Torsional

irregularity of
multi-storey
structures
PRESENTED BY:

Guided By:
Ms.Shinu Shajee

RAHILA THASKEEN
ROLL NO:07
S4 STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING

INDEX
Introduction

Reviews
Methods of seismic analysis
Validation
Objective
Methodology
Analysis using ETABS

Comparison of structures along

height
Modal for analysis
Analysis results of the 3 models
Comparison of results
Conclusion and scope of the study
References

INTRODUCTION
Earthquake
Devastating and unpredictable.
Torsional behaviour during an earthquake.
Buildings are like inverted swings.
walls and columns are like the ropes
and the floor is like the cradle
Vibrate
back
and
forth
earthquakes.

during

contd..
If the mass on the floor of a
building is more on one side,
then that side of the building
moves more under ground
movement.
This building moves such that
its floors displace horizontally
as well as rotate.
6

contd..
uniformly placed vertical members
If the twist cannot be avoided, special
calculations need to be done to account
for this additional shear forces in the
design of buildings.
the Indian seismic code (IS 1893, 2002)
has provisions for such calculations. But,
for sure, buildings with twist will perform
poorly during strong earthquake shaking.

Torsion

Torsion responses : Eccentricity in the

mass and stiffness distributions.
The differences in coupling of the
structural
foundation
with
the
supporting earth or rock beneath and
wave propagation effects in the
earthquake motions gives a torsion
input to the ground.

contd..
Torsion
effect
in
symmetric
structures
Regular structures have uniformity
in height, cross-sectional area and
mass per storey and
yield a
general similarity in mode shape
of vibration.
Indian seismic codes have
torsional provisions for increase in
shear forces on lateral force
9

contd..
due to eccentricity between centre
of mass and centre of rigidity. This
is based on the static eccentricity
and floor plan dimensions which is
effective for irregular structures.
Account
for
accidental
eccentricity.

10

contd..
Torsional effect on asymmetric structures
Irregular structures can have irregular
configurations both in plan and elevation.
The lateral resistance of such structures is
usually torsionally unbalanced creating
large displacement amplifications and high
force concentrations within the resisting
elements which can cause severe damages

11

contd...
and at times leads to collapse of the
structure.
o Eccentric arrangement of the nonstructural element , asymmetric yielding,
presence of rotational component in
ground motions and the variations in the
input energy imparted by the ground
motions also contribute significantly to
the torsional response of buildings.

12

contd..

CR- centre
of rigidity
CMcentre of
mass

13

Eccentricity
o Accidental

eccentricity

oEccentricity in distribution of mass

and stiffness.

Torsion irregularity
max drift/ avg drift <or = 1.2
Drift obtained from edge deflections

14

Contd..

15

REVIEWS
16

REVIEW ON PLAN
ASYMMETRIC
STRUCTURES

17

Review 1
Vipin
Gupta
and
Dr.P.S
Pajgade
investigated torsional behaviour of
multi-storey structures as well as
vertical irregularities. They reached into
a conclusion that torsion is an important
factor leading to collapse of building
during earthquake. As a result the
building needed to be designed for
design and accidental eccentricity.
18

Review 2
Rajalaxmi K.R et al., carried out an
analysis of 30 storeyed regular rc frame in
SAP 2000.Non-linear static analysis has
done.
Mass irregularity, Stiffness irregularity and
setbacks were considered.
Mass irregular-More hinges formed
Stiffness irregular The building displaced

19

more when compared with regular

building model
More damages were found for
setback buildings.

20

Review 3
C. Justine J et al,. begun their
work by quantifying the similarities
and differences in equivalent static
method and response spectrum
method of tall regular buildings
analysis under frequency period
and torsional period based on IS
code provisions.
Design moments of columns and
roof displacements are taken 21
as

contd..
The buildings considered were 3D reinforced
column beam structures with rigid diaphragms
having 'm x m' bays.9 storey building with
different floor areas were investigated
They compared the variation in equivalent
static method and response spectrum method
wherein
they
found
that
RSM
was
overestimated.
They also studied on the effects of torsional
modes in low raise buildings

22

Review 4
Sachin G. M et al,. studied on the
influence of the torsion effects on
the behaviour of structure is done.
In building , two cases are
considered
that
is
without
considering torsion and considering
torsion.
Results are compared in terms of
percentage Ast in columns.
23

In the asymmetric building with

considering torsion,the forces in the
columns located in the stiff side of
the plan are much smaller than
those obtained in the elements of
the flexible side of the plan.
There isn't found any significant
change in column forces around the
centre of rigidity.
24

Review 5
M.R Wakchaure et al,. studied the
influence of torsion effects on the behaviour
of structure. The indian standard code of
practice IS 1893(part1:2002) guidelines and
methodology were used for analysis.
The structural analysis and design of nine
storey RC asymmetrical frame building was
done with the help of staad.pro software.

25

The cases with and without torsion

was compared. The results were
established in terms of % of Ast.
The variation of Ast was found much
higher for small span beams.For
asymmetric
building
without
considering torsion were founded
having less value of Ast.
26

Review 6
Bolander et al,.have evaluated the
effects of torsion on the nonlinear
seismic response of a thirteen-story
reinforced concrete frame-wall structure
with an asymmetric stiffness in plan.
They conducted their investigation on
existing building structure,located in
Berkeley,was modeled in ETABS to
perform several analyses.

27

The asymmetric model typically

experienced torsional effects and
larger displacement responses than
the symmetric model. The more
nonlinear the structure behaved,
the more influence torsion had on
the response of the model with
asymmetrically-placed shear walls.
28

Review 7
Nischith S et al,. studied four
types of structures with varying
eccentricity subjected to Pushover
Analysis and Non-Linear THA.
One symmetrical structure with
zero
eccentricity
and
three
asymmetrical
structures
with
varying eccentricity.
The performance of the structures
29

contd..
The analysis of the structural models is done
in ETABS.
The results have shown that the structures
with less eccentricity and in the direction of
the columns orientation are performing well,
also ductility, drift, and lateral displacement
depends on the eccentricity of the structures
and greater displacement is seen the
structure with highest eccentricity.

30

REVIEW ON TORSION
ANALYSIS OF
STRUCTURES WITH
SHEAR WALL

31

Review 8
Amin Alavi et al,.made an attempt to
realise the seismic response of the
structures, for various location of shear
walls on RC building having re-entrant
corners on high seismic zones.
The studied a five storey building with six
different shear wall locations They
considered the accidental torsion of both
negative and positive X and Y directions.

32

The results proved that the

structures are more vulnerable
when they are more irregular, and
also the eccentricities between
centre of mass and centre of
resistance are more significant to
the torsional behaviour of structures
during an earthquake.

33

Review 9
Gunay ozmen et al; explained the
conditions
which
cause
torsional
irregularity coefficient to exceed the upper
bound value of 2 as per the code.
A series of eight walled and framed
sample structures with different structural
wall configurations was chosen and their
behaviour under earthquake loading were
considered.

34

Here
found
that
torsional
irregularity coefficient is maximum
when the number of axes and
number of stories are low. Also
when structural walls are placed as
close as posible to the gravity
centres without coinciding them ,
the
coefficient
were
found
maximum.
35

Review 10
Bhojaraj M et al,. in their study, Response
Spectrum method is used to analyze the
irregular shaped RCC structure.
The investigation is carried to know the
contribution of different shapes and location of
shear walls to lateral strength and lateral
stiffness of the high rise irregular building.
The comparison has been carried out between
building with L SHAPE SW, C SHAPE SW and
LINE SHAPE SW.

36

They
concluded
that
the
eccentricities between centre of
mass and centre of resistance are
more significant to the torsion
behaviour of structures during an
earthquake.
It was found that the shear wall
location, shape, size and total
number of shear wall in a building
37
acts as an important factor for the

VARIOUS METHODS OF
TORSION ANALYSIS

38

Review 11
Anil K.Chopra et al; investigated on
the accuracy of response spectrum
analysis for estimating the maximum
response of the building directly from
earthquake
design
spectrum
and
evaluated it with the objective of
developing better analysis procedures
comparing building codes.
The paper demonstrated that for a fixed
fundamental period of building, the
response contribution of higher vibration
39

stiffness ratio the response contribution

of higher vibration modes increases.
They proved that response spectrum
analysis results are accurate enough for
design applications.

40

Review 12
Karoley A Zalka; Regarding torsion his
book presented a closed-form solutions for
the maximum deflection and rotation of
the building.
The investigations spectacularly show the
contribution of the two key (bending and
shear) stiffnesses as well as the interaction
between them. It deals with the frequency
analysis of buildings..

41

It also presents sixteen examples

worked out to the smallest details, with
step-by-step instructions. The examples
range from the deflection or frequency
or stability analysis of individual bracing
units to the complex deflection and
frequency and stability analyses of
bracing systems, considering both
planar and spatial behaviour.
42

Comments on literature
Helped for a better understanding of response
spectrum analysis and equivalent static analysis
of multi-storey structures and its torsional effects.
oThe seismic responses caused by the asymmetric
structures were the main area of interest.
oLess comparisons are found regarding the plan
asymmetric structures. There is less information
regarding usage of cores so as to increase the
stiffness and reduce torsion.
o

43

Contd..
oThe
information
regarding
the
introduction of shear walls, infills etc..
which in turn increases the stiffness of
the structure and the overall stability of
the structures were investigated by many
researchers
but
strengthening
to
torsionally irregular structure was not the
prime motive of many.
oThere is no much information on the
torsion effect for height of the high rise
buildings.
44

METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Linear static analysis
Linear dynamic analysis
Response spectrum analysis
Elastic time history analysis
Non-linear static analysis
Non-linear dynamic analysis

45

COMPUTATIONAL TOOL
ETABS 2015
ETABS is an ultimate integrated
software
package
for
the
structural analysis and design of
buildings.
Incorporating
40
years
of
continuous
research
and
development, this latest ETABS
offers unmatched 3D object based
modelling and visualization tools,
46

CONTD..

capabilities for a wide-range of materials,

and insightful graphic displays, reports,
and schematic drawings that allow users
to quickly and easily decipher and
understand analysis and design results.
From the start of design conception
through the production of schematic
drawings, ETABS integrates every aspect
of the engineering design process.

47

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE

STRUCTURE
oSeismic analysis is a subset of
structural analysis and is the
calculation of response of a building
to earthquakes.
oThe potential to wave back and
forth is the fundamental mode and
lowest of frequencies.
48

METHODS OF SEISMIC
ANALYSIS
Equivalent Static Load Method:
o Series of forces acting on structure are
defined to represent earthquake ground
motion
o Building respond in its fundamental mode
o Basic response spectrum defined by
choosing appropriate values of basic
seismic acceleration, soil profile type and
response reduction factors.

49

Contd..
o They yields approximate values of
base shear and the total permanent
load is determined.
o They specifies how the load is
distributed along the height of the
structure.

50

Response spectrum method

Multiple modes are taken into
consideration
They uses over all mass and stiffness
of the structure
Includes 90% of mass in the structure

51

VALIDATION
Validation done using ETABS 2015
One bay 9 storied building has
been analyzed using ESM and
RSM.
Material properties
M20 grade of concrete and Fe
415
Storey data

Number of stories = 9

Number of bays along X-direction

52

Contd..
Storey height =3.0 meters
Bay width along X-direction = 5.0 m
Bay width along Y-direction = 5.0 m
Analysis methodology
Seismic analysis is carried out for the
building using static approach -ESM and
dynamic approach - RSM as proposed in IS
1893 (part 1) : 2002 with .

53

Contd..
Importance factor I=1
Response reduction factor R= 5,
and Zone factor = 0.36.
The buildings are considered to be founded
on medium soil (type 2). Etabs 2015 is used
as the computational tool. For validation
storey displacements and roof displacements
are taken as parameters of study.

54

Twisting of the structure when

subjected to seismic forces
Undeformed

Deformed

55

Variation of roof displacements

in one bay building(sap 2000)

56

Variation of roof displacements in

one bay building(etabs)
roof displacement variation
ESM

roof displacements

RSM

80

60

40

20

10

types of buildings in terms of floors

57

Roof displacement
symmetric buildings
Type of

of

one

bay

Roof displacement (mm)

building

From Sap 2000

From Etabs 2015

RSM

RSM

ESM

ESM

U1

U2

U1

U2

U1

U2

U1

U2

1.86

1.81

0.08

1.91

1.89

0.09

7.56

8.4

0.36

8.70

8.87

0.43

15.21

17.14

0.71

16.29

17.01

0.82

25.06

30.32

1.21

27.76

31.98

1.34

35.87

40.84

1.69

36.56

40.9

1.75

47.41

59.19

2.14

49.05

60.04

2.38

U1 and U2 represents the X and Y direction roof

displacements (mm) resp.

58

OBJECTIVE
Analyze the seismic performance of the
structure.
To analyze structure along the height of
the building
Study of torsional irregularity of
symmetric and asymmetric plan structures
To strengthen the most torsionally
irregular structure.

59

METHODOLOGY
Building
configurations
are
introduced
Symmetric structure- rectangular in
plan
Asymmetric
structure
rectangular,L-shape and C shape
Analysis done using etabs.
The material properties and zonal
60
consideration informations collected

Contd..
The sections are introduced and also the load
patterns.
Linear analysis completed
Design check has been made and platform for
modal analysis has made ready.
Set of response parameters of torsion is used to
illustrate the effect of torsion in these structures.
Torsion parameters are outlined and are
discussed.

61

Analysis using etabs

Model geometry description. Storey
datas are introduced
Defining material properties
Defining frame, slab and wall sections
Defining load patterns
Assigning gravity loads, frame loads
and diaphragms.
62

CONTD
Run analysis for linear analysis
Response function and response
spectrum load cases defined
Response spectrum modal amplitude for
any direction defined in load combinations
Modal response spectrum analysis carried
out to obtain the torsional irregularity of
the structure.

63

COMPARISON OF A STRUCTURE
ALONG HEIGHT
Two structures are compared along its height.
A symmetrical structure and an L shaped
asymmetrical structure
The structures compared are G+12 and G+17
structures.
Zonal Considerations

Zone : IV ;Soil Type : II ;Importance factor : 1

Reduction Factor : 5; Zone Factor : 0.24
Live Load : 3kN/m2

64

MODEL FOR ANALYSIS

MODEL-I AND MODEL II
Description of model
Dimension- 20m X 20m
5 bays in X direction and 4 bays in
Y-direction
Spacing 4m in X direction and 5m
bay spacing in Y direction

65

Model I- plan and

elevation(G+12)(Symmetric)

66

Model I- plan and

elevation(G+17)(symmetric)

67

Model I- plan and

elevation(G+12)(L
shape)

68

Model I- plan and

elevation(G+17)(L
shape)

69

symmetric

70

X direction

Sto
rey
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Edi
1

C
m
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
=
10

StoCr Esi bi edi

rey
10 0 20 1
12
10 0 20 1
11
10 0 20 1
10
10 0 20 1
9
10 0 20 1
8
10 0 20 1
7
10 0 20 1
6
10 0 20 1
5
10 0 20 1
4
10 0 20 1
3
10 0 20 1
2
design
10 0 eccentricity
20 1
1

eccentricity

Y direction
Cm Cr Esi bi edi
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
10 10 0 20 1
esi=
10 10static
0 20 1

71

eccentricity along X direction eccentricity along Y direction

Storey

13

13

12

12

11

11

10

10

Storey

6
5

6
5

0
0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

design eccentricity

0
0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

design eccentricity

72

Store
y
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Cm
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Cr
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Esi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

bi
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

edi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
Y

Store
y

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi

17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

73

eccentricity along X direction

Storey

eccentricity along Y direction

18

18

16

16

14

14

12

12

10

10

Storey

0
0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

design eccentricity

0
0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

design eccentricity

74

L shape

75

centricity along X direction(L shape)

Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi

12

8.5711

8.2406

-0.3305

20

0.50425

11

8.585

8.2818

-0.3032

20

0.5452

10

8.5892

8.3199

-0.2693

20

0.59605

8.5912

8.3556

-0.2356

20

0.6466

8.5924

8.3889

-0.2035

20

0.69475

8.5932

8.4198

-0.1734

20

0.7399

8.5938

8.4485

-0.1453

20

0.78205

8.5942

8.4752

-0.119

20

0.8215

8.5945

8.5005

-0.094

20

0.859

8.5948

8.5256

-0.0692

20

0.8962

8.595

8.5543

-0.0407

20

0.93895

8.5951

8.598

0.0029

20

1.00435

76

Eccentricity along Y direction

Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

8.7942
8.7979
8.799
8.7995
8.7998
8.8
8.8002
8.8003
8.8004
8.8004
8.8005

8.5863
8.6007
8.6142
8.6268
8.6387
8.65
8.6607
8.671
8.6811
8.6917
8.7044

-0.2079
-0.1972
-0.1848
-0.1727
-0.1611
-0.15
-0.1395
-0.1293
-0.1193
-0.1087
-0.0961

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

0.68815
0.7042
0.7228
0.74095
0.75835
0.775
0.79075
0.80605
0.82105
0.83695
0.85585

8.8005

8.7252

-0.0753

20

0.88705

77

G+12
eccentricity along X direction

Storey

eccentricity along Y direction

14

14

12

12

10

10

Storey

0
0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

design eccentricity

0
0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

design eccentricity

78

X direction
Storey
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Cm
8.5711
8.585
8.5892
8.5912
8.5924
8.5932
8.5938
8.5942
8.5945
8.5948
8.595
8.5951
8.5953
8.5954
8.5955
8.5956
8.5957

Cr
8.0846
8.1272
8.1675
8.2058
8.2425
8.2774
8.3108
8.3426
8.3728
8.4015
8.4287
8.4545
8.479
8.5026
8.5267
8.5547
8.5981

Esi
-0.4865
-0.4578
-0.4217
-0.3854
-0.3499
-0.3158
-0.283
-0.2516
-0.2217
-0.1933
-0.1663
-0.1406
-0.1163
-0.0928
-0.0688
-0.0409
0.0024

bi
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

edi
0.27025
0.3133
0.36745
0.4219
0.47515
0.5263
0.5755
0.6226
0.66745
0.71005
0.75055
0.7891
0.82555
0.8608
0.8968
0.93865
1.0036
79

Y direction
Storey
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Cm
8.7942
8.7979
8.799
8.7995
8.7998
8.8
8.8002
8.8003
8.8004
8.8004
8.8005
8.8005
8.8006
8.8006
8.8006
8.8007
8.8007

Cr
8.5287
8.5434
8.5576
8.5712
8.5842
8.5967
8.6087
8.6202
8.6312
8.6419
8.6522
8.6622
8.6719
8.6817
8.692
8.7045
8.7253

Esi
-0.2655
-0.2545
-0.2414
-0.2283
-0.2156
-0.2033
-0.1915
-0.1801
-0.1692
-0.1585
-0.1483
-0.1383
-0.1287
-0.1189
-0.1086
-0.0962
-0.0754

bi
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

edi
0.60175
0.61825
0.6379
0.65755
0.6766
0.69505
0.71275
0.72985
0.7462
0.76225
0.77755
0.79255
0.80695
0.82165
0.8371
0.8557
80
0.8869

G+17
eccentricity along X direction

Storey

eccentricity along Y direction

18

18

16

16

14

14

12

12

Storey

10

10

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

design eccentricity

1.1

0
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

design eccentricity

81

The actual torsion arises from the

moment resulting from the eccentricity
between the centres of mass at all floors
above and including the given floor and
the centre of rigidity of the vertical
seismic elements in the storey below the
given floor.
The storey height(H=4m) considered is
same along the height of the structure
the variation of eccentricity is same for
symmetric and decreasing for L shape.
82

 Comparing the eccentricity values of L

and symmetric structure significant
variation is visible.
the plan asymmetry adds to the
variation in eccentricity.
In case of L-shape structure the centre
of mass do not coincide with the centre
of
rigidity
due
to
asymmetrical
positioning of stiff elements with respect
to stiffness.
Horizontal irregularity is observed in
structures only when there is irregular
stiffness or mass distribution.
83

 So this thesis mainly focused on

structures
with
different
plan
irregularities and introducing stiffer
elements like lift core etc. in the plan.
Non-uniform
distribution
of
stiff
elements along the height of the
structure and its effect can be studied
as a future scope of this thesis.

84

PLAN AND ELEVATION MODEL I

FLOOR PLAN

ELEVATION

85

MODEL -II
Asymmetric building -model II
oRectangular in shape
o4 bays in X direction and 3 bays
in Y-direction.
oSpacing 3.5m in X direction and
4.5m Y-direction.

86

PLAN

87

PLAN AND ELEVATION MODEL II

FLOOR PLAN

ELEVATION

88

MODEL-III
Asymmetric building model III- L
shaped building
o4 bays in X direction and 3 bays
in Y-direction.
oSpacing 3.5m in X direction and
4.5m Y-direction.

