Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vol. 39, No. 5, December 2012 - January 2013 pp. 393-418 No. 39-51
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
Irregularity
the center of mass (C.M) of the structure. The vertical
members in the structure resist these forces and the
total resultant of these systems of forces act through Vertical
Irregularity
Horizontal
Irregularity
a point called as center of stiffness (C.S). When
Asymmetrical Re-Entrant Diaphragm
the center of mass and center of stiffness does not Mass Stiffness Strength Setback Irregular distribution of Mass,
plan shapes corners discontinuity Strength, Stiffness along plan
TABLE 2
IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IBC 2003, TEC 2007 AND ASCE 7.05
Type of Irregularity IBC 2003 [37] TEC 2007 [71] ASCE 7.05 [5]
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 [ki = (i / hi) avr / Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (i+1 / hi +1) avr > 2.0 or Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
d) Weak Storey Si < Si+1 [ci = (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 2003, Turkish code 2007 and ASCE 7 05 are different irregularity limits as per IS 1893:200219.
shown in Table 2.
TABLE 3
C.M C.S C.M C.S DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT MODELS ADOPTED
(a)
S.No Model Name Description
1 M Mass eccentric model with all
three resistant elements having
equal yield deformation
2 S1 Stiffness eccentric Model with
C.V C.M identical yield strength.
3 S2 Stiffness eccentric Model with
(c) identical yield deformation.
Fig. 4 Definitions of different types of eccentricity a) Mass
eccentricity, b) Stiffness eccentricity, c) Strength Pekau and Guimond (1990) checked the adequacy
eccentricity of accidental eccentricity to account for the torsion
induced due to the variation of strength and stiffness
Research works on plan irregular building systems of the resisting elements which was achieved using
started in early 1980s with Tso and Sadek (1985) elasto-plastic force-deformation relationship. Results
determined the variation in ductility demand by of analytical study showed occurrence of torsional
performing inelastic seismic response of simple one amplification due to strength and stiffness variation.
storey mass eccentric model with stiffness degradation Finally the code prescribed provision of 5% for
using Cloughs stiffness degradation model and bi- accidental eccentricity was found to inadequate.
linear hysteric model. Results of analytical study Duan and Chandler (1991) based on their analytical
showed that the time period had predominant effect studies on plan irregular building systems the change
versa for torsionally unbalanced flexible elements and Unloading branch with initial
increase in value of stiffness eccentricities reduced the stiffness k k(1-2)
k Displacement
F
F
= 1-3
normalized ductility demand. Based on these results it = 1-2 k(1-3)
was concluded that strength eccentricity had greater = 1-
k(1-)
F
by 5% and 15%. The results of proposed procedure were (EI Centro earthquake). Analytical studies were carried
compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis. out on several 5 storey buildings having mass and
From comparison of results the ability of proposed stiffness eccentricity. Shear beam models were used by
method to predict the seismic response of torsionally researchers to represent resisting elements. Based on
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 Goel (2004) proposed a new method
N2 method. based on extension of their earlier method (Chopra
De-la-Colina (2003) made assessments of several and Goel 2002). In the proposed method the torsional
code specified procedures regarding analysis procedures amplification of the structure was accounted for by
for multistorey building systems with mass and stiffness application of the lateral forces in combination with the
irregularity subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation torsional moments at each floor of the structure. The
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
Anagnopoulos 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 Goel 2004 9 em = 4.57m Accuracy of proposed procedure decreased with
the increase in magnitude of torsional coupling.
3 Fernandez et al. 2005 5 es = 0.25r - 0.75r For e/r 0.5 and (Ductility coefficient) 0.4,
number of resistant planes in direction of seismic
response have no influence on seismic response.
4 Stefano et al. 2006 6 em = 0.15b Overstrength factor influences the seismic
response.
5 Ghersi et al. 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. 2009 2 es = 0, 0.5b The deformation demand in the Irregular
buildings was found to be non-linear.
8 Aziaenmizad 2010 5 es = 0 - 0.14b est =0 In building systems with strength eccentricity
Moghadam - 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
Anagnopoulos - 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 2010 3 5 em es= 0-0.30 b ea = For models SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges
et al. 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
TABLE 17
SECOND SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
S.No M Reference no. Advantages Disadvantages
1 SB 3, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, Simple Does not represent the actual structure. Does not
39, 46, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, Easy idealization and formulation. involve building systems with large degree of
73, 74, 75, 76, 77 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 3, 9, 21, 67, 68, 69 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 4, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 27, 28, Closer to actual buildings. Complex and difficult formulations.
30, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47,
52, 53, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66,
68, 70, 72, 82, 83, 84