See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360326954

The Effects Of Ground Motıon Incıdent Angle for Orthogonal and Non-
Orthogonal Structures

Article  in  Iranian Journal of Science and Technology - Transactions of Civil Engineering · April 2022
DOI: 10.1007/s40996-022-00873-2

CITATIONS READS

0 56

3 authors, including:

Muberra Eser
Istanbul Aydin University
21 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muberra Eser on 05 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-022-00873-2

RESEARCH PAPER

The Effects Of Ground Motıon Incıdent Angle for Orthogonal

and Non‑Orthogonal Structures
Muberra Eser Aydemir1   · Umit Evliyaoglu1 · Fatih Malkoc1

Received: 17 March 2021 / Accepted: 9 April 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Shiraz University 2022

Abstract
This paper aims to investigate the effects of ground motion incident angle on the nonlinear dynamic response of buildings
using two sample structural system to represent orthogonal and non-orthogonal buildings. To this purpose, two different RC
structures with four stories are considered. The nonlinear dynamic time history analyses of these buildings are performed
by Zeus-NL for seven records to represent major earthquakes. During the analyses, to get a better understanding about the
influence of the incidence angle of the seismic action, nonlinear dynamic time history analyses are performed for new com-
ponents developed by rotating the direction of both the orthogonal components by θ = 20° intervals from 0° to 180°. Axial
and shear force of columns, shear force of beams and interstorey drift ratios are chosen to be observed structural parameters.
Code-based combination rules for equivalent seismic load effect are also discussed. It is found that the earthquake incidence
angle is a more effective parameter on column axial force and beam shear forces for non-orthogonal structure. Besides, the
earthquake incidence angle highly affects the section forces, whereas mean interstorey drift ratio values are less sensitive to
earthquake incidence angle for both orthogonal and non-orthogonal structures. γ coefficient suggested in most of the modern
seismic design codes which is equal to 0.3, has an exceedance probability of 20–25%. This value should be approximately
1.5 or 2 times of the current value for a exceedance probability of 10%.

Keywords  Earthquake incidence angle · Orthogonality and non-orthogonality · Time history analysis · Fragility curve

1 Introduction the effect of unfavorable earthquake directions on structural

Most of the modern seismic design codes require the earth-
quake analysis in two orthogonal directions of buildings
during the design process. However, the maximum value
of a design parameter may occur at a different earthquake
angle, i.e., the direction of earthquake and principle struc-
tural axes are different. Especially for column sections under
biaxial bending, obtaining the unfavorable design directions
is almost always impossible. Thus, most of the contempo-
rary earthquake-regulations present the “Combined Effect”
formulae for the orthogonal earthquake loadings to represent
* Muberra Eser Aydemir
muberraaydemir@aydin.edu.tr
Umit Evliyaoglu
umitevliyaoglu@gmail.com
Fatih Malkoc
fatih_malkoc_86@hotmail.com
1
Department Of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Aydin University,
Kucukcekmece/Istanbul, Turkey
elements. In addition to aforementioned approach, load
combinations suggested in seismic design codes for each
orthogonal directions of the structural system require a very
time-consuming process. Thus, the effects of earthquake
incident angle on design or performance evaluation process
should be considered more realistically.
The effects of earthquake incidence angle have been
examined by a number of researchers. One of the oldest
study focused on the direction of the ground acceleration on
seismic design is conducted by Gonzalez (1992). A method
to include earthquake directional effects was presented, and
the accuracy of the presented method with standard combi-
nation rules was presented. Lopez and Torres ( 1997) pro-
posed a simple method to determine the critical angle of
seismic incidence and the corresponding peak response of
structures subjected to two horizontal components applied
along any arbitrary directions and to the vertical compo-
nent of earthquake ground motion. Rigato and Medina (
2007) investigated the effect of the angle of incidence of
the ground motion on some engineering demand parameters

