Determination of structural irregularity limits

Mass irregularity example

  • Vinod K. Sadashiva University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
  • Gregory A. MacRae University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3011-5146
  • Bruce L. Deam University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract

Structures may be irregular due to non-uniform distributions of mass, stiffness, strength or due to their structural form. For regular structures, simple analysis techniques such as the Equivalent Static Method, have been calibrated against advanced analysis methods, such as the Inelastic Dynamic Time-History Analysis. Most worldwide codes allow simple analysis techniques to be used only for structures which satisfy regularity limits. Currently, such limits are based on engineering judgement and lack proper calibration. This paper describes a simple and efficient method for quantifying irregularity limits. The method is illustrated on 3, 5, 9 and 15 storey models of shear-type structures, assumed to be located in Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland. They were designed in accordance with the Equivalent Static Method of NZS 1170.5. Regular structures were defined to have constant mass at every floor level and were either designed to produce constant interstorey drift ratio at all the floors simultaneously or to have a uniform stiffness distribution over their height. Design structural ductility factors of 1, 2, 4 and 6, and target (design) interstorey drift ratios ranging between 0.5% and 3% were used in this study. Inelastic dynamic time-history analysis was carried out by subjecting these structures to a suite of code design level earthquake records. Irregular structures were created with floor masses of magnitude 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 5 times the regular floor mass. These increased masses were considered separately at the first floor level, mid-height and at the roof. The irregular structures were designed for the same drifts as the regular structures.

The effect of increased mass at the top or bottom of the structure tended to increase the median peak drift demands compared to regular structures for the record suite considered. When the increased mass was present at the mid-height, the structures generally tended to produce lesser drift demands than the corresponding regular structures. A simple equation was developed to estimate the increase in interstorey drift due to mass irregularity. This can be used to set irregularity limits.

References

Al-Ali, A. A. K. and Krawinkler, H. (1998) “Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic behaviour of building structures”. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, San Francisco. Report No. 130.

Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S. (2005) “Performance of asymmetric single story buildings based on different configuration of center of mass, rigidity and resistance”. Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures, CD ROM, Thessaloniki.

Baker, J. W. (2007) “Measuring bias in structural response caused by ground motion scaling”. 8th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Singapore. Paper No. 56, CD ROM proceedings.

Carr, A. J. (2004) “Ruaumoko 2D – Inelastic dynamic analysis”. Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

Chintanapakdee, C. and Chopra, A. K. (2004) “Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: Response history and modal pushover analyses”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 130 (8): 1177-1185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:8(1177)

Chopra, A. K. and Goel, G. K. (2004) “A modal push over analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 33: 903-927. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380

Cornell, C. A., Fatemeh, J. F., Hamburger, R. O. and Foutch, D. A. (2002) “Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC FEMA steel moment frame guidelines”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 128 (4): 526-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)

Crisp, D. J. (1980) “Damping models for inelastic structures”. Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

Cruz, E. F. and Chopra, A. K. (1986) “Elastic earthquake response of building frames”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 112 (3): 443-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:3(443)

Fajfar, P. Marusic, D. and Perus, I. (2006) “The N2 method for ssymmetric buildings”. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (Geneva, Switzerland), September 3-8.

MacRae, G. A., Kimura, Y. and Roeder, C. W. (2004) “Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behaviour”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 130 (3): 381-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(381)

Michalis, F., Vamvatsikos, D. and Monolis, P. (2006) “Evaluation of the influence of vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of a nine-storey steel frame”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 35: 1489-1509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.591

Otani, S. (1981) “Hysteretic models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analysis”. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo. XXXVI (2): 407-441.

Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M. and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007) “Displacement-based seismic design of structures”. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 721pp.

Sadashiva, V. K. (2010) “Evaluation of seismic response of irregular structures”. Ph.D. Thesis (to be published), Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.

SNZ. (2004) “NZS 1170.5 Supp 1:2004, Structural Design Actions. Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand – commentary”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

SEAOC. (1999) “Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary”. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California. Seventh Edition.

Tagawa, H., MacRae, G., Lowes, L. (2004) “Evaluations of 1D simple structural models for 2D steel frame structures”. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering; Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Tagawa, H. (2005) “Towards an understanding of 3D structural behaviour - Stability & Reliability”. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

Tagawa, H., MacRae, G. A. and Lowes, L. N. (2006) “Evaluation of simplification of 2D moment frame to 1D MDOF coupled shear-flexural-beam model”. Journal of Structural & Constructional Engineering. (Transactions of AIG), No. 609.

Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. (2005) “Seismic performance of concentrically braced steel frames in multistory buildings with mass irregularity”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 131 (9): 1363-1375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:9(1363)

Valmundsson, E. V. and Nau, J. M. (1997) “Seismic response of building frames with vertical structural irregularities”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 123 (1): 30-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:1(30)

Published
2009-12-31
How to Cite
Sadashiva, V. K., MacRae, G. A., & Deam, B. L. (2009). Determination of structural irregularity limits. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(4), 288-301. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.42.4.288-301
Section
Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>