Accidental Torsion

50% Draft
Appendix E
Evaluation of the Accidental Torsion Requirement in ASCE 7 by the FEMA P695 Methodology
E.1 Overview
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the significance of the accidental torsion requirement in Section 12.8.4.2 of ASCE 7-10 for buildings in SDC B. The accidental torsion provisions require application of a +/-5% offset of the center of mass in each of two orthogonal directions to compute a torsional moment, thereby increasing the design seismic base shear. The primary goal of this study is to quantitatively examine the possible elimination or revision of the accidental torsion requirement for SDC B buildings designed according to the newly proposed stand-alone code document. To this end, the study quantifies the effect of the accidental torsion design requirement in terms of building collapse capacity and collapse risk for a variety of SDC B buildings in order to determine the consequences, or lack thereof, of removing or revising the accidental torsion requirements. Seismic ground motions may induce torsional response in buildings. Some of this torsion is created by asymmetrical building geometry, hereafter referred to as inherent torsion. In contrast, accidental torsion is unexpected and may occur for a variety of reasons including: asymmetric distribution of lateral ground motions across the plan of the building, asymmetric stiffness contributions from the gravity system or nonstructural elements not accounted for in design, uneven live-load distribution, or changes in the center of rigidity due to nonlinear behavior. To account for all of these potential sources of accidental torsion, ASCE 7 defines an accidental torsional design moment to be considered in buildings with rigid diaphragms, in addition to any inherent torsion that may exist. The additional accidental torsional moment is equivalent to the torsion due to applying the seismic load at a distance from the center of mass equal to 5% of the building dimension perpendicular to the applied lateral load (Section 12.8.4.2 of ASCE 7-10). These provisions have the effect of increasing the design base shear in the frames and walls that resist lateral forces.
BSSC SDC B
E: Accidental Torsion Studies
E-1
41.86% Draft
E 1.1 Literature Review on Accidental Torsion
Significant research on accidental and inherent torsion in buildings has been conducted in the past, producing varying results (Stathopoulos et al. 2009; De Stefano and Pintucchi 2007). However, those that have specifically addressed the issue of accidental torsion in design codes have all concluded that it is not needed for most regular buildings; regular loosely refers to buildings that are not particularly torsionally flexible or irregular, although the exact definition varies from study to study (Stathopoulos et al. 2005, Chang et. al 2009). Some of the key findings of the past research are outlined here. De Stefano and Pintucchi (2007) provide a more complete summary and assessment of recent research on torsion in buildings. This section summarizes selected past research of torsional seismic response of buildings, based on three main categories of models: 1) linear models, 2) simplified single-story shearspring models and 3) lumped plasticity nonlinear frame models. Results from linear models have shown that design accidental torsion is not a significant factor for building performance under earthquake excitation for many buildings (Chopra 1992. A strength of the linear models is that they represent realistic building geometries, such as multi-story space frames, very accurately. However, the linear models cannot accurately simulate post yielding behavior and collapse and, more recently, detailed nonlinear models have been used to evaluate torsional response. Some of the first nonlinear models used for studying torsion in buildings were models that represented the aggregated behavior of lateral force resisting systems with bilinear shear springs in a single-story. These models have the advantage of being able to simulate behavior beyond the linear range. Anagnostopoulos et al. (2009) showed that the procedures for calibrating such simplified models is crucial for obtaining accurate results. They demonstrated that by calibrating single story shear spring models to more high end lumped plasticity models using pushover analysis, they could obtain results that qualitatively agreed with the results from the more sophisticated nonlinear frame models with lumped plasticity elements. The results of the single-story simplified models even with agreed lumped plasticity models having more than one story (based on 3 and 5 story models). However, Anagnostopoulos et al. (2009) recommends that strong caution be taken when calibrating simplified shear spring models. For example, some researchers have scaled building strength of the simplified models based on design loads, without modifying the stiffness. Increasing strength
E-2
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
independently of stiffness in bilinear models leads to inaccurate measures of initial stiffness, but also artificially increases the yield displacement. Since much of the early work on torsion with nonlinear models used ductility demand as a performance measure, artificially increasing the yield displacement of a lateral force resisting system artificially increased its performance; this phenomenon has been addressed quite specifically by Tso and Smith (1999). Anagnostopoulos et al. (2009) showed that carefully calibrated simplified shear-spring models predict greater ductility demand on the flexible side of irregular buildings, which is in agreement with linear models and lumped plasticity models. However, increasing strength independently of stiffness in simplified models leads to the exact opposite prediction; ductility demand is increased in the stiff side elements. Since they used ductility demand as a main performance measure, the calibration of the simplified models made the difference between being qualitatively right or qualitatively wrong in their predictions. More recent work using nonlinear models of frame structures includes Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos (2009) and Chang et al. (2009). Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos (2009) used one, three and five story RC space frames with lumped plasticity models of beam and column elements to assess the importance of design accidental torsion, concluding that it is insignificant for the building heights and torsional rigidities studied and ought to be re-examined. A similar study by Chang et al. (2009) examined six and twenty-story steel space frames and reached the same conclusion; design accidental torsion requirements are not significantly beneficial, for the building types they studied. Both of these studies used ductility demand as the main measure of performance. This study will expand on past work by considering a wider variety of torsional flexibility and irregularity in buildings, focusing on collapse capacity as the primary performance metric. To our knowledge, no studies of accidental torsion have used collapse as a performance measure, as we do here, but instead have relied mostly on ductility demands to quantify the impacts of accidental torsion (De Stefano and Pintucchi 2007). The building designs considered here have base shear levels consistent with SDC B, in contrast to most previous studies that considered SDC D ground motion levels, and consider a broad range of torsional flexibilities.
BSSC SDC B
E-3
41.86% Draft
E.1.2
Methodology
In this study, we consider the effects of accidental torsion code provisions on a set of archetype nonlinear building models, which include torsionally stiff and torsionally flexible structures, and have ductility, mass, and strength characteristics of SDC B buildings. Since a main purpose of seismic codes is to reduce the likelihood of earthquake-induced collapse, accidental torsion requirements are evaluated with regard to seismic collapse risk. FEMA P695 proposes a methodology for systemically evaluating the seismic design provisions of new seismic resisting lateral systems on the basis of ensuring an acceptably low probability of collapse. The method uses building collapse capacity as a metric for determining appropriate response coefficients R, Cd, and 0 for newly proposed systems. The process for implementing the FEMA P695 methodology is illustrated in Figure E-1.
Figure E-1
Flow chart schematic of FEMA P695 methodology (FEMA 2009)
E-4
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
In this study, the FEMA P695 method has been adapted to evaluate a particular code provision, namely the 5% offset requirement to account for accidental torsion, rather than a specific Seismic Force Resisting System (SFRS), but the main concepts have not changed. Rather than focus on a specific system, the method has been used to evaluate the collapse performance of a set of typical SDC B buildings designed with and without the accidental torsion requirement. To this end, an archetype design space is developed, analytical models created and analyzed, and their collapse performance is evaluated. The difference in collapse risk with and without accidental torsion provides quantitative information as to the importance of including accidental torsion requirements in SDC B. Each of these steps is documented in detail in the following sections. E.2 Archetype Design Space
The objective of this study is to quantify the effect of the accidental torsion requirement on the design and safety of buildings in SDC B. Therefore, it is important to identify a range of archetype designs that encompass as many SDC B buildings as possible, with special emphasis on those buildings that may be most affected by accidental torsion requirements. This section discusses building characteristics that may affect the influence of accidental torsion requirements in design and how these characteristics were considered in developing a representative set of buildings. Table E-3 and
BSSC SDC B
E-5
41.86% Draft
Table E-4, at the end of this section, summarize the suite of archetype designs that are analyzed. Every archetype building is designed in two versions: one with and one without the accidental torsion design requirement considered, to provide a direct assessment of the impacts of accidental torsion design requirements on building collapse performance. The archetype design models were created by calibrating their linear and nonlinear properties to a set subset of baseline high end OMF frame models.
E.2.1 Seismic Force Resisting System (SFRS)
Building systems most commonly used in SDC B are less ductile than those used in higher seismic design categories. In fact, most have values of R, the response modification coefficient, of around 3. Due to the infeasibility of analyzing every available SFRS for SDC B, the models in this study are based on the design and behavior of reinforced concrete Ordinary Moment Frame (OMF) models. The choice of OMFs to represent SDC B buildings more generally is justified by this studys focus on measuring the effect of designing for accidental torsion on collapse capacity and collapse risk, not comparing specific systems. Reinforced concrete OMFs are used because they are non-ductile, their nonlinear behavior is fairly well documented and modelable, and they are commonly used in SDC B. In addition, the most important properties pertaining to collapse capacity such as ductility, overstrength, and deformation capacity are fairly similar to many other systems used in SDC B.
E.2.2 Building Height
Three different building heights are used in this study in order to capture the effects of designing for accidental torsion: 1, 4, and 10 stories. The height of 10 stories (132 ft.) was chosen as the tallest archetype structure because it is tall enough to adequately capture the effects of higher modes in tall buildings. Past studies by Chang et al. (2009) and Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos (2009) have suggested that accidental torsion requirements are less beneficial for taller buildings (5, 6, and 20 stories) than single story buildings.
E.2.3 Building Weight
Since gravity loads can play a major role in the design of SDC B buildings, a range of building weights are considered. The low and high gravity scenarios in this study are 100 psf and 200 psf of un-factored dead weight, respectively, for all stories except the roof level. Low and high roof weights are 80 psf and 160 psf, respectively, and are used for the single-story buildings. These values are intended to represent a reasonable range of
E-6
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
weights of buildings, but are not linked to any particular floor system or occupancy. Live load was taken to be 20 psf at the roof level and 50 psf for all other stories, and live load reductions were made according to section 4.7 of ASCE 7-10 Past research has shown that gravity load levels can significantly affect system ductility, overstrength, and collapse performance (FEMA 2009). Only the high gravity load level was used for the 10-story archetype designs because the 1-story and 4-story archetypes showed that high gravity buildings performed worse overall and had more significant improvements from design accidental torsion than their low gravity counterparts .
