Real and Fictitious Elastic Axes of Multi-Storey Buildings: Theory

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Build. 7, 3355 (1998)
REAL AND FICTITIOUS ELASTIC AXES OF MULTI-STOREY

BUILDINGS: THEORY
T. MAKARIOS AND K. ANASTASSIADIS*
Division of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, P.O. Box 417,
54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
SUMMARY
The application of the equivalent static method for the seismic design of asymmetric buildings presupposes the
existence of an elastic axisthe geometrical locus of the elastic centres of the floorsso as to identify the
eccentricity of the seismic loads. But, while in single-storey buildings the elastic centre is always defined and has
determined static properties, in multi-storey buildings the said properties are not, in general, identified and the
definition of the elastic axis is, in general, impossible. In this paper, which is the first of two companion papers, we
first proceed to the analysis of the cases of existence or non-existence of an elastic axis and of buildings principal
bending planes, according to research data of the last ten years. Following this stage, and based on the buildings
optimum torsion criterion, a fictitious elastic axis is defined for every case of a regular-in-elevation building.
This axis may play the same role as the real elastic axis during the application of the equivalent static method.
1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTION
The notion of the elastic axis occupies a predominant place in the framework of the equivalent static
method for the seismic analysis of regular multistorey buildings according to building codes. The
application of these methods presupposes the existence of two vertical perpendicular principal
bending planes, i.e. of two planes within which the horizontal external loading causes the coplanar
displacement of the system. The intersection of the said planesif they do existconstitutes the
elastic axis of the system as it simultaneously possesses the properties of the bending, shear and
twisting (or torsion) axes.
Related to the elastic axis are two simple geometrical quantities that are extremely useful in the
qualitative and quantitative estimation of the torsional behaviour of buildings: the structural or static
eccentricity, e0, and the torsional radius, .
The former is equal to the distance between the centre of gravity of the floors and the elastic axis and
constitutes a measure of the systems degree of asymmetry. The latter represents the lever arm, with
respect to the elastic axis, of the elastic forces during the torsional loading of the system. This is
calculated by the relation 2 = Kz/K, where Kz is the torsional stiffness about the systems elastic axis
and K is the translational stiffness within the respective bending plane.
* Correspondence to: K. Anastassiadis, Division of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, P.O.Box 417, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
Dr, Civil Engineer
Professor
CCC 10628002/98/01003323 $17.50

Received November 1996

Revised May 1997
34
T. MAKARIOS AND K. ANASTASSIADIS
Figure 1. Equivalent static eccentricities
According to some seismic codes, in order to classify a building as either a regular or a medium
regularity building, it is required, among other conditions, that the structural eccentricity, e0 is less
than a small percentage (1520%) of the torsional radius (see, for example, Eurocode No.8/89).
Moreover, the magnitude of the torsional radius, in comparison to the magnitude of the radius of
inertia, r, allows for the preassessment of the importance of the torsional vibrations about a vertical
axis. Thus, for 2 e02 > r2, the fundamental mode of vibration will have a predominantly translational character and the effect of the torsion will be small; on the contrary, for 2 e02 < r2 the
fundamental mode of vibration will have a predominantly torsional character and the effect of torsion
may be substantial. These phenomena are taken into consideration by numerous seismic codes with the
help of the equivalent static eccentricities, i.e. through the appropriate amplification of the seismic
forces static eccentricity e0 (see, for example, Eurocode No. 8, N.B.C.C. 95). More precisely, based
on the dynamic seismic response of a single-storey and mono-symmetric model, the design eccentricities are calculated by the following equations (Figure 1):
max e ef ea ;
min e er ea
la;b
where ea is the accidental eccentricity (the effects of soil differential movements, property dispersions,
etc.) and
ef e 0 ;
er e0
are the equivalent static eccentricities, through which the dynamic amplification, due to asymmetry,
of the systems static torsional moment is taken into consideration (e.g. a = 150, = 050 according to
the Canadian Code N.B.C.C. 95).
But, whereas the role of the elastic axis is of crucial importance for the application of simplified
static methods, the seismic codes do not, in general, give precise and adequate information on its
detailed definition. This is, nevertheless, natural since, as proved in References 1 and 2, multi-storey
buildings have, in general, neither principal bending planes nor an elastic axis, in which case the basis
of the codes torsional provisions ceases to exist. This impasse has been dealt with up to the present
either semi-empirically (decomposition in single storey systems, use of the centres of gravity of wall
moments of inertia), or by the use of floor rigidity centres3,4, or, finally, by totally avoiding the
calculation of the elastic axis location (e.g. S.E.A.O.C.). Furthermore, in a recent paper5 a static
seismic design methodology was developed based on the concept of the rigidity centre without
requiring the strict calculation of this points location. The authors of the present paper have contested
the adequacy of the use of the rigidity centre as a reference point for the definition of the static
REAL/FICTITIOUS ELASTIC AXES: THEORY
35
eccentricity e0, since this point does not possess the properties of the elastic centre and its use leads to
results that are incompatible with those obtained by the dynamic spectrum analysis of the problem.6
In the present paper, which is based on the thesis of the first of the authors, we present a new
procedure for the complete treatment of the problem through the introduction and substantiation of the
notion of the fictitious elastic axis of multi-storey buildings.7 This fictitious axis is used in the same
way as the real elastic axis and allows for the unimpeded application of the equivalent static method
in every case of regular-in-elevation multi-storey buildings.
2. REAL ELASTIC AXIS