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

such as ductility ratio, slab rotation and drift ratio demands
for a single-story structure subjected to bi-directional ground
motions. Basu and Shinozuka (2011) examined the most
conservative angle of incidence of the ground motion for a
particular bridge configuration, through the bridge seismic
damageability when no information about the ground motion
orientation to the bridge axis is available. They concluded
that ground motion incident angle may play an important
role in the estimation of maximum seismic demand in the
form of fragility curves. Cantagallo et al. (2012) conducted
a study on the seismic directionality effects for four three-
dimensional reinforced concrete structures to different scaled
and un-scaled bi-directional ground motion records oriented
along nine incidence angles. They have concluded that the
structural demand on one-story structure does not vary sig-
nificantly as a function of the incidence angle, whereas,
multistory structures vary considerably depending on the
incidence angle. Archila and Ventura (2012) presented the
results of a study on nonlinear dynamic response of a 44 sto-
rey reinforced concrete building located in Canada to hori-
zontal ground motion directionality. The results of that study
showed that ground motion directionality is very important
for the nonlinear analysis of tall buildings and has to be
taken into account in the analysis and design of tall build-
ings. A parametric study conducted by Reyes and Kalkan
(2012), the influence that the rotation angle of the ground
motion on some engineering demand parameters (EDPs)
was examined for a single story structure with varying elas-
tic vibration period and yield strength reduction factors. It
was concluded for a building subjected to a single near-fault
ground motion, the incidence angle that leads to maximum
displacement would vary with the R value used in the design
process of the building. Magliulo et al. examined the influ-
ence of the earthquake direction on the seismic response
of three multi-story RC buildings and concluded that the
angle of the seismic input motion significantly affects the
structural response and the incidence angle that produces
the maximum demand, provides an increase of up to 37%
in terms of both roof displacements and plastic hinge rota-
tions (Magliulo et al. 2014). Reyes and Kalkan presented the
results of a similar study as two companion papers focusing
on single-story and multi-story structures (Reyes and Kalkan
2015a, 2015b). A more recent study conducted by Gian-
nopoulos and Vamvatsikos (2018) several SDOF systems
and one plan‐asymmetric MDOF structure was examined
to a pulsive and a non‐pulsive set of ground motions using
different combinations of record set size and incident angle
rotations. It was concluded that it is not worth the compu-
tational cost to apply both the X and Y components of a
ground motion when analyzing a 2D model, instead, using
an arbitrary component from a different recording is more
efficient. There also exists some other researches focusing
13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
on earthquake directionality (Athanatopoulou 2005; Lagaros
2010; Kanya and Rao 2015; Prajwal et al. 2017; Roy et al.
2018). To the authors’ knowledge, most of these mentioned
studies generally focus on asymmetric and orthogonal struc-
tures and the combination factors are generally not included.
In this study, the effect of earthquake incidence angle on
multistory reinforced concrete structures is examined. To
this purpose, two different RC structures with four stories
are considered. The selected buildings are representative of
typical RC structures, both regular/orthogonal (Structure 1)
and irregular/non-orthogonal in plan (Structure 2). The plan
view of the analyzed buildings is shown in Fig. 1. Struc-
ture 1 (Fig. 1a) is a “regular” symmetric four-story building
with 3.0 m story height and 4.0 m bay length. Structure 2
(Fig. 1b) is an irregular plan shape four-story structure with
3.0 m story height. The dimensions of the sections of all the
columns and beams of Structure 1 and 2 are presented in
Table 1. Concrete and steel strengths for both structures are
equal to 30 MPa and 420 MPa, respectively. The structures
are assumed to be founded on a “B” soil type, according
to EC8 classification, i.e., soil with an average shear wave
velocity in the range between 360 and 800 m/s (Eurocode-8.
2004). The three dimensional dynamic model is presented
in Fig. 2.
2 Methodology
The finite element (FE) structural analysis program ZEUS-
NL is used to perform the eigenvalue and nonlinear dynamic
analyses. ZEUS-NL was developed by Elnashai et al. (2004).
The program can be used to model two-and three-dimen-
sional steel, RC, and composite structures under static and
dynamic loading. Zeus-NL accounts for the spread of inelas-
ticity across the member section depth and along the ele-
ment length using a layered ‘‘fiber’’ approach. Also it is
capable of predicting the large displacements of the struc-
ture and individual members by imposing equilibrium in
the deformed state, and hence, it can represent P − δ and
P − ∆ effects. Cubic 3D elastoplastic elements were used to
consider the concrete behavior under cyclic loading, residual
strength and stiffness degradation through a fiber approach.
The uniaxial constant confinement concrete model defined
with four parameters as compressive strength, ­fc, tensile
strength, ­ft, crushing strain, εco and the confinement factor,
k is used for concrete, whereas bilinear elasto-plastic model
with kinematic strain-hardening defined with three param-
eters as the Young’s modulus, E, the yield strength, ­fy, and
the strain-hardening parameter, μ, is used for reinforcing
steel. The stress–strain models for concrete and steel are
shown in Fig. 3a and b, respectively.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

BMZ551

S412

S213

S113 S313 BMX313

BMZ253
BMX254

S115 S215

(a) (b)

Fig. 1  Plan of models and observed elements a Regular doubly symmetric building in plan (Structure 1), b Typical non-orthogonal building in
plan (Structure 2)

Fig. 2  Three dimensional dynamic model of buildings with ZEUS-NL

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

3 Ground Motions are performed for new components developed by rotating

The selected strong motion data consist of seven records to
represent major earthquakes. A set of earthquake accelera-
tion time histories recorded on soft soil are used. Ground
motions are selected to represent far field ground motions
based on the earthquakes given in FEMA440 (Agency 2005)
and ATC63 (Applied Technology Council 2007) documents.
These records are downloaded from the strong motion
database of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
(PEER) Center, and properties of ground motions are
given in Table 2 (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center 2019). During the analyses, to get a better under-
standing about the influence of the incidence angle of the
seismic action, nonlinear dynamic time history analyses
the direction of both the orthogonal components by θ = 20°
intervals from 0° to 180°. To calculate the time histories of
the as‐recorded ground motions for each incidence angle, θ,
the well‐known transformation is used as:
xa = ax cos𝜃 + ay sin𝜃
ya = −ax sin𝜃 + ay cos𝜃
where ax and a y are horizontal components of original
record, xa and ya are the components of the rotated record,
and θ is the angle of rotation in the counterclockwise direc-
tion. Thereby, for each ground motion, 10 time history analy-
ses and a sum of 70 time history analyses for all database
have been conducted.

Table 1  Section geometry for Structure Storey Columns Beams

investigated systems
Regular 1st & 2nd storey 0.45/0.45 LR:16φ14 0.25/0.5
3rd & 4th storey 0.40/0.40 LR:12φ14 0.25/0.5
Non-orthogonal Type 1 (all stories) 0.5/0.5 LR:20φ14 0.25/0.5
Type 2 (all stories) 0.40/0.80 LR:10φ16 + 8 φ14 0.25/0.5

Fig. 3  The stress–strain models

for concrete and steel

Table 2  Ground motions used in analyses

Earthquake M Station Dist. (km) Comp. 1 PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) Comp. 2 PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) Site class

Northridge 17/01/94 6.7 Castaic Old Ridge 25.4 ORR090 0.568 52.1 ORR360 0.514 52.2 C
Northridge 17/01/94 6.7 LA Univ. Hospital 34.6 UNI005 0.493 31.1 UNI095 0.214 10.8 D
Landers 28/06/92 7.4 Yermo Fire Station 26.3 YER270 0.245 51.5 YER360 0.152 29.7 D
Northridge 17/01/94 6.7 LA-Centinela 30.9 CEN155 0.465 19.3 CEN245 0.322 22.9 D
Loma Prieta 18/10/89 7.1 Gilroy Array #4 14 G04000 0.417 38.8 G04090 0.212 37.9 D
Düzce 12/11/99 7.3 Bolu 12 BOL000 0.728 56.4 BOL090 0.822 62.1 D
Loma Prieta 18/10/89 7.1 Capitola 20.1 CAP000 0.53 35 CAP090 0.44 29.2 D

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

S115 S213 S215 4 Results and Discussion

0
700 Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses are conducted to
180 600 20 get a better insight on the effect of earthquake incidence
500 angle on structural response for considered structural sys-
400 tems. To this purpose, the observed structural parameters
300
160 40 are chosen to be axial force and shear force of columns,
200
100 shear force of beams and interstorey drift ratios. The analy-
0 sis results are presented for orthogonal and non- orthogonal
structures. Analysis results and comparisons are presented
140 60 for the observed elements given in Fig. 1.

