An Equivalent Accidental Eccentricity to Account for the Effects of Torsional Ground Motion on Structures-Basu-2014-IsI

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

14 Aufrufe

An Equivalent Accidental Eccentricity to Account for the Effects of Torsional Ground Motion on Structures-Basu-2014-IsI

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- About Pushover Analysis and SAP 2000 Method
- Confinement Design
- 200
- sdarticle
- unit 13
- c05c Pacp Sap Push+Th
- Retrofit Ing
- Section6.1
- History of Nonlinear Seismic Analysis.pdf
- Brief Guide to Seismic Design Forces
- 13_3059
- Refer Ncesdgbd
- nehrp2003rp_Chapter07
- 6t5r7y657
- Toshiba Computer Structure
- Rigid Head Piles
- Presentation 1
- 75 Rossetto
- Earthquake Engineering
- PCI_Jan02_Seis_design_provi_in_US.pdf

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Engineering Structures

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

torsional ground motion on structures

Dhiman Basu a,b,, Michael C. Constantinou b, Andrew S. Whittaker b

a

b

Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 3 April 2013

Revised 26 February 2014

Accepted 28 February 2014

Keywords:

Torsion

Eccentricity

Earthquake ground motion

Seismic design

Seismic isolation

a b s t r a c t

The seismic design of buildings and other structures should include provisions for inherent and accidental torsion effects. Procedures developed decades ago for use with equivalent lateral force (static) analysis

have been often used for response-history analysis with no investigation of whether the procedures

achieve the desired result; namely, robust framing systems with limited susceptibility to excessive torsional displacement. The utility of procedures presented in ASCE 7 for treating accidental eccentricity as

means for accounting for the effects of torsional ground motion is examined by analysis of simple linear

and nonlinear systems. Results indicate that these standards-based procedures do not achieve the desired

trends when torsional ground motion effects are considered, namely, increased component demands

with increasing accidental eccentricity. An alternate approach for using accidental eccentricity concepts

in accounting for torsional ground effects is then proposed and veried in representative examples for

simple linear and nonlinear systems. In each case, component demand increases monotonically as the

accidental eccentricity increases.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Calculation of the seismic response of buildings and other structures requires consideration of torsion. Standards of design practice recognize the importance of torsional contributions to

horizontal displacement response and simplied procedures have

been proposed to estimate these contributions. Two types of torsion are considered: natural (or inherent) and accidental. Natural

torsion is the product of non-coincident centers of mass (CM)

and rigidity (CR) at one or more oor levels in a structure.

Accidental torsion is used to indirectly account for: (a) plan

distributions of reactive mass that differ from those assumed in

design, (b) variations in the mechanical properties of structural

components in the seismic force-resisting system, (c) non-uniform

yielding of components in the seismic force-resisting system, and

(d) torsional ground motion.

Seismic analysis and design of buildings require consideration

of natural and accidental torsion. Rules are presented in ASCE

Standard 7, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

[1] for use with Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF) or static analysis,

and dynamic analysis, as summarized below.

the ELF procedure is used to analyze a building. Section 16.1

presents rules for use with dynamic analysis. Specically,

Section 16.1.5, Horizontal Shear Distribution, states The distribution of horizontal shear shall be in accordance with Section 12.8.4

except that amplication of torsion in accordance with

Section 12.8.4.3 is not required where the accidental torsion effects

are included in the dynamic analysis model. That is, ASCE 7 allows

the analyst to include accidental torsion in the models for dynamic

analysis but does not provide guidance as to how to do so. It has

been common practice to include these effects: (a) by ignoring

them in the dynamic analysis and then considering those in accordance with Section 12.8.4.3 of ASCE 7, or (b) by explicit consideration of the effects through the use of accidental eccentricity in a

manner similar to that used in the ELF procedure but in dynamic

analysis.

A number of studies on accidental torsion have been reported in

the archival literature. De-La-Llera and Chopra [810] calculated a

value of the accidental eccentricity for use with the ELF procedure

by studying the dynamic response of single and multistory buildings subjected to torsional ground motion. The ground motions

were calculated from records of horizontal acceleration at the

foundation level of instrumented buildings by dividing the

Technology, Gandhinagar, India. Tel.: +91 9925433861.

E-mail address: dbasu@iitgn.ac.in (D. Basu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.038

0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the distance between them. These studies validated the ASCE-7

procedure (see above) for including accidental eccentricity in the

ELF procedure. The studies also concluded that results obtained

from the study of single-story buildings provide approximately

correct results for multistory buildings. A limitation of these

studies is that the torsional ground motions used for analysis are

specic to the instrumented buildings and do not represent freeeld rotational motions that could be used for the analysis of any

structure. De-La-Llera and Chopra [11] also analyzed one-story

systems using (a) the ELF, and (b) response- history analysis procedures with only horizontal ground excitation. Five percent accidental eccentricity was added to the actual eccentricity for analysis. A

comparison of results showed signicant differences. De-La-Llera

and Chopra [12] studied the variation of the torsional amplication

(see above) as a function of the ratio of the uncoupled torsional to

translational frequencies in one-story systems and proposed an

enveloping procedure to compute member forces for design using

the ELF procedure. De-La-Llera and Chopra [13] also developed a

multi-step procedure to determine the increase in edge displacement due to accidental torsion by utilizing data recorded at the

foundation and oor levels of an instrumented building. The procedure was then extended and evaluated from data recorded in 12

buildings [17]. Chandler [5] studied the effect of accidental torsion

on inelastic response of buidings. Torsional component of ground

motion can also be contributed from the spatially varying horizontal components and its effect on structural response was investigated by Hao [15]. Experimental investigations have also been

reported studying the effect of torsional ground motion (De-LaColina et al. [7] and Wolff et al. [22]). Recently, Sheikhabadi [19]

investigated the adequeacy of code specied accidental eecntricity.