2.1. Assumptionsdefinitions
In the following paragraphs, we consider that the mechanical behaviour of the materials is linearly
elastic, whereas the buildings floors are considered to be rigid within their planes and flexible out of
plane. From the second assumption, it follows that a horizontal force may freely slide along its
direction within the floor plane and that a couple of forces may freely slide along the plan of the floor.
We consider a multi-storey building with two vertical planes of geometrical and mechanical
symmetry. In this building, it is obvious that, for symmetry reasons, the following will apply.
(1) Any system of horizontal forces within one of the two planes of symmetry causes a pure
translation of the floors along the forces direction. This means that the buildings bending takes
place within the plane of external forces and, at any level, the resultant of the internal shear
forces is also found within the same plane.
(2) Any system of couples of forces co-planar to the floors causes the rotation of the latter about the
buildings vertical geometrical axis of symmetry.
The above mentioned obvious observations justify the denomination of the two planes of symmetry
as principal bending planes and of the geometrical symmetry axis as bending/shear or torsional/
twisting axis. For the same reasons, the trace of the geometrical axis in an arbitrary transversal crosssection of the building defines the bending/shear or torsion/twist centre, whereas the traces of the
symmetry planes define the principal directions of the cross-section taken into consideration.
Finally, the above multiple properties are concisely referred to as:
(1) the elastic axis (of the building); and
(2) the elastic centre (of the floor),
Figure 2. Single-storey system

36
which are known from the study of the respective properties of the beams with compact or open thinwall cross-section.
Further to the above, we will investigate in the following two paragraphs the possibility of identifying the above mentioned elastic properties in the general case of asymmetric buildings.
2.2. Single-storey buildings

Single-storey asymmetric buildings always have an elastic centre and principal bending directions,
as has been proven in 1932 by A. Roussopoulos8,9. Indeed, for an arbitrary horizontal loading (Fx, Fy,
Mz), the equation of static equilibrium of the single-storey system with respect to the arbitrary
reference system OXYZ may be written as follows (Figure 2):
2
kxx
4 kyx
kzx
32 3 2 3
kxz
Fx
ux
kyz 54 uy 5 4 Fy 5
kzz
z
Mz
kxy
kyy
kzy
where the stiffness coefficients kij = kji (i, j = x, y, z) are calculated on the basis of the systems
geometrical and mechanical characteristics9,10.
This matrix equation may always take the following diagonal form:
2
4
32
kI
kII
3 2
3
FI
uI
54 uII 5 4 FII 5
kIII
K
Mk
with respect to a special reference system K(I, II, III), which derives from translationrotation of the
initial system and its location is determined from the conditions kI,II = 0, kI,III = 0 and kII,III = 0 with
respect to this special system. Thus, from the two conditions kI,III = 0, kII,III = 0, the coordinates of the
point K are calculated:10
x
kxx kzy kxy kzx

2
kxx kyy kxy
y
(4a)
kyy kzx kyx kzy

2
kxx kyy kxy
(4b)
and from the condition kI,II = 0 the axiss orientation angle is calculated:
tan2 !
2 kxy
kxx kyy
The point K defines the elastic centre and the axes I,II define the principal directions of the singlestorey system. The following properties directly derive from equation (3) (Figure 3).
Property a1. The systems static response is derived as the superposition of two pure bending
states along the I, II directions and one pure torsion state about the point K.
Property b1. Any arbitrary horizontal force passing through the point K causes a floor translation
37
Figure 3. Superposition of two states of bending and of a state of torsion
without rotation (bending centre). The translation takes place along the direction of the force, when
the latter has a I or II direction.
Property c1. Any arbitrary torsional moment about a vertical axis causes rotation of the floor
about the point K (twist or torsion centre).
Moreover and based on the above properties, it is easy to prove that if the floors rotation is
restrained, then for any horizontal force F, the resultant of the internal shear forces applied on the floor
always passes through the point K (shear centre).
Finally, it is noted that all the previous properties are independent of the external load and only
depend on the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of the system.
2.3. Multi-storey buildings
2.3.1. Analytical formulation of the problem. The static equilibrium equation of any N-storey
building with respect to the reference system OXYZ takes the following form:2,11
2
Kxx
4 Kyx
Kzx
Kxy
Kyy
Kzy
32 3 2 3
Kxz
fx
ux
Kyz 54 uy 5 4 f y 5
Kzz
uz
mz
where (Figure 4):

ux, uy, uz are N-dimensional vectors of translations uxi, uyi and rotations zi with respect to the Xi,
Yi and Zi axes, respectively
fx, fy, mz are N-dimensional vectors of forces Fxi, Fyi and moments Mzi with respect to the Xi, Yi
and Zi axes, respectively
Kij(i,j = x,y,z) are N N square matrices.
In order to determine the principal bending planes and the elastic axis it is required that the initial
reference system be translated parallel to itself and twisted in such a way that, in the new reference
system K(I, II, III), equation (6) is transformed to the following canonical form (see Reference 2,
p. 66):
2
4
32
KI
KII
3 2
3
fI
uI
54 uII 5 4 f II 5
KIII
u
m
where (fI, fII, m) and (uI, uII, u) are the N-dimensional load and displacement vectors in the new
reference system and KI, KII, KIII are N N square matrices. If this transformation is possible, then,
38
Figure 4. Multi-storey system
for asymmetric multi-storey systems, the following elastic properties, derived directly from equation
(7) and corresponding to the properties a1, b1 and c1 of single-storey systems, will be valid (Figure 5).
Property a1. The systems static response is derived as the superposition of two states of pure
bending within the planes (I, III), (II, III) and of one state of pure torsion about the axis III.
Property b1. Any system of horizontal forces from axis III causes a translation without rotation
of the floors (bending axis). This translation takes place along the direction of the forces, when
these take the direction I or II.
Figure 5. Superposition of two states of bending and of a state of torsion

