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 411424
\
\..,/
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 threedimensional rather than twodimensional formulation is adopted to
emphasize the generality of the approach. The diserete and distributed parameter
formulations are followed throughout the mathematical exposition.
Introduction
Multistorey 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, TechnionIsrael 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
noncoupled 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'»
noncoupled natural mode shapes
",,\jJ
damping ratio
~
w
natural circular frequencies
diagonal matrix of noncoupled circular frequencies
Subscripts
n
x,y,8
Superscripts
k
T
order of coupled modes (order of coupled triplet or pair)
generalized coordinates 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 multistorey 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 wallframe
structure, (b) typical floor plan
asymmetric structures has been thoroughly investigated. I. 5.914 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
multistorey 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 weBestablished seismic response procedure. A step by step solution is out
lined and illustrated by means of a numerical example. A threedimensional
rather than a twodimensional 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 axisthe 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 wellknown tech
. niques. 4 • 8 • 15 ,18,19 The submatrices and the element with mixed indices repre
sent the coupling between the coordinates x, yand 8, and it is evident that sub
stantial savings in computational effort would result if some transformations of
coordinates could be found to equate these offdiagonal terms to zero.
10. Consider the case where s= 1, Le. there is only one framing system in
the buildingsay, uniform flexural walls. If the origin of the coordinate
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 offdiagonal 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 colinear, 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}llP1 2K(1)1l; K(1)22P2 2 K(2)22; K(1)33Pa2K(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'VeI] = ['VeTM'V1I1] = 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 offdiagonal 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 noncoupled 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 noncouPI,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 noncoupled 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 nondimensional 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 noncoupled 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
=
IWIWk/
v(1g2)/(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 coordinates of the struc
ture x, y and O. When the structure comprises two framing systems,
transform it to uncoupled coordinates (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 noncoupled 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 noncoupled 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
noncoupled 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 02 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 107 [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 coordinate system equation (26b) becomes
~
I,
h
r:
0462
Il=Td= [
s
0'887
is carried out.
7
2'32x 10
[~'106
+
~
]{ }
::::
OZ4 
::
480
o
OZ2
0
4
OZ4 
(O~497)2
480
if'
U.
OZ2
U8
=
f..
(28)
/u9
The second matrix in equation (28) represents the statically uncouPled. system in
U y and U9 coordinates.
The mass matrix includes a coupling parameter e!r=
0·106.
29. The two noncoupled 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(0'497/480)2 U"9+2'32 x 107 x O'6492u9 = O '
• (29)
The noncoupled 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
20834
20834
5·7166
1·2348
12348
Position
coordinates
Yi
18671
5·329
9·329
13·329
7·329
7'329
0
0
0
0
45
+4·5
015
s=
a
26·579
26579
26579
26'579
26'579
1
2
3
4
5
10
53·158
53'158
53'158
53'158
53·158
Beam
18985
18·985
18·985
18985
18·985
 14671
 10671
6,671
 2671
J·329
(}05
¥T
(E = 005)
05
Position
coordin
ate Xc
Moment of inertia
m 4 x 104
Frame
Exterior Centre
column column
Xi
I
.
'\
20
15
Fig_ 3. Design acceleration
response spectrum 20
25
T:s
Table 2. Noncoupled dynamic properties and equivalent forces; modal shapes
Noncoupled dynamic properties
Refer
ence
level
k
)
\
,
Mode II
Mode III
156'74
7047
1011
7679
12166
13936
12987
9860
5593
1706
11368
636
9127
 11229
6527
2129
9957
12945
9929
3679
.. Natural
fre
quency
w, rad s
396
Partici·
pation
factor
2·580
r
kN
Mode Mode II Mode III Mode Mode 11 Mode III Mode
1
I
I
0562
0491
0419
0347
0'275
0207
0143
0087
0041
0011
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Storey equivalent forces Fy"k,
(J
y
ifi
0496
0223
0032
0'243
0385
0441
0411
0312
0177
0054
0411
0023
0330
0406
0·236
0077
0360
0468
0359
0133
0576
0496
0417
0339
0265
0195
0132
0078
0037
0009
0486
0209
0047
0257
0395
0446
041 I
0'309
0174
0053
OA07 20513
0027 ] 7921
0332 15294
0404 12666
0230 10038
0083
7555
0365
5219
0470
3175
0359
1496
0132
402
19·49
5217
464
28·22
7881
 1330
0'813
2·553
1383
.