E.2.4 Building Plan Layout
Most of the archetype building layouts considered in this study are symmetric (rectangular layouts). Past research (Llera and Chopra 1995, Stathopoulos and Anognostopoulos 2005), have shown that accidental torsion requirements have a larger effect on the performance of symmetric buildings than asymmetric buildings, because the relative increase in torsional design forces due to accidental torsion increases as inherent torsion decreases. In addition, we consider buildings with different torsional rigidities because the torsional period or frequency affects response to earthquake excitation. The rectangular building plans follow the schematic in Figure E-2Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., with overall building dimensions 200 ft. x 100 ft. and relative frame spacing of S/L=S1/L1=S2/L2= 1.0, 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25. This configuration is used for all of the rectangular buildings in this study. (In the context of this study, the term frame refers to any frame or wall line that is part of the lateral force resisting system). The extent to which designing for accidental torsion increases the design base shear in frame lines depends on the relative torsional stiffness of a structure and its frame-line spacing. This effect is illustrated using the building plan that is illustrated in Figure E-2. The building has plan dimensions L1 and L2 and frames are spaced at distances S1 and S2 apart. All frames are considered to have equal stiffness k. Taking a normalized design base shear of 1 in each frame and then computing the additional shear due to accidental torsion produces the results shown in Table E-1. In general, as relative frame spacing decreases, torsional rigidity decreases and the contribution of accidental torsion to the design base shear in frames increases.
Frame 3 BSSC SDC B L2=100' S2 E: Accidental Torsion Studies S1=2S2 Frame 2 E-7
Frame 4
41.86% Draft
Figure E-2
Plan view of a symmetric archetype structure with a rectangular frame layout
Table EE- 1
Increase in Base Shear Due to the 5% Offset Accidental Torsion Requirement for Building Layout shown in Figure EE- 2
Frames 1&3 Frames 2&4 Design Base Shear (Normalized) 1 1 1 1 Total Design Base Shear, Accounting for Accidental Torsion 1.08 1.11 1.16 1.32
S/L
Design Base Shear (Normalized) 1 1 1 1
Total Design Base Shear, Accounting for Accidental Torsion 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.08
1 (Perimeter) 0.75 0.5 0.25
In addition to the rectangular frame layout that was used most for most of the archetypes analyzed, a subset of archetypes with an I-shaped frame layout was also analyzed. I-shaped or similar frame layouts are common in parking garages and other structures.
L2=100'
E-8 E: Accidental Torsion Studies BSSC SDC B
S1
50% Draft
Figure E-3 E.2.5
I-shaped frame layout
Building Plans with Inherent Torsion
A few selected archetype buildings were analyzed with asymmetric building plan layouts, as depicted in Figure E-4. Two different inherent torsion plan layouts were used: one with S/L=S1/L1=S2/L2=0.5 and one with S/L=S1/L1=S2/L2=0.25. For each of these layouts, two of the frames are located at the buildings edge and the other two are inset according to the prescribed relative frame spacing. Eccentricities in each direction are labeled as e1 and e2. Both of the archetype building geometries used to represent buildings with inherent torsion are classified as having horizontal irregularity type 1b (extreme torsional irregularity) according to ASCE 7-10.
e1 CM L2=100' S1=2S2 S2 CR X X e2
L1=2L2=200'
Figure E-4 Inherent torsion frame layout
E.2.6 Natural Accidental Torsion
We use the term natural accidental torsion to describe the effective offset between center of mass and center of stiffness, accounting for the many sources of accidental torsion that may exist. Levels of natural accidental torsion were systematically introduced in the model, but not the design, by offsetting the center of mass (CM) of the models from the design CM along
BSSC SDC B
E-9
41.86% Draft
the diagonal of the building. Center of mass offset distances of 0%, 5%, and 10% of the total diagonal length of the building were used.
E.2.8 Design Assumptions and Methodology for OMF Models
A subset of the archetype buildings was designed as reinforced concrete OMFs according to ASCE 7-10 and ACI 318-10 and are listed in Table E-2. Each archetype building was designed for dead, live, and seismic loads using all applicable load combinations; additional loading from snow and wind were not considered. The design short period and one-second spectral accelerations were taken as the maximum allowable values for SDC B: SDS=0.33(g) and SD1=0.133(g). The buildings were designed as space frames with 2-way slabs, having spans of 30 ft., and story heights of 15 ft. and 13 ft. in the first story and all other stories, respectively. For design, they were modeled as 2D portal frames with SAP2000, using the Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (ELFP) to determine design loads, story forces and drifts. The design of all members was force controlled, with the exception of the ten story archetypes whose lowest six stories were governed by the stability (P-) requirements of Section 12.8.7 in ASCE 7. Columns of the one-story buildings were modeled pinned at the base, whereas all other designs used a fixed foundation assumption for design, to be consistent with common design practice. Each OMF design depended on the number of stories and gravity loads and had two versions, which are summarized in Table E-2. The first version was designed as a space frame with 30 ft. bays and 30 ft. of tributary width and an equivalent tributary seismic mass. Space frame OMFs were selected because they are common and have nonlinear behavior that we believe is representative of many SDC B type buildings. This design ignores accidental torsion effects, i.e. it is designed only for the base shear calculated according to the equivalent lateral force method. These are later referred to as the low base shear models because they have the lowest design base shear of all designs for their particular height and gravity load levels. In Table E-2, the low base shear designs are the odd numbered designs. The second version was designed with the same geometry and loads, except with larger design base shear due to the consideration of 5% accidental torsion (later referred to as the high base shear models). For symmetric archetypes, the increase was 32%, which was due to the base shear increase from accidental torsion when relative wall spacing (S/L) is 0.25 in a building with the geometry shown in Figure E-2. Frames with extreme values of design base shear were selected for design (even numbered designs in Table E-2), because simplified models are later calibrated by interpolation of properties between high end OMF
E-10
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
models. In addition, for select archetypes with inherent torsion, additional high end OMF frames were designed and modeled considering more extreme changes in design base shear. The high-end OMF models are designed as space frames with 30 ft. of tributary width, but the 3D frame layouts have just two frame lines in each direction and plan dimensions of 200 ft. x 100 ft., as shown in Figure E-2. Note that these simplified models have only two frame lines in each orthogonal direction to more easily capture a wide range of torsional flexibilities, creating a discrepancy with the original OMF space frame design. The discrepancy between the two building plans was reconciled by adjusting the mass and weight of the 3D models to reflect the correct building mass and weight tributary to just two of the OMF frames. Since gravity loads contribute significantly to the frame element design moments and forces, much care was taken to design the two versions of each frame consistently. For each OMF, the lower base shear version was designed first. Columns were designed to be as small as possible while keeping the longitudinal reinforcement ratio below about 4.5%. Beams were designed as T-beams, but with smaller longitudinal reinforcement ratios (2.5%-3%) than columns. The beam longitudinal reinforcement ratios were often governed by maximum reinforcement requirements (which limit reinforcement and promote steel yielding before concrete crushing). Transverse shear reinforcement was designed with bar sizes ranging from #3 to #5, and bar size was kept consistent for all columns and for all beams throughout each building; in every case, rebar size was determined such that the maximum allowable spacing could be used for all or the elements of the frame, reflecting common engineering practice. After designing the frame with the lower base shear, the high base shear version of the same frame was designed. Starting with the first design, element sizes and reinforcement were increased to accommodate the larger loads. We aimed to keep reinforcement ratios as similar as possible by increasing the reinforcement and element sizes concurrently.
Table EE- 2 Design # 1 2
Matrix of OMF Designs (Baseline Models) Lateral System Concrete OMF Gravity (Story Weight) 80 psf Relative Frame Spacing (S/L) 1* 0.25 Inherent torsion Design Accidental Torsion None 5%
Building Height (stories) 1
None
BSSC SDC B
E-11
41.86% Draft
Design # 3 4 5
Building Height (stories)
Lateral System
Gravity (Story Weight) 160 psf 100 psf
Relative Frame Spacing (S/L) 1* 0.25 1*
Inherent torsion
Design Accidental Torsion None 5% None
6 0.25 5% 4 7 1* None 200 psf 8 0.25 5% 9 1* None 10 200 psf 10 0.25 5% *Frame spacing does not matter if the building is symmetric and accidental torsion is not considered E.2.8 Design Assumptions and Methodology for Simplified Frame Models
Simplified models have been constructed such that the design lateral earthquake force in each frame, without considering accidental torsion, is exactly the same as the baseline case for the corresponding high end OMF model, so that their nonlinear properties can be matched directly. For simplified archetypes designed for accidental torsion, the earthquake forces are increased and frame properties are obtained by interpolation between the low and high base shear versions of the high end OMF frames. This process is described in more detail in section E.4.
E.2.9 Archetype Design Space Tables
Table E-3 summarizes key properties of the archetype design space that has been used for this study.
E-12
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Table E-4 lists all the buildings and design properties considered in the study, including a total of 196 archetypical models.
