Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating contradictory relationship between floor rotation and torsional irregularity coefficient under varying orientations of ground motion

  • Zhang, Chunwei (Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University) ;
  • Alam, Zeshan (Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University) ;
  • Samali, Bijan (Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University)
  • Received : 2016.03.09
  • Accepted : 2016.08.19
  • Published : 2016.12.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Different incident angles of ground motions have been considered to evaluate the relationship between floor rotation and torsional irregularity coefficient. The issues specifically addressed are (1) variability in torsional irregularity coefficient and floor rotations with varying incident angles of ground motion (2) contradictory relationship between floor rotation and torsional irregularity coefficient. To explore the stated issues, an evaluation based on relative variation in seismic response quantities of linear asymmetric structure under the influence of horizontal bi-directional excitation with varying seismic orientations has been carried out using response history analysis. Several typical earthquake records are applied to the structure to demonstrate the relative variations of floor rotation and torsional irregularity coefficient for different seismic orientations. It is demonstrated that (1) Torsional irregularity coefficient (TIC) increases as the story number decreases when the ground motion is considered along reference axes of the structure. For incident angles other than structure's reference axes, TIC either decreases as the story number decreases or there is no specific trend for TIC. Floor rotation increases in proportion to the story number when the ground motion is considered along reference axes of structure. For incident angles other than structure's reference axes, floor rotation either decreases as the story number increases or there is no specific trend for floor rotation and (2) TIC and floor rotation seems to be approximately inversely proportional to each other when the ground motion is considered along reference axes of the structure. For incident angles other than structure's reference axes, the relationship can even become directly proportional instead of inversely proportional.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Australia Research Council, National Natural Science Foundation of China

