You are on page 1of 15

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245545818

Dynamic torsional coupling in tall building
structures
Article · January 1979
DOI: 10.1680/iicep.1979.2465

CITATIONS

READS

17

17

3 authors, including:
Andrei M Reinhorn

Avigdor Rutenberg

University at Buffalo, The State University of …

Technion - Israel Institute of Technology

298 PUBLICATIONS 6,114 CITATIONS

81 PUBLICATIONS 748 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Andrei M Reinhorn
Retrieved on: 15 September 2016

Proc. Instil Civ. Engrs, Part 2, 1979,67, June 411-424
\

\..,/

8203

Dynamic torsional coupling
in tall building structures

I

J. GLUCK,

DSc·

A. REINHORN,

DSc·

A. RUTENBERG,

DSc·

The Paper shows how the existing approaches to the dynamic analysis of asymmetric
tall buildings, using a single storey torsional coupling analogy, can be applied to a
wide class of irregular structures and under what conditions. A step by step procedure
using the response spectrum technique is outlined and illustrated by a numerical
example. A three-dimensional rather than two-dimensional formulation is adopted to
emphasize the generality of the approach. The diserete and distributed parameter
formulations are followed throughout the mathematical exposition.

Introduction
Multi-storey building structures are seldom symmetric in layout, and when
subjected to earthq'u'ake ground motion they respond in coupled lateral' and
torsional vibrations. The destructive effects of torsional vibrations l - 3 have
stimulated investigators to look for simple models to predict' the earthquake
response of torsionally coupled structures. However, the large number of
degrees of freedom involved in the standard modelling of tall buildfngs tends to
mask the basic principles governing torsional coupling effects.
2. It is wen recognized that the coupling of lateral and torsional vibrations
depends on the relation between the layout of the lateral framing system and the
mass distribution. 3 - 7 However, until recently the regularity of the geometrical
and structural layout throughout the height, so typical in tall buildings, was not
taken advantage of in the mass and stiffness formulation of standard dynamic
analysis techniques. A regular structural layout may be defined as one having a
small number of framing systems, each comprising several vertical planar
assemblages with similar stiffness properties (e.g. frames and flexural walls), and a
common variation thereof along the height of the building. For such structures
·~the stiffness properties of each system can be represented by a lateral and a tor­
sional cantileverS (RC in Fig. 1) at the system's axis of rigidity. The inertia
properties can be likewise represented by masses and mass moments of inertia
along the mass axis of the buildingS (MC in Fig. 1). The distance between the
mass centre and the centre of rigidity is defined as the static eccentricity of the
floor; it plays a key role in torsional coupling analysis.

V

1.

Written discussion closes 15 August, 1979, for publication in Proceedings, Part 2.
• Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.
411

GLUCK,

REINHORN

AND

RUTENBERG·
,./'

Notation
D
d

horizontal displacement (discrete formulation)
horizontal displacement functions (continuum formulation)
static eccentricities
ex. ell

Young's modulus
E

dynamic force excitation
F
equivalent earthquake force
Fltl
non-coupled equivalent lateral force
F lln
total height of building
H
unity diagonal matrix
1
vector of unities
I
k xx , kl/ Y, koe lateral (x, y) and rotational (8) stiffness matrices
vertical distributed mass
m
diagonal mass matrix
M
generalized mass matrix
Mo
number
of reference levels
N
mass radius of gyration
r
acceleration spectrum
San
.transformation matrix
Ts
generalized deformations
II
vertical axis
Z
vector
of coupling coefficients
a.
modal participation factor
r
coupled natural mode shapes
fjJ, 4'»

non-coupled natural mode shapes
",,\jJ

damping ratio
~
w
natural circular frequencies
diagonal matrix of non-coupled circular frequencies

Subscripts

n
x,y,8
Superscripts
k

T

order of coupled modes (order of coupled triplet or pair)
generalized co-ordinates or directions
reference level
transpose matrix

\

3. The analysis of regular and other structures by Bustamente and Rosen­
blueth3 led to important conclusions which were to affect provisions in seismic
codes
(a) dynamic coupling depends on static eccentricity, and is amplified when

lateral and torsional frequencies are similar
(b) although dynamic torsional forces are proportional to lateral forces,·'­
they differ from the product of lateral forces and static eccentricity
(c) the effect of torsional coupling can be studied by means of an analogous
single storey structure.
This third conclusion. is the most important from the analysis point of view as it
means that the dynamic response of asymmetric multi-storey buildings can be
represented by that of a similar but symmetric structure and a single storey three
degrees of freedom system. For this reason the behaviour of single storey
412

DYNAMIC TORSIONAL COUPLING

ey

IN

. -a

TALL

BUILDINGS

IMe
,--tt--.

