## 5 Analysis of the Impact of Ground Motion Parameters on Seismic Response  
The previously calibrated numerical model, ICONS, was used to analyze the structure under time history earthquake records. The analysis involves applying the selected earthquake records to the model and calculating the structural response by defining maximum interstory drift ratios (IDR). According to [39], it is possible to define structural performance levels for different structural systems, which describe the state of the structure after an earthquake, as shown in Table 6. In Tables 7 and 8, the maximum values of interstory displacements are marked, and based on Table 6, the behavior areas are defined to draw conclusions about the performance of such types of buildings in the observed seismic area. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Structural**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Performance Level**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Infilled Frames**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RC Walls**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RC Frames**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-16}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-16}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Moderate damage**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(<\)0.40} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(<\)0.80} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(<\)1.0} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-16}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Structural disturbance**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)0.40} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)0.80} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)1.0} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-16}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Non collapse**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)0.80} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)2.5} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)3} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-16}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of IDR (%) according to performance levels and structural type [39]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Floor**} & **ZG1** & **ZG2** & **ZG3** & **ZG4** & **ZG5** & **ZG6** & **ZG7** & **ZG8** & **ZG9** & **ZG10** & **ZG11** & **ZG12** & **ZG13** & **ZG14** & **ZG15** \\ \hline
**4** & 0.36 & 0.23 & 0.13 & 0.26 & 0.20 & 0.29 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 0.62 & 0.49 & 0.75 & 0.53 & 0.69 & 0.18 & 0.17 \\ \hline
**3** & 0.52 & 0.38 & 0.17 & 0.46 & 0.40 & 0.29 & 0.26 & 0.08 & 1.32 & 0.83 & 1.96 & 0.74 & 1.19 & 0.27 & 0.19 \\ \hline
**2** & 0.38 & 0.23 & 0.14 & 0.33 & 0.43 & 0.20 & 0.28 & 0.07 & 1.02 & 0.92 & 1.60 & 0.65 & 0.78 & 0.19 & 0.14 \\ \hline
**1** & 0.20 & 0.14 & 0.09 & 0.19 & 0.29 & 0.15 & 0.20 & 0.07 & 0.58 & 0.71 & 1.27 & 0.48 & 0.43 & 0.14 & 0.08 \\ \hline
**Floor** & **ZG16** & **ZG17** & **ZG18** & **ZG19** & **ZG20** & **ZG21** & **ZG22** & **ZG23** & **ZG24** & **ZG25** & **ZG26** & **ZG27** & **ZG28** & **ZG29** & **ZG30** \\ \hline
**4** & 0.17 & 0.04 & 0.18 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.14 & 0.57 & 0.16 & 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.20 & 0.41 & 0.45 & 0.34 \\ \hline
**3** & 0.18 & 0.05 & 0.37 & 0.26 & 0.27 & 0.16 & 0.86 & 0.20 & 0.11 & 0.09 & 0.12 & 0.37 & 0.57 & 0.47 & 0.44 \\ \hline
**2** & 0.13 & 0.05 & 0.39 & 0.25 & 0.24 & 0.13 & 0.89 & 0.17 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.39 & 0.46 & 0.30 & 0.40 \\ \hline
**1** & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.24 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.09 & 0.68 & 0.10 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.26 & 0.31 & 0.22 & 0.23 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Values of IDR for Zagreb scenario. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} Experimental \\ model \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{Min} & \(-11.9\) & \(-31.29\) & \(-52.74\) & \(-60.79\) & \(-245.17\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Max & 7.22 & 20.26 & 38.70 & 48.22 & 207.54 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Numerical \\ model \\ \end{tabular} } & Min & \(-12.22\)[3] & \(-29.85\)[5] & \(-46.20\)[12] & \(-53.97\)[11] & \(-199.42\)[18] \\ \cline{2-6}  & Max & 7.82 [8] & 21.12[4] & 38.94[1] & 48.96[2] & 185.59[11] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison between experimental and numerical model with relative errors.