COMPDYN 2013

4
th
ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
M. Papadrakakis, V. Papadopoulos, V. Plevris (eds.)
Kos Island, Greece, 1214 June 2013
ECCENTRIC STEEL BUILDINGS DESIGNED FOR UNIFORM
DUCTILITY DEMANDS UNDER EARTHQUAKE ACTIONS
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos
1
and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
2

1
PhD, Region of Attica, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
University of Patras, Greece
[email protected]
Keywords: Asymmetry, Torsion, Braces, Eccentricity, Non-linear Seismic Response, Plastic
Hinge Model, Torsionally Stiff Buildings, Torsionally Flexible Buildings.
Abstract. Research in the past few years has indicated that code designed eccentric buildings
exhibit ductility demands under strong earthquake motions that are unevenly distributed
throughout the structure. More specifically, it is found that elements at the so called flexi-
ble sides of the buildings exhibit substantially higher ductility demands than elements at the
so called stiff sides. Such an uneven distribution indicates suboptimal material use and a
potential for premature failure of certain members. In the present paper this problem is dem-
onstrated for two L-shaped five story buildings, a torsionally stiff and a torsionally flexible.
Subsequently a simple procedure is used to modify the original design that exhibits a substan-
tially improved behavior in terms of ductility demand distribution. The results are quite prom-
ising and could be the basis for improving current codes.



Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the open research areas in earthquake resistant design of buildings is associated
with torsion caused by strong earthquake excitations when the building is irregular or simply
non-symmetric. Torsional motion during earthquakes can be caused due to a number of fac-
tors, some of which can be accounted for in design, while some others may be unknown at the
time the structure is designed or may be difficult to quantify and be accounted for properly.
Examples of such factors are accidental eccentricities due to mass and/or stiffness uncertain-
ties and non coherent ground motion at the supports. Given also that buildings are designed to
respond in the inelastic range under strong earthquakes, stiffness changes due to non symmet-
ric yielding that current design and analysis methods cannot reliably predict, induce additional
eccentricities and hence extra torsional motion.
Code provisions for designing eccentric buildings have been based mostly on elastic analy-
ses of idealized multistory buildings or on inelastic analyses of highly simplified, one-story,
inelastic models of the shear beam type with 3 degrees of freedom [4-10]. In the past decade,
however, research on earthquake induced torsion started using more sophisticated, multi story,
multi-degree of freedom inelastic models of the plastic hinge type [e.g. 11-18]. This research
revealed that the widely used simplified, one story, 3 degree of freedom models used in most
of the past studies, could lead to erroneous conclusions, unless model properties were very
carefully selected to closely match key properties of the multistory building [18]. Hence code
provisions based, in part at least, on such results might be questionable. Moreover, a number
of controversies had been generated from such studies and a few publications were devoted to
them [1-3,18].
The same studies of torsion with the detailed plastic hinge model also showed that the duc-
tility demand differences between the two edges, flexible and stiff, were often very large,
with the demands at the flexible edge being always substantially greater than the demands
at the stiff edge of the building. This was initially found for concrete buildings, where both
rotational ductility factors and damage indices were used as measures of inelastic deforma-
tions [13]. Subsequently the same behavior was confirmed for multi-story, eccentric, braced
frame, steel buildings with rectangular layouts and a design modification was proposed to al-
leviate this problem [14-17].
In the present paper the aforementioned problem is demonstrated for two L-shaped, 5-story
eccentric buildings, one planned and designed as torsionally stiff and the other as torsionally
flexible. The results indicate the same problem for ductility demand distribution, as observed
in the buildings with the rectangular layouts, and further that the same modification proposed
before works well also for these two buildings.
2 BUILDINGS AND MOTIONS USED
The present investigation was carried out using two 5-story, steel, braced frame buildings,
the first torsionally stiff and the second torsionally flexible. Both buildings are L shaped, and
their typical layouts as well as typical frame elevations can be seen in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Note
that each building is formed by 5 frames along the x axis, (FR-X01 to FR-X05) and 6 frames
along the y axis (FR-Y01 to FR-Y06). In order to create a torsionally stiff and a torsionally
flexible building just for the purpose of our work, braces were used to stiffen specific bays as
shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The stiffened bays in the second building (Fig. 2)
were selected just to create a torsionally flexible variant of the first building. Both buildings
have a typical story height of 3.00m and ground story height 4.00m.

Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos

Figure 1: Typical layout of the 5-story torsionally stiff steel building.


Figure 2: Typical layout of the 5-story torsionally flexible steel building.
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos


Figure 3: Elevations in X and Y directions of the 5-story torsionally stiff and flexible steel buildings.
Using appropriate distributions of the floor loads, e.g. through non-symmetric live load
distribution, non-symmetric balconies (common causes of mass eccentricity in typical build-
ings, not shown in the given layout), non-symmetric joint masses were assigned at each floor,
and mass eccentric floor plans, with e
m
~ 0.15L in all five stories were generated.
The models used for both design and analyses are 3-D models with masses lumped at the
joints and the floors acting as diaphragms. All buildings were designed as spatial frames for
gravity and earthquake loads using the dynamic, response spectrum method, according to
Eurocodes EC3 -steel structures- and EC8 -earthquake resistant design. The uneven mass dis-
tribution led to member forces and corresponding sections which created stiffness eccentrici-
ties and thus our buildings are both mass and stiffness eccentric. Earthquake actions were
described by the design spectrum specified by the Greek Code for ground acceleration
PGA=0.24g and soil category II.
As input for the nonlinear dynamic analyses, ten sets of two component semi-artificial mo-
tion pairs were used. They were generated from a group of five, two-component, real earth-
quake records, to closely match the code design spectrum (with a descending branch 1/T
2/3
),
using a method based on trial and error and Fourier transform techniques [19]. Results were
excellent, as may be seen in Figure 4 where the mean response spectrum of the ten semi-
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
artificial motions is compared with the target, code design spectrum. Each synthetic motion
pair, derived from the two horizontal components of each historical record, was applied twice
by mutually changing the components along the x and y system axes. Thus, each design case
was analyzed for ten sets of 2-component motions and mean values of peak response indices
were computed. In this manner, the effects of individual motions are smoothed and the con-
clusions become less dependent on specific motion characteristics.

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Period (sec)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
MEAN
Ag,max=0.24g

Figure 4: Design spectrum and mean spectrum of the ten semi-artificial motions.
The three lowest periods of the 5-story torsionally stiff building are T
x
=0.82 sec,
T
y
=0.80 sec and T

=0.45 sec, while the mean natural eccentricities in each horizontal direc-
tion are
x
=0.10 and
y
=0.10. Notice that the first torsional period is lower than the two trans-
lational periods, as it is expected for a torsionally stiff building. The torsionally flexible
building has a fundamental torsional mode with period T

=0.90 and two translational modes

= =
1
1
1
1
(1)

+
(
(

+ + =

2
1
2
cos
1 1 2 24
L
AE
K K K h
E
K
bb ba c
i f
(2)
where: e
sx
, e
sy
are the x and y coordinates of the approximate stiffness center CR,
K
f-i
designates the approximate story stiffness of frame i, x and y the directions of the frame
axis, m and n the number of frames along the y and x axes, respectively, E = modulus of elas-
ticity, , / , / l
b b c c
I K h I K = = I
c
, I
b
= section moment of inertia of columns and beams, re-
spectively, h = story height, l = beam length, A= area of brace section, L=brace length and
= angle of brace member and the horizontal plane. The second indices, a and b, in K
ba
and
bb

designate the upper (above) and lower (below) floor beams of the frame in the considered
story.

Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
3 NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSES
The non-linear analyses were carried out using the program RUAUMOKO [20]. Frame
beams and columns were modelled with the well-known plastic hinge model, in which yield-
ing at member ends is idealized with plastic hinges of finite length having bilinear moment-
curvature relationship and strain hardening ratio equal to 0.05. A moment-axial force interac-
tion diagram was also employed for columns, giving the yield moment as a function of the
applicable axial force on the column section. Bracing members, yielding in tension and buck-
ling in compression, were modelled with a non-symmetric bilinear force-axial deformation
relationship (Figure 5).



(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5: (a) Nonlinear moment-rotation relations for beam-columns, (b) Column M-N interaction diagram and
(c) nonlinear force deformation diagram for braces.
The basic measure used to assess the severity of inelastic response is the ductility factor of
the various members. For bracing members the ductility factor is defined as:

|
|

\
|
+ =
y
p
u
u
u
1 (3)
where u
p
is the maximum plastic member elongation and u
y
the elongation at first yield.
For beams and beam-columns the rotational ductility factor has traditionally been defined as:

|
|

\
|
+ =
y
p

1 (4)
where
p
is the maximum plastic hinge rotation at either end of a member (beam or column)
and
y
is a normalizing yield rotation, typically set equal to EI 6 / M
y y
l = . For columns,
the yield moment M
y
is usually taken to correspond to the yield moment under the action of
gravity loads. In the present study, an alternative definition of the rotational ductility factor,
based on the post yield plastic moment, has been used [21]

|
|

\
|

+ =
y
M p
M
1 (5)
where: M=M
max
- M
y
, M
y
= yield bending moment and p=0.05, the strain hardening ratio.
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
In addition to the above measures, peak floor displacements and interstory drifts are used to
assess the inelastic behavior of the buildings.
4 RESULTS FROM NON-LINEAR ANALYSES OF AS DESIGNED BUILDINGS.
Results from time history analyses of the two buildings are presented in terms of mean
values of the peak response parameters over the ten pairs of applied motions. In the case of
the beam ductility factors, the response parameter averaged over the ten pairs of motion is the
maximum rotational ductility demand in any of the beams in the considered frame and floor.
Following standard terminology based on static application of the lateral load in eccentric
buildings, the edge where the displacement from rotation is added to the pure floor translation
is called flexible edge, while the opposite edge, where the displacement due to rotation is
subtracted from the translation is called stiff edge. Since the examined buildings have biax-
ial eccentricity, the edge distinction just mentioned applies to both the X and Y horizontal di-
rections of the buildings. Thus, results are presented for each edge frame and each direction.
In torsionally flexible buildings, however, it is not necessarily the flexible edge that experi-
ences the largest translation but it could well be the stiff edge, depending on the relative
values of the torsional and translational periods and on the input characteristics.
4.1. Five-story torsionally stiff building
The flexible and stiff edges of the five-story torsionally stiff buildings are presented
in Figure 6. Displacement results and ductility demands for braces and beams of the flexible
and stiff edges can be in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. Ductility demands are presented only
for beams and brace members because the columns remained essentially elastic. Looking into
Figure 7, we can see that displacements in the Y direction at the flexible edges of the tor-
sionally stiff eccentric building are substantially greater than those at the stiff edges due to
the induced earthquake rotations. The same is true for ductility demands of the braces and the
beams (Figure 8).



Figure 6: Flexible and stiff edges in torsionally stiff building.
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Total displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1 (f lex) FR-X5 (stiff )

1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Total displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1 (f lex) FR-Y6 (stiff )

INTERSTORY DISPLACEMENTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.010 0.020 0.030
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1 (f lex) FR-X5 (stif f )

0
1
2
3
4
5
0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1 (flex) FR-Y6 (stiff )

