DYNAMIC TORSION IN STRUCTURES COMPUTED FOR SEVERAL

CONTROL POINTS
Martha Suarez(1) and Javier Avils(2)
SUMMARY
In the dynamic design of structures the criteria used to account for the dynamic torsional coupling
effects generally suggest that the design eccentricity most be obtained from computing the dynamic
and accidental eccentricities obtained from applying the coefficients indicated in design codes.
These coefficients were computed considering the structures founded on a rigid base, assuming that
maximum translational and torsional responses occur simultaneously and are additive, and also it is
supposed that the maximum displacement occurs in the periphery of the structure. In this paper the
dynamic coefficients for the design eccentricity are calculated considering the effects of soil
structure interaction, the peak coupled lateral-torsional response and several observation points
located between the stiffness center and the periphery of the structure. The purpose is to compare
the computed coefficients with those proposed in design codes.
Key words: design eccentricity; and coefficients; couple response; soil-structure interaction
INTRODUCTION
On the static analysis for buildings, the design codes stablish that the torque effects most be
considered by applying equivalent lateral forces to a distance edis from the stiffness center. In particular,
the Mexican codes (NTCD DF, 2004) stipulate that the design eccentricity must be the most unfavorable
from the following equations:
1.5

0.1
0.1

(1)

Where e is the static eccentricity given by the distance between the centers of mass and stiffness, and B is
the length of the building slab perpendicular to the seismic excitation. The coefficient that multiplies the
structural eccentricity is called the dynamic eccentricity coefficient (named here as ) and has the purpose
to take into account the lateral and torsional movements of the structure; the second addend considers the
effects due to the accidental torque, for example, among others, the rotation generated from the wave
passage and the current discrepancies between the actual and computed eccentricities. In this second
addend, B is multiplying by a coefficient =0.1. This coefficients values are based on the results obtained
from the analysis for structures founded on rigid base and on the engineering judgment.
When the flexibility of the foundation is not taken into account, their influence in the torsional
response of the system is neglected (Li Y y Jiang X , 2013). The wave passage (Veletsos AS y Prasad
AM, 1989) and the incoherence of the soil movement (Veletsos AS y Tang Y, 1990) tend to reduce the
translational movement by filtering the high frequencies in the base, and to generate rocking and torsion in
the whole building (Avils J y Suarez M, 2006). The depth of the foundation contributes also to reduce the
torque response in the structure (Iguchi M, 1982; Clough RW y Penzien J, 1975) if the structure is not so
stiff.
(1)

Instituto de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico. Circuito Escolar s/n, Ciudad Universitaria. Delegacin
Coyoacn, Mxico, D. F. CP 04510, Mxico.
2)
Investigador, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnologa del Agua, Paseo Cuauhnahuac 8532, Jiutepec 62550, Morelos, Mxico. E-mail:
javiles@tlaloc.imta.mx