39
Property c1. Any system of torsional moments causes rotation of the floors about the axis III
(twist axis).
Moreover and based on the above properties, it is easy to prove that if the rotation of the floors is
restrained, then for any system of horizontal forces, the resultant of the internal shear forces intersects
the axis III (shear axis).
But, for the validity of the relevant transformation, it is necessary that the non-diagonal matrices
Kxy, Kxz, Kyz of equation (6) be transformed into the null matrices KI,II = 0, KI,III = 0 and KII,III = 0 of
equation (7) with respect to the new reference system, requirement which does not, in general, take
place. Indeed, even under the assumption of a variable location of the elastic centres Ki(xki,yki) per
floor, if X and Y are diagonal matrices of the Ki coordinates,
2
6
6
X 6
6
4
2
6
6
Y 6
6
4
x1
x2
..
7
7
7
7
5
.
xN
y1
y2
..
(8a)
3
7
7
7
7
5
(8b)
yN
then, for a parallel translation of the initial reference system, the following matrix expressions can be
derived from the two conditions KI,III = 0 and KII,III = 0 (see Reference 11, p. 284):
1
1
X Kyy Kyx K1
xx Kxy Kyz Kyx Kxx Kxz
(9a)
1
Kxy K1
yy Kyx Kxz
(9b)
Y Kxx
Kxy K1
yy Kyz
In systems with orthogonal arrangement of the stiffness elements (orthotropic systems), the above
expressions become (see Reference 2, p. 70):
X K1
yy Kyz ;
Y K1
xx Kxz
(10a,b)
Equally, for a general rotation of the initial system about the Z-axis at an angle of !, for KI,II = 0 it
is derived that (see, in general, Reference 2, p. 75):
tan2 ! I 2Kxy Kxx Kyy 1
11
The matrix expressions in the right-hand sides of equations (9), (10) and (11) cannot in general be
reducedas we would wishto diagonal matrices of the form of equation (8), nor of the form:
x I; y I and
! I
where I is the unit matrix. Subsequently, multi-storey buildings may have an elastic axis and principal
bending planes only in special cases, and this will be analysed in detail.
40
2.3.2. Buildings with an elastic axis. An elastic axis and principal bending planes can be defined
in buildings with homotropic vertical stiffness elements. With this term are characterized the vertical elements (frames, walls, etc.) which present the same elastic deformation law for a horizontal
load, hence their horizontal stiffness matrices will be proportional.1,2 When the above homotropicity is common to all the stiffness elements, the system will be called isotropic, whereas in the case
of different homotropicity along the directions of the perpendicular axes X and Y, the system will
be called ortho-isotropic.2
(a) Isotropic systems. In this case, the horizontal stiffness matrices of all the vertical elements may
be written as:
K n kn K 0 ;
n 1; 2 . . .
12
where kn is a numerical coefficient and K0 is a constant reference matrix (e.g. the stiffness matrix of an
arbitrary element of the system). Moreover, it is easy to prove that the matrices Kij (i,j = x, y, z) in
equation (6) will have the following form:2
Kij kij K0 ;
i; j x; y; z
13
where the coefficients kij = kji are calculated as functions of kn. Thus, by substitution in equations (9)
and (11), the following expressions are obtained:
X
kxx kyz kyx kxz

I x I
2
kxx kyy kxy
(14a)
Y
kyy kxz kxy kyz

I y I
2
kxx kyy kxy
(14b)
tan2 !
2 kxy
kxx kyy
(14c)
Consequently, the isotropic systems do have an elastic axis whose location is determined by the
above coordinates (x, y) and principal bending planes whose orientation is determined by the angle
! .
(b) Ortho-isotropic systems. The stiffness elements of these systems are arranged along the directions of the perpendicular axis X, Y and, moreover, the respective stiffness matrices Kxi and Kyi of
these elements satisfy the homotropicity relations:
Kxi kxi Ko;x ;
Kyi kyi Ko;y ;
i 1; 2 . . .
(15a,b)
where kxi, kyi are numerical coefficients and K0,x, K0,y are two constant reference matrices which
characterize the homotropicity of the stiffness elements of each direction. As for the equation (13), the
result is now:
Kyy kyy Ko;y ;
Kyz kyz Ko;y
Kxx kxx Ko;x ;
Kxz kxz Ko;x
(16a,b)
41
and by substitution in equation (9), it follows that:

kyz
I x I
kyy
kxz
Y I y I
kxx
X
(17a)
(17b)
Hence, the coordinates (x, y) of the systems elastic axis are defined, whereas the orientation of the
principal bending planes coincides with the orientation of the stiffness elements.
(c) Complex isotropic systemscoaxial. This category includes any multi-storey system consisting
of two or more isotropic (or ortho-isotropic) sub-systems with a common elastic axis and common
principal bending planes.
In light of the above, the following interesting conclusion may be derived: if an elastic axis exists,
then it is a straight line and the multi-storey system possesses all the elastic properties a1, b1 and c1.
Moreover, these properties are independent of the external loading and only depend on the geometrical
and mechanical characteristics of the structure.
2.3.3. Buildings without elastic axis. These constitute the majority of multi-storey buildings,
since, in principle, the vertical stiffness elements are not isotropic neither ortho-isotropic. Nevertheless, even in this case and according to the systems particular characteristics, it is possible to identify some more general elastic properties, of which a special case is the elastic axis and the
principal bending planes.
(a) Regular frame-wall systems. The structures of usual multi-storey buildings may always be decomposed in two sub-systems: the bending sub-system, including simple or complex walls (cores)
and the shear sub-system, including the usual multi-storey frames. From the junction of these two
sub-systems at the levels of the floors, derive the so-called frame-wall systems that constitute the
majority in Greece. A frame-wall system will be called regular, when the geometrical and mechanical characteristics of its sub-systems remain constant or present a smooth variation along their
height.
Regular frame-wall systems always have three vertical principal torsion axes
1,
2 and
3,
independent of the external loading.1214 In more detail, these systems are characterized by the
Figure 6. Superposition of three states of enforced torsion in a frame-wall system

