Importance of seismic design accidental torsion requirements for building collapse capacity

SUMMARY Seismic ground motions induce torsional responses in buildings that can be difficult to predict. To compensate for this, most modern building codes require the consideration of accidental torsion when computing design earthquake forces. This study evaluates the influence of ASCE/SEI 7 accidental torsion seismic design requirements on the performance of 230 archetypical buildings that are designed with and without accidental torsion design provisions, taking building collapse capacity as the performance metric. The test case archetypes include a broad range of heights, gravity load levels, and plan configurations. Results show that the ASCE/SEI 7 accidental torsion provisions lead to significant changes in collapse capacity for buildings that are very torsionally flexible or asymmetric. However, only inconsequential changes in collapse capacity are observed in the buildings that are both torsionally stiff and regular in plan. Therefore, the study concludes that accidental torsion provisions are not necessary for seismic design of buildings without excessive torsional flexibility or asymmetry. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  N. Null.  Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 2003 .

[2]  J. Baker,et al.  GROUND MOTION INTENSITY MEASURES FOR COLLAPSE CAPACITY PREDICTION: CHOICE OF OPTIMAL SPECTRAL PERIOD AND EFFECT OF SPECTRAL SHAPE , 2006 .

[3]  Adam J Crewe,et al.  The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering , 2008 .

[4]  Kenneth J. Elwood,et al.  Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns , 2004 .

[5]  J. Baker,et al.  Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection , 2006 .

[6]  Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos,et al.  An answer to an important controversy and the need for caution when using simple models to predict inelastic earthquake response of buildings with torsion , 2009 .

[7]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Seismic Collapse Safety and Behavior of Modern Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame Buildings , 2007 .

[8]  Ker-Chun Lin,et al.  Role of accidental torsion in seismic reliability assessment for steel buildings , 2009 .

[9]  M. J. N. Priestley.  Seismic design of masonry structures to the new provisional New Zealand Standard NZS 4230P , 1985 .

[10]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings , 2006 .

[11]  Jack P. Moehle,et al.  "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 318-11) AND COMMENTARY" , 2011 .

[12]  Gregory G. Deierlein,et al.  Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. II: Comparative Assessment of Nonductile and Ductile Moment Frames , 2011 .

[13]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Seismic Collapse Safety of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. I: Assessment of Ductile Moment Frames , 2011 .

[14]  L. Lowes,et al.  A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames , 2004 .

[15]  Juan Carlos de la Llera,et al.  Estimation of Accidental Torsion Effects for Seismic Design of Buildings , 1995 .

[16]  W. K. Tso,et al.  Re‐evaluation of seismic torsional provisions , 1999 .

[17]  J. Baker,et al.  A vector‐valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon , 2005 .

[18]  Luis Ibarra,et al.  Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration , 2005 .

[19]  Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos,et al.  Accidental design eccentricity: Is it important for the inelastic response of buildings to strong earthquakes? , 2010 .

[20]  Mario De Stefano,et al.  A review of research on seismic behaviour of irregular building structures since 2002 , 2008 .

[21]  N. Null.  Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings , 2007 .