0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 326 стр.Mar 30, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 3

© All Rights Reserved

- sstt
- Strength of Materials Final
- The Influence of the Initial Concrete Strength on Its Deformation
- Dubina_eccs
- mg3a.ppt
- cap2
- Experimental Study on Single-Bay Two-storey RC
- Lesson 4 - Simple Strain
- machine design Assign-2 Failure Analysis SOL R
- Redistribution_Force_Concentration.pdf
- Burr End Ong
- 11 Energy Methods (1)
- structural analysis5
- deshpande.pdf
- Mechanical Properties of Solids
- Thesis Halil Sezen
- Complete All
- SAP2000_Base_Isolation.pdf
- 2_axial_loading.pptx
- Final1 Cleantools 286888 Final Report v3

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

Vol. 39, No. 5, December 2012 - January 2013 pp. 393-418 No. 39-51

S.Varadharajan*, V.K. Sehgal**, and B.Saini*

Email:

* Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana - 136 119, INDIA.

The present study summarizes the research works done in the past regarding different types of structural irregularities

i.e. Plan and vertical irregularities. Criteria and limits specified for these irregularities as defined by different codes

of practice (IS1893:2002, EC8:2004 etc.) have been discussed briefly. It was observed that the limits of both Plan and

vertical irregularities prescribed by these codes were comparable. Different types of modeling approaches used have

also been discussed briefly. The review of previous research works regarding different types of plan irregularities

justified the preference of multistorey building models over single storey building models and concept of balanced

CV (Center of strength) CR (Center of rigidity) location was found to be useful in controlling the seismic response

parameters. Regarding the vertical irregularities it was found that strength irregularity had the maximum impact and

mass irregularity had the minimum impact on seismic response. Regarding the analysis method MPA (Modal pushover

analysis) method even after much improvement was found to be less accurate as compared to dynamic analysis.

When a building is subjected to seismic excitation, (Horizontal) and Vertical irregularity as shown in

horizontal inertia forces are generated in the building. Fig.1.

The resultant of these forces is assumed to act through

Irregularity

the center of mass (C.M) of the structure. The vertical

members in the structure resist these forces and the

total resultant of these systems of forces act through Vertical

Irregularity

Horizontal

Irregularity

a point called as center of stiffness (C.S). When

Asymmetrical Re-Entrant Diaphragm

the center of mass and center of stiffness does not Mass Stiffness Strength Setback Irregular distribution of Mass,

plan shapes corners discontinuity Strength, Stiffness along plan

which further generate torsion. When the buildings

are subjected to lateral loads, then phenomenon of A structure can be classified as irregular if the

torsional coupling occurs due to interaction between structure exceeds the limits as prescribed by different

lateral loads and resistant forces. Torsional coupling seismic design codes. The irregularity limits for both

generates greater damage in the buildings. Eccentricity horizontal and vertical irregularities as have been

may occur due to presence of structural irregularities. discussed briefly in Table 1 and Table 2.

These irregularities may be broadly classified as Plan

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

TABLE 1

IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IS 1893:2002, EC8:2004, UBC 97, NBCC 2005

Type of Irregularity IS 1893:2002] [14] EC8 2004 [26] UBC 97 [81] NBCC 2005 [57]

Horizontal

a) Re-entrant corners Ri 15% (Fig.2) Ri 5% Ri 15% -

b) Torsional irregularity dmax 1.2 davg rx > 3.33 eox

ry > 3.33 eoy dmax 1.2 davg dmax 1.7 davg

rx and ry > ls,

c) Diaphragm Od > 50% rx2 > ls2 + eox2 Od > 50% -

Discontinuity 2 2 2

Sd > 50% ry > ls + eoy Sd > 50%

Vertical

a) Mass M i < 2 Ma Should not reduce abruptly Mi < 1.5 Ma Mi < 1.5 Ma

b) Stiffness Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8

0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

(Fig.2b)

c) Soft Storey Si < 0.7Si+1 or Si < 0.8 - Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < Si+1

(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

d) Weak Storey Si < 0.8Si+1 - Si < 0.8Si+1 -

e) Setback irregularity SBi < 1.5 SBa (Fig 2c) Rd < 0.3Tw < 0.1 Tw at any SBi < 1.3 SBa SBi < 1.3 SBa

level

TABLE 2

IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IBC 2003, TEC 2007 AND ASCE 7.05

Type of Irregularity IBC 2003 [37] TEC 2007 [71] ASCE 7.05 [5]

Horizontal

a) Re-entrant corners - Ri 20% Ri 15%

b) Torsional irregularity - dmax 1.2 davg dmax 1.2 davg

dmax 1.4 davg

c) Diaphragm Discontinuity - Oa > 33% Oa > 50% S > 50%

Vertical

a) Mass Mi < 1.5 Ma - Mi < 1.5 Ma

b) Stiffness Si < 0.7Si+1 Or - Si < 0.7Si+1 Or

Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

c) Soft Storey Si < 0.7Si+1 Or [ki = (i / hi) avr / Si < 0.7Si+1 Or

Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (i+1 / hi +1) avr > 2.0 or Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

d) Weak Storey Si < Si+1 [ci = (Ae)i / < 0.80] Si < 0.6Si+1 Or

Si < 0.7 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

e) Setback irregularity SBi < 1.3 SBa - SBi < 1.3 SBa

The Horizontal and vertical irregularity limits as per Figure 2 Shows the pictorial representation of

IBC 2003, Turkish code 2007 and ASCE 7 05 are different irregularity limits as per IS 1893:200219.

shown in Table 2.

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

A

represent the actual building systems. So predictions

A/L >0.15 - 0.20 A/L >0.15 - 0.20

given by these models are less accurate. In the second

L L A/L >0.15 - 0.20 type of models the plastic hinges are modeled at end of

A

A

beams and columns to evaluate the nonlinear response

of building systems. Some researchers have adopted

(a) this type of model as given in Table 17. These models

are closer to reality as compared to first type of models

but still do not represent the actual building systems.

The application of first two models is more frequent in

case of 2D plane frames than 3D building frames due

to complex geometry of 3D building frames. The third

(i) (b) (ii)

type of models can be termed as 3D frame models and

these models have been developed by recent researchers.

These models are quite complex and involve large

Heavy Mass

number of degree of freedom systems and are prepared

with the help of complex software programs. These

models are very close to the actual building systems and

yield accurate results.

(c)

A The second system of classification of building

A/L >0.15 systems is based on the force displacement hysteretic

A/L >0.10

relationship of resisting elements of buildings. The

A A resisting elements can have different type of force-

A/L >0.25

deformation represented by models namely

L L A L A a. Elasto plastic and bilinear hysteric model

d1 d2 d3 b. Cloughs model

(d)

c. Takedas model

Fig. 2 a) Re-entrant corner irregularity b) Irregular stiffness

These models have been pictorially described in

distributions c) Irregular mass distributions d) Vertical

Setback irregularity. Fig.3.

a. Elasto- plastic and bilinear hysteric models

Models Used for Analytical Study

The elasto-plastic hysteretic model has been used by

The models used by authors can be broadly categorized many researchers due to its simplicity. The maximum

by two systems of classifications. As per first system of displacement of a building system with elasto-plastic

classification these models can be broadly categorized force deformation relationship was found same as for

into three types namely Shear beam (SB), plastic hinge elastic force deformation relationship for building

(PH) and 3D frame models. In the first model the building systems with initial time period greater than 0.5 s. To

system is assumed to consist of a rigid rectangular deck account for the strain hardening effect a positive slope

of mass m supported by lateral load resisting elements was assigned to post yield stiffness and this model was

represented by a shear beam. This type of building model called as bilinear model. The main disadvantage of this

is used to represent single and multistorey building model is that with increase in displacement amplitude

systems with lesser degree of freedom. But use of this reversal this model does not represent the stiffness

model to represent multistorey systems is questionable degradation appropriately. So, this model is not suited

due to variety of reasons as discussed in Table 17.This for non-linear analysis of RC structures.

model is used by a large number of researchers due

b. Cloughs model of stiffness degradation

to its simplicity and easy representation. Since the

shear beam model (SB) is not suitable for representing A qualitative model incorporating the stiffness

multistorey building systems these models does not degradation in conventional elasto plastic model

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

was developed by Clough and this model was called F F

cloughs stiffness degrading models. In this model the Force Force rki

main response point during the loading cycle shifted

ki ki

towards the maximum response point but the slope ki ki

during unloading remained same as the initial elastic ki ki

d Displacement d

slope. By virtue of this modification, the Cloughs

model was able to represent the flexural behavior of rki

reinforced concrete. From the analysis of series of

SDOF system using this model Clough arrived at the

following conclusion

a. For building systems with higher initial time (a) (b)

period both cloughs and elasto-plastic model

yielded same results in terms of ductility demand Force F

b. The cloughs model yielded larger ductility rki

ki

demand as compared to elasto-plastic model for Previous yield in Tension

ki

short period structures.

d Displacement

c. Response waveforms of both models were ki No yield in compression

different.

rki

The main advantage of this model is that it is simple

and can be used for non-linear analysis using strain (c)

hardening characteristics.

d. Takedas hysteretic model Force F

Previous yield

stiffness degradation was prepared by Takeda in 1970 ki

ku

dy dm

model includes the stiffness changes due to flexural Displacement

ku

cracking, yielding and strain hardening. In Takedas rki No yield

model the stiffness during unloading cycle was reduced

as the fraction of the previous maximum deformation. (d)

Takeda also prepared set of guidelines for the load Fig. 3 a) Elasto-plastic model b) Bi-linear hysteresis models

reversals within the outermost hysteresis loop which c) Cloughs degrading stiffness model d) Takedas

were major improvement over Cloughs model. The hysteresis model

main disadvantage of this model was that extensive

damage caused by shear and bond deterioration was In Fig. 3 Ki, rKi and Ku are intial, modified and

not considered in this model. unloading stiffness

REGARDING PLAN IRREGULARITIES Earlier studies investigated the torsional effects on plan

Assessment of the performance of building structures irregular building systems with single storey building

during past earthquakes suggests that plan irregularities models. One of the main reasons for adopting single

are one of the important causes of damage during storey models was their simplicity. These models

occurrence of an earthquake. Plan irregularity may were used to determine the influence of torsion on

occur due to irregular distribution of mass, stiffness seismic response parameters and these results were

and strength along the plan. In past years lot of research used to formulate design methodologies for plan

effort has been done to study the behavior of plan irregular building systems. However in recent years

asymmetric buildings during seismic excitation74-77. multistorey building models are used to determine the

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

realistic inelastic torsional response of plan irregular on the ductility demand after the elastic range. The

building systems. But due to complexities, the use of comparison of results of showed a 20 % difference in

multistorey building models is limited and it is one of the results obtained.

the major reasons that single storey building models Irregular distributions of strength and stiffness are one

are still preferred by many researchers46-48. Previous of the major causes of failures during the earthquakes.

researchers on plan irregularities using single storey Both of these irregularities are interdependent and

models mainly focused on variation of positions of to study the effect of these irregularities on seismic

C.M (Center of mass) or C.S (Center of stiffness) with response, the researchers like Tso and Bozorgnia

respect to each other to create eccentricity. The Main (1986) determined the inelastic seismic response of

aim of these researches was to determine the torsional plan asymmetric building models (as described in

response of building systems due to eccentricity. To Table 3) with strength and stiffness eccentricity using

create eccentricity some researchers varied position curves proposed by Dempsey and Tso. Results of

of C.S or C.R keeping position of C.M. constant, analytical study showed the effectiveness of the curves

the eccentricity generated in this case was called as proposed by Tso and Dempsey except for torsionally

stiffness eccentricity (es)76, 77. Some researchers varied stiff structures with low yield strength.

position of C.M. keeping position of C.S as constant, Sadek and Tso (1989) performed inelastic analysis

the eccentricity generated in this case was called of mono-symmetric building systems with strength

as mass eccentricity(em)46. Differing from earlier eccentricity as described in Table 3. The center of

approaches some researchers created differences in strength was defined in terms of yield strength of

strengths of resisting elements to vary position of center resisting elements. From analytical studies it was

of strength (C.V) with respect to C.M the eccentricity found that the code defined eccentricities based on

generated was known as strength eccentricity (ev)10,66. stiffness criteria were useful in predicting the elastic

The definitions of eccentricity have been described seismic response. However in inelastic range parameter

pictorially in Fig. 4. of strength eccentricity was found to be useful in

determining seismic response.

e.m e.m

TABLE 3

C.M C.S C.M C.S DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT MODELS ADOPTED

(a)

S.No Model Name Description

1 M Mass eccentric model with all

three resistant elements having

equal yield deformation

2 S1 Stiffness eccentric Model with

C.V C.M identical yield strength.