42
following (a2, b2, c2) elastic properties, which are more general than the properties a1, b1 and c1 of
the homotropic systems (see Figure 6).
Property a2. The systems static response derives as a superposition of three states of enforced
torsion about the principal torsion axes
1,
2 and
3.
Property b2. Any arbitrary system of horizontal forces in the plane of two principal torsion axes
causes rotation of the floors about the third principal torsion axis.
Property c2. Any arbitrary system of torsional moments causes a rotation of the floors equal to
the sum of three successive rotations about the three principal torsion axes.
It thus follows from the above elastic properties that: first, frame-wall systems do not have principal
bending planes; and, second, the elastic axis constitutes a degenerate form of the torsional axis
3
when the other two axes
1 and
2 tend to infinity, is the case in which properties a2, b2, c2 are
transformed to the properties a1, b1, c1, respectively, of homotropic systems.
(b) Shear systems. We identify as shear systems those in which the vertical elements (columns) are
considered as having rigid connections in the beams at all floors. It is obvious that in those systems
the existence of simple or complex walls which do not accept rigid connection in the beams is excluded. In these systems, as the deformation is not transmitted from floor to floor (see Figure 7),
the equation of static equilibrium may be formulated in the following tri-diagonal form (see Reference 2, p. 77):
2
K2
K1 K2
6 K2
K
K3
2
6
6
..
6
.
6
4
KN1
32
K3
..
.
KN 1 KN
KN
u1
u2
..
.
f1
f2
..
.
76
7 6
7
76
7 6
7
76
7 6
7
76
76
7
76
7 6
7
4
4
5
5
uN 1
f N 1 5
KN
uN
fN
KN
18
where
uTi = [uxi uyi zi] is the displacement vector of floor i
fTi = [Fxi Fyi Mzi] is the load vector of floor i
Ki is the 3 3 stiffness matrix of floor i, calculated as in the single-storey systems (see equation
(2)).
Figure 7. Shear frame

43
The tri-diagonal form of the above equation allows for its decomposition into N independent floor
equilibrium equations:
1 f 1 f 2 f 3 . . . f N
K1 u
2 f 2 f 3 . . . f N
K2 u
N f N
KN u
19
i = ui ui1 is the vector of the storey drifts. These equations now allow for the definition of a
where u
principal system Ki(Ii, IIi, IIIi) for each floor i through the diagonalization of the respective stiffness
matrix Ki, as for single-storey systems. These principal systems differ, in general, from floor to floor
and, thus, the multi-storey shear system will have neither principal bending planes nor an elastic axis.
The case of coincidence, in plan view, of the principal axis of all the floors is possible when the
stiffness coefficients of the storeys elements are proportional, i.e. when the homotropicity conditions
(12) or (15) are met and the system is isotropic or ortho-isotropic. The vibration of such systems has
been studied by Shiga15 and Kan and Chopra.16
The shear systems were first studied by Roussopoulos.17,18 These systems constitute the only
category of building where the independent consideration of the elastic centre of a floor makes sense,
whereas, in any other case the elastic centres of the floorsif they existare located on the systems
linear elastic axis. It is, nevertheless, underlined, that the existence of columns with rigid connections
in the beam constitutes a fundamental condition for the possibility of defining independent elastic
centres. Thus, if we accept an elastic connection of the vertical elements in the beams, during which
we will have a transference of the deformations from floor to floor, the systems stiffness matrix will
no longer have the tri-diagonal form of equation (18) and, consequently, it will no longer be possible
to break the system into independent floor equilibrium equations. So, in this case the notion of floor
elastic centres does not have a static meaning.
(c) General Type System. In the general type multi-storey system, in contrast to single-storey systems, it is not possible to determine elastic properties independently of the form of the horizontal
external loading. Nevertheless, and since, in principle, seismic codes accept the triangular distribution of seismic loads, we have tried to determine, in this case too, some centres that will depend upon the said loads, so as to render possible the ranking of the asymmetry of the buildings
with respective eccentricities. These points certainly do not possess the multiple properties of the
elastic centre, but they are defined for each case, according to only one of the said properties. Thus,
they are distinguished in centres of shear (CS), in centres of rigidity (CR) and in centres of twist
(CT), which constitute three different families of points.
(I) Centres of shear.19 The storey centre of shear in a general type multi-storey system is defined as
in the case of open thin-wall cross-sections (see Reference 20, p. 381) with the only difference that in
the first case its location depends on the external loading, while in the second it does not. To this end,
we first restrained all the floors against a rotation and then we applied the given external loading along
the direction of the X-axis of the global system. From the static analysis of the spatial system, the shear
forces of all the vertical elements of the storey are calculated, together with the action line of the
resultant shear force of these internal forces (the respective stage for the open thin-wall cross-sections
includes the calculation of the cross-sections shear stresses due to a shear load, as well as the
calculation of the location and the magnitude of the resultant of these stresses). The previous
calculation is repeated for another external load direction (e.g. Y), hence the section of the action lines
of the respective shear forces determines the location of the storey centre of shear. On p. 300 of
Reference 11, the detailed matrix expressions of the coordinates (xs, ys) of the storey centres of shear
are given. On this basis, one can define the respective static eccentricities:
44
esy ys ym ;
esx xs xm
for known coordinates (xm, ym) of the floors centres of mass. It is, finally, noted that in the general case
of a system with an arbitrary non-rectangular arrangement of the stiffness elements, the values of the
eccentricities will depend on the orientation of the global system, since the systems principal
directions are not defined.
(II) Centres of rigidity.3,4 The floor centre of rigidity is defined according to the same procedure of
defining the storey centre of shear, provided we use, instead of the storey shear forces of the vertical
elements, the reactions of the latter on the floor (shear forces difference across the two sides of the
floor). The matrix calculation relations of the coordinates (xr, yr) of the rigidity centres are given in
References 3 and 11, whereas the respective eccentricities
erx xr xm ;
ery yr ym
differ from the eccentricities esx, esy of the shear centres. Equally, in the general case of a system with a
non-rectangular arrangement of the rigidity elements, the values of erx and ery will depend on the
orientation of the reference system. The centres of rigidity are also called centres of load , as the
application of the external horizontal forces on the said points causes a translation of the system
without rotation. Figure 8 shows the case of a monosymmetric system with external forces Fi applied
on the floor centres of rigidity normal to the symmetry plane. If these forces are applied on the floor
centres of gravity located on the Z-axis, then the torsion moment Mzi of any given floor i will be given
by4
Mzi Vi es;i
Mzi
N
X
F er;k
(20a)
(20b)
ki
where Vi and esi are the shear force and the eccentricity of the ith storey centre of shear and er, are the
eccentricities of the centres of rigidity. It is noted that the direct calculation of the floor rotation angle
Figure 8. Centres of rigidity of the floors