Figure 7: Total displacements and interstory drifts of 5-story torsionally stiff building (FR-X1 & FR-Y1:
flexible edges, FR-X5 & FR-Y6: stiff edges).
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
AXIAL STRAIN DUCTILITY IN BRACES
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1 (f lex) FR-X5 (stif f)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
e
y
FR-Y1 (flex) FR-Y6 (stiff )

ROTATIONAL DUCTILITY FACTOR IN BEAMS
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1 (flex) FR-X5 (stiff)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1 (f lex) FR-Y6 (stif f)

Figure 8: Member ductility demands of 5-story torsionally stiff building (FR-X1 & FR-Y1: flexible edg-
es, FR-X5 & FR-Y6: stiff edges).
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
4.2. Five-story torsionally flexible building
The flexible and stiff edges of the five-story torsionally flexible buildings are pre-
sented in Figure 9. Displacement results for the torsionally flexible building are shown in
Figure 10 and ductility demands in Figure 11. Compared to the results of the torsionally stiff
building, quantitative differences aside, the behavior pattern is similar, with displacement and
ductility demands being larger in the frames at the flexible edges or sides. It is further no-
ticed that the differences in ductility demands in the braces here are much smaller than in the
torsionally stiff building, since the braces in this case are placed near the core of the building.



Figure 9: Flexible and stiff edges in torsionally flexible building.
5 MODIFICATION PROCEDURE
A structural design can be characterized as satisfactory when the limiting values of the
controlling response parameters do not have wide variations within the groups of structural
members to which they apply. In the opposite case, suboptimal use of material may be present
as well as a potentially higher risk of failure in cases of unexpected overloads. Thus the ob-
served substantial differences in ductility demands between the opposite edges of the exam-
ined buildings, point to the need for a design modification that would eliminate or reduce
these differences. The modifications for the torsionally stiff building are the same as in Refs.
[14,16]. A modified version of this modification will be applied to the torsionally flexible
building [17].
5.1. Modification procedure and results for the torsionally stiff building.
The modification procedure for the torsionally stiff building aims at increasing the stiffness
and strength of the bracing members at the flexible edges and reducing the same at the
stiff edges without affecting the strength of the other structural elements (columns, beams).
The first step for application of this modification is to obtain the top story displacements at
the flexible and stiff edges of the building in both horizontal directions due to the earth-
quake loading considered and then compute the following factors in each horizontal direction:
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos



(6)

where
flex i
u
,
is the top story displacement of the flexible edge in the i - direction and
stiff i
u
,

the top story displacement of the stiff edge also in the i - direction. These displacements are
obtained by the dynamic response spectrum method for the seismic combinations considered.
The factors are ratios of the top story displacements at the flexible and stiff edges in a
given direction (x or y), to their mean values. The design modification that was subsequently
applied was to multiply the axial areas of the bracing members in both the stiff and flexi-
ble edges by the corresponding factors in each direction. The values of these factors, for
modifying frames in direction x, are 0.91 for the stiff edge and 1.09 for the flexible edge.
Similarly the values for modifying frames in direction y are 0.80 for the stiff edge and 1.20
for the flexible edge. After this modification, each structure was checked again for full
compliance with the applicable codes. The new, modified structures were again subjected to
the same two component earthquake set and their responses were again computed as before.
Figures 12 and 13 show ductility demands for the torsionally stiff building for the initial
and the modified designs. If we compare the results obtained from the modified design with
that of the original design, we see a substantial improvement of response in all cases: the
overall maximum ductility demand factor in each group is reduced and so are the differences
between flexible and stiff edges, producing more uniform distribution of such demands.
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Total displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X5 (f lex) FR-X1 (stiff )

1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Total displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y6 (f lex) FR-Y1 (stiff )

INTERSTORY DISPLACEMENTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X5 (f lex) FR-X1 (stif f )

0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1 (stiff ) FR-Y6 (flex)