3 S2 Stiffness eccentric Model with

(c) identical yield deformation.

Fig. 4 Definitions of different types of eccentricity a) Mass

eccentricity, b) Stiffness eccentricity, c) Strength Pekau and Guimond (1990) checked the adequacy

eccentricity of accidental eccentricity to account for the torsion

induced due to the variation of strength and stiffness

Research works on plan irregular building systems of the resisting elements which was achieved using

started in early 1980s with Tso and Sadek (1985) elasto-plastic force-deformation relationship. Results

determined the variation in ductility demand by of analytical study showed occurrence of torsional

performing inelastic seismic response of simple one amplification due to strength and stiffness variation.

storey mass eccentric model with stiffness degradation Finally the code prescribed provision of 5% for

using Cloughs stiffness degradation model and bi- accidental eccentricity was found to inadequate.

linear hysteric model. Results of analytical study Duan and Chandler (1991) based on their analytical

showed that the time period had predominant effect studies on plan irregular building systems the change

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

in design eccentricity in Mexico code 87 was models were further divided into two types namely A1

recommended as 1.5es + b and 0.5es - 0.1b. as compared and A2 having moderate and low torsional stiffness.

to the earlier value of es 0.1b and es 0.05b. Results of analytical studies showed the variation in

Chandler and Hutchinson (1992) determined the seismic response in models A1 and A2 with flexible

effects of torsional coupling on one storey stiffness edge experiencing greater deformation as compared

eccentric building systems and from analytical to the stiff edge. The stiff edge of building systems

studies the strong dependence of torsional coupling with small time period (T < 1 Sec) designed according

effects on natural time period of the structure was to NZS 4203 [58] and EC8:198924 experienced least

found. The authors also evaluated the effectiveness of additional ductility demand. However the additional

torsional design provisions as prescribed by different ductility demand was found to be largest for building

codes of practice (ATC 3-06, NEHRP, NBCC 90, and systems with T > 1 Sec. In case of TU systems designed

EC8:1989). The code evaluation results obtained for according to EC 8 -1989 the ductility demand exceeded

asymmetric building system as per different codes are by 2.5 % as compared to the TB system.

shown in Table 4.

TABLE 5

Codes namely UBC code, NBCC code and New RESULTS OBTAINED CONSIDERING DIFFERENT CODES

Zealand code of practice. The authors carried out Elastic

and inelastic analysis methods on one storey stiffness S.No Code Name Results

eccentric building systems. Results of analytical study 1 NZS [58] Conservative Estimate of displacement

showed the greater displacement of flexible edge 2 UBC [79] Conservative Estimate of displacement

for DAF/FRF = 1

as compared to stiff edge. The results obtained by

consideration of different codes are given in Table 5. 3 NBCC [56] Conservative Estimate of displacement

for DAF/FRF = 0.6-1.0

TABLE 4

Ferhi and Truman (1996) determined seismic

CODE EVALUATION RESULTS

response of building systems with presence of stiffness

S.No Code Results and strength eccentricity. Both elastic and inelastic

1 NEHRP [59] Inadequate for building systems with seismic behavior were studied. From analytical study

small and moderate eccentricity.

of the building systems it was found that the seismic

Satisfactory results for building

systems with large eccentricity. response showed greater dependence on stiffness

2 ATC [6] Same as NEHRP.

eccentricity and in the inelastic range influence

of strength eccentricity on seismic response is

3 NBCC [56] Inadequate for buildings with low

time periods (T<0.5S) predominant.

Over-conservative for higher time Duan and Chandler (1997) developed an optimized

periods at all eccentricities. procedure for determining the seismic response of

4 EC8 [24] Conservative for small eccentricity. torsion balanced and unbalanced structures. The

Over conservative for medium to parameters like eccentricity (e), normalized stiffness

large eccentric buildings system with

higher time periods.

radius of gyration (Pk), force reduction factor (R) and

uncoupled lateral period (Ty) were included in the

Tso and wong (1995) made assessment of torsional proposed optimized procedure. The authors proposed

provisions as prescribed by seismic design design eccentricity expression and over strength

Chandler et al. (1995) verified the torsional factor expressions and compared it with code defined

provisions prescribed by different codes of practice. expressions. The codes used in the study were UBC

For analytical study the authors considered two types of 9480, EC8-9325 and NBCC-9557 .The analytical study

building models namely torsionally balanced(TB) and was conducted both on Torsionally balanced (TB)

torsionally unbalanced (TU).The torsional unbalance and torsionally unbalanced (TU) models. Results of

in the building model was created by varying position analytical study showed that the over strength factor

of center of stiffness inducing stiffness eccentricity proposed by authors was found to be substantially

equal to 0.05b. The torsionally unbalanced building lower as compared to UBC-94 and NBCC-95 but higher

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

than EC8 for entire range of Pk. However the results Elastic analysis using unidirectional seismic excitation

of proposed procedure are comparable to code defined was found to overestimate the seismic response.

procedures for torsionally unbalanced structures (TU). De Stefano and pintuchhi (2002) considered the

The parameters e, pk, R, Ty considered in the design phenomenon of inelastic interaction between axial

procedure were found to influence the seismic response. force and horizontal forces in modeling of plan irregular

Finally the procedure was found to be applicable to stiffness asymmetric building systems. Based on results

single storey and multistorey torsionally unbalanced of analytical study it was concluded that consideration

structures. of interaction phenomenon between axial force and

De-La-Colina (1999) studied the effects of torsion horizontal force resulted in reduction of floor rotation

on simple torsionally unbalanced building systems by 20%.

considering the earthquake components in two Dutta and Das (2002) studied the seismic response

perpendicular directions. The effects of following of a single storey plan asymmetric structures subjected

parameters were studied a) seismic force reduction to bidirectional seismic excitation. For analytical study

factor b) design eccentricity c) natural time period. The the authors proposed two hysteric models as represented

structural model used for the analytical study is shown in Fig 6 (a, b). These hysteric models account for

in Fig 5. strength and stiffness deterioration of RC structural

E4 elements subjected to cyclic loading. From results of

nb analytical study it was found that local deformation

demands both at stiff and flexible edge showed

E2 E5 variation when strength deterioration was considered.

E1 E3 The consideration of unidirectional seismic excitation

C.M C.R

results in lower values of deformation demands at both

flexible and stiff edge. These results were found similar

to Tso and Myslimaj (2002).

E6 Force

Fig. 5 Structural model considered by De-La colina Unloading branch with initial F

stiffness k k F = 1-3

= 1-2

Based on the results of analytical study it was F Displacement = 1-

F

conclude that, with increase in the force reduction - Rate of strength deterioration

Deteriorated loading

factor, the ductility demand reduces for flexible element. branch

Regarding the effect of initial lateral time period it was Target points of loading

branch (a)

found that for torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the

ductility demand increased with time period and vice

Force

versa for torsionally unbalanced flexible elements and Unloading branch with initial

increase in value of stiffness eccentricities reduced the stiffness k k(1-2)

k Displacement

F

F

= 1-3

normalized ductility demand. Based on these results it = 1-2 k(1-3)

was concluded that strength eccentricity had greater = 1-

k(1-)

F

(b)

eccentricity.

Ghersi and Rossi (2001) determined the influence Fig. 6 (a, b): Second Hysteretic model proposed by Dutta and Das

of bidirectional seismic excitation on seismic response (2002)

of stiffness eccentric one storey building systems using

elastic and inelastic analysis. The seismic response of Tso and Myslimaj (2003) proposed a new approach

the inelastic analysis was compared with the results called yield distribution based approach for strength

of elastic analysis. Results of analysis showed that and stiffness distribution. For analytical study the

the consideration of effects of bidirectional seismic authors modeled a single storey structure with a rigid

excitation results in minor variation in seismic response. rectangular deck supported by two resisting elements

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

in X and five resisting elements in Y direction. The Tso and Myslimaj (2003) to evaluate best performance

resisting elements were modeled using elasto-plastic, level of the structure. Based on the analytical study it

the bilinear and Cloughs hysteresis models for force was concluded that the best location of CV-CR (Center

deformation relationship. The authors proposed of stiffness and Center of rigidity) depended upon the

a design parameter on which location of center of required performance level of the structure and also on

mass (C.M), rigidity (C.R), strength (C.V) and yield damage indices.

displacement (C.V) depend. Table 6 shows different Shakib and Ghasemi (2007) have determined

position of centers for different values of . The models the effect of consideration of near fault and far fault

were subjected to dynamic analysis to determine the excitations on seismic response of different type of

balanced CV-CR location. From results of analytical plan asymmetric structures with stiffness asymmetry.

study it was found that the structure satisfied balanced Following Tso and Myslimaj (2002) who suggested

CV-CR location and had low torsional response when balanced CV-CR location to minimize rotational

value of lies between zero and unity. deformation, the authors suggested a new approach

Fujii et al. (2004) suggested a simplified non-linear to minimize rotational deformation. In the proposed

analysis procedure for plan asymmetric structures with approach in which the strength distribution pattern is

stiffness eccentricity modeled as SDOF and MDOF made equal to Yield displacement distribution modified

system. Results of analytical study showed that the by a parameter . From results of analytical study it

torsionally stiff building systems experienced greater was found that in case of near fault motions when

oscillations in first mode as compared to the torsionally > 0, the displacement demand on stiff edges is greater

flexible building systems. On comparison of responses as compared to the flexible edges. In case of far fault

of MDOF and SDOF models for TS and TF building motions when < 0, the displacement demands are

systems it was found that SDOF models were found to greater on flexible edges as compared to stiff edges.

be applicable to torsionally stiff building systems only.

