Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

A STUDY ON EFFECT OF STRENGTH ASSIGNMENT TO THE


COLUMNS TO MINIMIZE THE TORSION IN ASYMMETRIC
BUILDING

Mr. Mohd Khadeer1, Mr. MUHAMMED MASIHUDDIN SIDDIQUI2


1
(Department of Civil Engineering, ACE Engineering College/ JNTUH, India)
2
(Department of Civil Engineering, Muffakham Jah College of Engineering/ OU, India)

ABSTRACT :
In the present study asymmetric buildings with four and ten stories are taken for the analysis. These building models are analyzed for
gravity and seismic forces using ETABS[1] software. Three models with different column sizes were considered to show its effect on torsion in
the non linear analysis of the buildings. Strength parameters for non-linear response were also studied to obtain the optimum positions of the
centres. It was found that when the strength re-distribution is performed the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of
rigidity, thereby with significant reduction in base torsion. When the position of center of mass is at the middle of the center of rigidity and
center of strength, the base torsion was decreased by 3.5% and 10.5% in model 2 and model 3 respectively when compared to the model 1 for a
four storey model similarly for a ten storey model the base torsion was found to be decreased by 9% and 38% in model 2 and model 3 when
compared to the model 1. When the strength re-distribution is performed, as the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of
rigidity, the base torsion was found to be considerably decreased by 26% and 35% for model four and ten storey respectively. Therefore, the
work shows that the strength eccentricity and position of centre of strength are significant parameters in judging the non-linear response of the
structure with respect to base torsion.

KEYWORDS - Asymmetric building, Strength distribution, Strength and Stiffness eccentricity and Base
torsion.

INTRODUCTION
Observations on damages caused by major earthquakes have shown that structures with lack of symmetry usually performed poorly
and suffered heavier damage due to excessive torsional response. To alleviate this, most seismic design codes incorporate some design
guidelines for strength assignment to the lateral force resisting elements (LFRE), commonly referred to as torsional provisions (IAEE, 2000). An
asymmetric structure vibrates in a coupled translation and rotation manner during earthquakes. In comparison to a symmetric structure that
vibrates in translation modes, for an asymmetric structure the coupled responses will increase the lateral displacements on the flexible side and
may cause a decrease of displacements on the opposite side, called the stiff side. The current design guidelines are based on the assumption
that the stiffness of LFRE is unaffected by the strength assignment. Using elasto-plastic modeling to represent the force-displacement
relationship, two elements of similar size designed to have different strengths would have force displacement. An increase of strength will lead
to an increase of yield displacement, but the stiffness of the element remains unchanged. In other words, the stiffness and strength are
independent. Recently, it has been pointed out that for many reinforced concrete LFRE such as flexural walls (Paulay, 1997; Priestley and
Kowalsky, 1998) and oment resisting frames (Priestley, 1998), the force-displacement relationship of these elements may be considered as
bilinear, and their yield displacements depend only on material properties and the geometry of the elements. For seismic design purpose, the
yield displacement may be considered to be independent of strength. A better representation of the force-displacement relationships for two
elements of similar dimensions but different strength would appear. In such representation, the stiffness and strength are dependent parameters.
An increase of strength will lead to an increase of stiffness. This fundamental change reflecting a more realistic behavior of the reinforced
concrete LFRE is associated with a number of implications in seismic design (Paulay, 2001a). Among the issues faced by designers are: (1)
How effective are the current seismic torsional provisions that are based on the traditional assumption that the strength and stiffness of LFRE are
independent? (2) Current code procedures which require equilibrium analyses, may not be carried out in a straightforward manner because the
stiffness distribution is not known prior to strength assignment.

In this paper, a short review of the current torsional provisions in design codes is presented. Based on an examination of seismic
responses, a desirable strength/stiffness distribution that could lead to minimized torsional response is postulated. Finally, the rotation response
of structures with strength assignment following two of the current torsional provisions and the proposed procedure are compared.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 129 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY

Traditionally, the degree of asymmetry has been measured in terms of the structural eccentricity. It is a useful parameter to co-relate the
seismic elastic response of asymmetric structures. However, when the structural system is excited into the inelastic range, yielding of the
resisting elements complicates the behavior. Therefore there is a need to study and identify a different parameter that captures the inelastic
response of the structure.

The present work aims at the following objectives


To study the effect of variation in the base torsion with respect to the positions of center of mass, centre of stiffness and centre of strength of the
building.
To study the effectiveness of strength distribution in minimizing torsional response.

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT DISTRIBUTION BASED APPROACH OF A BUILDING

The stiffness distribution-based approach assumes that the stiffness along each column line can be estimated based on material
properties and geometry and will not be affected by the strength of the LFRE. The asymmetry of the structure is characterized by stiffness
eccentricity eR, the distance between the center of stiffness CR and the center of mass CM.

