## 2 Hypothetical Buildings Considering the Strong-Column Weak-Beam Philosophy  
To establish the framework used in this study, first the seismic response assessment of two hypothetical steel-frame buildings subjected to Mexican ground motions is considered. These structures do not necessarily correspond to minimum requirements from any code, but to structures which follows the strong-column weak-beam philosophy and are expected to exhibit a non-linear behavior under seismic loading. Nevertheless, this framework is applied later to a realistic structure designed by an experienced practicing engineer as per international standards, to validate the findings from a practical design standpoint. For the hypothetical structures in this section, the considered steel is A-36 according to the American Institute of Steel Construction. In Figure 1 the studied buildings are shown. One is formed by a six-story steel-frame structure with columns W18 \(\times\) 60 and beams W12 \(\times\) 14 sections; the showed diagonals are W10 \(\times\) 45 sections. A uniformly distributed load of 12 kN/m for all beams is assumed; this load plus the self-weight of the structure is used for calculating the natural vibration periods. The second is a 10-story building frame formed by W18 \(\times\) 211, W16 \(\times\) 31 and W10 \(\times\) 45 sections for the columns, beams and diagonals, respectively. In this case, an 18 kN/m load is considered for all the beams plus the structure self-weight. The plastic hinges of steel beams to be studied are indicated by red dots in Figure 1; they are selected because the analyses indicated that they are the most critical in terms of plastic rotations (i.e., they are identified after performing all seismic dynamic analyses and rank the rotations in all the buildings). The plastic hinges shown are not the only ones (which also vary depending on the record used). For the comparisons, the study is focused on the plastic hinges with the largest rotations. Although not specific code was used for designing the frames as mentioned before, they correspond to the strong-column weak-beam philosophy contained in many relevant standards (e.g., American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 7-16) [28]; IBC-2018 [29]; NTCS-2017 [30]; Eurocode [31]). For the six-story building, the first horizontal vibration period is T1h = 0.398 s, the second is T2h = 0.108 s and the third one is T3h = 0.052 s, as shown in Figure 2. The same corresponding periods, but for the vertical response are T1v = 0.173 s, T2v = 0.164 s and T3v = 0.060 s, respectively, as in Figure 3.  
The computed horizontal and vertical vibration modes in the same order as previously described for the ten-story building are T1h = 0.841 s, T2h = 0.238 s and T3h = 0.121 s, and  
Figure 1: Steel-frame buildings and plastic hinges (red dots) considered. Figure 3: Vertical vibration modes for the six-story building. Figure 2: Horizontal vibration modes for the six-story building. T\({}_{1\text{v}}\) = 0.198 s, T\({}_{2\text{v}}\) = 0.122 s and T\({}_{3\text{v}}\) = 0.058 s, respectively, which are depicted in Figure 4 for the horizontal modes and Figure 5 for the vertical ones. Based on a previous study by [PERSON] et al. [7], the frames and elements were selected so that they work in a range 60-80% of their capacity for gravitational load only. Therefore, when the buildings are subjected to the records reported in Table 1, the inelastic behavior of several elements can be inspected and compared for the one-versus the two-component analyses. Another possibility to guarantee that many members of the structures undergo into the inelastic range is to scale the records. This alternative is recommended in future research using reliable methods and recognizing their limitations.