45
according to equation (20) is not possible, since the centre of rotation does not coincide with the centre
of shear (CS), nor with the centre of rigidity (CR).
(III) Centres of twist.21,11 The absolute floor rotation pole for a given torsional loading of all floors is
defined as the floor centre of twist. These points have been used for the decoupling of non-symmetric
building static equilibrium matrix equations and not for the determination of their eccentricities.
3. FICTITIOUS ELASTIC AXIS

3.1. General
Thanks to the actual computing possibilities, the role of static eccentricity, as a measure of the
structural asymmetry of buildings, is limited to two main cases: first, during the conceptual design of
the buildings and second, during the evaluation of the dynamic amplification of the building static
torsional moment by means of the equivalent static eccentricities (equation (1)). Thus, this quantity is
no longer required for the calculation of the torsion static moment itself and of the subsequent floor
rotation angle. Today, by use of a computer, the direct three-dimensional static analysis of multi-storey
buildings can be achieved without needing to know the static eccentricity. Consequently, equations
such as equation (20) no longer have a practical use.
However, in order to fulfil the above dual role, the static eccentricity must constitute a property of
the structure and not of the structure loading. More particularly, in order to fulfil its second role
(evaluation of the dynamic amplification) it must additionally lead to results compatible with the exact
dynamic analysis of the problem. These prerequisites are satisfied in the case of single-storey buildings
and in the case of multi-storey buildings having an elastic axis. On the contrary, in a general type of
multi-storey building, the centres of rigidity and the centres of shear defined in section 2.3.3(c), as well
as the respective eccentricities er and es, do not satisfy the above conditions since they present the
following disadvantages.
(a) Lack of the triple property of the elastic centre (as bending centre, centre of shear and twist or
torsion centre), but existence of only the first or second property.
(b) High sensitivitymore of er and less of esto alterations in the loading type or in the members
stiffness.3,4,11,19,22
(c) Dependence not only on the type but also on the orientation of the external loading.
(d) Non-compatibility with the results of the dynamic spectral analysis of the problem.6
It therefore follows that there is an objective inability to define the static eccentricity in multi-storey
buildings. To break this deadlock, an appropriate generalization and extension of the elastic axis
definition is needed, in order that properties are consistent with the spatial elastic behaviour of at least
regular buildings for which it is permitted to apply simplified static methods for seismic design. The
above generalization shall be based on the optimum torsion criterion generalizing the null torsion
criterion which constitutes the basis for the definition of the real elastic axis. Finally, the above
generalized axis shall be call a fictitious elastic axis so as to be distinguished from the real one.
3.2. Optimum torsion criterion
We consider a multi-storey building subjected to a horizontal static loading within a determined
vertical plane at a distance x from its side (Figure 9). We assume that the building does not have an
elastic axis and hence, for any position of the loading plane, we shall have a specific distribution of the
floors rotation angles 1, 2, 3, , N. Thus, for x = x1 or x = x4 it is possible to have positive or
46
Figure 9. Diagrams of rotations of the floors for several positions x = x1, x2, x3, x4 of the loading plane. The
criterion of optimum torsion
negative rotation angles of the same sign, while for x = x2 or x = x3 it is possible to have a change of
sign in the upper or lower floors of the building.
Therefore, the following question arises: for which position of the loading plane is the calculating
rotation angles 1, 2, 3, , N distribution closer to the desired null distribution? According to the
approximation-of-functions theory, the required closer distribution of rotation angles must satisfy the
condition (see Reference 23, p. 470):
2
1 2
22 . . . 2N minimum
N 1
(21a)
This condition constitutes the content of the optimum torsion criterion, formulated as follows:
The torsion of the building is considered optimum when the average of sum of squares of
the floor rotation angles is minimal.
The above minimum value of 2 is always greater than zero for buildings without elastic axis, since
for min 2 = 0 we would have i = 0 (i = 1, 2, ,N) according to condition (21a) and the building
would have an elastic axis. Consequently, the optimum torsion criterion includes as a special case the
null torsion criterion (min 2 = 0), which is only applicable to buildings possessing an elastic axis.
The rigorous mathematical treatment of condition (21a) is practically impossible, due to the great
variety and complexity of multi-storey building structures. For this reason, it has been chosen to
proceed to a parametric investigation of the above condition, using as characteristic parameter the
nullification level z0 of the rotation angles diagram. From this parametric investigation of a series of
regular frame-wall systems, it turns out that the z0 variation interval is quite small, varying from 075 to
085H. Thus, within the accuracy framework of the equivalent static method, we can generally
consider that the condition:
z0 080H
(21b)
47
Figure 10. Reciprocity of displacements: (a) the loading of forces Fi at the direction ei causes the floors to rotate by
an angle i,F about the vertical axis; (b) the loading of the torsional moments Mi = 1 Fi causes the displacements
ui,M in the direction of the forces Fi which are numerically equal to the rotations i,F
replaces with a satisfactory precision the condition (21a). In this way, according to this condition, the
optimum torsion criterion is formulated as follows:
The torsion of the building is considered optimal, when the nullification of the floors
rotation angle takes place at the level z0 = 080 H, approximately.
The above simplified formulation of the criterion allows for the direct determination of an optimum
torsion axis of the building, hence generalizing and extenting the meaning of the homotropic systems
elastic axis.
3.3. Optimum torsion axis
We consider a multi-storey building submitted to the following two external loadings.
(1) Loading F consisting of the horizontal forces F1, F2, F3, , FN located in a determined vertical
plane (Figure 10(a)).
(2) Loading M consisting of the torsional couples Mi = 1 Fi of the floors (i = 1, 2, , N) (Figure
10(b)).
If we represent by ei the trace of the loading plane on the floor mean planes, then we can prove that
the following reciprocity proposition applies to the displacements:
At any level i, the floor rotation angle i,F due to the loading F, is numerically equal to the
displacement ui,M along the trace ei due to the loading M.
The validity of the proposition is general, but for the needs of the present paper we shall limit
ourselves simply to proving its validity in the case of regular frame-wall systems. Indeed, as these
systems always possess three principal torsion axis
1,
2,
3, at distances D1, D2, D3 from the loading
plane, the following shall apply according to the three pivots method:1214
48
Figure 11. Application of the three pivots method. Reciprocity of displacements: (a) the rotation iF is produced by
the forces Fi and it is equal to iF = 1 2 3 (b) the displacements uiM are produced by the torsional loading
Mi
LOADING F (Figure 11(a))