RC

ex
Lx

(b)

v
Fig. 1. Principal axes in building
structure; (a) irregular wall-frame
structure, (b) typical floor plan

asymmetric structures has been thoroughly investigated. I. 5.9-14 A part from
reducing the computational effort substantially, by involving 3 x N by N + N x 3
by 3 matrix problems in lieu of one 3N by 3N problem, where N is the number of
reference levels, the technique enables the problem to be cast in a form familiar
to practising structural engineers dealing with static lateral load analysis of
symmetric building structures and with earthquake analysis of structures by
• means of the response spectrum technique. 2. 15 However, the general applica­
bility of the analogy was not recognized at first, and in fact tall structures analysed
by the single storey analogy had mass centres and rigidity centres along two
different axes, proportional rotational and lateral stiffnesses and were restricted
to a single class of structural system. 9 • 10.12.14 These constraints limited the
application of the analogy to a small class of building structures.
4. However, the similarity between the response of even relatively irregular
multi-storey buildings and the three degrees of freedom system suggested that
the representation of torsional coupling effects by means of a single storey
\, .analogue is of wider applicability than was previous supposed. 3.10.12.14
--' 5. As in the static case, the analysis techniques used for the solution of these
problems were the discrete parameter method (stiffness and mass matrices and
displacement vectors? .11.15 and the distributed or continuum method (dif­
ferential equation formulation).8.16.17 Whereas the former is favoured by
practising engineers, the latter has the advantage of providing insight into struc­
tural behaviour as it involves studying the effects of parameter variations.
6. This Paper shows how the existing approaches to the dynamic analysis of
asymmetric tall buildings, using a single storey torsional coupling analogy, can be

.j

413

GLUCK, REINHORN AND RUTENBERG

,/

applied to a wider class of structure, and under what conditions. The analysi: \
is presented in the framework of the response spectrum technique,2.15 which i~
a weB-established seismic response procedure. A step by step solution is out­
lined and illustrated by means of a numerical example. A three-dimensional
rather than a two-dimensional formulation is adopted (i.e. no symmetry rather
than single' symmetry) in order to emphasize the generality of the approach. For
the same reason, both discrete and distributed parameter formulations are
followed throughout the mathematical exposition.

Generalized simplified model
7. Consider the lateral bracing ora regular tall building. For such structures
the mass centres of the floors are all along one vertical axis-the mass centre.
Likewise, for each system of assemblages comprising the framing systems, a
vertical axis of rigidity may be defined. For such structures the equations of
dynamic equilibrium in a discrete parameter formulation are given by

.

..

MoD+CD+KD

=F

(1 a)

-eyM
M(r2+e x 2 +ey2 )

KXX

+ [ sym.
in which M is a diagonal mass matrix, C is the damping matrix assumed for
simplicity to be of the' proportional type,15 K is a stiffness matrix, D is a displace­
ment vector, F represents the lateral and torsional forcing functions (Le. the
earthquake force vector) and r is the mass radius of gyration. The eccentricities
ex and ey of the mass axis from the reference axis are shown in Fig. L For
regular structures it is assumed that
s

K

2:

K plJ
p=1
"
where s is the number of different structural systems in the building.
8. In the distributed parameter formulation the vector D is replaced by a
continuous vector function d having three components (x, y, 8), so that the
coefficient matrix represents given spatial distributions of the mass, damping and
stiffness, namely
=

m(z)ii(z, t)+c(z)ti(z, t)+k(z)d(z, t) = f(z. t)

or

kXX

+ [ sym.
414

, ",.,

DYNAMIC TORSIONAL COUPLING

IN TALL

BUILDINGS

Vhere Ct is a linear differential opcralor'" and s is the number of structural sys­
~ms in the building
.
m(z) = f(z)m
II

k(z)d(z, t)

= 2:

k,CtI(d)

1=1

9. The evaluation of the overall stiffness matrices in equations (la) and (2a)
from the properties of the individual assemblages follows well-known tech­
. niques. 4 • 8 • 15 ,18,19 The submatrices and the element with mixed indices repre­
sent the coupling between the co-ordinates x, yand 8, and it is evident that sub­
stantial savings in computational effort would result if some transformations of
co-ordinates could be found to equate these off-diagonal terms to zero.
10. Consider the case where s= 1, Le. there is only one framing system in
the building-say, uniform flexural walls. If the origin of the co-ordinate
system is at the rigidity centre, transformation to the principal axes gives

..,/

Ku

=0

ktJ

=0

, where I, J = x, y, 8 and i #- j, i.e. the system is uncoupled in plan. From

the assumption of geometrical regularity, it folIo~ that K xx , Kyy and Keo are
proportional. The off-diagonal submatrices also vanish in the case of structural
symmetry; however, proportionality between the diagonal submatrices does not
necessarily follow. When the structure consists of two framing systems (s= 2)
and the rigidity axes of the two are not co-linear, it is possible to equate Ku to
zero (i#- j) by means of the eigenvalues p2 and eigenvectors 1/ of the problem 8 • 19
(k 1 - p 2 k 2 )1/

=0

(3)

However, in this case, KJj are no longer proportional because
I

K

= diag [K(1}ll-P1 2K(1)1l; K(1)22-P2 2 K(2)22; K(1)33-Pa2K(2)aa]

.

(4)

) and in general Pl #- P2 #- Pa. When s> 2, three or more matrices are involved
and, as is known from linear algebra, K cannot in general be' uncoupled into
main diagonal blocks KJJ •
II. Consider now the free vibration problem associated with equations (I a)
and (2a)
MoD*+KD*

=0

(5)

which, after transformation becomes

(6)

where

w

is the circular frequency, leading to the eigenvalue problem
(K - w2Mo)qJ

=0

(7a)

• For a flexural beam system, for example, a= a4 1az 4 and for combined walls and frames
a =kl(84 j8z 4 ) - k2(a 2 j8z 2 ).

415

GLUCK,

REINHORN

AND

RUTENBERG

or explicitly
y

e 2M
-w
r

o
ex 2M
--w

QJo

r

= 0

(7b)

sym.
Kyy - w 2M
QJy

12. If De is multiplied by r the equations become dimensionally homo­
geneous.
13. Let Wj and fJ/j be the eigenvalue and eigenvector of
(8)
(K jj - w 2M)lfI j = 0 (j = x, y, 0)
and the mode shapes QJ of the problem in equation (7a) expressed in terms of the
modal matrix 'V of fJ/, namely

00]

QJX}
QJe = ['V0x 'Ve 0 {ax}
ae = 'Va
f/Jy
0 0 'Vy ay
Multiplying equation (7a) by 'VT , where T 'denotes the transpose, and
{

14.

u:xg~::IorthOgOnalitY ::~e:ties of the eig:nvectors. gives

f
\

r

~

sym.

o

(10)(
i

+

o

-w 2

=0

reX ['VeTM'Vy- 1]

0
ay
\
in which OJ = diag (Wjn), (j = x, y, 8, 11 = 1, ... N) and I is a unit matrix.
I
15. In equation (10) the first matrix is diagonal in each submatrix or block,
and thus can be decomposed into N sets of three coupled homogeneous equations \
t
(triplets) in w 2 , or
sym.

2

ey

W nt - r

2
2
Wen -W n 1

sym.

r

[1 + (e; + (e; fJ

o
2
-Wn 1

2

e;

Wyn -Wnl

=

aen
2

a yn

0

Gr
r[

t

(n = 1 -+-N, i = I-+- 3) (11)
16. Equation (11) is the three degrees of freedom or the single storey representation of the problem. However, the analogy holds only when the second
matrix in equation (10) vanishes, namely

['VxTM'Ve-I] = ['VeTM'V1I-1] = 0 .
416

(12)

I
I

DY,NAMIC TORSIONAL COUPLING

i

IN TALL BUILDINGS

'~)d it fonows that

1

o

(13)

