Effects of coupled vertical stiffness-strength irregularity due to modified interstorey height
Structures may have vertical stiffness or strength irregularity for many reasons. In many practical cases, a change in storey stiffness, results a change in strength at the same storey. In this paper, the effect of a change in interstorey height is quantified. In order to do this, relationships between storey stiffness and strength resulting due to a modified interstorey height for a few common lateral force resisting systems was considered. It was applied to simple shear-type structures of 3, 5, 9 and 15 storeys, assumed to be located in Wellington. All structures were considered to have a constant mass at every floor level. Both regular and irregular structures were designed in accordance with the Equivalent Static method of the current New Zealand seismic design Standard, NZS 1170.5. Regular structures were designed to either (i) produce a constant target interstorey drift ratio at all the storeys simultaneously or (ii) to have uniform stiffness distribution over the height of the structure, with the target interstorey drift ratio at the first storey. An “interstorey height ratio” was defined as the ratio of modified to initial interstorey height, and applied separately at the first storey, mid-height storey and at the topmost storey by amounts between 0.5 and 3. The modified structures were then redesigned until the target interstorey drift ratio was achieved at the critical storey/storeys. Design structural ductility factors of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, and target (design) interstorey drift ratios ranging between 0.5% and 3%, were used in this study. Inelastic dynamic time-history analysis was carried out by subjecting these structures to code design level earthquake records, and the maximum interstorey drift ratio demands due to each record were used to compare the responses of regular and irregular structures.
It was found that structural types in which only the storey stiffness was modified due to a change in the interstorey height produced the maximum increase in drift demands rather than structural forms with other stiffness-strength coupling cases. Shorter structures having an increased first storey height, and taller structures with an increased middle storey height generally produced greater interstorey drift demands than regular structures. For cases of increased storey stiffness due to decreased storey heights, the shorter structures with a decreased middle storey height resulted in higher median peak ISDR due to irregularity. A simple equation describing the maximum increase in response due to modifications to a storey height was developed. The equation was used along with the realistic correlations between storey stiffness and strength to obtain the governing code regularity limit.
Al-Ali, A.A.K. and Krawinkler, H. (1998) “Effects of vertical irregularities on seismic behaviour of building structures”. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, San Francisco, Report No. 130.
Carr, A.J. (2004) “Ruaumoko 2D – Inelastic dynamic analysis”. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Chintanapakdee, C. and Chopra, A.K. (2004) “Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: Response history and modal pushover analyses”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130 (8): 1177-1185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:8(1177)
Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K. (2004) “A modal push over analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings”. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 33: 903-927. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.380
Cornell, C.A., Fatemeh, J.F., Hamburger, R.O. and Foutch, D.A. (2002) “Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC FEMA steel moment frame guidelines”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128 (4): 526-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
De Stefano, M. and Pintucchi, B. (2006) “EAEE task group (TG) 8: Seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures: Progress since 2002”. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Paper No: 1443.
MacRae, G.A., Kimura, Y. and Roeder, C.W. (2004) “Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic behaviour”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 130 (3): 381-391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:3(381)
Michalis, F., Vamvatsikos, D. and Monolis, P. (2006) “Evaluation of the influence of vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of a nine-storey steel frame”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35: 1489-1509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.591
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007) “Displacement-based seismic design of structures”. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 721pp.
Rutenberg, A. (2002) “EAEE task group (TG) 8: Seismic behaviour of irregular and complex structures: Progress since 1998”. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No: 832.
Sadashiva, V.K., MacRae, G.A. and Deam, B. L. (2009) “Determination of structural irregularity limits – mass irregularity example”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(4): 288-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.42.4.288-301
Sadashiva, V.K., MacRae, G.A. and Deam, B.L. (2011) “Seismic response of structures with coupled vertical stiffness-strength irregularities”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. (accepted January 2011). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1121
SNZ. (2004) “NZS 1170.5 Supp 1:2004, Structural Design Actions. Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand – Commentary”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
SEAOC. (1999) “Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary”. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California. Seventh Edition.
Tagawa, H., MacRae, G.A. and Lowes, L.N. (2006) “Evaluation of simplification of 2D moment frame to 1D MDOF coupled shear-flexural-beam model”. Journal of Structural & Constructional Engineering. (Transactions of AIG), No. 609.
Valmundsson, E.V. and Nau, J.M. (1997) “Seismic response of building frames with vertical structural irregularities”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123 (1): 30-41 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:1(30)
Copyright (c) 2011 Vinod K. Sadashiva, Gregory A. MacRae, Bruce L. Deam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.