• Evaluation of Column Axial Force

120 80   For regular structure, the investigated columns are
named as S115, S215 and S213 to represent corner,
100 marginal and central columns, respectively. The mean
axial force values of considered columns are shown
Fig. 4  The mean axial force values of Structure 1 in Fig. 4. The variation of axial force with earthquake
incidence angle with reference to 0 degree is also pre-
sented in Table 3. The maximum values of axial force

S115 S213
N(kN)

Incidence angle Incidence angle

S215
N(kN)

Incidence angle

Fig. 5  The variation of maximum column axial forces for Structure 1

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

at observed columns are graphically shown in Fig. 5. It

 
 
• Evaluation of Column Shear Force
Fig. 6  The mean axial force values of Structure 2  
is worth to note that the presence of earthquake loading
greatly affects the axial forces of corner columns.
For non-orthogonal structure, the observed columns
are named as S113, S313 and S412, respectively. The
mean axial force values of considered columns are shown
in Fig. 6. The variation of axial force with earthquake
incidence angle with reference to 0 degree is also pre-
sented in Table 4. The maximum values of axial force at
observed columns are graphically shown in Fig. 7.
From the comparison of Tables 3 and 4, it can be said
that the variation in axial force with earthquake incidence
angle is much greater for non-orthogonal structure. Espe-
cially for S412 column which is located at the intersec-
tion of two non-orthogonal axes, the variation of axial
force can be as high as 20%.
For regular structure, the mean shear force values of
considered columns are shown in Fig. 8. The variation

S113 S313
N(kN)

Incidence angle Incidence angle

S412
N(kN)

Incidence angle

Fig. 7  The variation of maximum column axial forces for Structure 2

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

of mean shear force with earthquake incidence angle

 
 
Fig. 8  The mean column shear force values of Structure 1
with reference to 0 degree is presented in Table 5. The
maximum values of shear force at observed columns are
graphically shown in Fig. 9.
It can be seen that from Fig. 8 shear forces of central
and marginal columns do not present a great difference.
For non-orthogonal structure, the mean shear force val-
ues of considered columns are shown in Fig. 10. The
variation of mean shear force with earthquake incidence
angle with reference to 0 degree is presented in Table 6.
The maximum values of shear force at observed columns
are graphically shown in Fig. 11. The column which has
the maximum shear force is the central column of non-
orthogonal structure (S412) since the beams located
around this column are not in loading direction.
It can be seen from Tables 5 and 6 that the variation
in shear force becomes more obvious as the earthquake
incidence angle is greater than 8­ 00. Besides, the shear
force variation for non-orthogonal structure is greater
than the regular structure.

S213
S115
V(kN)

Incidence angle Incidence angle

S215
V(kN)

Incidence angle

Fig. 9  The variation of maximum column shear forces for Structure 1

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

beams are shown in Fig. 12. The variation of maximum

 
• Evaluation of Interstorey Drift
 
 
Fig. 10  The mean column shear force values of Structure 2
• Evaluation of Beam Shear Force  
  For regular structure, the investigated beams are
named as BMZ253 and BMX254 to represent two inte-
rior beams. The mean shear force values of these two
beam shear force with earthquake incidence angle with
reference to 0 degree is presented in Table 7 and graphi-
cally shown in Fig. 13.
For Structure 2, the mean beam shear force values and
the variation of maximum beam shear force with earth-
quake incidence angle are presented in Figs. 14 and 15
and Table 8, respectively.
The maximum interstorey drift ratio is another selected
parameter to obtain the effects of ground motion inci-
dent angle. The maximum interstorey drift ratio and the
variation of mean interstorey drift ratio with number of
storeys for regular structure are shown in Fig. 16. Since
the structural system is symmetric, the interstorey drift
ratios are presented for only one direction.
For non-orthogonal structure, the maximum intersto-
rey drift ratios are presented for each direction in Fig. 17.
The variation of mean interstorey drift ratio with number
of storeys for each direction is also shown in Fig. 18.
Since the earthquake incidence angle highly affects the
section forces, it can be seen from the figures that mean
IDR values are less sensitive to earthquake incidence
angle for both orthogonal and non-orthogonal structures.