External torsional moment with respect to
r at level i :
Bimoment at the base of the axis
r :
Mr;i r Fi
Br
N
X
zi Mr;i r
i1
Rotation angle with respect to the axis

r :
Total rotation angle
3
X
r1
3
X
zi Fi r M0
i1
r r
r
N
X
M0
;
G Jsr r
r
r1
z=H
M0
r
G Jsr
(see Reference 13, p. 57)

LOADING M (see Figure 11(b))
External torsional moment with respect to
r at level i :
Bimoment at the base of the axis
r :
Mr;i Mi 1 Fi
Br
N
X
zi Mr;i 1
i1
Rotation angle with respect to the axis

r :
r
N
X
zi Fi 1 M0
i1
1 M0
r ;
G Jsr
z=H
1 M0
r
G Jsr
3
3
X
X
1 M0
Total displacement: u
ur
r
r
G Jsr
r1
r1
According to the above formulae, it becomes obvious that u (x) = 1 (x) and that we therefore have
at each level ui,M = i,F.
The above proposition allows for the direct determination of the position of the optimum torsion
axis. In this scope, we load the system with a loading M and we calculate the position of the floors
centres of twist P1, P2, , PN (Figure 12). If the system is homotropic, these points shall be located on
Respective displacement:
ur r r r
49
Figure 12. Determination of the axis of the optimum torsion in multi-storey buildings (fictitious elastic axis)
the same vertical line, while in any other case they will more or less diverge from the vertical. In the
centre of twist P0 of the level z0 = 080H, as well as in the other centres, we shall have, by definition, a
null displacement (u0,M = 0) in any direction. Thus, for any loading F passing through P0, the rotation
angle at the same level shall also be null (0,F = 0). Consequently, according to the simplified
formulation of the optimum torsion criterion, the vertical line passing through the centre of twist P0
shall be the optimum torsion axis of the system. When the loading plane rotates around this axis, the
floors rotation angle shall be always zero at the level z0, while the average of the sum of squares 2
shall present a small fluctuation around the min 2 due to the simplified application of the criterion
(21a). Moreover, if we consider the displacements ui,M of the above axis at the points P'1, P'2, , P0,
, P'N due to the torsional loading M (Figure 12), their mean square sum u2 shall also present a small
fluctuation around the min u2 and shall practically be considered minimal for any position of the
loading plane.
We therefore come to the conclusion that the vertical line passing through point P0 can be
indistinctly characterized:
(a) either as the optimum bending axis, since the loading F passing through the relevant axis causes
a translation with an optimum rotation of the building (min 2);
(b) or as the optimum torsion axis, since the loading M causes a rotation with an optimum
translation of the floors with respect to the relevant axis (min u2).
Moreover, all the loading planes passing through the above axis can be characterized as optimum
bending planes of the system (min 2).
3.4. Principal directions, static eccentricities and torsional radii
An optimum bending plane shall be called Principal when the loading F within this plane causes a
parallel translation along its direction at level z0 = 080H. In order to determine these planes, we first
50
Figure 13. Determination of the principal directions I and II of the multi-storey building
select a local reference system P0xyz parallel to the global OXYZ and we apply the loading F along the
directions of the axis x and y (Figure 13). At level z0 = 080H, we shall have the following
displacements of the point P0 (ux,y = uy,x):
loading along x : ux;x z0 ; uy;x z0
loading along y : ux;y z0 ; uy;y z0
If we now rotate the reference system by an angle a and apply the loading F along the directions of
the new axes x and y, the displacements of the point P0 along x and y are calculated according to the
matrix relation:
U0 RT UR
where