In the definition of and it has been considered that the maximum responses of translation and
rotation take place simultaneously and consequently are summed. This is a very conservative criterion
because it is assumed that the peak values of the natural and accidental torque take place at the same time
and in the same direction, given results that overestimate the design moment to torsion. A less
conservative criterion implies to consider the peak dynamic displacement as the simultaneous action of all
the components of the excitation at the base. This can be seen like an extension of the approximation
developed by Dempsey and Tso (1982) to estimate the effects of the torsion due to the rotation of the
foundation. Another point to consider is the location on the structure slab where the computations of the
displacements are performed. Generally the displacements are evaluated considering a point located on the
periphery of the floor diaphragm supposing that the response variation to the rotational center is linear.
The system is considered linear. However, when we deal with non-linear structures the global
effects to torsion are quantitatively similar to the elastic ones because the differences in the responses are
more pronounced in translational movements than in torsional ones.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the dynamic and accidental coefficients for torsion ( and
, respectively) considering the kinematic (wave passage effect) and inertial (base flexibility) interaction
between the soil and the structure. The analysis is made considering control points located between
rotational axis and the edge of the slab. The combined effects of structural asymmetry and rotation of the
foundation are interpreted by means of dynamic and accidental eccentricities in a similar way that has
been performed in previous works where these effects are considered independent one from the other. The
eccentricities are computed taken into account the maximum couple displacements due to translation and
torsion. In the analysis there were considered more than 400 earthquake records of events with magnitudes
equal or bigger than 6 registered in stations located on the soft soils in Mexico City.
Even when the results presented here are directly applicable to simple structures, it is considered
that the reported conclusions can be also applied to the fundamental mode of more complex structures that
satisfied certain conditions (Kan CL y Chopra AK ,1977) and that remain in the elastic range during
moderated earthquakes..
COEFFICIENTS AND
In figure 1 is presented the model used to compute the coefficients and . It consists of an
oscillator with five degrees of freedom, two of them concern to the structure (lateral (e) and torsional (e)
displacement related to the center of the slab) and the other three are the foundation displacements (torsion
(f), translation (f) and rocking (f)) related to the input motion. The excitation of the system is given by
shear waves with a motion parallel to the y axis, with impingement on the foundation at an angle
measured on the z axis. With this antiplane shear waves, are computed the horizontal displacements o,
rocking o and torsion o input foundation motions at its center. The distance between its mass center CM
and its stiffness center CT that defines the structural eccentricity is called e. The side of the structure
square rigid slab measures 2a, and is at a height He helded by four inextensible columns conected to the
foundation with an embedment D. The building and foundation masses, Me and Mf , are not uniformly
distributed over their identical square areas. The related parameters are the area moments Ie and If to the
horizontal centroidal axis and polar moments of inertia Je y Jf to the vertical centroidal axis.
The structure is characterized by the uncouple periods to translation and torsion when it is
considered on a rigid base, and their corresponding damping ratios ( h 5%). The foundation soil is

idealized like a viscoelastic homogeneous halfspace with a velocity of shear wave propagation Vs, mass
density s, Poisson ratio s=0.4 and damping ratio s=5%.
The equations that govern the movement in the frequency domain are:

i Cs 2 M s s 2 g Qh Mo Q I o Q J o

(2)

Where is the circular frequency of the excitation and i 1 the imaginary unit.

s e , e , f , f , f

is the amplitude for the displacement vectors of the system, and e de and

f d f are the torsional displacements in the building and the foundation, respectively, computed in a
point x located on the symmetry axis to a distance d from the shear center, and f ( H e D ) f is the
displacement due to the rocking measured on the top of the building. The ratios Qh o g ,

Q ( H e D )o g and Q do g represent the transfer functions of the input motions, where g

is the horizontal free field movement. The input motions at a depth D are the horizontal displacement o ,
the rocking o and the torsion o related to the x axis and the z axis, respectively (see figure 1).
The equation (2) represents a system of five algebraic linear equations with complex coefficients. In
Avils J y Suarez M (2006) are defined the load vectors Mo , Io and J o , as well as the mass M s ,
damping Cs and rigidity K s matrices of the system.

Figure 1. Model used in computations

By the computations of the input motions was used the Iguchis method (1982), and for the
impedance functions those reported in Mita and Luco (1989) were employed. The calculus was performed
in the frequency domain using the Fast Fourier Transform and, for simplicity, it was considered
I f Ie J f J e M f M e .
The torque for the structural design was obtained as follows:

Tdis = Tn Ta

(3)

where:

Tn = ed V~o ; by natural torsin

Ta = ea V~o ; by accidental torsin

(4)
(5)

~
ed and ea are the dynamic and accidental eccentricities to be computed and Vo is the uncoupled design
shear due to the effective excitation for translation and rocking, obtained as:

~
V~o Khe
o

(6)

is the lateral stiffness for the structure and o max | e (e 0) | is the maximum dynamic
displacement in a symmetric structure.

ed and ea are determined to satisfied:

~
~
~ Vo Vo ( ed ea ) d

p
e
Kh
K e

(7)

