DDBD, Assymetry

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology Madras]
On: 17 September 2013, At: 18:34

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20
Displacement-Controlled Behavior of
Asymmetrical Single-Story Building
Models
a a b
E. Lumantarna , N. Lam & J. Wilson
a
Department of Infrastructure Engineering , The University of
Melbourne , Parkville , Australia
b
Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Science , Swinburne
University of Technology , Hawthorne , Australia
Accepted author version posted online: 07 Mar 2013.Published
online: 18 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: E. Lumantarna , N. Lam & J. Wilson (2013) Displacement-Controlled Behavior of
Asymmetrical Single-Story Building Models, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17:6, 902-917, DOI:
10.1080/13632469.2013.781557
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.781557
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17:902917, 2013
Copyright A. S. Elnashai
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2013.781557
Displacement-Controlled Behavior
of Asymmetrical Single-Story Building Models
E. LUMANTARNA 1 , N. LAM1 , and J. WILSON2

1
Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne,
Parkville, Australia
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 18:34 17 September 2013
2
Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Science, Swinburne University of
Technology, Hawthorne, Australia
Displacement controlled behavior is a feature of low to moderate seismicity areas where the peak
displacement demand on structures could be limited despite significant structural strength and
stiffness degradation. In this article, the extension of the displacement controlled phenomenon to
torsionally unbalanced framing systems is investigated. It is shown that the displacement demand of
critical elements within a building can be insensitive to changes in eccentricity and torsional stiff-
ness properties. While torsional actions is a well-researched topic, the incorporation of displacement
controlled phenomenon into the analysis is original and represents a new development.
Keywords Displacement-Based; Displacement-Controlled; Building; Torsion; Asymmetry
1. Introduction
Displacement-controlled behavior is a well-known phenomenon in very high period elas-
tically responding structures, where the amount of drift experienced by the structure does
not increase indefinitely with increasing natural period of vibration (increasing flexibil-
ity) but instead is capped at the upper limit of maximum response spectral displacement
(RSDmax ) for periods beyond T2 (refer Fig. 1). This is contrary to what is implied by
the acceleration response spectrum model in the (usual) flat-hyperbolic form where the
displacement continues to increase with increasing natural period. This concept was high-
lighted by Priestley [1997] with the introduction of a substitute-structure in the procedure
for the displacement-based aseismic design and assessment of buildings.
In conditions of strong ground shaking generated by large magnitude earthquakes
close to the fault source, the maximum drift limit of RSDmax would typically be well in
excess of the tolerable limits for most structures. In such conditions, the RSDmax parame-
ter is of no practical relevance in the aseismic design of structures except for very flexible
(tall) structures. However, the situation is very different with conditions of mild ground
shaking consistent with projected earthquake scenarios for intraplate (less active) regions
of low-moderate seismicity. For example, the value of RSDmax predicted for rock sites in
Australia is merely of the order of 60 mm for a return period of 2500 years [Wilson and
Lam, 2003]. The value of RSDmax on rock which can be predicted by stochastic simu-
lations of the seismological model [Lam et al., 2000] has been shown to be controlled
mainly by the magnitude and distance of the earthquake [e.g., Lam and Wilson, 2004; Lam
Received 9 August 2012; accepted 21 February 2013.

Address correspondence to E. Lumantarna, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, University of
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. E-mail: elu@unimelb.edu.au
902
Asymmetrical Buildings Displacement Controlled Behavior 903
FIGURE 1 Displacement-controlled conditions as illustrated by idealized response