Jarernprasert et al. (2008) determined the inelastic

Finally the proposed analysis procedure was found to

torsional response of single storey plan asymmetric

efficient in determining the seismic response of TS

systems with stiffness eccentricity designed in

building systems.

accordance with IBC 2006 and Mexico city building

TABLE 6 code 2004. For analysis of this building model modal

DIFFERENT POSITION OF CENTERS OF MASS, analysis procedure was adopted. The affect of seismic

STIFFNESS, STRENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT FOR excitation on following parameters was studied, a)

DIFFERENT VALUES OF .

ratio of uncoupled torsional to transitional frequencies,

S.NO Positions of C.M, C.V, C.D

b) design target ductility, c) elastic natural time period

1 1 Position of CV coincides with CD, strength and normalized static eccentricity. The authors also

distribution takes same shape as yield

displacement

proposed new reduction and amplification factor for

these parameters (a,b,c). From results of analytical

2 0-1 Value of ev decreases position of CV starts

shifting from CD towards CM. study it was found that these parameters (a,b,c) had

3 0 Position of CV coincides with CM and

large influence on the inelastic behavior of the building

position of CR is shifted towards left of system. Regarding the comparison of codes it was

C.M at a distance equal to ed. found that IBC 200638 code overestimate the design

4 <1 CR and CV shift towards left of CM. forces at both flexible and stiff edge of building system

whereas the Mexico city building code overestimates

Moghadam and Aziminejad (2005) performed PBD

design forces at flexible side. The use of reduction and

(Performance based design) of asymmetric structures.

amplification parameters leads to the ductility demands

The authors evaluated the seismic response of single

closer to target ductility demands but the displacements

storey structures (code designed) with irregular

computed are nearly four times to that of equivalent

configuration for optimizing mass, stiffness and strength

symmetric structure.

center configurations corresponding to different levels

of plastic hinge formations. The author has adopted Ladinovic (2008) represented inelastic seismic

the concept of balanced CV-CR location proposed by response of plan asymmetric structures with stiffness

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

and structural eccentricity in form of base shear torque was found to be greater in y direction. Further it was

surface (BST). The factors influencing BST surface concluded that the torsionally stiff building systems

were strength eccentricity, lateral capacity, torsional with balanced CV-CR location perform better than

capacity and distribution of strength along plan. other building models both in case of near and far field

Aziminezad and Moghadam (2010) determined the excitation.

effects of strength distribution and configuration of Luchinni et al. (2011) determined the nonlinear

strength, rigidity and mass on seismic response of one seismic response of single storey building models with

storey plan asymmetric building system subjected to eccentricities in both directions with BST procedure

near field and far field ground motions. Eight models and verified the BST approach using IDA analysis. For

with different values of yield displacement, strength analytical study four types of building models namely

and stiffness eccentricity were considered as shown in S1, S2, R1, and R2 were modeled. The S1 model was a

Fig.7 and Table 7. one way asymmetric system with es = 0.1b.The model

d d d

S2 was a two way asymmetric system with es = 0.05b

Cm Cv Cm Cm Cm in both directions. The model R1 contained uniform

Cr Cr Cv Cr Cv Cr Cv

strength distribution in x-direction only whereas model

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 R2 contained uniform strength distributions in both

directions. The results of analytical study showed that

d d

Cm Cm

d

Cm

d

Cm BST surface is efficient in predicting the location of

Cr Cv Cr Cv Cr Cv Cr Cv center of rigidity. The seismic response predicted by

Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 BST is comparable with that of IDA analysis. Table

Fig. 7 Models considered by Aziminejad and Moghadam [10]

8 shows Summary of research work regarding single

storey Plan irregular building models.

TABLE 7

In Table 8 es, em and ev are stiffness, mass and

DIFFERENT POSITION OF CENTERS OF MASS, STIFFNESS,

strength eccentricities and b is the Longer plan width.

STRENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT FOR DIFFERENT

VALUES OF . Multistorey Plan Asymmetric Structures

S.No Model Number Model Name ev/ed In previous analytical studies on plan irregular

1 1 Symmetric 0 structures the single storey models were widely used

2 2 Stiffness Symmetric 1 due to their simplicity and their ability to clearly depict

3 3 Balance 0.75 the effect of different seismic response parameters.

4 4 Balance 0.5 Most of the design criteria were formulated on basis

5 5 Balance 0.25 of results obtained in single storey models. But several

6 6 Strength Symmetric 0 researchers66 proved that single storey models give

7 7 - -0.33

inaccurate prediction of torsional response. The

development of powerful software tools has made

8 8 - -1

modeling and analysis of multi-storey building models

The models were analyzed by dynamic nonlinear much simpler and moreover the multi-storey building

analysis and from results of analytical study it was models give realistic prediction of torsional response.

found that for torsionally flexible building systems, the Although studies on plan irregular building models

strength distribution and configuration of centers had started in 1990s, Fajfar et al. (2002) was one of the

minor effect both for near field and far field excitations. major researcher in this field who proposed a new

But seismic response of torsionally stiff building method which was an extension of N2 method. The

systems was largely influenced by strength distribution proposed method was applicable to the realistic 3D

and configuration of centers. Regarding the modal building models. For analytical study a eight storey

periods it was found that modal periods along X-axis R.C. building with structural walls modeled. The mass

had the maximum value as compared to other two eccentricity was introduced in the building model by

modal periods and ratio of lateral to torsional frequency displacing center of mass in both horizontal directions

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORK REGARDING SINGLE STOREY PLAN IRREGULAR BUILDING MODELS

S.No Researcher Year Type and extent of eccentricity Main conclusion

1 Tso Sadek 1985 es = 0 - 0.25b Cloughs and bilinear hysteric model, a 20 % difference

in results of both models was observed.

2 Sadek Tso 1989 es and ep = 0 -0.2b Code defined eccentricities were valid for elastic range

only. For the inelastic range Strength eccentricity is

more effective.

3 Duan Chandler 1991 ea= 0 - 0.1b The recommended change in design eccentricity

es= 0.1b- 0.3b in Mexico code 87 as 1.5es + b and 0.5es - 0.1b. as

compared to the earlier value of 1es 0.1b and 1ess

0.05b.

4 Chandler Hutchinson 1992 es = 0.05b-0.2b Different codes of practice yielded different results.

5 Chandler et al. 1995 ea = 0.05b The codified value of accidental eccentricity of 0.05 b

was most consistent.

6 De-La colina 1999 es = 0 - 0.20b R =1,3,6 For torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the ductility

demand increases with time period and vice versa for

torsionally unbalanced flexible elements

7 Dutta Das 2002 es = 0.05b - 0.2b Strength and stiffness irregularities are

interdependent.

8 Fujii et al. 2004 es= 0.682b, 0.5b Drift demand due to stiffness degradation

underestimated by SDOF model.

9 Shakib and Ghasemi 2007 es = 0.09b -0.01b For > 0 - displacement demand on stiff edges is

ev = 0.03b - 0.06b greater as compared to the flexible edges. For < 0,

the displacement demands are greater on flexible dges

as compared to stiff edges.

10 Ladinovic 2008 em-0.1b -0.5b Distribution of strength. Stiffness eccentricity along

es = ev -0.12b plan does not affect the shape of the BST surface.

11 Aziminejad Moghadam 2010 es = 0.025b - 0.10b, Torsionally flexible building systems are least affected

ev = 0 0.2b by strength distribution and location of centers both in

case of near and far field excitations. Torsionally stiff

building systems with balanced CV-CR location show

better seismic performance both in case of near and far

field excitations.

12 Luchinni et al. 2011 es = 0 0.3 b The seismic response predicted by BST is comparable

eith that of IDA analysis.

by 5% and 15%. The results of proposed procedure were (EI Centro earthquake). Analytical studies were carried

compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis. out on several 5 storey buildings having mass and

From comparison of results the ability of proposed stiffness eccentricity. Shear beam models were used by

method to predict the seismic response of torsionally researchers to represent resisting elements. Based on

stiff structure was justified. However, the method did the code defined procedures the authors had found out

not include the effects of lateral torsional coupling and the optimal values of storey eccentricity.

was found to be under-conservative as compared to the Chopra and Goel (2004) proposed a new method

N2 method. based on extension of their earlier method (Chopra

De-la-Colina (2003) made assessments of several and Goel 2002). In the proposed method the torsional

code specified procedures regarding analysis procedures amplification of the structure was accounted for by

for multistorey building systems with mass and stiffness application of the lateral forces in combination with the

irregularity subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation torsional moments at each floor of the structure. The

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

lateral forces and torsional moments were obtained from the elastic spectral analysis and these vectors

from the modal analysis of the structure. A comparison were applied on the structure to carryout 3D pushover

between the results of the proposed method and non- analysis. The results of the proposed procedure were

linear dynamic analysis were made for building compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis.

systems with different uncoupled lateral to torsional From the results it was found that the inelastic seismic

vibration periods. From the results of analytical study response obtained by both methods vary by 10% in

the accuracy of proposed procedure for symmetric case of single storey structures and by 20 % in case of

structures was verified. However the accuracy of multistorey structures.

proposed procedure decreases with the increase in Marusic and Fajfar (2005) determined the elastic and

magnitude of torsional coupling which is due to the use inelastic seismic response of five storey steel framed

of CQC modal combination rule. structure with mass eccentricity. The eccentricities

Correlating with his earlier studies29 Fajfar et al. were taken as 5%, 10% and 15% of plan dimensions.

(2005) again proposed a new method based on N2 For Analytical study the author modeled three types of

method. In the proposed method, combination of building models as described in Table 9.

modal responses obtained from pushover analysis of

TABLE 9

3D structures were made with the results obtained from

DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED BY MARUSIC AND

linear dynamic analysis. In the proposed procedure FAJFAR (2005)

the displacements and deformation distributions

Model Name Description

along height were controlled by N2 method and the

S Torsionally stiff building model with moment

magnitude of torsional amplification is defined by the resistant beam column connections (All beam-

linear dynamic analysis. column connections).

Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos (2005) were F1 Building Model with torasional stiffness equal

one of the few researchers who had made attempt to to Model S with moment resisrtant beam

evaluate torsional response of realistic 3D structures column connections (Corner beams only)

by nonlinear analysis (Both as per EC8 and UBC 97). F2 Building Model with torasional stiffness less

than Model S and F1.

The authors conducted analytical studies on realistic 3

storey and 5 storey RC framed buildings (with flexible For the building model the first storey height was

and stiff edges) subjected to bidirectional excitations. kept as 4m and other storey heights were kept as

From the results obtained (Multistorey structures) it 3.5m. The multistorey structure was subjected to the

was found that the inelastic displacement was found to bidirectional seismic excitation. The results obtained at

be greater at flexible side as compared to the stiff side, flexible edges were almost comparable with Perus and

however the results obtained in case of single storey fajfar (2005). However, the results of both papers did

structures were contradictory to the results obtained in not correlate in case of stiff edges of torsionally stiff

case of multistorey structures with mass irregularity and flexible building systems.

under the action of bidirectional seismic excitation. Stefano et al. (2006) determined the difference

Furthermore the authors found that the torsionally stiff between the inelastic seismic response of single

building systems undergo less plastic deformation as storey and multistorey plan asymmetric structures.

compared to the torsionally flexible building systems. For analytical study a single storey and a six storey

These findings contradict the results obtained from steel frame with mass applied at 0.15 b (b is the width

single storey models. of longer plan) of the geometric structure, thus mass

Penelis and kappos (2005) proposed a method eccentricity was created in the building model. The

to determine the inelastic torsional response of plan effect of over-strength of resisting elements was also

asymmetric single storey and multistorey structures. evaluated. Analytical studies showed the influence

The models used for analytical studies were single of over-strength on ductility demand of the building

degree of freedom (SDOF) systems and incorporated systems and this influence showed variation for single

the effects of torsional and transitional modes. In the and multistorey building systems. Finally it was found

proposed method the spectral load vectors were obtained that seismic response obtained from single storey

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

models was different from those obtained from multi- it was concluded that building systems with strength

storey models. From results of analytical study it was eccentricity equal to one fourth of distance between

found that for e/r 0.5 and 0.4, number of resistant positions of strength and stiffness performed better on

planes in direction of seismic response had no influence rotation and drift criteria.

on seismic response and the lateral displacements Stahopoulos and Anangnopoulos (2010) evaluated

decrease with increase in ductility demand. Finally the the effectiveness of accidental eccentricity provisions.