89

PLAN

90

PLAN AND ELEVATION

MODEL III
FLOOR PLAN

ELEVATION

91

MODEL-IV
Asymmetric building model IV- C
shaped building
o4 bays in X direction and 3 bays
in Y-direction.
oSpacing 3.5m in X direction and
4.5m Y-direction.

92

PLAN

93

PLAN AND ELEVATION

MODEL IV
FLOOR PLAN

ELEVATION

94

Type of Structures - Multi-Storey RC Building

Number of Stories -G+7
Modulus of Elasticity of steel, Es = 20, 0000
MPa
Modulus of Elasticity of concrete, Ec =
22,360.68 MPa
Characteristic strength of concrete, fck = 20
MPa
Yield stress for steel, fy = 415 MPa

95

Contd
Zonal Considerations
Zone : IV
Soil Type : II
Importance factor : 1
Reduction Factor : 5
Zone Factor : 0.24
Live Load : 3kN/m2

96

Contd
Linear static analysis
o Basic dimensioning and defining
material properties
oDefining beam and column
dimensions and drawing them.
oDefining load cases and
combinations

97

Modal response spectrum analysis

98

Load case data and modal

case data

99

To find torsional
irregularity
1) Obtain the scaling for each mode as the
response-spectrum modal amplitudefrom
the Response Spectrum Modal Information.
2) Select the load Combinations and add new
combinations. Select modal in drop down list
under load name and enter mode number
and scale factor for the specific mode from
response spectrum modal information as
new combinations and rerun the analysis.

100

Contd..
3) Compute the average story drift
at two ends of the building, then
compare with the maximum story
drift
for
that
specific
mode
i.e.Dmax/Davg<1.2 for each mode
and
thus
find
the
torsional
irregularity.

101

Analysis results

102

MODEL I

103

M
O
D
E
S
H
A
P
E
S

Case

Mode

Period

Circular
Frequency Frequency

sec

cyc/sec

rad/sec

Modal

1.519

0.659

4.1376

Modal

1.008

0.992

6.2327

Modal

0.991

1.009

6.3407

Modal

0.494

2.025

12.7212

Modal

0.324

3.089

19.408

Modal

0.313

3.197

20.0849

Modal

0.287

3.482

21.8807

Modal

0.201

4.975

31.2581

Modal

0.183

5.462

34.3219

Modal

10

0.171

5.835

36.6603

Modal

11

0.155

6.462

40.6

Modal

12

0.128

7.806

49.0438

104

MODES 1, 2,3

X direction

Twisting

Y direction

105

ECCENTRICITY
X DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi
+0.05bi

14

0.7

14

0.7

14

0.7

14

0.7

14

0.7

14

0.7

14

0.7

106

ECCENTRICITYY DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.
5esi+0
.05bi

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

6.75

6.75

13.5

0.675

107

Torsion irregularity
The torsional irregularity can be interpreted as
the ratio of maximum drift to the average drift
of the individual story.

108

Torsional irregularity
Storey
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
GF

max

avg

0.000288 0.000288
0.000529 0.000529
0.000763 0.000763
0.000973 0.000973
0.001146
0.001146
0.001278 0.001278
0.0001376 0.0001376
0.000731 0.000731

max /avg
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

109

MODE
L II

110

M
O
D
E
S
H
A
P
E
S

Case

Mode

Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Period
sec
1.079
0.851
0.601
0.295
0.251
0.173
0.157
0.118
0.109
0.085
0.079
0.078

Circular
Frequenc Frequenc
y
y
cyc/sec
rad/sec
0.927
5.8255
1.175
7.3854
1.665
10.4622
3.388
21.2881
3.989
25.0649
5.776
36.2914
6.383
40.1068
8.484
53.3068
9.155
57.5247
11.705
73.5423
12.606
79.2086
12.822
80.5655

111

MODES 1, 2,3

X direction

Y direction

torsion

112

ECCENTRICITY
X DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi+
0.05bi

7.4345

8.9012

1.4667

14

2.90005

7.2201

9.3658

2.1457

14

3.91855

7.1524

9.7459

2.5935

14

4.59025

7.1192

10.1122

2.993

14

5.1895

7.0995

10.5064

3.4069

14

5.81035

7.0864

10.9414

3.855

14

6.4825

7.0771

11.3646

4.2875

14

7.13125

113

ECCENTRICITYY DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi
+0.05bi

6.5098

5.6962

-0.8136

13.5

-0.5454

6.7292

5.4129

-1.3163

13.5

-1.29945

6.7985

5.1395

-1.659

13.5

-1.8135

6.8325

4.8813

-1.9512

13.5

-2.2518

6.8527

4.6309

-2.2218

13.5

-2.6577

6.8661

4.4019

-2.4642

13.5

-3.0213

6.8756

4.2512

-2.6244

13.5

-3.2616

114

Torsional irregularity
Storey

max

avg

0.000209

0.0002035

1.027

0.000315

0.0002715

1.160

0.000427

0.0003385

1.261

0.000514

0.0003885

1.323

0.000580

0.0004195

1.382

0.000613

0.0004200

1.4595

0.000588

0.0003720

1.580

0.000284

0.0001715

1.655

2
1
GF

max /avg

115

MODEL
III

116

M
O
D
E
S
H
A
P
E
S

Case

Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal

Mode

Period

Frequency

Circular
Frequency

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

sec
1.037
0.843
0.561
0.278
0.247
0.162
0.147
0.113
0.104
0.083
0.076
0.075

cyc/sec
0.964
1.186
1.783
3.6
4.051
6.175
6.794
8.853
9.599
12.058
13.132
13.398

rad/sec
6.0594
7.4529
11.2051
22.6169
25.4546
38.7986
42.6864
55.6253
60.3133
75.7614
82.5131
84.1839

