Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Parametric analysis of irregular structures under seismic loading

according to the new Turkish Earthquake Code
Semih S. Tezcan *, Cenk Alhan
Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Bebek, 80815 Istanbul, Turkey

Received 12 August 1999; received in revised form 5 July 2000; accepted 20 July 2000

Abstract

In order to investigate the effects of torsion on moment and shear values of vertical structural elements, a typical model building
has been selected. Torsional irregularity has been created in the building by changing the location of the shear walls. Three cases
of different centers of rigidity for 1, 5, and 10-story buildings have been considered. Each case has been analyzed by both the
methods of equivalent earthquake loading and dynamic analysis, and the results compared. In order to investigate the effects of
nonorthogonality on the distribution of moments and shears of the vertical structural elements, a 5-story building has been studied
with one nonorthogonal and two orthogonal shear walls. Three cases of different orientations of the nonorthogonal wall have been
considered. Each case has been analyzed for five different directions of earthquake.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquake design; Irregularity; Seismic codes; Torsional effects; Irregular structures

1. Introduction lowing statements exist regarding the irregularities in

1.1. Architectural considerations
There is a strong relationship between the architec-
tural design of a building and its earthquake safety. The
dimensions of height and plan, the type and distribution
of partition walls, the selection of the structural system,
distribution of mass and rigidities of a building affect the
earthquake safety significantly. Because of these facts,
architects are advised to design regular and symmetric
structures [1]. When collapsed or severely damaged
buildings are investigated, it is seen that the causes of
damage are directly or indirectly related to the irregu-
larities developed during the architectural design. The
interesting point is that there is no restriction to these
irregularities in the earthquake codes although it is
known that they are the main causes of severe damage.
There is no clear-cut restriction to any of the irregu-
larities in the new Earthquake Code of Turkey (ECT)
1998 [2]. There are, however, only clear warnings and
discouraging rules against these irregularities. The fol-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-212-287-0008; fax: +90-212-
287-0009.
buildings in the ECT:
Because of the adverse effects in the response of
buildings to earthquakes, design and construction of
buildings that have any of the irregularities defined in
this code should be avoided. (Article 6.3. 1).
1.2. Types of irregularities
There are various types of irregularities that should be
avoided during the preliminary architectural design
stage. Irregularities may exist in configuration of the
building, in differences between the story heights, in dis-
tribution of masses and rigidities, in creating short col-
umns, in providing the possibility for hammering, and
also in nonorthogonal placement of columns and shear
walls. As can be seen from Table 1, most of the above-
mentioned irregularities are well defined in the ECT, but
the others are missing and no provisions exist for them.
A common requirement in seismic design of irregular
buildings in the earthquake codes [3] is that the design
forces should be determined considering the dynamic
characteristics of the building. In some cases, the ECT
also dictates the use of dynamic analysis instead of the