spectra in different formats.
and Chandler, 2005] and is strongly correlated with the estimated value of the peak ground
displacement. The significant dependence of the value of RSDmax on the site natural period
(of a flexible soil column model) has also been illustrated in Lam et al. [2001]. This article
is concerned mainly with the implications of this Displacement Controlled phenomenon to
the design and analysis of building structures in regions of low-moderate seismicity, and
not to modeling issues concerning estimates for the value of RSDmax .
In the context of design and assessment of structures in regions of low and moderate
seismicity the displacement-controlled phenomenon as described can have practical impli-
cations to a much broader range of structures other than those possessing a high natural
period of vibration. For example, structures that are subject to significant degradation in
stiffness (and strength) and/or P-delta effects would experience significant lengthening of
the effective natural period of vibration (calculated in accordance with the estimated value
of the secant stiffness). For example, it was revealed by Al Abadi et al. [2006] from large
displacement analyses of base-excited free-standing rectangular objects that the maximum
904 E. Lumantarna, N. Lam, and J. Wilson
displacement experienced by an object can be insensitive to changes in the object aspect

ratio (or static resistance to overturning). Consequently, the risks of overturning is con-
trolled simply by the value of RSDmax of the base excitation in comparison with the depth
of the object in the direction of the applied excitation. This anomaly was re-affirmed by
results from shaker table experimentations as reported in a more recent publication [Kafle
et al., 2011].
Similar approaches have been applied to seismically assess the vulnerability of
single-spanned unreinforced masonry walls to out-of-plane overturning [Doherty et al.,
2002] and non ductile reinforced concrete columns against collapse by gravitational loads
[Lumantarna et al., 2010; Wibowo et al., 2010]. The effects of the shift in the effective nat-
ural period of a nonlinear responding structure can be taken into account by applying the
substitute structure modeling methodology. The potential significance of the displacement-

controlled phenomenon in engineering practice has been recognized since the introduction
of this modeling approach.
In summary, the amount of drift sustained by the structure which is subject to signifi-
cant degradation in strength or stiffness is controlled mainly by the displacement demand
properties of the base excitations (i.e., value of RSDmax ), and not significantly by the
structural parameters of stiffness and strength. These observations represent an interesting
departure from assumptions underlying current force based aseismic design methodologies.
This paper examines the implications of the displacement-controlled phenomenon to
building structures featuring (on plan) asymmetry in the disposition of horizontal stiffness
and strength amongst lateral load resisting elements of a building. Extensive studies on the
seismic response behavior of asymmetrical buildings started in the 1980s [e.g., Dempsey
and Tso, 1982; Chandler and Hutchinson, 1987, 1988; Rutenberg and Pekau, 1987, 1989].
The studies were aimed at ascertaining the value of the design eccentricities which enable
the dynamic behavior of torsionally responding building systems to be simulated by the
quasi-static approach. Research findings have been incorporated in code design proce-
dures for the aseismic design of asymmetrical buildings [EN 1998-1, 2004; ICC, 2006;
AS1170.4, 2007]. Early studies on inelastic response of asymmetrical building focused
on evaluating provisions for eccentricities in the code design guidelines [e.g., Tso and
Sadek, 1985; Tso and Ying, 1990; Chopra and Goel, 1991; Tso and Zhu, 1992; Tso and
Wong, 1993, 1995; Wong and Tso, 1995; Chandler and Duan, 1997]. The seismic per-
formance of asymmetrical buildings represented in terms of the ductility demand ratio or
the displacement demand ratio displayed contradictory trends, which consequently lead to
contradictory conclusions reported in the literature [Tso and Ying, 1990; Chopra and Goel,
1991; Chandler and Duan, 1997].
With the development of seismic design and assessment procedures incorporating
the displacement-based concept, torsional studies have placed more emphasis on the
direct representation of the displacement demand. Analytical studies were based on
the displacement-based procedures to predict the angle of twist induced by dynamic
excitations based on static-plastic mechanism [Paulay, 1997, 2001]. More recent analyt-
ical studies by Castillo [2004] and Beyer [2007] have shown that rotational inertia has a
significant effect on structural response of asymmetrical buildings. Based on findings from
the recent studies, a simple analytical method was proposed in Priestley et al. [2007] for
the estimation of the peak displacement demand of asymmetrical buildings.
The phenomenon and implications of torsional actions in buildings has been the
subject of research for many years. However, the incorporation of the displacement con-
trolled phenomenon into the analysis for torsional actions is original and represents a
new development in the context of performance assessment in regions of low-moderate
seismicity.
It is demonstrated in Sec. 2 that in the context of linear elastic behavior of the building,
the displacement demand of critical elements in displacement controlled conditions can be
insensitive to changes in the value of global structural parameters, namely eccentricity and
torsional stiffness. The investigation is extended in Sec. 3 to cover for building models
possessing bi-linear hysteretic behavior in which the lateral resistance at yield has been
reduced from the respective elastic demand limit by a R factor. Results from analyses
of models with and without strength degradation are compared. Investigations are further
extended in Sec. 4 to cover for conditions of bi-lateral excitations and in Sec. 5 effects of
disposition in strength amongst lateral resisting elements. Results presented throughout the
paper consistently demonstrate the trend that the displacement demand of critical elements
in a building is constrained within an upper limit which is proportional to the value of
RSDmax of the applied base excitations.
2. Displacement-controlled Behavior of Buildings Responding Within the

Elastic Limit with Uni-axial Asymmetry
In this section, the analysis for elastic torsional coupling behavior of a single-story building
model is revisited to reveal new trends that are distinctively associated with displacement
controlled conditions (refer Fig. 2).
First, matrices representing dynamic equilibrium (Eqs. (1a)(1c)) are analyzed for the
eigenvalues (Eq. (2)), eigenvectors (Eq. (3)), and participation factors (Eq. (4)):

m 0 Y Kyy es .Kyy Y 0
+ = , (1a)
0 mR2 es .Kyy K 0
where m is the mass of floor, R is the mass radius of gyration, es is the static eccentricity,
Y is the translational floor displacement, is the floor rotation, and KYY and K are the
translational and rotational stiffness, respectively.

1 k 2 2 es 1,k 0
= (k = 1, 2), (1b)
es rd + es 2 k 2 2,k 0
where k are angular velocities of the coupled modes of vibration; rd 2 = K

KYY .R2

1 k 2 es
DET 2 =0 (1c)
es rd + es 2 k 2
i = 1 Flexible Stiff i = 2
Edge Edge
R = mass radius of gyration
Center of Center of
Mass Stiffness
es
b1 = 1.S R b2 = 1.S R
FIGURE 2 Single-story building model made of parallel frames.


1 + rd 2 + es 2 1 rd 2 + es 2 2
k 2 = + es 2 (2)
2 2

1,k 1
= 2 (k = 1, 2) (3)
2,k 1k
es
e2s e2
Participation Factor PFk = 1 = 2
or 2 , (4a)
e2s + R2 1 21 e2 1 21
where e = es /R is a dimensionless parameter

2
1 1 2
Participation Factor PFk = 2 = 1 PFk = 1 = 2 (4b)
e2 + 1 1 2
The displacement of critical elements in the building (i ) can be obtained using results
from Eqs. (2)(4) and a modal combination method such as the square-root-of-the-sum-of-
the-squares (SRSS) method as represented by Eq. (5) or complete-quadratic-combination
(CQC) method as represented by Eq. (6):

2

e2 bi 1 21
2 1+ RSD (k = 1 )
e2 + 1 21 R e

i =

, (5)
2
1 1
2
bi 1 2 2
+ 1+ RSD (k = 2 )
2 R e
e2 + 1 21
where bi is the value of the offset between the critical element and Center of Mass of the
building (and is a negative value at the flexible edge of the building); and RSD(k ) is the
response spectral displacement of the applied excitations and is a function of the modal
angular velocity value k (or modal natural period of vibration).
2
2 bi 1 2m
i = mn PFk = m 1+ RSD(k = m)
m=1 n=1 R e
1/2
bi 1 2n
PFk = n 1 + RSD(k = n) , (6a)
R e
where mn is the correlation coefficient based on Der Kiureghian [1981] defined by (as
cited in Chopra, 2000):
8 2 (1 + mn )mn 2
mn = . (6b)
(1 mn 2 )2 + 4 2 mn (1 + mn )2
mn is the ratio of the circular natural frequency for the mth mode of vibration to the circular
natural frequency for the nth mode of vibration (=m /n ); and is the damping ratio.
The trend of displacement values obtained from Eqs. (5) and (6) are generally consis-
tent, with Eq. (5) being slightly more conservative. Results presented in Figs. 3a and b were
derived from calculations using Eq. (5) and the following parameters: values of e varying
in the range 0.10.8, and values of rd varying in the range 0.41.4.
Results shown in Fig. 3a were based on the section of the response spectrum with
a velocity-controlled condition (corresponding to the hyperbolic part of the acceleration
response spectrum as shown in Fig. 1). With such conditions the value of RSD increases,
approximately linearly, with increasing value of the natural period of vibration. Values of
the displacement demand of the critical elements are expressed in the normalized form
DD where the normalization factor is the value of RSD of the corresponding torsionally
FIGURE 3 Normalized element displacement demand from dynamic modal analyses.