Parameters like degree of torsional coupling, uncoupled For analytical study the authors created four types of

lateral time period and eccentricity had larger influence building models. The first and second models were one

on seismic response. storey shear beam with stiffness eccentricity and one

Ghersi et al. (2007) determined the effectiveness storey frame models with mass eccentricity respectively.

of modal analysis procedure in evaluating the inelastic The third model was three storey frame type building

seismic response of multistorey plan asymmetric and fourth one was five storey frame type of models,

structure. A six storey steel framed building and both these models had combination of mass and stiffness

asymmetry was induced by variation of applying load asymmetry along plan. The shear beam models were

at 0.15L away from geometric center inducing mass modeled considering a bilinear force-displacement

eccentricity. Results of modal analysis was compared behavior and magnitude of strain hardening was taken

with that of static analysis and by chandler procedure equal to 0.05. For idealization of frame members,

to check the proposed procedure. The proposed method plastic hinge model was used and Takedas moment-

leads to good seismic performance of buildings as rotation relationships were used in creating the plastic

compared to other methods of analysis. However the hinge model. The one storey and three storey building

strength distribution along plan given by the proposed models were subjected to the accidental eccentricities

method is comparable with method suggested by Ghersi from 0 to 0.05L, whereas the five storey building model

and Rossi but it is simpler in application as compared was subjected to an additional eccentricity of 1.0L in

to the latter method. addition to earlier mentioned eccentricities.. Results of

analytical study suggest that in case of one storey shear

TABLE 10 beam models, the consideration of accidental design

DIFFERENT MODEL CONFIGURATIONS PROPOSED eccentricity (ADE) results in reduction of ductility

S.No Model Name Ratio of Stiffness to demands of edge elements in case of building systems

Yield displacement with larger time period(Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility

eccentricity (ev/ed) demand reduces by 10 % for ADE = 0.05L and by 10-

1 Symmetric 0 20% for ADE = 0.10L.

2 Stiffness Symmetric 1

Anangnopoulos et al.(2010) determined inelastic

3 Balance (0.75Cv Cr) 0.75 torsional response of single storey and multi-storey

4 Balance (0.5Cv Cr) 0.5 building models with mass and stiffness eccentricity.

5 Balance (0.25Cv Cr) 0.25 The building models were designed in accordance with

6 Strength Symmetric 0 EC8 and IBC code provisions. The inelasticity in the

7 De-Stefano (0.25Cm-Cr) -0.33 building models were introduced by assuming Takedas

8 De-Stefano (0.5Cm-Cr) -1 moment-rotation relationship and strain hardening ratio

was taken as 0.05. The inelastic plastic hinge models

Aziminejad and Moghadam (2009) determined were further subdivided into three categories namely

seismic performance of eight 5 storey plan asymmetric SIMP1, SIMP2 and SIMP3 as described in detail in

(Stiffness and strength) building systems with different Table 10. The building models were analyzed using time

strength distributions. The eight different building history analysis using ANSR software programs. From

systems in location of position of center of rigidity results of analytical study it was found that for models

and strength (Table 10). These building models SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges of building were

were analyzed for nonlinear dynamic response using found to be the critical elements which correlates with

OPENSEES software. From results of analytical study results obtained for single storey models by previous

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

researchers. The seismic response of SIMP3 model singly or in combination. Different types of vertical

was found to be strongly dependent on seismic loading irregularities have different effects on seismic response.

and in this case critical elements were stiff edges which So, the effect of these irregularities should be considered

contradicts with results obtained for single storey and incorporated in current seismic design codes. The

models. Table 11 shows Summary of research works research works concerned with vertical irregularities

regarding Multi storey plan asymmetric structures. started in early 1970s with Chopra (1973) who studied

the seismic response of series of eight storey shear

REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORKS buildings subjected to the earthquake motion data. The

REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES main objective of the author was to determine the effect

of yielding of first storey on upper stories. From results

Irregularities of mass, stiffness, strength and geometry of analytical study it was found that an ideal plastic

along building height may be termed as vertical mechanism and a low yield force are required in the

irregularity. These irregularities may be present first storey for safety of higher floors of the structure.

TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING MULTI STOREY PLAN ASYMMETRIC STRUCTURES

S.No Researcher Year N Type and extent of Main conclusion

eccentricity

1 Stahthopoulos 2003 3 5 em= 0.1b - 0.3b The Building Systems with biaxial eccentricity

Anagnopoulos es = 0 - 0.3L showed the increased ductility demand.

The displacements at flexible edge was found

ea = 0 - 0.05b

to be greater for SB models as compared to PH

models. SB models were found inefficient in

assessment of codal provisions.

2 Chopra Goel 2004 9 em = 4.57m Accuracy of proposed procedure decreased with

the increase in magnitude of torsional coupling.

3 Fernandez et al. 2005 5 es = 0.25r - 0.75r For e/r 0.5 and (Ductility coefficient) 0.4,

number of resistant planes in direction of seismic

response have no influence on seismic response.

4 Stefano et al. 2006 6 em = 0.15b Overstrength factor influences the seismic

response.

5 Ghersi et al. 2007 6 em = 0.05b - 0.30b The proposed method leads to good seismic

performance of buildings as compared to other

methods of analysis.

7 Luchinni et al. 2009 2 es = 0, 0.5b The deformation demand in the Irregular

buildings was found to be non-linear.

8 Aziaenmizad 2010 5 es = 0 - 0.14b est =0 In building systems with strength eccentricity

Moghadam - 0.25b equal to one fourth of the distance between

positions of strength and stiffness performed

better on rotation and drift criteria.

9 Stahthopoulos 2010 1 3 5 em = 0 0.3b es=0.1b Consideration of accidental design eccentricity

Anagnopoulos - 0.7b ea = 0 - 0.10b (ADE) results in reduction of ductility demands

of edge elements in case of building systems with

larger time period (Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility

demand reduces by 10 % for A = 0.05L and by 10-

20% for A= 0.10L.

10 Anangnopoulos 2010 3 5 em es= 0-0.30 b ea = For models SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges

et al. 0.05b were the critical elements. In SIMP3 models the

stiff edges were critical elements.

N Represents number of stories

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

The irregularities of mass, stiffness and strength are frames of nine storey having 3 bays each and the third

represented by parameters of mass ratio (Mr), stiffness frame was also of 9 storey but had prismatic wall, this

ratio (Sr), Strength ratio (STr) which may be defined as model represented the building systems without any

the ratio of mass, stiffness and strength of storey under irregularity. The Vertical irregularities were introduced

consideration to the adjacent storey. in the building models by discontinuation of shear wall

Humar and Wright (1977) studied the seismic at first storey and this building models were designated

response of multistorey steel building frames with and as FSW Rest of the features in both FFW and

without setback irregularity using one ground motion FSW were same. The displacements of top floor were

data. Based on analytical study it was concluded that, computed for all these building models using elastic and

in case of building frames with setbacks, the storey drift inelastic dynamic analysis. From the analytical study it

was found to be greater at upper portion of setback and was concluded that in case of FSWductility demand

smaller in the base portion. Also, the drift of building increased abruptly at the vicinity of discontinuity

frames with setbacks was found to be lesser as compared of shear wall and this increase was found to be 4 to

to the building frames without setback irregularity. 5 times higher as compared to the FFW models.

Further the inelastic dynamic analysis was found to

Aranda (1984) extended the approach of earlier

be more efficient as compared to the elastic analysis in

researchers36.The author determined and compared the

determining the effect of structural discontinuities.

seismic response of structure with and without setback

irregularity founded on soft soil. From the results of Barialoa (1988) determined the effects of strength

analytical studies it was confirmed that the ductility and stiffness variation on nonlinear seismic response

demand and its increase in upper portion of setback was of multistorey building frames. For analytical study 8

higher as compared to the base portion and structures storey building with 5 bays were modeled. The building

with setbacks experienced higher ductility demand as frames were subjected to three different category of

compared to their regular counterparts. time periods namely low, medium and high. Each

building category was further subdivided into two

Fernandez (1983) determined the elastic and inelastic

more categories based on base shear namely weak and

seismic response of multistorey building frames with

strong. In the weak building the base shear was 15 %

irregular distribution of mass and stiffness. Reduction

of total seismic weight whereas in strong building the

in storey stiffness resulted in increased storey drift and

bases shear was 30 % of total weight of the structure.

structures with constant variation of mass and stiffness

The results of analytical study showed that the time

in vertical direction showed better seismic performance

period of structure increases during seismic excitation

as compared to the structures with abrupt variations.

and this increase is more pronounced in case for weaker

Presence of shear walls leads to variation in stiffness

structures. A linear elastic spectrum can be used to

and researchers like Moelhe (1984) determined the

determine the seismic response if increase in damping

seismic response of R.C structures with irregularities.

along with increase in damping is considered.

