Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/273447330
CITATIONS READS
2 1,629
1 author:
Varadharajan Srinivasan
Amity University
10 PUBLICATIONS 37 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
determination of inelastic seismic response of steel buildings with irregularity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Varadharajan Srinivasan on 29 December 2016.
The present study summarizes the research works done in the past regarding different types of structural irregularities
i.e. Plan and vertical irregularities. Criteria and limits specified for these irregularities as defined by different codes
of practice (IS1893:2002, EC8:2004 etc.) have been discussed briefly. It was observed that the limits of both Plan and
vertical irregularities prescribed by these codes were comparable. Different types of modeling approaches used have
also been discussed briefly. The review of previous research works regarding different types of plan irregularities
justified the preference of multistorey building models over single storey building models and concept of balanced
CV (Center of strength) – CR (Center of rigidity) location was found to be useful in controlling the seismic response
parameters. Regarding the vertical irregularities it was found that strength irregularity had the maximum impact and
mass irregularity had the minimum impact on seismic response. Regarding the analysis method MPA (Modal pushover
analysis) method even after much improvement was found to be less accurate as compared to dynamic analysis.
When a building is subjected to seismic excitation, (Horizontal) and Vertical irregularity as shown in
horizontal inertia forces are generated in the building. Fig.1.
The resultant of these forces is assumed to act through
the center of mass (C.M) of the structure. The vertical Irregularity
TABLE 2
IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IBC 2003, TEC 2007 AND ASCE – 7.05
Type of Irregularity IBC 20035 TEC 20076 ASCE – 7.057
Horizontal
a) Re-entrant corners - Ri ≤ 20% Ri ≤15%
b) Torsional irregularity - dmax ≤ 1.2 davg dmax ≤ 1.2 davg
dmax ≤ 1.4 davg
c) Diaphragm Discontinuity - Oa > 33% Oa > 50% S > 50%
Vertical
a) Mass Mi < 1.5 Ma - Mi < 1.5 Ma
b) Stiffness Si < 0.7Si+1 Or - Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
c) Soft Storey Si < 0.7Si+1 Or [ηki = (Δi / hi) avr / Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Δi+1 / hi +1) avr > 2.0 or Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
d) Weak Storey Si < Si+1 [ηci = (Ae)i / < 0.80] Si < 0.6Si+1 Or
Si < 0.7 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
e) Setback irregularity SBi < 1.3 SBa - SBi < 1.3 SBa
The Horizontal and vertical irregularity limits as per Figure 2 Shows the pictorial representation of
IBC 20035, Turkish code 20076 and ASCE 7 – 057 are different irregularity limits as per IS 1893:20027.
shown in Table 2.
Fig. 4 Definitions of different types of eccentricity a) Mass Pekau and Guimond17 checked the adequacy of
eccentricity, b) Stiffness eccentricity, c) Strength
accidental eccentricity to account for the torsion
eccentricity
induced due to the variation of strength and stiffness
of the resisting elements which was achieved using
Research works on plan irregular building systems
elasto-plastic force-deformation relationship. Results
started in early 1980’s with Tso and Sadek10 determined
of analytical study showed occurrence of torsional
the variation in ductility demand by performing inelastic
amplification due to strength and stiffness variation.
seismic response of simple one storey mass eccentric
Finally the code prescribed provision of 5% for
model with stiffness degradation using Clough’s
accidental eccentricity was found to inadequate.
stiffness degradation model and bi-linear hysteric
model. Results of analytical study showed that the time Duan and Chandler18 based on their analytical studies
period had predominant effect on the ductility demand on plan irregular building systems the change in design
Force
Fig. 5 Structural model considered by De-La colina
Unloading branch with initial F
stiffness k k Fλ β = 1-3α
λ = 1-2α
Based on the results of analytical study it was Fβ Displacement η = 1- α
Fη
conclude that, with increase in the force reduction α- Rate of strength deterioration
factor, the ductility demand reduces for flexible element. Deteriorated loading
branch
Regarding the effect of initial lateral time period it was Target points of loading
branch
found that for torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the (a)
versa for torsionally unbalanced flexible elements and Unloading branch with initial
increase in value of stiffness eccentricities reduced the stiffness k k(1-2δ)
Displacement
Fλ
F
β = 1-3α k
normalized ductility demand. Based on these results it λ = 1-2α β k(1-3δ)
was concluded that strength eccentricity had greater η = 1- α Fη
k(1-δ)
effect on seismic response as compared to stiffness α- Rate of strength deterioration
(b)
eccentricity.
Ghersi and Rossi31 determined the influence of Fig. 6: Second Hysteretic model proposed by Dutta and Das33
bidirectional seismic excitation on seismic response of
stiffness eccentric one storey building systems using Tso and Myslimaj8 proposed a new approach
elastic and inelastic analysis. The seismic response of called yield distribution based approach for strength
the inelastic analysis was compared with the results and stiffness distribution. For analytical study the
of elastic analysis. Results of analysis showed that authors modeled a single storey structure with a rigid
the consideration of effects of bidirectional seismic rectangular deck supported by two resisting elements
excitation results in minor variation in seismic response. in X and five resisting elements in Y direction. The
Elastic analysis using unidirectional seismic excitation resisting elements were modeled using elasto-plastic,
was found to overestimate the seismic response. the bilinear and Clough’s hysteresis models for force
stiff structure was justified. However, the method did the code defined procedures the authors had found out
not include the effects of lateral torsional coupling and the optimal values of storey eccentricity.
was found to be under-conservative as compared to the Chopra and Goel42 proposed a new method based
N2 method. on extension of their earlier method43. In the proposed
De-la-Colina41 made assessments of several code method the torsional amplification of the structure
specified procedures regarding analysis procedures for was accounted for by application of the lateral forces
multistorey building systems with mass and stiffness in combination with the torsional moments at each
irregularity subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation floor of the structure. The lateral forces and torsional
(EI Centro earthquake). Analytical studies were carried moments were obtained from the modal analysis of
out on several 5 storey buildings having mass and the structure. A comparison between the results of the
stiffness eccentricity. Shear beam models were used by proposed method and non-linear dynamic analysis were
researchers to represent resisting elements. Based on made for building systems with different uncoupled
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING MULTI STOREY PLAN ASYMMETRIC STRUCTURES
S.No Researcher Year N Type and extent of Main conclusion
eccentricity
1 Stahthopoulos 2003 3 5 em = 0.1b - 0.3b The Building Systems with biaxial eccentricity
Anagnopoulos53 es = 0 - 0.3L showed the increased ductility demand.
The displacements at flexible edge was found
ea = 0 - 0.05b
to be greater for SB models as compared to PH
models. SB models were found inefficient in
assessment of codal provisions.
2 Chopra Goel42 2004 9 em = 4.57m Accuracy of proposed procedure decreased with
the increase in magnitude of torsional coupling.
3 Fernandez et al.54 2005 5 es = 0.25r - 0.75r For e/r ≤ 0.5 and μ (Ductility coefficient) ≤ 0.4,
number of resistant planes in direction of seismic
response have no influence on seismic response.
4 Stefano et al.48 2006 6 em = 0.15b Overstrength factor influences the seismic
response.
5 Ghersi et al.49 2007 6 em = 0.05b - 0.30b The proposed method leads to good seismic
performance of buildings as compared to other
methods of analysis.
7 Luchinni et al.14 2009 2 es = 0, 0.5b The deformation demand in the Irregular
buildings was found to be non-linear.
8 Aziminejad 2010 5 es = 0 - 0.14b est =0 - In building systems with strength eccentricity
Moghadam15 0.25b equal to one fourth of the distance between
positions of strength and stiffness performed
better on rotation and drift criteria.
9 Stahthopoulos 2010 1 3 5 em = 0 – 0.3b es = 0.1b Consideration of accidental design eccentricity
Anagnopoulos50 - 0.7b ea = 0 - 0.10b (ADE) results in reduction of ductility demands
of edge elements in case of building systems with
larger time period (Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility
demand reduces by 10 % for A = 0.05L and by 10-
20% for A= 0.10L.
10 Anangnopoulos et 2010 3 5 em es = 0-0.30 b For models SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges
al.51 ea = 0.05b were the critical elements. In SIMP3 models the
stiff edges were critical elements.
N – Represents number of stories
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
1 Ruiz and Diedrich 1989 Sr – 4,0.9 5 The behavior of infill wall is greatly influenced by
Sr - 0.65-2.0 time period of seismic excitation.
1.0-2.0
2 Shahrooz and Moelhe 1990 50 % setback 6 High rotational ductility in vicinity of irregularity
Mr –300 % to 900%
3 Vamudsson and Nau 1997 Mr - 0.1,0.5,1.5,2,5 5, ELF predicts accurate response upto Mr =5.
Sr - 0.5- 0.9 10, Storey stiffness reduction by 30 % increases
STr - 0.5-0.9 20 storey drift by 20 – 40% and reduction of storey
strength by 20 % doubles the ductility demand.
4 Ali Ali and 1997 Mr - 0.25,0.5,2,4 10 Mass irregularity had the least impact whereas
Krawlinker Sr - 0.1,0.25,0.5, 2,4,10 strength irregularity had the maximum impact.
STr -0.5
6 Chintanpakdee 2004 Sr –0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0 12 Irregularities in upper stories had least influence
Chopra STr -0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0 on displacement demand as compared to
irregularities in lower stories.
9 Karavallis et al 2008 Mr = 2,4,6 3 9 15 Mass ratio has no influence on drift, rotation and
ductility demands.
TABLE 17
THIRD SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
S.No M Reference no. Advantages Disadvantages
1 SB 8-12, 16, 19, 27, 30, 34, Simple Does not represent the actual structure. Does not
37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 50, 51, Easy idealization and formulation. involve building systems with large degree of
53, 82, 84 freedom.
Not suitable to represent multistorey building
systems as simplified S-B models are not designed
for gravity loads. So relation between strength and
stiffness for these models is different from that
of actual strength – stiffness relation of framed
structures.
Strength of resisting elements can be adjusted
without changing the stiffness. However it has
been already proved by researchers that both these
parameters are interdependent.
2 PH 39, 41, 44, 50, 51, 53 Non – linear analysis. Inelastic seismic More complex and difficult to model as compared
response prediction. Plastic hinges to SB models. Seismic response depends on
formed at ends of beams and columns. location of plastic hinge. Plastic hinge assumed to
occur at ends of beams and columns only.
3 3D 2, 13, 16, 24, 43-45, 54- Closer to actual buildings. Complex and difficult formulations.
61, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74,
77-79, 81, 83, 85