balanced building model (i.e., e = 0). The trends shown in this figure features an indef-
inite increase in the value of DD with increasing eccentricity of the building. The rate
of increase is also sensitive to the value of rd which characterizes the torsional stiffness
of the building in dynamic conditions. The displayed trends are consistent with what has
been reported in the literature on elastic torsional coupling, as expected [Dempsey and Tso,
1982; Chandler and Hutchinson, 1987, 1988; Rutenberg and Pekau, 1987, 1989]. The sensi-
tivity of the value of the element displacement demand to values of the stiffness parameters
(namely e and rd ) is consistent with behavior in quasi-static conditions.
Results shown in Fig. 3b were based on the part of the response spectrum with
displacement-controlled conditions in which the value of RSD is set equal to RSDmax (refer
to Fig. 1). An important, and interesting, observation from the figure is that the value of
DD is capped at around 1.51.6. Further, it is implied from the presented results that the
amount of torsional rotation in the building would not increase with increasing value of
the eccentricity nor with decreasing value of the torsional stiffness. The insensitivity of the
element displacement demand to changes in values of these structural parameters, which
is evident from the presented trends, is in stark contrast with the behavior associated with
velocity controlled conditions.
While the generic trends can be captured effectively by dynamic modal analyses (Figs.
3a and b), it is as important to re-affirm observations by time-history analyses in view of
potential shortcomings with existing methods of modal combination (when the coupled
modes of vibration possess similar values of the modal natural periods).
Element displacement demand values obtained from time-history analyses are shown
in Fig. 4. Values of the calculated element displacement demand are superimposed on the
elastic displacement response spectrum of the applied excitation for 5% viscous damp-
ing. Four recorded and one artificial accelerograms were employed in the analyses. The
accelerograms employed in the analyses feature a RSDmax value of approximately 0.055 m
at a natural period of about 0.5 s for accelerogram record no. 1 (Fig. 4a); 0.070 m at a
natural period of about 0.7 s for accelerogram record no. 2 (Fig. 4b); 0.099 m at a natural
period of about 1.2 s for accelerogram record no. 3 (Fig. 4c); and 0.540 m at a natural period
of about 2.2 s for accelerogram record no. 4 (Fig. 4d). The four accelerograms employed
herein, and also used in an earlier publication by the authors [Lumantarna et al., 2010],
have been summarized in Table 1.
The PDD value as defined by Eq. (7) is identified by a (broken and bold) horizontal
line on the respective displacement response spectrum in Fig. 4. It is clear from these fig-
ures that the calculated maximum element displacements are all within the estimated limit
(the cap). It is also shown that an increase in the value of the eccentricity ratio (e) from
0.30.5 has not resulted in any significant changes to the element displacement demand.
The displacement controlled phenomenon as applied to elastic torsionally sensitive mod-
els, which has been well demonstrated herein, is distinct from what has been reported in
the literature to date.
In summary, it can be seen from results presented in this section that the peak element
displacement demand value (PDD) was consistently within 1.6 times the value of RSDmax .
as expressed in Eq.(7):
PDD = 1.6 RSDmax , (7)
where RSDmax is the maximum value of elastic response spectral displacement.

