Inelastic seismic response of code-designed multistorey frame buildings with regular asymmetry

Based on an asymmetric multistorey frame building model, this paper investigates the influence of a building's higher vibration modes on its inelastic torsional response and evaluates the adequacy of the provisions of current seismic building codes and the modal analysis procedure in accounting for increased ductility demand in frames situated at or near the stiff edge of such buildings. It is concluded that the influence of higher vibration modes on the response of the upper-storey columns of stiff-edge frames increases significantly with the building's fundamental uncoupled lateral period and the magnitude of the stiffness eccentricity. The application of the equivalent static torsional provisions of certain building codes may lead to non-conservative estimates of the peak ductility demand, particularly for structures with large stiffness eccentricity. In these cases, the critical elements are vulnerable to excessive additional ductility demand and, hence, may be subject to significantly more severe structural damage than in corresponding symmetric buildings. It is found that regularly asymmetric buildings excited well into the inelastic range may not be conservatively designed using linear elastic modal analysis theory. Particular caution is required when applying this method to the design of stiff-edge frame elements in highly asymmetric structures.     

Inelastic seismic response of torsionally unbalanced systems designed using elastic dynamic analysis

This paper evaluates the inelastic seismic response of torsionally unbalanced structural systems with strength distributed using elastic response spectrum analysis. The structural model is a single mass torsionally unbalanced system with lateral load resisting elements spanning in two principal directions. The element strength is distributed based on elastic response spectrum analysis and three different approaches to incorporate accidental torsion are considered: (a) without incorporating accidental torsion; (b) by applying static floor torques; (c) by shifting the location of the centre of mass. The seismic input is bidirectionally applied at the base of the model. It is shown that the inelastic responses depend strongly on the torsional stiffness of the system. For a torsionally stiff system, the torsional response leads to a decrease in the stiff edge displacement; however, for a torsionally flexible system, it tends to increase the stiff edge displacement. Using response spectrum analysis without including accidental torsion may lead to excessive additional ductility demand on the stiff edge element. With accidental torsion effect incorporated, the response spectrum analysis will give a strength distribution such that there will be no excessive additional ductility demands on the lateral load resisting elements.     

Seismic code analysis of multi-storey asymmetric buildings

Static torsional provisions in most seismic codes require that the lateral force at each floor level be applied at some distance from the reference centre at that floor. However, codes do not specify how to determine the locations of these centres. As a result, several different definitions of the reference centres are being used to implement the code analysis. This investigation examined how the results using various reference centres differ and which of these centres would lead to results that are in agreement with those of dynamic analysis. For this purpose three different buildings ranging form torsionally stiff to torsionally flexible were analysed. It was shown that for the class of buildings studied in this investigation that although the locations of the reference centres were quite different, the results were very similar and nearly independent of the reference centre. Comparison of results calculated from static code equivalent lateral force procedures and results from dynamic response spectrum analyses showed that the static code procedures led to design forces very close (flexible wall) or slightly conservative (stiff wall) when compared to the dynamic analysis for the torsionally stiff building. However, the static code procedures significantly underestimated the design forces of the stiff walls and significantly overestimated the design forces of the flexible walls for the torsionally flexible buildings. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Design of torsionally unbalanced structural systems based on code provisions I: Ductility demand

Using a three element single mass model, this paper presents the ductility demands on the elements of torsionally unbalanced systems when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. Torsionally unbalanced systems based on nine structural configurations are considered, ranging from torsionally stiff systems with the centre of rigidity (CR) centrally located to torsionally flexible systems with CR eccentrically located. The strength of the elements is designed based on the Canadian and New Zealand codes, and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) of the United States. It is shown that all three codes can limit the ductility demands on the elements to that of a similar but torsionally balanced system when the system is torsionally stiff. However, substantial additional ductility demands on the element at the stiff edge of the system exist for torsionally flexible systems when the New Zealand code or UBC is used. The large ductility demand is caused by the low strength of the stiff-edge element permitted by these codes.     