S113 S313
V(kN)

Incidence angle Incidence angle

S412
V(kN)

Incidence angle

Fig. 11  The variation of maximum column shear forces for Structure 2

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering
Fig. 12  The mean beam shear force values of Structure 1
5 Combination Rules and Loading Cases
Most of the modern seismic design codes (Eurocode-8.
2004; Turkish Building Earthquake Code 2018; Indian
Standard 2002) allow the use of combination rules to obtain
equivalent seismic load effect considering different earth-
quake directions. The general form of this combined effect
for seismic load is formulated by the maximum of;
E = ±Ex ± 𝛾Ey ± 𝛾Ez
E = ±Ey ± 𝛾Ex ± 𝛾Ez
E = ±Ez ± 𝛾Ex ± 𝛾Ey
V(kN)
Incidence angle
Fig. 13  The variation of maximum beam shear forces for Structure 1
where ­Ex, ­Ey and ­Ez represent the maximum absolute
seismic load effect when the structure is excited by the hor-
izontal X, horizontal Y and the vertical component of the
earthquake component of a given earthquake, respectively.
As mentioned above, seismic codes almost always ignore the
vertical component of earthquake, and the combination rules
are generally stated to combine the two horizontal compo-
nents. The coefficient γ is generally equal to 0.3, which leads
to the assumption that when the maximum response from
one component occurs, the responses from the other com-
ponent is 30 percent of its maximum. All possible combina-
tions of the two components ­(Ex, ­Ey) including variations in
sign (plus or minus) shall be considered. Thus, the response
due earthquake force (E) is the maximum of the following
three cases.
E = ±Ex ± 𝛾Ey
E = ±Ey ± 𝛾Ex
In this study, after time history analyses considering
derived records with θ = 20° intervals from 0° to 180° con-
ducted, additional time history analyses are also completed
for only ­Ex and ­Ey components of mentioned database. In
this way, the real value of γ coefficient is obtained for both
regular and non-orthogonal structures and for each earth-
quake direction. The γ coefficient is calculated separately
for both axial load and shear force of investigated columns.
These values are presented in Tables  9, 10, 11 and 12,
respectively.
From the values presented in above tables, varia-
tion of probability of exceedance with γ are produced for
each earthquake direction. These curves are presented in
Figs. 19 and 20, respectively. Code-based value of γ = 0.3
is also shown in the graphs with dashed line. For deriving
mentioned curves, it is assumed that the γ coefficient has a
normal probability distribution.
Incidence angle
13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

It can be seen from the figures that 0.3 value of γ coeffi-

cient suggested in most of the modern seismic design codes
has an exceedance probability of 20–25%. To sustain a prob-
ability of exceedance 10%, γ coefficient seems to be approxi-
mately 1.5 or 2 times of the current value. It should also be
noted that the probability of exceedance of γ coefficient is
higher for regular structure than the non-orthogonal struc-
ture which implicates that the axial force and shear force
distribution of columns are highly affected from earthquake
direction.

6 Conclusions

In this study, the effect of earthquake incidence angle on

multistory reinforced concrete structures is examined.
To this purpose, two orthogonal and non-orthogonal RC
Fig. 14  The mean beam shear force values of Structure 2 structures with four stories are considered. To comprehend
the influence of the incidence angle of the seismic action,
V(kN)

Incidence angle Incidence angle

Fig. 15  The variation of maximum beam shear forces for Structure 2

1st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th
(a) (b)

Fig. 16  The variation of maximum IDR a for records b with storey number for Structure 1

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

X-dir Y-dir

(a) (b)

Fig. 17  The variation of maximum IDR a for X-direction b for Y-direction for Structure 2

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

(a) (b)

Fig. 18  The variation of maximum IDR with storey number a for X-direction b for Y-direction for Structure 2

Table 3  The variation of Angle S115 (kN) S215 (kN) S213 (kN) Variation (%)
column axial force with
earthquake incidence angle for S115 S215 S213
Structure 1
0 581.89 287.97 459.06
20 589.68 284.91 466.1 1.33 1.06 1.53
40 582.84 300.93 454.58 0.16 4.50 0.98
60 618.17 306.25 446.85 6.24 6.35 2.66
80 589.47 296.32 451.54 1.30 2.9 1.64
100 620.32 284.53 469.69 6.61 1.19 2.32
120 618.66 294.95 488.76 6.32 2.42 6.47
140 657.56 297.99 476.12 13.00 3.48 3.72
160 682.68 300.08 479.53 17.32 4.21 4.46
180 672.06 282.25 507.39 15.5 1.99 10.53