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 4 - 5
 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609
Table 1
Types of irregularities
No. In plan
1 A1a Torsional eccentricity
2 A2a Slab openings
3 A3a Projections in plan
4 A4a Nonorthogonal elements
5 A5 Symmetric but unequal distribution of columns B5
6 A6 Asymmetry in plan
7 B7
8 B8
9 B9
a
Irregularity defined in the ECT 1998 [2].
equivalent earthquake loading method. Recently, several
parametric studies have been carried out to compare
these different seismic analysis methods [4–7]. In this
presentation, parametric studies have been carried out
only for the torsional and nonorthogonal types of irregu-
larities.
1.3. Torsional irregularity
For torsional irregularity, there is an “irregularity
coefficient, hb” defined in the ECT. It is the ratio of
⌬max=the maximum relative story displacement of the
story in question to ⌬ave=the average relative story dis-
placement of that story for any one of the earthquake
directions, which are orthogonal to each other. In case
hb=(⌬max/⌬ave)⬎1.2, a torsional irregularity is said to
exist. In such a case, the accidental eccentricity ±5% to
be applied to the structure is increased by multiplying it
by a factor D=(hb/1.2)2. For structures with hb⬎2.0, the
design should be repeated by reducing the degree of
eccentricity.
For structures where torsional irregularity exists, there
are some restrictions against the utilization of the equiv-
alent earthquake loading (EEL) method. In general, the
dynamic analysis is peferred as a safe method and the
utilization of the EEL method is limited especially for
torsionally irregular structures. In this study, three differ-
ent types of structures with different hb values have been
analyzed by using both the dynamic analysis and the
EEL methods, for 1-, 5- and 10-story buildings.
1.4. The design eccentricity
Most building codes require that the lateral earthquake
force at each floor level of an unsymmetrical building
be applied eccentrically relative to the center of mass.
The design eccentricity, ed, specified in most seismic
codes is of the form:
ed⫽aes⫹gA
ed⫽des⫺gA
601
In elevation
B1a Soft story (by Area Criterion)
B2a Soft story (by Deflection Criterion)
B3a Discontinuity of columns
B4 Hammering
Setbacks
B6 Asymmetric mass
Short columns
Unequal story heights
Weak columns — strong slab
where A=plan dimension of the building perpendicular
to the direction of ground motion; and a, d, g=specified
coefficients. The first part is termed dynamic eccentricity
and is a function of eccentricity es, the real distance
between the centers of mass and stiffness. This dynamic
eccentricity takes into account the differences in stiffness
and mass distributions of the building in plan, and also
makes some allowance for the dynamic effect of tor-
sional response. The second part, commonly referred to
as the accidental eccentricity, accounts for other factors
such as torsional ground motion, and the differences
between actual and computed eccentricities [8,9]. There
are several recent studies which compare different Code
Provisions on torsionally unbalanced structures. Chand-
ler et al. [10] have compared the response of systems
designed according to several seismic codes. Wong and
Tso [11] have presented a comparison of UBC88 with
the older one for bidirectionally excited systems having
a natural period of 0.5 s. Different constants are used in
different Codes in determining the design eccentricity.
For example, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the
Applied Technology Council (ATC-3) provisions spec-
ify g=0.05 and a=d=1, with a=1 implying no dynamic
amplification of torsional response. The Mexico Federal
District Code (MFDC) however, specifies g=0.1, a=1.5,
and d=1 which implies dynamic amplification. The
National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) specifies
g=0.1, a=1.5, and d=0.5. The ECT defines the design
eccentricity in a much simpler form where a=d=1, and
g=0.05. This shows that the ECT does not take the
dynamic amplification of torsional response into
account.
1.5. Nonorthogonality
Nonorthogonal irregularity exists, if the principal axes
of moments of inertias of one or more of the vertical
load-resisting elements are not parallel to the major
orthogonal axes of the lateral load-resisting system.
(1)
In this study, a 5-story building with three shear walls
(2) one of which is nonorthogonal and the other two are
602 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609
orthogonal, has been selected. The orientation of the
nonorthogonal shear wall is changed by changing the
angle b between the principal axis of the shear wall and
the orthogonal Y-direction. The angle b is selected as
30°, 45° and 60°. For every b-value, the direction of the
earthquake is assumed to be in five different directions,
(1) parallel to the main principal axis of the shear wall,
(2) 15° right to the main principal axis of the shear wa1l,
(3) 15° left to the main principal axis of the shear wall,
(4) parallel to the X-axis and lastly (5) parallel to the Y-
axis of the structural system.
1.6. Calculations for nonorthogonal elements
For any inclined column or shear wall the internal
force Ba that is to be used in design, is the greater of
the values obtained by the following equations:
Ba⫽⫾Bax⫾0.3Bay
Ba⫽⫾0.3Bax⫾Bay
where, Bax, Bay=internal forces along the principle axis
a–a obtained by a seismic analysis in the x and y-direc-
tions, respectively. Ba=total (increased) internal force
along the principal axis a–a. Certainly, the same calcu-
lations are to be made in order to obtain the internal
forces of the member along its other principal axis b–b.
2. Case study for nonorthogonality
2.1. Structural data
The example building is an ordinary 5-story building
with a floor plan as shown in Fig. 1. This case study is
Fig. 1. A typical floor plan (nonorthogonal structure).
split into two parts as (A) orthogonal shear walls
included and (B) orthogonal shear walls excluded. In
both cases, three different types of structures have been