Importance of seismic design accidental torsion requirements for building collapse capacity

Seismic ground motions induce torsional responses in buildings that can be difficult to predict. To compensate for this, most modern building codes require the consideration of accidental torsion when computing design earthquake forces. This study evaluates the influence of ASCE/SEI 7 accidental torsion seismic design requirements on the performance of 230 archetypical buildings that are designed with and without accidental torsion design provisions, taking building collapse capacity as the performance metric. The test case archetypes include a broad range of heights, gravity load levels, and plan configurations. Results show that the ASCE/SEI 7 accidental torsion provisions lead to significant changes in collapse capacity for buildings that are very torsionally flexible or asymmetric. However, only inconsequential changes in collapse capacity are observed in the buildings that are both torsionally stiff and regular in plan. Therefore, the study concludes that accidental torsion provisions are not necessary for seismic design of buildings without excessive torsional flexibility or asymmetry. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effect of transverse load-resisting elements on inelastic earthquake response of eccentric-plan buildings

The accurate evaluation of code torsional provisions for plan-eccentric structures exhibiting inelastic response relies on the adoption of appropriate systems defining both the torsionally balanced (reference) and torsionally unbalanced cases. Whilst a considerable number of analytical studies of this problem have been presented in the literature, inconsistencies have arisen in their conclusions. It is evident from a review of previous studies that one factor contributing significantly to these discrepancies arises in the definition of the structural layout. An issue of particular importance is whether the transverse load-resisting elements oriented perpendicular to the assumed (lateral) direction of earthquake loading should, for purposes of realism, be included in model definitions. Given the diverse approaches in the existing literature, clarification of this issue is required in order to advance the understanding of inelastic torsional response behaviour and to assist the interpretation and comparison of previous studies. This paper aims to provide such clarification, based on analyses of a series of models defined rigorously according to code design provisions. Such models have been subjected to both uni- and bi-directional ground motion input. It is concluded that for the flexible-edge element, accurate estimates of additional ductility demand arising from torsional effects may be obtained from uni-directional models (in which both the transverse elements and the corresponding earthquake component are neglected) only for medium-period to long-period systems. Such estimates may be over-conservative for short-period systems, which constitute a large proportion of systems for which code static torsional provisions are utilized. It is further concluded that models incorporating the transverse elements but analysed under uni-directional lateral loading may underestimate by up to 100% the torsional effects in such systems, but are reasonably accurate for medium- and long-period structures.     

AN OPTIMIZED PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF TORSIONALLY UNBALANCED STRUCTURES

This paper develops an optimized procedure for the design of torsionally unbalanced structures subjected to earthquake loading, considering both the serviceability and the ultimate limit states. An optimal design eccentricity expression, in the form of design charts, and an optimal overstrength factor equation, are proposed. Results show that the recommended design procedure can result in nearly equal performance of both the rigid edge and the flexible edge elements. For a wide combination of primary system parameters, the responses of both edge elements are consistently lower than, or in the neighbourhood of, the response of the corresponding torsionally balanced reference model. The proposed procedure retains simplicity and can be easily implemented (with certain limitations) in design practice. It also has the added advantages of requiring the structure to be analysed only once for each limit state in each principal direction (as opposed to twice, in existing code torsional provisions), and results in a significantly lower overstrength factor, compared with the overstrength factors corresponding to the torsional provisions of seismic codes in the United States and Canada. The proposed procedure is also applicable to torsionally unbalanced structures with and without transverse resisting elements. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Additional seismic inelastic deformation caused by structural asymmetry

Using a single mass monosymmetric model, this paper examines the additional seismic inelastic deformations and displacement caused by structural asymmetry of the model. Stiffness eccentricity and resistance eccentricity are used as measures of asymmetry in the elastic and inelastic range respectively. Seven ways of specifying strength distribution among resisting elements are considered, including code provisions from Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States. These specifications are related t o the model resistance eccentricity. It is shown that when torsional shears are included in the strength design of the elements, the structure in general will have small resistance eccentricity, even if it has large stiffness eccentricity in the elastic range. For structures which are designed with allowance for torsional shears, the ductility demands on the elements are similar to those when the structure is symmetrical. However, the edge displacements can be up to three times that if the system is symmetrical. This finding has significant implications in evaluating adequate separation between buildings to avoid the pounding problem during earthquakes.     

