng 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.
2016.1264328.
[25] Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby A. Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on
the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;92:706–25.
[26] Guerrero H, Ruiz-García J, Escobar JA, Terán-Gilmore A. Response to seismic se-
quences of short-period structures equipped with Buckling-Restrained Braces lo-
cated on the lakebed zone of Mexico City. J Constr Steel Res 2017;137:37–51.
[27] Ruiz-García J, Aguilar JD. Influence of modeling assumptions and aftershock hazard
level in the seismic response of post-mainshock steel framed buildings. Eng Struct
2017;140:437–46.
[28] Oygus R, Toros C, Abdelnaby A. Seismic behavior of irregular reinforced-concrete
structures under multiple earthquake excitations. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2018;104:15–32.
[29] Abdollahzadeh G, Mohammadgholipour A, Omranian E. Seismic evaluation of steel
moment frames under mainshock-aftershock sequence designed by elastic design
and PBPD methods. J Earthq Eng 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.
1387198.
[30] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel mo-
ment resisting frame structures. Report TR-132, John A. Blume Earth. Eng. Ctr.,
Stanford University; 1999.
[31] MacRae G, Mattheis J. Three-dimensional steel building response to near-fault
ground motions. J Struct Eng 2000;126(1):117–26.
[32] MacRae G, Tagawa H. Seismic behavior of the 3D steel moment frame with biaxial
columns. J Struct Eng ASCE 2001;127(5):490–7.
[33] Reyes-Salazar A, Soto-López ME, Bojórquez-Mora E, López-Barraza A. Effect of
modeling assumptions on the seismic behavior of steel buildings with perimeter
moment frames. Struct Eng Mech 2012;41(2). https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.
41.2.183.
[34] Reyes-Salazar A, Bojórquez-Mora E, Haldar A, López-Barraza A, Rivera JL. Seismic
response of 3D steel buildings considering the effect of PR connections and gravity
frames Article ID 346156 Sci World J 2014;2014:13.
[35] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO3D. Volume 3: User manual for the 3-Dimensional version.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury;
2009.
[36] Carr AJ. RUAUMOKO2D. Volume 2: User manual for the 2-Dimensional version.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury;
2009.
[37] Filiatrault A, Tremblay R, Wanitkorkul A. Performance evaluation of passive
damping systems for the seismic retrofit of steel moment-resisting frames subjected
to near-field ground motions. Earthq Spectra 2001;17(3):427–56.
[38] Song R, Li Y, van de Lindt JW. Loss estimation of steel buildings to earthquake
mainshock-aftershock sequences. Struct Saf 2016;61:1–11.
[39] Li Y, Song R, van de Lindt JW. Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to
earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequence. J Struct Eng, ASCE
2014;140(12):04014095.
[40] Cruz E, Cominetti, S. Three-dimensional buildings subjected to bidirectional
earthquakes. Validity of analyses considering uni-directional earthquakes.
In:Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland; 2000; paper 0372.
[41] Ghersi A, Rossi PP. Influence of bi-directional ground motions on the inelastic re-
sponse of one-storey in-plan irregular systems. Eng Struct 2001;23(6):579–91.
[42] Athanatopoulou AM. Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components.
Eng Struct 2005;27(2):301–12.
[43] Rigato A, Medina RA. Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for in-
elastic single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Eng
Struct 2010;29(10):2593–601.
J. Ruiz-García et al.
[44] Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Petrone C. Influence of earthquake direction on the
seismic response of irregular plan RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib
2014;13(2):243–56.
[45] Charney FA. Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures. J Struct
Eng 2008;134(4):581–92.
[46] Erduran E. Evaluation of Rayleigh damping and it influence on engineering demand
parameter estimates. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2012;41(14):1905–19.
[47] Chopra AK, McKenna F. Modeling viscous damping in nonlinear response history
analysis of buildings for earthquake excitation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2015;45(2):193–211.
414
Engineering Structures 175 (2018) 399–414
[48] Hall JF. Performance of viscous damping in inelastic seismic analysis of moment-
frame buildings. Report No. EERL 2018-01. California Institute of Technology;
2018.
[49] Liu J, Astaneh-Asl A. Cyclic tests on simple connections, including effect of slabs.
Report No. SAC/BD-00/03, SAC Joint Venture, June 2000.
[50] Luco N. Probabilistic seismic demand analyses, SMRF connection fractures, and
near-fault effects [PhD Dissertation] (Advised by Prof. C.A. Cornell). Dept. of Civil
and Environ. Engrg., Stanford University; 2002.
[51] Rodriguez M, Restrepo J, Blandón JJ. Shaking table tests of a four-story miniature
steel building—model validation. Earthq Spectra 2006;22:755–80.