Figure 10: Total displacements and interstory drifts of 5-story torsionally flexible building (FR-X5 & FR-
Y6: flexible edges, FR-X1& FR-Y1: stiff edges).
) (
2
, ,
,
,
stiff i flex i
flex i
flex i
u u
u
f
+
=
) (
2
, ,
,
,
stiff i flex i
stiff i
stiff i
u u
u
f
+
=
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
AXIAL STRAIN DUCTILITY IN BRACES
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X3 (f lex) FR-X1 (stif f )

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
e
y
FR-Y4 (f lex) FR-Y1 (stif f )

ROTATIONAL DUCTILITY FACTOR IN BEAMS
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X5 (flex) FR-X1 (st iff)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y6 (f lex) FR-Y1 (stif f )

Figure 11: Member ductility demands of 5-story torsionally flexible building (FR-X5,X3 & FR-Y4,Y6:
flexible sides, FR-X1 & FR-Y1: stiff sides).
5.2. Modification procedure and results for the torsionally flexible building
The modification procedure for the torsionally flexible building aim at increasing the stiff-
ness and strength of the structural members (columns, beams and braces) at the flexible
edges and reducing the stiffness and strength of the braces at the stiff edges without affect-
ing the strength of the other structural elements (columns, beams). The ratios of the top story
displacements
flex i
f
,
and
stiff i
f
,
(Eq. 6) are also used, but now the displacements are obtained
by the equivalent static method for the seismic combinations considered. The design modifi-
cation that was subsequently applied was to multiply the axial areas of the bracing members at
both the stiff and flexible edges by the corresponding factors in each direction and to do
the same for the beam and column sections, but only at the flexible edges. The cross sec-
tions of columns and beams of the stiff edges are not reduced, as their strength is controlled
mainly by gravity loads. After this modification, each structure was checked again for full
compliance with the applicable codes. This procedure gave modification factors of 0.88 and
0.79 for the braces in the stiff x and y sides, respectively and factors 1.12 and 1.21 for beams
and columns in the flexible edges along the x and y directions, respectively. However, con-
trary to what happened in the torsionally stiff building, now the reduction in the brace sections
at the stiff side proved excessive and these two factors were increased from 0.88 and 0.79 to
0.90 and 0.88, respectively, to satisfy all the code required checks. The new, modified struc-
tures were again subjected to the same two component motion earthquake set and their re-
sponses were again computed. Figures 14 and 15 show ductility demands for the torsionally
flexible building for the initial and the modified designs. If we compare the results obtained
from the initial and the modified designs, we see again some noticeable improvement of re-
sponse: the overall maximum ductility demand factor in each group is reduced and so are the
differences between flexible and stiff edges, producing more uniform distribution of such
demands.
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Total displacement
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1(mod) FR-X5(mod)
FR-X1(in) FR-X5(in)

1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total displacement
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1(mod) FR-Y6(mod)
FR-Y1(in) FR-Y6(in)

INTERSTORY DISPLACEMENTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1(in)
FR-X1(mod)
FR-X5(mod)
FR-X5(in)

0
1
2
3
4
5
0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1(in)
FR-Y1(mod)
FR-Y6(mod)
FR-Y6(in)

Figure 12: Comparison of total displacements and interstory drifts of 5-story torsionally stiff building, for
the initial and modified design (FR-X1 & FR-Y1: flexible edges, FR-X5 & FR-Y6: stiff edges).
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
AXIAL STRAIN DUCTILITY IN BRACES
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1(mod) FR-X5(mod)
FR-X1(in) FR-X5(in)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1(mod) FR-Y6(mod)
FR-Y1(in) FR-Y6(in)

ROTATIONAL DUCTILITY FACTOR IN BEAMS
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X1(mod) FR-X5(mod)
FR-X1(in) FR-X5(in)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y1(mod) FR-Y6(mod)
FR-Y1(in) FR-Y6(in)

Figure 13: Comparison of ductility demands of 5-story torsionally stiff building, for the initial and modified
design (FR-X1 & FR-Y1: flexible edges, FR-X5 & FR-Y6: stiff edges).

Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
TOTAL DISPLACEMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Total displacement
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X5(mod) FR-X1(mod)
FR-X5(in) FR-X1(in)

1
2
3
4
5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Total displacement
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y6(mod) FR-Y1(mod)
FR-Y6(in) FR-Y1(in)

INTERSTORY DISPLACEMENTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X5(in)
FR-X5(mod)
FR-X1(mod)
FR-X1(in)

0
1
2
3
4
5
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Relative displacement (m)
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y6(in)
FR-Y6(mod)
FR-Y1(mod)
FR-Y1(in)

Figure 14: Comparison of total displacements and interstory drifts of 5-story torsionally flexible building, for the
initial and modified design (FR-X5 & FR-Y6: flexible edges, FR-X1 & FR-Y1: stiff edges).
DIRECTION X DIRECTION Y
AXIAL STRAIN DUCTILITY IN BRACES
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X3(mod) FR-X1(mod)
FR-X3(in) FR-X1(in)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Axial strain ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y4(mod) FR-Y1(mod)
FR-Y4(in) FR-Y1(in)

ROTATIONAL DUCTILITY FACTOR IN BEAMS
1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-X5(mod) FR-X1(mod)
FR-X5(in) FR-X1(in)

1
2
3
4
5
1.00 1.50 2.00
Rotational ductility factor
S
t
o
r
y
FR-Y6(mod) FR-Y1(mod)
FR-Y6(in) FR-Y1(in)

Figure 15: Comparison of ductility demands of 5-story torsionally flexible building, for the initial and mod-
ified design (FR-X3,X5 & FR-Y4,Y6: flexible sides, FR-X1 & FR-Y1: stiff sides).
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
6 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION
To get more insight about the consequences of the proposed modification, the new stiff-
ness centers of the modified buildings were computed using equations 1 and 2 and compared
with those of the original designs. Results are presented in Table 1. We can see that the pro-
posed modification brings the approximate stiffness center of each story closer to the mass
center and thus the torsional motions are reduced. This reduction is obviously greater for the
flexible edge and hence the reduction in the observed differences of ductility demands be-
tween flexible and stiff edges. We must note here that bringing the stiffness center as
close as possible to the mass center, in other words trying to minimize the physical eccentric-
ity, is a well known design objective in earthquake engineering as it minimizes torsional mo-
tion. The proposed modification is thus a blind way of achieving this without significant
extra effort.