~ max | | is the maximum dynamic displacement at x d . It is considered that the

where
p
e
e

force Vo is statically applied at a distance ed ea from the stiffness center to produce a displacement in
~ (figure 2).
the flexible side of the structure equal to
p
Accepting that:
V~o V~o ed
e d
K he
K
~
~ (
~ ) Vo ea d

p
p h
Ke

(8)

~ )
(
p h

where

(9)

~ ) max | (Q 0) (Q 0) | is the
is the torsional stiffness for the structure and (
p h
e

peak dynamic displacement due to the base excitation for translation and rocking. Substituting the
equation (7) on (8) and (9), the dynamic and accidental coefficients ( and , respectively) are obtained
by:
2
~
2 r a 2
ed ( p ) h

~
1
e o
er a d
~
~
2
ea p ( p )h 2 r a


~
b

2 a d
o

(10)
(11)

12
with er e a , r ( J e M e ) is the polar gyration radius and is the ratio for torsional to translational
uncoupled frequencies:

h r

(13)

K b
K hb

12
12
where ( K J e ) and h ( K h M e ) are the circular frequencies to torsion and translation,
respectively .

Figure 2 Equivalent static force Vo applied at

~
that produces a peak dynamic displacement p in

the flexible side of the building.

The ratios ( p ) h o and [ p ( p ) h ] o give a measure of the modified structural response

due to the torsional coupled and to the rotational excitation on the base, respectively. This is a natural and
convenient way to separate the torsional effects due to the rotation of the foundation, from those generated
by the structural asymmetry. When and have negative values this means that the lateral displacement
is reduced due to torsional effects.
NUMERICAL RESULTS

A parametric study was performed using a database with more than 400 accelerograms (Sociedad
Mexicana de Ingeniera Ssmica, 2000) of earthquakes with magnitudes bigger or equal to 6. The seismic
stations that registered them are settled over the soft soils in Mexico City. The seismic records were
normalized in order to have a one second period approximately in the Fourier spectral peak. This
guarantees that only the parameters related to the soil-structure system influence the torsional response
and to avoid the site effects where the stations are located.
The results presented here correspond to the mean values of the system response subjected to the
accelerograms from the database with specific soil characteristics and the structure defined by the
parameters shown in table 1. The accelerograms chosen were supposed to generate an antiplane movement
(on the direction of axis y, figure 1) impinged on the foundation with an angle . The incident angle is
related to a relevant parameter in the seismic characterization (the apparent velocity = c) through the
following equation:

sin Vs c

(14)

The relation between the stiffness of the structure and the soil, w 2H e h Vs , is related with the
transient time of shear waves generally used to determine the foundation flexibility as

a Vs w 2h h

(15)

If h is inversely proportional to H e , then w measures only the soil flexibility. The results showed
consider fixed values by Vs c and a Vs because their interpretation by these terms is more useful than by
terms of and w . The values considered in the parametric study were Vs c 0.025, 0.05 and 0.1, and for

a Vs 0.15 and 0.3 s, that correspond to foundations with 30 to 60m of width embedded in soft soils with
shear velocity ranges Vs 50 to 200 m/s and phase velocities c bigger than 500 m/s, similar to those
observed in seismic records obtained from dense arrays (Bolt et al., 1982; ORourke et al, 1982). The
wave passage effects are controlled by the effective phase velocity that is equivalent to the order of
rupture velocity or the propagation velocity in rocks (Luco y Sotiropoulos, 1980; Bouchon y Aki, 1982).
Then the huge values for c , in comparison with those for Vs , seem to be reasonable for engineering
applications.