u
U x;x
uy;x

ux;y
;
uy;y
cos sin
R
sin cos
Consequently, in order that the planes (x', z) a1 (y',z) are principal, the condition u'x,y = u'y,x = 0
must apply, from which it derives that
tan2
2 ux;y z0
ux;x z0 uy;y z0
22
The acute angle a0 (positive or negative) calculated from the above relation defines the principal
direction x' = I, while the angle a0 90 defines the principal direction y' = II. Finally, it is obvious
that the static eccentricities of the floors are equal to the coordinates (eI,i, eII,i) of the centres of mass Mi
(i = 1, 2,, N) with respect to the system of principal axes I and II.
We now symbolize by Ex, Ey and Ez the force and displacement states of the system for a loading F
along the directions of the x- and y- axes, as well as for the torsional loading M, respectively. If the
loading F is applied along the principal axes I and II, while the torsional loading M is along the
51
Figure 14. Radii of torsional stiffness I and II
optimum torsion axis III, it is then easy to prove that the respective states of force and displacement of
the system EI, EII, EIII are directly determined by the following symbolic relations:
EI Ex cos Ey sin
EII Ex sin Ey cos
(23a)
(23b)
EIII Ez
(23c)
The above relations (23a,b) allow for the direct calculation of the torsional radii I and II of the
system by the relations7

uII z0
I
z z0
1=2
uI z0
II
z z0
1=2
(24a,b)
where uI, uII, are the displacements of the point P0 at the level z0 = 080H in the states EI and EII and z
is the rotation angle at the same level in the state Ez = EIII (Figure 14).
These quantities are extremely useful for the calculation of the equivalent static eccentricities ef and
er of the seismic forces.
3.5. Sensibility problemssummary of properties
The optimum torsion axis determined in section 3.3 depends on the law of variation of the loading F
Figure 15. Example for the sensitivity of the position of the fictitious axis to alteration of the load
52
Table I.
Xp
Yp
Triangular loading
(m)
Uniform loading
(m)
Difference (%)
220
259
229
263
41
15
along the height, a fact which, in principle, weakens its use as the fictitious elastic axis of the system
according to the statements of section 3.1. Nevertheless, sensibility analysis in a variety of frame-wall
systems have shown that the above dependence is practically insignificant and, moreover, that the
position of the axis remains stable for small alterations of the system stiffness. The following two
numerical examples give a clear picture of these observations.
3.5.1. Alteration of loading. In the five-storey building shown in Figure 15 the position of the
optimum torsion axis has been calculated by considering first the triangular and then the uniform
distribution of the horizontal forces along their height (the magnitude of the forces is irrelevant).
The relevant results (coordinates of the centre of twist P0 at level z0 = 080H) appear in Table I.
It is obvious that the loading type has hardly affected the position of the axis.
3.5.2. Alteration of stiffness. We consider the monosymmetric nine-storey building shown in
Figure 16. The rigidities of all walls are reduced to 2/3 of their value in the last three storeys (case
A). In the same building, we consider a small alteration of the total stiffness maintaining, for example, constant the rigidity 6EI of wall (4) in all the storeys (case B).
In case A, the building is isotropic and therefore, according to Section 2.3.2(a), it has a real elastic
axis (null torsion axis) at a distance x = 60 m from the left side of the building. In case B, the building
does not have a real elastic axis, since wall (4) is not homotropic with regards to the rest. It has,
however, an optimum torsion axis, the abscissa of which (abscissa of the centre of twist at level
z0 = 080H) turns out to be equal to x = 611 m. In other words, we observe that for a small alteration of
the building stiffness, we have a small alteration of the position of the optimum torsion axis.
For the same case B in Reference 3, from which the example was taken, the floors centres of rigidity
abscissae were calculated. In Figure 17 one can see the dramatic perturbation of the initial position of
these points due to the buildings small rigidity alteration, as already pointed out in Section 3.1.
Figure 16. Sensitivity of the fictitious elastic axis to alteration of rigidity