The assignment of strength to an element is based on the force induced in that element by the more severe of the two loading cases.
The end result following such provisions is that one needs to assign more strength to elements on the flexible side of the structure. Depending
on the specific code, one may permit a decrease of element strength on the stiff side. The efficiency of the torsional provisions has been
studied by Force Displacement. many researchers (Chopra and Goel, 1991; Chandler and Duan, 1997; Rutenberg, 2002), among others. One
general consensus of the studies is that incorporating torsional provisions will result in a reduction of ductility demands on elements located at
the flexible edge of the structure.

The ductility demands on elements on the stiff edge may or may be not being reduced, depending on a number of factors. One
primary factor is the allowance of strength reduction for the stiff edge element. Codes that allow no reduction, such as the Uniform Building
Code (UBC, 1997), usually lead to ductility demands that are similar to or less than those of a symmetric structure of comparable construction.
For codes that have no restriction on the reduction of strength, such as the Eurocode (Eurocode 8, 2002), the ductility demands of the stiff side
elements may increase significantly. It should be noted that all the studies are based on the assumption that the stiffness and strength of the
LFRE are independent. To examine the efficiency of the current torsional provisions in reducing the rotational response of structures with
strength/stiffness dependent LFRE, strength assignment will be carried out using both the UBC and the EC8 for a single story structural model.

A balanced cv-cr location criterion

A strength assignment procedure has been presented such that balanced CV-CR location strength/stiffness distributions will be reached. The
proposed procedure is yield displacement distribution-based. It suggests that the strength distribution should have a shape similar to the yield
displacement distribution, modified by a design parameter to be chosen by the designer. A design based on =0 would lead to a strength
distribution having eV=0. A =1 design would result in a stiffness distribution such that eR =0. By choosing between zero and unity, the
structure will satisfy the balanced CV-CR location criterion and have a low torsional response.
This criterion was first proposed by the authors (Myslimaj and Tso, 2002) and was based on the study of a single story structural model having
two LFRE. It states that a desirable strength/stiffness distribution to minimize torsional response is the one that results in the location of the
center of strength CV and the center of rigidity CR on opposite sides of CM. An extension of the study to include multiple LFRE systems
showed that the asymmetry of the system can be characterized by the location of the center of yield displacement CD in relation to CM, or
equivalently the yield displacement eccentricity eD. For a given yield displacement distribution, the distance D between CV and CR is
insensitive to strength assignment to the elements and can be considered constant (Tso and Myslimaj, 2003).
Traditionally, the seismic torsional provisions advocate a structural design with small value of eR. This is a valid criterion if all LFRE remain in
the elastic state. During a major earthquake, it is likely that some or all LFRE will be excited into the inelastic state. Recently, another design
criterion calling for small or zero eV has been advocated (Paulay, 2001b). It is shown here that for structures with strength-stiffness dependent
LFRE both these criteria do not lead to minimized torsional response.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 130 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

FIGURES AND TABLES


The layout of plan is asymmetric in both x & y directions having equal bay length 5 m in both the
directions. The building considered are reinforced concrete ordinary moment resisting frame of four ten stories with different column sizes,
modified column sizes using strength assignments. All these buildings have been analyzed by non- linear static analysis [pushover analysis]. The
typical storey height is 3m for all models.
The plan configurations consists of
Models for four and ten storied building
Model 1 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, all column sizes are 375x375mm.
Model 2 - Building is asymmetric both X & Y directions, all column sizes are 400x400mm.
Model 3 - Building is asymmetric both X & Y directions, all column sizes are 450x450mm.
Modified columns using strength assignments
Strength assignments for four storey models

Fig 4.1 Model A for four storey building

Fig 4.2 Model B for four storey building

Fig 4.3 Model C for four storey building

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 131 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Model A - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 375 mm and varying depths [i.e. 450,475,500].
Model B - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 400 mm and varying depths [i.e. 425,450,475].
Model C - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 450 mm and varying depths [i.e. 400,425,450].

Strength assignments for ten storey models

Fig 4.4 Model A for ten storey building

Fig 4.5 Model B for ten storey building

Fig 4.6 Model C for ten storey building

Model 1 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 375 mm and varying depths [i.e. 1100,1150,1175,1200,1250].
Model 2 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 400 mm and varying depths [i.e.1075,1100,1150,1175,1200].
Model 3 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 450 mm and varying depths [i.e. 1000,1050,1075,1100,1150].