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Table 4  The variation of Angle S113 (kN) S313 (kN) S412 (kN) Variation (%)
column axial force with
earthquake incidence angle for S113 S313 S412
Structure 2
0 852.31 408.29 356.68
20 843.92 401.22 342.88 0.98 1.73 3.87
40 813.24 402.55 333.49 4.58 1.41 6.50
60 833.36 394.16 308.97 2.22 3.46 13.38
80 865.54 399.29 293.38 1.55 2.20 17.75
100 907.72 395.56 276.82 6.50 3.12 22.39
120 937.06 415.73 282.74 9.94 1.82 20.73
140 873.52 420.49 291.93 2.49 2.99 18.15
160 849.33 427.22 294.95 0.35 4.64 17.31
180 861.83 425.20 281.21 1.12 4.14 21.16

Table 5  The variation of Angle S115 (kN) S215 (kN) S213 (kN) Variation (%)
column shear force with
earthquake incidence angle for S115 S215 S213
Structure 1
0 268.39 450.27 272.52
20 255.29 430.42 258.54 4.88 4.41 5.13
40 241.37 368.81 244.87 10.06 18.09 10.15
60 271.13 419.74 251.95 1.02 6.78 7.55
80 258.66 391.81 246.26 3.62 12.98 9.64
100 218.08 341.04 218.19 18.74 24.26 19.94
120 204.99 341.92 202.48 23.62 24.06 25.70
140 209.65 421.49 207.10 21.88 6.39 24.01
160 217.80 455.99 213.56 18.85 1.27 21.64
180 213.99 460.00 215.92 20.27 2.16 20.77

Table 6  The variation of Angle S113 (kN) S313 (kN) S412 (kN) Variation (%)
column shear force with
earthquake incidence angle for S115 S215 S213
Structure 2
0 707.92 784.20 1016.95
20 669.09 735.59 995.56 5.48 6.20 2.10
40 637.56 674.48 868.03 9.94 13.99 14.64
60 652.84 639.62 737.68 7.78 18.44 27.46
80 594.65 542.31 673.45 16.00 30.85 33.78
100 486.49 480.01 655.30 31.28 38.79 35.56
120 510.34 488.40 720.80 27.91 37.72 29.12
140 502.83 520.93 908.96 28.97 33.57 10.62
160 584.42 551.36 1003.85 17.45 29.69 1.29
180 636.67 548.36 1016.65 10.06 30.07 0.03

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Table 7  The variation of beam shear force with earthquake incidence nonlinear dynamic time history analyses are performed for
angle for Structure 1 new components developed by rotating the direction of both
Angle BMX254 (kN) BMZ253 (kN) Variation (%) the orthogonal components by θ = 20° intervals from 0° to
180°. Axial and shear force of columns, shear force of beams
BMX254 BMZ253
and interstorey drift ratios are chosen to be observed struc-
0 236.25 243.24 tural parameters. The following conclusions can be drawn
20 207.48 234.02 12.17 3.79 from the results of study.
40 228.16 219.10 3.42 9.92
60 275.09 225.73 16.44 7.20 • The variation in axial force with earthquake incidence
80 287.27 209.34 21.60 13.94 angle is much greater for non-orthogonal structure. Espe-
100 193.22 208.71 18.21 14.20 cially for S412 column which is located at the intersec-
120 245.60 209.88 3.96 13.71 tion of two non-orthogonal axes, the variation of axial
140 271.10 255.17 14.75 4.90 force can be as high as 20%.
160 205.47 274.79 13.03 12.97 • The variation in column shear force becomes more obvi-
180 228.70 278.67 3.20 14.57 ous as the earthquake incidence angle is greater than ­800.
Besides, the column shear force variation for non-orthog-
onal structure is greater than the regular structure.
Table 8  The variation of beam shear force with earthquake incidence • The earthquake incidence angle on beam shear force is
angle for Structure 2 more effective for non-orthogonal structure. The varia-
Angle BMX353 (kN) BMZ551 (kN) Variation (%) tion is more obvious for incidence angle greater than ­800.
• Since the earthquake incidence angle highly affects
BMX353 BMZ551
the section forces, mean IDR values are less sensitive
0 247.04 200.10 to earthquake incidence angle for both orthogonal and
20 242.79 191.39 1.72 4.35 non-orthogonal structures.
40 238.99 162.04 3.26 19.02 • γ coefficient, used to combine the effects of different
60 258.30 162.74 4.56 18.67 earthquake directions suggested in most of the mod-
80 296.63 171.43 20.08 14.33 ern seismic design codes which is equal to 0.3, has an
100 331.83 193.50 34.33 3.30 exceedance probability of 20–25%. This value should be
120 318.37 247.09 28.88 23.48 approximately 1.5 or 2 times of the current value for a
140 280.30 271.93 13.47 35.90 exceedance probability of 10%.
160 295.62 267.61 19.67 33.74 • As the current study focuses on one type of non-orthog-
180 272.88 245.75 10.46 22.82 onal structure and limited number of earthquake records,
further research is needed with different types of struc-
tural systems and a wider ground motion database.

