Seismic Torsion in Irregular Buildings

Torsional Effects Due To Seismic Forces On Multistoried Buildings With Plan Irregularity
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Earthquake Engineering is most important field in the structural engineering research field. Traditionally
structures were analyzed for the gravity loading and designed accordingly. The destruction caused by
earthquakes to such structures gave rise to a thought of designing such a structure that would safely
withstand and resist earthquakes which are expected to occur during the design life time of the structure.
Earthquake analysis utilizes the basics of the Structural dynamics. Several simplified methods are
available to evaluate the seismic Performance of the building. In present scenario many buildings are
asymmetric in plan and/or in elevation based on the distribution of mass and stiffness along each storey
throughout the height of the building. However an accurate evaluation of the seismic behavior of irregular
buildings is quite difficult and a complicated problem .Due to the variety of parameters and the choice of
possible models for torsionally unbalanced systems, there is as yet no common agreement or any accurate
procedure advised by researchers on common practice in order to evaluate the torsional effects. Seismic
damage surveys and analyses conducted on modes of failure of building structures during past severe
earthquakes concluded that most vulnerable building structures are those, which are asymmetric in nature.
Asymmetric building structures are almost unavoidable in modern construction due to various types of
functional and architectural requirements. Torsion in buildings during earthquake shaking may be caused
from a variety of reasons, the most common of which are non-symmetric distributions of mass and
stiffness Modern codes deal with torsion by placing restrictions on the design of buildings with irregular
layouts and also through the introduction of an accidental eccentricity that must be considered in design.
The lateral-torsional coupling due to eccentricity between centre of mass (CM) and centre of rigidity (CR)
in asymmetric building structure generates torsional vibration even under purely translational ground
shaking during seismic shaking of the structural systems, inertia force acts through the centre of mass
while the resistive force acts through the centre of rigidity as shown in Fig.1.1.
Figure 1.1 Generation of Torsional Moment in Asymmetric Structures

