Premium
Using accidental eccentricity in code‐specified static and dynamic analyses of buildings
Author(s) -
de la Llera Juan Carlos,
Chopra Anil K.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
earthquake engineering and structural dynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.218
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1096-9845
pISSN - 0098-8847
DOI - 10.1002/eqe.4290230903
Subject(s) - eccentricity (behavior) , structural engineering , parametric statistics , torsion (gastropod) , building code , position (finance) , static analysis , code (set theory) , engineering , mathematics , computer science , set (abstract data type) , statistics , medicine , surgery , finance , political science , law , economics , programming language
The differences between the increase in building response due to accidental eccentricity predicted by code‐specified static and dynamic analyses are studied for symmetric and unsymmetric single and multistorey buildings. The increase in response computed from static analysis of the building is obtained by applying the equivalent static forces at distance e a , equal to the storey accidental eccentricity, from the centre of mass at each floor. Alternatively, this increase in response is computed by dynamic analysis of the building with the centre of mass of each floor shifted through a distance e a from its nominal position. A parametric study is performed on single‐storey systems in order to evaluate the differences in response predicted by both analysis procedures. It is shown that these results are essentially the same as the ones obtained for a special class of multistorey systems. Upper and lower bounds for the differences in response computed from static and dynamic analyses are obtained for general multistorey systems. These differences in response depend primarily on the ratio of the fundamental torsional and lateral frequencies of the building. They are larger for small values of the frequency ratio and decrease to zero as the frequency ratio becomes large. Further, these discrepancies are in many cases of the same order as the code‐intended increase in response due to accidental eccentricity. This implies that the code‐specified static and dynamic analyses to account for accidental torsion should be modified to be mutually consistent.