The ELF denition of accidental eccentricity has been used for

response-history analysis to account for multiple effects, including

uncertainty in mass distribution and torsional ground effects but

its technical basis has not been demonstrated. The effect of torsional ground motion on the torsional response and its relation

to accidental eccentricity is studied in this paper. The effects of

uncertainty in mass distribution are not studied in the paper as

they are appropriately accounted for by the use of accidental

eccentricity. It is shown in this paper that the shifting of the center

of mass results in torsional response that does not necessarily

increase as the accidental eccentricity increases, therefore it does

not properly account for the effects of torsional ground motion.

Consider the simple three degree-of-freedom system shown in

Fig. 1. The plan dimensions of the single story structure are a b.

The oor plate is supported by six columns that have lateral stiffness K1, K2 and K3 as shown in the gure. The CR is located a distance e from the CM. The calculation of CR is simple for this

structure. The offset of the CR from the CM produces the natural

or inherent torsional moment, Mt. The total torsional moment for

this structure, including dynamic amplication, could be calcu-

eccentricity, ed, as follows:

ed ae bb

(set equal to 0.05 in ASCE 7), and b is the building plan dimension

perpendicular to the applied translational force. The product bb is

the accidental eccentricity. In ASCE 7, the dynamic amplication

factor is applied to the accidental torsion only, and a = Ax, where

Ax is the torsional amplication factor and has values in the range

between 1 and 3. The approach adopted in ASCE 7 is straightforward and does not require explicit calculation of the CR at each oor

level, since the natural torsion is directly taken into account in the

analysis of a mathematical model by applying the code-specied

lateral load prole through the CM at each oor level. The calculation of the CR at each oor level is not straightforward for a multistory building and is dependent on the lateral force prole used for

the ELF procedure as discussed in Hejal and Chopra [16] and Basu

and Jain [3]. Although procedures have been developed to account

for the dynamic amplication of natural torsion when using an

ELF procedure (e.g., [20,14,3] they have not been adopted in ASCE 7.

The ASCE 7 rules for imposing accidental torsion in multi-story

structures do not provide guidance on whether a shift in the CM of

each oor is to be ordered or random, and if the same shift is to be

used at each oor level. If the dominant contributor to accidental

torsion is torsional ground motion, an ordered shift in the CM of

each oor plate is reasonable. If this is not the case, random shifts

are reasonable, with the net effect of accidental torsion likely being

small in the lower stories of a medium-to-high-rise structure.

Shifting the CM at each oor level to consider the effects of accidental torsion alters the modal properties of a structure and its

modal damping ratios if Rayleigh damping is used with a standard

software [6] to describe the inherent damping in the structure.

Note that actual torsional ground motion does not produce these

changes. The impact of shifting the CM on the modal properties

and structural response has not been discussed in the literature

and is studied below.

Single-story three degree-of-freedom systems are subjected to

translational and torsional components of seismic excitation to

study the conventional treatment of accidental torsion. The study

shows the limitations of the conventional approach when used

with response-history analysis. An alternative denition of accidental eccentricity is proposed and veried by a series of analyses

of single story elastic systems and nonlinear seismic isolation

systems.

2. Mathematical model for dynamic analysis

The one-story singly symmetric system shown in Fig. 1, composed of a rigid deck of mass m supported on six massless lateral-load-resisting elements, is used for analysis. The CM of the

deck is located at its geometric center and its radius of gyration

about a vertical axis passing through the CM is r. Each lateralload-resisting element has identical translational stiffness in the

two orthogonal directions but no torsional stiffness. The system

is symmetric about the x axis but has an eccentricity e about the

y axis. This system could represent a seismic isolation system supporting a rigid superstructure or a single story singly symmetric

building. The system is subjected to both translational seismic

excitation along the y axis and torsional ground excitation.

The parameters used to characterize the model are: (1) Ky =

total lateral stiffness in the y direction (equal to that in the x

direction), (2) xy = (Ky/m)0.5 = uncoupled lateral frequency, (3)

KhR = torsional stiffness about the CR, (4) xh = (KhR/mr2)0.5 = uncoupled torsional frequency, and (5) X = (KhR/r2Ky)0.5 = ratio of

uncoupled torsional frequency to translational frequency. For a

given aspect ratio and location of the elements with respect to the

CM, the lateral stiffness of each of the elements may be expressed

as

"

#

2

1 e 1 sy sa

1 e 2

;

X2 R2a 2

2sx b

4 sx

sx b

" (

#

2 )

1

sy sa

2 e 2

K2 Ky

2X2 R2a 2

1

2

sx b

sx

K1; K3 Ky

p

0:5

In Eq. (2), sx = b*/b, sy = a*/a, sa = a/b, Ra 1 s2a =2 3sx . Assuming a unit mass, Ky in Eq. (2) may be replaced by x2y . Given the

dimensions of the deck and location of the elements, this elastic

system is uniquely described by three normalized parameters:

xy, X and e/b.

Specic to this six-element model, the arbitrary selection of the

three normalized parameters does not lead to a physical or real

system (which requires K1, K2 and K3 to be positive). Note that

xy can be chosen regardless of X and e/b for a physical system.