The torsion will be developed at Re-entrant corners in L-shape and T- shape Building .the Re-entrant
corner, lack of continuity corner is the common characteristic of overall building configuration that in
RSCOE P a g e 1 | 23
plan .L-shape and T-shape occurs due to lack of tensile capacity and force concentration. According to
IS-
1893(Part1)-2002, Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force resisting system contain re-
entrant corners, where both projections of the structure beyond the re-entrant corner are greater than 15
percent of its plan dimension in the given direction.
Fig.1.2: Rope swings and buildings, Fig.1.3: Identical vertical members placed
both swing back-and-forth when uniformly in plan of building cause all points
shaken horizontally on the floor to move by same amount
As shown in fig.1.2 rope swings and buildings, both swing back-and-forth when shaken horizontally. If
the rope swing is tied identically with two equal ropes, it sways equally, when you sit in the middle of
cradle. Buildings are also similar to these rope swings; just they are inverted swings. The vertical walls
and columns are like the ropes, and the floor is like cradle. Buildings with more than one story are like
rope swings with more than one cradle. A building with identical vertical members and that are uniformly
placed in the two horizontal directions, when shaken at its base in a certain direction, swings back and
forth such that all points on the floor move horizontally by the same amount in the direction of shaking,
as shown in fig.1.3
Fig.1.4: Even if vertical members are placed Fig.1.5: Buildings have unequal vertical
uniformly in plan of building, more mass on members; they cause the building to twist
one side causes the floors to twist. about a vertical axis.
If you sit at one end of the cradle, it twists. Likewise, if the mass on the floor of a building is more on one
side (for instance, one side of a building may have a storage or a library), then that side of the building
moves more underground movement, fig.1.4. These building moves such that its floors displace
horizontally as well as rotate. The two ropes with which the cradle is tied to the branch of tree be different
in length. Such a swing also twists even if you sit in the middle, fig.1.5a. Similarly, in buildings with
unequal structural members (i.e., frames or walls) also the floors twist about a vertical axis, fig.1.5b and
displace horizontally.
Fig.1.6: one-side open ground storey building twists during earthquake shaking
Buildings that are irregular in plan tend to twist under earthquake shaking. For example, in a propped
overhanging building (fig.1.6), the overhanging portion swings on the relatively slender columns under it.
The floors twist and displace horizontally.
Chapter: 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Maramaee Soleiman (2011) “The Effects Of Torsion On Steel Structures Under Seismic
Analysis”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.10 (6), 764-767.
Has studied about the torsional effect on steel structure under seismic analysis. Due to architectural
condition and structural application, mass source and stiffness source are not coinciding. The structure is
also might be asymmetric as an asymmetric bracing in plan which leads to unbalance distribution of
stiffness or because of unbalance distribution of the mass. In this paper five storied building with different
percentage of asymmetric which is because of stiffness changes have been designed. The static and
dynamic nonlinear analysis under three acceleration recording has been done. Finally performance level
of the structure has been evaluated. He provided steel bracing at different position in building. The
structure is designed accordance with Iranian code. This paper concluded that performing nonlinear
dynamic analysis is better than static nonlinear analysis in asymmetrical structure. With comparison of
ratio drift results we can conclude that by increasing the eccentricity results became closer to each other.
Symmetric and asymmetric structures that are designed for a level of risk according to general codes,
don’t have an identical operation level. In consideration of Iranian code, the purpose of designing the
residential structures with importance coefficient of 1 for earthquakes with risk level of 1 is life safety.
Designing of these structures symmetrically and with eccentricity of 12.5%, 25% (A, B, C models) have
identical operation level. These types of structures have immediate occupancy operation against
earthquakes with level of risk of 1. With increasing the eccentricity, operation level decreases. As
respects that in all of these structures the mass centre was constant, so if the mass centre be changed,
these structures may not fulfill the codes necessities and therefore the structure considered weak. With
considering the height of building (16 m) by increase of different eccentricity the results of nonlinear
static analysis is closed to nonlinear dynamic analysis results. In the other word despite the asymmetric
structures static nonlinear analysis can be used.
2.2 Bensalah M. D., Bensaibi M., Modaressi A. (2012) “Assessment of The Torsion Effect In
Asymmetric Buildings Under Seismic Load” 15 WCEE, LISBOA.
Has presented the influences of torsional effect on the behavior of the structure. In this paper two
buildings are considered one symmetrical and other un-symmetrical building in terms of rigidity. He
focused on some parameter such as displacement, ductility, reduction factor and dynamic non accidental
eccentricity. This paper concluded that lateral yielding strength in terms of capacity of asymmetric
structure is higher than symmetrical structure. The ductility increases with increasing input motion (Arias
intensity) and decrease with increasing predominant period with significant variation in asymmetrical
structure than those symmetrical structures. The reduction factor decreases when the dominant period of
the earthquake increases. Unlike the reduction factor increase with decreasing input motions.
2.3 Gupta V. N. & Pajgade P. S. (2013) “Torsional Behavior of Asymmetrical Building”,