- is a solution. In other words, when the mode shapes in the x, y and e co­
~ ordinate directions (planar modes) are similar, a complete representation of the
torsional coupling by means of a single storey model is feasible. It is also ap­
parent that when s= 1 equation (12) is exactly satisfied. However, for s~2 the
second matrix in equation (10) does not vanish, and an exact solution may no
longer be obtained. Nevertheless, numerical studies S have shown that neglecting
the off-diagonal terms (Le. the second matrix in equation (10» does not materially
affect the resulting natural frequencies and mode shapes. This is only to be
,;expected, because the cantilever mode shapes of different structural systems are
:~~~relatively close. As a check on the accuracy of the solution, estimates of the
~: errors to ~e expected from t~e approximation may be obtained using the standard
tperturbatlon procedure outlIned 10 references 8 and 20.
?F ~'! 17. The single storey analogy is therefore a very powerful tool in the fr~e
~; vibration analysis of tall buildings and is not encumbered by the restrictions im­
i:i posed on the structure in earlier studies;lo ..l2.14 The main advantages of the
;echnique are that it enables each direction <Xx, <Xy and <X9 to be treated separately
"/and the coupling effect to be obtained. Also, because mode superposition can be
, used to obtain the forced response of the structure, single storey torsional coup­
_ling analogy holds for seismic and other dynamic excitations.
. 18. Under seismic excitation the dynamic forces acting on the system in
, equations (1 a) or (2a) can be easily shown to be 15
(14)

or

= -mru·'g

f

(15)

.' where ilg is the ground acceleration in any given direction and r is an orientation
vector given by

)

= {I, 0, O}T

rx

'9 =

{eyl, I, - exI}T

}

(16)

'11 = {O, 1, I}T
for the discrete system. For the distributed parameter system it is merely
necessary to replace the unit vector I by unity.
19. To obtain the maximum system response using the response spectrum
technique 2 • 15 it is necessary first to compute the maximum response in each
normal mode from the spectral values of the design earthquake (or the relevant
code) corresponding to the natural frequency of that mode, and then to combine
'~e resulting responses in an appropriate manner.
~ 20. . For a torsionally non-coupled or symmetrical building the lateral modal
forces Fyn take the form 15

= MlJlyn r ynSa,yn

(17)
in which Sayn is the acceleration spectral value of ug in mode n, lJIyl!. is the corres­
ponding mode shape and r yn is the modal participation factor given b y15
Fyn

ryn

=

lJIynTMI

(18)

21. It can be easily shown from equations (9) and (11) that in torsionally
417

GLUCK,

REINHORN

AND

RUTENBERG

!

coupled systems the modal forces are linear combinations of the non-couPI,C (
planar modes x, y and 8 or
r
Fnl == Mo'llnanlan?'IIn ™orSani .
(19)
22. To obtain the ratios of the coupled forces and the non-coupled ones at ~ r
diITerent levels of the structure it is necessary to divide the terms in equation (19)
by the corresponding ones in equation (17), i.e.
.
(20a)
F*ntk -- FntkiFynk
or
F*nt k = EAnkantan?BnEr(Sant/Sa.yn), (i = 1,2,3)
(20b)
r;!
where E denotes the partitioned non-dimensional coupling matrix given by
_ ey
f~'
i'
o
1
r
k
l~:

l+e:f+(;f e;

E=

(21)j,'j~

;~!

sym.
1
An k is the matrix of the mode shape ratios
Ank = diag (,pxnkl,pyn k, ,pOnkl,pynk , 1)
and

;Ii'
I'

i

(22)

~

(23)

where r xn and rOn are the participation factors of the non-coupled planar rnode ',',
in the x and 8 directions, computed from equation (18) with the appropriate I
index changes.
23. The multipliers in equations (20) reduce to those of a single storey struc- "
ture when An~ and Bn are diagonal unit matrices. The effect of the modal
participation factor ratios in equations (20) is relatively small, and when it is
assumed that Bn = I, the errors are unlikely to exceed one per cent. s
24. The maximum system response is usually obtained by combining the(
modal responses by means of the root square of the sum of squares formula. " ­
This yields satisfactory results when the natural frequencies are sufficiently l~
separated,3 but is not likely to in torsional coupling problems. In such cases
the modified root square of the sum of squares formula is used 5

p

F*n

=

J[.il

(F*nl)2+2

filk~l F*ntF*nk/(l+EJk 2
)]

r

(24)

.
."

t~k

where Elk is given by
Elk

=

IWI-Wk/

v(1-g2)/(Wt+Wk)~

.

.

.

.

.

J

1aoo

( 25

When IWI - wkl is large, the double sum term in equation (24) becomes smalle~\
and equation (24) reduces to the standard root square of the sum of squares \
formula.