Table 9  The real values of Angle Axial force

γ coefficient for Structure 1
considering column axial force E =  ± Ex ± γEy E =  ± Ey ± γEx
S115 S215 S213 S115 S215 S213

0 0.196 0.155 0.840 0.249 0.485 0.846

20 0.213 0.148 0.868 0.265 0.498 0.874
40 0.198 0.188 0.821 0.251 0.427 0.829
60 0.275 0.201 0.790 0.323 0.404 0.798
80 0.213 0.176 0.809 0.264 0.448 0.817
100 0.280 0.147 0.883 0.327 0.500 0.888
120 0.276 0.173 0.961 0.324 0.454 0.963
140 0.361 0.181 0.910 0.403 0.440 0.913
160 0.415 0.186 0.924 0.454 0.431 0.927
180 0.392 0.141 1.038 0.432 0.510 1.036

13
 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Table 10  The real values of Angle Shear force

γ coefficient for Structure 1
considering column shear force E =  ± Ex ± γEy E =  ± Ey ± γEx
S115 S215 S213 S115 S215 S213

0 0.596 0.210 0.585 0.535 0.245 0.445

20 0.618 0.244 0.611 0.555 0.280 0.469
40 0.641 0.348 0.637 0.578 0.387 0.493
60 0.591 0.262 0.624 0.530 0.298 0.481
80 0.612 0.309 0.634 0.550 0.347 0.490
100 0.679 0.395 0.687 0.615 0.435 0.538
120 0.701 0.393 0.717 0.635 0.434 0.565
140 0.693 0.259 0.708 0.628 0.295 0.557
160 0.680 0.200 0.696 0.615 0.235 0.546
180 0.686 0.193 0.691 0.621 0.228 0.542

Table 11  The real values of Angle Axial force

γ coefficient for Structure 2
considering column axial force E =  ± Ex ± γEy E =  ± Ey ± γEx
S113 S313 S412 S113 S313 S412

0 0.071 0.090 0.175 0.596 0.185 0.116

20 0.096 0.069 0.140 0.587 0.166 0.164
40 0.189 0.073 0.116 0.552 0.170 0.196
60 0.128 0.048 0.053 0.575 0.148 0.281
80 0.031 0.063 0.013 0.612 0.161 0.335
100 0.097 0.052 0.029 0.660 0.151 0.393
120 0.186 0.112 0.014 0.693 0.205 0.372
140 0.007 0.126 0.009 0.621 0.217 0.340
160 0.080 0.146 0.017 0.593 0.235 0.330
180 0.042 0.140 0.018 0.607 0.230 0.378

Table 12  The real values of Angle Shear force

γ coefficient for Structure 2
considering column shear force E =  ± Ex ± γEy E =  ± Ey ± γEx
S113 S313 S412 S113 S313 S412

0 0.067 0.147 0.440 0.424 0.380 0.438

20 0.104 0.099 0.409 0.474 0.457 0.407
40 0.134 0.040 0.229 0.515 0.553 0.227
60 0.120 0.006 0.045 0.495 0.608 0.042
80 0.176 0.089 0.046 0.570 0.762 0.049
100 0.280 0.150 0.071 0.709 0.860 0.075
120 0.257 0.142 0.021 0.679 0.847 0.018
140 0.264 0.110 0.287 0.688 0.795 0.285
160 0.186 0.080 0.421 0.583 0.747 0.419
180 0.135 0.083 0.439 0.516 0.752 0.437