DESCRIPTION
Incident angle
Slendernees
Foundation depth
Normalized eccentricity
Transient time
Structural period to
translation
Uncoupled ratio
frequencies

Table 1. Parameters used in the analysis

NOMENCLATURE

h He a

d D a

VALUES
1.5, 3 and 6
1 and 3
0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5

er e a
a Vs wTh 4h
Th

0.25s, 0.5s, 1s and 2s

between 0 and 3

0.10 and 0.20

0.15 and 0.30

The analysis was performed for short structures (h = 1), with translation periods Th = 0.25 and 0.5 s,
and for medium structures (h = 3), with Th = 1 and 2 s. In spite of the structures hardly will reach the
uncoupled ratio frequencies () bigger than 2, the computations were done for 0 3 in order to know
the results tendency. There were considered shallow structures (d = 0) and with foundations depths (d =
0.5, 1.0 y 1.5), with eccentricities er = 0.1 and 0.2. The results were computed considering different point
positions located on the flexible side of the structure at distances 0.1 d/a 1.0 from the stiffness center.
In order to avoid strong variations in the structural response for an specific earthquake, and to
identify the trends of the results, there were obtained the mean values for the factors and .
and variations due to the structural period and the incident angle of the excitation

Figures 3 and 4 show some of the results obtained for the coefficients and , respectively. There
it can be appreciated how the angle of incidence of SH waves, the depth of the foundation, the structural
eccentricity and the period for translation influence in the values of these coefficients.
The advantage in normalizing results with respect to the uncoupled shear generated in the structure
on a flexible foundation, is to obtain small variations in the values of when the parameters, but Th and
er, vary, that is, the graphics tend to gather depending on Th and er values (figure 3). This implies that the
other parameters like the incident angle of the excitation and the foundation depth have a very little

influence on the value of . For , the values are small but, considering the proportion among them, the
appreciated variations are very important and it is not so clear the gather of the curves related to the
structural period (figure 4). Due to the small values obtained for when the point of observation is located
at the periphery of the slab, the design eccentricity is almost the same as the dynamic one because the
wave passage effect, that is one of the elements that has an important contribution to the accidental
eccentricity when it is considered founded on a rigid base, here is taken into account when there are
considered the soil-structure interaction effects for the computation of both coefficients ( y ). In spite
of the fact that the curves have a specific pattern for a given period Th, the amplitude differences imply a
dependency on incident angle of the excitation and the foundation depth. The angle of incidence for SH
waves has a negligible influence on . For , the highest values are for the biggest incident angles,
keeping approximately the same curve form.

=1.5

=6

2.5

2.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

Figure 3 Variation of related to for x/a=1, considering the values of d and h reported on table 1and
and er=0.1, for Th = 0.25s, 0.5s, 1s and 2s

=1.5

=6

0.025

0.1

0.02

0.08

0.015

0.06

0.01

0.04

0.005

0.02

-0.005

-0.02

Figure 4 Variation of related to for x/a=1, considering the values of d and h reported on table 1and
and er=0.1, for Th = 0.25s, 0.5s, 1s and 2s
The negative values for and can be deduced from the analysis of equations 10 and 11,
respectively, and they are obtained mainly for torsionally flexible ( < 1) and high (h = 3) structures. For
these negative values mean that the shear basal force is reduced with respect to the uncoupled one which
represent a favorable effect. For , the negative values indicate that the displacements due to the
horizontal movement and the base rotation, are opposed, causing a reduction on the coupled basal
displacement. This indicates that the torsional coupled effects and the rotational excitation could be
advantageous.
The system behaves like a torsionally uncoupled one ( = 0) or like a static one ( = 2 r2 / e ) when
the values for are very small or very large (figure 3). On this last case, the torsion for the foundation can
be computed with the product between the uncoupled shear and the static eccentricity. The variation of
related to do not follows a clear and consistent pattern like the one showed by coefficient .
approaches to cero for very small values of . When is very large, there are no theoretical indications
that consider this factors limits (see figure 4). The computed values can be negative as a consequence of
the base shear reduction caused by the torsional coupled effects. This is evident for some values, mainly
when the points of observation are located near the stiffness center of the structure (figure 6). For is
also appreciated this tendency in points that are not located near the structural periphery (figure 5).