Recommended values of RSDmax for a range of magnitude-distance combinations that are
consistent with conditions of moderate ground shaking which was derived by the authors
in Lumantarna et al. [2012] are presented in Table 2.
FIGURE 4 Element displacement demand from time-history analyses.

TABLE 1 Accelerograms used for time-history analyses

Record Place Distance Brief description and literature
No. recorded Magnitude (km) references
1 Artificial 6.5 40 Site Classification C
2 Friuli 5.5 19 Date: 9/111976 16:35:01, Site
Classification D
Ref : http://itaca.mi.ingv.
it/ItacaNet/
3 San Fernando 6.5 25 Date: 2/9/1971, Site
Classification C
Ref: http://peer.berkeley.edu/
nga/data?doi=NGA0057
4 Northridge 6.7 3.4 Date: 1/17/1994, Site
Classification D
Ref : http://peer.berkeley.edu/
nga/data?doi=NGA1048

Accelerograms were stochastically simulated using Program GENQKE [Lam, 2002].

Site classification is according to ICC [2006].
TABLE 2 Median predictions of RSDmax (mm) [Lumantarna et al., 2012]

R = 10 km R = 20 km R = 30 km R = 40 km R = 50 km
M5.5 23 (1530) 15 (1020) 10 (515) 8 5
M6 68 (4590) 34 (2540) 20 (1525) 15 10
M6.5 135 (90180) 75 (5590) 55 (4560) 38 (3045) 33 (2540)
Notes :
(a) Mid-range values are shown.
(b) Upper- and lower-bound values are shown in brackets where there are significant inter-model
discrepancies.
(c) Values shown in italics are much less well constrained and are associated with scenarios of very
low probability of occurrences in a region of lowmoderate seismicity.
3. Displacement-Controlled Post-Yield Behavior of Buildings

with and without Strength Degradation
Parametric studies on the element displacement demand have been extended to cover tor-
sionally unbalanced building models responding in the post-yield range. For every model
employed in the study the elastic stiffness of the lateral resisting elements had been cali-
brated in order that the uncoupled natural period of vibration were in the range of 0.22.0 s.
Every building model consisted of parallel frames which were aligned in the direction of
the applied base excitations (Fig.2). The notional yield strength of the individual frames
had been adjusted to the elastic strength demand (calculated from 2D analyses neglecting
torsional actions) by dividing by a targeted R factor of 2 and 4. Essentially, the centre of
resistance of the building models (based on conditions of full yield of every element) is
always coincident with the centre of stiffness based on elastic conditions (i.e., CV = CS).
As shown in an earlier publication in this journal by the authors [Lumantarna et al.,
2010] the response behavior of a structural system is generally insensitive to details of the
hysteretic behavior. However, the Modified Takeda model with parameter values of = 0
FIGURE 5 The Modified Takeda model.
and = 0 (Fig. 5) was generally found to result in a more onerous response outcome. The
models employed herein in this study were based on this condition. A 15% degradation in
the strength of the element per unit increase in the ductility ratio has also been incorporated
into some of the analyses for comparison with results based on no strength degradation.
It is shown in Fig. 6 that the element displacement demand values were all within the
PDD limit as defined by Eq. (7) provided that the yield strength of the individual elements
had not been reduced by a R factor exceeding 2. Higher element displacement demand val-
ues were observed when a R factor of 4 combined with strength degradation was applied
and the PDD limit predicted by Eq. (7) may be exceeded in this case.
4. Displacement-Controlled Post-Yield Behavior of Buildings