Table EE- 3
Summary of Archetype Design Space Building Height (stories) Gravity (Story Weight) Relative Frame Spacing (S/L) Design Accidental Torsion Natural Accidental Torsion
Design #
Lateral System
Configuration
Inherent Torsion
1 196 Total Archetypes 4 10 Concrete OMF
Low
High
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 *0.45 *0.4 *0.35 *0.3
Rectangular Frame Layout
None (Torsionally Symmetric)
0%
0% 5%
*I-Shaped Frame Layout
5% *25%
10%
*Properties only represented by selected subgroups of the archetype design space
BSSC SDC B
E-13
41.86% Draft
Table EE- 4 Building Height (stories)
Full Archetype Design Space Gravity (Story Weight) Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 Yes No 10% Yes Rectangular Frame Layout None (Symmetric) No 5% Yes No *0 Yes No 0 Design for Accidental Torsion Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM)
LRFS Configuration
Inherent Torsion
80 psf
160 psf
Rectangular Frame Layout
None (Symmetric)
No
E-14
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Gravity (Story Weight)
Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 0.75
LRFS Configuration
Inherent Torsion
Design for Accidental Torsion No
Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM)
0 Yes
No
*0 Rectangular Frame Layout None (Symmetric) Yes
160 psf
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3
No
5%
Yes
BSSC SDC B
E-15
41.86% Draft
Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 0.25 1 0.75 0.5
LRFS Configuration
Inherent Torsion
Design for Accidental Torsion Yes
Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM) 5%
No Rectangular Frame Layout None (Symmetric) Yes 10%
160 psf
0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.5
No
*0
Yes
160 psf
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3
I- shape
None (symmetric) No
5%
Yes
0.25
E-16
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
LRFS Configuration
Inherent Torsion
Design for Accidental Torsion
No *0 Yes No +5% Yes High Inherent Torsion (Extremely Asymmetric) No +10% Yes No -5% Yes No -10% Yes
160 psf
Rectangular
No *0 Yes None (symmetric) No 5% Yes
100 psf
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
Rectangular
BSSC SDC B
E-17
41.86% Draft
Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 1 0.75 0.5
LRFS Configuration
Inherent Torsion
No Rectangular None (symmetric) 10% Yes
100 psf
0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
No *0 Yes
No Rectangular None (symmetric) Yes 5%
200 psf
No 10% Yes
10
200 psf
Rectangular
None (symmetric)
No
*0
E-18
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1
LRFS Configuration
Inherent Torsion
Yes
*0
No 5% Rectangular None (symmetric) Yes
10
200 psf
0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
No 10% Yes
* The natural eccentricity is zero, but small amounts of torsion are introduced due to the nature of the simplified frame models (this occurs for any kind of frame in 3 dimensions)2.
E3
E3.1
Analysis Procedure
Ground Motions
This study uses a set of 22 pairs of far-field strong ground motions selected by the FEMA P695 project. These motions are recorded from large magnitude events at moderate fault rupture distances. Although there are no ground motions in the far-field set from SDC B-like environments, the FEMA P695 strong ground motion set is used without modification because it: (1) provides a consistent ground motion record set through which to examine relative changes in collapse capacity due to accidental torsion requirements, and (2) contains broadband frequency content, which is
BSSC SDC B
E-19
41.86% Draft
important for obtaining unbiased results for multiple buildings with varying lateral and torsional periods. In incremental dynamic analysis of the two-dimensional models, each component of each of the 22 ground motions was applied, leading to a total of 44 records scaled until collapse occurs. Ground motions were applied bidirectionally and simultaneously to the three-dimensional models. Each analysis was repeated twice for each of the 22 pairs of ground motions: once with the north-south (NS) component acting along the x-axis of the building and the east-west (EW) component acting along the y-axis, then again with the components switched so that the NS and EW components acted along the y-axis and x-axis, respectively. All of the results from the 44 cases were used for computing collapse statistics, per FEMA P695.
E3.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Ground motions are scaled to increasing intensities until collapse occurs for incremental dynamic analysis. In this study, ground motion scaling is based on the geometric mean1 of the spectral acceleration of the two components at a specific building period, i.e. Sa(T1). The fundamental period of the model, obtained from eigenvalue analysis, was used for scaling ground motions for all two-dimensional models. Periods of the three-dimensional designs and models vary slightly (10% or less) depending on how much the design base shear is increased to account for accidental torsion; however, it is desirable to use the same period for scaling ground motions such that results can be directly compared to one another. Therefore, one representative period has been selected to scale ground motions for each combination of height and gravity load level that is used. Once incremental dynamic analysis is performed, two statistical measures of collapse performance are used: the Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio (ACMR) and probability of collapse given the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion intensity level, denoted P(Collapse|MCE). The maximum considered earthquake ground motion intensity (MCE) in ASCE 7-10 is based on a target risk of 1% probability of collapse in 50 years. At many locations, the risk-targeted MCE is similar to a ground motion intensity whose likelihood of occurrence corresponds to a 2% probability of occurring in a 50 year time period (approximately a 2500 year return period) at a site.
This scaling procedure is slightly different than the FEMA P695 method, which scales a set of pre-normalized records together, but the end result of either method, in terms of the assessed margin against earthquake-induced collapse, is expected to be indistinguishable from the other (FEMA P695).
1
E-20
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
To compute the ACMR of a building, the Collapse Margin Ratio (CMR) must be computed first, based on the ratio of the median collapse capacity, or spectral acceleration causing collapse in incremental dynamic analysis, to the MCE spectral acceleration at the site of interest as in: CMR = Sacollapse,median(T1)/SaMCE (T1) (E.1)
In addition, Baker and Cornell (2006) have shown that rare ground motions tend to have a different spectral shape than the ASCE code-defined design spectrum; in fact, the spectra tend to have peaks at the period of interest. Therefore, analysis using broadband sets of ground motions, such as the FEMA P695 far-field set, which do not have the expected peaks and valleys in the response spectra, yield conservative estimates of median ground motion intensity at which collapse occurs. To account for the frequency content of the ground motion set, the FEMA P695 methodology uses a spectral shape factor (SSF) to adjust the CMR. The spectral shape factor is based on the site hazard of interest and a buildings period and ductility and ranges between 1.1 and 1.2 for the SDC B structures in this study. These factors have been calibrated to adjust the CMR to the value that would be obtained if ground motions with the appropriate spectral shape were selected specifically for the building, rather than using a general set. The equation for ACMR of 3-dimensional buildings is: ACMR = 1.2 x SSF x CMR (E.2)
Tables of SSF values and a more detailed description of how to compute SSF and ACMR can be found in Chapter 7 of FEMA P695. The 1.2 factor adjusts three-dimensional model results to a two-dimensional equivalent collapse capacity, as described in FEMA P695. Since ACMR corresponds to a median collapse value that is scaled by MCE, a collapse cumulative distribution can be constructed if the dispersion in the spectral intensity at which collapse occurs is known. Chapter 7 of the FEMA P695 report gives a detailed explanation of important factors such as uncertainty in design and modeling properties that contribute to total collapse dispersion, as well as how to combine them to obtain total collapse dispersion (TOT), quantified by the logarithmic standard deviation. Several tables of pre-computed dispersion values for different combinations of model quality, quality of design requirements, and quality of system test data are also presented in FEMA P695, Chapter 7. Values of TOT can vary from 0.275 to 0.95, but are mostly between 0.45 and 0.7. For this study, a typical value of the total dispersion TOT was assumed to be 0.65, based on the tables in chapter 7 of FEMA P695. It should be noted, however, that factors such
BSSC SDC B
E-21
41.86% Draft
as model quality and quality of design requirements are subjective, and therefore, our selection of TOT =0.65 was somewhat subjective as well. The probability of collapse given MCE is computed from cumulative distribution function that is defined by the adjusted collapse margin ratio (ACMR) and the total logarithmic dispersion (TOT) as follows: P(Collaspe|MCE)=LognormalCDF(1,ACMR, TOT) E.4
E.4.1
(E.3)
Nonlinear Modeling
Overview of Modeling Approach
The majority of the analysis for this study of accidental torsion relies on simplified models, which have been calibrated to the fully designed OMF buildings and models. The following steps outline the general method used for building simplified models: 1) Build and analyze high end OMF 2D models of archetypes in Table E-2, 2) Calibrate simplified models to match the 2D OMF behavior, and 3) Build simplified 3D models for all archetypes in Table E-4 using the 2D frames. Each of these steps is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
E.4.2 High End OMF Models
Each of the fully designed OMFs (listed in Table E-2) was modeled as a moment frame in OpenSEES (Open Source Earthquake Engineering Software). Columns and beams were modeled using a lumped plasticity approach, with plastic hinge properties of beams and columns computed according to empirical relationships developed by Haselton et al. (2008). These relationships are based on the design properties of the beams and columns (i.e. concrete compression strength, element dimensions, axial load ratio, and reinforcement detailing) and are therefore capable of representing the influence of changes in design on the element modeling. Plastic hinges were modeled using the Ibarra Material in OpenSEES developed by Ibarra et. al (2005). The Ibarra hinge materials have tri-linear monotonic backbones and incorporate cyclic and in-cycle deterioration, which are important for modeling collapse. Shear failure is not modeled directly in the high end models. However, shear failure has been accounted for by means of a non-simulated collapse mechanism. The non-simulated collapse mechanism is triggered by postprocessing of dynamic analysis results and depends on the column deflection. Physically, the non-simulated collapse mode represents the loss of vertical load carrying capacity in at least one column due to shear failure. Nonsimulated collapse modes are described in more detail in section E.4.5.
E-22
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
In addition to plastic hinges in the beams and columns, nonlinear joint behavior was modeled using 2D shear panels with an Ibarra pinching material. Nonlinear joint properties were obtained from Lowes and Altoontash (Altoontash 2004; Lowes et al. 2004). The primary factors affecting joint strength and/or ductility are confinement, joint area, and column axial load ratio. Many of the outer joints of the high end models failed during analysis, but failure of the interior joints was prevented, which is what we expect in interior space frames, due to the high level of confinement of interior joints. Distributed gravity loads were applied to the beams, and all remaining dead loads were applied to P- columns, connected to the frame by rigid truss elements. Building mass was lumped at the joints and foundation connectivity was modeled as pinned in the 1-story models and fixed for the others. (Since 4-story fixed and grade-beam foundation models resulted nearly identical computed CMRs, these foundation fixities were judged to be reasonable.) The high end OMFs were analyzed using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) and static pushover analysis, and the results of each were used to calibrate simplified models.