=1.5

=6

1.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

-1.5

-2

-2

Figure 5 Variation of related to for x/a=0.4, considering the values of d, and h reported on table 1
and er =0.1 for Th = 0.25s, 0.5s, 1s and 2s

20

x 10

-3

=1.5

=6
0.07
0.06

15

0.05
0.04

10

0.03
0.02
5
0.01
0

-0.01
-5

-0.02

Figure 5 Variation of related to for x/a=0.4, considering the values of d, and h reported on table 1
and er =0.1 for Th = 0.25s, 0.5s, 1s and 2s

10

Foundation embedment effects

The influence of the foundation embedment on is negligible. Only for shallow foundations there
are differences in the peak value with amplitudes that are smaller for deep foundations. In structures with
short periods (Th = 0.25 s) this is reversed because there is no reduction in the basal shear streess due to
the foundation depth (increase in stiffness). For structures with larger periods, the influence of the
foundation depth is almost absent (figure 7).
The accidental eccentricity decrease when the depth of the foundation increases because it generates
wave diffraction, reducing the effects of excitation that directly affect the value of (figure 8).
Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

3
2

1.5

0.5
0

Th=1s
3

0
-1

Th=2s

-1

Figure 7 Variation of related to for x/a=1, er = 0.1, = 1.5 and d = 0.0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5.
Foundation flexibility influence

The results computed for the transient times a Vs 0.15 y 0.3 s that generally characterize the
foundation flexibility, are shown in figures 9 and 10. For the structures with short periods (Th 0.5 s), the
absolute value for tends to be a little bit higher for systems with a Vs 0.15 s than for those with

a Vs 0.3 s. This behavior is reverse for medium structures ( h 3) (see figure 9). The coefficient
values are smaller when a Vs 0.15 s than those when a Vs 0.3 s (figure 10).

11

10

x 10

Th=0.25s

-3

10

Th=0.5s

-3

x 10

0
-5

10

0
x 10

-5

-3

Th=2s
0.03
0.02
0.01

5
0
-5

Th=1s

0
0

-0.01

Figure 8 Values for coefficient when x/a = 1, er = 0.1, = 1.5 and d = 0.0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5.

Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

6
4

1
0

Th=1s

Th=2s

0
-2

-2

Figure 9 Values for coefficient when x/a = 1, er = 0.2, = 1.5 and

0.0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5. In solid line
a Vs 0.3 s, and in dash line a Vs 0.15 s.

12

10

x 10

-3

Th=0.25s
10

Th=0.5s

-3

x 10

0
-5

10

0
x 10

-5

Th=1s

-3

Th=2s
0.02

0.01

5
0
-5

-0.01

Figure 10 Values for coefficient when x/a = 1, er = 0.2, = 1.5 and

0.0, 0.5, 1 and 1.5. In solid line
a Vs 0.3 s, and in dash line a Vs 0.15 s.
Response to wave passage

Some of the results for the dynamic torsional coefficients when Vs c 0.025, 0.05 and 0.1 are
shown in figures 11 to 13. There it can be appreciated that is insensitive to the variation of Vs c (figure
11), contrary to that is strongly dependent, as is illustrated in figures 12 and 13. is a function that
increases with Vs c because the torsional excitation is proportional to the incident angle, , which also
increases with Vs c . These increments are small when the control points are nearer to CT (figure 13). Due
to the increase of the stiffness for depth foundations, values are bigger for shallow foundations, and even
the peak value occurs for small values of .
Structural eccentricity

The natural torque can produce dynamic amplification or attenuation on the design eccentricity. In
figures 14 and 15 are reported the effects that er has over . In general, the absolute value for is
increased when er increases, contrary to that is reported by Chandler y Hutchinson (1987) who considered
that the mximum responses to torque and to translation occur at the same time. This reveals that the effect of
er can be important for very stiff structures where the biggest differences occur. For torsionally flexible
structures with Th 1 s, 0 for all the analyzed cases when the control point is located at the edge of

13

the slab. When it is located near the stiffness center, also 0 for structures with Th 0.5 s. Besides,
shows negative values for a wide range of values for (figure 15).
Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

1.5

0.5
0

Th=1s
3

0
-1

Th=2s

-1

Figure 11 values for x/a=1, er = 0.1, a Vs 0.3 s and

0 (solid line) and 1 (dash line). In

graphics, Vs c 0.025, 0.05 and 0.1.

Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

0.04

0.04
0.02

0.02

0.03

0.01
0

-0.02

Th=1s
0.04

0.1

0.05
0

-0.05

14

0.15

0.02

-0.02

Th=2s

Figura 12 values for x/a=1, er = 0.1, a Vs 0.3 s and

0 (solid line) and 1 (dash line). In

graphics, Vs c 0.025, 0.05 y 0.1.

Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.04

0
-0.02

-0.01

0.02

0.06

0.01

0.04

0.02

-0.01
-0.02

Th=2s

Th=1s

0
0

-0.02

Figura 13 values for x/a=0.25, er = 0.1, a Vs 0.3 s and

0 (solid line) and 1 (dash line). In

graphics, Vs c 0.025, 0.05 and 0.1.

In figures 16 and 17 it is observed that increases when er decreases but only when 1. This
implies that the effects for the accidental torque, when they are meaningful, are bigger for symmetric
systems compared with the asymmetric ones as have been observed by De la Llera and Chopra (1994). In
all these cases, the effects of er on are small. From these results it can be seen that is more sensitive
to the values of er and to those of d .
Torsional response considering the location of x related to CT

The location of the point of observation related to the stiffness center in the computed values for
and has important implications on the structural design, because the support elements in the buildings
subjected to the biggest torsional moments not always are located on its periphery, neither on their flexible
side. To know the torsional response, several points of observation were located on the flexible side of the
structure at different distances from the CT, covering the interval x/a= [0.05, 1] with a span distance 0.05
between them. In figures 18 to 23 are shown some of these results. It is observed that the negative values
obtained in torsionally flexible structures are bigger for points located near CT than for those placed on the
periphery of the slab. This is favorable because it implies that the lateral displacement is reduced because

15

of the torsional effects. Even these negative values were present in structures with Th 0.5 s, behavior
that was not observed for the points located at the periphery of the slab.
Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

6
4

1
0

0
-1

Th=2s

Th=1s

0
0

-1

Figure 14 values for x/a=1, Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s and e = 0.1 and 0.2 for
line) and 1 (dash line).
Th=0.5s

Th=0.25s

1
0

0
0

-2

Th=1s
5

-5

0
-1

-2

16

-10

Th=2s

0 (solid

Figure 15 values for x/a=0.25, Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s and e = 0.1 and 0.2 for
line) and 1 (dash line).

x 10

-3

Th=0.25s
4
2

0
-1

0
x 10

-2

Th=1s

-3

15

10

0
-1

Th=0.5s

-3

x 10

0
x 10

Th=2s

-3

0
0

-5

Figure 16 values for x/a=1, Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s and e = 0.1 and 0.2 for
line) and 1 (dash line).

17

0 (solid

0 (solid

x 10

-3

Th=0.25s
2

-2

Th=0.5s

-3

-4

x 10

-2
-4

0
x 10

-6

Th=1s

-3

10

x 10

Th=2s

-3

-2
-4

-5

Figure 17 values for x/a=0.25, Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s and e = 0.1 and 0.2 for
line) and 1 (dash line).

0 (solid

The values for , gradually diminish or increase when the control point where the computations are
performed moves farther or closer to the CT. This gradual tendency is nonlinear as can be appreciated
more vividly when x is less or equal to a 0,3a.
In torsionally flexible short structures the values for are higher when points of observation are at
the periphery of the slab, and this tendency reverse for torsionally rigid structures when a Vs 0.15 s
(figure 18). If the ratio between the structure and the soil stiffness is higher ( a Vs 0.30 s) this reverse
does not happen (figure 19).