with Bi-lateral Excitations
Building models presented and analyzed in Sec. 3 were made up of parallel frames that
were aligned in the direction of the uni-laterally applied base excitations. Contributions
by frames that were aligned in the orthogonal direction have been neglected. Building
models analysed in this section feature orthogonal elements (Fig. 7). The total stiffness
of the orthogonal elements has been adjusted in order that the natural periods of vibra-
tion of the building in both directions were similar. The yield strengths of the orthogonal
elements were adjusted in order that the total lateral strengths of the building in both direc-
tions were similar. The building models were then subject to bi-lateral excitations applied
concurrently with similar amplitude. Two horizontal components of accelerograms record
no. 24 presented in Table 1 were employed in the analyses of the building models. Results
of the building models subject to an artificial accelerogram (record no. 1) applied in both
orthogonal directions with equal intensity were also presented for comparison.
The results presented in Fig. 8 demonstrate that the element displacement demand
values for the orthogonal frame models (subject to bi-lateral excitations) were generally
well correlated with those of the parallel frame models (subject to uni-lateral excitations).
A few anomalies were observed in Figure 8d. Building models with R factor of 4 could
be subject to significant yielding and degradation in strength. In this case, the contribu-
tion of the orthogonal elements to the torsional stiffness of buildings could be significant.
Consequently, the displacement demand of the critical elements in orthogonal frames
models could be smaller than those in the parallel frames models counterpart. The building
models subject to uni-lateral excitations is shown to be conservative. Furthermore, there
were no systematic differences between results of the analyses using artificial accelero-
gram (Fig. 8a) and real records (Figs. 8bd). In summary, the element displacement demand
FIGURE 6 Inelastic displacement demand of parallel elementse = 0.5, rd = 0.8.
behavior of a building which features an orthogonal set of frames and subject to bi-lateral
excitations can be reasonably represented by the analysis of a simplified model (which is
made up of parallel frames only) subject to uni-lateral excitations.
R = mass radius of gyration
Center of Center of
Mass Stiffness
es
b1 = 1.S R b2 = 1.S R
FIGURE 7 Single-story building model made of frames in orthogonal directions.
5. Effects of Disposition of Strength Among Lateral-Resisting Elements

It has been revealed that the displacement demand and ductility demand of lateral resisting
elements in a torsionally unbalanced building structure is controlled mainly by the location
of the Center of Strength (CV) as opposed to the Center of Stiffness (CS) of the framing
system in support of the building (e.g., Sadek and Tso, 1989; Tso and Ying, 1990: Goel
and Chopra, 1990; De La Llera and Chopra, 1995). Given that the stiffness of a reinforced
concrete wall or frame is very sensitive to the gross dimensions, while the strength is sen-
sitive to the reinforcement detailing and volume, the locations of the CV of the framing
system can be adjusted and located away from the CS. It is therefore desirable to have
the CV located close to the CM of the building (referred herein as models with ideally
located CV).
Results presented in Fig. 9 compare the element displacement demand values for two
sets of models. The first set are models where the location of the CV and CS are coinci-
dent (denoted herein as CV = CS). The second set are those with ideally located CV and
hence zero strength eccentricity (denoted herein as CV = CM). A 15% strength degradation
per unit increase in the ductility ratio of the element were incorporated into the analyses.
As expected, the element displacement demand of the CV = CM models are generally less
onerous than the CV = CS counterpart. However, the difference is shown to be very minor
in many of the cases presented. The element displacement demand for both the CV = CS
and CV = CM models were all constrained within the limit defined by Eq. (7) provided
that the yield strength of the individual elements had not been reduced by a R factor
exceeding 2.
6. Conclusions
Displacement-controlled behavior is a feature of lower seismicity areas where the peak
displacement demand imposed by the earthquake is moderate and results in a maximum
drift imposed on flexible high period structures despite greatly reduced structural properties
such as strength degradation and P-delta effects.
It has been shown by dynamic modal analyses, and re-affirmed by time-history anal-
yses, that the elastic element displacement demand of an asymmetrical building model
can be insensitive to changes in the eccentricity and stiffness properties of the build-
ing under displacement-controlled behavior. Importantly, the peak element displacement
demand value is constrained within 1.6 times the value of the maximum elastic response
spectral displacement (RSDmax ).
FIGURE 8 Element displacement demand: uni-lateral vs. bi-lateral excitationse = 0.3,