International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.3 (2), 1146-1149.
Has studied on the torsional behavior of multi-storey buildings with different structural irregularities.
Such as plan irregularity and vertical irregularity. This paper represents a review about the investigation
done on torsional behavior of multi-storey buildings with plan as well as vertical irregularities. It also
focuses on codal provision made for torsion. This paper concluded that torsion is the most critical factor
leading to major damage or completes collapse of building; therefore it is necessary that symmetric
buildings should also be analyzed for torsion. While designing the building design eccentricity and
accidental eccentricity should be considered. It was observed that the irregular profile buildings got
larger forces and displacement as compared to symmetrical buildings. Structures are never perfectly
regular and hence the designers routinely need to evaluate the likely degree of irregularity and the effect
of this irregularity on a structure during an earthquake.
2.4 Wakchaure M. R., Nagare Y.U. (2013) “Effect Of Torsion Consideration In Analysis Of Multi
Storey Frame”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Application (IJERA) Vol.3,
Issue 4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.1828-1832.
Has studied on the influence of the torsion effects on the behavior of structure is done. In this paper two
building are considered one is without considering torsion and other is considering the torsion. The
building is analyzed and design using method and as per IS1893 (Part 1):2002. The results are compared
in terms % Ast in column. This paper concluded that In the asymmetric building second building, that is
without considering torsion, it was observed that the area of steel in the beams at critical stage are much
smaller than those obtained in the case of first building, that is with considering torsion. The bottom bars
should be more critical, because they seem to be subjected to more tension than the top bars therefore
torsional behavior of asymmetric building is one of the most frequent source of structural damage and
failure during strong ground motions. He also concluded that the torsion is the most critical factor causes
damage in building, so the irregular buildings are analyzed for torsion.
2.5 Dhiman Basu, Michael C. Constantious, Andrew S. Whittaker (2014) “An Equivalent
Accidental Eccentricity to Account For The Effect Of Torsional Ground Motion On structures.”
ELSEVIER- Engineering structures 69 (2014), 1-11.
In this paper seismic design of building and other structure should be studied. Seismic analysis and design
of buildings requires consideration of natural and accidental torsion. De-La Liera and Chepra calculated
value of accidental eccentricity for use with the ELF procedure by studying the dynamic response of
single and multistory building subjected to torsional ground motion. When only considering the effects of
torsional ground motion and without consideration of uncertainty in mass distribution, the conventional
approach of accounting for the effects of accidental torsion by shifting the CM does not produce the
desired effect in response history analysis because shift changes the dynamic characteristics of structure.
2.6 Suryawanshi S. N, Kadam.S.B, Tande.S.N. (2014), “Torsional Behavior of Asymmetrical

Buildings in Plan under Seismic Forces”, International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research
and Technology, Vol.2 (4), PP 170-176.
In this paper, a study on the influence of torsional moment effects on the behavior of structure is done by
using response spectrum method. Nonlinear pushover analysis has been used to find structural
descriptors. In this study, gravity load analysis and lateral load analysis as per IS 1893:2002 are carried
out for 3 buildings.
a) Symmetric G+3 and G+6
b) Asymmetric G+3 and G+6 (L shape)