obtained by changing the b angle, which defines the non-
orthogonal wall direction with respect to the Y-axis. The
shear wall has been placed such that it would make
b=30°, 45° and 60° with respect to the vertical Y-axis,
measured in the counterclockwise direction. In every
type, dimensions of the beams and columns have been
kept constant. But as an exception, as the orientation of
the nonorthogonal shear wall with respect to the Y axis
has been changed, the length of the vertical shear wall
along the Y-direction on the right hand side has also been
varied to 4.33 m, 3.54 m and 2.50 m.
The direction of the earthquake is characterized by the
angle a, which is measured counterclockwise from the
positive sense of the X-axis. The a-angle is varied to be
a=0°, a=90° and also to be at 0°±15° with respect to
(3)
the strong axis of the nonorthogonal wall. The floor plan
(4) is identical in all storys. The thickness of the slab is 20
cm and the thicknesses of the shear walls are 30 cm.
The beams have been selected to be 80 cm×30 cm, and
have been modeled as T-beams with 120 cm flange
widths for the interior parts, and as L-beams with 60 cm
flange widths for the exterior parts. The internal forces
of nonorthogonal elements have been calculated firstly
by performing a seismic analysis in each direction of
their main principal axes and secondly by using the
empirical expressions given in Eqs. (3) and (4). Struc-
tural parameters of various cases are given in Table 2.
2.2. Mathematical modeling and computational details
In order to obtain the internal forces and the base
shear, a dynamic analysis has been performed by means
 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609
Table 2
Structural parameters for nonorthogonal cases
Case Dimensions
a (m) b (m) c (m)
Case 1 2.50 3.50 1.67
Case 2 3.54 2.46 2.46
Case 3 4.33 1.67 3.50
of the SAP-90 package program [12]. A three dimen-
sional mathematical model has been used. The mass of
every floor has been assigned to the master joint of the
corresponding floor. The slabs have been assumed to be
infinitely rigid. The structural behavior factor has been
assumed to be R=8 corresponding to a perfect ductility
in both the frame system and shear walls. The effective
ground acceleration A0 has been taken as 0.4 since the
building is assumed to be in the first degree earthquake
zone. Soil type has been selected to be very strong as
defined in Z1 type soil. The importance factor is taken
as I=1.
2.3. Evaluation of results
For both part A and part B, three different cases for
each structure have been analyzed by changing the orien-
tation of the nonorthogonal wall. Five different earth-
quake directions have been considered for every type of
structure. Base shear of the structure, the internal shear
and moment values of the inclined wall of a selected
column, and of the vertical wall along the Y-direction
have been calculated by both the computer analysis and
also by utilizing Eqs. (3) and (4) for each different case.
In order to be able to discuss the validity of the empirical
technique a comparison ratio r is defined by:
r⫽Aa/A0
where, Aa=internal force calculated by the computer for
the earthquake acting in direction a, and A0=internal
force calculated by the computer for the earthquake act-
ing along the strong axis of the element in question, for
which the r-values are unity (the basic direction). In the
figures which will follow the r-values are typed in bold
characters. The values appearing beneath the r-values are
the computed moments and shears for the element con-
cerned along its strong axis. For reasons of space limi-
tations, only the results of Part B are discussed herein.
A complete discussion is available elsewhere [13].
2.4. Nonorthogonal case with no additional walls
The results are illustrated in a comparative fashion in
Figs. 2 and 3 for b=30° and b=45° angles.
For β=30° the moment and shear values of the
603
b (°) a
d (m) a(1) (°) a(2) (°) a(3) (°) a(4) (°) a(5) (°)
4.33 30 0 90 105 120 135
3.54 45 0 90 120 135 150
2.50 60 0 90 135 150 165
inclined wall computed by the empirical formula are
exactly the same as those of the analytical results of the
basic earthquake direction. For other earthquake direc-
tions however, the empirical values range from 0.62 to
1.0 times the analytical values of the basic direction.
For β=45° the moment and shear values of the
inclined wall obtained by the empirical formula are 0.95
times the actual values. The values for other earthquake
directions however, range from 0.71 to 0.97 times the
actual values.
2.5. Discussion of results
The ratio r has been observed to be very close to each
other either for the moment or for the shear values in
every case study. The numerical studies indicate that the
empirical formulation gives satisfactory results for the
nonorthogonal element. The empirical equations work
especially well when there are no additional orthogonal
shear walls. In Part A, when b=30° the empirical formula
gives 1.20 times the actual values of moments and
shears. For b=45°, r=1.23. These are quite logical results
and they are greater than the actual values by about 20%,
nevertheless on the safe side.
In Part B, the r values for the empirical formula are
very close to unity, indicating that the empirical formula
gives nearly the same results as the actual values
(5)
obtained by the computer analyses corresponding to the
earthquake acting in the basic direction.
In the ECT, the internal force values of the orthogonal
vertical elements in a structural system, whether it be a
column or a shear wall, are not required to be calculated
according to the empirical formula even if some nonor-
thogonal elements may exist in the structural system. To
take the greater of the values obtained by the seismic
analyses in the main orthogonal X and Y-axes is suf-
ficient.
3. Case study for torsional irregularity
3.1. Structural data
The example consists of four shear walls located along
the Y-direction. The total number of storys has been
604 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609

