Seismic Performance Assessment of High-Rise Buildings with Different Lateral Load Resisting Systems Under Near-Field Earthquakes with Fling Step
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.
KeywordsNear-field earthquake Fling step Moment-resisting frame Steel plate shear wall Concentrically braced frame
- ANSI/AISC-341 (2010) Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. American Institute of Steel ConstructionGoogle Scholar
- OpenSees (2012) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. http://opensees.berkeley.edu. Accessed Apr 2016
- 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
- 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
- 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