PERFORMANCE OF ASYMMETRIC CODE-DESIGNED BUILDINGS FOR SERVICEABILITY AND ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

This paper addresses some key issues which have been the subject of dispute in recent years in studying the seismic torsional response of asymmetric structures. These issues include the interpretation of the code accidental torsional provision, and the influence of the force reduction factor and of the uncoupled lateral period, on the torsional response of asymmetric structures. The responses of single-storey torsionally unbalanced structural models, designed in accordance with the torsional provisions of seismic building codes in Europe, the United States and Canada, and subjected to seismic ground motions corresponding to both the serviceability and ultimate limit states, are studied analytically. On the basis of a better understanding of the above issues as achieved in this study, the performance of code-designed torsionally unbalanced structures for both limit states is assessed. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Inelastic response and design criteria of plan-wise asymmetric systems

The study of the torsional response of buildings in the inelastic range of behaviour is of great interest since the ability of structures to resist strong earthquakes mainly relies on their ductility and capacity for energy dissipation. Furthermore, an examination of the performance of structures during past earthquakes demonstrates that plan-asymmetric buildings suffered greater damage due to torsional response. The paper deals with this subject by analysing a model which idealizes a one-storey building with resisting elements oriented along two perpendicular directions. In addition to the parameters of the elastic behaviour, the inelastic system response depends on full yield capacity and plan-wise strength distribution. The influence of the criterion adopted for the design of resisting elements on local ductility demand and damage has been evaluated by parametric analysis. In particular, a comparison has been carried out between systems with equal design levels for all elements and systems with design levels dependent on the element location. For a given elastic behaviour and total capacity, the strength distributions in plan have been defined which minimize ductility demand and structural damage. Finally, based on these findings, responses from models designed according to several seismic codes have been compared.     

Effective strength eccentricity concept for inelastic analysis of asymmetric structures

A large number of parameters affect the inelastic response of an eccentric system. The centre of resistance no longer remains constant due to continuous loading and unloading of various elements of the system in and out of the inelastic region. The objective of this study is to develop the concept of strength eccentricity for asymmetrical structures excited well into the inelastic region in the event of a severe earthquake. A single mass monosymmetric three-element system is selected. The torsional flexibility parameter is varied so as to obtain nine eccentric configurations covering the entire spectrum of such systems. These models were subjected to S00E component of the El Centro earthquake of 1940 which is considered to be a very severe earthquake. The concept of effective strength eccentricity is introduced which is defined as strength eccentricity at the point of intersection of ductility ratio curves of REE and FEE. It is proposed to provide additional strength in the elements of a torsionally unbalanced system independent of the design eccentricity. Empirical equations are proposed to account for design eccentricity and additional strength as well as distribution of the design strength. The proposed formulation is compared with the torsional provisions of UBC 1991, NBCC 1990 and NZC 1992. It is concluded that additional ductility demand on the REE and FEE designed based on the proposed formulation is almost nil as compared to that given by the three codes. The NZC and UBC require maximum ductility on the REE. The increase in overall strength of the system is least for the proposed formulation as compared to that given by the three codes. NBCC consistently requires the maximum total strength ratio.     

Design of torsionally unbalanced structural systems based on code provisions II: Strength distribution

This paper presents the results of an analytical study of the strength distribution of lateral load resisting elements in torsionally unbalanced systems designed based on codified torsional provisions. It is shown that the element strength can be expressed conveniently as the element strength of a similar but torsionally balanced system multiplied by a strength factor. This strength factor depends on three system parameters, namely, the location of the element relative to the centre of rigidity, and the torsional stiffness and eccentricity of the structure. In addition, it depends on the design coefficients of the code specified design eccentricity expressions. The influence of each of these factors on the element strength distribution is discussed. A new set of values for the design coefficients is proposed. By means of examples, it is shown that the proposed torsional provision is an improvement over those suggested in the National Building Code of Canada and the New Zealand code.     

