Seismic Performance Assessment of High-Rise Buildings with Different Lateral Load Resisting Systems Under Near-Field Earthquakes with Fling Step

  • Gholamhossein EftekharEmail author
  • Gholamreza Nouri
Research Paper


Seismic assessment and design of buildings require the prediction of earthquake characteristics and its effects on buildings. In this paper, the seismic performance of three high-rise buildings with 14, 21 and 28 stories with three lateral load resisting systems, moment-resisting frame (MRF), steel plate shear wall (SPSW) and concentrically braced frame (CBF), under seven near-field earthquake records with fling step is modeled in OpenSees studies utilizing nonlinear dynamic analysis. Results show that, under near-field earthquakes with fling steps, in all buildings with different stories, inter-story drift ratio, residual drift and ductility demand of MRF systems are more than SPSW and CBF systems. Also, mentioned parameters in CBF systems are more than in SPSW systems. Furthermore, energy dissipation in SPSW systems is more than another system in all cases. So, in general, the SPSW lateral load resisting system in high-rise buildings under near-field earthquakes has the best performance.


Near-field earthquake Fling step Moment-resisting frame Steel plate shear wall Concentrically braced frame 


  1. Abdollahzadeh G, Faghihmaleki H, Esmaili H (2018) Comparing Hysteretic Energy and inter-story drift in steel frames with V-shaped brace under near and far fault earthquakes. Alexandria Eng J 57:301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso-Rodríguez A, Miranda E (2015) Assessment of building behavior under near-fault pulse-like ground motions through simplified models. Soil Dyn Sand Earthq Eng 79:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANSI/AISC-341 (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel ConstructionGoogle Scholar
  4. Kalkan E, Kunnath S (2006) Effects of Fling Step and Forward Directivity on Seismic Response of Buildings. Earthq Spectra 22(2):367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kunnath S, Nghiem Q, El-Tawil S (2004) Modeling and response prediction in performance-based seismic evaluation: case studies of instrumented steel moment-frame buildings. Earthq Spectra 20(3):883–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. OpenSees (2012) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Accessed Apr 2016
  7. Purba R, Bruneau M (2014) Seismic performance of steel plate shear walls considering two different design philosophies of infill plates. I: deterioration model development. J Struct Eng 141(6):04014161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sharif V, Behnamfar F (2012) Evaluating the effects of near-field earthquakes on the behavior of moment resisting frames. Comput Method Civ Eng 3(2):79–91Google Scholar
  9. Tehranizadeh M, Meshkat-Dini A (2007) Non-linear response of high rise buildings to pulse type strong ground motions. In: Proceeding of the Australian Earthquake Engineering Society, Wollongong, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. Tremblay R, Robert N (2000) Seismic design of low- and medium-rise chevron braced steel frames. Can J Civ Eng 27:1192–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Uriz P, Mahin S (2008) Toward earthquake-resistant design of concentrically braced steel-frame structures. Pacific Earthquake Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, PEER Report 2008/08Google Scholar
  12. Webster D, Berman J, Lowes L (2014) Experimental investigation of SPSW web plate stress field development and vertical boundary element demand. J Struct Eng 140(6):04014011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wen ZP, Hu YX, Chau KT (2002) Site effect on vulnerability of high-rise shear wall buildings under near and far field earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(9–12):1175–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringKharazmi UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations