See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273447330

Review of different structural irregularities in buildings, Journal of Structural

Engineering

Article · February 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 1,629

1 author:

Varadharajan Srinivasan
Amity University
10 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

determination of inelastic seismic response of steel buildings with irregularity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Varadharajan Srinivasan on 29 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 39, No. 5, December 2012 - January 2013 pp. 538-563 No. 39-54

Review of different Structural irregularities in buildings

S.Varadharajan*, , V.K. Sehgal* and Babita Saini*
Email: svrajan_nitk@yahoo.com
* Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana - 136 119, INDIA.

Received: 28 April 2011; Accepted: 09 September 2011

The present study summarizes the research works done in the past regarding different types of structural irregularities
i.e. Plan and vertical irregularities. Criteria and limits specified for these irregularities as defined by different codes
of practice (IS1893:2002, EC8:2004 etc.) have been discussed briefly. It was observed that the limits of both Plan and
vertical irregularities prescribed by these codes were comparable. Different types of modeling approaches used have
also been discussed briefly. The review of previous research works regarding different types of plan irregularities
justified the preference of multistorey building models over single storey building models and concept of balanced
CV (Center of strength) – CR (Center of rigidity) location was found to be useful in controlling the seismic response
parameters. Regarding the vertical irregularities it was found that strength irregularity had the maximum impact and
mass irregularity had the minimum impact on seismic response. Regarding the analysis method MPA (Modal pushover
analysis) method even after much improvement was found to be less accurate as compared to dynamic analysis.

KEYWORDS: Plan irregularity; vertical irregularity; structural irregularities in buildings.

When a building is subjected to seismic excitation, (Horizontal) and Vertical irregularity as shown in
horizontal inertia forces are generated in the building. Fig.1.
The resultant of these forces is assumed to act through
the center of mass (C.M) of the structure. The vertical Irregularity

members in the structure resist these forces and the

total resultant of these systems of forces act through Vertical
Irregularity
Horizontal
Irregularity
a point called as center of stiffness (C.S). When
the center of mass and center of stiffness does not Mass Stiffness Strength Setback Asymmetrical Re-Entrant Diaphragm
plan shapes corners discontinuity
Irregular distribution of Mass,
Strength, Stiffness along plan

coincide, eccentricities are developed in the buildings

which further generate torsion. When the buildings
are subjected to lateral loads, then phenomenon of
torsional coupling occurs due to interaction between
lateral loads and resistant forces. Torsional coupling
generates greater damage in the buildings. Eccentricity
may occur due to presence of structural irregularities.
These irregularities may be broadly classified as Plan
Fig. 1 Classification of irregularities
A structure can be classified as irregular if the
structure exceeds the limits as prescribed by different
seismic design codes. The irregularity limits for both
horizontal and vertical irregularities as have been
discussed briefly in Table 1 and Table 2.

538 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
 TABLE 1
IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IS 1893:2002, EC8:2004, UBC 97, NBCC 2005
Type of Irregularity IS 1893:20021 EC8 20042 UBC 973 NBCC 20054
Horizontal
a) Re-entrant corners Ri ≤ 15% (Fig.2) Ri ≤ 5% Ri ≤ 15% -
b) Torsional irregularity dmax ≤ 1.2 davg rx > 3.33 eox
ry > 3.33 eoy dmax ≤ 1.2 davg dmax ≤ 1.7 davg
rx and ry > ls,
c) Diaphragm Oa > 50% rx2 > ls2 + eox2 Od > 50% -
Discontinuity 2 2 2
Sd > 50% ry > ls + eoy Sd > 50%
Vertical
a) Mass M i < 2 Ma Should not reduce abruptly Mi < 1.5 Ma Mi < 1.5 Ma
b) Stiffness Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8
0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
(Fig.2b)
c) Soft Storey Si < 0.7Si+1 or Si < 0.8 - Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < Si+1
(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
d) Weak Storey Si < 0.8Si+1 - Si < 0.8Si+1 -
e) Setback irregularity SBi < 1.5 SBa (Fig 2c) Rd < 0.3Tw < 0.1 Tw at any SBi < 1.3 SBa SBi < 1.3 SBa
level

TABLE 2
IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IBC 2003, TEC 2007 AND ASCE – 7.05
Type of Irregularity IBC 20035 TEC 20076 ASCE – 7.057
Horizontal
a) Re-entrant corners - Ri ≤ 20% Ri ≤15%
b) Torsional irregularity - dmax ≤ 1.2 davg dmax ≤ 1.2 davg
dmax ≤ 1.4 davg
c) Diaphragm Discontinuity - Oa > 33% Oa > 50% S > 50%
Vertical
a) Mass Mi < 1.5 Ma - Mi < 1.5 Ma
b) Stiffness Si < 0.7Si+1 Or - Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
c) Soft Storey Si < 0.7Si+1 Or [ηki = (Δi / hi) avr / Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3) (Δi+1 / hi +1) avr > 2.0 or Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
d) Weak Storey Si < Si+1 [ηci = (Ae)i / < 0.80] Si < 0.6Si+1 Or
Si < 0.7 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
e) Setback irregularity SBi < 1.3 SBa - SBi < 1.3 SBa

The Horizontal and vertical irregularity limits as per Figure 2 Shows the pictorial representation of
IBC 20035, Turkish code 20076 and ASCE 7 – 057 are different irregularity limits as per IS 1893:20027.
shown in Table 2.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 539

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
 A
actual building systems. So predictions given by these
A/L >0.15 - 0.20 A/L >0.15 - 0.20
models are less accurate. In the second type of models the
L L A/L >0.15 - 0.20 plastic hinges are modeled at end of beams and columns
A
A
to evaluate the nonlinear response of building systems.
Some researchers have adopted this type of model as
(a) given in Table 17. These models are closer to reality as
compared to first type of models but still do not represent
the actual building systems. The application of first two
models is more frequent in case of 2D plane frames
than 3D building frames due to complex geometry of
3D building frames. The third type of models can be
(i) (b) (ii)
termed as 3D frame models and these models have been
developed by recent researchers. These models are quite
complex and involve large number of degree of freedom
Heavy Mass
systems and are prepared with the help of complex
software programs. These models are very close to the
actual building systems and yield accurate results.
(c)
The second system of classification of building
A systems is based on the force – displacement hysteretic
A/L >0.15 relationship of resisting elements of buildings. The
A/L >0.10
resisting elements can have different type of force-
A A deformation represented by models namely
A/L >0.25 a. Elasto – plastic9,31,33 and bilinear hysteric
L L A L A model27,37,84
d1 d2 d3 b. Clough’s model8,30,41
(d)
c. Takeda’s model35,44,70
Fig. 2 a) Re-entrant corner irregularity b) Irregular stiffness
These models have been pictorially described in
distributions c) Irregular mass distributions d) Vertical
Setback irregularity. Fig.3.
Elasto- plastic and bilinear hysteric models
Models Used ine the Previoius Works
The elasto-plastic hysteretic model has been used by
The models used by authors can be broadly categorized many researchers due to it’s simplicity. The maximum
by two systems of classifications. As per first system of displacement of a building system with elasto-plastic
classification these models can be broadly categorized force deformation relationship was found same as for
into three types namely Shear beam (SB), plastic hinge elastic force – deformation relationship for building
(PH) and 3D frame models. In the first model the building systems with initial time period greater than 0.5 s. To
system is assumed to consist of a rigid rectangular deck account for the strain hardening effect a positive slope
of mass m supported by lateral load resisting elements was assigned to post yield stiffness and this model was
represented by a shear beam. This type of building model called as bilinear model. The main disadvantage of this
is used to represent single and multistorey building model is that with increase in displacement amplitude
systems with lesser degree of freedom. But use of this reversal this model does not represent the stiffness
model to represent multistorey systems is questionable degradation appropriately. So, this model is not suited
due to variety of reasons as discussed in Table 17.This for non-linear analysis of RC structures.
model is used by a large number of researchers due to its
Clough’s model of stiffness degradation
simplicity and easy representation. Since the shear beam
model (SB) is not suitable for representing multistorey A qualitative model incorporating the stiffness
building systems these models does not represent the degradation in conventional elasto – plastic model

540 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
was developed by Clough and this model was called F F
clough’s stiffness degrading models. In this model the Force Force rki
main response point during the loading cycle shifted
ki ki
towards the maximum response point but the slope ki ki
during unloading remained same as the initial elastic ki ki
d Displacement d
slope. By virtue of this modification, the Clough’s
model was able to represent the flexural behavior of rki
reinforced concrete. From the analysis of series of
SDOF system using this model Clough arrived at the
following conclusion
a. For building systems with higher initial time (a) (b)
period both clough’s and elasto-plastic model
yielded same results in terms of ductility demand Force F
b. The clough’s model yielded larger ductility rki
ki
demand as compared to elasto-plastic model for Previous yield in Tension
ki
short period structures.
d Displacement
c. Response waveforms of both models were ki No yield in compression
different.
rki
The main advantage of this model is that it is simple
and can be used for non-linear analysis using strain (c)
hardening characteristics.
d. Takeda’s hysteretic model Force F rki

A more refined and complex model for representing the

Previous yield
stiffness degradation was prepared by Takeda in 1970 ki
ku

based on his experimental observations. The proposed d

dy dm
model includes the stiffness changes due to flexural Displacement
ku
cracking, yielding and strain hardening. In Takeda’s rki No yield
model the stiffness during unloading cycle was reduced
as the fraction of the previous maximum deformation. (d)
Takeda also prepared set of guidelines for the load Fig. 3 a) Elasto-plastic model b) Bi-linear hysteresis models
reversals within the outermost hysteresis loop which c) Clough’s degrading stiffness model d) Takeda’s
were major improvement over Clough’s model. The hysteresis model
main disadvantage of this model was that extensive
damage caused by shear and bond deterioration was In Fig. 3 Ki, rKi and Ku are intial, modified and
not considered in this model. unloading stiffness

REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORKS Single Storey Building Models

REGARDING PLAN IRREGULARITIES
Assessment of the performance of building structures
during past earthquakes suggests that plan irregularities
are one of the important causes of damage during
occurrence of an earthquake. Plan irregularity may
occur due to irregular distribution of mass, stiffness
and strength along the plan. In past years lot of research
effort has been done to study the behavior of plan
asymmetric buildings during seismic excitation8-11.
Earlier studies investigated the torsional effects on plan
irregular building systems with single storey building
models. One of the main reasons for adopting single
storey models was their simplicity. These models
were used to determine the influence of torsion on
seismic response parameters and these results were
used to formulate design methodologies for plan
irregular building systems. However in recent years
multistorey building models are used to determine the

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 541

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
realistic inelastic torsional response of plan irregular
building systems. But due to complexities, the use of
multistorey building models is limited and it is one of
the major reasons that single storey building models
are still preferred by many researchers12-14. Previous
researchers on plan irregularities using single storey
models mainly focused on variation of positions of
C.M (Center of mass) or C.S (Center of stiffness) with
respect to each other to create eccentricity. The Main
aim of these researches was to determine the torsional
response of building systems due to eccentricity. To
create eccentricity some researchers varied position
of C.S or C.R keeping position of C.M. constant,
the eccentricity generated in this case was called as
stiffness eccentricity (es)10,11. Some researchers varied
position of C.M. keeping position of C.S as constant,
the eccentricity generated in this case was called
as mass eccentricity(em)12. Differing from earlier
approaches some researchers created differences in
strengths of resisting elements to vary position of center
of strength (C.V) with respect to C.M the eccentricity
generated was known as strength eccentricity (ev)15,16.
The definitions of eccentricity have been described
pictorially in Fig. 4.
em es
C.M C.S C.S C.M
(a) (b)
ev
C.V C.M
(c)
Fig. 4 Definitions of different types of eccentricity a) Mass
eccentricity, b) Stiffness eccentricity, c) Strength
eccentricity
Research works on plan irregular building systems
started in early 1980’s with Tso and Sadek10 determined
the variation in ductility demand by performing inelastic
seismic response of simple one storey mass eccentric
model with stiffness degradation using Clough’s
stiffness degradation model and bi-linear hysteric
model. Results of analytical study showed that the time
period had predominant effect on the ductility demand
542 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
after the elastic range. The comparison of results of
showed a 20 % difference in the results obtained.
Irregular distributions of strength and stiffness are one
of the major causes of failures during the earthquakes.
Both of these irregularities are interdependent and
to study the effect of these irregularities on seismic
response, the researchers like Tso and Bozorgnia9
determined the inelastic seismic response of plan
asymmetric building models (as described in Table 3)
with strength and stiffness eccentricity using curves
proposed by Dempsey and Tso. Results of analytical
study showed the effectiveness of the curves proposed
by Tso and Dempsey except for torsionally stiff
structures with low yield strength.
Sadek and Tso11 performed inelastic analysis of
mono-symmetric building systems with strength
eccentricity as described in Table 3. The center of
strength was defined in terms of yield strength of
resisting elements. From analytical studies it was
found that the code defined eccentricities based on
stiffness criteria were useful in predicting the elastic
seismic response. However in inelastic range parameter
of strength eccentricity was found to be useful in
determining seismic response.
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT MODELS ADOPTED
S.No Model Name Description
1 M Mass eccentric model with all
three resistant elements having
equal yield deformation
2 S1 Stiffness eccentric Model with
identical yield strength.
3 S2 Stiffness eccentric Model with
identical yield deformation.
Pekau and Guimond17 checked the adequacy of
accidental eccentricity to account for the torsion
induced due to the variation of strength and stiffness
of the resisting elements which was achieved using
elasto-plastic force-deformation relationship. Results
of analytical study showed occurrence of torsional
amplification due to strength and stiffness variation.
Finally the code prescribed provision of 5% for
accidental eccentricity was found to inadequate.
Duan and Chandler18 based on their analytical studies
on plan irregular building systems the change in design
eccentricity in Mexico code 87 was recommended as
1.5es + b and 0.5es - 0.1b. as compared to the earlier
value of es – 0.1b and es – 0.05b.
Chandler and Hutchinson19 determined the effects
of torsional coupling on one storey stiffness eccentric
building systems and from analytical studies the
strong dependence of torsional coupling effects on
natural time period of the structure was found. The
authors also evaluated the effectiveness of torsional
design provisions as prescribed by different codes of
practice20-23. The code evaluation results obtained for
asymmetric building system as per different codes are
shown in Table 4.
The authors carried out Elastic and inelastic analysis
methods on one storey stiffness eccentric building
systems. Results of analytical study showed the greater
displacement of flexible edge as compared to stiff edge.
The results obtained by consideration of different codes
are given in Table 5.
TABLE 4
CODE EVALUATION RESULTS
S.No Code Results
1 NEHRP21 Inadequate for building systems with
small and moderate eccentricity.
Satisfactory results for building
systems with large eccentricity.
2 ATC20 Same as NEHRP.
3 NBCC22 Inadequate for buildings with low
time periods (T<0.5S)
Over-conservative for higher time
periods at all eccentricities.
4 EC823 Conservative for small eccentricity.
Over conservative for medium to
large eccentric buildings system with
higher time periods.
Wong and Tso24 made assessment of torsional
provisions as prescribed by seismic design
Chandler et al.19 verified the torsional provisions
prescribed by different codes of practice. For
analytical study the authors considered two types of
building models namely torsionally balanced(TB) and
torsionally unbalanced (TU).The torsional unbalance
in the building model was created by varying position
of center of stiffness inducing stiffness eccentricity
equal to 0.05b. The torsionally unbalanced building
models were further divided into two types namely A1
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
and A2 having moderate and low torsional stiffness.
Results of analytical studies showed the variation in
seismic response in models A1 and A2 with flexible
edge experiencing greater deformation as compared
to the stiff edge. The stiff edge of building systems
with small time period (T < 1 Sec) designed according
to NZS 420325 and EC8:198923 experienced least
additional ductility demand. However the additional
ductility demand was found to be largest for building
systems with T > 1 Sec. In case of TU systems designed
according to EC 8 -1989 the ductility demand exceeded
by 2.5 % as compared to the TB system.
TABLE 5
RESULTS OBTAINED CONSIDERING DIFFERENT CODES
S.No Code Name Results
1 NZS25 Conservative Estimate of displacement
2 UBC26 Conservative Estimate of displacement
for DAF/FRF = 1
3 NBCC22 Conservative Estimate of displacement
for DAF/FRF = 0.6-1.0
Ferhi and Truman determined seismic response of
building systems with presence of stiffness and strength
eccentricity. Both elastic and inelastic seismic behavior
were studied. From analytical study of the building
systems it was found that the seismic response showed
greater dependence on stiffness eccentricity and in the
inelastic range influence of strength eccentricity on
seismic response is predominant.
Duan and Chandler27 developed an optimized
procedure for determining the seismic response of
torsion balanced and unbalanced structures. The
parameters like eccentricity (e), normalized stiffness
radius of gyration (Pk), force reduction factor (R) and
uncoupled lateral period (Ty) were included in the
proposed optimized procedure. The authors proposed
design eccentricity expression and over strength
factor expressions and compared it with code defined
expressions. The codes used in the study were UBC –
9428, EC8-9329 and NBCC-954. The analytical study
was conducted both on Torsionally balanced (TB)
and torsionally unbalanced (TU) models. Results of
analytical study showed that the over strength factor
proposed by authors was found to be substantially
lower as compared to UBC-94 and NBCC-95 but higher
than EC8 for entire range of Pk. However the results
of proposed procedure are comparable to code defined
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 543
procedures for torsionally unbalanced structures (TU).
The parameters e, pk, R, Ty considered in the design
procedure were found to influence the seismic response.
Finally the procedure was found to be applicable to
single storey and multistorey torsionally unbalanced
structures.
De-La-Colina30 studied the effects of torsion
on simple torsionally unbalanced building systems
considering the earthquake components in two
perpendicular directions. The effects of following
parameters were studied a) seismic force reduction
factor b) design eccentricity c) natural time period. The
structural model used for the analytical study is shown
in Fig. 5.
E4
nb
E2 E5
E1 E3
C.M C.R
E6
Fig. 5 Structural model considered by De-La colina
Based on the results of analytical study it was
conclude that, with increase in the force reduction
factor, the ductility demand reduces for flexible element.
Regarding the effect of initial lateral time period it was
found that for torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the
ductility demand increased with time period and vice
versa for torsionally unbalanced flexible elements and
increase in value of stiffness eccentricities reduced the
normalized ductility demand. Based on these results it
was concluded that strength eccentricity had greater
effect on seismic response as compared to stiffness
eccentricity.
Ghersi and Rossi31 determined the influence of
bidirectional seismic excitation on seismic response of
stiffness eccentric one storey building systems using
elastic and inelastic analysis. The seismic response of
the inelastic analysis was compared with the results
of elastic analysis. Results of analysis showed that
the consideration of effects of bidirectional seismic
excitation results in minor variation in seismic response.
Elastic analysis using unidirectional seismic excitation
was found to overestimate the seismic response.
544 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
De Stefano and Pintuchhi32 considered the
phenomenon of inelastic interaction between axial
force and horizontal forces in modeling of plan irregular
stiffness asymmetric building systems. Based on results
of analytical study it was concluded that consideration
of interaction phenomenon between axial force and
horizontal force resulted in reduction of floor rotation
by 20%.
Dutta and Das33 studied the seismic response of a
single storey plan asymmetric structures subjected to
bidirectional seismic excitation. For analytical study the
authors proposed two hysteric models as represented
in Fig 6 (a, b). These hysteric models account for
strength and stiffness deterioration of RC structural
elements subjected to cyclic loading. From results of
analytical study it was found that local deformation
demands both at stiff and flexible edge showed
variation when strength deterioration was considered.
The consideration of unidirectional seismic excitation
results in lower values of deformation demands at both
flexible and stiff edge. These results were found similar
to Tso and Myslimaj34.
Force
Unloading branch with initial F
stiffness k k Fλ β = 1-3α
λ = 1-2α
Fβ Displacement η = 1- α
Fη
α- Rate of strength deterioration
Deteriorated loading
branch
Target points of loading
branch
(a)
Force
Unloading branch with initial
stiffness k k(1-2δ)
Displacement
Fλ
F
β = 1-3α k
λ = 1-2α β k(1-3δ)
η = 1- α Fη
k(1-δ)
α- Rate of strength deterioration
(b)
Fig. 6: Second Hysteretic model proposed by Dutta and Das33
Tso and Myslimaj8 proposed a new approach
called yield distribution based approach for strength
and stiffness distribution. For analytical study the
authors modeled a single storey structure with a rigid
rectangular deck supported by two resisting elements
in X and five resisting elements in Y direction. The
resisting elements were modeled using elasto-plastic,
the bilinear and Clough’s hysteresis models for force
– deformation relationship. The authors proposed
a design parameter β on which location of center of
mass (C.M), rigidity (C.R), strength (C.V) and yield
displacement (C.V) depend. Table 6 shows different
position of centers for different values of β. The models
were subjected to dynamic analysis to determine the
balanced CV-CR location. From results of analytical
study it was found that the structure satisfied balanced
CV-CR location and had low torsional response when
value of β lies between zero and unity.
Fujii et al.35 suggested a simplified non-linear
analysis procedure for plan asymmetric structures with
stiffness eccentricity modeled as SDOF and MDOF
system. Results of analytical study showed that the
torsionally stiff building systems experienced greater
oscillations in first mode as compared to the torsionally
flexible building systems. On comparison of responses
of MDOF and SDOF models for TS and TF building
systems it was found that SDOF models were found to
be applicable to torsionally stiff building systems only.
Finally the proposed analysis procedure was found to
efficient in determining the seismic response of TS
building systems.
TABLE 6
DIFFERENT POSITION OF CENTERS OF MASS,
STIFFNESS, STRENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT FOR
DIFFERENT VALUES OF β.
S.NO β Positions of C.M, C.V, C.D
1 1 Position of CV coincides with CD, strength
distribution takes same shape as yield
displacement
2 0-1 Value of ev decreases position of CV starts
shifting from CD towards CM.
3 0 Position of CV coincides with CM and
position of CR is shifted towards left of
C.M at a distance equal to ed.
4 <1 CR and CV shift towards left of CM.
Moghadam and Aziminejad36 performed PBD
(Performance based design) of asymmetric structures.
The authors evaluated the seismic response of single
storey structures (code designed) with irregular
configuration for optimizing mass, stiffness and strength
center configurations corresponding to different levels
of plastic hinge formations. The author has adopted
the concept of balanced CV-CR location proposed by
Tso and Myslimaj8 to evaluate best performance level
of the structure. Based on the analytical study it was
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
concluded that the best location of CV-CR (Center of
stiffness and Center of rigidity) depended upon the
required performance level of the structure and also on
damage indices.
Shakib and Ghasemi16 have determined the effect of
consideration of near fault and far fault excitations on
seismic response of different type of plan asymmetric
structures with stiffness asymmetry. Following Tso and
Myslimaj34 who suggested balanced CV-CR location to
minimize rotational deformation, the authors suggested
a new approach to minimize rotational deformation. In
the proposed approach in which the strength distribution
pattern is made equal to Yield displacement distribution
modified by a parameter β. From results of analytical
study it was found that in case of near fault motions
when β > 0, the displacement demand on stiff edges is
greater as compared to the flexible edges. In case of far
fault motions when β < 0, the displacement demands are
greater on flexible edges as compared to stiff edges.
Jarernprasert et al.37 determined the inelastic
torsional response of single storey plan asymmetric
systems with stiffness eccentricity designed in
accordance with IBC 200638 and Mexico city building
code 2004. For analysis of this building model modal
analysis procedure was adopted. The affect of seismic
excitation on following parameters was studied, a)
ratio of uncoupled torsional to transitional frequencies,
b) design target ductility, c) elastic natural time period
and normalized static eccentricity. The authors also
proposed new reduction and amplification factor for
these parameters (a,b,c). From results of analytical
study it was found that these parameters (a,b,c) had
large influence on the inelastic behavior of the building
system. Regarding the comparison of codes it was
found that IBC 200638 code overestimate the design
forces at both flexible and stiff edge of building system
whereas the Mexico city building code overestimates
design forces at flexible side. The use of reduction and
amplification parameters leads to the ductility demands
closer to target ductility demands but the displacements
computed are nearly four times to that of equivalent
symmetric structure.
Ladinovic12 represented inelastic seismic response
of plan asymmetric structures with stiffness and
structural eccentricity in form of base shear torque
surface (BST). The factors influencing BST surface
were strength eccentricity, lateral capacity, torsional
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 545
capacity and distribution of strength along plan. other building models both in case of near and far field
Aziminezad and Moghadam39 determined the excitation.
effects of strength distribution and configuration of Luchinni et al.14 determined the nonlinear seismic
strength, rigidity and mass on seismic response of one response of single storey building models with
storey plan asymmetric building system subjected to eccentricities in both directions with BST procedure
near field and far field ground motions. Eight models and verified the BST approach using IDA analysis. For
with different values of yield displacement, strength analytical study four types of building models namely
and stiffness eccentricity were considered as shown in S1, S2, R1, and R2 were modeled. The S1 model was a
Fig.7 and Table 7. one way asymmetric system with es = 0.1b.The model
d d d
S2 was a two way asymmetric system with es = 0.05b
Cm Cv Cm Cm Cm in both directions. The model R1 contained uniform
Cr Cr Cv Cr Cv Cr Cv
strength distribution in x-direction only whereas model
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 R2 contained uniform strength distributions in both
directions. The results of analytical study showed that
d d
Cm Cm
d
Cm
d
Cm BST surface is efficient in predicting the location of
Cr Cv Cr Cv Cr Cv Cr Cv center of rigidity. The seismic response predicted by
Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 BST is comparable with that of IDA analysis. Table
Fig. 7 Models considered by Aziminejad and Moghadam39
8 shows Summary of research work regarding single
storey Plan irregular building models.
TABLE 7
In Table 8 es, em and ev are stiffness, mass and
DIFFERENT POSITION OF CENTERS OF MASS, STIFFNESS,
strength eccentricities and b is the Longer plan width.
STRENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT FOR DIFFERENT
VALUES OF Β. Multistorey Plan Asymmetric Structures
S.No Model Number Model Name ev/ed In previous analytical studies on plan irregular structures
1 1 Symmetric 0 the single storey models were widely used due to their
2 2 Stiffness Symmetric 1 simplicity and their ability to clearly depict the effect of
3 3 Balance 0.75 different seismic response parameters. Most of the design
4 4 Balance 0.5 criteria were formulated on basis of results obtained in
5 5 Balance 0.25 single storey models. But several researchers16 proved
6 6 Strength Symmetric 0 that single storey models give inaccurate prediction
7 7 - -0.33
of torsional response. The development of powerful
software tools has made modeling and analysis of multi-
8 8 - -1
storey building models much simpler and moreover the
The models were analyzed by dynamic nonlinear multi-storey building models give realistic prediction of
analysis and from results of analytical study it was torsional response. Although studies on plan irregular
found that for torsionally flexible building systems, the building models started in 1990’s, Fajfar et al.40 was
strength distribution and configuration of centers had one of the major researcher in this field who proposed
minor effect both for near field and far field excitations. a new method which was an extension of N2 method.
But seismic response of torsionally stiff building The proposed method was applicable to the realistic
systems was largely influenced by strength distribution 3D building models. For analytical study a eight storey
and configuration of centers. Regarding the modal R.C. building with structural walls modeled. The mass
periods it was found that modal periods along X-axis eccentricity was introduced in the building model by
had the maximum value as compared to other two displacing center of mass in both horizontal directions
modal periods and ratio of lateral to torsional frequency by 5% and 15%. The results of proposed procedure were
was found to be greater in y direction. Further it was compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis.
concluded that the torsionally stiff building systems From comparison of results the ability of proposed
with balanced CV-CR location perform better than method to predict the seismic response of torsionally

546 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORK REGARDING SINGLE STOREY PLAN IRREGULAR BUILDING MODELS
S.No Researcher
1 Tso Sadek
2 Sadek Tso
3 Duan Chandler
4 Chandler Hutchinson
5 Chandler et al.
6 De-La colina
7 Dutta Das
8 Fujii et al.
9 Shakib and Ghasemi
10 Ladinovic
11 Aziminejad Moghadam
12 Luchinni et al.
TABLE 8
Year Type and extent of eccentricity Main conclusion
1985 es = 0 - 0.25b Clough’s and bilinear hysteric model, a 20 % difference
in results of both models was observed.
1989 es and ep = 0 -0.2b Code defined eccentricities were valid for elastic range
only. For the inelastic range Strength eccentricity is
more effective.
1991 ea = 0 - 0.1b The recommended change in design eccentricity
es = 0.1b- 0.3b in Mexico code 87 as 1.5es + b and 0.5es - 0.1b. as
compared to the earlier value of 1es – 0.1b and 1ess
– 0.05b.
1992 es = 0.05b-0.2b Different codes of practice yielded different results.
1995 ea = 0.05b The codified value of accidental eccentricity of 0.05 b
was most consistent.
1999 es = 0 - 0.20b R =1,3,6 For torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the ductility
demand increases with time period and vice versa for
torsionally unbalanced flexible elements
2002 es = 0.05b - 0.2b Strength and stiffness irregularities are
interdependent.
2004 es = 0.682b, 0.5b Drift demand due to stiffness degradation
underestimated by SDOF model.
2007 es = 0.09b -0.01b For β > 0 - displacement demand on stiff edges is
ev = 0.03b - 0.06b greater as compared to the flexible edges. For β < 0,
the displacement demands are greater on flexible dges
as compared to stiff edges.
2008 em -0.1b -0.5b Distribution of strength. Stiffness eccentricity along
es = ev -0.12b plan does not affect the shape of the BST surface.
2010 es = 0.025b - 0.10b, Torsionally flexible building systems are least affected
ev = 0 – 0.2b by strength distribution and location of centers both in
case of near and far field excitations. Torsionally stiff
building systems with balanced CV-CR location show
better seismic performance both in case of near and far
field excitations.
2011 es = 0 – 0.3 b The seismic response predicted by BST is comparable
eith that of IDA analysis.

stiff structure was justified. However, the method did
not include the effects of lateral torsional coupling and
was found to be under-conservative as compared to the
N2 method.
De-la-Colina41 made assessments of several code
specified procedures regarding analysis procedures for
multistorey building systems with mass and stiffness
irregularity subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation
(EI Centro earthquake). Analytical studies were carried
out on several 5 storey buildings having mass and
stiffness eccentricity. Shear beam models were used by
researchers to represent resisting elements. Based on
the code defined procedures the authors had found out
the optimal values of storey eccentricity.
Chopra and Goel42 proposed a new method based
on extension of their earlier method43. In the proposed
method the torsional amplification of the structure
was accounted for by application of the lateral forces
in combination with the torsional moments at each
floor of the structure. The lateral forces and torsional
moments were obtained from the modal analysis of
the structure. A comparison between the results of the
proposed method and non-linear dynamic analysis were
made for building systems with different uncoupled

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 547

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
lateral to torsional vibration periods. From the results
of analytical study the accuracy of proposed procedure
for symmetric structures was verified. However the
accuracy of proposed procedure decreases with the
increase in magnitude of torsional coupling which is
due to the use of CQC modal combination rule.
Correlating with his earlier studies Fajfar et al.
again proposed a new method based on N2 method. In
the proposed method, combination of modal responses
obtained from pushover analysis of 3D structures were
made with the results obtained from linear dynamic
analysis. In the proposed procedure the displacements
and deformation distributions along height were
controlled by N2 method and the magnitude of
torsional amplification is defined by the linear dynamic
analysis.
Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos44 were one
of the few researchers who had made attempt to
evaluate torsional response of realistic 3D structures
by nonlinear analysis (Both as per EC8 and UBC 97).
The authors conducted analytical studies on realistic 3
storey and 5 storey RC framed buildings (with flexible
and stiff edges) subjected to bidirectional excitations.
From the results obtained (Multistorey structures) it
was found that the inelastic displacement was found to
be greater at flexible side as compared to the stiff side,
however the results obtained in case of single storey
structures were contradictory to the results obtained in
case of multistorey structures with mass irregularity
under the action of bidirectional seismic excitation.
Furthermore the authors found that the torsionally stiff
building systems undergo less plastic deformation as
compared to the torsionally flexible building systems.
These findings contradict the results obtained from
single storey models.
Penelis and kappos45 proposed a method to determine
the inelastic torsional response of plan asymmetric
single storey and multistorey structures. The models
used for analytical studies were single degree of
freedom (SDOF) systems and incorporated the effects
of torsional and transitional modes. In the proposed
method the spectral load vectors were obtained from
the elastic spectral analysis and these vectors were
applied on the structure to carryout 3D pushover
analysis. The results of the proposed procedure were
compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis.
From the results it was found that the inelastic seismic
548 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
response obtained by both methods vary by 10% in
case of single storey structures and by 20 % in case of
multistorey structures.
Marusic and Fajfar46 determined the elastic and
inelastic seismic response of five storey steel framed
structure with mass eccentricity. The eccentricities
were taken as 5%, 10% and 15% of plan dimensions.
For Analytical study the author modeled three types of
building models as described in Table 9.
TABLE 9
DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED BY MARUSIC AND
FAJFAR (2005)
Model Name Description
S Torsionally stiff building model with moment
resistant beam column connections (All beam-
column connections).
F1 Building Model with torasional stiffness equal
to Model S with moment resisrtant beam
column connections (Corner beams only)
F2 Building Model with torasional stiffness less
than Model S and F1.
For the building model the first storey height was
kept as 4m and other storey heights were kept as
3.5m. The multistorey structure was subjected to the
bidirectional seismic excitation. The results obtained
at flexible edges were almost comparable with Perus
and fajfar47. However, the results of both papers did not
correlate in case of stiff edges of torsionally stiff and
flexible building systems.
Stefano et al.48 determined the difference between
the inelastic seismic response of single storey and
multistorey plan asymmetric structures. For analytical
study a single storey and a six storey steel frame with
mass applied at 0.15 b (b is the width of longer plan)
of the geometric structure, thus mass eccentricity was
created in the building model. The effect of over-
strength of resisting elements was also evaluated.
Analytical studies showed the influence of over-
strength on ductility demand of the building systems
and this influence showed variation for single and
multistorey building systems. Finally it was found that
seismic response obtained from single storey models
was different from those obtained from multi-storey
models. From results of analytical study it was found
that for e/r ≤ 0.5 and μ ≤ 0.4, number of resistant planes
in direction of seismic response had no influence
on seismic response and the lateral displacements
decrease with increase in ductility demand. Finally the
Parameters like degree of torsional coupling, uncoupled
lateral time period and eccentricity had larger influence
on seismic response.
Ghersi et al.49 determined the effectiveness of modal
analysis procedure in evaluating the inelastic seismic
response of multistorey plan asymmetric structure. A
six storey steel framed building and asymmetry was
induced by variation of applying load at 0.15L away
from geometric center inducing mass eccentricity.
Results of modal analysis was compared with that of
static analysis and by chandler procedure to check the
proposed procedure. The proposed method leads to
good seismic performance of buildings as compared
to other methods of analysis. However the strength
distribution along plan given by the proposed method
is comparable with method suggested by Ghersi and
Rossi but it is simpler in application as compared to the
latter method.
TABLE 10
DIFFERENT MODEL CONFIGURATIONS PROPOSED
S.No Model Name Ratio of Stiffness to
Yield displacement
eccentricity (ev / ed)
1 Symmetric 0 20% for ADE = 0.10L.
2 Stiffness Symmetric 1 Anangnopoulos et al51. determined inelastic
3 Balance (0.75Cv – Cr) 0.75
4 Balance (0.5Cv – Cr) 0.5
5 Balance (0.25Cv – Cr) 0.25
6 Strength Symmetric 0
7 De-Stefano (0.25Cm-Cr) -0.33
8 De-Stefano (0.5Cm-Cr) -1
Aziminejad and Moghadam39 determined seismic
performance of eight 5 storey plan asymmetric
(Stiffness and strength) building systems with different
strength distributions. The eight different building
systems in location of position of center of rigidity
and strength (Table 10). These building models
were analyzed for nonlinear dynamic response using
OPENSEES software. From results of analytical study
it was concluded that building systems with strength
eccentricity equal to one fourth of distance between
positions of strength and stiffness performed better on
rotation and drift criteria.
Stahopoulos and Anangnopoulos50 evaluated the
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
effectiveness of accidental eccentricity provisions. For
analytical study the authors created four types of building
models. The first and second models were one storey
shear beam with stiffness eccentricity and one storey
frame models with mass eccentricity respectively. The
third model was three storey frame type building and
fourth one was five storey frame type of models, both
these models had combination of mass and stiffness
asymmetry along plan. The shear beam models were
modeled considering a bilinear force-displacement
behavior and magnitude of strain hardening was taken
equal to 0.05. For idealization of frame members,
plastic hinge model was used and Takeda’s moment-
rotation relationships were used in creating the plastic
hinge model. The one storey and three storey building
models were subjected to the accidental eccentricities
from 0 to 0.05L, whereas the five storey building model
was subjected to an additional eccentricity of 1.0L in
addition to earlier mentioned eccentricities.. Results of
analytical study suggest that in case of one storey shear
beam models, the consideration of accidental design
eccentricity (ADE) results in reduction of ductility
demands of edge elements in case of building systems
with larger time period(Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility
demand reduces by 10 % for ADE = 0.05L and by 10-
torsional response of single storey and multi-storey
building models with mass and stiffness eccentricity.
The building models were designed in accordance with
EC8 and IBC code provisions. The inelasticity in the
building models were introduced by assuming Takeda’s
moment-rotation relationship and strain hardening ratio
was taken as 0.05. The inelastic plastic hinge models
were further subdivided into three categories namely
SIMP1, SIMP2 and SIMP3 as described in detail in
Table 10. The building models were analyzed using time
history analysis using ANSR software programs. From
results of analytical study it was found that for models
SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges of building were
found to be the critical elements which correlates with
results obtained for single storey models by previous
researchers. The seismic response of SIMP3 model
was found to be strongly dependent on seismic loading
and in this case critical elements were stiff edges which
contradicts with results obtained for single storey
models. Table 11 shows Summary of research works
regarding Multi storey plan asymmetric structures.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 549
REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORKS
REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
Irregularities of mass, stiffness, strength and
geometry along building height may be termed as
vertical irregularity. These irregularities may be
present singly or in combination. Different types of
vertical irregularities have different effects on seismic
response. So, the effect of these irregularities should be
considered and incorporated in current seismic design
codes. The research works concerned with vertical
irregularities started in early 1970s with Chopra52
who studied the seismic response of series of eight
storey shear buildings subjected to the earthquake
motion data. The main objective of the author was
to determine the effect of yielding of first storey on
upper stories. From results of analytical study it was
found that an ideal plastic mechanism and a low yield
force are required in the first storey for safety of higher
floors of the structure. The irregularities of mass,
stiffness and strength are represented by parameters
of mass ratio (Mr), stiffness ratio (Sr), Strength ratio
(STr) which may be defined as the ratio of mass,
stiffness and strength of storey under consideration to
the adjacent storey.

TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING MULTI STOREY PLAN ASYMMETRIC STRUCTURES
S.No Researcher Year N Type and extent of Main conclusion
eccentricity
1 Stahthopoulos 2003 3 5 em = 0.1b - 0.3b The Building Systems with biaxial eccentricity
Anagnopoulos53 es = 0 - 0.3L showed the increased ductility demand.
The displacements at flexible edge was found
ea = 0 - 0.05b
to be greater for SB models as compared to PH
models. SB models were found inefficient in
assessment of codal provisions.
2 Chopra Goel42 2004 9 em = 4.57m Accuracy of proposed procedure decreased with
the increase in magnitude of torsional coupling.
3 Fernandez et al.54 2005 5 es = 0.25r - 0.75r For e/r ≤ 0.5 and μ (Ductility coefficient) ≤ 0.4,
number of resistant planes in direction of seismic
response have no influence on seismic response.
4 Stefano et al.48 2006 6 em = 0.15b Overstrength factor influences the seismic
response.
5 Ghersi et al.49 2007 6 em = 0.05b - 0.30b The proposed method leads to good seismic
performance of buildings as compared to other
methods of analysis.
7 Luchinni et al.14 2009 2 es = 0, 0.5b The deformation demand in the Irregular
buildings was found to be non-linear.
8 Aziminejad 2010 5 es = 0 - 0.14b est =0 - In building systems with strength eccentricity
Moghadam15 0.25b equal to one fourth of the distance between
positions of strength and stiffness performed
better on rotation and drift criteria.
9 Stahthopoulos 2010 1 3 5 em = 0 – 0.3b es = 0.1b Consideration of accidental design eccentricity
Anagnopoulos50 - 0.7b ea = 0 - 0.10b (ADE) results in reduction of ductility demands
of edge elements in case of building systems with
larger time period (Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility
demand reduces by 10 % for A = 0.05L and by 10-
20% for A= 0.10L.
10 Anangnopoulos et 2010 3 5 em es = 0-0.30 b For models SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges
al.51 ea = 0.05b were the critical elements. In SIMP3 models the
stiff edges were critical elements.
N – Represents number of stories

550 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
 Humar and Wright55 studied the seismic response
of multistorey steel building frames with and without
setback irregularity using one ground motion data.
Based on analytical study it was concluded that, in
case of building frames with setbacks, the storey drift
was found to be greater at upper portion of setback and
smaller in the base portion. Also, the drift of building
frames with setbacks was found to be lesser as compared
to the building frames without setback irregularity.
Aranda56 extended the approach of earlier
researchers30.The author determined and compared the
seismic response of structure with and without setback
irregularity founded on soft soil. From the results of
analytical studies it was confirmed that the ductility
demand and its increase in upper portion of setback was
higher as compared to the base portion and structures
with setbacks experienced higher ductility demand as
compared to their regular counterparts.
Fernandez54 determined the elastic and inelastic
seismic response of multistorey building frames with
irregular distribution of mass and stiffness. Reduction
in storey stiffness resulted in increased storey drift and
structures with constant variation of mass and stiffness
in vertical direction showed better seismic performance
as compared to the structures with abrupt variations.
Presence of shear walls leads to variation in stiffness
and researchers like Moelhe57 determined the seismic
response of R.C structures with irregularities. For
analytical study, nine storey building frames with 3 bays
and structural walls were modelled. The irregularity
in building models was created by discontinuation of
structural walls at different storey heights. Based on the
analytical results it was found that the seismic response
not only depended on extent of structural irregularities
but also on the location of irregularities. Experimental
studies are necessary to verify the accuracy of analytical
results and researchers like Moehle and Alarcon58
performed experimental tests on two small prototype
R.C. building frames subjected to the ground motion
data. The tests were performed using shake table. The
two building models used for the study were named
as ‘FFW’ and ‘FSW’. The ‘FFW’ model had two
frames of nine storey having 3 bays each and the third
frame was also of 9 storey but had prismatic wall, this
model represented the building systems without any
irregularity. The Vertical irregularities were introduced
in the building models by discontinuation of shear wall
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
at first storey and this building models were designated
as ‘FSW’ Rest of the features in both ‘FFW’ and
‘FSW’ were same. The displacements of top floor were
computed for all these building models using elastic and
inelastic dynamic analysis. From the analytical study it
was concluded that in case of ‘FSW’ductility demand
increased abruptly at the vicinity of discontinuity
of shear wall and this increase was found to be 4 to
5 times higher as compared to the ‘FFW’ models.
Further the inelastic dynamic analysis was found to
be more efficient as compared to the elastic analysis in
determining the effect of structural discontinuities.
Barialoa and Brokken59 determined the effects of
strength and stiffness variation on nonlinear seismic
response of multistorey building frames. For analytical
study 8 storey building with 5 bays were modeled.
The building frames were subjected to three different
category of time periods namely low, medium and high.
Each building category was further subdivided into two
more categories based on base shear namely weak and
strong. In the weak building the base shear was 15 %
of total seismic weight whereas in strong building the
bases shear was 30 % of total weight of the structure.
The results of analytical study showed that the time
period of structure increases during seismic excitation
and this increase is more pronounced in case for weaker
structures. A linear elastic spectrum can be used to
determine the seismic response if increase in damping
along with increase in damping is considered.
Ruiz and Diederich60 conducted analytical studies
on five and twelve storey building models with strength
irregularity. The strength irregularity in the building
model was created by modeling first storey of the
structure as the weak storey in the first case. In the
second case the infill walls in top storey were modeled
as brittle and in the third case the infill walls were
modeled as ductile. From results of analytical study it
was found that the yielding, failure and formation of
plastic hinges in infill walls was greatly influenced by
time period of seismic excitation.
Shahrooz and Moehle61 determined the seismic
response of building systems with vertical setbacks.
The authors conducted both experimental and analytical
tests to improve methodologies for design of setback
buildings. For performing the experimental study
model of a six storey R.C. frame having 50 % setback at
midheight was prepared. From results of experimental
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 551
study it was found that there was no abrupt variation
in the displacement along the building height. The
interstorey drifts were found to be largest with increased
damage and abrupt reduction in lateral force at location
of setbacks. The distribution of lateral displacement
and force along building height suggest that the
translational seismic response of the building parallel to
direction of setback is influenced by fundamental mode
of vibration. For performing analytical study six storey
building frames with six different patterns of setbacks
were modeled and designed in accordance with UBC
code of practice62. For all of these frames the floor plan
dimensions and mass ratios were varied from 3 to 9
times as suggested by UBC 1988 code of practice which
differentiated symmetric and setback structures on
basis of plan dimensions and mass ratios. The analyses
of these frames were carried out by modal analysis
procedure as prescribed by UBC 1988 code of practice.
From results of analytical study it was concluded that
all these frames experienced similar magnitude and
distribution of ductility demand. The frames with
similar mass ratios and floor plan dimensions but with
different setback heights experienced different amount
of damage which contradicted the approach of UBC
1988 code.
Nasser and Krawlinker63 conducted parametric
study on multistorey (3, 5,10,20,30, 40 storey) SDOF
and MDOF systems (with strength irregularity) with
different periods of seismic excitation ranging from
0.217s – 2.051s. The models used are described in
Table 12.
TABLE 12
BUILDING MODELS USED BY NASSER AND
KRAWLINKER (1991)
S.No Model Name No. of Stories Model Description
1 Beam Hinge 3,10,20,30,40 Plastic hinges form
in beam only
2 Column Hinge 3,10,20,30,40 Plastic hinges form
in column only
3 Model 3 3,10,20,30,40 Plastic hinges form
in columns of first
storey only
Three types of building systems as described in Table
13 were studied.. In case of SDOF models the strength
demand was represented in terms of strength reduction
factor which represents the reduction in strength of
structural elements. In case of MDOF systems it was
552 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
found that strength demand and target ductility ratios
depend on failure mechanisms developed and presence
of weak first storey increased the ductility demand and
overturning moments.
Esteva64 evaluated the seismic response of building
frames with soft first storey by using non-linear analysis.
For simplification of analytical study the shear beam
model was used to represent the building systems. The
first main purpose of analytical study was to observe
the bilinear hysteric behavior of the building systems
with and without consideration of P-Delta effects.
The second main purpose of the analytical study was
to determine the affect of influence ratio r (which was
defined as the ratio of average value of lateral shear
safety factor for upper stories to the bottom stories) on
ductility demand. The results of analytical study are
shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13
RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL STUDY OBTAINED BY
ESTEVA (1992)
S.No Time period Influence ratio Ductility Demand
1 Low Increase from Increase by 30 %
1.0 to 3.0
2 Medium No impact No impact
3 High Increase from Increase from 50 %
1.0 to 3.0 - 100%
Wood65 found that presence of setbacks did not
affect the dynamic seismic response which was more
or less similar for symmetrical structures.
Wong and Tso24 used elastic response spectrum
analysis to determine seismic response of structures
with setback irregularity and it was observed that
buildings with setback irregularity had higher modal
masses causing different seismic load distribution as
compared to the static code procedure.
Duan and Chandler27 conducted analytical studies
on building systems with setback irregularity using
both static and modal spectral analysis and based
on the results of analytical studies, it was concluded
that both static and modal analysis procedures were
inefficient in preventing the concentration of damage
in structural members near level of setbacks.
Vamudson and Nau66 evaluated seismic response
of multistorey buildings with vertical irregularities.
For analytical study two dimensional shear beam
building models with five, ten and twenty stories were
prepared. The structural irregularities were introduced
in the building models by varying the mass, stiffness
and strength. From analytical studies it was found that
introduction of mass and stiffness irregularity resulted
in minor variation in the seismic response. The storey
drifts were increased in range of 20% - 40 % for 30 %
decrease in the stiffness of the first storey, with constant
strength. The strength reduction of 20 % doubled the
ductility demand.
Al-Ali and Krawinkler67 evaluated the effect of
mass, stiffness and strength and their combinations
on seismic response of a 10 storey structure. Elastic
and inelastic dynamic analyses were used for the
analytical study. Based on the results of analytical
study it was observed that, when irregularities were
considered separately; the strength irregularity had
the maximum impact on roof displacement and mass
irregularity had the minimum impact on the roof
displacement. When combination of irregularities
was considered, the combination of stiffness and
strength irregularity had the maximum impact on
roof displacement.
Kappos and Scott68 made comparison between
static and dynamic methods of analysis for evaluating
the seismic response of R.C frames with setback
irregularity. On comparison between results of both
methods it was concluded that dynamic analysis yielded
results different from that of static analysis. However
in the analytical study the other forms of irregularities
like mass, stiffness and strength irregularity were not
included.
Magliulo et al.69 conducted parametric studies on
multistorey RC frames (5, 9 storey) with mass, stiffness
and strength irregularity designed for “low ductility
class” as per EC 8 provisions. The authors evaluated
the seismic response of the irregular frames and have
compared it with the seismic response of building
frames without any irregularity. From the analytical
studies it was found that mass irregularity does not
effect plastic demands. In case of strength irregularity,
irregular distribution of strength in beams increased
the seismic demand. However seismic demands were
not affected due to irregular strength distribution
in columns. Finally the authors concluded that the
parameter of storey strength as prescribed by EC8
and IBC codes was ineffective in predicting strength
irregularity.
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
Das and Nau70 evaluated the effects of stiffness,
strength and mass irregularity on inelastic seismic
response of large number of multistorey structures. For
analytical study a large number of buildings with three
bays in direction of seismic action and with number of
stories ranging from 5-20 were modeled.
TYPE A TYPE B TYPE C
(a) TYPE A,B,C – Taller first, intermediate and top storey
TYPE t TYPE m TYPE b
(b) TYPE t, m, b - Irregular mass distributions
TYPE E1 - E2 TYPE E3 - E6
(c) E1-E2 – Open ground floor, E3 – E6 – Partial infill
a) TYPE A,B,C – Taller first, intermediate and top storey b)
TYPE t, m, b - Irregular mass distributions c) E1-E2 – Open
ground floor, E3 – E6 – Partial infill
Fig. 8 Different types of vertically irregular building models, Das
and Nau70
The structural irregularities in these building
models were introduced by variation of mass ratio,
stiffness ratio , storey strength and by considering the
effect of masonry infills. These frames were designed
as special moment resisting frames (S.M.R.F.) based
on strong column – weak beam design philosophy in
accordance with different codes of practice namely
ACI 1999 and UBC 97. The forces on these S.M.R.F
frames were computed using ELF (Equivalent Lateral
force) procedure as prescribed in ACI 99 and UBC 97
code. From results of analytical study it was concluded
that the seismic response parameters like first mode
shape and fundamental time period as computed by
ELF procedure were similar for symmetrical and
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 553
unsymmetrical structure. The storey drift computed for
five storey and ten storey structures with combination
of mass, strength and stiffness irregularities at bottom
storey showed an abrupt increase over code prescribed
limit of 2 %. The ductility demands showed an abrupt
increase near the location of irregularity but this increase
never exceeded the designed ductility capacity of the
members. Finally the mass irregularity had least impact
on the structural damage index and for all the building
models analyzed it was found to be less than 0.40.
Chintanpakdee and Chopra71 evaluated the effects
of strength, stiffness and combination of strength and
stiffness irregularity on seismic response of multistorey
frames. For analytical study, different 12 storey frames
were modeled based on strong column – weak beam
theory. The irregularity in strength and stiffness were
introduced at different locations along height of the
building models. The building models were analyzed
using time history analysis by subjecting the building
model to 20 different ground motion data. From
analytical studies it was concluded that irregularities in
strength and stiffness when present in combination had
the maximum affect on the seismic response. Further
maximum variation in the displacement response along
height was observed when irregularities are present on
the lower stories.
Tremblay and Poncet72 evaluated the seismic
response of building frames with vertical mass
irregularity (Fig. 15) designed according to NBCC
provisions by static and dynamic analysis. Based on
the analytical study it was concluded that both static
and dynamic method of analysis (as prescribed by
NBCC provisions) resulted in similar values of storey
drifts and hence they were ineffective in predicting the
effects of mass irregularity.
Fragiadakis et al.73 determined the seismic response
of building systems with irregular distribution of
strength and stiffness in vertical direction. After
conducting the analytical study it was concluded that
seismic performance of the structure depended on type
and location of irregularity and on intensity of seismic
excitation. Modal pushover analysis (MPA) procedure
is an important analytical tool to evaluate the seismic
performance and several researchers like Lignos and
Gantes13 investigated the effectiveness of Modal
pushover analysis procedure (MPA) in determination
of multistorey steel braced frame (4, 9 storey) with
554 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
stiffness irregularities. Based on the results of analytical
study it was concluded that MPA procedure was
incapable of predicting failure mechanism and collapse
of the structure.
Khoure et al.74 designed a 9 storey steel framed
structures with setback irregularity as per Israeli steel
code SI 1225(1998).The authors made variation in
height and location of setbacks in building frames.
Results of analytical studies confirmed that higher
torsional response was obtained in tower portion of
setbacks.
Some researchers preferred dynamic analysis over
MPA procedure to evaluate seismic response due to
its accuracy. Fragiadakis et al.75 proposed an IDA
(Incremental dynamic analysis) procedure for estimating
seismic response of multistorey frame (9 storeys) with
stiffness and strength irregularity contrary to Lignos
and Gantes13, Alba et al.76 who used MPA procedure
to evaluate the seismic response of building frames
with stiffness irregularity. Based on the analytical
results the authors concluded that the proposed method
was effective in predicting effects of irregularity in
building frames. Finally, the authors concluded that
effect of irregularity is influenced by location and
type of irregularity and building systems subjected to
unidirectional seismic excitation underestimate the
seismic demand significantly.
Tremblay and Poncet72 conducted extensive study
on multistorey building frames with mass irregularity
as per NBCC code. Ayidin77 evaluated the seismic
response of buildings with mass irregularity by ELF
procedure (as prescribed by Turkish code of practice)
and by time history analysis. The researcher had
modeled multistorey structure ranging from 5 to 20
storey height. The mass irregularity is created by
variation in mass of a storey with constant mass at other
stories. Based on the analytical study author concluded
that the mass irregularity effects the shear in the storey
below and ELF procedure overestimates the seismic
response of the building systems as compared to the
time history analysis.
Basu and Gopalakrishnan78 developed a simplified
method of analysis for determination of seismic
response of structures with horizontal setbacks and
torsional irregularity. The assessment of the proposed
method was made by applying it on four building
models. In case of building models with scattered
positions of C.M. the proposed method evaluates
seismic response considering average value of position
of C.M. whereas perturbation analysis considers exact
location of positions of C.M. at different floor levels
to evaluate the seismic response. Results of analytical
study showed that for building systems with vertically
aligned C.M. the frequencies obtained by proposed
procedure and perturbation analysis were found to be
in close agreement, but results of frame shear forces
differed by 7 %. In case of second example, the modal
response obtained by proposed method and perturbation
analysis was similar, but difference in frame shear
force was found to be 4% for upper stories and 1 %
for base stories. In case of third building model, the
frequencies obtained by proposed procedure and
perturbation analysis were in close agreement, but
difference of results in case of frame shear forces were
10 % at ground storey level and 4% at first storey level.
In case of fourth example the difference of results in
estimation of frame shear forces were as high as 50 %,
so it was concluded that the proposed position is not
applicable to the building models where the prescribed
limit of scattering of C.M. is exceeded.
Karavallis et.al.79 performed extensive parametric
study on steel frames with different types of setback
irregularity designed as per European seismic and
structural codes. From analysis the databank of
different output parameters like no. of stories, beam
to column strength ratio, geometrical irregularity etc.
which influence the deformation demands was created.
Based on the deformation demands four performance
levels were identified and these are a) occurrence of
first plastic hinge b) Maximum interstorey drift ratio
(IDRmax) equal to 1.8 % ; c) IDRmax equal to 3.2%
d)IDRmax equal to 4.0%. The results for different
types of setback structure were expressed in terms of
these performance levels . From analytical study it was
concluded that interstorey drift (IDR) ratio increased
with increase in storey height and tower portion
of setback experienced maximum deformation as
compared to the base portion.
Athanassiadou80 made the assessment of seismic
capacity of the RC structures irregular in elevation. The
author modeled three multistorey frames, out of these
three frames two ten storey plane frames were modeled
with two and four large setbacks in their upper floors
and the third frame was regular in elevation. These
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
three frames were subjected to 30 different ground
motions d and designed by the researchers as DCH and
DCM frames (Designed for high ductility and medium
ductility) as per Euro code 8.Then non linear dynamic
analysis of the frames was carried out by subjecting the
frame to the ground motion data of the earthquake and
parameters of rotation, base shear and interstorey drift
were evaluated. Based on the analytical study it was
found that the performance of both DCM and DCH
frames were found to be satisfactory as per guidelines
of Euro code 8.
Karavallis et al.81 evaluated the seismic response
of family of 135 plane steel moment resisting frames
with vertical mass irregularities and created databank
of analytical results. Furthermore the authors used
regression analysis technique to derive simple
formulae to evaluate seismic response parameters
using the analysis databank. Results of analytical
studies suggested that the mass ratio had no influence
on deformation demand. The results obtained from
proposed formulae were found to be comparable with
results of dynamic analysis.
Sadasiva et al.82 evaluated the effect of location of
vertical mass irregularity on seismic response of the
structure. A 9 storey regular and irregular (with vertical
irregularity) frame was analyzed and designed as per
New Zealand code of practice in two ways, firstly it was
designed to have maximum interstorey drift at all levels
(represented as CDCSIR) . Secondly, it was designed
to have a constant stiffness (represented by CS) at all
levels. To make clear distinction between regular and
irregular structure, a special notation form was used
by the authors of form NS-M-L-(A), where N-no.of
stories, S-Shear beam, M- Type of model [i.e. S(Shear
beam) or SFB (Shear Flexure beam), (A) – Mass ratio].
The deformation is represented in form of graphs. For
making the study Los Angeles earthquake records had
been used and authors carried out inelastic time history
analysis of the structure using Ruamoko software. Based
on this analysis it was concluded that in case of both
CS and CISDR model the interstorey drift produced is
maximum when mass irregularity is present at topmost
storey and irregularity increases the interstorey drift of
the structure. However this magnitude varies for both
CS and CISDR type of models .
Sarkar et al.83 developed a new parameter called
as regularity index (defined as the ratio of 1st mode
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 555
participation factor of the stepped building frame to In Table Mr, Sr and STr are mass, stiffness and
the regular frame) to express the extent of irregularity strength ratios.
and the authors developed an empirical formula to
calculate the fundamental time period of building COMPARISON OF MODELS USED BY
frames with vertical setbacks. By use of this formula DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
the fundamental time period was represented as the
function of regularity index. To validate the approach, Classification 1: Table 15 shows First system of
modal analysis of 78 different building frames with classification of models used by different researchers
different types of setback irregularity were conducted M 1 - Elasto-plastic hysteric model
and it was found that the empirical formula yielded M 2 - Bi-linear hysteric model
accurate results even for 3D building models. Table M 3 - Clough’s hysteric model
14 shows the summary of research works regarding
M 4 - Takeda’s hysteric model
vertical irregularity.

TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITY

S.No Name of Researcher Year Key Parameters N Main conclusion

1 Ruiz and Diedrich 1989 Sr – 4,0.9 5 The behavior of infill wall is greatly influenced by
Sr - 0.65-2.0 time period of seismic excitation.
1.0-2.0

2 Shahrooz and Moelhe 1990 50 % setback 6 High rotational ductility in vicinity of irregularity
Mr –300 % to 900%

3 Vamudsson and Nau 1997 Mr - 0.1,0.5,1.5,2,5 5, ELF predicts accurate response upto Mr =5.
Sr - 0.5- 0.9 10, Storey stiffness reduction by 30 % increases
STr - 0.5-0.9 20 storey drift by 20 – 40% and reduction of storey
strength by 20 % doubles the ductility demand.

4 Ali Ali and 1997 Mr - 0.25,0.5,2,4 10 Mass irregularity had the least impact whereas
Krawlinker Sr - 0.1,0.25,0.5, 2,4,10 strength irregularity had the maximum impact.
STr -0.5

5 Das Nau 2003 Mr - 2.5-5.0 5 Ductility demands increased in vicinity of

Sr - 0.09 -1.6 10 irregularity but never exceeded design ductility
- 0.09 - 1.7 20 demand.
- 0.08 - 1.81
STr - 0.27-1.05

6 Chintanpakdee 2004 Sr –0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0 12 Irregularities in upper stories had least influence
Chopra STr -0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0 on displacement demand as compared to
irregularities in lower stories.

7 Fragiadakis 2006 Sr - 0.5,2.0 9 Seismic response depends on type of structural

STr - 0.5,2.0 irregularity.

8 Ayidin 2007 Mr 0.1,0.5,1,1.5,2,5 5 10 20 ELF procedure overestimates seismic response.

Mass irregularity affects shear.

9 Karavallis et al 2008 Mr = 2,4,6 3 9 15 Mass ratio has no influence on drift, rotation and
ductility demands.

10 Sadasiva et.al 2008 Mr = 2.5,5 9 Effects of irregularity depends on Structural

model, Location and type of irregularity.

556 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
 TABLE 15 TABLE 16
FIRST SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED SECOND SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS
BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
M Reference Advantages Disadvantages S. M Reference Advantages Disadvantages
no. No no.
1 11, 31, 33, Simple Less accurate for building 1 SS 8-12, 14, Simple Easy Does not represent
34, 49, 66 systems with T>0.5s. 19, 27, 30, idealization and the actual
2 8, 27, 37, Includes strain Does not account for 31, 33, 37, formulation. structure.
44, 53, 84 hardening effect. stiffness change due to 41, 42, 44, Does not involve
increase in displacement 49, 50, 67, building systems
amplitude reversal. 84 with large degree
3 8, 10, 11, Used for nonlinear Larger ductility demand of freedom.
30, 41 analysis includes as compared to elasto – 2 MS 13-15, 24, Represents More complex and
strain hardening plastic elements. 39, 40, 42, actual structure. difficult to model
effect. Comparable values with 44, 46, 50, Seismic response as compared to
model 1 for high period 51, 53-56, obtained much SB models.
structures. 59, 65-73, closer to reality.
Need of
75-79, 81- Can involve large s o p h i s t i c a t e d
4 50, 70, 75 Includes effects of Excessive damage caused
83, 85 no. of degree of softwares.
flexural, cracking by shear and bond not
and strain considered. freedom.
hardening.
Classification 3: Table 17 shows third system of
Classification 2: Table 16 shows Second system of classification of models used by different researchers
classification of models used by different researchers SB - Shear Beam
SS - Single-storey models PH - Plastic hinge
MS – Multi-storey models 3D - 3D frame models

THIRD SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
S.No M Reference no.
1 SB 8-12, 16, 19, 27, 30, 34,
37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 50, 51,
53, 82, 84
2 PH 39, 41, 44, 50, 51, 53
3 3D 2, 13, 16, 24, 43-45, 54-
61, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74,
77-79, 81, 83, 85
TABLE 17
Advantages Disadvantages
Simple Does not represent the actual structure. Does not
Easy idealization and formulation. involve building systems with large degree of
freedom.
Not suitable to represent multistorey building
systems as simplified S-B models are not designed
for gravity loads. So relation between strength and
stiffness for these models is different from that
of actual strength – stiffness relation of framed
structures.
Strength of resisting elements can be adjusted
without changing the stiffness. However it has
been already proved by researchers that both these
parameters are interdependent.
Non – linear analysis. Inelastic seismic More complex and difficult to model as compared
response prediction. Plastic hinges to SB models. Seismic response depends on
formed at ends of beams and columns. location of plastic hinge. Plastic hinge assumed to
occur at ends of beams and columns only.
Closer to actual buildings. Complex and difficult formulations.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 557

Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
 Some authors also have used two or more than two
models so same reference number in some cases appears
against two model names in classification 1, 2 and 3.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The presence of structural irregularity changes the
seismic response and the change in the seismic
response depends upon type of structural irregularities.
As mentioned previously structural irregularities may
be classified into horizontal and vertical irregularities.
On comparing research works regarding plan and
vertical irregularity, it was found that large number of
research works were conducted on Plan irregularities
as compared to vertical irregularities.
In Plan irregularities some researchers used single
storey models and others used multistory building
models as described in Table 16. The uses of former
models were larger in comparison to the latter. Most
of the building models in recent years are multistory
building models, so the expressions for seismic response
parameters and design philosophies formulated are not
valid for multistory building models. So most of the
design codes which use expressions were formulated
on basis of single storey models need to be revised. The
expressions obtained considering a particular multistory
model needs to be generalized so that it is applicable to
all kinds of multistory structures.
Different centers of buildings like CM, CV and CR
have a huge impact on seismic response of building
systems as torsion generated depends upon positions
of these centers with respect to each other. Several
researchers4,11,30 have proposed the concept of balanced
CV-CR location to generate minimum torsional
response. One of the main issues in this concept is that
the previous researchers have not been able to find a
CV-CR location which gives optimum values for all
the seismic response parameters like drift, ductility
and rotation etc. In general it was found that if some
position of CV, CR, CM reduces drift and ductility,
then other portion reduces rotation i.e. no particular
position of CV, CR and CM result in optimum values of
seismic response parameters. So, selection of seismic
response parameters for optimization is up to the
priority of designer and it may vary according to user
requirements and building specifications. From result
of researches it was found that different locations of
558 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
CV, CR and CM yielded different results and the effects
of these locations were different on different seismic
response parameters. Further optimum position of CV-
CR was found to be highly depended of type and period
of seismic excitation33.
Research works regarding vertical irregularities
are fewer in number as compared to Plan irregularities
and the main focus of research works was to vary
either mass, stiffness and strength ratios to study the
effect of this variation in seismic response60,77,79,82.
Some researchers have varied either mass, stiffness
or strength ratios only i.e. the effect of presence of
single irregularity is studied, however the realistic
structures contain combination of irregularities and
consideration of single irregularity will not result in
realistic prediction of seismic response. So effect of
combination of irregularities should be studied and
very few researchers have made an attempt towards
this area66,67. One of the main conclusion was that
effect of irregularity depended on extent and location
of irregularity and variation in seismic response
parameters was found at the vicinity of irregularity.
Some of the vertical irregularities like strength and
stiffness were found to be interdependent and their
relation was evaluated by some of the researchers. Many
researchers created stiffness and strength irregularity
by discontinuation of Shear walls at particular storey
height, this method of introducing irregularity was
adopted for building models of different storey heights
and height and location of discontinuation of shear wall
was also varied and in every such case it was observed
that there was a large variation in ductility demand in
vicinity of discontinuation of irregularity54,57-59.
Regarding vertical setback irregularity, the top
portion of setback was found to have greater deformation
as compared to the base. Some of the researchers80,81
proposed new methods to estimate the seismic
response of vertically irregular structures but the code
defined procedures were found to be satisfactory and
appropriate in predicting the seismic behavior.
Regarding the method of analysis used by various
researchers, Inelastic dynamic analysis and Pushover
analysis were used by majority of researchers and
researchers especially like Chopra and Goel42,43 had
done extensive work in improvement of pushover
analysis to match the accuracy of dynamic analysis, but
it was found that pushover analysis even after a large
improvement was found short of dynamic analysis and
were applicable only for certain types of loadings and
building systems. Regarding the analysis method used
the main focus was on improving the Modal Pushover
analysis procedure to match results of dynamic analysis,
but with development of advance softwares using
which dynamic analysis of different types of complex
multistorey structures can be easily performed. So, use
of dynamic analysis is more preferable and moreover
MPA procedure are applicable to some type of loading
patterns only and are less accurate as compared to
dynamic analysis. So, use of Dynamic analysis is
justified. Finally regarding analysis methods it can be
concluded that the inelastic dynamic analysis methods
were found to yield accurate results as compared to
other methods used.
NOTATIONS
ηci - Stiffness Irregularity factor defined at
ith storey of building
ηki - Stiffness Irregularity factor defined at
ith storey of building
Δi - Reduced storey drift of ith storey of
building
(Δi)ort - Average reduced storey drift of ith
storey of building
(Ae)i - Area of the storey
(Ae)i+1 - Area of the storey above ith storey
Ri - Re-entrant corner projection limit
Si, Si+1 - Stiffness of storey I and of storey above
SBi - Setback irregularity limits
Oa, Sd - Open area in diaphragm and diaphragm
stiffness
Mi, Ma - Mass of Ith storey and the storey adjacent
to ith storey.
dmax - Maximum drift computed at a particular
storey level
davg - Average of drifts computed at both sides
of a structure.
ls - Radius of gyration
rx, ry - Torsional radius in x and y direction.
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
REFERENCES
1. IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002, BIS: “Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Part 1 – General Provisions and
Buildings (Fifth Revision)”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
2. EC8. “Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. General rules seismic actions and
rules for buildings (EN 1998-1:2004), European
committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2004.
3. UBC, “Uniform building code (UBC 97)”, Intl.
Conf. of Building officials (ICBO), Whittier,
California, 1997.
4. NBCC, “National Building Code of Canada
1995”, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario 1995.
5. IBC. “International building code 2003”, Illiniosis,
International code council (ICC), 2002 Inc.
6. TEC 2007 Turkish Earthquake Code, Ministry
of Public Works and Settlement, Specification
Structures To Be Built In Disaster Areas, Part III
Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Government of
Republic of Turkey, Turkey, 2007.
7. ASCE, “Minimum Design Loads for Building and
Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05)”, American
Society of Civil Enggr., New York, 2005, U.S.A.
8. Tso, W.K. and Myslimaj, B., “A yield displacement
distribution-based approach for strength
assignment to lateral force-resisting elements
having strength dependent stiffness”, Earthquake
Engg. and Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 32, 2003, pp
2319–2351.
9. Tso, W.K. and Bozorgnia,Y., “Effective eccentricity
for inelastic seismic response of buildings”,
Earthquake Engg. and Struct. dynamics, Vol.14,
No.3, 1986, pp 413–427.
10. Tso, W.K. and Sadek, A.W., “Inelastic seismic
response of simple eccentric structures”,
Earthquake Engg. and Struct. dynamics, Vol. 13,
No.2, 1985, pp 255–269.
11. Tso, W.K. and Sadek, A.W., “Strength eccentricity
concept for inelastic analysis of asymmetrical
structures”, Engg. Structs., Vol.11, No.3, 1989,
pp 189–194.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 559
12. Ladinovic, D.. “Non-linear analysis of Asymmetric
in plan buildings”, Architecture and Civil Engg.,
Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, pp 25–35.
13. Lignos, D.G. and Gantes, C.J., “Seismic
demands for steel braced frames with stiffness
irregularities based on modal pushover analysis”,
In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop
on the seismic behavior of irregular and complex
structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.
14. Luchinni, A., Monti, G., and Kunnath, S.,
“Nonlinear response of two way asymmetric
single storey bulding under biaxial excitation”, Jl.
of Struct. Engg., ASCE, Vol.137, 2011, pp 34–40.
15. Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S., “Fragility-
Based performance evaluation of asymmetric
single-storey buildings in near field and Far field
earthquakes”, Jl. of Earthquake Engg., Vol.14,
2010, pp 789–816.
16. Shakib, H., and Ghasemi, A., “Considering
different criteria for minimizing torsional response
of asymmetric structures under near-fault and far-
fault excitations”, Intl. Jl. of Civil Engg., Vol.5,
No. 4, 2007, pp 247–265.
17. Pekau, O.A. and Guimond, R. “ Accidental torsion
in yielding symmetric structures”, Engg. Structs.,
Vol.12, 1990, pp 98–106.
18. Duan, X.N. and Chandler, A.M., “Performance
of asymmetric code-designed buildings for
serviceability and ultimate limit states”,
Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dynamics, Vol.26,
No.7, 1991, pp 717–735.
19. Chandler, A.M., Correnza, J.C. and Hutchinson,
G.L., “Influence of accidental eccentricity on
inelastic seismic torsional effects in buildings”,
Engg. Structs., Vol. 17, No.3, 1995, pp 167–178.
20. ATC, “Tentative positions for development of
seismic regulations of buildings (ATC 3-06)”,
Applied Technology council, Structural Engineers
association of California, US department of
commerce, 1978, Washington D.C.
21. NEHRP. “NEHRP recommended provisions for
development of seismic regulations of New build-
ings, 1988 edition, Earthquake hazards Reduc-
tion Series 17”, Federal Emergency management
Agency (FEMA), Building seismic safety council.
Washington D.C. Part 1: Provisions, 1988.
560 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
22. NBCC, “National Building Code of Canada
1990”, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, 1990.
23. EC8. “Design for structures in seismic regions, Part
1. General and building report, (EUR12266EN)”,
Commission of European committee, 1989,
Brussels.
24. Wong, C.M. and Tso, W.K.. “Seismic Loading for
Buildings with Setbacks”, Canadian Jl. of Civil
Engg., Vol. 21, No. 5, 1994, pp 863–871.
25. NZS, “Code of practice for general structural
design and design loadings for buildings (NZS
4203)”, Standards association of New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand, 1992.
26. UBC, “Uniform building code (UBC 91)”, Intl.
Conf. of Building officials (ICBO), Whittier,
California, 1991.
27. Duan, X.N. and Chandler, A.M., “Seismic torsional
response and design procedures for a class of
setback frame buildings”, Earthquake Engg. and
Struct. Dynamics, Vol.24, 1991, pp 761–777.
28. UBC, “Uniform building code (UBC 94)”, Intl.
Conf. of building officials (ICBO), Whittier,
California, 1994.
29. EC8 (1993). “Design for structures in seismic
regions, Part 1. General and building report
(EUR12266EN)”, Commission of European
committee, Brussels.
30. De-la-Colina., “Effects of torsion factors on
simple non linear systems using fully bidirectional
analysis”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dynamics,
Vol.28, 1999, pp 691–706.
31. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P., “Influence of
bidirectional seismic excitation on inelastic
response of single storey plan irregular systems”,
Vol. 23, No. 6, 2001, pp 579–591.
32. De- Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B, “A model for
analyzing inelastic seismic response of plan-
irregular building structures” Proc. of 15th ASCE
Engg. Mech. Conf. June 2-5, 2002, Columbia
University, New York, NY.
33. Dutta, S.C., and Das, P.K., “Validity and
applicability of two simple hysteresis models
to asses progressive seismic damage in R/C
asymmetric buildings”, Jl. of Sound and Vib.,
Vol.257, No.4, 2002, pp 753–777.
34. Tso, W.K. and Myslimaj, B., “Effect of strength
distribution on the inelastic torsional response of
asymmetric structural systems” In: Proc. of the
12th European Con. on Earthquake Engg., CD
ROM, London, September 2002.
35. Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., and Snada, Y., “A simplified
nonlinear analysis procedure for single-storey
Asymmetric buildings, Jl. of Japan Association for
Earthquake Engg., Vol.4, No.2, 2004, pp 1-20.
36. Moghadam, A.S. and Aziminejad, A., “Interaction
of torsion and P-Delta effects in tall buildings”,
In Proc. of Thirteenth World Conf. on Earthquake
Engg. Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004,
Paper No. 799, 2005.
37. Jarernprasert, S., and Bazan, E., and Bielak, J.,.
“Inelastic torsional single storey systems”, In
Proce. of Fourteenth World Conf. on Earthquake
Engg., October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China.
38. IBC “International building code 2006”, Illiniosis,
International code council (ICC), Inc, 2006.
39. Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S.,
“Performance of Asymmetric Multistorey Shear
Buuldings with Different Strength Distributions”,
Jl. of Applied Sci., Vol. 9, 2009, pp 1082–1089.
40. Fajfar, P., Marusic, D., and Perus, I., “Torsional
effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of
buildings”, Jl. of Earthquake Engg., Vol.9, No.6,
2005, pp 831–854.
41. De-la-Colina., “Assessment of design recom-
mendations for torsionally unbalanced multisto-
rey buildings”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, pp.
47–66, 2003.
42. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K., “ A Modal pushover
analysis procedure to estimate to estimate seismic
demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings”,
Earthquake Engg. and Struct. Dynamics, Vol.33,
2004, pp 903–927.
43. Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K., “A modal push
over analysis procedure for estimating seismic
demands for buildings”, Earthquake Engg. and
Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 31, 2002, pp 561–582.
44. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A.,
“Inelastic torsion of multi-storey buildings under
earthquake excitations. Earthquake Engg. and
Struct. Dynamics” , Vol. 34, 2005, pp 1449–1465.
45. Penelis, Gr.G. and Kappos A.J., “Inelastic torsion
effects in 3D pushover analysis of buildings”,
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
In: Proc. of the fourth European Workshop on
the Seismic behaviour of irregular and complex
Structs., CD ROM, Thessaloniki, August 2005.
46. Marušic, D., and Fajfar, P., “On the inelastic
seismic response of asymmetric buildings under
bi-axial excitation”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct.
Dynamics, Vol. 34, 2005, pp 943–963.
47. Peruš, I. and Fajfar, P., “On the inelastic torsional
response of single-storey structures under bi-
axial excitation”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct.
Dynamics, Vol. 34, 2005, pp 931–941.
48. De Stefano, M, Marino, E.M., Rossi, P.P. “Effect of
Overstrength on the Seismic Behaviour of Multi-
Storey Regularly Asymmetric Buildings” Bulitten
of Earthquake Engg., Vol.23, 2006, pp.23–42.
49. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P., “Influence of Design
procedures on Bi-eccentric Plan asymmetric
systems”, Structural design of Tall and special
buildings, Wiley publications, Vol.15, 2006, pp
467–480.
50. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A.
“Accidental design eccentricity: Is it really
important for inelastic response of buildings to
stroang earthquakes?”, Engg. Structs, Vol.30,
2010, pp 782–797.
51. Anagnostopoulos, S.A., Alexopoulou, C. and
Stathopoulos, K.G., “An answer to an important
controversy and the need for caution when using
simple models to predict inelastic earthquake
response of buildings with torsion”, Earthquake
Engg. and Struct. Dynamics, Vol.39, 2010,
pp 521–540.
52. Chopra, A.K., Kan, C., “Effects of stiffness
degradation on ductility requirements for
multistorey buildings” Earthquake Engg. and
Struct. Dyn., 1973, Vol. 2, No.1, pp 35–45.
53. Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A.,
“Inelastic earthquake response of single-storey
asymmetric buildings: an assessment of simplified
shear-beam models”, Earthquake Engg. and
Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 32, 2003, pp 1813–1831.
54. Fernandez, J., “Earthquake Response Analysis of
Buildings Considering the effects of Structural
Configuration”, Bulletin of the Intl. Institute of
Seismology and Earthquake Engg. (Tokyo, Japan,
Nov 1983), Vol.19, 1983, pp 203–215.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 561
55. Humar, J.L. and Wright, E.W., “Earthquake
Response of Steel-Framed Multistorey Buildings
with Set-Backs”, Earthquake Engg. and Struct.
Dynamics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1977, pp 15–39.
56. Aranda, G.R., “Ductility Demands for R/C Frames
Irregular in Elevation”, In Proc. of the Eighth
World Conf. on Earthquake Engg., San Francisco,
U.S.A., Vol. 4, 1984, pp 559–566.
57. Moelhe, J.P., “Seismic Response of Vertically
irregular structures”, Jl. of Struct. Engg, ASCE,
Vol.110, 1984, pp 2002–2014.
58. Moehle, J.P. and Alarcon, L.F., “Seismic Analysis
Methods for Irregular Buildings”, Jl. of Struct.
Engg., ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 1, 1986, pp 35–52.
59. Bariola, V., and Brokken, S., “Influence of strength
and stiffness on seismic structural behavior”,
Bulletin of Seismology and Earthquake Engg.,
Vol.23, 1991, pp 427–434.
60. Ruiz, S.E. and Diederich, R., “The Mexico
Earthquake of September 19, 1985 – The Seismic
Performance of Buildings with Weak First
Storey”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1989,
pp 89-102.
61. Shahrooz, B.M. and Moehle, J.P., “Seismic
Response and Design of Setback Buildings”, Jl.
of Struct. Engg., ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 5, 1990,
pp 1423–1439.
62. UBC, “Uniform building code (UBC 88)”, Intl.
Conf. of Building officials (ICBO), Whittier,
California, 1988.
63. Nassar, A.A. and Krawinkler, H.. “Seismic
Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems”,
Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engg., Stanford University,
Stanford, 1991, U.S.A.
64. Esteva, L., “Nonlinear Seismic response of Soft-
First Storey Buildings Subjected to Narrow –
Band Accelerograms”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.
8, 1992, pp 373–389.
65. Wood, S.L., “Seismic Response of R/C Frames
with Irregular Profiles”, Jl. of Struct. Engg.,
ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 2, 1992, pp 545–566.
66. Valmundsson, E.V. and Nau, J.M., “Seismic
Response of Building Frames with Vertical
Structural Irregularities”, Jl. of Struct. Engg.,
562 JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 1, 1997, pp 30–41.
67. Al-Ali, A.A.K. and Krawinkler, H, “Effects of
Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Behavior of
Building Structures”, Report No. 130, 1998, The
John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center,
Dept. of Civil and Environ. Engg., Stanford
University, Stanford, 1998, U.S.A.
68. Kappos, A.J. and Scott, S.G., “Seismic assessment
of an R/C building with setbacks using nonlinear
static and dynamic analysis procedures”, In:
Booth ED (ed) Seismic design practice into the
next century. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998.
69. Magliulo, G., Ramasco, R. and Realfonzo, R..
“A critical review of seismic code provisions for
vertically irregular frames”, In: Proc. of the third
European Workshop on the Seismic Behavior
of Irregular and Complex Structs., CD ROM.
Florence, September 2002.
70. Das, S. and Nau, J.M., “Seismic Design Aspects
of Vertically Irregular Reinforced Concrete
Buildings”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 3,
2003, pp 455–477.
71. Chintanapakdee, C. and Chopra, A.K., “Seismic
Response of Vertically Irregular Frames: Response
History and Modal Pushover Analyses”, Jl. of
Struct. Engg., ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 8, 2004,
pp 1177–1185.
72. Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L., “Seismic performance
of concentrically braced steel frames in multistorey
buildings with mass irregularity’, Jl. of Struct.
Engg., Vol. 131, 2005, pp 1363–1375.
73. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D. Papadrakakis,
M., “Evaluation of the influence of vertical
Stiffness irregularities on the seismic response of a
9-storey steel frame”, In: Proc. of the 4th European
Workshop on the Seismic Behavior of Irregular
and Complex Structs., CD ROM. Thessaloniki,
August 2005.
74. Khoury, W., Rutenberg, A. and Levy, R., “On the
seismic response of asymmetric setback perimeter-
frame structures”, In: Proc. of the 4th European
Workshop on the Seismic Behavior of Irregular
and Complex Structs., CD ROM. Thessaloniki,
August 2005.
75. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D. and
Papadrakakis, M., “Evaluation of the Influence of
 Vertical Irregularities on the Seismic Performance
of a Nine-Storey Steel Frame”, Earthquake Engg.
and Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 12, 2006,
pp 1489–1509.
76. Alba, F., Ayala, AG. and Bento, R, “Seismic
performance evaluation of plane frames regular
and irregular in elevation”, In: Proc. of the 4th
European Workshop on the Seismic Behavior
of Irregular and Complex Structs., CD ROM.
Thessaloniki, August 2005.
77. Ayidin, K.. “Evaluation of Turkish seismic code
for mass irregular buildings”, Indian Jl. of Engg.
and Mat. Sci., Vol. 14, 2007, pp 220–234.
78. Basu, D. and Gopalakrishnan, N., “Analysis
for preliminary design of a class of torsionally
coupled buildings with horizontal setbacks”, Engg.
Structs., Vol.30, No.5, 2007, pp 1272–1291.
79. Karavasilis, T.L., and Bazeos, N. and Beskos,
D.E., “Estimation of seismic inelastic deformation
demands in plane steel MRF with vertical mass
irregularities”, Engg. Structs., Vol. 30, 2008,
pp.3265–3275.
80. Athanassiadou, C.J, “Seismic performance of
R/C plane frames irregular in elevation”, Engg.
Structs., Vol. 30, No. 5, 2008, pp 1250–1261.
81. Karavasilis, T.L., and Bazeos, N. and Beskos,
Vol. 39, No. 5, DECEMBER 2012 - JANUARY 2013
View publication stats
D.E., “Seismic response of plane steel MRF with
setbacks: Estimation of inelastic deformation
demands”, Jl. of Construct. and Steel Res., Vol.64,
2008, pp 644–654.
82. Sadasiva, V.K., Deam, B.L. and Fenwick,
R., “Determination of Acceptable Structural
Irregularity Limits for the Use of Simplified
Seismic Design Methods”, In Proc. of eighth
pacific Conf. on Earthquake Engg., Singapore,
December 2007.
83. Sarkar, P., Prasad, A.M., and Menon, D., “Vertical
geometric irregularity in stepped building frames”,
Engg. Structs., Vol. 32, No., 2010, pp 2175-2182.
84. Bugeja, M.N., Thambiratnam, D.P. and Brameld,
G.H., “The influence of stiffness and strength
eccentricities on the inelastic earthquake response
of asymmetric structures”, Engg. Structs., Vol.21,
No.9, 1999, pp 856–863.
85. Fajfar, P., Magliulo, G., Maruši´c, D. and Peruš,
I., “Simplified non-linear analysis of asymmetric
buildings”, In: Proceedings of the third European
Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular
and Complex Structures, CD ROM, Florence,
September 2002.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
March 31, 2013)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 563