For analytical study, nine storey building frames with 3

bays and structural walls were modelled. The irregularity Ruiz and Diederich (1989) conducted analytical

in building models was created by discontinuation of studies on five and twelve storey building models with

structural walls at different storey heights. Based on the strength irregularity. The strength irregularity in the

analytical results it was found that the seismic response building model was created by modeling first storey of

not only depended on extent of structural irregularities the structure as the weak storey in the first case. In the

but also on the location of irregularities. Experimental second case the infill walls in top storey were modeled

studies are necessary to verify the accuracy of analytical as brittle and in the third case the infill walls were

results and researchers like Moehle and Alarcon (1986) modeled as ductile. From results of analytical study it

performed experimental tests on two small prototype was found that the yielding, failure and formation of

R.C. building frames subjected to the ground motion plastic hinges in infill walls was greatly influenced by

data. The tests were performed using shake table. The time period of seismic excitation.

two building models used for the study were named Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) determined the

as FFW and FSW. The FFW model had two seismic response of building systems with vertical

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

setbacks. The authors conducted both experimental Three types of building systems as described in Table

and analytical tests to improve methodologies for 13 were studied.. In case of SDOF models the strength

design of setback buildings. For performing the demand was represented in terms of strength reduction

experimental study model of a six storey R.C. frame factor which represents the reduction in strength of

having 50 % setback at midheight was prepared. From structural elements. In case of MDOF systems it was

results of experimental study it was found that there found that strength demand and target ductility ratios

was no abrupt variation in the displacement along the depend on failure mechanisms developed and presence

building height. The interstorey drifts were found to be of weak first storey increased the ductility demand and

largest with increased damage and abrupt reduction in overturning moments.

lateral force at location of setbacks. The distribution of Esteva (1992) evaluated the seismic response of

lateral displacement and force along building height building frames with soft first storey by using non-

suggest that the translational seismic response of the linear analysis. For simplification of analytical study

building parallel to direction of setback is influenced the shear beam model was used to represent the building

by fundamental mode of vibration. For performing systems. The first main purpose of analytical study was

analytical study six storey building frames with six to observe the bilinear hysteric behavior of the building

different patterns of setbacks were modeled and systems with and without consideration of P-Delta

designed in accordance with UBC code of practice. effects. The second main purpose of the analytical study

For all of these frames the floor plan dimensions and was to determine the affect of influence ratio r (which

mass ratios were varied from 3 to 9 times as suggested was defined as the ratio of average value of lateral shear

by UBC 1988 code of practice which differentiated safety factor for upper stories to the bottom stories) on

symmetric and setback structures on basis of plan ductility demand. The results of analytical study are

dimensions and mass ratios. The analyses of these shown in Table 13.

frames were carried out by modal analysis procedure as

TABLE 13

prescribed by UBC 1988 code of practice. From results

RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL STUDY OBTAINED BY

of analytical study it was concluded that all these frames ESTEVA (1992)

experienced similar magnitude and distribution of

S.No Time period Influence ratio Ductility Demand

ductility demand. The frames with similar mass ratios

1 Low Increase from Increase by 30 %

and floor plan dimensions but with different setback

1.0 to 3.0

heights experienced different amount of damage which

2 Medium No impact No impact

contradicted the approach of UBC 1988 code.

3 High Increase from Increase from 50 %

Nasser and Krawlinker (1991) conducted parametric 1.0 to 3.0 - 100%

study on multistorey (3, 5,10,20,30, 40 storey) SDOF

and MDOF systems (with strength irregularity) with Wood (1992) found that presence of setbacks did

different periods of seismic excitation ranging from not affect the dynamic seismic response which was

0.217s 2.051s. The models used are described in more or less similar for symmetrical structures.

Table 12. Wong and Tso (1994) used elastic response spectrum

analysis to determine seismic response of structures

TABLE 12

with setback irregularity and it was observed that

BUILDING MODELS USED BY NASSER AND

KRAWLINKER (1991)

buildings with setback irregularity had higher modal

masses causing different seismic load distribution as

S.No Model Name No. of Stories Model Description

compared to the static code procedure.

1 Beam Hinge 3,10,20,30,40 Plastic hinges form Duan and Chandler (1995) conducted analytical

in beam only

studies on building systems with setback irregularity

2 Column Hinge 3,10,20,30,40 Plastic hinges form

using both static and modal spectral analysis and based

in column only

on the results of analytical studies, it was concluded

3 Model 3 3,10,20,30,40 Plastic hinges form

in columns of first that both static and modal analysis procedures were

storey only inefficient in preventing the concentration of damage

in structural members near level of setbacks.

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

Vamudson and Nau (1997) evaluated seismic that the parameter of storey strength as prescribed

response of multistorey buildings with vertical by EC8 and IBC codes was ineffective in predicting

irregularities. For analytical study two dimensional strength irregularity.

shear beam building models with five, ten and twenty Das and Nau (2003) evaluated the effects of stiffness,

stories were prepared. The structural irregularities were strength and mass irregularity on inelastic seismic

introduced in the building models by varying the mass, response of large number of multistorey structures. For

stiffness and strength. From analytical studies it was analytical study a large number of buildings with three

found that introduction of mass and stiffness irregularity bays in direction of seismic action and with number of

resulted in minor variation in the seismic response. The stories ranging from 5-20 were modeled.

storey drifts were increased in range of 20% - 40 %

for 30 % decrease in the stiffness of the first storey,

with constant strength. The strength reduction of 20 %

doubled the ductility demand.

Al-Ali and Krawinkler (1998) evaluated the effect

of mass, stiffness and strength and their combinations TYPE A TYPE B TYPE C

on seismic response of a 10 storey structure. Elastic and (a) TYPE A,B,C Taller first, intermediate and top storey

inelastic dynamic analyses were used for the analytical

study. Based on the results of analytical study it was

observed that, when irregularities were considered

separately; the strength irregularity had the maximum

impact on roof displacement and mass irregularity had TYPE t TYPE m TYPE b

the minimum impact on the roof displacement. When (b) TYPE t, m, b - Irregular mass distributions

combination of irregularities was considered, the

combination of stiffness and strength irregularity had

the maximum impact on roof displacement.

Kappos and Scott (1998) made comparison between

static and dynamic methods of analysis for evaluating

the seismic response of R.C frames with setback

TYPE E1 - E2 TYPE E3 - E6

irregularity. On comparison between results of both

(c) E1-E2 Open ground floor, E3 E6 Partial infill

methods it was concluded that dynamic analysis yielded

results different from that of static analysis. However a) TYPE A,B,C Taller first, intermediate and top storey b)

in the analytical study the other forms of irregularities TYPE t, m, b - Irregular mass distributions c) E1-E2 Open

like mass, stiffness and strength irregularity were not ground floor, E3 E6 Partial infill

included. Fig. 8 Different types of vertically irregular building models, Das

Magliulo et al. (2002) conducted parametric studies and Nau19

on multistorey RC frames (5, 9 storey) with mass,

stiffness and strength irregularity designed for low The structural irregularities in these building

ductility class as per EC 8 provisions. The authors models were introduced by variation of mass ratio,

evaluated the seismic response of the irregular frames stiffness ratio , storey strength and by considering the

and have compared it with the seismic response of effect of masonry infills. These frames were designed

building frames without any irregularity. From the as special moment resisting frames (S.M.R.F.) based

analytical studies it was found that mass irregularity on strong column weak beam design philosophy in

does not effect plastic demands. In case of strength accordance with different codes of practice namely

irregularity, irregular distribution of strength in beams ACI 1999 and UBC 97. The forces on these S.M.R.F

increased the seismic demand. However seismic frames were computed using ELF (Equivalent Lateral

demands were not affected due to irregular strength force) procedure as prescribed in ACI 99 and UBC 97

distribution in columns. Finally the authors concluded code. From results of analytical study it was concluded

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

that the seismic response parameters like first mode Gantes (2005) investigated the effectiveness of Modal

shape and fundamental time period as computed by pushover analysis procedure (MPA) in determination

ELF procedure were similar for symmetrical and of multistorey steel braced frame (4, 9 storey) with

unsymmetrical structure. The storey drift computed for stiffness irregularities. Based on the results of analytical

five storey and ten storey structures with combination study it was concluded that MPA procedure was

of mass, strength and stiffness irregularities at bottom incapable of predicting failure mechanism and collapse

storey showed an abrupt increase over code prescribed of the structure.

limit of 2 %. The ductility demands showed an abrupt Khoure et al. (2005) designed a 9 storey steel framed

increase near the location of irregularity but this increase structures with setback irregularity as per Israeli steel

never exceeded the designed ductility capacity of the code SI 1225(1998).The authors made variation in

members. Finally the mass irregularity had least impact height and location of setbacks in building frames.

on the structural damage index and for all the building Results of analytical studies confirmed that higher

models analyzed it was found to be less than 0.40. torsional response was obtained in tower portion of

Chintanpakdee and Chopra (2004) evaluated setbacks.

the effects of strength, stiffness and combination of Some researchers preferred dynamic analysis over

strength and stiffness irregularity on seismic response MPA procedure to evaluate seismic response due to

of multistorey frames. For analytical study, different 12 its accuracy. Fragiadakis et al. (2006) proposed an

storey frames were modeled based on strong column IDA (Incremental dynamic analysis) procedure for

weak beam theory. The irregularity in strength and estimating seismic response of multistorey frame (9

stiffness were introduced at different locations along storeys) with stiffness and strength irregularity contrary

height of the building models. The building models were to Lignos and Gantes (2005), Alba et al. (2005) who

analyzed using time history analysis by subjecting the used MPA procedure to evaluate the seismic response

building model to 20 different ground motion data. From of building frames with stiffness irregularity. Based

analytical studies it was concluded that irregularities in on the analytical results the authors concluded that the

strength and stiffness when present in combination had proposed method was effective in predicting effects

the maximum affect on the seismic response. Further of irregularity in building frames. Finally, the authors

maximum variation in the displacement response along concluded that effect of irregularity is influenced

height was observed when irregularities are present on by location and type of irregularity and building

the lower stories. systems subjected to unidirectional seismic excitation

Tremblay and Poncet (2005) evaluated the seismic underestimate the seismic demand significantly.

response of building frames with vertical mass Tremblay and Poncet (2005) conducted extensive

irregularity (Fig. 15) designed according to NBCC study on multistorey building frames with mass

provisions by static and dynamic analysis. Based on irregularity as per NBCC code. Ayidin (2007) evaluated

the analytical study it was concluded that both static the seismic response of buildings with mass irregularity

and dynamic method of analysis (as prescribed by by ELF procedure (as prescribed by Turkish code of

NBCC provisions) resulted in similar values of storey practice) and by time history analysis. The researcher

drifts and hence they were ineffective in predicting the had modeled multistorey structure ranging from 5 to

effects of mass irregularity. 20 storey height. The mass irregularity is created by

Fragiadakis et al. (2005) determined the seismic variation in mass of a storey with constant mass at other

response of building systems with irregular distribution stories. Based on the analytical study author concluded

of strength and stiffness in vertical direction. After that the mass irregularity effects the shear in the storey

conducting the analytical study it was concluded that below and ELF procedure overestimates the seismic

seismic performance of the structure depended on type response of the building systems as compared to the

and location of irregularity and on intensity of seismic time history analysis.

excitation. Modal pushover analysis (MPA) procedure Basu and Gopalakrishnan (2007) developed a

is an important analytical tool to evaluate the seismic simplified method of analysis for determination

performance and several researchers like Lignos and of seismic response of structures with horizontal

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

setbacks and torsional irregularity. The assessment three frames two ten storey plane frames were modeled

of the proposed method was made by applying it with two and four large setbacks in their upper floors

on four building models. In case of building models and the third frame was regular in elevation. These

with scattered positions of C.M. the proposed method three frames were subjected to 30 different ground

evaluates seismic response considering average value motions d and designed by the researchers as DCH and

of position of C.M. whereas perturbation analysis DCM frames (Designed for high ductility and medium

considers exact location of positions of C.M. at different ductility) as per Euro code 8.Then non linear dynamic

floor levels to evaluate the seismic response. Results analysis of the frames was carried out by subjecting the

of analytical study showed that for building systems frame to the ground motion data of the earthquake and

with vertically aligned C.M. the frequencies obtained parameters of rotation, base shear and interstorey drift

by proposed procedure and perturbation analysis were were evaluated. Based on the analytical study it was

found to be in close agreement, but results of frame found that the performance of both DCM and DCH

shear forces differed by 7 %.. In case of second example, frames were found to be satisfactory as per guidelines

the modal response obtained by proposed method and of Euro code 8.

perturbation analysis was similar, but difference in Karavallis et al. (2008) evaluated the seismic

frame shear force was found to be 4% for upper stories response of family of 135 plane steel moment resisting

and 1 % for base stories. In case of third building frames with vertical mass irregularities and created

model, the frequencies obtained by proposed procedure databank of analytical results. Furthermore the authors

and perturbation analysis were in close agreement, but used regression analysis technique to derive simple

difference of results in case of frame shear forces were formulae to evaluate seismic response parameters

10 % at ground storey level and 4% at first storey level. using the analysis databank. Results of analytical

In case of fourth example the difference of results in studies suggested that the mass ratio had no influence

estimation of frame shear forces were as high as 50 %, on deformation demand. The results obtained from

so it was concluded that the proposed position is not proposed formulae were found to be comparable with

applicable to the building models where the prescribed results of dynamic analysis.

limit of scattering of C.M. is exceeded.