Fig. 2. Nonorthogonal case without additional walls, b=30° (Shears and Moments, Element No. 1).

selected to be N=1, N=5 and N=10. The cross-sections of
columns and shear walls have been varied for different
numbers of storys while the beam dimensions are kept
constant as shown in Fig. 4. In order to compare the
internal forces, some of the vertical structural elements
have been selected and they are numbered as l25, l28,
141, 148, and 162. The thickness of the slab is 25 cm.
The beam cross-sections have been assumed as T-shape
for the interior beams with a flange width of 150 cm and
L-shape for the exterior beams with a flange width of
75 cm. The locations of shear walls have been shifted
in order to create three different cases of eccentricity as
shown in Fig. 5.
3.2. Mathematical modeling and computational details
The internal forces have been calculated by both the
EEL and dynamic analysis methods. Analyses have been
made with the aid of SAP-90 [12] package program
using a three-dimensional mathematical model. The
structural behavior factor has been selected as R=8, cor-
responding to a perfect ductility in both the frame system
and the shear walls. The structure has been assumed to
be in the first-degree earthquake zone, thus Ao=0.4, for
all buildings. Soil type has been selected as Z1 and the
importance factor as I=1.
The earthquake forces have been applied to the master
 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609 605

Fig. 3. Nonorthogonal case without additional walls, b=45° (Shears and Moments, Element No. 1).

joints at every floor with an accidental eccentricity of ex⫽⌺XIx/⌺Ix (6)

5% even if the existing eccentricity of the structure was
ey⫽⌺YIy/⌺Iy (7)
zero. An average value for h has been calculated for
each building and in case have was greater than 1.2, the where X and Y=the distance between the center of the
accidental eccentricities have been multiplied by a fac- vertical structural element to the axis passing through the
tor D=(have/l.2)2. mass center, Ix and Iy=moment of inertias of the vertical
The masses and rotational mass moments of inertias structural elements about the x and y-axes, respectively.
of every floor have been calculated and have been In our case, the structure is kept symmetrical about the
assigned to the master joints. The master joints have x-axis so ey=0. In order to calculate the total eccentricity,
been defined at the mass centers of every floor. In order the increased accidental eccentricity is added to the
to apply 5% accidental eccentricity, the mass center has existing eccentricity by,
been shifted by 5% of the maximum length of the build-
etotal,x⫽(eo,x)D⫹ex (8)
ing in the X-direction. The existing eccentricities have
2
been calculated by D⫽(h/1.2) (9)
606 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609
Fig. 4. A typical floor plan and node labeling.
where ex=existing eccentricity in the x-direction, eo,x=ac-
cidental eccentricity of 5%, h=torsional irregularity con-
stant defined earlier. The results are summarized in
Table 3.
3.3. Torsional irregularity constant, h
It is observed that the lower limit h=1.2 is very small
and has to be increased because this value is reached
easily even in the totally symmetrical case, when only
the accidental eccentricity is applied. For most numerical
cases the have value is of the order 1.4, for even totally
symmetrical cases where only the accidental eccentricity
is considered.
It is also observed that the upper limit h=2.0 is very
high since it cannot be reached easily in most practical
cases. Even in the most severe case of a 1-story building,
the h value was always less than 2.0. The building used
in this case in fact may never be designed in practice,
since no one would place four shear walls on one side
of a 1-story building. The maximum value was have=1.7
in the most severe case of a 10-story building. It
increases as the number of storys decreases, and was
determined to be have=2.1 for a 1-story building. If we
discard the values for a 1-story building, as such a build-
ing plan would not be used in practical cases, the
maximum values in 5 and 10-story buildings have been
of the order of have=1.7 to 1.8. When all parameters are
taken into account, the limits for h are proposed to be
1.40ⱕh⬍1.80.
3.4. Flexible side column no. 125
In all cases of eccentricity, EEL has given on the order
of 20–30% greater results than the dynamic analysis for
5 and 10-story buildings. In a 1-story building however,
a small deviation from the general trend has been
observed and dynamic analysis has given slightly greater
results than EEL in the symmetrical case. Variations of
bending moments for this element are illustrated in Figs.
6 and 7.
It is seen that the bending moments increase within a
small portion of the height, normally from the bottom
of the building up to the 2nd story, and continuously
decrease from the 2nd towards the upper storys. The dis-
tributions have proved to be very similar, in fact the
same for 5 and 10-story buildings. The lower moments
obtained at the bottom may be explained by the interac-
tion between the shear walls and columns.
As the eccentricity increases, the torsional effects on
the building increase and there is an additional internal
force created in the elements located in the flexible-side
of the building. It is also observed that the bending
moments and shears of the columns located in the weak-
side of the building gradually tend to become larger as
the eccentricity increases.
It has been found that for the elements on the flexible
side, the internal forces increase with an increase of
design eccentricity, ed. Therefore, the relatively higher
a values given in Eq. (1) lead to a similar increase in
the internal forces of elements. This increase becomes
more significant for elements located at the flexible side
 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609 607

