Study on Seismic Response of Asymmetric Framed and Bundled Tube Resistant Skeletons in Near-Field Zones

Document Type : Technical Note


1 Science and Research Branch, IAU, Tehran

2 Kharazmi University

3 International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES)


In this research, the seismic performance capabilities of both framed and bundled tube systems are studied in order to assess the dynamic response of symbolic asymmetric mid-rise steel structures subjected to both far and near-field earthquake records. For this purpose, two 10 story structural models based on framed and bundled tube skeletons were selected and designed. The main criterion considered in selecting strong earthquake records for performing nonlinear time history analyses is the existence of high amplitude and long period coherent pulse or multiple pulse features in the ground velocity time history. The mentioned powerful velocity pulse makes more seismic demands and would cause a complicated 3D dynamic response which conveys the maximum seismic drift demand from lower stories to middle or even upper ones. Yet, the participation of higher vibration modes in seismic behavior of the studied structures were also taken into account. Overall, seismic response parameters of asymmetric rigid framed tube and bundled tube skeletons are not effectively sensitive to small amounts of mass eccentricity. Moreover, this research analytical assessments show larger amplitude for the seismic nonlinearity of plastic hinges in flexible edges of the structure plan compared to stiff edges. Additionally, the floors dynamic torsional movements cause unequal yielding mechanisms, which are formed in the sided bending frames. Moreover, during the aforementioned process, the frames located at one side of the plan would reach to collapse prevention performance level (CP). Finally, it is observed that rigid framed tubes and bundled tubes can satisfy the Iranian design code restrictions for story drift.


  1. Yiu, C.F. and Chan, C.M., and Huang, L.G. (2014) Evaluation of lateral-torsional coupling in earthquake response of asymmetric multistory buildings. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 23(13), 1007-1026.
  2. Sohrabifard, S., Mansoori, M.R., Meshkat-Dini, A., and Moghadam, A.S. (2017) Seismic response of asymmetric steel bundled tube resistant skeletons under near-field earthquake records. 16th World Conference on Earthquake (16WCEE), Santiago, Chile.
  3. Erduran, E. and Ryan, K.L. (2011) Effect of torsion on the behavior peripheral steel-braced frame systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 40(5), 491-507.
  4. Anagnostopoulos, S.A., Kyrkos, M.T., and Stathopoulos, K.S. (2015) Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: critical review and state of the art. Earthquakes and Structures, 8(2), 305-377.
  5. De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. (2008) A review of research on seismic behavior of irregular building structures since 2002. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 6(2), 285-308.
  6. Rutenberg, A., Levy, R., and Magliulo, G. (2002) Seismic response of asymmetric perimeter frame steel buildings. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, England.
  7. Aksoylar, N.D., Elnashai, A.S., and Mahmoud, H. (2012) Seismic performance of semi-rigid moment-resisting frames under far and near field records. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 138(2), 157-169.
  8. Smith, B.S. and Coull, A. (1991) Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design. John Wiley Publication.
  9. Taranath, B.S. (2012) Structural Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings. CRC Press.
  10. Somerville, P.G. (2005) Engineering characterization of near fault ground motions. NZSEE Conference.
  11. Kalkan, E. and Kunnath, S.K. (2006) Effect of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of building. Earthquake Spectra , 22(2), 367-390.
  12. Krishnan, S., Ji, C., Komatitsch, D., and Tromp, J. (2006) Performance of two 18-story steel moment-frame building in southern California tow large simulated San-Andreas earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra , 22(4), 1035-1061.
  13. Krishnan, S. (2006) Case studies of damage to 19-story irregular steel moment-frame buildings under near-source ground motion. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36, 861-885.
  14. Movahed, H., Meshkat-Dini, A., and Tehranizadeh, M. (2014) Seismic evaluation on steel special moment resisting frames affected by pulse type ground motions. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 15(4), 575-585.
  15. Sohrabifard, S. (2015) Assessment of Lateral-Torsional Seismic Response of Mid-Rise Steel Structures with Framed Tube and Bundled Tube Skeletal Systems subjected to Near-Field Ear thquakes . M.Sc. Thesis, Science and Research Branch, IAU University.
  16. Tehranizadeh, M. and Meshkat-Dini, A. (2007) Non-linear response of high rise buildings to pulse type strong motions seismic. Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference (AEES 2007), Wollongong, Australia.
  17. Standard No. 2800 (2014) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. 4th Edition, Tehran, Iran.
  18. The Iranian National Building Code (Steel Structures - Issue 10), Tehran, Iran (2014).
  19. The Iranian National Building Code (Design Loads for Buildings - Issue 6), Tehran, Iran (2014).
  20. Computers and Structures, Inc. CSI (2000) SAP2000, Integrated Structural Analysis and Design Software. Berkeley, CA.
  21. Computers and Structures Inc. CSI (2007) PERFORM3D - Structural Analysis Software. Berkeley-California, USA.
  22. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000) Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356).
  23. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response (FEMA 440).
  24. PEER Ground Motion Database. Available online: