Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
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.
ed ae bb
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.
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)
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
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.
4
*
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
e/b=0.002
e/b=0.01
Torsional amplification
Torsional amplification
e/b=0.02
e/b=0.03
1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
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
T d 2p=xd
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
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
11