Further, if X is specied, e/b cannot be arbitrary. For example,

when X = 1.0, the range of e/b for a physical system is 0 6 e/

b 6 0.35. Similarly, 0 6 e/b 6 0.30 and 0 6 e/b 6 0.10 are for

X = 1.25 and 1.50, respectively.

Note that X P 1.0 implies a system with uncoupled translational frequency less than the uncoupled torsional frequency. Such

a system is denoted herein as a torsionally stiff system. Conversely,

a torsionally exible system is characterized by X < 1.0. Physically,

a torsionally stiff system has stiffer members located towards the

periphery of the structure, whereas in a torsionally exible system

these members are located towards its center. In practice, torsionally exible systems are uncommon and may be considered unrealistic, particularly for seismically isolated structures. From the

mathematical model considered here, it may be noted that 0 6 e/

b 6 0.03 for X = 0.8.

The range of e/b discussed above is specic to the mathematical

model considered here. A different range can be obtained if the

number and location of the elements are different. Nevertheless,

the mathematical model considered here covers a wide range of

torsionally stiff systems and is sufcient for the purposes of this

study.

3. Conventional calculation of accidental eccentricity

It is common practice to shift the CM at each oor level by a distance equal to the accidental eccentricity to amplify the maximum

translational response when performing response-history analysis.

This approach is studied herein and its effect on the displacement

demand is examined. For convenience, the two sides with respect

to the CR of the model are denoted as Side A and Side B as shown in

Fig. 1. In a torsionally stiff system (X P 1.0), elements located on

Side A are expected to sustain more displacement than those on

Side B. In a torsionally exible system (X < 1.0), elements located

on Side B are more critical than those on Side A. Since torsionally

exible systems are not very common in practice, the procedures

followed in this paper are rst formulated for torsionally stiff systems. Torsionally exible systems are then also analyzed with

appropriate modications.

The CM is rst shifted away from the CR (increasing the actual

eccentricity) and denoted here as Shift 1. The CM is then shifted to

each side in turn (increasing and then decreasing the actual eccentricity) and denoted as Shift 2.

by analysis of translational time series (e.g., [4]). Herein, a procedure based on earthquake acceleration time series (M6.1 event of

January 16, 1986, source-to-site distance of 20 km) recorded at

the Large Scale Seismic Testing (LSST) array in Lotung, Taiwan, is

utilized to extract the rotational ground motions. The Lotung-LSST

(LLSST) site is a part of the SMART-1 array. The fteen free-surface

accelerometers at the LLSST are positioned along three arms at

approximately 120-degree intervals (Fig. 2). Each arm extends for

about 50 m and the spacing between the surface stations varies

from 3 m to 90 m. Each arm contains ve stations that are designated as 15 starting from the center of the array. That is the three

stations numbered 1 in the array represent tier 1; the three stations numbered 2 in the array represent tier 2; and so on.

Furthermore, each station is identied herein as FAi_j, where i is

the arm (13) and j is the station (15). Further details can be obtained from [18].

The Surface Distribution Method (SDM) [4] is used to compute

the torsional ground motion. The following adjustments were

made to the procedure to develop an upper bound torsional spectrum: (i) The recorded EW (y) and NS (x) components are considered as the horizontal acceleration eld instead of the SH wave

component, (ii) The shear wave velocity at the surface layer

(=140 m/s per [21]) is used instead of the apparent SH wave velocity computed by Basu et al. [4] (=249 m/s), and (iii) Only stations

up to tier 4 are included in the analysis. Since the SDM yields

one torsional ground motion for each surface station considered,

the torsional acceleration history with the highest peak torsional

acceleration is used as the torsional ground motion input in this

study. The translational acceleration history is that recorded at

the interior station FA1_1, which is not the station where the peak

torsional acceleration is computed. The translational acceleration

histories along directions x and y, the torsional acceleration and

their respective 5-percent damped response spectra are shown in

Fig. 3. As the system is symmetric about the x axis, the translational acceleration in the NS direction is not input to the model.

3.2. Procedure for calculating the accidental eccentricity in

conventional approach

The procedure described below represents a systematic approach to quantify the accidental eccentricity for use in dynamic

response history analysis of structural systems excited with only

translational seismic excitation. The accidental eccentricity is

This study of accidental torsion includes an explicit consideration of torsional ground motion. Time series of torsional motions

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

10

20

30

40

0.6

0.2

Acceleration (g)

Acceleration (g)

0.2

0.4

0.2

Acceleration (rad/sec 2)

0.6

0.4

0.2

Period (sec)

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

10

20

30

40

Period (sec)

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2

10

20

30

40

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

Time (sec)

Period (sec)

direction) response of the system with only translational excitation

is equal to or greater than the peak corner displacement (along the

y direction) response of the actual system (without accidental

eccentricity) excited by translational and torsional ground excitation. The steps of this procedure are:

1. Select values for the normalized parameters xy, X and e/b that

uniquely dene the elastic system. Note that these parameters

describe the uncoupled translational frequency, the ratio of

uncoupled torsional to translational frequency and the actual

normalized eccentricity, respectively.

2. Simultaneously apply the translational and torsional acceleration histories and calculate the absolute maximum displacement at the farthest element on Side A, U.

3. Repeat Step 2 but apply only the translational acceleration history; let the absolute maximum displacement for the same element be U fl ; compute the torsional amplication factor as

R1 U fl =U fl :

4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 but reverse the direction of the torsional

acceleration history and compute the torsional amplication

factor R2; select the target torsional amplication factor as

R = max (R1, R2). Note that the target torsional amplication is

the actual torsional amplication.

