A comprehensive study on the influence of strength and stiffness eccentricities to the

on-plan rotation of asymmetric structure

Azida Rashidi, Taksiah A. Majid, M. N. Fadzli, Ade Faisal, and Suhaila M. Noor

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120013 (2017);

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005754
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1892/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Soft storey effects on plastic hinge propagation of moment resisting reinforced concrete building subjected to
Ranau earthquake
AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120007 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005748

Performance of Koyna dam based on static and dynamic analysis

AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120009 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005750

Structural pounding of concrete frame structure with masonry infill wall under seismic loading
AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120011 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005752

Performance of rockfill dam under dynamic loading

AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120012 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005753

Earthquake response analysis of 11-story RC building that suffered damage in 2011 East Japan Earthquake
AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120008 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005749

Seismic performance of the typical RC beam–column joint subjected to repeated earthquakes

AIP Conference Proceedings 1892, 120014 (2017); 10.1063/1.5005755
 A Comprehensive Study on the Influence of Strength and
Stiffness eccentricities to the On-plan Rotation of
Asymmetric Structure
Azida Rashidi1, a), Taksiah A.Majid2, b), Fadzli, M.N.3, c), Ade Faisal4, d) and Suhaila
M.Noor5, e)
1, 2, 3
School of Civil Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang,
Malaysia
4
Program Studi Teknik Sipil, Universitas Muhammadiyah, Sumatera Utara, Medan 20238, Indonesia
5
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Penang, Malaysia
a)
ar13_civ024@student.usm.my
b)
Corresponding author: taksiah@usm.my
c)
fadzli@usm.my
d)
adef@umsu.ac.id
e)
suhailah060@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

Abstract. All buildings are subjected to some degree of torsion which in turn changes the member torsional demands from
that of translation only. Torsional effects on buildings subjected to earthquakes are not found directly in structural analysis
unless full three-dimensional inelastic dynamic time history analysis is conducted. Since design is often conducted using
two-dimensional analysis, these effects are not directly considered. There is currently an understanding on how different
factors may influence torsion, however, the degree to which these factors influence torsion is relatively unknown. Slab
rotation effect is considered a major response parameter to represent the severity of the torsional response of eccentric
systems; hence, it is considered in this study. The centre of strength (CR) and centre of stiffness (CS) are the two main
factors under considerations. A comprehensive analysis on eighty different CR and CS conditions are applied to a three-
dimensional, asymmetric building and their influences to slab rotation are observed. The CR/CS conditions are applied by
varying strength eccentricities (er) and stiffness eccentricities (es) using two condition models. Then, earthquake ground
motions are applied in z-direction under elastic and inelastic conditions. The results interpreted using a simple approach
shows important slab rotation behaviour that forms interesting findings from this study. The slab rotation demand is found
to reduce as strength eccentricity moves away from the Centre of Mass (CoM) but is independent of the stiffness
eccentricity. The study also confirms finding of previous works which states that stiffness eccentricity plays a minor role
when assessing the torsional behaviour of a ductile systems. Results from inelastic analysis shows slab rotation demand
increases as strength eccentricity is closer to the CoM but it remains constant for elastic analysis.

INTRODUCTION
Buildings with non-uniform mass, stiffness and/or strength over their plan are often described as being
torsionally irregular. Even for structures designed to be perfectly regular, the movement of live loads around the
structure can cause torsional irregularity which in turn changes the member demands [2]. Torsional effects may
significantly modify the seismic response of buildings, and they have caused severe damage or collapse of structures
in past earthquakes. These effects occur due to different reasons, such as no uniform distribution of the mass, stiffness
and strength and torsional components of the ground movement. Hence due to the torsional effects, the floors of the
building not only translate laterally but also rotate about a vertical axis. In ductile structures, the main consequence of
floor twist is an unequal demand of lateral displacements in the elements of the structure [1]. An example of severe

Proceedings of the International Conference of Global Network for Innovative Technology and AWAM International Conference in Civil Engineering (IGNITE-AICCE’17)
AIP Conf. Proc. 1892, 120013-1–120013-9; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005754
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1574-4/$30.00

120013-1
damage occurred during the Michoacán Earthquake, Mexico, 1985 which shows the importance of torsional effects
and highlights the need to understand the problem and improve the design requirements.

In practice, to consider torsional effects, buildings are generally designed using only walls orientated in the
same direction to earthquake as torsionally unrestrained structure or a combination of walls with different orientations
with respect to the earthquake as torsionally restrained [3]. Design codes incorporate special requirements to take into
account the torsional effects, which usually imply the amplification of eccentricity and the consideration of an
accidental eccentricity. These requirements are mainly based on elastic considerations developed several decades ago.
These criterion considers the torsional effect induced by the earthquake can be represented in the static analysis of
building. When dynamic analysis is performed, only the accidental eccentricity is considered. [1].

Most building codes, as listed in IAEE 2000, over years, recommend equivalent static analysis to
account for torsion. Concept of design eccentricity is suggested to account for seismic torsion owing to
asymmetry [4]. As an example, the New Zealand Standard on Structural Design Actions- Earthquake Actions
specifies that three dimensional time-history analysis is to be used when the structure is classified as torsionally
sensitive. If a two-dimensional analysis is used for translational effects, torsional effects are considered by using a
static analysis [5]. Since design of these building are often conducted using 2-D analysis, torsional effects are not
considered explicitly since the inelastic behavior and torsional effects are not considered. Hence, if full three-
dimensional inelastic dynamic time history analysis were conducted for all structures as part of design, any torsional
response and the demands on the elements would be found directly.

Slab rotation effect is considered a major response parameter to represent the severity of the torsional
response of eccentric systems [6] which is considered in this study. There is currently an understanding of how
different parameters may influence torsion [2], however, the degree to which these factors influence torsion is
relatively unknown.

Strength eccentricities (CR) and stiffness eccentricities (CS) are interdependent parameters and cannot be
ignored in the seismic design of building. Design eccentricity related to locations of CR and CS continues to be
practiced as a basic approach for design of asymmetric structures over years. Thus, the investigations on how to apply
such provisions in real structures also attract the interest of researchers [4]. The CR and CS are the two main
parameters under considerations in this study. Several studies were done by Tso and Myslimaj (2003) [7] where the
CS is located at opposite side of CR with the same eccentricity or also called as a balanced CS-CR location. This
criterion is used to minimize the torsion of asymmetric building. While DeStefano and Pintucchi (2010) [8] considered
to put the CS and CR at the same side by using a one-story model and taking into account the fact that total strength
is distributed proportionally among the vertical resisting elements. Moreover, to represent the real buildings, the CS
has been put halfway between the CR and the CM to account for torsional effects unavoidably results in a more
balanced strength distribution.

Significant parametric works have been done to quantify and/or predict the effect of torsional irregularity by
considering CS and CR. However, these are largely using 2-D analyses [8] [2] [10] [11]. Hence, this study is done by
conducting comprehensive investigations on CS and CR interdependence and to determine their effect on torsional
demands by on using a 3-D analysis.

METHODOLOGY

The Structural Model

The building model used is a single-storey, asymmetric 3-D building with a rigid floor diaphragm supported
by four shear walls as shown in Fig. 1(a). The walls are located at the perimeter of the building to provide lateral force
resistance. The floor diaphragm concentrates the entire story mass at the Centre of Mass (CoM). The building is
supported on fixed supports; neglecting soil-structure interaction. The model’s width, B, is taken as 26m and breadth,
L, as 15m. The dimensions of the model are based on Stefano and Pintucchi (2010) [8] where the non-dimensionalized
mass radius, ρ, is taken as 0.33, which is a value typical of many real buildings with plan aspect ratio B/L=0.577.

120013-2
 Fig. 1(b) shows the on-plan view of the shear wall elements of the model in the present study. The four shear
walls, W1, W2, W3 and W4, are shown with dimensions in Table 1; where W1, W2 and W3 have fixed b (breadth)
x h (width) while for E1, b is fixed with varying h values. The dimensions of h are obtained by varying CR positions.
Hence, varying CR position leads to changing the strength eccentricity, er and stiffness eccentricities, er. At the same
time, the fundamental period of vibrations, T1 and wall stiffness, k, are kept constant. The h values that are used is
shown in Table 2. The same model has been used by Suhaila (2016) [12] and verified using push-over analysis.

y x W3
z
CR,er
CoM Θy
W1 W4
N9
CS,es

W2 b
h
FIGURE 1.(a) Simple 3-D building model (b) on-plan view of shear wall elements

TABLE 1. Dimension of Wall elements TABLE 2. h values based on CR position

Wall Element b (m) h (m) Position CR h (m)
W1 0.5 varies 1 0.05L 2.15
W2 3.5 0.5 2 0.1L 2.32
W3 3.5 0.5 3 0.15L 2.5
W4 0.5 2 4 0.2L 2.71
5 0.25L 2.95
6 0.3L 3.24
7 0.35L 3.67
8 0.4L 4.29
The CoM, CR, CS, er and es are shown in Fig.1 (b) where the CoM, CR, CS, er and es denote the Center of
Mass, Center of Rigidity, Center of Stiffness, strength eccentricity and stiffness eccentricity, respectively. The CR and
CS are located along the x-axis at a given distance from CoM where er and es representing CR’s and CS’s respective
distances from CoM. The CoM, coincides with the Geometric Center, GC, of the building. To simplify the analysis,
a master node, node 9, located at the CoM of the floor and all nodes at the same floor are constrained to node 9 so that
the maximum rotation about y-axis, theta-y, for the whole floor exhibited the same magnitude. The maximum rotation
is the rotation that occurred over the whole course of the earthquake. Seven ground motions are applied in z-direction
under elastic and inelastic conditions. The results of the analysis are given in terms of mean values (averaged over the
considered input ground motions) of the elastic and inelastic maximum rotation at node 9. Averaged values have been
used in other studies [8] [12].

The nonlinear time-history analyses of the 3D model are carried out using the structural analysis program
"Ruaumoko3D" [13], a software used by Castillo (2004) [11], Beyer (2008) [9] for similar parametric studies but
analysed for 2D systems. The analyses were performed with tangent-stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping of 5%
damping for the second mode.

Strength and Stiffness eccentricities

The CS and CR coefficients designed in this study is to emphasize the strength and stiffness interdependence;
as seen in Table 3. The five coefficients of CS/CR comprise of the criterions proposed by Tso and Myslimaj (2002)
[7] as well as Stefano and Pintucchi (2010) [8]. The coefficients of CR are also based on the real building coefficient
as proposed by Anagnostopoulos (2012) [14]. The varying CR and CS are applied by varying strength eccentricities
(er) and stiffness eccentricties (es) respectively, along the x-axis from the CoM (where L is the slab width) as seen in
Fig.2 (a)-(f) and Fig.3 (a)-(e). Positive CR/CS value refers to the `er’ and `es’ on the same side of each other, from

120013-3
the CoM (ie. left side of CoM). The more positive the CR coefficient, the `er’ is closer to wall W1 leading to the
increment of the wall strength of W1. When CS has negative coefficients, `es’ is on the opposite side of `er’, with
CoM in between them resulting to `es’ closer to wall W4.

TABLE 3. Variations of strength and stiffness eccentricities

Models CR er (m) CS/CR es (m)
(from CoM)
1 0.05 L 1.3 CS = -1.0 CR Opposite side (right
2 0.1 L 2.6 CS = - 0.5CR side of CoM)
3 0.15 L 3.9
CS = 0 CR At CoM
4 0.2 L 5.2 Same side
CS= 0.5CR
5 0.25 L 6.5 CS= 1.0 CR (left of CoM)

6 0.3 L 7.8
7 0.35 L 9.1
8 0.4 L 10.4

The comprehensiveness of CS and CR conditions are to evaluate the influence of CS and CR that represents
the real buildings in the real condition; since there are no building with the same distributions of mass, stiffness and
strength based on the structural design aspect, usage as well as the aesthetical value.

Physical Arrangement of CM, CR and CS for Model A and Model B

Two situation models are proposed to study the variations of strength and stiffness. Models A is introduced
to highlight the significant importance of CR on slab rotation as well as to address the distinctive gap from previous
studies. Model A consists of 40 situations of constant CR with changing CS situations along the same x-axis. These
situations are have not been used in other studies. Models B have been p by Suhaila [12] by considering 40 different
situations of constant CS with changing CR.
Figure 2 (a)-(h) and Fig 3 (a)-(e) show the physical arrangements of the CoM, er and es for Model A and
Model B respectively. The es positions are marked by the arrow label ( ) while the er uses the bar label ( ). The
diagrams represents situations along x-axis of the slab of width + 13.0m to the left side of CoM (wall 1) or -13.0m to
the right side of CoM (wall 4). The CoM is located at `0’ from either walls. The physical display of es and er for every
model are to easily visualize the positions of strength and stiffness eccentricities and to correlate with the on-plan slab
rotations results.

120013-4
 (a) Model A1 CR=0.05 (b) Model A2 CR=0.10
CM CM
13.0 (er=1.3m 0 -13.0 13.0m (er=2.6 0 (eS= -10.4m)-
(eS= -11.7m)
A1-1 0.(e = -5.2m) A2-1
(er=1.3m) 0 (e = -5.85m) (er=2.6m) S
S
0. A1-2 0. A2-2
(er=1.3m) ( e = 0 m) (er=2.6m (e = 0 m)
S
S
A1-3 A2-3
(eS= 5.85m) (er=1.3m) 0. (eS= 5.2m) (er=2.6m)0.
0 A1-4 0 A2-4
(eS= 11.7m) (er=1
=1.3m) (eS= 10.4m) ((er=2.6m)
0. A1-5 0. A2-5

(c) Model A3 CR=0.15

(d) Model A4 CR=0.20
CM CM
13.0m (er=3.9m) 0 m-)13.0m
(eS= -9.1m 13 13.0 (er=5.2m 0. (eS= -7.8m)-13.0m
A3-1 A4-1
(er=3.9m) 0. (eS= -4.55m) (er=5.2m) 0
(eS= -3.9m)
A3-2 A4-2
(er=3.9m) 0.0(e = 0 m)
S
(er=5.2m) 0.
(eS= 0 m)
0. A3-3 0. A4-3
(eS= 4.55m) (er=3.9m) (er=5.2m(eS= 3.9m)
A2-4 A4-4
0 )
0.
(er=5.2m0.
(eS=9.1m) (er=3.9m (eS= 7.8m)
A2-5
)
0. A4-5
0.
(e) Model A5
(f) Model A6
CR=0.2
CM5 CM
13.0 (er=6.5m) 0. (eS= -6.5m) - 13.0 (er=7.8m 0. (eS= -5.2m)-
0.. A5-1 A6-1
(er=6.5m) (eS= -3.25m) 0.
A5-2 (er=7.8m) (eS= -2.6m)
0. A6-2
(er=6.5m) (eS= 0 m) (er=7.8m 0.
A5-3 (eS= 0 m)
0. 0. A6-3
(er=6.5m) (eS= 3.25m) (er=7.8m) (eS= 2.6m)
A5-4 A6-4
(er=6.5m)(e =6.5m) 0
0.
S
A5-5 (er=7.8m (eS=5.2m)
0. A6-5
0.
(g) Model A7 (h) Model A8 CR=0.4
CM CM
13.0 (er=9.1m 0. (eS= -3.9m) - 13.0 (er=10.4m 0. (eS= -2.6m) -
A7-1 0. A8-1
0. (eS= -
(er=9.1m) (eS= -
A7-2 A8-2
0. (er=10.4 0.
(er=9.1m) (eS= 0 (eS= 0 m)
A7-3 0. A8-3
0. (er=10.4 (eS= 1.3m)
(er=9.1m) (eS= 1.95m) A8-4
A7-4 (er=10.4 0.
0. (eS= 2.6m)
(er=9.1m (eS= 3.9m) A8-5
A7-5 0.
0.
FIGURE 2 (a)- (h) Submodels for Model A: Model A1 CR=0.05 to Model A8 CR=0.4

120013-5
 (a) Model B1 CS= - (b) Model B2 CS=-0.5CR
1.0CR CM CM
0. -
13.0 B1-1 13.0 0. -
(er=1.3m 0. (eS= - 11.7m) B2-1
(er=1.3m 0. (e = -
S
B1-2 B2-2
(er=2.6m) 0. (eS= - (er=2.6m) 0
0. (eS= - 5.2m)
0. B1-3 B2-3
(er=3.9m) (eS= - (er=3.9m) 0. (e = -
S B2-4
(er=5.2m) 0. (eS=- B1-4 (er=5.2m 0. (eS=-
B1-5 B2-5
(er=6.5m) 0. (eS= - (er=6.5m) 0.(eS= -
B1-6 B2-6
(er=7.8m) 0. (eS= 5.2m) (er=7.8m) 0.(eS= -
B1-7 B2-7
(er=9.1m) 0. (eS= - (er=9.1m) 0.(eS= -
B1-8 B2-8
(er=10.4m) 0.(eS= - 2.6m) (er=10.4m 0. (eS= -
(c) Model B3 (d) Model B4
CM CM
13.0 0.0 -13.0 13.0 0.00 -13.0
0. = 0 m) B3-1 B4-1
(er=1.3m) (eS (eS= (er=1.3m)0
0.
B3-2 B4-2
(er=2.6m) 0.(eS= 0 m)
0 (eS= 5.2m) (e =2.6m)
r
B3-3 B4-3
(er=3.9m) 0.(eS= 0 m) (eS= m0
(er=3.9m0.
).
B3-4 B4-4
(er=5.2m) 0.
(eS= 0 m) (er=5.2m) (e = 3.9m)0.
B3-5 S
(er=6.5m) 0.(eS= 0 m) B4-5
B3-6 (er=6.5m) (eS= 0.
0
(er=7.8m) 0. (eS= 0 m) B4-6
(er=7.8m) (e = 2.6m)0.
B3-7 S
B4-7
(er=9.1m) 0. (eS= 0 m) (er=9.1m) (eS= 0
0.
B3-8 B4-8
(er=10.4m) 0. (eS= 0 m) (eS=1.3m) 0.
0
(c) (er=10.4m)
(d)
(e) Model B5 CS=1.0CR
CM
13.0 0.0 -13.0
B5-1
(eS=11.7m (er=1.3) 0.
B5-2
(eS=10.4m) (er=2.6)0. B5-3
(eS= 9.1 (er=3.9m) 0. B5-4
(eS= (e r
=5.2m) 0.
B5-5
(er=6.5m (eS= 6.5 0.
B5-6
(er=7.8m (eS= 5.2 0.
B5-7
(er=9.1m) (eS= 3.9m)
B5-8
(er=10.4m) (eS= 2.6 m)
FIGURE 3. (a)- (e) Submodels for Model B: Model B1 CS=-1.0 CR to Model B5 CS=1.0 CR

120013-6
 RESULTS

Model A: Varying Centre of Strength, CR

Figure 4 (a) and (b) shows the graphs for inelastic and elastic maximum rotation versus the normalized es/bz
along the slab x-axis for the 40 different CR/CS cases. The results for sub Models A must be read together with Fig.
2 (a)-(h). From Fig. 4 (a), graphs for Model A1 (i.e A1 CR=0.05) and Model A2 (i.e A2 CR=0.10) shows significant
‘curve-in’ from normalized es/bz = - 0.45 towards normalized es/bz =0 (i.e CS =0) and significant ‘curve-out’ towards
normalized es/bz = 0.45. Graphs for Model A3 and Model A4 have gradual curve but has tendency to straighten out.
Meanwhile, Models A5, A6, A7 and A8 have straight parallel graphs.

The maximum ‘curve-in’ value is the maximum inelastic slab rotation by Model A1 at CR= 0.05 as compared
to the elastic rotation for the same model as seen in Fig. 4 (b). This may be due to at CR=0.05, er is closes to CoM
but farthest from wall W1; thus resulting to the wall W1 with least strength and become inelastic during the slab
rotation. The trend of increased rotations increases with strength eccentricity (i.e increase CR) as seen in Fig. 4 (a)
and this is also observed by Beyer (2008) [9] although it was only for smaller strength and stiffness eccentricities. The
rotation demand (ie. rotation difference between rotation at es/bz = 0.45 and =0) decreases as CR increases and
becomes constant after CR=0.25 towards 0.4. The significant reason for these behaviour is because as CR increases,
strength eccentricity er gets closer towards wall W1, the wall strength increases and able to maintain elastic condition
with constant rotation.

0.0004 0.0004
Rotation, (theta Y)

Rotation, (theta Y)

0.0003 0.0003

0.0002 0.0002

0.0001 0.0001

0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
es/bz es/bz
A1 CR=0.05 A2 CR=0.1 A3 CR=0.15 A1 CR=0.05 A2 CR=0.1 A3 CR=0.15
A4 CR=0.2 A5 CR=0.25 A6 CR=0.3 A4 CR=0.2 A5 CR=0.25 A6 CR=0.3
A7 CR=0.35 A8 CR=0.4 A7 CR=0.35 A8 CR=0.4

FIGURE 4 Model A: (a) Inelastic Rotation (b) Elastic rotation due to varying CR for Model A

Model B: Varying Centre of Stiffness, CS

Fig. 5 (a) shows the comparison between elastic and inelastic rotations for Model B. The results for Model
B must be read together with Fig 3 (a)-(e). All sub models Model B1 to B5 produce the same graphs of inelastic and
elastic rotation. This imply that different CS values has no or minimum effect on the rotation of the slab. This
confirms findings by Sommer (2000) [10].

Results show that the maximum rotations of the model is generally greater for the elastic than for the inelastic
model. This also confirms Sommer’s (2000) [10] findings that approximating the rotation of the inelastic system by
using the rotation of the elastic system is generally a conservative assumption. However, from the graph in Fig. 5(a),
the difference in rotation between the elastic and inelastic model is not very significant if the strength eccentricity is
larger than er/bz = 0.17 as compared to Fig. 5 (b), Beyer’s (2008) [9] result has er/bz=0.14. Also from Fig. 5(a), for
er/ bz ≤ 0:17, the maximum rotation is just about larger for the inelastic than for the elastic system. This is probably
related to W1 l has brief excursions into the inelastic mode. This trend agrees with result by Beyer’s (2008) [9] work
as seen in Fig. 5 (b) where rotation becomes inelastic for smaller strength eccentricities and improves findings by

120013-7
Sommer (2000) [10]. The result obtained from this study may be an extension to Beyer (2008) [9]’s and Sommer
(2000) [10]’s works; that is, for systems with extreme strength and stiffness eccentricities.