3.5. Stiff side column no. 148

For almost all cases of eccentricity, the dynamic

analysis results are greater than those of the EEL
methods as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. This indicates that
for columns located at the stiff side of the building, the
dynamic analysis is more unfavorable. The bending
moments of case 1 are greater than those of case 2 and
case 3. The lowest moments are in case 3. Towards the
upper storys however, all cases converge to the same
value at the top storys of the 5 and 10-story buildings.
This is an expected behavior as this column is located
at the stiff side of the building. Increased eccentricity
causes lower values of moments and shears in this col-
umn. It has been determined that for the elements located
at the stiff side, the internal forces decrease as the design
eccentricity, ed, increases. Therefore, a relatively lower
d value given in Eq. (2) leads to much safer internal
forces for elements on the stiff side.

3.6. A real example for the failure of a building due

to torsional irregularity

After the 17 August 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake of

Fig. 5. Three cases of torsional eccentricities.
of the building. It is observed that the flexible edge dis-
placement may be up to two or three times that of the
symmetrical structure, which in return causes the internal
forces of the elements on the flexible side to be two or
three times greater than those of the symmetrical struc-
ture.
Ms=7.4, the structure shown in Fig. 10 which is located
in Duzce, was moderately damaged. The building’s
owners decided to repair the structure. However, due to
financial problems, only the Bank corner of the building,
as seen in the foreground of Fig. 10, was repaired with
column jacketings. As a result, the strengthened corner
became more stiff than the other portion of the plan of
the building. However, two months after its strengthen-
ing, the structure was subjected to the 12 November
1999 Duzce Earthquake of Ms=7.2. As can be seen in
Fig. 10, due to the torsional irregularity created by the
partial strengthening of the structure, the flexible part
was displaced much more than the stiff blue Bank cor-
ner. As a result the structure was severeley distorted
and damaged.

Table 3
Eccentricities, meters

Eccentricity Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

1 story 5 story 10 story 1 story 5 story 10 story 1 story 5 story 10 story

A 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00

eo=0.05A 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
e1=⌺xIx/⌺Ix 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.82 5.17 5.17 8.73 7.75 7.75
h=⌬max/⌬ave 1.32 1.39 1.42 2.17 1.80 1.65 2.06 1.81 1.66
D=(h/1.2)2 1.22 1.35 1.41 3.28 2.26 1.89 2.94 2.28 1.91
etotal=eoD+e1 1.28 1.41 1.48 9.27 7.54 7.16 11.82 10.14 9.76
608 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609

Fig. 6. Distribution of moments, 5-story building (Element No. 125).