c) Asymmetric G+3 and G+6 (T shape)
Torsional moments, base shear, displacement and time period determined by using response spectrum
method and their capacity and demand is evaluated using nonlinear static pushover analysis. He
concluded that, for asymmetric building, torsional moment is more than symmetrical building. Base shear
and roof displacement for asymmetrical building is more than symmetrical building. Performance of
symmetrical building is better than asymmetrical building.
2.7 Sandhya R. Ghuse, Mayur K. Ghumde, (2016) “Study of Torsional Effect under Seismic
Condition on Building with Irregularities”, International Research Journal of Engineering and
Technology (IRJET), Vol. 3 (12), 768-774.
In this paper, includes the high rise building have common damage or collapse during earthquake. In this
paper, for regular structures simple analysis techniques such as the equivalent static method have
calibrated against advanced analysis methods such as time history analysis. The analysis is carried by
using IS 1893:2002(part 1) which recommends simple and symmetric configuration from earthquake
safety point of view. Structure is analyzed by using STAAD PRO.
It is concluded that damage to the building causes due to following types of irregularities:
Plan Irregularities Vertical Irregularities
a) Torsion Irregularities a) Stiffness Irregularities- soft storey
b) Re-entrant corners b) Stiffness Irregularities- extreme soft storey
c) Diaphragm Discontinuity c) Mass Irregularities
d) Out-of-plane Offsets d) Vertical Geometric Irregularity
e) Non-parallel Systems f) Discontinuity in Capacity- weak storey
It is concluded that, irregularity linked torsional development in column located in middle part of
structure and sideways can be predicted whereas critical analysis of corner column is essential for lateral
loads.
2.8 Ebrahim Nazarimofrad, Seyed Mehdi Zahrai (2016) “A Seismic Control Of Irregular
Multistory Buildings Using Active Tendons Considering Soil-Structure Interaction Effect.”
ELSEVIER- Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 89(2016) 100-115.
In this paper study of structural vibration control to improve the safety and serviceability of different
towers and high rise buildings against strong earthquakes and winds during last few decades. Most studies
on building vibration controls have been considered just two dimensionally using the shear frame models.
The torsion effect is ignored in two dimensional frame. In reality, most of the buildings have irregular
plans experiencing torsion about vertical axis when subjected to earthquakes that would increase the
structural response. In this paper, a mathematical model is developed for seismic control of an irregular
multistory building using active tendons with LQR algorithm, when the SSI effect is considered. There is
a lateral displacement in Y direction and torsion about Z direction.
2.9 Moulshree Tripathi, Mary Wiilaims P., Dr. R. K. Tripathi (2016) “Behavior of Tall Structure
With Eccentric Loading”, International Journal of Research in Chemical, Metallurgical and Civil
Engineering (IJRCMCE) Vol. 3, Issue 2.
In this paper geometrically symmetrical tall building structure has been considered for study with
asymmetric loading. Linear static, linear dynamic and nonlinear static behavior has been studied with the
help of software G+14 RCC frame has been used. Three sets of models, one with eccentric mass of
magnitude twice the mass on remaining portion, one with 4 times mass and one with 6 times mass
magnitude have been analyzed. Provision of shear wall reduces the torsion in the building. Structures with
shear wall has lesser top storey displacement than those without shear wall. Base shear increases when
shear wall is provided, reduction in time period.
2.10 Subodh. S. Patil, Ajim G Mujawar, Pritam. A. Mali and Murugesh. R. Katti (2017) “A Study
Of Torsional Effect On Multi-storied Building With Plan Irregularity.” International journal of
advanced research (IJAR).
In this paper seismic performance of multistory building is check with asymmetrical plan. Two buildings
of L-shape and T-shape asymmetric in plan for building height G+20 and G+22 are analyzed. The method
of analysis used in this paper is Response Spectrum Method and analysis is done by using STAAD-PRO.
Accidental torsional load is applied with reference to 1893(part-1)-2002. The torsional moment, base
shear, displacement and time period are determined. The torsion will be developed at Re-entrant corners
in L-shape and T-shape buildings. In this paper remedies applied are providing shear wall and
architectural relief. From results it is concluded that architectural relief is the better solution which
considerably decreases the displacement and also decreases stresses at Re-entrant corners. The torsional
moment in symmetrical building is very less as compared with unsymmetrical building.
CHAPTER 3
EFFECT OF TORSION ON BUILDINGS
Fig. 3.1: Vertical members of buildings that move more horizontally sustain more damage
Twist in buildings, called torsion, makes different portions at the same floor level to move horizontally by
different amounts. This induces more damage in the frames and walls on the side that moves more
(fig.3.1). Many buildings have been severely affected by this excessive torsional behavior during past
earthquake. If this twist cannot be avoided, special calculations need to be done to account for this
additional shear forces in the design of buildings; the Indian seismic code (IS 1893: 2002) has provisions
for such calculations.
Fig. 3.2: Examples of Building with Plan Irregularities

Figure 3.2 shows differential motion between different parts of building, resulting local stress
concentration at the notch of the re-entrant corners.
There are many remedies to avoid the torsion irregularity are as follows
a) By providing shear wall.
b) By providing uniform box.
c) By providing Architectural Relief.

