## 4 Conclusions  
In this study, the seismic risk of steel ordinary moment frames (OMFs) designed with and without the consideration of wind loads were evaluated to investigate the effect of wind loads on the seismic performance of the steel OMFs. The seismic collapse intensities and seismic loss were estimated according to FEMA P695 and FEMA P58 methodologies, respectively. Nine-, twelve-, fifteen-, and eighteen-story steel OMFs were considered, and wind load of 0, 44, and 51 m/s were used for the design of OMFs. The following conclusions are obtained from this study.  
Figure 14: Normalized expected annual losses of all model buildings.  
OMFs designed with consideration of gravity, seismic, and wind loads (W44- and W51-OMF) have larger member sections than OMFs designed when only gravity and seismic loads (W0-OMF) are considered, particularly for interior columns and beams in the lower stories.
2. The period-based ductility (\(\mu_{T}\)) of W44- and W51-OMFs was larger than that of corresponding W0-OMFs. However, values of overstrength factor (\(\Omega\)) of W44- and W51-OMFs are similar with those of W0-OMFs. All steel OMFs had the \(\Omega\) values smaller than 3.0, which is specified for steel OMFs in ASCE 7-16 [1]. This is because in OMFs, failure occurred in the upper stories before reaching the intended maximum base shear capacity expected in the design.
3. Due to the increase in member sections only in the lower stories for W44- and W51-OMFs, lateral drift and damage concentrated in the upper stories. Although W44- and W51-OMFs had larger member sections than corresponding W0-OMFs, those frames had higher collapse risk than corresponding W0-OMFs.
4. Seismic losses for W51- and W44-OMFs were larger than that for corresponding W0-OMFs at all hazard levels. Seismic losses associated with all limit states for W44- and W51-OMFs were also larger than corresponding W0-OMFs, which was more apparent with an increase in building height and the magnitude of wind loads.
5. The \(EL\) values of the W0-OMF for individual limit states are less than those of W44- and W51-OMFs irrespective of \(im\). W51-OMFs has larger \(EL\) values for individual limit states than W44-OMFs. This indicates that the seismic loss could increase when wind loads are considered in the design. The \(EL\) of the W44-OMF is at least 7% larger than that of the W0-OMF. For the W51-OMF, the \(EL\) value increases by at least 50% as compared with that for the W0-OMF. The largest increase in the \(EL\) value is 78%.
6. As was observed in \(EL\), the \(EL\) value also increases when wind loads are considered. The total \(EAL\) values of 12-, 15-, and 18-story W44-OMFs are 14%, 20%, and 45% larger than those of corresponding W0-OMFs, respectively. An increase in \(EAL\) is more significant for W51-OMFs. The total \(EAL\)s of 12-, 15-, and 18-story W51-OMFs are 48%, 58%, 87%, and 76% larger than those of corresponding W0-OMFs, respectively. In this regard, if seismic performance evaluation is conducted for new buildings designed without consideration of wind loads, unconservative results can be obtained.
7. Based on this study, it is important to consider the effect of wind loads when evaluating the seismic performance of steel structures. Otherwise, evaluation results could be unconservative.  
Conceptualization, S.W.H.; investigation, S.W.H.; methodology, T.K.; structural design, S.I.C. and T.K.; data curation, S.I.C.; analysis, T.K.; validation, S.W.H. and T.K.; visualization, T.K.; write-original draft preparation, T.K.; supervision, S.W.H.; revised and finalized the paper, S.W.H.; project administration, S.W.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
Not applicable.  
Data Availability StatementData are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.  
This research was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020R1A2C2010548).  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.