MEAN NATURAL ECCENTRICITY
INITIAL DESIGN MODIFIED DESIGN

y

x

y

5-st torsionally STIFF 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.03
5-st torsionally FLEXIBLE 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.06
Table 1: Mean natural eccentricities for the initial and modified designs of the 5-story buildings.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In the present paper the earthquake response of two irregular L shaped steel, braced frame
buildings, one torsionally stiff and the other torsionally flexible, both designed in accordance
with Eurocodes EC3 and EC8 was examined and similar, overall, results were obtained com-
pared to earlier findings for eccentric rectangular, steel and reinforced concrete frame build-
ings. More specifically, it was found that under the action of two horizontal component
earthquake loadings, compatible with the design spectra, ductility demands at the flexible
edges were greater than ductility demands at the stiff edges. Subsequently, the original de-
signs were modified using two slightly different procedures for each building and it was
found that the response of the new designs was improved: ductility demands at the flexible
edges generally decreased and the differences between the two sides diminished, so that a
more uniform distribution of ductility demands was achieved.
On the basis of these findings, a code modification may appear desirable. However, addi-
tional studies covering other types of irregular buildings and a wider spectrum of parameters
will be required, before any firm recommendation is put forward.
REFERENCES
[1] Rutenberg A. (1998). EAEE Task Group (TG)8: Behavior of irregular and complex
structures State of the art report : Seismic nonlinear response of code-designed asym-
metric structures. 11
th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
[2] Rutenberg A. (2002). EAEE Task Group (TG)8: Behavior of irregular and complex
structures Asymmetric Structures- Progress since 1998. 12
th
European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering.
[3] De Stefano M. & Pintucchi (2008).A review of research on seismic behavior of irregu-
lar building structures since 2002. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 6: 285-308
Miltiadis T. Kyrkos and Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
[4] Chopra, A. K. & Goel, R. K. (1991). Evaluation of Torsional Provisions in Seismic
Codes. Journal of the Structural Division, (ASCE) 117(12): 3762-3782
[5] De La Colina, J. (2003). Assessment of design recommendations for torsionally unbal-
anced multistory buildings. Earthquake Spectra 19 : No 1, 47-66
[6] Stathopoulos, K.G. & Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2000). Inelastic Earthquake Response of
Buildings subjected to Torsion. 12
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineerin No.
781, Auckland, New Zealand
[7] Stathopoulos, K.G. & Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (2003). Inelastic earthquake response of
single-story asymmetric buildings : an assessment of simplified shear- beam models.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32: 1813-1831
[8] Chandler, A. M. & Duan, X. N. (1991). Evaluation of FactorsInfluencing the Inelastic
Seismic Preformance of Torsionally Asymmetrical Buildings. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 20:87-95
[9] Tso, W. K. & Zhu, T. J. (1992). Strength Distribution for Torsionally Unbalanced Struc-
tures. 10
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 7:3865-3868
[10] Humar, J. L. & Kumar, P. (2000). A new Look at the Torsion Design Provisions in
Seismic Building Codes. 12
th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No 1707,
Auckland, New Zealand
[11] Ghersi A., Marino E. & Rossi P. P. (2000). Inelastic response of multi-storey asymmetric
buildings. Proc 12
th
World Conference on earthquake Engineering, No 1716
[12] Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I. Influence of ground motion intensity on the inelastic torsion
response of asymmetric buildings. The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
ing, Vancouver, Canada, 2004. No. 3496.
[13] Stathopoulos, K.G. & Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (2005). Inelastic torsion of multistory
buildings under earthquake excitations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynam-
ics 34: 1449-1465
[14] Kyrkos M. T. & Anagnostopoulos S.A. (2010). Towards earthquake resistant design of
steel buildings for uniform ductility demands, Advances and trends in structural Engi-
neering, Mechanics and Computation, Zingoni (Ed), SEMC 2010, Capetown.
[15] Kyrkos M. T. & Anagnostopoulos S.A. (2011a). An assessment of code designed tor-
sionally stiff asymmetric steel buildings under strong earthquake excitations. Earth-
quakes and Structures, Vol.2 :109-126
[16] Kyrkos M. T. & Anagnostopoulos S.A. (2011b). Improved earthquake resistant design of
torsionally stiff asymmetric steel buildings. Earthquakes and Structures, Vol.2 : 127-
147
[17] Kyrkos M. T. (2011). Improved earthquake resistant design of eccentric steel buildings
with diagonal braces, PhD Thesis, University of Patras, (in Greek).
[18] Anagnostopoulos S. A., Alexopoulou Ch. & Stathopoulos K. (2010). An answer to an
important controversy and the need for caution when using simple models to predict ine-
lastic earthquake response of buildings with torsion. Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
tural Dynamics 39: 521-540
[19] Karabalis, D.L. Cokkinides, G.J. Rizos, D.C. & Mulliken, J.S. (2000). Simulation of
earthquake ground motions by a deterministic approach. Advances in Engineering Soft-
ware 31 : 329-338
[20] Carr A.J. , (2005). Ruaumoko Manual. Volume 3. User manual for the 3-dimensional
Version- Ruaumoko 3D.
[21] Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (1981) Inelastic Beams for Seismic Analyses of Structures. Jour-
nal of Structural Division, ASCE 107(7) : 1297-1311