0789
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.' .
multistorey 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 coordinates (block diagonalization)
(b) the mode shapes in the three noncoupled 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 nonidentity 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
0022
0328
0403
, 0'234
0076
0358
0464
0356
0'132
0·050
0,003
0·041
0,050
0028
0010
0045
0058
0044
0,016
0'408
0'022
0328
0403
0,234
0075
0357
0464
0356
0132
51576
Participation
factor
07693
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
0041
0049
0027
0011
0046
0058
0045
0016
0·113
0066
0·090
0111
0064
0021
0099
0128
0098
0036
I
51576
07699
I
8
I
0·391
0·026
"':'0319
0,388
0·221
0080
0351
0452
0345
0127
I
I

Exact
y
8
I
0'111
0·066
0090
0111
0064
0021
0099
0129
0099
0037
0·391
0026
0320
0388
0221
0080
0351
0452
0345
0127
7985
7985
01599
01569
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
0993
0'993
0'992
0993
0989
0987
0·982
0·996
0996
FOl
n=2
F!J2
Fu
Exact
I
n=3
F1I3
I
F03
n=1
FlIl
Fill
n=2
F1I2
F02
1012
1016
1013
1012
1013
1013
1012
1·012
1017
0367
0352
0548
0396
0·385
0381
0378
0376
0374
0372
        0·523 1'012 0·377
1·012
0519
0·514
0·508
0502
0495
0489
0·483
0476
0470
1'012
1016
1'013
1012
1013
1013
1012
1012
1'017
0367
0'507
0397
0·389
0385
0383
0381
0379
0377
1'012
1001
1013
1'011
1010
1008
1013
1012
1012
1009
0'368
0·418
0373
0'370
0365
0392
0374
0'372
0'371
0·370
0"995
0993
0993
0992
0993
0·989
0987
0982
0996
0·996
0'523
0·519
0513
0508
0502
0496
0489
0483
0'477
0470
n=3
F Y3
1'012
1001
1·013
IOil
1010
1008
1·013
1012
1012
1029
F03
FlI!
(J)
Approximate
o
z
I
n=1
0363 20410
0·437 17796
0370 15l87
0366 125·65
0359 9968
7472
0401
0374 5151
3118
0'371
1490
0369
400
0'368
Final forces, N
F81
107'28
93·01
78'61
64'34
5039
3740
2552
15·)4
7'12
189
I
»
n=3
n=2
r
FlI2
Fo'J.
15862
7132
10,27
77,79
 123'12
14117
13156
9978
5660
 1735
59·09
2586
5'13
3040
47'33
5365
4974
 3754
 2120
6·43
F1I3
F03
4183
115·04
2·67
6·37
92·46 34·04
 1353 4099
6592 2382
2146
8'35
37,23
10086
13100
48'16
10048
3684
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 antiseismic 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, 221229.
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, 879894.
4. BARUCH M. et al. Normal modes for nonsymmetric multistorey 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 wallframed structures. Faculty of Civil Engineering,
TechnionIsrael 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, 2037.
8. REINHORN A. Static and dynamic torsional coupling in tall buildings. (In Hebrew.)
DSc thesis, TechnionIsrael 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., 805819.
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.,
821838.
11. KEINTZEL E. On the seismic analysis of unsymmetrical storied buildings. Proc.
5th WId Con/. Earthquake Engng, Rome, 1973, 1, 110113.
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, AI, 185
196.
14. SKINNER R. I. et al. Unbalanced buildings with lighttowers under earthquake
forces. Proc. 3rd WId Con/. Earthquake Engng, N.Z., 1965, 2, 586602.
J5. CLOUGH R. W. and PENZIEN J. Dynamics 0/ structures. MCGrawHili. New York,
1975.
16. HOERNER B. J. Modal coupling and earthquake response 0/ tall buildings. California
Institute of Technology. Pasadena, 1971, Report EERL 7107.
17. RUTENBERG A. et al. On the dynamic properties of asymmetric wall frame struc
tures. Int. J. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dynamics, 1978,6, MayJune, 317320.
18. GLUCK J. A general method/or lateral load distribution between stiffening elements
in multistorey structures. (In Hebrew.) DSc thesis, TechnionIsrael Institute of
Technology, Haifa, 1967.
19. RUTENBERG A. and HEIDEBRECHT A. C. Approximate analysis of asymmetric
wallframe structures. Bldg Sci., 1975,10,2735.
20. REINHORN A. et al. Dynamic torsional coupling in asymmetric building structures.
Bldg Environment, 1977,12, Dec., 251261.
1
.)
I
"}
.1
424