rd = 1.3.
FIGURE 9 Element displacement demand: CV = CS vs. CV = CMe = 0.5, rd = 0.8.
This constraint under displacement controlled conditions has also been found to be
applicable to asymmetrical buildings responding in the post-elastic range provided that the
yield strength of the elements have not been reduced from the elastic demand value by a
R factor exceeding 2.
The displacement behavior of models comprising parallel elements only and subject
to uni-lateral excitations has been found to correlate well with that of models that are
supported by elements in orthogonal directions and subject to bi-lateral excitations.
The location of the CV (as opposed to that of the CS) has an effect on the element
displacement demand but in many cases the effects were minor.
Acknowledgments
The financial support from the ARC Discovery Grant entitled: Displacement Controlled
Behaviour of non-ductile structural walls in regions of lower seismicity (DP1096753) is
acknowledged.
References
AS 1170.4 [2007] Structural Design Actions Part 4 Earthquake Actions, Standards Australia,
Sydney.
Al Abadi, H., Lam, N. T. K. and Gad, E. [2006] A simple displacement based Model for predicting
seismically induced overturning, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 10(6), 775814.
Beyer, K. [2007] Seismic design of torsionally eccentric buildings with RC U-shaped walls, Ph.D.
thesis, Rose School, IUSS, Pavia, Italy.
Castillo, R. [2004] Seismic design of asymmetric ductile systems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Chandler, A. M. and Duan, X. N. [1997] Performance of asymmetric code-designed buildings for
serviceability and ultimate limit states, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 26,
717735.
Chandler, A. M. and Hutchinson, G. L. [1987] Evaluation of code torsional provisions by a time
history approach, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 15, 491516.
Chandler, A. M. and Hutchinson, G. L. [1988] A modified approach to earthquake resistant design
of torsionally coupled buildings, Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake
Engineering 21, 140152.
Chopra, A. K. [2000] Dynamics of Structures Theories and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Chopra, A. K. and Goel, R. K. [1991] Evaluation of torsional provisions in seismic code, Journal
of Structural Engineering 117, 37623782.
De La Llera, J. and Chopra, A. K. [1995] Understanding the inelastic seismic behaviour of
asymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 24, 549572.
Dempsey, K. M. and Tso, W. K. [1982] An alternative path to seismic torsional provisions, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1, 310.
Der Kiureghian, A. [1981] Response spectrum model for random vibration analysis of MDF
systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 9, 419435.
Doherty, K., Griffith, M. C., Lam, N., and Wilson, J. [2002] Displacement-based seismic analysis
for out-of-plane bending of unreinforced masonry walls, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 31(4), 833850.
EN 1998-1 [2004] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance Part 1: General
Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels.
Goel, R. K. and Chopra, A. K. [1990] Inelastic seismic response of one-storey, asymmetric-plan
systems: effects of stiffness and strength distribution, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 19, 949970.
Kafle, B., Lam, N. T. K., Gad, E. F. and Wilson, J. L. [2011] Displacement controlled rocking
behaviour of rigid objects, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 40, 16531669.
International Code Council [2006] International Building Code, Whittier, California.
Lam, N. T. K. [2002] Program GENQKE Users Manual, Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Lam, N. T. K., Wilson, J. L., Chandler, A., and Hutchinson, G. [2000] Response spectral relation-
ships for rock sites derived from the component attenuation model, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 29, 14571489.
Lam, N. T. K and Chandler, A. [2005] Peak displacement demand of small to moderate magnitude
earthquake in stable continental regions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34,
10471072.
Lam, N. T. K. and Wilson, J. L. [2004] Displacement modeling of intraplate earthquakes,
International Seismology and Earthquake Technology Journal 41(1), 1552.
Lam, N. T. K., Wilson, J. L., and Chandler, A. M. [2001] The development of the frame anal-
ogy soil amplification model for the displacement spectrum estimation, Departmental Report,
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne/Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Hong Kong.
Lumantarna, E., Lam, N., and Wilson, J. [2010] Inelastic Displacement Demand of Strength-
Degraded Structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14(4), 487511.
Lumantarna, E., Wilson, J., and Lam, N. [2012] Bi-linear displacement response spectrum model for
engineering applications in low and moderate seismicity regions, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 43, 8596.
Paulay, T. [2001] "Some design principles relevant to torsional design phenomena in ductile
buildings," Journal of Earthquake Engineering 5, 273308.
Paulay, T. [1997] A review of code provisions for torsional seismic effects in buildings, Bulletin of
the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering 30, 252263.
Priestley, M. J. N. [1997] Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings,
Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1(1), 157192.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. [2007] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of
Structures, IUSS PRESS, Pavia, Italy.
Rutenberg, A. and Pekau, O. A. [1989] Seismic code provisions for asymmetrical structures: low
period systems, Engineering Structures 11, 9296.
Rutenberg, A. and Pekau, O. A. [1987] Seismic code provisions for asymmetric structures: a re-
evaluation, Engineering Structures 9, 255264.
Sadek, A. W. and Tso, W. K. [1989] Strength eccentricity concept for inelastic analysis of
asymmetrical structures, Engineering Structures 11, 189194.
Tso, W. K. and Sadek, A. W. [1985] Inelastic seismic response of simple eccentric structures,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 13, 255269.
Tso, W. K. and Wong, C. M. [1993] An evaluation of the New Zealand code torsional provision,
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society of Earthquake Engineering 26, 194207.
Tso, W. K. and Wong, C. M. [1995] Evaluation of torsional provisions in Eurocode, 10th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam.
Tso, W. K. and Ying, H. [1990] Additional seismic inelastic deformation caused by structural
asymmetry, Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics 19, 243258.
Tso, W. K. and Zhu, T. J. [1992] Design of torsionally unbalanced structural systems based on code
provisions I: ductility demand, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 21, 609627.
Wibowo, A., Wilson, J. L., Lam, N. T. K., and Gad, E.F. [2010] Collapse modelling analysis of a
precast soft storey building in Australia, Engineering Structures 32, 19251936.
Wilson, J. and Lam, N. T. K [2003] A recommended earthquake spectrum model for Australia,
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering 5(1), 1727.
Wong, C. M. and Tso, W. K. [1995] Evaluation of seismic torsional provisions in Uniform Building
Code, Journal of Structural Engineering 121, 14361442.