18

Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

10

0
-2

-5

20

-20

-5

-40
-60

Th=2s

Th=1s

-10
0

-15

Figure 18 values for Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s, er=0.2,

0, x/a=1 (solid black line), x/a =

0.05 (dash line) and x/a = (0.05, 1) (orange lines) with x/a = 0.05.
The values computed for the coefficient in points located at x/a<1 for medium structures can be
very large in comparison with those calculated for points at the periphery, having negative values for a
large range of , specially for the points near to CT. These tendencies increase drastically when the
structural eccentricity augments (figure 20), but diminish when the soil flexibility increases (figure 21).
As for , the values for increase or diminish gradually when the control point moves farther or
closer to the CT. This is clearer for x > 0,3a. In torsionally flexible structures when x is close to CT some
values for are negative, changing to positive when the structures increase their stiffness, but contrary to
the behavior shown by , this phenomenon occurs for tall structures having values very high when they
are compared to the peak values computed for a point located at the periphery of the slab (figure 22). For
most of the analyzed cases, when x/a=<0.3 the values of tend to be negative, regardless the values of
(figure 23).

19

Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

4
2

2
0

0
-2

-2

-4

Th=1s
5

-5

Th=2s

-5

-10
-15

-10

Figure 19 values for Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.30 s, er=0.2,

0, x/a=1 (solid black line), x/a =

0.05 (dash line) and x/a = (0.05, 1) (orange lines) with x/a = 0.05.
.
Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

10

0
-2

-5

20

-20

-5

-40
-60

Th=2s

Th=1s

-10
0

-15

Figure 20 for x/a = [0.05, 1], Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s,

0, and er=0.1 and er=0.2.
Dash lines show the values for x/a=0.05.

20

Th=0.25s

Th=0.5s

10

0
-2

-5

20

-20

-5

-40
-60

Th=2s

Th=1s

-10
0

-15

Figure 21 for x/a = [0.05, 1], Vs c 0.025,

0, er=0.2, a Vs 0.15 s, and a Vs 0.30 s.
Dash lines show the values for x/a=0.05.

21

Th=0.5s

Th=0.25s
0.02

0.03
0.02
0.01

0.01
0
-0.01

0
x 10

-0.01

Th=1s

-3

10

-5

15

0
-5

0
x 10

Th=2s

-3

-10
0

-15

Figure 22 values for Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s, er=0.2,

1.5, x/a=1 (solid black line), x/a

= 0.05 (dash line) and x/a = (0.05, 1) (orange lines) with x/a = 0.05.

x 10

-3

Th=0.25s
5

Th=0.5s

-3

x 10

-5
-10

-5

-10

Th=1s
0.01

-0.01

0
-0.02

-0.02
0

-0.04

22

0.02

-0.03

Th=2s

Figure 23 values for Vs c 0.025, a Vs 0.15 s, er=0.1,

0, x/a=1 (solid black line), x/a =

0.05 (dash line) and x/a = (0.05, 1) (orange lines) with x/a = 0.05.
.
CONCLUSIONS

It has been studied the combined torsional effects of the structural asymmetry and the foundation
rotation for structures on a flexible base. The computations were performed for different points of
observation located between the periphery and the stiffness center of the structure. The objective was to
obtain the values for the coefficients and taken into account the coupled lateral-torsional effects in
asymmetric buildings, and to determine if there is a tendency on the results associated to the studied
parameters. To achieve this, the structures were idealized as a simple oscillator with several degrees of
freedom subjected to the seismic excitation of accelerogrames registered on the soft soils in Mexico City.
The mean values of these factors were computed for several configurations of the system considering the
soil structure interaction and the embeddement of the foundation.
It has been shown that and depend on the selection of the design basal shear stress to be used in
the computations and on the way that the torsional effects are separated from the foundation rotation and
the structural asymmetry. From the parametric study it was concluded that::
a) The shapes of the and curves widely vary for , with values that go from small to big in
comparison with those proposed in design codes. The values for torsionally flexible structures when
Th 1 s and x/a=1 could be negative. When x is close to the stiffness center these values can be also
negative for Th 0.5 s, and to a wide range of when Th 1 s. For , the negative values are also for
torsionally flexible structures for any specific Th , nevertheles it is more frequent to find them when 0.5 s