The role of overstrength on the seismic performance of asymmetric-plan structures

Uneven distribution of seismic demand in asymmetric-plan structures is a critical concern in earthquake-resistant design. Contemporary seismic design strategies that are based on linear elastic response, single load reduction factor, and uniform ductility demand throughout an asymmetric system generally lead to unsatisfactory performance in terms of realized ductilities and nonuniform damage distribution due to strong torsional coupling associated with asymmetric-plan systems. In many cases, actual nonlinear behavior of the structure displays significant deviation from what is estimated by a linear elastic, force-based seismic design approach. This study investigates the prediction of seismic demand distribution among structural members of a single-story, torsionally stiff asymmetric-plan system. The focus is on the effect of inherent unbalanced overstrength, resulting from current force-based design practices, on the seismic response of code-designed single-story asymmetric structures. The results obtained are utilized to compile unsymmetrical response spectra and uniform ductility spectra, which are proposed as assessment and preliminary design tools for estimating the seismic performance of multistory asymmetric structures. A simple design strategy is further suggested for improving the inelastic torsional performance of asymmetric systems. Providing additional strength to stiff edge members over their nominal design strength demands leads to a more balanced ductility distribution. Finally, seismic responses of several asymmetric case study structures designed with the aid of the proposed strategy are assessed for validating their improved performance.     

Seismic behavior of asymmetric RC wall buildings: principles and new deformation‐based design method

The seismic design of multi‐story buildings asymmetric in plan yet regular in elevation and stiffened with ductile RC structural walls is addressed. A realistic modeling of the non‐linear ductile behavior of the RC walls is considered in combination with the characteristics of the dynamic torsional response of asymmetric buildings. Design criteria such as the determination of the system ductility, taking into account the location and ductility demand of the RC walls, the story‐drift demand at the softer (most displaced) edge of the building under the design earthquake, the allowable ductility (ultimate limit state) and the allowable story‐drift (performance goals) are discussed. The definition of an eccentricity of the earthquake‐equivalent lateral force is proposed and used to determine the effective displacement profile of the building yet not the strength distribution under the design earthquake. Furthermore, an appropriate procedure is proposed to calculate the fundamental frequency and the earthquake‐equivalent lateral force. A new deformation‐based seismic design method taking into account the characteristics of the dynamic torsional response, the ductility of the RC walls, the system ductility and the story‐drift at the softer (most displaced) edge of the building is presented and illustrated with an example of seismic design of a multi‐story asymmetric RC wall building. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A review of reference models for assessing inelastic seismic torsional effects in buildings

This paper reviews the various forms of reference model adopted for studies that evaluate inelastic seismic torsional effects and assess their implications for building design. Both qualitative and quantitative comparisons are presented. The importance of selecting an appropriate reference model is in accordance with the above aims is emphasised. It is found that variations in the reference models adopted in analyses of inelastic seismic torsional effects may lead to significant differences in the results obtained and, hence, to the conclusions drawn from such studies. It is demonstrated that accidental torsional effects, as incorporated in code design provisions, result in significant changes to the distribution of element strengths and the inelastic response behaviour of symmetric and generalised torsionally balanced reference models. Such changes should be considered when employing such models to evaluate the ineslatic response of torsionally unbalanced building systems.     

Evaluation of factors influencing the inelastic seismic performance of torsionally asymmetric buildings

This paper addresses some fundamentally contradictory conclusions drawn by Tso and Ying¹ and the authors² regarding the additional seismic ductility demand in asymmetric building structures and the adequacy of certain code torsional provisions. It also clarifies a number of issues arising from the different approaches employed in the two studies. The Mexico 76 and 87 code torsional provisions are taken as examples. Results show that the structural element at the stiff edge is the more critical and that the Mexico 76 code torsional provisions (among others) are inadequate, substantially underestimating the strength demand of this element. On the other hand, the Mexico 87 code torsional provisions are found to be over-conservative. Recommendations are also given for improving the form and effectiveness of these code torsional provisions.     

Evaluation of code torsional provisions by a time history approach

Presented in this paper is a detailed parametric study of the coupled lateral and torsional response of single-storey building models subjected to earthquake base loadings. The aim is to assess the influence of torsional coupling on the elastic responses of buildings subjected to transient ground motion records, and to make comparisons with current code provisions which make allowance for coupling effects by means of empirical design procedures. The study of building responses to selected earthquake excitations shows that the qualitative effects of the controlling parameters on the maximum translational and torsional responses of the coupled system are similar to those observed in analyses using idealized response spectra to represent the input ground motion. It is also demonstrated that for particular ranges of the key parameters defining the structural system, typical of the properties of many actual buildings, torsional coupling induces significant amplification of earthquake forces. This amplification is shown to be inadequately accounted for in the current design provisions of major building codes. Recommendations for improving existing design practice for asymmetric structures are outlined.     