DDBD, Assymetry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DDBD, Assymetry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology Madras]

On: 17 September 2013, At: 18:34

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.781557

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

E. LUMANTARNA 1 , N. LAM1 , and J. WILSON2

Keywords Displacement-Based; Displacement-Controlled; Building; Torsion; Asymmetry

Received 9 August 2012; accepted 21 February 2013.

FIGURE 1 Displacement-controlled conditions as illustrated by idealized response

displacement experienced by an object can be insensitive to changes in the object aspect

substitute structure modeling methodology. The potential significance of the displacement-

RSDmax of the applied base excitations.

2. Displacement-controlled Behavior of Buildings Responding Within the

where k are angular velocities of the coupled modes of vibration; rd 2 = K

FIGURE 2 Single-story building model made of parallel frames.

where e = es /R is a dimensionless parameter

FIGURE 3 Normalized element displacement demand from dynamic modal analyses.

PDD = 1.6 RSDmax , (7)

where RSDmax is the maximum value of elastic response spectral displacement.

FIGURE 4 Element displacement demand from time-history analyses.

TABLE 1 Accelerograms used for time-history analyses

TABLE 2 Median predictions of RSDmax (mm) [Lumantarna et al., 2012]

3. Displacement-Controlled Post-Yield Behavior of Buildings

FIGURE 5 The Modified Takeda model.

4. Displacement-Controlled Post-Yield Behavior of Buildings

FIGURE 6 Inelastic displacement demand of parallel elementse = 0.5, rd = 0.8.

R = mass radius of gyration

FIGURE 7 Single-story building model made of frames in orthogonal directions.

5. Effects of Disposition of Strength Among Lateral-Resisting Elements

FIGURE 8 Element displacement demand: uni-lateral vs. bi-lateral excitationse = 0.3,

FIGURE 9 Element displacement demand: CV = CS vs. CV = CMe = 0.5, rd = 0.8.

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The University of Melbourne/Department of

You might also like