Th 1 s depending of the combination of the different parameters. In these cases, the displacements to
translation act in the opposite direction to those of torsion.
b) The dynamic excentricity is sensible to the changes in er and a Vs , and the accidental
excentricity to d and Vs c . The effects of a Vs and d are reflected mainly for short stiff structures in

an uncoupled shear reduction, Vo , used in the computations, for this reason it is wrong to select constant
values for y in order to cover all the combine parameters of the system.
c) The effect of a Vs on the response of the system, related to the response of the structure on a rigid
base, is to increase ( 1) or diminish ( 1) the values for . In most of the cases analyzed in this
work, the peak values for exceed the 1.5 value proposed in codes. For parameters considered in this
study, the highest values for are presented when the point of observation is located at the periphery of
the slab, but the highest negative values correspond for those points located near to CT.
d) In general, the values for increase when d decreces and Vs c raise. never exceeds the value
considered in codes.

23

e) and have the highest values for the observation points located at the edge of the structure and,
in general, the highest negative values for and are obtained for the points located near the stiffness
center for torsionally flexible structures. These results are favorable because they imply that the lateral
displacement is reduced for the torsional effects.
f) The location of the point where the displacements are computed related to the stiffnes center, has a
significant influence on the values computed for and . This influence can be more important than the
influence excerted by the parameters of the system itself, mainly for the points located near to the CT.
This has significant implications on the design of the structures, because their columns subjected to a big
torsion not always are located at the periphery on their flexible side.
g) The values for coefficients y increase or diminish gradually when the point of observation is
approaching or rifting to the CT. This gradual tendency is not linear as can be appreciated more clearer for
the points located at x 0,3a.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by the Institute of Enginnering and the School of Engineering of the
National Autonomus University of Mexico under the Project 3561.

REFERENCES

Avils J y Suarez M, Natural and accidental torsion in one-storey structures on elastic foundation under
non-vertically incident SH-waves, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 35, pp.
829-850, 2006.
Bolt BA, Tsai YB, Yeh K y Hsu MK. Earthquake strong motions recorded by a large near-source array of
digital seismographs. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1982; 10: 561-573.
Bouchon M y Aki K. Strain, tilt and rotation associated with strong ground motion in the vicinity of
earthquake faults. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1982; 72: 1717-1738.
Chandler AM y Hutchinson GL, Code design provisions for torsionally coupled buildings on elastic
foundation, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 15, pp. 517-536, 1987.
Clough RW y Penzien J, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, 1975.
De la Llera JC y Chopra AK, Accidental torsion in buildings due to base rotational excitation, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 23, pp. 1003-1021, 1994.
Dempsey KM y Tso WK. An alternative path to seismic torsional provisions. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 1982; 1: 3-10.
Iguchi M, An approximate analysis of input motions for rigid embedded foundations, Trans. of
Architectural Institute of Japan, No. 315, pp. 61-75, 1982.
Kan CL y Chopra AK. Elastic earthquake analysis of a class of torsionally coupled buildings. Journal of
the Structural Division, ASCE 1977; 103: 821-838.
Li Y y Jiang X, Parametric analysis of eccentric structure-soil interaction system based on branch mode
decoupling method, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 48, pp. 63-70, 2013.
Luco JE y Sotiropoulos DA. Local characterization of free field ground motion and effects of wave
passage. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1980; 70: 2229-2244.
Mita A y Luco JE. Impedance functions and input motions for embedded square foundations. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 1989; 115: 491-503.

24

ORourke MJ, Bloom MC y Dobry R. Apparent propagation velocity of body waves. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1982; 10: 283-294.
Sociedad Mexicana de Ingeniera Ssmica, Base Mexicana de Datos de Sismos Fuertes. Volumen 2,
2000.
Veletsos AS y Prasad AM, Seismic interaction of structures and soils: stochastic approach, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, pp. 935-956, 1989.
Veletsos AS y Tang Y, Deterministic assessment of effects of ground-motion incoherence, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 116, pp. 1109-1124, 1990.

25