## 4 Evaluating the Seismic Response of Structures  
The 5% damped response spectrum should be produced and combined for each couple by applying the square root of the sum of the square (SRSS) approach, so that a specific spectrum is built for each couple. Ground movements should be measured such that the mean value of their SRSS spectra does not decrease less than 1.4 times the standard design spectra during 0.2\(T\)-1.5\(T\) seconds, where \(T\) indicates [34]. The present research analyzed 36 nonlinear time histories according to 12 chosen ground motions. The maximum inter-story drift ratio was used as the first criterion for assessing the seismic demand on the structures. Figure 8 shows the maximum drift ratio stemming from the nonlinear time history analysis under the simultaneous effects of the horizontal as well as vertical components of ground motions for buildings with a special moment framework. Figure 7: The corrected deterioration model of Ibarra–Medina–Krawinkler [38]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No** & **\#Earthquakes** & **Year** & **Event** & **Mech a ** & **Station** & **Comp** & **Site** & **PGA** & **PGV** & **PGD (cm)** & **Fling** & **Disp.** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{l}{(a) Far-Field Recordings Vertical} \\
1 & \#EGV\({}_{1}\) & 1992 & Big Bear & SS &
\begin{tabular}{c} Desert \\ Hot Spr. \\ \end{tabular} & 90 & Soil & 6.4 & 0.11 & 10 & 1.21 & - \\
2 & \#EQF\({}_{\
u}\)2 & 1952 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Kern \\ County \\ \end{tabular} & TH/REV & Taft & 111 & Soil & 7.5 & 0.11 & 7 & 5.76 & - \\
3 & \#EQF\({}_{\
u}\)3 & 1989 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Loma \\ Prieta \\ \end{tabular} & OB &
\begin{tabular}{c} Cliff \\ House \\ \end{tabular} & 90 & Stiff Soil & 7.0 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 1.43 & - \\
3 & \#EQF\({}_{\
u}\)1 & 1992 & Big Bear & SS &
\begin{tabular}{c} Desert \\ Hot Spr. \\ \end{tabular} & 90 & Soil & 6.4 & 0.23 & 19.14 & 4.53 & - \\
2 & \#EQF\({}_{\
u}\)2 & 1952 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Kern \\ County \\ \end{tabular} & TH/REV & Taft & 111 & Soil & 7.5 & 0.18 & 17.50 & 8.79 & - \\
3 & \#EQF\({}_{\
u}\)3 & 1989 & \begin{tabular}{c} Loma \\ Prieta \\ \end{tabular} & OB & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Cliff \\ House \\ \end{tabular} & 90 & Stiff Soil & 7.0 & 0.11 & 19.79 & 5.02 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c} (c) Near-Field Recordings (Fling-step) Horizontal \\
1 & \#EQN\({}_{1}\) & 1999 & Chi-Chi & TH & TCU084 & NS & Soil & 7.6 & 0.42 & 42.63 & 64.91 & 59.43 \\
2 & \#EQN\({}_{1}\)2 & 1999 & Chi-Chi & TH & TCU052 & NS & Soil & 7.6 & 0.44 & 216 & 709.09 & 697.12 \\
3 & \#EQN\({}_{\
u}\)3 & 1999 & Chi-Chi & TH & TCU0129 & NS & Soil & 7.6 & 0.61 & 54.56 & 82.70 & 67.54 \\
4 & \#EQN\({}_{\
u}\)3 & 1999 & Chi-Chi & TH & TCU084 & NS & Soil & 7.6 & 0.32 & 25 & 13.24 & - \\
2 & \#EQN\({}_{\
u}\)2 & 1999 & Chi-Chi & TH & TCU052 & NS & Soil & 7.6 & 0.34 & 38.8 & 24.39 & - \\
3 & \#EQN\({}_{\
u}\)3 & 1999 & Chi-Chi & TH & TCU0129 & NS & Soil & 7.6 & 0.19 & 24.4 & 154 & - \\
5 & \#Next-Field Recordings (Non Fling-step) & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1 & \#EQN1 & 1989 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Loma \\ Prieta \\ \end{tabular} & OB & LGPC & 00 & Stiff Soil & 7.0 & 0.56 & 94.81 & 41.13 & - \\
2 & \#EQN2 & 1994 & Northridge & TH &
\begin{tabular}{c} Olive \\ view \\ \end{tabular} & 360 & Soil & 6.7 & 0.84 & 130.37 & 31.72 & - \\
3 & \#EQN3 & 1992 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Cape \\ Mendocio \\ \end{tabular} & TH & Petrolia & 90 & Stiff Soil & 7.1 & 0.66 & 90.16 & 28.89 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Earthquake records selection [8]. The graphs suggest that, in a three-story building, the maximum inter-story drift ratio was 0.03 under the simultaneous effects of the horizontal and vertical constituents of near-field earthquakes with fling-step and 0.01 for far-field earthquakes. These maximum ratios are associated with Big Bear (#EQF\({}_{\rm(V+H)}\)1) and Chi-Chi-52 records (#EQN\({}_{\rm(V+H)}\)2), and emerged on the second floor of the structure in both earthquakes.