Beam/Column P- Truss Beam/Column Plastic Hinge Nonlinear Joint Figure E-5 Schematic of a four-story OMF model
BSSC SDC B
E-23
41.86% Draft
E.4.3 Simplified Model Calibration Procedure
For each high end OMF model, a simplified 2D model was made that matched its properties as exactly as possible. The simplified models are single bay x-braced frames with nonlinear braces, as shown in Figure E-6. The braces are truss elements with hysteretic material properties defined by the nonlinear Ibarra material. Like the nonlinear hinge materials in the high end models, the brace materials are characterized by a tri-linear monotonic backbone and different modes of cyclic and in-cycle deterioration properties. The properties of the tri-linear backbones were calibrated to the high end models, as described in the following paragraphs. The columns of the simplified models are rigid beam/columns; multi-story simplified models have elastoplastic hinges in columns between the stories to allow for storystory interaction to occur as it would in a moment frame structure. P- loads for the 2D simplified models were applied directly to the columns.
Rigid Beam/Column Element Rigid Truss Element Nonlinear Truss Element Elastoplastic Hinge
Figure E-6
Schematic of a four-story simplified model
The first step for calibrating the simplified 2D models was to match the static pushover properties of the corresponding high end 2D models, with P- effects included in the analysis. This calibration was achieved by modifying the brace properties, specifically initial stiffness, strength, hardening stiffness, capping displacement and negative post-capping slope, until the pushover analysis results of each story of the simplified and high end OMF models matched as nearly as possible. After matching the story by story pushover analysis results, the pushover results of the building as a whole, as well as modal periods, were checked to ensure that the overall static behavior of the simplified models matched the behavior of the high end OMF models as closely as possible. Figure E-7 illustrates the pushover calibration
E-24
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
comparison for the 2D, 4-story, high gravity archetype designed without accidental torsion. All of the simplified model properties except for cyclic deterioration parameters were calibrated using static pushover. Lastly, the cyclic deterioration properties of the simplified models were adjusted until the IDA results matched the IDA results of the corresponding high end model. Table E-5 illustrates the IDA comparison between the two models. One difficulty with calibrating simplified braced frame models to represent the high end OMF models was the inherent lack of story-to-story interaction in the simplified models. If all column and beam elements are modeled as truss elements, each story of the simplified braced frame assemblies behaves independently of the stories above and below. Two major problems arise from this behavior: higher mode periods are much different for the simplified models than the high end models, and damage concentrates in just one story during pushover and dynamic analysis, rather than distributing to multiple stories. This problem has been remedied by making the columns flexurally rigid and adding plastic hinges between stories to simulate the story-to-story interaction that occurs in the OMF frames. Plastic hinge properties in the simplified models are based on beam and column properties in the corresponding OMF frames. As a result, higher modes of the simplified models matched those of the high end models and earthquake damage was distributed to multiple stories in a similar manner as well. Table E-5 shows a comparison of the first 3 modal periods for the high end and simplified versions of the 4-story high gravity OMF archetype.
BSSC SDC B
E-25
41.86% Draft
250 OMF Simplified 200
Total Base Shear (kips)
150
100
50
10
15
20
25
30
Roof Displacement (in)
Figure E-7
Static pushover results for the 2D, 4-story high gravity model designed without accidental torsion and analyzed using a triangular loading pattern with P- effects considered
Table EE- 5
IDA Results for the 2D, 4-story High Gravity Archetypical Model Designed without Accidental Torsion
Measure Period (sec) Median Sacollapse (g) total CMR ACMR P(Collapse|MCE)
OMF 2.36 0.189 0.65 2.2 2.7 0.064
Simplified 2.36 0.191 0.65 2.3 2.7 0.062
Difference 0.1% 1.3% NA 1.3% 1.3% -3.7%
Table EE- 6
Modal Periods of the 44-story High Gravity OMF Archetype without Accidental Torsion Considered
Mode 1
Period (s) 'High end' Simplified 2.36 2.36
Difference 0.0%
E-26
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Mode 2 3 4
Period (s) 'High end' Simplified 0.86 0.84 0.50 0.52 0.32 0.36
Difference -2.2% 3.4% 11.6%
Once the 2D behavior of the simplified models was calibrated to the high end 2D OMF models, 3D simplified models were created. These models reflect the design plan dimensions of 200ft. x 100ft. There are two frame lines in each orthogonal direction of the simplified models and one leaning column in the center of each quadrant of the building to transmit P- forces to the rigid diaphragm. The P- columns in the 3D models are not a part of the frames like they are in the simplified 2D models; the reason for this difference is because real buildings typically have gravity carrying elements that are distributied fairly evenly throughout the building, not just in the lateral system. Therefore, P- columns have been placed at the center of each quadrant in order for P- forces to have an appropriate lever arm for impacting torsional response. The thick black lines in Figure E-8 represent the frame lines of a sample 3D model (each frame is modeled as shown in Figure E-6, except that they no longer carry P- loads) and the squares indicate P- columns.
L2=100'
X CM +10% X CM, CR
L1=2L2=200'
Figure E-8
Plan layout of a 3D simplified model
Determination of the 3D brace frame properties was based on the design base shear of the structure. For cases where the frames in the 3D models had exactly the same design base shear as the frames in the 2D model, the modeled frames were identical. For cases where the design base shear due to accidental torsion was different, because of the building of interest did not fall in the subset of archetypes fully designed as 2D frames OMFs, the properties of the braces (and plastic hinge elements between stories for multi-
BSSC SDC B
E-27
41.86% Draft
story buildings) were computed using linear interpolation between the high and low base shear versions of the 2D frames. Model strength, stiffness and cyclic deterioration parameters were interpolated based on the design base shear of the frames. Such interpolations were only performed between frames that had the same gravity load and number of stories. Using interpolation to compute the frame properties meant that several archetype buildings could be modeled in 3-D using only two fully designed baseline archetypes for each combination of height and gravity load level. It should be noted that the capping displacement of the calibrated 2D simplified models was always determined such that no interpolation would be needed to compute capping displacement for intermediate models. In other words, the capping displacement of the high base shear version of a given archetype was kept the same as the capping displacement of the low base shear version. The reason that capping displacement was kept constant for each archetype is because we believe that system ductility should be independent of design base shear. Therefore, linking capping displacement to design base shear would introduce error into the experiment by calibrating intermediate models to design idiosyncrasies, rather than meaningful system properties. Additionally, the capping displacemt for the high and low base shear versions of each high end OMF frame in this study were extremely similar (consistantly less than10% different), which confirmed our decision to keep it constant during calibration. An example of the interpolation of simplified frame properties is shown below in Figure E-9. The interpolation of cyclic deterioration properties is not presented in the figure, but is based on design base shear just as the monotonic backbone properties have been. 300
Low Base Shear (factor of 1.0) High Base Shear (factor of 1.32) Interpolated Intermediate Model (base shear factor of 1.16)
Story Shear (kips)
250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14
16
18
20
Displacement (in)
Figure E-9 Example interpolation of nonlinear monotonic backbone properties for the second story of the 4story, high gravity archetype (P- effects not included)
E-28
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
E.4.4 Non-Simulated Collapse Modes
Collapse is defined in a number of different ways for this study. For IDA, a building is considered to collapse when the maximum interstory drift ratio begins to increase rapidly, without any significant increase in ground motion intensity (side-sway collapse). However, two other forms of collapse are considered in addition to sideway collapse: 1) Failure of the (unmodeled) gravity system and 2) Loss of vertical load carrying capacity of the lateral system, due to shear failure of a column and its subsequent loss of ability to carry gravity loads. Neither shear failure modes nor gravity system failure are simulated by the simplified or OMF frame models, so these failure modes are assessed through non-simulated methods. These failure modes are of interest because both result in structural members no longer having the capacity to withstand vertical loads, which can lead to building collapse. No gravity systems are design or modeled in this study, but it is still important to acknowledge the fact that collapse in real buildings can result due to failure of gravity elements, even if the lateral system is still in tact. Assessing non-simulated collapse due to failure of the gravity system is achieved in this study by setting a threshold interstory drift, beyond which the gravity system is assumed to fail. If the maximum interstory drift in any story of a building exceeds that threshold, then the building is assumed to collapse. Thresholds of 3% and 6% were used for assessing non-simulated collapse due to failure of the gravity system. These thresholds were chosen to represent the range in ductility in gravity-load bearing systems possible in SDC B. Design standards for OMFs do not require capacity design, so, as a result, transverse reinforcement may be inadequate for carrying loads associated with plastic hinging of the columns, resulting in brittle shear failure. This specific type of brittle failure only applies to SDC B reinforced concrete columns, but it is still relevant to include when we are trying to use OMFs to represent a SDC B lateral systems in general, because several other systems with low R-factors are prone to brittle failure as well (joint shear failure and weld failure in steel frames for example). Column shear failure has been shown to depend on a combination of displacement demand and shear force demand (Aslani 2005, and Elwood 2004). Therefore, the second non-simulated collapse mode, loss of vertical load carrying capacity, is also assessed using interstory drift thresholds. However, the drift thresholds are story specific, because the expected column drift for which shear failure occurs depends on multiple parameters such as
BSSC SDC B
E-29
41.86% Draft
column dimensions, axial load ratio, and reinforcement detailing. Using those parameters, Aslani (2005) and Elwood (2004) have developed empirical methods for predicting the probabilities of shear failure and subsequent loss of gravity-load bearing capacity in reinforced concrete columns. In this study, column drifts corresponding to a 50% probability of loss vertical load carrying capacity are computed according to the methods of Aslani (2005) and Elwood (2004) and interpreted as non-simulated collapse related to column shear failure. These column drifts are then mapped to total interstory drifts using results from static pushover analysis, accounting for drift contributions from column, beam, and joint rotations. Collapse occurs if the drift in any column exceeds the collapse interstory drift threshold. For example, the loss of vertical load carrying capacity drift threshold for a second story interior column in the 4-story, high gravity, archetype is 1.80%, but the interstory drift threshold for non-simulated collapse for the second story is taken to be 2.35%, due to the portion of the drift resulting from beam and joint rotations. The adjusted collapse margin ratio for each archetype varies significantly with varying methods of assessing non-simulated collapse, however, the relative improvement gained from designing for accidental torsion in this study is mostly independent of which, if any, non-simulated collapse mechanism is implemented. Therefore, all of the results figures combine the results from each of the non-simulated collapse modes considered in addition to the results obtained without non-simulated collapse, unless otherwise specified. Complete results are provided in the subsequent section, E.5.
E.5
Sensitivity of Collapse Risk Assessments to Designing for Accidental Torsion
Results of the assessments, in terms of the change in collapse risk due to designing SDC B buildings with and without accidental torsion, and the absolute collapse risk (ACMR or probability of collapse), are presented in this section. The following figures and paragraphs describe the main trends observed in this study. These trends include: Trends specifically relevant to the scope of the study:
Torsionally flexible buildings benefit more from being designed for accidental torsion than torsionally stiff buildings. As a result, the relative frame spacing parameter (S/L) is an excellent predictor of the effectiveness of designing accidental torsion for all building
E-30
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
types studied. In addition, torsionally flexible buildings perform much worse overall, with greater absolute collapse probabilities. Inherent torsion had little or no impact on the effectiveness of designing for accidental torsion, but it does lower absolute collapse capacity significantly. The torsional irregularity ratio that is computed in Table 12.3-1 of ASCE 7 is a good, but sometimes conservative predictor, of the effectiveness of designing for accidental torsion. Collapse capacity decreases as torsional irregularity ratio increases.
Other Trends: Buildings with intermediate torsional flexibility perform moderately better than torsionally stiff buildings and much better than torsionally flexible buildings, when measured in terms of absolute collapse risk. Lightweight buildings perform better than heavy buildings. Short buildings perform better than tall buildings for the range of building heights used in the study.
E.5.1
Relative Improvement of ACMR
Trends Specifically Relevant to the Scope of this Study

0.1
E.5.1.1 Torsional Stiffness Measured by Relative Frame Spacing Designing for accidental torsion in archetypes with moderate to high Mean of Control Cases torsional stiffness (0.5S/L1.0) makes very little difference in their collapse 0.05 performance, as shown in Figure E-10. The relative improvements in ACMR due to including accidental torsion in the design are less than 10% for the majority of cases and 2.1% on average. In this range, improvements due to 0 designing for accidental torsion are fairly constant regardless of the relative frame spacing. In contrast, torsionally flexible (i.e. S/L<0.5) archetypes see -0.05 improvements in collapse capacity when they are designed for significant 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.75 1 accidental torsion. Each line in Frame Spacing (S/L) Relative Figure E-13 represents average relative improvement of collapse capacity for each archetypical building as relative frame spacing (S/L) is varied. The trend is virtually flat when 0.5S/L1.0, but steep (showing increasingly pernicious consequences from not designing for accidental torsion) when S/L<0.5. The influence of relative frame spacing (S/L) on the effectiveness of design accidental torsion was quantitatively compared to the influence of the other design/modeling parameters by means if a binary regression tree, Figure EInherent Tors
BSSC SDC B
E-31
41.86% Draft
10. The other parameters are: plan configuration, inherent torsion (yes/no), number of stories, gravity load level, and center of mass offset. The following binary regression tree was obtained by splitting the data into optimal binary categories such that the total variance of the categorized data was minimized.
Figure E-10
Binary regression tree for relative improvements of ACMR
The regression tree of Figure E-10 shows that the most significant portion of the variance in the data is captured by relative frame spacing (S/L). When the results are categorized as (S/L)>0.425 and (S/L)<0.425, the expected values of ACMR improvements for the two categories are 2.7% and 10.7%, respectively. Cross-validated error estimates are computed for each split of the binary regression tree in Figure E-10 and are shown in Figure E-11. The results show that only the first split, which is based on relative frame spacing (S/L), is appropriate for this data set, because any additional splits do not lower the error total error from cross-validated estimation. In other words, relative frame spacing (S/L) is the single most influential factor for predicting the effect of design accidental torsion, for this particular data set. The pruned regression tree for relative improvement of ACMR is presented in Figure E12.
E-32
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Figure E-11
Relative error obtained thru cross-validation vs. number of splits for the binary regression tree of relative ACMR improvement due to design accidental torsion. Only the first split decreased the error significantly.
BSSC SDC B
E-33
41.86% Draft
Figure E-12 Pruned binary regression tree for relative improvements of ACMR
0.2 10-Story High Grav 4-Story Low Grav 4-Story High Grav 1-Story Low Grav 1-Story High Grav 0.1 I-shape Inherent Tors Mean of Control Cases 0.05
0.15
-0.05 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.75 1
Relative Frame Spacing (S/L)
Figure E-13
Average relative improvement of ACMR for subgroups of buildings due to design accidental torsion, as a function of relative frame spacing
A modified version of a statistical method called change-point analysis was used to try to pin-point the exact location where the influence of design accidental torsion on collapse capacity begins to really kick in. By visual inspection of Figure E-13, it can be observed that the slope of the lines must change somewhere in the range 0.25<(S/L)<0.5, but data within that range has only been obtained for the 1-story high gravity case. The essence of change-point analysis is to detect jumps in a data set by fitting local polynomial regressions to data only on one side of each point and then only to the other side. A jump in the data is indicated when the squared difference of the value of the two local regression lines at a point (one local polynomial fitted to the data on each side of the point) is large in comparison to other points. However, we are concerned with a sudden change in slope, not an actual jump, so the method has been refined to compare slopes of local polynomials rather than values (hereafter referred to as change-slope analysis).
E-34
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
In local polynomial regression, the two main parameters that control the way the regression is fit are the portion of neighboring data points used (alpha) and the degree of the polynomial. Alpha values of 0.5-0.9 in increments of 0.05 with polynomial degree equal to 1.0 were used for performing the change-slope analysis (9 combinations). Due to the relatively large dispersion of the data, fitting the left-side local polynomial to at small relative frame spacing was difficult. This difficulty has been overcome by simulating data and doing multiple iterations. Data was simulated using local polynomials of degree one with alpha values ranging from 0.6 to 9 in increments of 0.05 (7 combinations). For each combination of polynomial degree and alpha, three hundred data points were simulated from the original data, and a change-slope analysis was performed at each point. This process was repeated 100 times for each combination of data simulation parameters and change-slope parameters for a total number of 9x7=63 combinations. For each of the 63 combinations, the median change-slope values were retained at each point. Due to the sensitivity of the change slope analysis to data variance at small values of relative frame spacing (S/L), some of the change-slope analysis gave bogus results at the left side. This problem was remedied by looking at the range 0.325<(S/L)<0.7 and rejecting any analysis that showed a maximum change-slope at (S/L)=0.325. From the remaining analyses, an envelope of change slope values was created and is shown in
Figure E-14.
Change-Slope Value from Local Polynomial Analysis
0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 Ninetieth Quantile Median Tenth Quantile
0 BSSC SDC B -0.05
E-35
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
41.86% Draft
Figure E-14
Envelope of successful change-slope analyses (57 of 63 analyses were considered successful)
The envelope above indicates that the location of the most sudden change in slope likely occurs at a relative frame spacing (S/L) of approximately 0.45. In addition to the envelope of change-slope analyses results, a t-distribution of peak points of each successful analysis was formed, for which the 90% confidence range was 0.36<(S/L)<0.53 with a mean of 0.45. A sample of the change-slope analysis results from 100 iterations of a single combination of parameter values is shown in Figure E-15.
0.25
Relative ACMR Improvement and Scaled ChangePoint Values (unitless)
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.2
Data Local Poly Fit MeanstdError Mean+stdError ChangePoint Result
0.4 0.6 0.8 Relative Frame Spacing (S/L)
Figure E-15
Example of a single change-slope analysis result obtained from 80 iterations with a local polynomial of degree 1 and alpha=0.7 for simulating data and alpha=0.65 for doing change-slope analysis. The circles are the original data. The red line and dashed black lines represent the local polynomial parameters for simulating the data, and the blue line is the scaled change-slope analysis result.
E-36
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Results also show that torsionally flexible buildings (relative frame spacing (S/L) <0.5) have much lower absolute collapse capacities than their torsionally stiff counterparts. Figure E-16 shows that collapse capacity increases as relative frame spacing increases for every archetype group when relative frame spacing (S/L) is less than 0.5, but plateaus when S/L0.5.
3.5
2.5
ACMR
10-Story High Grav 4-Story Low Grav 4-Story High Grav 1-Story Low Grav
1.5
1-Story High Grav I-shape Inherent Tors
1 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.75 1
Figure E-16
Average absolute ACMR vs. relative frame spacing. Non-simulated collapse modes not considered. Thin lines represent cases where accidental torsion is considered in design
A pruned binary regression tree has also been constructed for absolute ACMR and is presented in Figure E-17. Binary regression analysis shows that gravity load level, relative frame spacing (S/L), and number of stories are the most influential factors for collapse capacity, in that order. For the case of absolute collapse capacity, relative frame spacing is still a significant contributor, but it is not the only important factor, nor is it the most important. It can also be observed that none of the splits on the pruned regression tree for ACMR are for design accidental torsion, which indicates that its contribution to collapse capacity in this study is much smaller than the contributions from gravity load, relative frame spacing, and number of stories. For an ideal case in which building code requirements and the design
BSSC SDC B
E-37
41.86% Draft
of our archetypes are both perfect, design accidental torsion would be the single most important factor for predicting collapse capacity for two reasons: 1) code requirements are supposed to make collapse capacity independent of building factors such as weight and height and 2) the design accidental torsion requirement is supposed to make building collapse capacity independent of torsional flexibility.
Figure E-17
Pruned binary regression tree for absolute ACMR (nonsimulated collapse modes omitted)
E.5.1.2 Effects of Inherent Torsion The presence of inherent torsion in an archetype building did not significantly influence the effect of designing for accidental torsion in this study. Figure E-18 shows the average relative improvements of collapse capacity for the 1-story high gravity archetypes with relative frame spacing (S/L) of 0.5 and 0.25. Two of the archetypes shown have inherent torsion (high levels of the torsional irregularity ratio) and the other two are regular. The slopes of the lines are virtually flat, indicating that inherent torsion is not a determining factor for the effect of designing for accidental torsion. The torsional irregularity ratio is discussed in more detail in the next section.
0.2 0.18 S/L=0.5 S/L=0.25
ement of ACMR
0.16
E-38

0.12 0.1
0.14
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Figure E-18
Effect of inherent torsion on collapse capacity for the 1-story high gravity archetype
However, it is important to note that the absolute collapse capacity of buildings with inherent torsion is much lower than their symmetric counterparts. Note that in Figure E-16, all blue lines represent 1-story high gravity archetypes. In absolute terms, the collapse capacities of the symmetric archetypes (labeled 1-Story High Grav and I-shape) are much higher, in an absolute sense, than the collapse capacity of the 1-story high gravity archetype that has inherent torsion. E.5.1.3 Torsional Irregularity Ratio Since relative frame spacing (S/L) is not a practical metric for categorizing buildings with more than two frame lines in each orthogonal direction, the results have been recast in terms of torsional irregularity ratio, which is computed according to Table 12.3-1 of ASCE 7-10, by completing the following steps:
Apply a lateral load which is offset from the center of mass perpendicular to the direction of loading by a distance 5% of the buildings longest dimension perpendicular to the direction of loading Take a ratio of the largest displacement parallel to the applied load at any point in the plan of the building to the average displacement parallel to the applied load Repeat with 5% offset in the opposite direction Repeat for each main orthogonal direction Take the largest of the computed displacement ratios
Contributions to torsional irregularity can come from either inherent torsion or torsional flexibility (torsional flexibility contributes to torsional
BSSC SDC B
E-39
41.86% Draft
irregularity because a 5% offset for accidental torsion must be considered when the torsional irregularity ratio is computed). For symmetric buildings (i.e. those without inherent torsion), the torsional irregularity ratio is a good predictor of the effectiveness of designing for accidental torsion, as shown in Figure E-19, because it is directly related to relative frame spacing.
Mean of Control Cases
Although buildings with inherent torsion have higher torsional irregularity ratios0.05 than their symmetric counterparts that have the same relative frame spacing (S/L), they see similar improvements from designing for accidental torsion. Therefore, using torsional irregularity as an indicator for the 0 importance of accidental torsion in design penalizes buildings with inherent torsion more readily than those without inherent torsion. The conservatism -0.05 of using torsional irregularity ratio to predict the benefits of design accidental 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.75 1 torsion in buildings with inherent can be observed by examining Relative torsion Frame Spacing (S/L)
-0.05
Figure E-13 and Figure E-19. Note thatSpacing in Relative Frame (S/L)
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
0.75
Figure E-13, where relative frame spacing is on the x-axis, all of the blue lines follow the same basic trend. However, in Figure E-19 below, the dotted blue line that represents the 1-story high gravity case with inherent torsion is far below the other blue lines. Using the torsional irregularity ratio as a trigger to require accidental torsion therefore identifies buildings with inherent torsion as candidates for being designed with accidental torsion more readily than symmetric buildings, despite the observation that the degree of inherent torsion is not highly related to the importance of accidental torsion.
E-40
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
10-Story High Grav 4-Story Low Grav 4-Story High Grav 1-Story Low Grav
1-Story High Grav I-shape Inherent Tors
-0.05 1
1.5
2.5
3.5
Torsional Irregularity Ratio
Figure E-19
Relative improvement of collapse capacity due to designing for accidental torsion vs. torsional irregularity ratio
Binary regression analysis also confirms the observation that torsional irregularity ratio is strong factor for relative ACMR improvement due to design accidental torsion requirements. When torsional irregularity ratio is substituted for the combination relative frame spacing, plan configuration, and inherent torsion, the result is very similar to that obtained using relative wall spacing as a parameter.
BSSC SDC B
E-41
41.86% Draft
Figure E-20
Pruned binary regression tree for relative improvements of ACMR, using torsional irregularity ratio
An additional change-slope analysis of the results from using torsional irregularity ratio was not done, because the torsional irregularity ratios can be computed directly from the relative frame spacing values for the 1-story high gravity building results. When t-test results from section E5.1.1 are converted to torsional irregularity ratios, the 90% confidence range for the kink in the data is 1.29<torsional irregularity ratio<1.58, with an expected value of 1.40. Torsional irregularity ratio is also good predictor for absolute collapse capacity, as can be seen in Figure E-21. Note that the thick dotted blue line that represents the 1-story high gravity building with inherent torsion coincides with the thick blue lines representing the symmetric 1-story high gravity buildings, which can be contrasted to the results that are based on relative wall spacing (S/L) in Figure E-16. Therefore, torsional irregularity ratio is an equal or better predictor than relative wall spacing for absolute collapse capacity.
3.5
10-Story High Grav 4-Story Low Grav 4-Story High Grav 1-Story Low Grav 1-Story High Grav I-shape Inherent Tors
ACMR
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Torsional Irregularity Ratio
Figure E-21
Absolute capacity vs. torsional irregularity ratio (nonsimulated collapse modes omitted)
E-42
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
It should be noted that, although Figure E-21 shows a strong correlation between torsional irregularity ratio and collapse capacity, there are other significant factors in this study that affect collapse capacity as well. The pruned regression tree of ACMR in Figure E-22 shows that gravity load level and number of stories are also important factors, just like when relative frame spacing was used.
Figure E-22
Pruned binary regression tree of ACMR using torsional irregularity ratio (non-simulated collapse modes omitted)
E.5.2
Other Trends
E.5.2.1 Better Performance in Buildings with Intermediate Torsional Flexibility An unexpected trend observed in Figure E-16 is a slight increase in collapse capacity when buildings transition from being torsionally stiff (S/L~1.0) to moderately torsionally stiff (S/L~0.5), even though the structures torsional resistance is decreasing. It seems logical that greater torsional flexibility would lead to greater deformations and, therefore, lower collapse capacity. This observation is true in general, but there is a minor increase in collapse capacity when torsional stiffness reduces from very stiff to moderately stiff. This slight increase occurs because as the fundamental torsional period increases with increased torsional flexibility, the building falls into a frequency range for which the earthquake records have much less spectral energy. This effect partly counterbalances the larger displacements that occur
BSSC SDC B
E-43
41.86% Draft
due to the increased torsional flexibility. As an illustrative example, the first seven modal periods for the 3D 4-story high gravity archetype are shown below in Table E-7 (torsional periods are highlighted in grey) along with a spectral acceleration plot of the FEMA P695 far-field ground motion set (Figure E-23). Note that spectral acceleration is highest for short periods and decreases steadily as the fundamental period increases beyond 0.5 seconds, which means that buildings with short torsional periods (i.e. torsionally stiff buildings), will experience the greatest torsional accelerations and torsional flexible buildings experience relatively less demand.
Table EE- 7
Summary of Modal Periods for the 44-Story High Gravity Archetype 4-story High Gravity S/L = 1 S/L = 0.75 Period (s) 2.34 2.34 1.75 0.83 0.83 0.63 0.51 Torsional or Lateral lat lat tors lat lat tors lat S/L = 0.5 Period (s) 2.70 2.34 2.34 0.96 0.83 0.83 0.59 Torsional or Lateral tors lat lat tors lat lat tors S/L = 0.25 Period (s) 6.78 2.34 2.34 2.21 1.32 0.91 0.83 Torsional or Lateral tors lat lat tors tors tors lat Torsional or Lateral lat lat tors lat lat lat lat
Mode
Period (s) 2.34 2.34 1.30 0.83 0.83 0.51 0.51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E-44
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Figure E-23
Acceleration spectrum of the FEMA P695 ground motion set (FEMA P695 Report)
E.5.2.2 Lightweight vs. Heavy Buildings Gravity load level is also a major contributor to building collapse performance as is illustrated by the regression trees in Figure E-17 and Figure E-22. Figure E-24 also illustrates the effects of gravity loads on collapse performance for the one and four story archetypes; heavier buildings (red) tended to perform worse than lightweight buildings (black) in this study. However, the relative improvement from designing for accidental torsion is fairly similar between high and low gravity archetypes (note that the red line trends are similar to black line trends in Figure E-25 and also the binary regression tree in Figure E-10). A major contributor to the difference in absolute collapse capacity between the high and low gravity archetypes is the fact that transverse reinforcement spacing was typically controlled by the maximum allowable spacing, rather than by design loads. Since the high gravity frames have larger sections, their maximum allowable spacing for transverse reinforcement is also larger, lead to less ductile beam and column elements and overall worse performance.
BSSC SDC B
E-45
4-Story Low Grav
41.86% Draft
2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
1-Story Low Grav 4-Story High Grav 1-Story High Grav 0.75 1
Figure E-24
Influence of gravity load level and building height on absolute collapse capacity. Non-simulated collapse modes not considered.
0.16 4-Story Low Grav 0.14 1-Story Low Grav 4-Story High Grav 1-Story High Grav
0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
0.75
Figure E-25
Influence of gravity load level and building height on the effect of design accidental torsion on collapse capacity.