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 132 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Fig 4.7 Plan view of the models

Non-linear static analysis (pushover analysis)

For defining the POA case we start with the assignment of the hinges to the members of the structure. The Etabs package gives the
choice to the user for selecting or defining the type of hinges required for analysis. Default hinge definitions according to the FEMA-356
guidelines have been provided at the ends, where the formation of the potential plastic hinges is more probable for beams and columns with
degree of freedom as M3 and the shear value for the hinge is taken from the Dead load case. The hinges are set so that they ddrop the load after
reaching the performance level.After assignment of the hinges, the pushover cases are defined under the conjugate monitored displacement
d the
structure is then designed according to IS-456:
456: 2000 and then pushover cases are run on the designed structure,
structure, for the analysis results

Fig 4.15 Non-linear


linear hinge assignment of columns and beams

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 133 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Fig 4.16 Non-linear case of gravity

Fig 4.17 Non-linear case for mode 1 in x direction

Fig 4.18 Pushover cases to run

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 134 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Strength distribution using displacement distribution approach


The yield displacement distribution is represented by L and R.
L = (n1/B) (/ n1)
R = (nn/B) (/ n1)
The value of is determined by equating the total yield displacements of the laminae to the sum of the yield displacements of the discrete
LFRE, leading to
= (n1)/( n2)[2 n/( n1)*]AV
Where = 0.5 n(1 + n)/ i i= 1,2,.,n
and AV = i / B*
i = s (xi) i= 1,2,.,n
s = B/(n-1) and
B* = nB/(n-1)
The strength of each lamina is given by f(x)dx, where f(x) is the strength distribution of the laminae. It is proposed that f(x) should have a
similar shape as the yield displacement distribution (x), and it can be expressed as:
f(x) = { F[1+2(1-fL)X/B*],
F[1+2(1-fR)X/B*] }
where F is a scaling factor to relate the strength of the laminae to the design base shear V, and FfL and FfR are the magnitudes of strength of the
laminae at the left and right edge, respectively. The shape of the strength distribution is defined by the non-dimensional parameters fL and fR in
relation to unity.
The parameter F is determined by requiring the total strength of the laminae to be equal to the design base shear V, namely
F = 4V/ B*(fL +fR +2)
Parameters fL and fR can be explicitly expressed in terms of L, R and as follows
fL = 0.5[( L + R) + ( L R)]
fR = 0.5[( L + R) ( L R)]
Once the value of is chosen, the strength distribution for the continuum model is completely defined. Then, the strength of each discrete LFRE
of the system can be obtained as the summation of all the strength of the laminae within its tributary area. The strength of the discrete elements
located at xi can be written as
f i = s f(xi) i= 1,2,.,n

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The following are the results obtained by carrying out the non linear static analysis for different buildings. Subsequent discussions are
made about the results obtained by non linear analysis based on torsion with respect to stiffness and strength eccentricity. And also the position
of centre of mass, centre of stiffness and centre of strength of different models with different column sizes were also discussed.

Torsional variation
The following table contains the results of the modal analysis carried out for the structure as discussed earlier. The values tabulated are of the
critical models of the structure, which have been considered in the analysis. Torsional variation for non linear static analysis (Pushover) of a four
storey building

Table 5.1 Base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a four storey building

Model Base torsion(kNm)

Model1(375x375mm) 2787.47

Model2(400x400mm) 2690.82

Model3(450x450mm) 2491.4

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 135 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

2900
2787.47
2800
2690.82
2700
Base torsion 2600
(kNm) 2491.4 push
2500
2400
2300
model 1 model 2 model 3

Fig 5.1 illustrates the variation of base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a four storey building

It is observed that the variation of base torsion for a non-linear static analysis of a four storey building is decreased by 3.5% and 10.5% in model
2 and model 3 respectively when compared to the model 1.
Position of centre of mass, stiffness and strength

Fig 5.2 illustrates the position of centers four storey

XCM = -0.6925 YCM = -0.9674


XCM = -0.6913 YCM = -0.9674 Model 1 XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.971
XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652
XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652 Model 2 XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652
XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58
XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58 Model 3 XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58

The following table contains the results of the modal analysis carried out for the structure as discussed earlier. The values tabulated are of the
critical models of the structure, which have been considered in the analysis. Torsional variation for non linear static analysis (Pushover) of a ten
storey building

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 136 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

0Table 5.2 Base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a ten storey building

Model Base torsion(kNm)

Model1(375x375mm) 1855.96
Model2(400x400mm) 1688.5
Model3(450x450mm) 1146.90

2000 1855.96
1688.5

1500
1146.9
Base torsion 1000
(kN-m) PUSH
500

0
model 1 model 2 model 3

Fig 5.3 illustrates the variation of base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a ten storey building

It is observed that the variation of base torsion for a non-linear static analysis of a ten storey building is decreased by 9% and 38% in model 2
and model 3 when compared to the model 1.