5. (a) Shift 1: Shift the CM away from the CR by an offset ea (the

accidental eccentricity) and analyze the system by applying

only the translational acceleration history; let the absolute

maximum displacement at the furthest element on Side A be

U fl .

(b) Shift 2: Repeat step 5a but shift the CM in the opposite

direction and compare the two values of U fl ; record the greatest

value.

6. Dene the torsional amplication factor associated with offset

ea as R U fl =U fl : This represents the computed torsional amplication factor. Repeat Step 5 for a range of values of ea and generate the associated torsional amplication factor. The required

accidental eccentricity for the system considered is given by the

offset ea for which R* P R.

The procedure outlined above was applied to a variety of elastic

systems selected by varying the three normalized parameters

xy, X and e/b. For torsionally exible systems (X < 1.0), the procedure presented above is appropriately modied so the element response on Side B is chosen for the calculation of the torsional

amplication. In each system, the aspect ratio of the deck and

the location of the elements with respect to the CM of the deck

were selected to be sx = 1, sy = 1, and sa = 0.5. Damping in this three

degree-of-freedom (DOF) system was described by Rayleigh damping with 5% damping ratio in the rst and third modes. Analysis of

each system was carried out and the calculated target (or actual)

and computed torsional amplication factors were compared to

calculate the required accidental eccentricity ea. Results for two

cases (X > 1.0 and X < 1.0) are presented below; other results are

presented in Basu et al. [4].

For the presented case, the uncoupled translational period is

1.0 s and the ratio of the uncoupled torsional to translational frequency (X) is 1.25. The target (actual) torsional amplication calculated in the procedure with Shift 1 is presented in Fig. 4 for

actual eccentricities in the range of 00.3. It may be seen that

the target (or actual) torsional amplication is nearly constant at

just less than 1.1. Fig. 4 also presents the computed torsional

amplication (for only translational excitation) at various values

of accidental eccentricity in the range of 0.01 6 ea/b 6 0.05 (panel

a) and 0.46 6 ea/b 6 0.49 (panel b). It may be seen in Fig. 4 that

the computed torsional amplication uctuates randomly and it

is apparent that it is not possible to select a single value of accidental eccentricity ea/b to match the target and the computed torsional amplication factors.

It is not possible to select a value for the accidental eccentricity

and perform response-history analysis with only translational

excitation to correctly capture the effects of translational and torsional ground excitation. The increase in displacement response is

not monotonic with increasing accidental eccentricity as shown in

Fig. 4c. (A shift in the CM of greater than 0.5b is meaningless for

nearly all framing systems).

1.3

Target

1.2

e a /b=0.01

1.1

e a /b=0.02

e a /b=0.03

e a /b=0.04

e a /b=0.05

0.9

0.8

Torsional amplification

Torsional amplification

1.3

1.2

Target

1.1

e a /b=0.46

e a /b=0.47

e a /b=0.48

0.9

e a /b=0.49

0.8

0.7

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Normalized eccentricity (e/b)

0.1

0.2

0.3

Torsional amplification

1.4

e/b=0.002

e/b=0.05

e/b=0.10

e/b=0.15

e/b=0.20

e/b=0.25

e/b=0.30

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(c) 0 e b 0.30

Fig. 4. Variation of torsional amplication, Shift 1, conventional approach.

1.6

1.2

Target

ea/b=0.01

1.1

ea/b=0.02

ea/b=0.03

ea/b=0.04

ea/b=0.05

0.9

0.1

0.2

Torsional amplification

Torsional amplification

1.3

1.4

Target

ea/b=0.12

1

ea/b=0.13

ea/b=0.14

0.8

0.6

0.3

ea/b=0.11

1.2

ea/b=0.15

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Torsional amplification

1.6

e/b=0.002

e/b=0.05

e/b=0.10

e/b=0.15

e/b=0.20

e/b=0.25

e/b=0.30

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(c) 0 e b 0.30

Fig. 5 presents the results of Fig. 4 but for Shift 2, which better

represents the mandatory language of Section 12.8.4.2 of ASCE 710. It is clear from the results of Figs. 4(c) and 5(c) that there is

no trend of increasing torsional amplication with increasing accidental eccentricity in response-history analysis using only translational excitation.

Figs. 6 and 7 present a similar study on a set of torsionally exible systems characterized by X = 0.8 and with the uncoupled

translational period being unity as in the previous studies. Note

the maximum range of e/b is now 0 6 e/b 6 0.03 for the system

based on the response of the element located at Side B. Observations are similar to those presented above for the torsionally stiff

systems.

1.1

Target

1.3

ea/b=0.01

ea/b=0.02

1.2

ea/b=0.03

ea/b=0.04

1.1

ea/b=0.05

0.01

0.02

Torsional amplification

Torsional amplification

1.4

ea/b=0.46

0.9

ea/b=0.47

0.8

ea/b=0.48

0.7

ea/b=0.49

0.6

0.5

0.03

Target

0.01

0.02

0.03

Torsional amplification

1.6

1.4

e/b=0.002

e/b=0.01

e/b=0.02

e/b=0.03

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(c) 0 e b 0.03

1.12

1.3

Target

ea/b=0.01

1.2

ea/b=0.02

ea/b=0.03

ea/b=0.04

1.1

ea/b=0.05

1

0.01

0.02

Torsional amplification

Torsional amplification

1.4

1.08

ea/b=0.46

1

ea/b=0.47

0.96

ea/b=0.48

ea/b=0.49

0.92

0.88

0.03

Target

1.04

0.01

0.02

0.03

Torsional amplification

1.6

e/b=0.002

e/b=0.01

e/b=0.02

e/b=0.03

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

(c) 0 e b 0.03

Fig. 7. Variation of torsional amplication in Side-B element, shift-2, conventional approach.

eccentricity shown in these gures (panel c of Figs. 47) is independent of the torsional acceleration history used for analysis

and is rather the result of changes in the dynamic characteristics

of the system when the CM is shifted. Shifting the CM in response-history analysis does not deliver the expected increase in

displacement response.