References

  1. Anagnostopoulos, S., Kyrkos, M., Papalymperi, A. and Plevri, E. (2015), "Should accidental eccentricity be eliminated from Eurocode 8?", Earthq. Struct., 8(2), 463-484. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.463
  2. Anagnostopoulos, S.A., Kyrkos, M.T. and Stathopoulos, K.G. (2015), "Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: critical review and state of the art", Earthq. Struct., 8(2), 305-377. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.305
  3. ASCE (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  4. ASCE (2013), Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  5. Athanatopoulou, A. (2005), "Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components", Eng. Struct., 27(2), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.10.011
  6. BCP (2007), Seismic Provision for Building Code of Pakistan, Ministry of Housing and Works Government of Pakistan.
  7. Bosco, M., Ferrara, G. A., Ghersi, A., Marino, E.M. and Rossi, P. P. (2015), "Seismic assessment of existing rc framed structures with in-plan irregularity by nonlinear static methods", Earthq. Struct., 8(2), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.401
  8. Chandler, A. and Hutchinson, G. (1987), "Evaluation of code torsional provisions by a time history approach", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15(4), 491-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290150406
  9. Chopra, A. (2007), Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to equation engineering, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
  10. Demir, A., Demir, D.D., Erdem, R.T. and Bagci, M. (2010), "Torsional irregularity effects of local site classes in multiple storey structures", Int. J. Res. Rev. Appl. Sci., 258-262.
  11. Dimova, S.L. and Alashki, I. (2003), "Seismic design of symmetric structures for accidental torsion", Bull. Earthq. Eng., 1(2), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026353312676
  12. Duan, X. and Chandler, A. (1997), "An optimized procedure for seismic design of torsionally unbalanced structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(7), 737-757. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199707)26:7<737::AID-EQE673>3.0.CO;2-S
  13. Georgoussis, G.K. (2014), "Modified seismic analysis of multistory asymmetric elastic buildings and suggestions for minimizing the rotational response", Earthq. Struct., 7(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.1.039
  14. Hong, H. and Goda, K. (2010), "Characteristics of horizontal ground motion measures along principal directions", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 9(1), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-010-9048-x
  15. IBC, I. (2006), International building code, International Code Council, Inc.(formerly BOCA, ICBO and SBCCI) 4051, 60478-65795.
  16. Kalkan, E. and Kwong, N.S. (2013), "Pros and cons of rotating ground motion records to faultnormal/parallel directions for response history analysis of buildings", J. Struct. Eng., 140(3), 04013062.
  17. Kostinakis, K.G., Athanatopoulou, A.M. and Avramidis, I.E. (2008), "Maximum response and critical incident angle in special classes of buildings subjected to two horizontal seismic components", Proceedings of the 6th GRACM International Congress on Computational Mechanics.
  18. Lopez, O.A. and Torres, R. (1997), "The critical angle of seismic incidence and the maximum structural response", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26(9), 881-894. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199709)26:9<881::AID-EQE674>3.0.CO;2-R
  19. Lopez, O.A., Chopra, A.K. and Hernandez, J.J. (2000), "Critical response of structures to multicomponent earthquake excitation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 29(12), 1759-1778. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9845(200012)29:12<1759::AID-EQE984>3.0.CO;2-K
  20. Lopez, O.A., Chopra, A.K. and Hernandez, J.J. (2001), "Evaluation of combination rules for maximum response calculation in multicomponent seismic analysis", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30(9), 1379-1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.68
  21. Magliulo, G., Maddaloni, G. and Petrone, C. (2014), "Influence of earthquake direction on the seismic response of irregular plan RC frame buildings", Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib., 13(2), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-014-0227-z
  22. Menun, C. and Der Kiureghian, A. (1998), "A replacement for the 30%, 40%, and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis", Earthq. Spectra, 14(1), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585993
  23. Menun, C. and Kiureghian, A.D. (2000a), "Envelopes for seismic response vectors. I: theory", J. Struct. Eng., 126(4), 467-473. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:4(467)
  24. Menun, C. and Kiureghian, A.D. (2000b), "Envelopes for seismic response vectors. II: Application", J. Struct. Eng., 126(4), 474-481. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:4(474)
  25. Moehle, J.P. and Alarcon, L.F. (1986), "Seismic analysis methods for irregular buildings", J. Struct. Eng., 112(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:1(35)
  26. Ozmen, G. (2002), "Structural aspects of torsional irregularity", 5th International congress on advances in civil engineering, Istanbul.
  27. Ozmen, G., Girgin, K. and Durgun, Y. (2014), "Torsional irregularity in multi-story structures", Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng., IJASE, 6(4), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40091-014-0070-5
  28. Penzien, J. and Watabe, M. (1974), "Characteristics of 3dimensional earthquake ground motions", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 3(4), 365-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290030407
  29. SAP2000 (2012), "Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures", Computer Program, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley.
  30. Stathi, C.G., Bakas, N.P., Lagaros, N.D. and Papadrakakis, M. (2015), "Ratio of Torsion (ROT): An index for assessing the global induced torsion in plan irregular buildings", Earthq. Struct., 9(1), 145-171. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.145
  31. Smeby, W. and Der Kiureghian, A. (1985), "Modal combination rules for multicomponent earthquake excitation", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290130103
  32. Tezcan, S.S. and Alhan, C. (2001), "Parametric analysis of irregular structures under seismic loading according to the new Turkish Earthquake Code", Eng. Struct., 23(6), 600-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00084-5
  33. Zheng, N., Yang, Z., Shi, C. and Chang, Z. (2004), "Analysis of criterion for torsional irregularity of seismic structures", 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Cited by

  1. Fibre Bragg grating sensor-based damage response monitoring of an asymmetric reinforced concrete shear wall structure subjected to progressive seismic loads vol.26, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/stc.2307
  2. The role of viscoelastic damping on retrofitting seismic performance of asymmetric reinforced concrete structures vol.19, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-020-0558-x
  3. Experimental and numerical investigation on the complex behaviour of the localised seismic response in a multi-storey plan-asymmetric structure vol.17, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2020.1730914
  4. Optimum location of second outrigger in RC core walls subjected to NF earthquakes vol.38, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2021.38.6.671
  5. Torsional sensitivity criteria in seismic codes vol.21, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.1.001
  6. A Comparative Study of Seismic Performance of Steel Framed Buildings with Varied Plan-Asymmetric Properties vol.15, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793431121500160