Fig. 7. Distribution of moments, 10-story building (Element No. 125).

Fig. 8. Distribution of moments, 5-story building (Element No. 148).

Fig. 9. Distribution of moments, 10-story building (Element No. 148).

 S.S. Tezcan, C. Alhan / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 600–609
Fig. 10. A real example of torsional damage from Duzce Earthquake.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
Based on the parametric studies performed on nonor-
thogonal and torsionally irregular structures, some con-
clusions may be stated as follows:
1. The empirical formula of the ECT is sufficiently safe
and efficient in the calculation of internal forces of
nonorthogonal vertical structural members. It gives
around 10–20% greater values than the actual values,
when there are some additional orthogonal walls. The
formula works better when there are no orthogonal
walls.
2. The lower limit h=1.20, prescribed in the ECT for the
torsional irregularity constant is an indication for the
existence of torsional irregularity in a structure. This
limit has been determined to be too low. Based on
the limited number of parametric studies conducted,
it is proposed that the lower limit should be increased
to h=1.4.
3. The upper limit h=2.0 is an indication to modify the
structural plan. Based on the limited number of para-
metric studies conducted, and also considering the
safety precautions against excessive torsional eccen-
tricities, it is proposed that the upper limit should be
decreased to h=1.8.
4. The accidental eccentricity is always additive to the
flexible-side resisting elements leading to larger
design forces, and subtractive for the stiff-side
elements resulting in smaller design forces. Therefore,
in order to ensure an added and inherent safety for
the flexible side elements, it is proposed that the cal-
609
culated eccentricity should be increased by at least
50% before being combined with the 5% accidental
eccentricity.
5. Similarly, in order to prevent an undue reduction in
the internal forces of the columns located at the stiff-
side, the calculated eccentricity should be reduced by
at least 50% before the 5% accidental eccentricity is
subtracted. The maximum and minimum final eccen-
tricities are therefore recommended to be:
emax⫽l.5es⫹0.05A
emin⫽0.5es⫺0.05A.
References
[1] Tezcan S. Depreme dayanıklı tasarım İçin bir mimarın seyir
defteri. Istanbul: Türkiye Deprem Vakfı Yayınları, İTÜ İnşaat
Fakültesi, Ayazaǧa, 1998 [TDV 1 KT 98-024].
[2] Anonymous. Specification for structures to be built in disaster
areas. Turkey: Ministry of Public Works and Settlement Govern-
ment of Republic of Turkey, 1998 [issued on 2.9.1997, Official
Gazette No.23 098, effective from 1.1.1998].
[3] Anonymous. Uniform building code. 5360 Workman Mill Rd,
Whittier, CA 90601, USA: International Conference of Building
Officials, 1997.
[4] Moehle JP, Alarcon LF. Seismic analysis methods for irregular
buildings. J Struct Eng 1986;112(Paper No. 20,289):35–52.
[5] Tso WK, Rutenberg A. Seismic spectral response analysis of
coupled shear walls. J Struct Div, Proc ASCE 1977;103:181–96.
[6] Chandler AM, Huntchinson GL. Evaluation of code torsinal pro-
visions by a time history approach. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn
1987;15:491–516.
[7] Özmen G, Pala S, Gülay G, Orakdiken E. Effect of structural
irregularities to earthquake analysis of multi-story structures.
TDV 1 TR 027-28., 1998.
[8] Tso WK, Dempsey KM. Seismic torsional provisions for dynamic
eccentricity. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1980;8:275–89.
[9] Zhu TS, Tso WK. Design of torsionally unbalanced structural
systems, based on code provisions II: strength distribution. Earth-
quake Eng Struct Dyn 1992;21:629–44.
[10] Chandler AM, Correnza JC, Hutchinson GL. Period-dependent
effects in seismic torsional response of code systems. J Struct
Eng, ASCE 1994;120:3418–34.
[11] Wong CM, Tso WK. Evaluation of seismic torsional provisions
in uniform building. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1995;121:1436–42.
[12] Habibullah A, Wilson EL. SAP90 Structural analysis user’s man-
ual, Computers and Structures Inc., 1995 University Avenue,
Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992.
[13] Alhan C. Behaviour of irregular structures under earthquake load-
ing, Master Thesis. Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey: Department of Civil
Engineering, Bogazici University.