Estimation of inelastic seismic deformations in asymmetric multistorey RC buildings

Four real buildings with three to six stories, strong irregularities in plan and little engineered earthquake resistance are subjected to inelastic response‐history analyses under 56 bidirectional EC8‐spectra‐compatible motions. The average chord rotation demand at each member end over the 56 response‐history analyses is compared to the chord rotation from elastic static analysis with inverted triangular lateral forces or modal response spectrum analysis. The storey‐average inelastic‐to‐elastic‐chord‐rotation‐ratio was found fairly constant in all stories, except when static elastic analysis is applied to buildings with large higher mode effects. Except for such buildings, static elastic analysis gives more uniform ratios of inelastic chord rotations to elastic ones within and among stories than modal response spectrum analysis, but generally lower than 1.0. With increasing EPA the building‐average inelastic‐to‐elastic‐chord‐rotation‐ratio decreases but scatter in the results increases. Static elastic analysis tends to overestimate the inelastic torsional effects at the flexible or central part of the torsionally flexible buildings and underestimate them at their stiff side. Modal response spectrum analysis tends to overestimate the inelastic torsional effects at the stiff or central part of the torsionally stiff buildings and underestimate them at the flexible side. Overall, for multistorey RC buildings that typically have fundamental periods in the velocity‐sensitive part of the spectrum, elastic modal response spectrum analysis with 5% damping gives on average unbiased and fairly accurate estimates of member inelastic chord rotations. If higher modes are not significant, elastic static analysis in general overestimates inelastic chord rotations of such buildings, even when torsional effects are present. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric‐plan buildings

An Erratum has been published for this article in Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:1429. Based on structural dynamics theory, the modal pushover analysis (MPA) procedure retains the conceptual simplicity of current procedures with invariant force distribution, now common in structural engineering practice. The MPA procedure for estimating seismic demands is extended to unsymmetric‐plan buildings. In the MPA procedure, the seismic demand due to individual terms in the modal expansion of the effective earthquake forces is determined by non‐linear static analysis using the inertia force distribution for each mode, which for unsymmetric buildings includes two lateral forces and torque at each floor level. These ‘modal’ demands due to the first few terms of the modal expansion are then combined by the CQC rule to obtain an estimate of the total seismic demand for inelastic systems. When applied to elastic systems, the MPA procedure is equivalent to standard response spectrum analysis (RSA). The MPA estimates of seismic demand for torsionally‐stiff and torsionally‐flexible unsymmetric systems are shown to be similarly accurate as they are for the symmetric building; however, the results deteriorate for a torsionally‐similarly‐stiff unsymmetric‐plan system and the ground motion considered because (a) elastic modes are strongly coupled, and (b) roof displacement is underestimated by the CQC modal combination rule (which would also limit accuracy of RSA for linearly elastic systems). Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Torsional balance of plan‐asymmetric structures with frictional dampers: analytical results

This investigation deals with the torsional balance of the earthquake response and design of elastic asymmetric structures with frictional dampers. Plan asymmetry leads to an uneven lateral deformation demand among structural members and to unbalanced designs with larger capacities in some resisting planes. Frictional dampers are capable of controlling lateral‐torsional coupling by placing the so‐called empirical center of balance (ECB) of the structure at equal distance from all edges of the building. This rule is developed for single‐story systems with linear and inelastic behavior. However, recently obtained theoretical and experimental results demonstrate that this rule carries over to multistory structures. Results show that the peak displacement demand at the building edges and that of resisting planes equidistant from the geometric center may be similar if the damper is optimally placed. It is also shown that torsional amplification of the edge displacements of arbitrary asymmetric structures relative to the displacement of the symmetric counterparts are approximately bound by a factor of 2. Furthermore, frictional dampers are equally effective in controlling lateral‐torsional coupling of torsionally flexible as well as stiff structures. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.