4. Alternate denition of accidental eccentricity

Recognizing that the current representation of accidental eccentricity does not achieve the desired goal with response-history

analysis, an alternate denition is proposed here that can be schematically described through Fig. 8 in terms of application of the

inertial force. A torsionally stiff system is considered in Fig. 8 for

the purpose of illustration. However, the concept applies to torsionally exible systems as well, but with appropriate

modications.

Fig. 8a shows the inertial force and moment acting through the

CM of the considered system when subjected to the translational

gy along the y direction. The inertial force is comacceleration u

y and mu

gy in the Y direction and moment

prised of components mu

h , where r is the radius of gyration of the slab. To account for

mr 2 u

the effect of accidental torsion in the elements located on Side A

gy is shifted away from the CR by a distance ea

only, the force mu

(see Fig. 8b). This is equivalent to applying a torsional moment

gy (see Fig. 8c). The inertial force and moment shown

equal to mea u

in Fig. 8c can be considered as resulting from a set of equivalent

ground motions acting on the original system as shown in

Fig. 8d. The equivalent ground motions consist of the original

translational motion and a torsional motion calculated by multiplying the translational motion by an arm ea/r2, where ea is the

accidental eccentricity to be determined.

approach

The steps for calculating the accidental eccentricity in the proposed approach are identical to those described in the conventional approach except that step 5 of shifting of the CM is

replaced by the application of a torsional acceleration history as

dened above. Note that the procedure uses two types of torsional

acceleration histories: (i) an actual record (described above under

the heading of Ground Motion Considered) to compute the target

(or actual) torsional amplication, and (ii) an articial record derived by multiplying the translational acceleration history by a factor that is a function of the newly dened accidental eccentricity

(ea/r2). The intensity of the articial torsional acceleration history

is increased by incrementing the accidental eccentricity until the

target torsional amplication is obtained.

Note that for torsionally exible systems, the direction of the

articial torsional acceleration is opposite to that for the one for

torsionally stiff systems.

4.2. Scaling of accidental eccentricity

The articial torsional acceleration history described in Fig. 8d

gh ea =r 2 u

gy , where ea is the accidental eccentricity and u

gy

is u

the translational acceleration history. Alternatively, the torsional

acceleration history may be expressed as

gy

u

4

*

square plan, it is equal to 6).

for accidental torsion in elements located on

Side A

Target

ea/b=0.01

ea/b=0.02

ea/b=0.03

ea/b=0.04

ea/b=0.05

ea/b=0.06

ea/b=0.07

ea/b=0.08

ea/b=0.09

ea/b=0.10

1

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

4

e/b=0.002

e/b=0.01

Torsional amplification

reanalyzed using the proposed denition of accidental eccentricity

(ea in remainder of this paper). Fig. 9 presents results for the set of

torsionally stiff systems considered earlier. Fig. 9 presents the torsional amplication calculated by analysis with translational and

the articial torsional ground motions. This is compared to the target torsional amplication, which is calculated by analysis with

translational and the actual torsional ground motions. Fig. 10 presents similar results to those of Fig. 9 but for the set of torsionally

exible systems considered earlier. Note that Fig. 9(b) and

Fig. 10(b) show increasing torsional amplication with increasing

accidental eccentricity. In other words, if the structure is able

achieve the required torsional amplication with 2% accidental

eccentricity, it will meet the same with any higher value of accidental eccentricity. Such a property was not evident with conventional procedure.

Therefore, the proposed procedure can be used to develop design recommendations for accidental eccentricity for use with response-history analysis to account for the effects of torsional

ground motion. The recommendation should be based on a comparison of calculated torsional amplication and the target torsional amplication obtained using actual torsional ground

motion input. Table 1 presents values of accidental eccentricity

(ea =b) as a percentage of the plan dimension normal to the direction of excitation, for use in response-history analysis. Note these

values are for elastic systems and based on analysis using only

one record of torsional ground motion.

Torsional amplification

e/b=0.02

e/b=0.03

1

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Fig. 10. Variation of torsional amplication in torsionally exible system, proposed

approach, f ea =b.

Torsional amplification

5

Table 1

Accidental eccentricity ea =b for an elastic system.

Target

f=0.01

f=0.02

f=0.03

f=0.04

f=0.05

f=0.06

f=0.07

f=0.08

f=0.09

f=0.10

4

3

2

1

0.8

1

1.25

1.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

Torsional amplification

e/b=0.002

e/b=0.05

e/b=0.10

e/b=0.15

e/b=0.20

e/b=0.25

e/b=0.30

4

3

2

1

0

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

1.0

1.5

3.0

4.0

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.02

0

0

Tn (s)

0.5

0.1

Fig. 9. Variation of torsional amplication in torsionally stiff system, proposed

approach, f

ea =b.

structure that is seismically isolated. The isolation system consists

of six isolators and the system is symmetric about the x axis but

has an eccentricity about the y axis. The mass of the rigid superstructure is lumped at the CM (and geometric center) of the deck.