13
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

1.0 Publishing Corporation Advances in Civil Engineering Volume

Probability of exceedance 0.9 2011, Article ID 536171, 12 pages https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2011/​
536171
0.8
Cantagallo C, Camata G, Spacone E (2012) The effect of the earth-
0.7 quake incidence angle on seismic demand of reinforced concrete
0.6 structures. In: Proceedings of 15WCEE, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal
0.5 Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou V, Lee DH (2004) ZEUS-NL user manual.
0.4 Urbana, IL: Mid- America Earthquake Center, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign
0.3
Eurocode-8. (2004). Design provisions for earthquake resistance
0.2 of structures. European Committee for Standardization, ENV,
0.1 1998-1-1/2/3
0.0 Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2005). FEMA440: Improve-
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 ment of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. Washing-
γ ton, D.C.
θ=0 20 40 60 80 Giannopoulos D, Vamvatsikos D (2018) Ground motion records for
seismic performance assessment: to rotate or not to rotate? Earth-
100 120 140 160 180
quake Engng Struct Dyn. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​3090
Gonzalez P (1992), Considering earthquake direction on seismic analy-
Fig. 19  Variation of probability of exceedance with combination fac- sis, Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, Rotterdam.
tor (γ) for all values of earthquake direction for Structure 1 Indian Standard (2002). IS 1893:2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resist-
ant Design of Structures
Kanya M, Rao CM (2015) Effect of Earthquake Incidence Angle on
Seismic Performance of RC Buildings, IJRET: International Jour-
1.0 nal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319–
0.9 1163 | pISSN: 2321–7308
Probability of exceedance

0.8 Lagaros ND (2010) Multicomponent incremental dynamic analysis

considering variable incident angle. Struct Infrastruct Eng 6(1–
0.7
2):77–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15732​47080​26638​05
0.6 Lopez OA, Torres R (1997) The Critical angle of seismic incidence
0.5 and the maximum structural response. Earthq Engng Struct Dyn
0.4 26:881–894
0.3 Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Petrone C (2014) Influence of earthquake
direction on the seismic response of irregular plan RC frame
0.2
buildings. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13:243–256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
0.1 1007/​s11803-​014-​0227-z
0.0 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER Strong motion
0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50
database. http://​peer.​berke​ley.​edu/​smcat. Last Access: 2019/3/3
γ Prajwal TP, Imtiaz AP, Kiran K, (2017) Nonlinear Analysis of Irregular
θ=0 20 40 60 80 Buildings Considering the Direction of Seismic Waves, Materials
100 120 140 160 180 Today: Proceedings, pp 9828–9832
Reyes JC, Kalkan E (2015b) Significance of rotating ground motions
on behavior of symmetric- and asymmetric-plan structures: Part
Fig. 20  Variation of probability of exceedance with combination fac- II. Multi-story structures. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1–16
tor (γ) for all values of earthquake direction for Structure 2 Reyes JC, Kalkan E (2015a) Significance of rotating ground motions
on behavior of symmetric- and asymmetric-plan structures: Part
I. Single-Story Structures. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1–22
Reyes JC, Kalkan E (2012) Significance of rotating ground motions on
References nonlinear behavior of symmetric and asymmetric buildings in near
fault sites. In: 9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake
Applied Technology Council (2007). ATC 63: Recommended Meth- Engineering/4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
odology for Quantification of Building System Performance and March 6–8, 2012, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Response Parameters - 75% Interim Draft Report, Redwood City, Rigato AB, Medina RA (2007) Influence of angle of incidence on seis-
California mic demands for inelastic single-storey structures subjected to
Archila MA, Ventura CE (2012) Effect of ground motion direction- bi-directional ground motions. Eng Struct 29:2593–2601
ality on seismic response of tall buildings. In: Proceedings of Roy A, Santrab A, Roy R (2018) Estimating seismic response under bi-
15WCEE, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal directional shaking per uni-directional analysis: Identification of
Athanatopoulou AM (2005) Critical orientation of three correlated preferred angle of incidence. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 106:163–181.
seismic components. Eng Struct 27:301–312 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soild​yn.​2017.​12.​022
Basu SB, Shinozuka M (2011) Effect of GroundMotion Directional- Turkish Building Earthquake Code. (2018). Specifications for Building
ity on Fragility Characteristics of a Highway Bridge, Hindawi Design Under Earthquake Effects

13

View publication stats