Sadasiva et al. (2008) evaluated the effect of location

Karavallis et.al. (2008) performed extensive of vertical mass irregularity on seismic response of the

parametric study on steel frames with different types of structure. A 9 storey regular and irregular (with vertical

setback irregularity designed as per European seismic irregularity) frame was analyzed and designed as per

and structural codes. From analysis the databank of New Zealand code of practice in two ways, firstly it was

different output parameters like no. of stories, beam designed to have maximum interstorey drift at all levels

to column strength ratio, geometrical irregularity etc. (represented as CDCSIR) . Secondly, it was designed

which influence the deformation demands was created. to have a constant stiffness (represented by CS) at all

Based on the deformation demands four performance levels. To make clear distinction between regular and

levels were identified and these are a) occurrence of irregular structure, a special notation form was used

first plastic hinge b) Maximum interstorey drift ratio by the authors of form NS-M-L-(A), where N-no.of

(IDRmax) equal to 1.8 % ; c) IDRmax equal to 3.2% stories, S-Shear beam, M- Type of model [i.e. S(Shear

d)IDRmax equal to 4.0%. The results for different beam) or SFB (Shear Flexure beam), (A) Mass ratio].

types of setback structure were expressed in terms of The deformation is represented in form of graphs. For

these performance levels . From analytical study it was making the study Los Angeles earthquake records had

concluded that interstorey drift (IDR) ratio increased been used and authors carried out inelastic time history

with increase in storey height and tower portion analysis of the structure using Ruamoko software. Based

of setback experienced maximum deformation as on this analysis it was concluded that in case of both

compared to the base portion. CS and CISDR model the interstorey drift produced is

Athanassiadou (2008) made the assessment of seismic maximum when mass irregularity is present at topmost

capacity of the RC structures irregular in elevation. The storey and irregularity increases the interstorey drift of

author modeled three multistorey frames, out of these the structure. However this magnitude varies for both

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

CS and CISDR type of models . 14 shows the summary of research works regarding

Sarkar et al. (2010) developed a new parameter vertical irregularity.

called as regularity index (defined as the ratio of 1st In Table Mr, Sr and STr are mass, stiffness and

mode participation factor of the stepped building frame strength ratios.

to the regular frame) to express the extent of irregularity

and the authors developed an empirical formula to COMPARISON OF MODELS USED BY

calculate the fundamental time period of building DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS

frames with vertical setbacks. By use of this formula Classification 1: Table 15 shows First system of

the fundamental time period was represented as the classification of models used by different researchers

function of regularity index. To validate the approach,

modal analysis of 78 different building frames with M 1 - Elasto-plastic hysteric model

different types of setback irregularity were conducted M 2 - Bi-linear hysteric model

and it was found that the empirical formula yielded M 3 - Cloughs hysteric model

accurate results even for 3D building models. Table M 4 - Takedas hysteric model

TABLE 14

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITY

1 Ruiz and Diedrich 1989 Sr 4,0.9 5 The behavior of infill wall is greatly influenced by

Sr - 0.65-2.0 time period of seismic excitation.

1.0-2.0

2 Shahrooz and Moelhe 1990 50 % setback 6 High rotational ductility in vicinity of irregularity

Mr 300 % to 900%

3 Vamudsson and Nau 1997 Mr - 0.1,0.5,1.5,2,5 5, ELF predicts accurate response upto Mr =5.

Sr - 0.5- 0.9 10, Storey stiffness reduction by 30 % increases

STr - 0.5-0.9 20 storey drift by 20 40% and reduction of storey

strength by 20 % doubles the ductility demand.

4 Ali Ali and Krawlinker 1997 Mr - 0.25,0.5,2,4 10 Mass irregularity had the least impact whereas

Sr - 0.1,0.25,0.5, 2,4,10 strength irregularity had the maximum impact.

STr -0.5

5 Das Nau 2003 Mr - 2.5-5.0 5 Ductility demands increased in vicinity of

Sr - 0.09 -1.6 10 irregularity but never exceeded design ductility

- 0.09 - 1.7 20 demand.

- 0.08 - 1.81

STr - 0.27-1.05

6 Chintanpakdee Chopra 2004 Sr 0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0 12 Irregularities in upper stories had least influence

STr -0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0 on displacement demand as compared to

irregularities in lower stories.

7 Fragiadakis 2006 Sr - 0.5,2.0 9 Seismic response depends on type of structural

STr - 0.5,2.0 irregularity.

8 Ayidin 2007 Mr 0.1,0.5,1,1.5,2,5 5 10 20 ELF procedure overestimates seismic response.

Mass irregularity affects shear.

9 Karavallis et al 2008 Mr = 2,4,6 3 9 15 Mass ratio has no influence on drift, rotation and

ductility demands.

10 Sadasiva et.al. 2008 Mr = 2.5,5 9 Effects of irregularity depends on Structural

model, Location and type of irregularity.

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

TABLE 15 TABLE 16

FIRST SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED SECOND SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS

BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS

M Reference Advantages Disadvantages S. M Reference Advantages Disadvantages

no. No no.

1 23, 34, 35, Simple Less accurate for building 1 SS 1, 13, 15, Simple Easy Does not represent

74, 77, 82 systems with T>0.5s. 18, 20, 21, idealization and the actual

2 13, 22, 39, Includes strain Does not account for 22, 23, 34, formulation. structure.

67, 68, 74 hardening effect. stiffness change due to 35, 39, 46, Does not involve

increase in displacement 48, 67, 68, building systems

amplitude reversal. 69, 74, 75, with large degree

76, 77 of freedom.

3 20, 21, 74, Used for nonlinear Larger ductility demand

77, 82 analysis includes as compared to elasto 2 MS 1, 2, 3, 4, Represents More complex and

strain hardening plastic elements. 8, 9, 10, 11, actual structure. difficult to model

effect. Comparable values with 12, 16, 18, Seismic response as compared to

model 1 for high period 19, 28, 29, obtained much SB models.

structures. 30, 31, 32, closer to reality.

Need of

36, 40, 41, Can involve large s o p h i s t i c a t e d

4 19, 33, 68 Includes effects of Excessive damage caused

42, 43, 47, no. of degree of softwares.

flexural, cracking by shear and bond not

48, 50, 52, freedom.

and strain considered.

53, 62, 63,

hardening.

64, 67, 68,

69, 72, 82,

Classification 2: Table 16 shows Second system of 83, 84.

classification of models used by different researchers

SS - Single-storey models Classification 3: Table 17 shows third system of

classification of models used by different researchers

MS Multi-storey models

TABLE 17

SECOND SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS

S.No M Reference no. Advantages Disadvantages

1 SB 3, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, Simple Does not represent the actual structure. Does not

39, 46, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, Easy idealization and formulation. involve building systems with large degree of

73, 74, 75, 76, 77 freedom.

Not suitable to represent multistorey building

systems as simplified S-B models are not designed

for gravity loads. So relation between strength and

stiffness for these models is different from that

of actual strength stiffness relation of framed

structures.

Strength of resisting elements can be adjusted

without changing the stiffness. However it has

been already proved by researchers that both these

parameters are interdependent.

2 PH 3, 9, 21, 67, 68, 69 Non linear analysis. Inelastic seismic More complex and difficult to model as compared

response prediction. Plastic hinges to SB models. Seismic response depends on

formed at ends of beams and columns. location of plastic hinge. Plastic hinge assumed to

occur at ends of beams and columns only.

3 3D 4, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 27, 28, Closer to actual buildings. Complex and difficult formulations.

30, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47,

52, 53, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66,

68, 70, 72, 82, 83, 84

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

SB - Shear Beam seismic response parameters for optimization is up to

PH - Plastic hinge the priority of designer and it may vary according to

user requirements and building specifications. From

3D - 3D frame models result of researches it was found that different locations

Some authors also have used two or more than two of CV, CR and CM yielded different results and the

models so same reference number in some cases appears effects of these locations were different on different

against two model names in classification 1, 2 and 3. seismic response parameters. Further optimum position

of CV-CR was found to be highly depended of type and

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS period of seismic excitation23.

Research works regarding vertical irregularities

The presence of structural irregularity changes the are fewer in number as compared to Plan irregularities

seismic response and the change in the seismic and the main focus of research works was to vary

response depends upon type of structural irregularities. either mass, stiffness and strength ratios to study the

As mentioned previously structural irregularities may effect of this variation in seismic response8,41,62,63.

be classified into horizontal and vertical irregularities. Some researchers have varied either mass, stiffness

On comparing research works regarding plan and or strength ratios only i.e. the effect of presence of

vertical irregularity, it was found that large number of single irregularity is studied, however the realistic

research works were conducted on Plan irregularities structures contain combination of irregularities and

as compared to vertical irregularities. consideration of single irregularity will not result in

In Plan irregularities some researchers used single realistic prediction of seismic response. So effect of

storey models and others used multistorey building combination of irregularities should be studied and

models as described in Table 16. The uses of former very few researchers have made an attempt towards

models were larger in comparison to the latter. Most this area1,82. One of the main conclusion was that

of the building models in recent years are single storey effect of irregularity depended on extent and location

building models, so the expressions for seismic response of irregularity and variation in seismic response

parameters and design philosophies formulated are not parameters was found at the vicinity of irregularity.

valid for multistorey building models. So most of the Some of the vertical irregularities like strength and

design codes which use expressions were formulated stiffness were found to be interdependent and their

on basis of single storey models need to be revised. relation was evaluated by some of the researchers. Many

The expressions obtained considering a particular researchers created stiffness and strength irregularity

multistorey model needs to be generalized so that it is by discontinuation of Shear walls at particular storey

applicable to all kinds of multistorey structures. height, this method of introducing irregularity was

Different centers of buildings like CM, CV and adopted for building models of different storey heights

CR have a huge impact on seismic response of and height and location of discontinuation of shear wall

building systems as torsion generated depends upon was also varied and in every such case it was observed

positions of these centers with respect to each other. that there was a large variation in ductility demand in

Several researchers10,73,74 have proposed the concept vicinity of discontinuation of irregularity11,30,52,53.

of balanced CV-CR location to generate minimum Regarding vertical setback irregularity, the top

torsional response. One of the main issues in this portion of setback was found to have greater deformation

concept is that the previous researchers have not been as compared to the base. Some of the researchers7,42

able to find a CV-CR location which gives optimum proposed new methods to estimate the seismic

values for all the seismic response parameters like response of vertically irregular structures but the code

drift, ductility and rotation etc. In general it was found defined procedures were found to be satisfactory and

that if some position of CV, CR, CM reduces drift and appropriate in predicting the seismic behavior.