The isolators have the bilinear hysteretic forcedisplacement relationship shown in Fig. 11, where Q is the strength (force at zero

displacement), Qy is the yield strength, Y is the yield displacement

and Kd is the post-elastic stiffness. Analysis of this nonlinear isolation system can be performed using well-established procedures as

outlined in Basu et al. [4].

A broad range of behavior of the isolation system is considered.

These systems are characterized as described above in case of elastic systems with the exception that the post-elastic stiffness, Kd, is

used instead of the elastic stiffness, Ky. The uncoupled translational

period based on the post-elastic stiffness is denoted as

T d 2p=xd

Td = 4 sand Td = 5 s. The ratios of the uncoupled torsional frequency

Torsional amplification

3.5

Target

f=0.005

f=0.010

f=0.015

f=0.020

f=0.025

f=0.030

f=0.035

f=0.040

f=0.045

f=0.050

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.1

0.2

0.3

system, Td = 4 s, X = 1.25, Q/W = 0.05, Y = 5 mm, f

ea =b.

considered as 1.0, 1.25 and 1.5 to cover a wide range of torsionally

stiff isolation systems. The normalized natural eccentricity (e/b) is

increased from zero, in increments of 0.05, until the maximum value possible for which the system has physical meaning. Further,

X = 0.8 is also considered to study the torsional exible isolation

systems and in such a case e/b is increased from zero, in increments

of 0.01, until the maximum value possible for which the system has

physical meaning. The yield displacement of each isolator was set

equal to 1, 5 and 10 mm. The ratio of characteristic strength to supported weight (Q/W) for each isolator was set equal to 0.04, 0.05,

0.06 and 0.07. The combination of parameters used to describe

the isolation system represents a range of Friction Pendulum and

lead-rubber bearing isolation systems, but using yield displacements appropriate for each type of system: = 1 mm for Friction

Pendulum bearings and Y = 10 mm for lead-rubber bearings.

The accidental eccentricity computed for all systems considered

in this study are reported in Tables 24. Results from one of these

cases, Td = 4 s, Y = 5 mm, X = 1.25 and Q/W = 0.05 are presented in

Fig. 12. This is an example of torsionally stiff isolation systems,

where it is demonstrated that the accidental eccentricity is nearly

independent of the actual eccentricity. A similar observation was

made for a torsionally exible isolation system with Td = 4 s,

Y = 5 mm, X = 0.8 and Q/W = 0.05, for which results are presented

in Fig. 13. The results presented here and additional results in Basu

et al. [4] suggest that the required normalized eccentricity per Eq.

(3) is in the range of 0.0050.01 with the yield displacement

Table 2

Accidental eccentricity ea =b in nonlinear isolation system, Y = 1 mm.

Td = 3 s

j = Q/W (%)

Td = 4 s

j = Q/W (%)

Td = 5 s

j = Q/W (%)

0.8

1

1.25

1.5

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

Table 3

Accidental eccentricity ea =b in nonlinear isolation system, Y = 5 mm.

Td = 3 s

j = Q/W (%)

Td = 4 s

j = Q/W (%)

Td = 5 s

j = Q/W (%)

0.8

1

1.25

1.5

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

Table 4

Accidental eccentricity ea =b in nonlinear isolation system, Y = 10 mm.

Td = 3 s

j = Q/W (%)

Td = 4 s

j = Q/W (%)

Td = 5 s

j = Q/W (%)

0.8

1

1.25

1.5

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.005

0.005

0.005

0.005

10

7. Conclusions

Torsional amplification

3.5

Target

f=0.005

f=0.010

f=0.015

2.5

f=0.020

f=0.025

f=0.030

f=0.035

f=0.040

f=0.045

1.5

f=0.050

1

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

Fig. 13. Variation of torsional amplication in side B element of nonlinear isolation

system, Td = 4 s, X = 0.8, Q/W = 0.05, Y = 5 mm, f

ea =b.

other torsional motions are needed to better dene the values of

normalized eccentricity.

eccentricity

This paper presents an alternative denition of accidental

eccentricity to account for the effects of torsional ground motion.

This new denition of accidental eccentricity applies a torsional

ground motion, which is the product of a translational ground motion and a factor that is a function of the proposed accidental

eccentricity. The required accidental eccentricity is that which

achieves the actual torsional amplication as determined by use

of the actual torsional ground motion. The displacement of a corner

of the building is used to dene the torsional amplication, as has

been used in many prior studies (e.g., [811]. For multistory systems, the number of response quantities that could be used to dene the torsional amplication increases rapidly. Each quantity

would produce a different accidental eccentricity in a multistory

building.

While the calculation of the required accidental eccentricity in a

multistory system should consider all important response quantities and utilize that which produces the greatest demand, it has

been common to dene the accidental eccentricity using single

story models and then verify the validity of the results by analysis

of selected multistory structures. For example, De-La-Llera and

Chopra [9] showed the torsional amplication computed for a

one-story system was identical to that in any story of a special

class of multistory buildings [16,2] if the contributions from the

higher modes are negligible. The design recommendations for accidental eccentricity for this special class of structures are then identical to those for one-story systems.

The denition of the accidental eccentricity proposed herein

also applies to sources of accidental torsion other than the torsional component of ground motion. However, the procedure to

quantify the value of the accidental eccentricity will differ by

source. For example, the source could be uncertainty in the inplane stiffness of lateral load resisting elements. Then the procedure of De-La-Llera and Chopra [9] could be used together with

the denition of accidental eccentricity proposed here.