d) By providing Diagonal Reinforcement.
There are many research carried out on the torsional behavior of building. They give the better solution to
avoid the torsion. But they didn’t apply it on actual building.
ASYMMETRIC BUILDINGS:
To perform well in an earthquake, a building should possess four main attributes, mainly, simple and
regular configuration, and adequate lateral strength, stiffness and ductility. Buildings having simple
regular geometry and uniformity distributed mass and stiffness in plan as well as in elevation, suffer much
less damage than with irregular configuration. A building shall be considered as irregular as per IS
1893(Part I)-2002 if it lacks symmetry and has discontinuity in geometry, mass or load resisting elements.
These irregularities may cause interruption of force flow and stress concentrations. Asymmetrical
arrangement of mass and stiffness of elements have increase in shear forces on lateral force resisting
elements resulting from the horizontal torsional moment arising due to eccentricity between centers of
centre of rigidity.
There are main two types of irregularities:
1. Vertical Irregularity
2. Plan Irregularity
Fig. 3.3: Classification of Irregularities
Fig. 3.4 (a): Torsional Irregularity
Fig. 3.4 (b): Re-entrant Corners
Fig. 3.4 (c): Out-Of-Plane Offsets
Fig. 3.4 (d): Non-Parallel Systems
Fig. 3.4 (e): Stiffness Irregularity (Soft Storey)
Fig. 3.4 (f): Mass Irregularity
Fig. 3.4 (g): Vertical Geometric Irregularity
Fig. 3.4 (h): In-plane Discontinuity
Fig. 3.4 (i): Weak Storey

Methods for Seismic Analysis:
Fig. 3.5: Methods of seismic analysis
Linear static method:

The linear static method also known as Equivalent Static Method is used to estimate the demand for the
buildings whose response is particularly dominated by the first mode and expected to behave in elastic
range. In this method the lateral loads are calculated based on the fundamental period of the structural and
applied on the design centre of mass at every floor level and the demands are estimated. The magnitude of
these pseudo lateral loads has been selected with the intention that when applied to the linearly elastic
model of the building, it will result in design displacement expected during the design earthquake.
If the building responds elastically to the design earthquake, the calculated internal forces will be
reasonable approximation of those expected during the design earthquake. If the building responds in
elastically to the design earthquake as is quite common in most of the cases, the actual internal forces that
would develop in the yielding building will be less than the internal forces calculated using the pseudo
lateral load.
To take these inelasticity account the Response reduction factor (R) is used to calculate the reduced
forces. IS1893:2002 uses the empirical formulae to estimate the fundamental time period of the structure.
It is used for spectral acceleration determination from the response spectrum, which in turn is used for the
calculation of Base shear modified by some coefficient. Then this base shear is distributed in the
parabolic fashion along the height of building. The effect of the torsion is taken into consideration by
calculating the design center of mass by means of design eccentricity.
Design eccentricity is the sum of the actual eccentricity (distance between centre of mass and centre of
rigidity at floor level) and accidental eccentricity (5% of the horizontal dimension at the given floor level
measured perpendicular to the direction of the applied load). For two dimensional modeling the design
forces are suitably increased to account for torsion.
Linear Dynamic Method:
For the building whose response is dominated by more than one mode, the Linear Dynamic Method is
used to estimate the demand of the structure. There are two ways to carry out the Linear Dynamic
Analysis.
1. Response Spectrum Method.
2. Time History Method.
Response Spectrum Method:
In this method the load vectors are calculated corresponding to predefined number of modes. These load
vectors are applied at the design centre of mass to calculate the respective modal responses. These modal
responses are then combined according to SRSS or CQC rule to get the total response. From the
fundamentals of dynamics it is quite clear that modal response of the structure subjected to particular
ground motion, is estimated by the combination of the results of static analysis of the structures subjected
to corresponding modal load vector and dynamic analysis of the corresponding single degree of freedom
system subjected to same ground motion. Static response of MDOF system is then multiplied with the
spectral ordinate obtained from dynamic analysis of SDOF system to get that modal response.
Time History Analysis (Response History Analysis):
Dynamic analysis using the time history analysis calculates the building responses at discrete time steps
using discredited record of synthetic time history as base motion. If three or more time history analyses
are performed, only the maximum responses of the parameter of interest are selected.
Non-linear Static Method:

This can be defined as the procedure in which the structure (taking into account the material nonlinearity)
is pushed till collapse to generate the pushover curve, which is then used to estimate the target
displacement at which the response quantity is extracted from the deformed modal.
Non-linear Dynamic Analysis:
This is the most accurate method to determine the seismic responses of structures. In this method the
structure is subjected to actual ground motion which is the representation of the ground acceleration vs.
time. The ground acceleration is determined at small time step to give the ground motion record.
Then the structure response is calculated at every time instant, to know its time history and the peak value
from this time history is chosen to be the design demand. Hence "a Mathematical model directly
incorporating the nonlinear characteristic of individual component and element of the building shall be
subjected to earthquake shaking represented by ground by ground motion time history to obtain forces
and the displacement"(FEMA 356 & FEMA 273).
Using Staad-Pro:
In the analysis of the building we consider the accidental torsion in Staad-Pro. Staad-Pro uses the Finite
Analysis Method.
CHAPTER 4
PROBLEM STATEMENT
A G+20 and G+24 storied bare RC Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame has plan as shown in fig. is
situated in seismic zone III
A) T-shape Building -
In X-direction-6 Bays of 5m @30m
In Z-direction- 6Bays of 5m @30m
B) L-shape Building
In X-direction - 6 Bays of 5m @30m
In Z-direction – 8 Bays of 5m @40m
Beam size - 0.23m x 0.45m
Column size - 0.23m x 0.45m
Thickness of slab - 150mm
Height of storied – 3m
Plinth height above GL – 1.5m
Unit weight of concrete – 25kN/m3
Live load – 3kN/m3
Grade of concrete – M20
Grade of Steel – Fe415
Fig 4: (a). T-Shape G+20 and G+22 Building without shear wall.
Fig 4: (b). T-Shape G+20 and G+22 Building with shear wall
Fig 4: (c). L-Shape G+20 and G+22 Building
Fig 4: (d). L-Shape G+20 and G+22 Building with architectural relief
CHAPTER 5
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Results:
Table 1: (a) Results of L-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.
Table 1: (b) Results of L-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.
Table 3: (a) Results of T-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.
Table 3: (b) Results of T-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.
Discussions:
1) Architectural Relief or Shear Wall increases the seismic weight of the building thus increasing
the Base Shear values.
2) The torsional moment in L- Shape building decreases using architectural relief by 37% from
results tabulated in table 1(b) and 2(b).
3) The torsional moment in T- Shape G+20 storied building decreases using shear wall by 12.45%
from results tabulated in table 3(b).
4) The torsional moment in T- Shape G+22 storied building decreases using shear wall by 6.84%
from results tabulated in table 4(b).
5) As the height of L-shape building increases, there is increases in the base shear by 9.54% from
the results tabulated in table 5(a) and 6(a).
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions are formed after studying T-shape and L-shape Building with variation of height:
1) Increase in height of L-shape building directly increase in relative displacement & stress at re-entrant
corners.
2) Architectural Relief is given for L-Shape building relatively considerable decrease in displacement and
also decrease in stresses at re-entrant corners.
3) Increase in height of T-shape building directly increase in relative displacement and stress will be
developed at re-entrant corner.
4) A T-shape building with shear wall and without shear wall is analyzed and it is observed that nodal
displacement and beam displacement reduced comparatively but stresses at re-entrant corners does not
vary.
5) In T- shape building shear wall must be provided at re-entrant corners only.
6) Architectural Relief is the better solution on the re-entrant corner on which maximum earthquake
damage is done.
7) The torsional moment in symmetrical building is very less as compared with unsymmetrical building.
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
1) Maramaee Soleiman (2011) “The Effects Of Torsion On Steel Structures Under Seismic Analysis”
Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.10 (6), 764-767.
2) Bensalah M. D., Bensaibi M., Modaressi A. (2012) “Assessment of The Torsion Effect In Asymmetric
Buildings Under Seismic Load” 15 WCEE, LISBOA.
3) Gupta V. N & Pajgade P. S. (2013) “Torsional Behavior of Asymmetrical Building” International
Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER), Vol.3 (2), 1146-1149.
4) Wakchaure M. R., Nagare Y.U. (2013) “Effect Of Torsion Consideration In Analysis Of Multi Storey
Frame”, International Journal of Engineering Research and Application (IJERA) Vol.3, Issue 4, Jul-Aug
2013, pp.1828-1832.
5) Dhiman Basu, Michael C. Constantious, Andrew S. Whittaker (2014) “An Equivalent Accidental
Eccentricity to Account for the Effect of Torsional Ground Motion On structures.” ELSEVIER-
Engineering structures 69 (2014)1-11.
6) Suryawanshi S. N, Kadam S. B., Tande S. N. (2014), “Torsional Behavior of Asymmetrical Buildings
in Plan under Seismic Forces”, International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and Technology,
Vol.2 (4), PP 170-176.
7) Sandhya R. Ghuse, Mayur K. Ghumde, (2016) “Study of Torsional Effect under Seismic Condition on
Building with Irregularities”, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET),
Vol. 3 (12), 768-774.
8) Ebrahim Nazarimofrad, Seyed Mehdi Zahrai (2016) “A Seismic Control Of Irregular Multistory
Buildings Using Active Tendons Considering Soil-Structure Interaction Effect.” ELSEVIER- Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 89(2016) 100-115.
9) Moulshree Tripathi, Mary Williams P., Dr. R. K. Tripathi (2016) “Behavior of Tall Structure With
Eccentric Loading”, International Journal of Research in Chemical, Metallurgical and Civil Engineering
(IJRCMCE) Vol. 3, Issue 2.
10) Subodh S. Patil, Ajim G. Mujawar, Pritam A. Mali and Murugesh R. Katti (2017) “A Study Of
Torsional Effect On Multi-storied Building With Plan Irregularity.” International journal of advanced
research (IJAR).