ductility, then other portion reduces rotation i.e. no Regarding the method of analysis used by various

particular position of CV, CR and CM result in optimum researchers, Inelastic dynamic analysis and Pushover

values of seismic response parameters. So, selection of analysis were used by majority of researchers and

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

researchers especially like Chopra and Goel17,18 had rx, ry - Torsional radius in x and y direction.

done extensive work in improvement of pushover

analysis to match the accuracy of dynamic analysis, but REFERENCES

it was found that pushover analysis even after a large

improvement was found short of dynamic analysis and 1. Al-Ali, A.A.K. and Krawinkler, H (1998). Effects

were applicable only for certain types of loadings and of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Behavior

building systems. Regarding the analysis method used of Building Structures, Report No. 130, 1998,

the main focus was on improving the Modal Pushover The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering

analysis procedure to match results of dynamic analysis, Center, Department of Civil and Environmental

but with development of advance softwares using Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,

which dynamic analysis of different types of complex U.S.A.

multistorey structures can be easily performed. So, use 2. Alba, F., Ayala, AG. and Bento, R . (2005) Seismic

of dynamic analysis is more preferable and moreover performance evaluation of plane frames regular

MPA procedure are applicable to some type of loading and irregular in elevation, In: Proceedings of the

patterns only and are less accurate as compared to 4th European workshop on the seismic behavior

dynamic analysis. So, use of Dynamic analysis is of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM.

justified. Finally regarding analysis methods it can be Thessaloniki, August 2005.

concluded that the inelastic dynamic analysis methods

3. Anagnostopoulos, S.A., Alexopoulou, C. and

were found to yield accurate results as compared to

Stathopoulos, K.G. (2010). An answer to an

other methods used.

important controversy and the need for caution

when using simple models to predict inelastic

NOTATIONS earthquake response of buildings with torsion,

Earthquake engineering and Structural dynamics,

ci - Stiffness Irregularity factor defined at

Vol.39, 2010, pp 521-540.

ith storey of building

4. Aranda, G.R. (1998). Ductility Demands for R/C

ki - Stiffness Irregularity factor defined at

Frames Irregular in Elevation, In Proceedings

ith storey of building

of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake

i - Reduced storey drift of ith storey of Engineering, San Francisco, U.S.A., Vol. 4, 1984

building pp. 559-566.

(i)ort - Average reduced storey drift of ith 5. ASCE (2005). Minimum Design Loads for

storey of building Building and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05),

(Ae)i - Area of the storey American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,

(Ae)i+1 - Area of the storey above ith storey U.S.A.

Ri - Re-entrant corner projection limit 6. ATC (1978). Tentative positions for development

Si, Si+1 - Stiffness of storey I and of storey above of seismic regulations of buildings (ATC 3-06),

SBi - Setback irregularity limits Applied Technology council, Structural Engineers

association of California, US department of

Oa, Sd - Open area in diaphragm and diaphragm

commerce, Washington D.C.

stiffness

7. Athanassiadou, C.J. (2008). Seismic performance

Mi, Ma - Mass of Ith storey and the storey adjacent

of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation,

to ith storey.

Engineering Structures, Vol.30, No.5, pp. 1250-

dmax - Maximum drift computed at a particular 1261.

storey level

8. Ayidin, K. (2007). Evaluation of Turkish seismic

davg - Average of drifts computed at both sides code for mass irregular buildings, Indian journal

of a structure. of engineering and material sciences, Vol.14,

ls - Radius of gyration pp.220-234.

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

9. Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S. (2009), buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural

Performance of Asymmetric Multistorey Shear dynamics, Vol.33, pp.903-927.

Buuldings with Different Strength Distributions, 19. Das, S. and Nau, J.M. (2003). Seismic Design

Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol.9, pp.1082- Aspects of Vertically Irregular Reinforced

1089. Concrete Buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19,

10. Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S. (2010), No. 3, pp. 455-477.

Fragility-Based performance evaluation of 20. De-la-Colina. (1999). Effects of torsion factors on

asymmetric single-storey buildings in near field simple non linear systems using fully bidirectional

and Far field earthquakes, Journal of Earthquake analysis, Earthquake engineering and Structural

Engineering, Vol.14, pp.789-816. dynamics, Vol.28, pp. 691-706.

11. Bariola, V., and Brokken, S. (1991). Influence 21. De-la-Colina. (2003). Assessment of design

of strength and stiffness on seismic structural recommendations for torsionally unbalanced

behavior, Bulletin of Seismology and Earthquake multistorey buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.

Engineering, Vol.23, pp.427-434. 19, pp. 4766.

12. Basu, D. and Gopalakrishnan, N. (2007). 22. Duan, X.N. and Chandler, A.M. (1991). Seismic

Analysis for preliminary design of a class of torsional response and design procedures for a

torsionally coupled buildings with horizontal class of setback frame buildings, Earthquake

setbacks, Engineering Structures, Vol.30, No.5, Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.24,

pp. 1272-1291. pp.761777.

13. Bugeja, M.N., Thambiratnam, D.P. and Brameld, 23. Dutta, S.C., and Das, P.K. (2002). Validity and

G.H. (1999). The influence of stiffness and applicability of two simple hysteresis models

strength eccentricities on the inelastic earthquake to asses progressive seismic damage in R/C

response of asymmetric structures, Engineering asymmetric buildings, Journal of sound and

Structures, Vol.21, No.9, pp.856-863. vibration, Vol.257, No.4, pp. 753 777.

14. IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002, BIS: Indian Standard 24. EC8 (1989). Design for structures in seismic

Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of regions, Part 1. General and building report,

Structures, Part 1 General Provisions and (EUR12266EN), Commission of European

Buildings (Fifth Revision), Bureau of Indian committee, Brussels.

Standards, New Delhi.

25. EC8 (1993). Design for structures in seismic

15. Chandler, A.M., Correnza, J.C. and Hutchinson, regions, Part 1. General and building report

G.L. (1995). Influence of accidental eccentricity (EUR12266EN), Commission of European

on inelastic seismic torsional effects in buildings, committee, Brussels.

Engineering structures, Vol.17, No.3, pp.167-178. 26. EC8 (2004). Design of structures for earthquake

16. Chintanapakdee, C. and Chopra, A.K. (2004). resistance. General rules seismic actions and

Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular Frames: rules for buildings (EN 1998-1:2004), European

Response History and Modal Pushover Analyses, committee for Standardization, Brussels,

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 27. Esteva, L. (1992). Nonlinear Seismic response of

130, No. 8, pp. 1177-1185. Soft- First Storey Buildings Subjected to Narrow

17. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K. (2002). A modal Band Accelerograms, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.

push over analysis procedure for estimating 8, pp.373-389.

seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake 28. Fajfar, P., Magliulo, G., Maruic, D. and Peru,

Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, I. (2002). Simplified non-linear analysis of

pp.561582. asymmetric buildings, In: Proceedings of the

18. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K. (2004), A Modal third European workshop on the seismic behaviour

pushover analysis procedure to estimate to of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM,

estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan Florence, September 2002.

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

29. Fajfar, P., Marusic, D., and Perus, I. (2005). 39. Jarernprasert, S., and Bazan, E., and Bielak, J.

Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic (2008). Inelastic torsional single storey systems,

analysis of buildings, Journal of Earthquake In proceedings of Fourteenth world conference on

engineering, Vol.9, No.6, pp.831-854. Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008,

30. Fernandez, J. (1983). Earthquake Response Beijing, China.

Analysis of Buildings Considering the effects 40. Kappos, A.J. and Scott, S.G. (1998). Seismic

of Structural Configuration, Bulletin of the assessment of an R/C building with setbacks using

International Institute of Seismology and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis procedures,

Earthquake Engineering (Tokyo, Japan, Nov In: Booth ED (ed) Seismic design practice into the

1983), Vol.19, pp.203-215. next century. Balkema, Rotterdam.

31. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D. Papadrakakis, 41. Karavasilis, T.L., and Bazeos, N. and Beskos,

M. (2005). Evaluation of the influence of vertical D.E. (2008). Estimation of seismic inelastic

Stiffness irregularities on the seismic response deformation demands in plane steel MRF

of a 9-storey steel frame, In: Proceedings of the with vertical mass irregularities, Engineering

4th European workshop on the seismic behavior structures, Vol.30, pp.3265-3275.

of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM. 42. Karavasilis, T.L., and Bazeos, N. and Beskos,

Thessaloniki, August 2005. D.E.(2008). Seismic response of plane steel

32. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D. and MRF with setbacks: Estimation of inelastic

Papadrakakis, M. (2006). Evaluation of the deformation demands, Journal of construction

Influence of Vertical Irregularities on the Seismic and steel research Vol.64, pp.644-654.

Performance of a Nine-Storey Steel Frame, 43. Khoury, W., Rutenberg, A. and Levy, R. (2005).

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, On the seismic response of asymmetric setback

Vol. 35, No. 12, pp. 1489-1509. perimeter-frame structures, In: Proceedings

33. Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., and Snada, Y. (2004), A of the 4th European workshop on the seismic

simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for single- behavior of irregular and complex structures, CD

storey Asymmetric buildings, Journal of Japan ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.

Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vol.4, 44. Killar, V, and Fajfar, P. (1997). Simple push-over

No.2, pp.1-20. analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthquake

34. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P. (2001). Influence Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 26,

of bidirectional seismic excitation on inelastic pp.233249.

response of single storey plan irregular systems, 45. Killar, V. and Fajfar, P. (2002). Seismic analysis

Vol.23, No.6, pp.579-591. of eccentric R/C buildings by the N2 methods. In:

35. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P. (2006). Influence Proceedings of the third European workshop on

of Design procedures on Bi-eccentric Plan the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex

asymmetric systems, Structural design of Tall structures, CD ROM. Florence, September 2002.

and special buildings, Wiley publications, Vol.15, 46. Ladinovic, D. (2008). Non-linear analysis of

pp.467-480. Asymmetric in plan buildings, Architecture and

36. Humar, J.L. and Wright, E.W. (1977). Earthquake Civil Engineering, Vol.6, No.1, pp.25-35.

Response of Steel-Framed Multistorey Buildings 47. Lignos, D.G. and Gantes, C.J. (2005). Seismic

with Set-Backs, Earthquake Engineering & demands for steel braced frames with stiffness

Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 15-39. irregularities based on modal pushover analysis,

37. IBC (2003). International building code 2003, In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop

Illiniosis, International code council (ICC), 2002 on the seismic behavior of irregular and complex

Inc. structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.