53
Figure 17. Sensitivity of centres of rigidity to alteration of rigidity: * Building A: the centres of rigidity are
located on one straight line * Building B: intense perturbation of the centres of rigidity due to a small
alteration of the buildings rigidity
We therefore conclude from the above that the optimum torsional axis constitutes a reliable and
objective means of defining the structural eccentricity in buildings that do not have a real elastic axis.
Thus, it may be characterized as the fictitious elastic axis of these buildings. The elastic properties of
the examined axis constitute a generalization of the properties a1, b1 and c1 of the real elastic axis
and are formulated as follows:
Property a3. The static response of the system is derived as a superposition of two states of optimum bending within the planes (I, III) and (II, III) and one state of optimum torsion about axis III.
Property b3. A system of horizontal forces F from the axis III causes a translation with optimum
rotation of the floors (optimum bending axis). The translation at level z0 = 08H takes place along
the direction of the forces, when these have a direction I or II.
Property c3. A system of torsional moments M = 1 F causes a rotation with optimum translation of the floors with respect to axis III (optimum twist axis).
In other words, the above generalization is summarized in the following sentences interchange:
bending
pure
torsion
rotation
bending
! optimum
torsion
rotation
null
! optimum
translation
translation
which constitute a consequence of the fact that in multi-storey buildings, it is impossible, in general, to
have a nullification of the rotation angle of all floors for a horizontal loading F, located in a vertical
plane.
54
4. CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions drawn from the present paper are the following.
(1) Multi-storey buildings do not have, in general, an elastic axis and principal bending planes,
except for the particular case where the stiffness matrices of the vertical load-resisting elements satisfy
the conditions (12) or (15). This fact limits the orthological application of the equivalent static
method to very few cases.
(2) In order to overcome the above major difficulty, one can define an optimum torsion axis to be
used as a fictitious elastic axis, as well as a couple of vertical optimum bending planes to be used as
fictitious principal bending planes.
(3) Further to the above elements, the static eccentricities eI, eII and the radii of torsional stiffness I,
II are determined in any case of a regular-in-height multi-storey building.
The procedure to be followed for the calculation of all the above quantities in the framework of the
equivalent static method is the object of a subsequent paper.
REFERENCES
1. R. Riddell and J. Vasquez, Existence of centers of resistance and torsional uncoupling of earthquake response
of building, Proc. 8th World Conf. on Earthquake Engng, Vol. 4, pp. 187194.
2. K. Anastassiadis, Caracteristiques elastiques spatiales des batiments a` etages, Annales de I I.T.B.T.P., No
435-Juin 1985.
3. V. W. T. Cheung and W. K. Tso, Eccentricity in irregular multistorey buildings, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 13, 4652,
(1986).
4. W. K. Tso, Static eccentricity concept for torsional moment estimations, J. Struct. Engng, 116 (5), May
1990.
5. R. K. Goel and A. K. Chopra, Seismic code analysis of buildings without locating centers of rigidity, J.
Struct. Engng, 119, (10), October 1993.
6. T. Makarios and K. Anastassiadis, Discussion in the paper: Seismic code analysis of buildings without
locating centers of rigidity, by R. K. Goel, and A. K. Chopra, J. Struct. Engng, ASCE, 121, 791792 (1995).
7. T. Makarios, Fictitious elastic axis of multi-storey systems, Doctoral thesis, Civil Engineering Department,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, December 1994 (in Greek).
8. A. Roussopoulos, Distribution of horizontal forces by a rigid plate in spatial structures. Case of seismic
forces, their distribution and regime, Technika Chronika, Technical Chamber of Greece, No. 17, September
1932, pp. 871884 (in Greek).
9. A. Roussopoulos, Antiseismic structures, Technical Champer of Greece, Athens, Greece, 1969 (in Greek).
10. K. Anastassiadis, Antiseismic structures I, Computer Technics, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1989 (in Greek).
11. R. Hezal and A. K. Chopra, Earthquake response of torsionally-coupled buildings, Report No U.C.B./
e.e.r.c.-87/20, Berkeley, California, USA, December 1987.
12. K. Anastassiadis, Analyse statique tridimensionnelle du contreventement des batiments. La methode des trois
pivots, Annales de 1 I.T.B.T.P., No. 452, February, 1987.
13. K. Anastassiadis, Calcul statique des contreventements par la methode des trois pivots, Annales de 1
I.T.B.T.P., No. 498, November, 1991.
14. K. Anastassiadis, The three pivot method, Technika Chronika, Technical Chamber of Greece, No. 5/1991,
Athens, Greece, 1991, pp. 556, (in Greek).
15. T. Shiga, Torsional vibrations of multi-storey buildings, Proc. Third World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 2, New Zealand, 1965, pp. 569584.
16. C. L. Kan and A.K. Chopra, Elastic earthquake analysis of a class of torsionally coupled buildings, J Struct.
1 Division, ASCE, 103, N.ST4, 821838 (1977).
17. A. Roussopoulos, Three-dimensional static analysis of multi-storey systems, Technike Chronika, Technical
Chamber of Greece, 194041 (in Greek).
18. P. Moliotis, The relative constraint of a loaded suite of disks, Doctoral thesis, National Technical University,
Athens, Greece, 1946 (in Greek).
55
19. B. Stafford Smith and S. Vezina, Evaluation of centers of resistance in multistorey building structures, Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng., Part 2, 79, 623635 (1985).
20. G. Nitsiotas, Lessons of Statics, Vol. I, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1969 (in Greek).
21. W. K. Tso and V. W.-T. Cheung, Decoupling of equations of equilibrium in lateral load analysis of
multistorey buildings, Computer & Structures, 23, (5), 679684 (1986).
22. W. Jiang, G. L. Hutchinson and A. M. Chandler, Definitions of static eccentricity for design of asymmetric
shear buildings, Engng. Struct., 15, (3), 167178 (1993).
23. V. Smirnov, Cours de Mathematiques Superieures, Mir, Moscow, 1970.

Real and Fictitious Elastic Axes of Multi-Storey Buildings: Theory

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Real and Fictitious Elastic Axes of Multi-Storey Buildings: Theory

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Build. 7, 3355 (1998)