Seismic Torsion in Irregular Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seismic Torsion in Irregular Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torsional Effects Due To Seismic Forces On Multistoried Buildings With Plan Irregularity

Figure 1.1 Generation of Torsional Moment in Asymmetric Structures

2.3 Gupta V. N. & Pajgade P. S. (2013) “Torsional Behavior of Asymmetrical Building”,

2.6 Suryawanshi S. N, Kadam.S.B, Tande.S.N. (2014), “Torsional Behavior of Asymmetrical

b) Asymmetric G+3 and G+6 (L shape)

Fig. 3.2: Examples of Building with Plan Irregularities

c) By providing Architectural Relief.

Fig. 3.3: Classification of Irregularities

Fig. 3.4 (a): Torsional Irregularity

Fig. 3.4 (b): Re-entrant Corners

Fig. 3.4 (c): Out-Of-Plane Offsets

Fig. 3.4 (d): Non-Parallel Systems

Fig. 3.4 (e): Stiffness Irregularity (Soft Storey)

Fig. 3.4 (f): Mass Irregularity

Fig. 3.4 (g): Vertical Geometric Irregularity

Fig. 3.4 (h): In-plane Discontinuity

Fig. 3.4 (i): Weak Storey

Fig. 3.5: Methods of seismic analysis

Linear static method:

Non-linear Static Method:

Fig 4: (c). L-Shape G+20 and G+22 Building

Table 1: (b) Results of L-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 2: (a) Results of L-Shape, G+22 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 2: (b) Results of L-Shape, G+22 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 3: (a) Results of T-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 3: (b) Results of T-Shape, G+20 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 4: (a) Results of T-Shape, G+22 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 4: (b) Results of T-Shape, G+22 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 5: (a) Results of L-Shape, G+24 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 5: (b) Results of L-Shape, G+24 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 6: (a) Results of T-Shape, G+24 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

Table 6: (b) Results of T-Shape, G+24 storied building by using STADD-Pro.

5) In T- shape building shear wall must be provided at re-entrant corners only.

You might also like