38. IBC (2006) International building code 2006, 48. Luchinni, A., Monti, G., and Kunnath, S. (2011),

Illiniosis, International code council (ICC), Inc. Nonlinear response of two way asymmetric

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

single storey bulding under biaxial excitation, hazards Reduction Series 17 , Federal Emergency

Journal of structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.137, management Agency (FEMA), Building seismic

pp.34-40. safety council. Washington D.C. Part 1: Provisions,

50. Magliulo, G., Ramasco, R. and Realfonzo, 1988.

R. (2002). A critical review of seismic code 60. Penelis, Gr.G. and Kappos A.J. (2005). Inelastic

provisions for vertically irregular frames, In: torsion effects in 3D pushover analysis of

Proceedings of the third European workshop on buildings, In: Proceedings of the fourth European

the seismic behavior of irregular and complex workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular

structures, CD ROM. Florence, September 2002. and complex structures, CD ROM, Thessaloniki,

51. Maruic, D., and Fajfar, P. (2005). On the inelastic August 2005.

seismic response of asymmetric buildings under 61. Peru, I. and Fajfar, P. (2005). On the inelastic

bi-axial excitation, Earthquake Engineering and torsional response of single-storey structures under

Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, pp.943963. bi-axial excitation, Earthquake Engineering and

52. Moelhe, J.P. (1984), Seismic Response of Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, pp.931941.

Vertically irregular structures, Journal of 62. Ruiz, S.E. and Diederich, R. (1989). The Mexico

Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.110, pp.2002- Earthquake of September 19, 1985 The Seismic

2014. Performance of Buildings with Weak First Storey,

53. Moehle, J.P. and Alarcon, L.F. (1986). Seismic Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 89-102.

Analysis Methods for Irregular Buildings, Journal 63. Sadasiva, V.K., Deam, B.L. and Fenwick, R.

of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 1, (2008). Determination of Acceptable Structural

pp. 35-52. Irregularity Limits for the Use of Simplified

54. Moghadam, A.S. and Aziminejad, A. (2005). Seismic Design Methods, In proceedings

Interaction of torsion and P-Delta effects in of eighth pacific conference on earthquake

tall buildings, In proceedings of Thirteenth engineering, Singapore, December 2007.

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 64. Sarkar, P., Prasad, A.M., and Menon, D.(2010).

Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004, Paper Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building

No. 799. frames, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No., pp.

55. Nassar, A.A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991). Seismic 2175-2182.

Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems, 65. Shahrooz, B.M. and Moehle, J.P. (1990). Seismic

Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake Response and Design of Setback Buildings,

Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.

Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 116, No. 5, pp. 1423-1439.

Stanford, U.S.A. 66. Shakib, H., and Ghasemi, A. (2007). Considering

56. NBCC (1990). National Building Code of Canada different criteria for minimizing torsional response

1990, National Research Council of Canada, of asymmetric structures under near-fault and far-

Ottawa, Ontario, 1990. fault excitations, International journal of Civil

57. NBCC (1995). National Building Code of Canada Engineering, Vol.5, No.4, pp.247-265.

1995, National Research Council of Canada, 67. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A.

Ottawa, Ontario 1995. (2003). Inelastic earthquake response of single-

58. NZS (1992). Code of practice for general storey asymmetric buildings: an assessment of

structural design and design loadings for buildings simplified shear-beam models , Earthquake

(NZS 4203), Standards association of New Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.32,

Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 1992. pp.18131831.

59. NEHRP (1988). NEHRP recommended 68. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A.

provisions for development of seismic regulations (2005). Inelastic torsion of multi-storey buildings

of New buildings, 1988 edition, Earthquake under earthquake excitations. Earthquake

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

Engineering and Structural Dynamics , Vol. 34, 76. Tso, W.K. and Sadek, A.W.(1985). Inelastic

pp. 14491465. seismic response of simple eccentric structures,

69. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,

(2010). Accidental design eccentricity: Is it really Vol. 13, No.2, pp.255-269.

important for inelastic response of buildings to 77. Tso, W.K. and Sadek, A.W., (1989). Strength

stroang earthquakes? , Engineering structures, eccentricity concept for inelastic analysis of

Vol.30, pp.782-797. asymmetrical structures, Engineering structures,

70. Shahrooz, B.M. and Moehle, J.P. (1990). Seismic Vol.11, No.3, pp.189-194.

Response and Design of Setback Buildings, 78. UBC (1988). Uniform building code (UBC 88),

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. International conference of building officials

116, No. 5, pp. 1423-1439. (ICBO), Whittier, California,1988.

71. TEC 2007 Turkish Earthquake Code, (2007), 79. UBC (1991). Uniform building code (UBC 91),

Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, International conference of building officials

Specification Structures To Be Built In Disaster (ICBO), Whittier, California, 1991.

Areas, Part III Earthquake Disaster Prevention, 80. UBC (1994). Uniform building code (UBC 94),

Government of Republic of Turkey, Turkey International conference of building officials

72. Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. (2005). Seismic (ICBO), Whittier, California, 1994.

performance of concentrically braced steel frames 81. UBC (1997). Uniform building code (UBC 97),

in multistorey buildings with mass irregularity, International conference of building officials

Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.131, (ICBO), Whittier, California, 1997.

pp.13631375.

82. Valmundsson, E.V. and Nau, J.M. (1997). Seismic

73. Tso, W.K. and Myslimaj, B. (2002). Effect of Response of Building Frames with Vertical

strength distribution on the inelastic torsional Structural Irregularities, Journal of Structural

response of asymmetric structural systems In: Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 1, pp. 30-41.

Proceedings of the 12th European conference

83. Wong, C.M. and Tso, W.K. (1994). Seismic

on earthquake engineering, CD ROM, London,

Loading for Buildings with Setbacks, Canadian

September 2002.

Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.

74. Tso, W.K. and Myslimaj, B. (2003). A yield 863-871.

displacement distribution-based approach for

84. Wood, S.L. (1992). Seismic Response of R/C

strength assignment to lateral force-resisting

Frames with Irregular Profiles, Journal of

elements having strength dependent stiffness,

Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 2,

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,

pp. 545-566.

Vol. 32, pp.23192351.

75. Tso, W.K. and Bozorgnia,Y. (1986).Effective (Discussion on this article must reach the editor before

eccentricity for inelastic seismic response of March 31, 2013)

buildings, Earthquake engineering and structural

dynamics, Volume.14, No.3,pp.413-427.

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012

- ssttЗагружено:Abdullah Amjad
- Strength of Materials FinalЗагружено:Renel Alucilja
- The Influence of the Initial Concrete Strength on Its DeformationЗагружено:Erkan Şamhal
- Dubina_eccsЗагружено:Zamfira Octavian
- mg3a.pptЗагружено:Sebut Saja Irwan
- cap2Загружено:Dilan Peña
- Experimental Study on Single-Bay Two-storey RCЗагружено:Ashaari Cha-e
- Lesson 4 - Simple StrainЗагружено:Patrick John Mondarte
- machine design Assign-2 Failure Analysis SOL RЗагружено:Mohammad Tahir
- Redistribution_Force_Concentration.pdfЗагружено:madhav sreekumar
- Burr End OngЗагружено:LTE002
- 11 Energy Methods (1)Загружено:jorge
- structural analysis5Загружено:GrantHerman
- deshpande.pdfЗагружено:OmkarKocharekar
- Mechanical Properties of SolidsЗагружено:Abdul Hameed
- Thesis Halil SezenЗагружено:Ahmad Yani
- Complete AllЗагружено:wandee2393
- SAP2000_Base_Isolation.pdfЗагружено:oscavier
- 2_axial_loading.pptxЗагружено:KHAKSAR
- Final1 Cleantools 286888 Final Report v3Загружено:Marius Alin Lupașcu
- d 5083 - 96 _rduwodmtukveЗагружено:danonino
- BINDED 2Загружено:Wiz
- lecture1.pdfЗагружено:ASHIL
- Paulay_Walls_ACI_1980_77-18Загружено:Alberto Vásquez
- 6.Report.pdfЗагружено:Ajayakumara K
- 14-329Загружено:Settu
- Articulo Estructuras de Concreto ReforzadoЗагружено:Adella Anderson
- LTESBD08 GeraldZenz FullЗагружено:indranigogoi
- Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC BuildingsЗагружено:Demçe Florjan
- Ra, And the Average Effective Strain of SurfaceЗагружено:Mustea Gigy

- Structure AnanlysisЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- Civil Engineering Objective Type QuestionsЗагружено:Jean Simon
- Engineering IT and Computing Discplines July 2013Загружено:Junaid Akram
- Local GovernmentЗагружено:MHasanku
- Direct Stiffness MethodЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- Job 8Загружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- 20160418_hajjpolicyЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- ANALYSIS_OF_LOCAL_GOVERNMENT_STATUTES_ Report.pdfЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- Lecture#-8 Horizontal IrrЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- PRE-EMPTION ACT, 1991.pptxЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- PS.pdfЗагружено:Zeeshan Aman
- M Sc Advertisement 2017Загружено:Irfan Haider
- CompaniesЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- M Haroon YounasЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- Marriage Hall.designЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- Ecat Grand TestЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- Chapter 13Загружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- 2012-civ-79Загружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain
- PhysicsЗагружено:Muhammad Shahid Hussain

- strength-of-materials-lecture-notes-civil-engineering-12.pdfЗагружено:Ayushika Abrol
- RC One Way Slab Design (ACI318)Загружено:Bunkun15
- Difference Between Implicit and Explicit Analysis _ CaendkoelschЗагружено:Nipun Dahra
- Ashraf Pbd SeminarЗагружено:RamilArtates
- Timoshenko Beam Finite ElementЗагружено:Gabriel Canales Hormazábal
- 2Загружено:siddhartha2862
- Siesmic Design GuideЗагружено:gugi
- 3 Stress and StrainЗагружено:wersoquer
- 64bestPaper1Uniaxial True Stress-Strain after NeckingЗагружено:Brian Forsman
- Berkovich Indentation of Viscoelastic MaterialsЗагружено:Ville4ever
- Composite Failure TheoriesЗагружено:Zach Lovering
- acm_solid_030707Загружено:sayhigaurav07
- Cockcroftlatham Urn Nbn Si Doc Wg4vr7cyЗагружено:Efraín Carrera Figueroa
- H&C Solution Manual All CorrectedЗагружено:Karthick Sivaraman
- cam-clayЗагружено:Probal Som
- Helical GearЗагружено:induscad
- Lecture10 Torsion in Solid and Hollow ShaftsЗагружено:samurai7_77
- Performance under cyclic load of built-up T-stubs for Double T moment connectionsЗагружено:Milmxmen
- Chapter 7 Two-Dimensional FormulationЗагружено:vivi
- What Are tWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentheWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentWhat Are the Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid Different Characteristics That Keep Solid and Fluid DifferentЗагружено:Karthik Abhi
- Design Guide for Condrete Filled Hollow Section Columns Under Static Ans Sesmic Loading 5Загружено:Chitra Devi
- 2010 Vamas Twa33 Project3 Mechanical Testing of Polymer NanocompositesЗагружено:downloadlagum
- Review PaperЗагружено:meckup123
- 2005-A Case Study on the Response of Shield Tunnel Near a Thrust Fault Offset-TC4Загружено:林銘郎
- Weld Misalignment Influence on Structural Integrity of Cylindrical Pressure VesselЗагружено:yuri
- _Article_Nonlinear Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Shell StructuresЗагружено:Igor Alarcón
- 5240.3.ComposeIT - User DocumentationЗагружено:Kelvin Xu
- Madhukar Vable Strain AbstracЗагружено:joseluis_0714
- Theories of FailureЗагружено:muzamillover1
- Working Stresses and Failure TheoriesЗагружено:VIFerrata

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.