4.00E-04
3.50E-04
3.00E-04
Rotation (theta Y)

2.50E-04
2.00E-04
1.50E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
er/bz
CS=-1, -0.5, 0, 0.5,1.0 (Inelastic)"
CS=-1, -0.5, 0, 0.5,1.0 (Elastic)

FIGURE 5 (a) Model B: Rotation for elastic and inelastic systems by varying CS by 3D analysis (b) extract from
Beyer (2008) rotation for elastic and inelastic systems by 2D analysis

CONCLUSION
A comprehensive, three-dimensional study on the effect of stiffness and strength eccentricities on the
torsional behaviour of a building model under unidirectional earthquake has been carried out. Slab rotation effect is
taken as a major response parameter to represent the severity of the torsional response of eccentric systems. The result
obtained for the elastic and inelastic analysis obtained are based on 3-D analysis as compared with that of past research
which was from 2-D analysis. The result agreement are generally satisfactory and can serve as improvement to past
research and design codes, especially for lower strength eccentricities i.e er/bz ≤ 0.17. The study also serves as an
extension for systems with extreme strength and stiffness eccentricities since most studies limit the research
eccentricities to about 0.2. The slab rotation demand is found to reduce as strength eccentricity moves away from the
Centre of Mass and less dependent of the stiffness eccentricity positions. The study also confirms finding from
previous works that stiffness eccentricity plays a minor role when assessing the torsional behaviour of a ductile
systems. Results from inelastic analysis shows slab rotation demand increases as strength eccentricity moves towards
the CoM but it remains constant for elastic analysis. The result from this study can contribute to improving the code
design requirements related to torsion due to earthquake.

ACKNOLEDGMENTS
The research reported in this paper has been conducted with the financial support of the grant by Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak, 93400 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia.

REFERENCES
1. Crisafulli, F. Reboredo, A. and Torrisi, G. "Consideration of torsional effects in the displacement control of ductile buildings".
Proceeding of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No.111

2. Miranda, B., MacRae, G. A. and Beyer, K. “Torsional Considerations in Building Seismic Design”. Proceedings of
Conference of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 2012. Paper No.055
3. Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J., (2007) Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, 2007.
ISBN: 88-6198-000-6, 120-125,328-353.

120013-8
4. Roy, R.,(2016) “Seismic Behaviour of Horizontally Irregular Structures: Current Wisdomand Challenges Ahead”. Applied
Mechanics. November 2016 Vol.68 / 060802-1 - 060802-17
5. Standards New Zealand (2004), NZS1170.5:2004 - Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions
6. Georgoussis, G.K., “Yield displacement profiles of asymmetric structures for optimum torsional response”. Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, Vol.45, No.2 (2013) pp 233-257
7. Myslimaj, B., Tso W.K., (2002). A Strength Distribution Criterion for Minimizing Torsional Response of Asymmetric Wall-
Type Systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, 99-120.
8. Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B., (2010) Predicting torsion-induced lateral displacements for pushover analysis: Influence of
torsional system characteristics, Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, 39: 1369–1394
9. Beyer, K., Dazio, A., Priestley, M. J. L., (2008) “Seismic design of torsionally eccentric buildings with U-shaped RC walls”.
Research Report No. ROSE-2008/0X , ROSE School, Pavia, Italy
10. Sommer, A. [2000] “Torsion und Duktilitätsbedarf bei Hochbauten unter Erdbebeneinwirkung (Torsion and ductility demand
of buildings subjected to seismic loading),” Ph.D.thesis, Zürich, Switzerland
11. Castillo, R. [2004] “Seimic design of asymmetric ductile systems,” Ph.D. thesis, Christchurch, New Zealand.
12. Suhaila, M.N. [2016] “Effect of Strength and Stiffness Distributions on the displacement demands of asymmetric reinforced
concrete buildings,” Ph.D. thesis, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Penang, Malaysia
13. Carr, A. (2008). 3D Ruaumoko: inelastic three-dimensional dynamic analysis program. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
14. Kyrkos, M.T. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A. (2012). Assessment of earthquake resistant design of eccentric, braced frame, steel
buildings and proposal for possible improvements. 15th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, LISBOA 2012.

120013-9