Position of centre of mass, stiffness and strength

Fig 5.4 illustrates the position of centers ten storey

XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.970 Model 1 XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.971 XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.9713
XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652 XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652 XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652
XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58 XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58 Model 2 XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58
Model 3

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 137 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Comparison of torsion

The following table contains the results of the modal analysis carried out for the structure as discussed earlier. The values tabulated are of the
critical models of the structure, which have been considered in the analysis. Torsional variation of model 1 and model A.

Table 5.3 Comparison of Base torsion for model 1 and model A

Model 1 Model A Model 1 Base Model A Base


torsion (kNm) torsion (kNm)
Model(4 storey) Model (4 storey) 2787.47 2042.85
(375 x 375 mm) (375 x 450,475,500 mm)

Model(10storey) Model (10 storey) 1855.96 1195.85


(375 x 375 mm) (375x100,1150,1175,1200,1250 mm)

3000 2787.47

2500
2042.85
2000
Base torsion 1500
model 1
(kNm)
1000 model A

500

0
model 4 storey

Fig 5.5 Comparison of Base for model 1 and model A for four storey

Based on the results of non-linear static analysis it is observed that the variation of base torsion for the model 1 and model A of a four storey
building is decreased by 26%.

2000 1855.96
1800
1600
1400
1195.85
1200
Base torsion 1000
model 1
(kNm)
800 model A
600
400
200
0
model 10 storey

Fig 5.6 Comparison of Base torsion for model 1 and model A for ten storey

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 138 http://iaetsdjaras.org/


IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Based on the results of non-linear static analysis it is observed that the variation of base torsion for the model 1 and model A of a ten storey
building is decreased by 35%.

Discussions of results

Results for position of centers

When the position of center of mass is at the middle of the center of rigidity and center of strength, the base torsion was very high
2787.47, 2690.82 and 2491.4 kNm for model 1,2 and 3 respectively for a four storey model as shown in fig 5.1 similarly for a ten storey model
the base torsion was found to be 1855.96,1688.5,1146.90 kNm for models 1,2 and 3 respectively as shown in fig 5.3.

When the strength re-distribution is performed, as the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of rigidity, the base torsion
was found to be considerably decreased to 2042.85 and 1195.85 kNm for model four and ten storey respectively as shown in fig 5.5. Thereby a
maximum decrease in base torsion is by 26% and 35% for model four and ten storey respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The following are the conclusions drawn from the present work:

1. The base torsion for the non-linear static analysis of the four storey building has decreased by 3.5% and 10.5% when the column sizes were
changed in model 2( column size 400x400 mm) and model 3(column size 450x450 mm) respectively when compared to the model 1(column
size 375x375 mm).
2. The base torsion for the non-linear static analysis of the ten storey building has decreased by 9% and 38% when the column sizes were changed
in model 2 and model 3 respectively when compared to the model 1.
3. The base torsion value decreased significantly by 26% for 4 storey model and 35% for 10 storey model when the strength re-distribution is
performed, as the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of rigidity.

4. The assignment of strength to LFRE will affect both the strength and stiffness distributions, we advocate a strength assignment that satisfies the
balanced CV-CR and CM location criterion. This criterion requires that CV and CR be located on opposite sides of CM.
5. It is found that the strength eccentricity and position of centre of strength are significant parameters in judging the non-linear response of the
structure with respect to base torsion.

REFERENCES

1. International Association for Earthquake Engineering. Regulations for Seismic DesignA World List. IAEE: Tokyo, 2000.
2. Myslimaj, B. and Tso, W.K. 2003. A yield displacement distribution-based approach for strength assignment to lateral force-resisting
elements having strength dependent stiffness International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and structural Dynamics, 32, 2319-2351
.
3. Clough RW, Johnston SB. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. Proceedings of the Japan Earthquake
Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 1966, pp. 227232.
4. Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley: New York, 1992.
5. Tso, W. K., and Meng, V. (1982). "Torsional provisions in building codes." Tso, W. K, and Meng, V. (1982). "Torsional provisions in
building codes." Can. Can. 9(1), 38-46.J. J. Civ. Civ. Engrg., Engrg., 9(1), 38-46.
6. IS 875(1987), Indian Standard Code of practice for Design loads for buildings and structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
7. Aschheim M. Seismic design based on the yield displacement. Earthquake Spectra 2002; 18:581600.
8. Murthy C.V.R, Learning earthquake design.
9. Agarwal Shrikhande Mansih, earth quake resistant design of structures.
10. Paul, D.K. Simplified seismic analysis of framed buildings on hill slopes, Bulletin of Indian Society of earthquake technology, Vol
30, No4, paper 335,Dec 1993,pp113124.

VOLUME 4, ISSUE 5, OCT/2017 139 http://iaetsdjaras.org/