E.5.2.3 Effect of Building Height on Collapse Performance Taller buildings tend to perform worse than shorter buildings in this study. The tallest building analyzed is 10 stories (132 ft.), and its absolute collapse capacity is the lowest of all the archetypes (see Figure E-16 and Figure E21). Additionally, Figure E-24 shows that the 4-story buildings (dashed lines) performed worse than their 1-story counterparts (solid lines). After about 10 stories, equation 12.8.5 of ASCE 7-10, which defines a minimum value of 0.01g for the base shear coefficient Cs, is triggered, reducing the effect of building height in the design. One significant contributor to the greater performance of the shorter buildings, which is specific the building types in this study, but not necessarily in general, is the of the OMF design requirements for maximum transverse reinforcement spacing. Due to maximum shear spacing requirements, the shorter buildings in this study tend to be more ductile. For example, the design shear in the columns of the 1story OMFs is so low that transverse reinforcement is almost not even needed for resisting shear forces. However, since the design of transverse
E-46 E: Accidental Torsion Studies BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
E.6
E.6.1
reinforcement is controlled by maxim spacing requirements, the columns are over-designed for shear forces. The transverse reinforcement spacing is so low, in fact, that the columns exceed capacity design standards, which makes them very ductile, even though capacity design is not required for OMFs. Conclusions and Recommendations
Revision of Section 12.8.4.2 in ASCE 7
According to the results of this study, the single most significant predictor for 0 the improvement of building collapse capacity due to designing for accidental torsion is relative frame spacing (S/L). Buildings with relative -0.05 frame spacing (S/L) greater than 0.45 tend see very little improvement in 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.75 1 their collapse capacities when designed accidental Relative Framefor Spacing (S/L) torsion (see Figure E-13,Figure E-12, and Figure E-14); therefore, we recommend that such buildings need not adhere to the accidental torsion requirement of ASCE 7-10. However, computing an equivalent S/L relative frame spacing for buildings with multiple frame lines is burdensome and prone to misinterpretation. As a result, an alternative method, using torsional irregularity ratio, is suggested, because ASCE 7-10 already requires that quantity to be computed. As shown above, the torsional irregularity ratio is a good predictor of relative improvement of collapse capacity (see section E.5.1.3 and Figure E-19), and buildings with torsional irregularity ratio less than 1.4 gain very little, in terms of collapse capacity, from design accidental torsion. A torsional irregularity ratio of 1.4 is also the cut-off or torsional irregularity type 1b, therefore, we recommend that buildings designed for SDC B, which do not have type 1b torsional irregularity, need not adhere to the accidental torsion requirement of section 12.8.4.2 of ASCE 7-10. Since our results indicate that torsional flexibility, rather than inherent torsion, is critical in determining the effect of designing for accidental torsion on collapse capacity (see Figure E-18), this recommendation conservatively affects buildings with inherent torsion. However, buildings with inherent torsion perform more poorly in general than their symmetric counterparts in terms of absolute collapse capacity (see Figure E-16), such that higher levels of conservatism in design may be appropriate.
BSSC SDC B
E-47
41.86% Draft
E.6.2 Future Research
It is desirable for buildings of all levels of torsional irregularity due to torsional flexibility or inherent torsion to have similar collapse capacities; if this were the case, the lines in Figure E-21 would be flat, indicating that collapse capacity is independent of torsional irregularity ratio. However, as shown in Figure E-21 the collapse capacity declines rapidly after the torsional irregularity ratio increases past 1.4 and has decreased 20-50% by the time the torsional irregularity ratio is approximately 2.3. Therefore, an amplification factor for torsionally flexible buildings in SDC B that would increase their collapse capacities to a level comparable to the collapse level when torsional irregularity ratio is less than 1.4 is suggested for future research. Additionally, the authors recommend a similar future study to examine the effects of design accidental torsion in SDC D. Such a study would have at least two benefits: A better knowledge of whether the torsion amplification factor, Ax, in ASCE 7-10 is accomplishing its intended purpose of making seismic collapse capacity independent of the level of torsional irregularity or flexibility. Possible elimination of the accidental torsion design requirement for buildings in high seismic regions that are not categorized as having torsional irregularity type 1a or 1b.
E-48
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
E.7
Exhaustive Results Summary
E.7.1 All Archetype Collapse Results
Table EE- 8
Collapse Results for the 1-Story, Low Gravity, Gravity, Symmetric Archetypes
Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 6% Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 3% Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion 0% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% -1% 4% 13% -2% 2% 2% 13% 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.11 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.92 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.75 1.86 1.88 1.93 1.91 1.43 1.39 1.29 1.25 1.52 1.41 1.31 1.21 1.41 1.38 1.13 0.96 1.36 1.44 1.06 1.01 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.29 0.31 0.35 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.34 0.39 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.52 0.32 0.29 0.47 0.49 Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion 4% 5% 7% 7% 4% 5% 7% 9% 7% 1% 1% -4% -4% 5% -7% 5% Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio Median Collapse Sa(1.3s)(g) *P(Collapse|MCE) No nonsimulated Collapse Modes Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion
Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio
Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.41 3.44 3.45 3.44 3.40 3.42 3.41 2.68 3.41 3.43 3.45 2.71 2.96 3.06 3.15 2.14 3.02 3.02 3.28 2.41 3.00 3.02 3.03 1.86 2.94 3.08 3.10 2.10
Median Collapse Sa(1.3s)(g)
Gravity
Stories
ID
3011100 3011200 3011300 3011400 3011110 3011210 3011310 3011410 3011100 3011200 3011300 3011400 3011110 3011210 3011310 3011410 3011101 3011201 3011301 3011401 3011111 3011211 3011311 3011411 3011102 3011202 3011302 3011402 3011112 3011212 3011312 3011412
1 80 psf
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0 0.38 0.38 Yes 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.38 No 0.37 0.31 **0 0.38 0.38 Yes 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.34 No 0.36 0.27 5% 0.34 0.35 Yes 0.37 0.30 0.33 0.35 No 0.36 0.26 10% 0.33 0.35 Yes 0.37 0.30 No
3.43 3.43 3.43 3.43 3.46 3.49 3.54 3.52 3.43 3.46 3.44 2.82 3.45 3.48 3.52 2.99 3.05 3.14 3.34 2.52 3.10 3.18 3.38 2.74 3.04 3.17 3.30 2.40 2.99 3.21 3.38 2.71
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06
*P(Collapse|MCE)
1% 2% 3% 2%
0% 1% 2% 6%
1% 1% 1% 9%
-2% 1% 2% 13%
0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.29 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.23 0.33 0.33 0.36 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.23
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.13
BSSC SDC B
*P(Collapse|MCE)
E-49
41.86% Draft
*Total logarithmic dispersion (b) is assumed to be 0.65 for computing P(Collapse|MCE). **The natural eccentricity is zero, but 2small amounts of torsion are introduced due to the nature of the simplified frames.
Unless the rotational degrees of freedom of floor diaphragms are fixed in the OpenSees models, small amounts of torsion are introduced in the 3D models due to geometric nonlinearities. This effect occurs due to the configuration of the simplified models. When a frame or wall resists a lateral load, it must be stabilized in the out-of-plane direction to prevent it from twisting. Taking framed systems as an example, when out-of-plane deflections are present, compression forces in the columns are destabilizing and push the frame farther out of plane. If there is any lateral load acting along the plane of the frame, there will be more compression in the columns of one side than the other, cause varying destabilizing forces at each end, which results in a moment; thus, accidental torsion is introduced. A similar phenomenon occurs from the braces as well; tension braces tend to pull one end of the top of the frame back to its vertical in-plane position, while compression braces tend to push the top of frames at the opposite end farther out plane. The extent to which geometric nonlinearities contribute to natural accidental torsion in the simplified models can be observed in the 1-story rows of Table E-8 and Table E-9 in which the perfectly symmetric 1-story archetypes have been analyzed with and without the rigid diaphragm being allowed to rotate. For cases where S/L is greater than or equal to 0.5 (i.e. the building was not extremely torsionally flexible), these geometric nonlinearities contribute very little to natural accidental torsion.