117

MODES 1, 2,3

X direction

Y direction

torsion

118

ECCENTRICITY
X DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi+
0.05bi

6.8789

8.4973

1.6184

14

3.1276

6.6109

9.0271

2.4162

14

4.3243

6.526

9.4703

2.9443

14

5.11645

6.4843

9.8944

3.4101

14

5.81515

6.4595

10.3427

3.8832

14

6.5248

6.4431

10.8277

4.3846

14

7.2769

6.4314

11.2944

4.863

14

7.9945

119

ECCENTRICITYY DIRECTION

Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi
+0.05bi

5.6936

5.1672

-0.5264

13.5

-0.1146

5.9192

4.9613

-0.9579

13.5

-0.76185

5.9906

4.7561

-1.2345

13.5

-1.17675

6.0257

4.56

-1.4657

13.5

-1.52355

6.0466

4.3723

-1.6743

13.5

-1.83645

6.0604

4.2084

-1.852

13.5

-2.103

6.0702

4.1192

-1.951

13.5

-2.2515

120

Torsional irregularity
Storey

max

avg

0.000226

0.0002125

1.063

0.000318

0.0002805

1.133

0.000428

0.000344

1.244

0.000518

0.000393

1.318

0.000583

0.000421

1.384

0.000616

0.000495

1.468

0.000592

0.000371

1.590

0.000286

0.000170

1.682

2
1
GF

max /avg

121

MODEL
IV

122

M
O
D
E
S
H
A
P
E
S

Case

Mode

Period

Circular
Frequency Frequency

sec

cyc/sec

rad/sec

Modal

1.021

0.979

6.1524

Modal

0.802

1.247

7.8375

Modal

0.575

1.74

10.9307

Modal

0.268

3.726

23.41

Modal

0.236

4.242

26.6515

Modal

0.163

6.152

38.6554

Modal

0.145

6.877

43.2101

Modal

0.107

9.303

58.4548

Modal

0.101

9.939

62.4502

Modal

10

0.082

12.187

76.5718

Modal

11

0.082

12.236

76.8817

Modal

12

0.075

13.406

84.2325

123

MODES 1, 2,3

X direction

Y direction

torsion

124

ECCENTRICITY
X DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi+
0.05bi

7.5672

9.1387

1.5715

14

3.05725

7.2867

9.601

2.3143

14

4.17145

7.1983

9.9783

2.78

14

4.87

7.155

10.3373

3.1823

14

5.47345

7.1293

10.7164

3.5871

14

6.08065

7.1123

11.1245

4.0122

14

6.7183

7.1002

11.5091

4.4089

14

7.31335

125

ECCENTRICITYY DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi
+0.05bi

7.8769

8.6946

0.8177

13.5

1.90155

7.5989

8.8372

1.2383

13.5

2.53245

7.5114

8.9735

1.4621

13.5

2.86815

7.4685

9.107

1.6385

13.5

3.13275

7.443

9.2395

1.7965

13.5

3.36975

7.4262

9.3568

1.9306

13.5

3.5709

7.4142

9.4114

1.9972

13.5

3.6708

126

Torsional irregularity
Storey

max

avg

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
GF

0.000394
0.000602
0.000811
0.000983
0.001107
0.001168
0.001111
0.000535

0.0003875
0.0005135
0.000634
0.000729
0.0007835
0.0007825
0.0006885
0.0003155

max /avg
1.016
1.172
1.279
1.34
1.412
1.492
1.613
1.695

116

MODEL V

Strengthening of model

128

Plan and elevation

129

M
O
D
E
S
H
A
P
E
S

Case

Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal
Modal

Mode

Period

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

sec
0.59
0.425
0.332
0.122
0.1
0.082
0.081
0.077
0.072
0.072
0.052
0.047

Circular
Frequency Frequency

cyc/sec
1.696
2.356
3.008
8.177
10.034
12.19
12.276
12.988
13.851
13.859
19.18
21.284

rad/sec
10.6538
14.8005
18.9022
51.3764
63.0454
76.5911
77.1308
81.6066
87.0289
87.0812
120.5093
133.7316

130

MODES 1, 2,3

X direction

Y direction

torsion

131

ECCENTRICITY
X DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi+
0.05bi

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

7
6.5653
6.4411
6.3823
6.348
6.3255
6.3097

6.984
6.9696
6.9666
6.956
6.9328
6.8758
6.733

-0.016
0.4043
0.5255
0.5737
0.5848
0.5503
0.5833

14
14
14
14
14
14
14

0.676
1.30645
1.48825
1.56055
1.5772
1.52545
1.63495

132

ECCENTRICITYY DIRECTION
Storey

Cm

Cr

Esi

bi

edi=1.5esi
+0.05bi

10.6573

8.3201

-2.3372

14

-2.8058

10.7014

8.2601

-2.4413

14

-2.96195

10.762

8.2429

-2.5191

14

-3.07865

10.8393

8.2348

-2.6045

14

-3.20675

10.929

8.2301

-2.6989

14

-3.34835

11.0227

8.227

-2.7957

14

-3.49355

11.0959

8.2248

-2.8711

14

-3.60665

122

Torsional irregularity
Storey

max

avg

max /avg

0.000238

0.000232

1.025862

0.000248

0.000243

1.02268

0.000251

0.000245

1.026585

0.000243

0.000237

1.025316

0.000223

0.000217

1.02765

0.000187

0.000182

1.027473

0.000134

0.000131

1.02682

0.000065

6.35E-05

1.023622

134

COMPARISON OF RESULTS

Modes and mode shapes

135

MODE
NO:

MODEL
I

MODEL
II

MODEL
III

MODEL
IV

MODEL
V

1.519s 1.079s 1.037s 1.021s

0.59s

1.008

0.851

0.843

0.802

0.425

0.991

0.601

0.561

0.575

0.332

136

Modes
1.6
1.4
1.2
1

Period

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Mode
model I

model II

model III

model IV

model V

137

32

Set of modes is a characteristic of the

structure. Basically modal analysis of
structure says that how a building wants
to vibrate in a twisted or inclined manner
under excitation. It also gives an idea of
mass participation in vibration, also about
eccentricity and resonance.
The ideal symmetric structure (model I)
has shown the maximum natural period
of 1.519 seconds and the lowest is found
for the strengthened structure (model V)
with 0.59 seconds, implying that the
structure with higher period of vibration
138

The symmetric structure has longer

period of vibration in spite of its mass,
it is flexible, no stiff elements are
introduced for the model I whereas in
case of Model V stiff elements like
shear core has been introduced near
the gravity centres of the structure.

139

eccentricity

140

Eccentricity X direction
Design eccentricity

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Storey
MODEL I

MODEL II

MODEL III

MODEL IV

MODEL V

141

Design eccentricity
Eccentricity Y direction
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Storey
MODEL I

MODEL II

MODEL III

MODEL IV

MODEL V

142

Along X Direction L-shape (model III)

structure have shown the higher values
of eccentricity and along Y direction Cshape (Model IV) have shown higher
values of eccentricity.
It shows that the irregularity is more
pronounced at places where more plan
irregularity exists.
The eccentricity is regarded as the
measure of torsional tendency of the
structure.
Larger the eccentricity between the
centre of rigidity and centre of mass
143

For symmetric structures the dynamic

amplification part is vanished due to no
static eccentricity and only effect of
accidental eccentricity exists, which is
mainly
due
to
the
asynchronic
movement of the foundation of the
building due to characteristics of seismic
excitation. It depends on the type of
foundation and the dimension of the
building compared to the length of the
seismic wave.
144

Torsional irregularity

145

TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY

Torsional irregularity
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

GF

STOREY
MODEL I

MODEL II

MODEL III

MODEL IV

MODELV

146

symmetric structure has got least

percent of variation of maximum to
average drift ratio and similar maximum
to average drift ratios are exhibited in all
stories.
Asymmetric structure of C shape
exhibited maximum drift ratios and
indicates it has got higher degree of
irregularity. Therefore, strengthening has
been carried out for the same.
Models II, III and IV exhibited almost
same range of irregularity which implies
that the structural elements that are
147

In case of model I no lift core, stair

loads etc. were introduced which in turn
made the structure to have equal mass
and stiffness distribution.
It is also evident that the maximum
irregularity exists when the asymmetric
walls are placed as close as possible to
the gravity centres. In case of model II,
III and IV the walls are asymmetrically
placed towards the gravity centres.

148

 By introducing shear core for the Model

IV it is seen that the torsional
irregularity
ratio
has
decreased
tremendously due to the introduction
of stiff elements which are capable of
holding the structure against twisting
or torsion and also it came within the
code suggested ratio of 1.2.

149

Drift

150

Drift X direction
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
00

Drift

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
00
0
0

Storey
Model I

Model II

Model III

Model IV

Model V

151

Drift Y direction.
0
0
0

Drift

0
0
0
0
0

Storey
Model I

Model II

Model III

Model IV

Model V

152

Along X direction model I structure has

got higher drift . It has got the value of
0. 0.001298. The code recommends a
maximum permitted drift value of
0.004H where H is the storey
height(H=4m) and the permissible drift
value is 0.016.
Along Y direction C-shaped structure
holds the higher drift value of 0.001168
and along Y direction also the
maximum drift value lies within the
permissible limit of 0.016.
153

 The drift value is found maximum for

symmetric structures as they are the
most
flexible
structure
when
compared to all other models. And
they have all the frames of the same
floor to have similar storey drift and
within the limit and no rotation is
significant. Load sharing done in
relation to stiffness.
In case of mid-rise buildings this is
true
for
both
symmetric
and
asymmetric structures since the rigid
diaphragm has been defined for all the
154

 Diaphragms tie the structure together

and distribute all the lateral forces
distribute lateral forces to vertical
members. Asymmetric structures will
have translational as well as rotation of
the floor. Load sharing will be done
accordingly. By strengthening the
model V drift value have decreased to a
great extend.