Further studies are needed if the denition of accidental eccentricity presented above is accepted. Such studies would require the

use of a large number of torsional ground motions and structural

systems to provide the body of knowledge necessary for the development of design recommendations and code language.

and without consideration of uncertainty in mass distribution,

the conventional approach of accounting for the effects of accidental torsion by shifting the CM does not produce the desired effect in

response-history analysis because the shift changes the dynamic

characteristics of the structure so that it is possible to have reduced

displacement demands with increasing eccentricity. An alternative

denition of accidental eccentricity is proposed wherein accidental

torsion is accounted for by simultaneously applying torsional and

translational acceleration histories. The torsional acceleration history is computed as the product of the translational history and a

scale factor, which is a function of the proposed accidental

eccentricity.

The proposed procedure has been studied for a broad range of

single story elastic systems and nonlinear isolation systems. Torsional amplication is predicted correctly, namely, increasing torsional response with increasing eccentricity. The study

demonstrates that for nonlinear isolation systems, the required accidental eccentricity increases as the yield displacement increases.

Values of the required accidental eccentricity to account for torsional ground motion effects are presented (tabulated in Tables 1

4) but are specic to the ground motions considered in this study

and should not be considered as the design recommendations. This

paper proposes only a methodology of accounting for the accidental eccentricity due to the torsional component of the ground motion. Quantication of such accidental eccentricity requires a

rigorous application of the proposed methodology based on a large

number of ground motions recorded at various geologic/site

conditions.

Acknowledgements

The nancial support for the studies described herein was provided by MCEER (www.mceer.buffalo.edu) under Thrust Area 3,

Innovative Technologies, through a grant from the State of New

York. The Institute of Earth Science, Academia, Sinica, Taiwan provided the strong motion data. The nancial support, technical review and provision of data are gratefully acknowledged. Any

opinions, ndings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in

this paper are the authors and do not necessarily reect those of

either MCEER or the State of New York.

References

[1] ASCE. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Standard

ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA; 2010.

[2] Basu D, Gopalakrishnan N. Analysis for preliminary design of a class of

torsionally coupled buildings with horizontal setbacks. Eng Struct

2008;30:127291.

[3] Basu D, Jain SK. Alternative method to locate centre of rigidity in asymmetric

buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 2007;36(7):96573.

[4] Basu D, et al. Characterizing the rotational components of earthquake ground

motion. MCEER-12-0005, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering

Research, SUNY, Buffalo, NY; 2012.

[5] Chandler AM. Inuence of accidental eccentricity on inelastic seismic torsional

effects in buildings. Eng Struct 1995;17(3):16778.

[6] CSI. SAP 2000: static and dynamic nite element analysis of structures.

Berkeley, California, Computers and Structures, Inc; 2009.

[7] De-La-Colina J, Gonzalez JV, Perez CAG. Experiments to study the effects of

foundation rotation on the seismic building torsional response of a reinforced

concrete space frame. Eng Struct 2013;56(11541163).

[8] De-La-Llera JC, Chopra AK. Accidental in buildings due to stiffness uncertainty.

Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1994;23:11736.

[9] De-La-Llera JC, Chopra AK. Accidental torsion in buildings due to base

rotational excitation. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 1994;23:100321.

[10] De-La-Llera JC, Chopra AK. Evaluation of code accidental-torsion provisions

from building records. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1994;120(2):597615.

[11] De-La-Llera JC, Chopra AK. Using accidental eccentricity in code specied static

and dynamic analyses of buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam

1994;23:94767.

[12] De-La-Llera JC, Chopra AK. Estimation of accidental torsion effects for seismic

design of buildings. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1995;121(1):10214.

[13] De-La-Llera JC, Chopra AK. Evaluation of seismic code provisions using strongmotion building records from the 1994 northridge esarthquake. UCB/EERC-97/

16, Earthquake Engineering Reserach Center, University of California,

Berkeley; 1997.

[14] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Seismic code analysis of buildings without locating

centers of rigidity. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1993;119(10):303955.

[15] Hao H. Torsional response of building structures to spatial random ground

excitations. Eng Struct 1997;19(2):10512.

[16] Hejal R, Chopra AK. Earthquake response of torsionally-coupled buildings.

UCB/EERC-87/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of

California, Berkely; 1987.

11

motions. J Struct Eng, ASCE 2001;127(5):47581.

[18] LLSST. <http://www.earth.sinica.edu.tw/~smdmc/llsst/llsst.htm>.

[19] Sheikhabadi MRF. Simplied relations for the application of rotational

components to seismic design codes. Eng Struct 2014;59:14152.

[20] Tso WK. Static eccentricity concept for torsional moment estimation. J Struct

Eng, ASCE 1990;116(5):1199212.

[21] Wen KL, Yeh YT. Seismic velocity strucure beneath the SMART-1 array. Bull

Inst Earth Sci, Acad Sin 1984;4:5172.

[22] Wolff ED, Ipek C, Constantinou MC, Morillas L. Torsional response of

seismically isolated structures revisited. Eng Struct 2014;59:4628.