Solution procedure
25. It has been shown that the single storey torsional coupling analogy holds
rigorously only when the mode shapes in the three principal directions are
identical. However, good agreement with exact results may still be expected
418

\

t

DYNAMIC TORSIONAL COUPLING IN TALL BUILDINGS

"when this condition is only approximately satisfied. 8,20

The following sum­

.Jmary of the computational procedure is thus also applicable to the more general
case,
(0) Formulate the problem in the three principal co-ordinates of the struc­

ture x, y and O. When the structure comprises two framing systems,
transform it to uncoupled co-ordinates (equation (3».
(b) Calculate the dynamic properties of the structure in each of the three
directions (or two, in the case of one axis of symmetry). This is done
by first setting the eccentricities e" and ey to zero 15 and then solving
the algebraic problem by standard eigenvalue procedures (discrete
formulation) 6r solving the resulting differential equations (distributed
parameter formulation).2.15.16 Compute the modal participation
factor for each direction by using equation (18) with the appropriate
index x, y or O.
(c) Calculate the equivalent non-coupled forces from equation (I 7) for every
reference level k along the height of the building.
(d) Obtain the torsional coupling effect by computing the coupling co­
efficients ak and the coupling frequencies w for every triplet considered.
As usually only the lower modes dominate the response, there is no
need to compute more than three non-coupled modes in each direc~
tion.
(e) For every reference level compute the ratios of the mode shapes and the
participation factor ratios by dividing the values '''In and r J by their
non-coupled counterparts acting in the direction of the applied earth­
quake (equations (22) and (23».
(I) Calculate the force coupling multipliers using equation (20b) for each
mode considered in the analysis.
(g) Evaluate the combined torsional response of the nth triplet using the
modified root square of the sum of squares formula (equation (24»,

)

Y

1 ,..:.
...J

-.it

CD
0·2

-

I-

I]]

2·671

@J

r-

\.0

o

2

Pd
x

I
SC [

\.0

-it

-r-

rn

@

® ®

9

II
\

\\'

I

N

0 fc\J
..., :-

J-

@

0

0

lb'

t'­

0·2

I

®

-'I-

...-

®

>.,

RC

-- ro

o
,..:.

rnJ.

8x40 = 32.0

All wall thicknesses 0-2 m
Storey mass 210 N s2/m
All dimensions in metres

I

is F-

-'--

- CO
c\J

c\J

- f-

-

9

'-­

./

Fig. 2. Typical floor plan of asymmetric wall~frame structure

419

!
,

GLUCK. REINHORN AND

RUTENBERG

(h) Use equation (20a) to compute the resuhant forces, i.e. Fnt=F*nl kF1; nkQi
(;) Distribute the forces acting on each framing system using the appropriate !J~
transformations 19 and then superpose the effects of the n lower triplets
I:
by means of the standard root square of the sum of squares formula.
'r~

Numerical example
26. The floor plan shown in Fig. 2 is that of a 16 storey building, 48 rh high,
which was first analysed by Gluck l8 and later by Rutenberg and Heidebrecht. l9
The structural properties of the walls and the frames are given in Table 1. The
structure has two vertical axes of rigidity: one for the system of flexural walls and
the other for the frames. If the single storey analogy is to be used, only an
approximate solution may be expected. As the structure is uniform along the
height the continuum method is obviously preferred. With the given parameters
the equations of motion read
(26a)
or

o

~('

:{

'<'f

••'••• '.'.'.'.

".'

,}>'

i'"

2.24 x 10- 7 [

1
-0,8137

-0'8137]{~y}
0:4853

d9

ltli

+{d y}
d""9

RC

_
RC

{/Y}

_ 8.79 X 10-7 [1
-0'46]{d"y} =
(26b)
- 0·46
O' 36 d" 8 RC
Ie RC
where the primes and dots denote space and time derivatives, respectively.
27. .Following the solution algorithm, the equivalent modal forces are com­
puted first.
28. Static uncoupling (equation (3» by means of the transformation l9
- 0'887]
d
(27)
0.462
In the uncoupled co-ordinate system equation (26b) becomes

~

I,

h

r:

0-462

Il=Td= [
s
0'887

is carried out.
7

2'32x 10-

[~'106
+

~

]{ }

::::

OZ4 -

::

48-0

o

OZ2

0

4

OZ4 -

(O~497)2
48-0

if'

U.

OZ2

U8

=

f..