155

displacement

156

Displacement X direction
60

Displacement

50
40
30
20
10
0

Storey
model I

model II

model III

model IV

model V

157

Displacement in Y direction

45
40

Displacement
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

model I

model II

Storey
model III

model IV

model V

158

 Storey displacement is the predicted

movement of a structure under lateral
loads, in medium rise structures, the
higher
the
axial
forces
and
deformations in the column and the
accumulation of their effects over a
greater height, all these causes the
flexural
component
to
become
dominant.
After strengthening it is seen that
storey displacement of model V have
decreased which in turn indicate that it
has become more resistant to torsion
159

BASE SHEAR

160

X- DIRECTION

161

Y DIRECTION

162

 The model I is holding the lower value

of base shear since that is the most
flexible structure among all other
models
and
undergoes
more
deformation.
The base shear values indicates that
they are dependent on the seismic
weight of the structure.

163

Conclusion and scope

of future work

164

CONCLUSION
The thesis mainly focussed on the
seismic response especially torsional
response of plan irregular structures. The
major conclusions drawn were:
From the analysed model the estimated
time period for first modes indicated
that the strengthened model have less
vulnerability to seismic action
The model IV had the maximum
tendency for seismic action which was
evident from eccentricity
165

 The highest torsional irregularity ratio

was found maximum for model IV which
was the C shape structure and it is seen
that the rigidity centre of model IV is
concentrated outside the structure.
The drift and displacement values
yielded values indicating that they not
only depend of the stiffness and mass
concentration of the structure but also
rely on the flexibility of the structure.
In case of tall buildings which are
symmetric ideally no torsion effect was
166

 In case of tall asymmetric

structures
design
eccentricity
decreased from bottom to top
which implies irregular plan has
brought significant torsion effect.

167

The goals of this thesis were to find the

efficient model so as to resist the seismic
excitation by comparing some of the
different plan irregular structures, these
goals are clearly met. From a feasibility
standpoint, each proposed study impacts
the structure in a positive manner. It is
the recommendation to implement all
changes proposed within this thesis
report

168

SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

1) Non-linear analysis can be done using
non-linear pushover analysis or non-linear
time history analysis.
2) Parametric study of the structures by
varying the storey height of the structure
and its torsional effect can be studied.
3) The study of these structure can be
modified and studied by varying the span
along both orthogonal directions.
4) The torsional effect can be studied by
introducing flat slab for the same
structures.
157

REFERENCES
Anil K.Chopra; Ernesto F.Cruz(1986), " Elastic
earthquake response of building frames ". Journal of
structural engoneering Vol 112 NO:3.
R.D. Kangwai, S.D. Guest, S. Pellegrino(1998),"An
introduction
to
the
analysis
of
symmetric
structures". Computers and Structures 71 (1999)
671688.
Dhiman basu and sudhir.K. Jain(2004)."Seismic
analysis of asymmetric buildings with Flexible Floor
Diaphragms". Journal of structural engineering ASCE.
Gunay ozmen (2004),"Excessive torsional irregularity
in multi-storey".Digest 2004,.
C. Justine Jose, T.P. Somasundaran and V
Mustafa(2010),"Prediction of seismic torsional effect
in tall symmetric buildings". IJJRRAS.

170

 Dr B.G. Naresh Kumar (2012), Avinash Gornale and

Abdullah Mubashir; "Seismic Performance Evaluation of RcFrame buildings- An approach to torsionally aymmetric
building".IOSRJEN Vol-2 issue 7.
.Karoley A Zalka(2013),"Structural analysis of regular multistorey structures". Book copyright by Taylor and Francis group.
SLLC.
Sachin G. Maske, Dr P.S Pajgade(2013); Torsional
Behaviour of Asymmetrical Buildings; IJMER Vol.3 issue 2.
M.R Wakchaure (2013), Y U Nagare,"Effect of torsion
consideration in analysis of multi storey frame". IJERA Vol3.
Amin Alavi,Prof.P.Srinivasa Rao(2013)," Influence of
Torsional Irregularities of RC Buildings in High Seismic Zone".
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(13).
Gunay
ozmen.
Konuralp
Girgin,
Yavuz
Durgun(2014)
,"Torsional
irregularity
in
multi-storey
structures". Int J Adv Struct Eng.
Pouria Bahmani, John W. van de Lindt, and Thang N.
Dao(2014), "Displacement-Based
Design of Buildings with
Torsion:Theory and Verification". J. Struct. Eng. VOL.140.

171

 Bolander, Julie Christine (2014); Investigation of

Torsional Effects on Thirteen-Story Reinforced
Concrete Frame-Wall Structure Modeled in ETABS
and SAP2000 Using Linear and Nonlinear Static and
Dynamic Analyses, UC San Diego Electronic Theses
and Dissertations.
Bhojaraj M, Sanjay S J(2015); Earthquake
response of Irregular Tall Building with Different
Position of Shear Wall;IJITE VOLUME-07, NUMBER-02,
2015
.Nischith S , Avinash Gornale , Sowjanya G , B
G Naresh Kumar(2015),"seismic performance
assessment of the torsional effect in asymmetric
structures using pushover and non-linear time
history method". International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology.
IS:456 -2000, Code of Practice for Plain and
Reinforced Concrete

172

 IS:875-1987, Part 3 Wind Loads, Design loads (other than

earthquake ) for buildings and structures.

.IS:1893(Part-I)-2002, Criteria for Earthquake

Resistant Design of Structures (Fifth Revision).
IS:13920-1993, Ductile Detailing of Reinforced
Concrete Structure subjected to Seismic Forces,
Code of Practice.

173

THANK YOU

174