- About Pushover Analysis and SAP 2000 MethodHochgeladen vonHanush Anand
- Confinement DesignHochgeladen vonJAcc COncepcion
- 200Hochgeladen vonMuhammad Siddique
- sdarticleHochgeladen vonCarlos Andres Gualdron
- unit 13Hochgeladen vonHadi Anwar
- c05c Pacp Sap Push+ThHochgeladen vonCristian Blanaru
- Retrofit IngHochgeladen vonChandra Shekar
- Section6.1Hochgeladen vonEng Abdulkarim Omar
- History of Nonlinear Seismic Analysis.pdfHochgeladen vonDr Rajeev
- Brief Guide to Seismic Design ForcesHochgeladen vonkarl_micallef
- 13_3059Hochgeladen vonRomoex R Rock
- Refer NcesdgbdHochgeladen vonAbhinav Singh Sachan
- nehrp2003rp_Chapter07Hochgeladen vonOrnela Lalaj Şen
- 6t5r7y657Hochgeladen vonsaileshkumar888
- Toshiba Computer StructureHochgeladen vonOkolo Obinna
- Rigid Head PilesHochgeladen vonPrerak Agrawal
- Presentation 1Hochgeladen vonSaad Ullah
- 75 RossettoHochgeladen vonJulius Rey Baniqued
- Earthquake EngineeringHochgeladen vonNam
- PCI_Jan02_Seis_design_provi_in_US.pdfHochgeladen vonRajeev Dua
- FMDS0102 EARTHQUAKES.pdfHochgeladen vonfghabboon
- EFFECTIVELOCATIONOFSHEARWALLONPERFORMANCEOFBUILDINGFRAMESUBJECTEDTOLATERALLOADHochgeladen vonqwerty qwerty
- 638-5945-1-PBHochgeladen vonmatias poza
- aHochgeladen vonfredmanca512
- Paper045s.pdfHochgeladen vonvinujohnpanicker
- Paolacci_Reza_Bursi.pdfHochgeladen vonMUHAMMAD UMAR RIAZ
- Seismc NPPHochgeladen vonsumit_fm77
- Seismic Design of Steel Structures.pdfHochgeladen vonKumar Utkarsh
- IRC-SP-114-2018.pdfHochgeladen vonAnil Suryawanshi
- 52shimamoto.pdfHochgeladen vonDidik Junaidi

- FEMA P695 - Quantification of Building Seismic Performance FactorsHochgeladen vonGiapVap
- WCEE2012_4135 DBDSOFTHochgeladen vonpouyamh
- Development of a Model Code for Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design Calvi 2009Hochgeladen vonpouyamh
- EC8 Seismic Design of Buildings - Worked examplesHochgeladen vonMarco Fasan
- DBDsoft_supplementpplementHochgeladen vonpouyamh
- DBDsoft User ManualHochgeladen vonpouyamh
- ChopraHochgeladen vonBrankica Zivkovic
- Guidlines for Displacement-Based Design of Buildings and BridgesHochgeladen vonpouyamh
- Technical Comittee on Performance-based Design and Utilization of Precast Concrete Products-Hisada-2011Hochgeladen vonpouyamh
- Development of Computer Software for Direct Displacement Based Design-Fabitzio Magni-2011Hochgeladen vonpouyamh
- Direct Displacement-Based Design of Frame-Wall Structures-Sullivan,Priestley,Calvi-2006Hochgeladen vonpouyamh
- Development of a Model Code for Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design-calvi-2009Hochgeladen vonpouyamh
- A Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design Procedure of Inelastic Structures 2001Hochgeladen vondragos_vm8526
- A Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Reinforced Concrete Structures-Boulaouad-2011-IsIHochgeladen vonpouyamh

- ffhHochgeladen vonnilesh2215
- 150 26-EG1-Engineering Guide-Model YCWL Water-Cooled Scroll Liquid Chiller Style a 60 HzHochgeladen vonJose Mera
- Dynabolt-Zinc-Coated-Steel-Design-Guide.pdfHochgeladen vonShadin Asari Arabani
- Daily Inspection ManualHochgeladen vonJN Conti
- Tranport 1Hochgeladen vonAyman Al Kafrawy
- OME 2017 08 EGN 3365Hochgeladen vonnick
- 1999 Us Army Mechancial & Electrical Design of Pumping Stations 171pHochgeladen vonLo Shun Fat
- Cat MachinesHochgeladen vonSonia Pérez
- D1_620en_PlungerpumpHochgeladen vonAkhil Jose
- Impact of a JetHochgeladen vonMuhammad Hakim Jaffar
- Crane Inspection Check ListHochgeladen vonKhuda Buksh
- Finite Element Analysis of 99.60 m High Roller Compacted Concrete (Rcc)Hochgeladen vonJose Luis Urquidi Barea
- FSAEHochgeladen vonKaran Khanse
- bare_conf.pdfHochgeladen vonMohd Furquan
- Diffuser sHochgeladen vonOwais Sial
- TB290 Troubleshooting 4JJ1 DeHochgeladen vonmxnoxn
- Turbine Governing System in Power PlantHochgeladen vonnetygen1
- Job Boss ManualHochgeladen vonsmaldonado1
- HTW-1260 T5 [Open Skid] ENHochgeladen vonRoshan Shanmughan
- Carrier Bus Air Conditioning Rearmount 68RM35-604-20 (R134a)Operation&Service Manual [NYCDOT] Pub#T288Hochgeladen vonClifton Jamison
- IR1435-PCHochgeladen vonSadyr
- Helical Gears ProblemsHochgeladen vona17e
- Afripumps-Pricelist.pdfHochgeladen vonOwen
- service tips metsoHochgeladen vonRichard Vica Calvo
- API602-2009Hochgeladen vonbhooshankumar
- Selden Hydralic Package Manual.pdfHochgeladen vonNils Branting
- 3 Stage Gearbox Vertical Roller MillsHochgeladen vonYasin Yimam
- Revit 2013 Comparison MatrixHochgeladen vonLe Manh Cuong
- 14.2042015Assignment14SolutionHochgeladen vonInfo Esocket
- Single compression Cable glands_Comet.pdfHochgeladen vondip461