(28)

/u9

The second matrix in equation (28) represents the statically uncouPled. system in
U y and U9 co-ordinates.
The mass matrix includes a coupling parameter e!r=
0·106.
29. The two non-coupled equations of motion are obtained by putting e/r= O.
Thus
uItlt1l-(1'582!48'0)2U"y+2'32 x 107 uy = 0
}
d"'9-(0'497/48-0)2 U"9+2'32 x 107 x O'6492u9 = O '
• (29)
The non-coupled properties are given in Table 2.
30. For the given acceleration spectrum (Fig. 3) the storey shears at each

420

I

r
>~

C'\'\
!

DYNAMIC TORSIONAL COUPLING

IN TALL BUILDINGS

':tble 1. Member properties for structure in Fig.2 ; E = 2 x 1010 Nlm 2, m
____1=48'0 m

= 70 N s21m2,

-*

Princi­
pal
moment
of
inertia,
m4

Wall

1
2
3
4
5
6

5'7166
2-0834
2-0834
5·7166
1·2348
1-2348

Position
co-ordinates
Yi

-18-671
5·329
9·329
13·329
7·329
7'329

0
0
0
0
-4-5
+4·5

0-15

s=
a

26·579
26-579
26-579
26'579
26'579

1
2
3
4
5

1-0

53·158
53'158
53'158
53'158
53·158

Beam

18-985
18·985
18·985
18-985
18·985

- 14-671
- 10-671
-6,671
- 2-671
J·329

(}05

¥T

(E = 0-05)

0-5

Position
co-ordin­
ate Xc

Moment of inertia
m 4 x 104

Frame

Exterior Centre
column column

Xi

I

.

'\

2-0

1-5

Fig_ 3. Design acceleration
response spectrum 20

2-5

T:s

Table 2. Non-coupled dynamic properties and equivalent forces; modal shapes
Non-coupled dynamic properties

Refer­
ence
level
k

)

\
,

Mode II

Mode III

156'74
70-47
-10-11
-76-79
-121-66
-139-36
-129-87
-98-60
-55-93
-17-06

113-68
-6-36
-91-27
- 112-29
-65-27
21-29
99-57
129-45
99-29
36-79

.. Natural
fre­
quency

w, rad s
3-96
Partici·

pation

factor
2·580

r

kN

Mode Mode II Mode III Mode Mode 11 Mode III Mode
1
I
I
0-562
0-491
0-419
0-347
0'275
0-207
0-143
0-087
0-041
0-011

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

Storey equivalent forces Fy"k,

(J

y

ifi

0-496
0-223
-0-032
-0'243
-0-385
-0-441
-0-411
-0-312
-0-177
-0-054

0-411
-0-023
-0-330
-0-406
-0·236
0-077
0-360
0-468
0-359
0-133

0-576
0-496
0-417
0-339
0-265
0-195
0-132
0-078
0-037
0-009

0-486
0-209
-0-047
-0-257
-0-395
-0-446
-0-41 I
-0'309
-0-174
-0-053

OA07 205-13
-0-027 ] 79-21
-0-332 152-94
-0-404 126-66
-0-230 100-38
0-083
75-55
0-365
52-19
0-470
31-75
0-359
14-96
0-132
4-02

19·49

52-17

4-64

28·22

78-81

- 1-330

0'813
2·553
-1-383

.

0-789

421

GLUCK, REINHORN AND

RUTENBERG

'Or

reference level for the first three modes (j= 3) are computed using equation (1
and are given in Table 2 . . ' /
31. The coupling coefficients are now computed from equation (II) and the
approximate coupled normal modes obtained from equation (9) (Table 3).
32. Results of the computations for stages (e)-(g) in § 25 are given in Table 4,
together with the computed equivalent forces.
33. Using the transformations given in reference 13, the forces and moments
acting on the flexural wall system and the frame system are evaluated for each
pair of coupled modes, from which the internal forces in the individual walls and
frames are obtained. The total response may then be evaluated by means of the
standard root square of the sum of squares formula. For comparison, the
numerical results obtained using a standard eigenvalue computer procedure are
also presented in Tables 3 and 4. As agreement to three significant figures was
obtained for the first two pairs of modes, no comparative results are presented

I

I(

1

in Table 3.

Conclusion
;
34. It has been shown that the single storey torsional coupling analogy for.' .
multi-storey asymmetric building structures holds when the following two
conditions are satisfied
(a) the stiffness matrix can be uncoupled in plan into three principal di­

rections or co-ordinates (block diagonalization)
(b) the mode shapes in the three non-coupled directions are identical.

For most tall buildings these conditions do not hold rigidly, i.e. there are devia­
tions from verticality of the mass and stiffness axes 16 or non-identity of the nor­
mal modes in .the principal directions. In such cases the single storey analogy
Table 3. Dynamic properties for third pair of coupled modes (n
shapes 4>
Reference
level
k

First mode (i = 1)
Approximate

Exact

I

8

y

0·408
-0-022
-0-328
-0-403
, -0'234
0-076
0-358
0-464
0-356
0'132

0·050
-0,003
-0·041
-0,050
-0-028
0-010
0-045
0-058
0-044
0,016

0'408
-0'022
-0-328
-0-403
-0,234
0-075
0-357
0-464
0-356
0-132

51-576

Participation
factor

0-7693

422

Second mode (i=2)

y

Natural
frequency w,
rad s

r

modal

Third pair of coupled modes (n= 3)

Ii
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

= 3):

..­

Approximate

8

y

0·048
-0'004
-0-041
-0-049
-0-027
0-011
0-046
0-058
0-045
0-016

-0·113
0-066
0·090
0-111
0-064
-0-021
-0-099
-0-128
-0-098
-0-036

I

51-576
0-7699

I

8

I

0·391
-0·026
"':'0-319
-0,388
-0·221
0-080
0-351
0-452
0-345
0-127

I

I

-

Exact
y

8

I

-0'111
0·066
0-090
0-111
0-064
-0-021
-0-099
-0-129
-0-099
-0-037

0·391
-0-026
-0-320
-0-388
-0-221
0-080
0-351
0-452
0-345
0-127

79-85

79-85

0-1599

0-1569

c

--

~

~

W

'

~

:

_....-____ .. _ _

(

~

'~---."':'"

~

.'t...___",~

~,!

(

..

",.

1. - /'~.

,:,'-::--~

...~

'''-''

/

o

-<
z

.

l>
()

Table 4. Coupling multipliers and final equivalent modal forces

~

o

::D

Reference
level
k

Coupling multipliers for the nth pair

I

Approximate
n=1
FlIl

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I

0·995
0-993
0'993
0'992
0-993
0-989
0-987
0·982
0·996
0-996

FOl

n=2
F!J2

Fu

Exact

I

n=3
F1I3

I

F03

n=1
FlIl

Fill

n=2
F1I2

F02

1-012
1-016
1-013
1-012
1-013
1-013
1-012
1·012
1-017

0-367
0-352
0-548
0-396
0·385
0-381
0-378
0-376
0-374
0-372

­
­ - - - -- ­ - -- -- - 0·523 1'012 0·377
1·012
0-519
0·514
0·508
0-502
0-495
0-489
0·483
0-476
0-470

1-'012
1-016
1'013
1-012
1-013
1-013
1-012
1-012
1'017

0-367
0'507
0-397
0·389
0-385
0-383
0-381
0-379
0-377

1'012
1-001
1-013
1'011
1-010
1-008
1-013
1-012
1-012
1-009

0'368
0·418
0-373
0'370
0-365
0-392
0-374
0'372
0'371
0·370

0"995
0-993
0-993
0-992
0-993
0·989
0-987
0-982
0-996
0·996

0'523
0·519
0-513
0-508
0-502
0-496
0-489
0-483
0'477
0-470

n=3
F Y3

1'012
1-001
1·013
I-Oil
1-010
1-008
1·013
1-012
1-012
1-029

F03

FlI!

(J)

Approximate

o
z

I

n=1

0-363 204-10
0·437 177-96
0-370 15l-87
0-366 125·65
0-359 99-68
74-72
0-401
0-374 51-51
31-18
0'371
14-90
0-369
4-00
0'368

Final forces, N

F81

107'28
93·01
78'61
64'34
50-39
37-40
25-52
15·)4
7'12
1-89

I

»

n=3

n=2

r
FlI2

Fo'J.

158-62
71-32
-10,27
-77,79
- 123'12
-141-17
-131-56
-99-78
-56-60
- 17-35

59·09
25-86
-5'13
-30-40
-47'33
-53-65
-49-74
- 37-54
- 21-20
-6·43

F1I3

F03

41-83
115·04
-2·67
-6·37
-92·46 -34·04
- 13-53 -40-99
-65-92 -23-82
21-46
8'35
37,23
100-86
131-00
48'16
100-48
36-84
37' 12 1 13·61

()

o
C
-0

r

z
G)

z
~

l>

r

r
OJ

C

r

o
z

.j::::.
I',,)

w

G)
(J)

GLUCK,

REINHORN AND

RUTENBERG

\...-t::

is still a powerful tool, albeit. approximate, for the dynamic analysis of asymmetric buildings. Due to its simplicity, the single storey model may be useful i n '
formulating anti-seismic codes of practice for asymmetric tall buildings.
35. The solution sequence outlined casts the analysis in the standard form
of the response spectrum technique. It is therefore hoped that the Paper will
contribute to the extension of the technique for asymmetric multistorey buildings.
References

1. HOUSNER W. G. and OUTINEN A. The effect of torsional oscillations on earthquake

stresses. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 1958,48, July, 221-229.

2. NEWMARK N. M. and ROSENBLUETH E. Fundamentals 0/ earthquake engineering.

Prentice Hall, New York, 1971.

3. BUSTAMENTE Y. I. and ROSENBLUETH E. Building code provision on torsional

oscillations. Proc. 2nd Wid Can/. Earthquake Engng, Tokyo, 1960,2, 879-894.

4. BARUCH M. et al. Normal modes for non-symmetric multi-storey structures.
Proc.lnstn Civ. Engrs, 1972,51, Feb., 359.
5. ELORDUY J. and ROSENBLUETH E. Torsiones seismices en edificios de un piso.

Instituto de Ingineria, Universitad Nacional Autonome de Mexico, 1968, Report

164.
6. GLUCK J. and REINHORN A. Dynamic eccentricity of static equivalent earthquake

loads on asymmetric tall wall-framed structures. Faculty of Civil Engineering,

Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 1975, unpublished report.

7. SHEPHERD R. and DONALD R. A. H. Seismic response of torsionally unbalanced

buildings. Jnl Sound & Vibrn, 1967, 6, No.1, 20-37.

8. REINHORN A. Static and dynamic torsional coupling in tall buildings. (In Hebrew.)

DSc thesis, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, 1978.

9. KAN C. L. and CHOPRA A. K. Effects of torsional coupling on earthquake forces in

buildings. J. Struct. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1977, 103, ST 4, Apr., 805-819.

10. KAN C. L. and CHOPRA A. K. Elastic earthquake analysis of a class of torsionally

coupled buildings. J. Strucl. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 1977, 103, ST 4, Apr.,

821-838.

11. KEINTZEL E. On the seismic analysis of unsymmetrical storied buildings. Proc.

5th WId Con/. Earthquake Engng, Rome, 1973, 1, 110-113.

12. F'S:NZIEN J. Earthquake response of irregularly shaped buildings. Proc. 4th WId f
Con/. Earthquake Engng, Chile, 1969,2, A3.
-,."
13. ROSENBLUETH E. and ELORDUY E. Response of linear systems to certain transient

disturbances. Proc. 4th WId Con/. Earthquake Engng, Chile, 1969. I, A-I, 185­
196.
14. SKINNER R. I. et al. Unbalanced buildings with light-towers under earthquake
forces. Proc. 3rd WId Con/. Earthquake Engng, N.Z., 1965, 2, 586-602.
J5. CLOUGH R. W. and PENZIEN J. Dynamics 0/ structures. MCGraw-Hili. New York,

1975.

16. HOERNER B. J. Modal coupling and earthquake response 0/ tall buildings. California
Institute of Technology. Pasadena, 1971, Report EERL 71-07.
17. RUTENBERG A. et al. On the dynamic properties of asymmetric wall frame struc­

tures. Int. J. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynamics, 1978,6, May-June, 317-320.

18. GLUCK J. A general method/or lateral load distribution between stiffening elements

in multistorey structures. (In Hebrew.) DSc thesis, Technion-Israel Institute of

Technology, Haifa, 1967.

19. RUTENBERG A. and HEIDEBRECHT A. C. Approximate analysis of asymmetric

wall-frame structures. Bldg Sci., 1975,10,27-35.

20. REINHORN A. et al. Dynamic torsional coupling in asymmetric building structures.

Bldg Environment, 1977,12, Dec., 251-261.

1

.)

I

"}

.1

424