E-50
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Table EE- 9
Collapse Results for the 11-Story, High Gravity, Symmetric Archetypes

Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 6% Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 3.5% 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.11 2.07 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.10 2.16 2.17 2.15 2.03 2.03 2.03 1.58 1.58 1.56 1.54 1.84 2.13 2.16 2.16 1.55 1.62 1.64 1.64 2.17 1.63 1.52 1.43 1.59 1.54 1.46 1.47 1.25 1.67 1.60 1.43 1.43 1.66 1.60 1.57 1.39 1.47 1.42 1.26 1.05 1.46 1.52 1.23 1.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 2% 0.12 6% 0.12 7% 0.12 6% 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.12 5% 0.12 6% 0.12 6% 0.25 -2% 0.23 3% 0.22 5% 0.22 6% 0.12 18% 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.22 2% 0.23 6% 0.29 0% 0.29 -10% 0.22 8% 0.24 9% 0.24 7% 0.31 11% 0.28 0.29 0.36 0.47 0.28 -1% 0.26 6% 0.38 -2% 0.42 8% Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio Median Collapse Sa(1.48s)(g) *P(Collapse|MCE) No nonsimulated Collapse Modes Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion
3012100 3012200 3012300 3012400 3012110 3012210 3012310 3012410 3012100 3012200 3012300 3012500 3012600 3012700 3012800 3012400 3012110 3012210 3012310 3012510 3012610 3012710 3012810 3012410 3012101 3012201 3012301 3012501 3012601 3012701 3012801 3012401 3012111 3012211 3012311 3012511 3012611 3012711 3012811 3012411 3012102 3012202 3012302 3012402 3012112 3012212 3012312 3012412
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 160 psf 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0 0.29 0.30 Yes 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 No 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.23 **0 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 Yes 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.27 No 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.21 5% 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.30 Yes 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.24 0.26 No 0.27 0.20 10% 0.25 0.28 Yes 0.29 0.23 No
2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.94 2.97 3.08 3.16 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.84 2.79 2.65 2.33 2.93 2.96 3.07 3.07 3.04 3.06 2.95 2.71 2.47 2.56 2.77 2.73 2.75 2.66 2.50 2.10 2.63 2.72 2.98 3.04 3.00 2.99 2.81 2.50 2.42 2.65 2.76 2.01 2.55 2.78 2.87 2.34
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.10
3% 4% 8% 11%
3% 4% 8% 8% 7% 10% 12% 16%
7% 6% 8% 12% 9% 13% 12% 19%
5% 5% 4% 16%
0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.15 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.18
2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.88 2.94 3.00 3.12 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.78 2.73 2.46 2.20 2.88 2.94 3.00 3.01 2.98 2.90 2.81 2.60 2.45 2.53 2.70 2.69 2.63 2.55 2.16 1.70 2.58 2.68 2.84 2.87 2.83 2.60 2.45 1.99 2.40 2.56 2.62 1.52 2.47 2.63 2.71 1.76
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.21 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.19
BSSC SDC B
Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion 3% 5% 7% 11% 3% 5% 7% 7% 7% 6% 14% 18% 5% 6% 5% 7% 7% 2% 14% 17% 3% 3% 3% 16%
Gravity
Stories
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
ID
E-51
41.86% Draft
Table EE-10
Collapse Results for the 11-Story, High Gravity, IIShaped Shaped Archetypes
Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 6% Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 3% 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.58 1.58 1.56 1.52 1.53 1.47 1.61 1.62 1.63 1.65 1.67 1.56 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.17 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.18 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.23 2% 0.23 3% 0.23 4% 0.22 8% 0.21 10% 0.25 6% 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.43 3% 0.40 8% 0.38 10% 0.40 6% 0.41 5% 0.40 7% No nonsimulated Collapse Modes
Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion
4012300 4012500 4012600 4012700 4012800 4012400 4012310 4012510 4012610 4012710 4012810 4012410 1 160 psf 4012301 4012501 4012601 4012701 4012801 4012401 4012311 4012511 4012611 4012711 4012811 4012411
0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25
0.28 0.28 0.27 No 0.26 0.24 0.20 **None 0.30 0.30 0.30 yes 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.26 No 0.25 0.22 0.17 5% 0.30 0.29 0.28 Yes 0.27 0.26 0.23
2.83 2.79 2.73 2.59 2.42 2.03 2.99 3.01 2.98 2.92 2.80 2.57 2.76 2.71 2.60 2.48 2.17 1.72 2.98 2.94 2.85 2.75 2.58 2.31
0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10
6% 8% 9% 13% 16% 27%
8% 9% 10% 11% 19% 34%
0.28 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.18
2.78 2.75 2.68 2.45 2.31 1.85 2.96 2.91 2.93 2.80 2.67 2.29 2.62 2.55 2.40 2.22 1.95 1.52 2.85 2.65 2.59 2.55 2.18 1.83
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.26 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.18
6% 6% 9% 14% 16% 24%
9% 4% 8% 15% 12% 21%
E-52
BSSC SDC B
Gravity
Stories
ID
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
50% Draft
Table EE-11
Collapse Results for the 11-Story, High Gravity, Archetypes with Inherent Torsion
Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 6%
5012300 5012400 5012310 5012410 5012301 5012401 5012311 5012411 5012302 5012402 1 160 psf 5012312 5012412 5012303 5012403 5012313 5012413 5012304 5012404 5012314 5012414
0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25
No None yes No +5% Yes No +10% yes No -5% Yes No -10% yes
0.22 0.16 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.20 0.14 0.22 0.18 0.25 0.18 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.19 0.28 0.22
2.25 1.64 2.41 1.96 2.13 1.56 2.12 1.85 2.02 1.43 2.21 1.83 2.50 1.85 2.63 2.11 2.72 1.93 2.83 2.25
0.11 0.22 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.25 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.29 0.11 0.18 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.13 0.06 0.16 0.05 0.11
7% 19%
0% 19%
9% 28%
5% 14%
4% 17%
0.22 0.15 0.23 0.17 0.20 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.21 0.15 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.18
2.18 1.51 2.32 1.68 2.01 1.42 1.94 1.64 1.88 1.27 2.13 1.52 2.29 1.68 2.46 1.87 2.54 1.69 2.53 1.77
0.12 0.26 0.10 0.21 0.14 0.30 0.15 0.22 0.17 0.36 0.12 0.26 0.10 0.21 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.19
6% 11%
-3% 16%
13% 20%
7% 11%
0% 5%
0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12
1.06 0.98 1.11 1.14 1.02 0.85 1.14 0.94 1.06 0.74 1.07 0.89 1.07 1.23 1.11 1.25 1.19 1.08 1.24 1.19
0.46 0.51 0.44 0.42 0.49 0.60 0.42 0.54 0.46 0.68 0.46 0.57 0.46 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.39 0.45 0.37 0.40
BSSC SDC B
Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion 5% 16% 12% 10% 1% 20% 3% 2% 4% 10%
Gravity
Stories
ID
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
No nonsimulated Collapse Modes
E-53
41.86% Draft
Table EE-12
Collapse Results for the 44-Story, Low Gravity, Symmetric Archetypes

Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds LVCC (LVCC drifts computed using exterior column axial loads) Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds LVCC (LVCC drifts computed using interior column axial loads)
Gravity
Stories
Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 3% Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.07 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.69 1.97 1.98 1.99 1.77 1.76 1.72 1.70 1.28 1.80 1.76 1.70 1.30 1.71 1.54 1.52 1.09 1.70 1.59 1.44 1.10 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.15 3% 0.15 3% 0.14 4% 0.19 5% 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.35 0.18 2% 0.19 2% 0.21 0% 0.34 2% 0.20 0.25 0.26 0.45 0.21 -1% 0.24 3% 0.29 -5% 0.44 1%
3041100 3041200 3041300 3041400 3041110 3041210 3041310 3041410 3041101 3041201 3041301 3041401 3041111 3041211 3041311 3041411 3041102 3041202 3041302 3041402 3041112 3041212 3041312 3041412
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 4 100 psf 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
0.20 0.20 No 0.20 0.16 **0 0.21 0.21 Yes 0.21 0.18 0.20 0.20 No 0.20 0.13 5% 0.20 0.20 Yes 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.20 No 0.20 0.13 10% 0.20 0.20 Yes 0.21 0.15
3.24 3.24 3.24 2.59 3.30 3.30 3.36 2.82 3.17 3.14 3.21 2.13 3.16 3.22 3.34 2.47 3.15 3.18 3.20 2.03 3.19 3.19 3.28 2.39
0.04 0.18 2.82 0.06 0.04 0.18 2.82 0.06 0.04 0.18 2.82 0.06 0.07 0.14 2.25 0.11 0.03 2% 0.18 2.87 0.05 2% 0.03 2% 0.18 2.89 0.05 3% 0.03 4% 0.18 2.93 0.05 4% 0.06 9% 0.15 2.41 0.09 7% 0.04 0.17 2.71 0.06 0.04 0.17 2.65 0.07 0.04 0.17 2.72 0.06 0.12 0.10 1.62 0.23 0.04 0% 0.17 2.66 0.07 -2% 0.04 2% 0.17 2.68 0.06 1% 0.03 4% 0.18 2.77 0.06 2% 0.08 16% 0.12 1.83 0.18 12% 0.04 0.16 2.60 0.07 0.04 0.16 2.54 0.08 0.04 0.16 2.52 0.08 0.14 0.09 1.40 0.30 0.04 2% 0.16 2.56 0.07 -1% 0.04 0% 0.16 2.58 0.07 1% 0.03 3% 0.16 2.55 0.07 1% 0.09 18% 0.10 1.63 0.23 17%
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.11 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.12
3.09 3.09 3.09 2.41 3.25 3.26 3.27 2.52 3.04 2.98 3.10 1.82 3.05 3.12 3.18 1.96 3.00 2.96 2.99 1.75 3.02 3.04 3.08 1.97
0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.03 5% 0.03 5% 0.03 6% 0.08 4% 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.18 0.04 1% 0.04 5% 0.04 3% 0.15 8% 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.04 1% 0.04 3% 0.04 3% 0.15 13%
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.12 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.11
3.24 3.24 3.24 2.43 3.30 3.27 3.28 2.56 3.12 3.09 3.12 1.77 3.04 3.09 3.30 1.85 3.09 3.00 3.05 1.68 3.09 3.15 3.04 1.81
0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.03 2% 0.03 1% 0.03 1% 0.07 5% 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.04 -3% 0.04 0% 0.03 6% 0.17 4% 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.21 0.04 0% 0.04 5% 0.04 0% 0.18 7%
E-54
BSSC SDC B
ID
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
50% Draft
Table EE-13

Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds LVCC (LVCC drifts computed using interior column axial loads)
Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds LVCC (LVCC drifts computed using exterior column axial loads)
Gravity
Stories
Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 3% Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion 1% 0% 0% 6% 4% 4% -7% 5% 4% 2% -3% 6% Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio Median Collapse Sa(2.19s)(g) *P(Collapse|MCE)
Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.23 2.78 2.81 2.75 2.42 2.42 2.43 2.52 1.74 2.39 2.56 2.50 2.05 2.34 2.24 2.29 1.61 2.32 2.43 2.33 1.86
ID
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
3042100 3042200 3042300 3042400 3042110 3042210 3042310 3042410 3042101 3042201 3042301 3042401 3042111 3042211 3042311 3042411 3042102 3042202 3042302 3042402 3042112 3042212 3042312 3042412
4 200 psf
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 **0 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.13 5% 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.13 10% 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.15
2.70 2.70 2.70 2.39 2.78 2.84 2.80 2.67 2.56 2.63 2.67 2.10 2.57 2.71 2.81 2.38 2.53 2.50 2.54 1.98 2.58 2.68 2.64 2.35
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.06 3% 0.05 5% 0.06 4% 0.07 12% 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.07 0% 0.06 3% 0.06 5% 0.09 14% 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.07 2% 0.06 7% 0.07 4% 0.09 18%
0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.07
2.13 2.13 2.13 1.98 2.23 2.24 2.20 2.12 1.82 1.76 1.80 1.34 1.88 1.78 1.82 1.51 1.76 1.58 1.54 1.09 1.77 1.67 1.51 1.11
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.11 5% 0.11 5% 0.11 3% 0.12 7% 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.32 0.16 4% 0.19 1% 0.18 1% 0.26 13% 0.19 0.24 0.25 0.45 0.19 0% 0.21 6% 0.26 -2% 0.44 2%
0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.10
2.48 2.50 2.50 2.17 2.57 2.63 2.58 2.33 2.30 2.26 2.36 1.63 2.28 2.26 2.35 1.92 2.27 2.20 2.18 1.50 2.28 2.36 2.23 1.62
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.07 3% 0.07 5% 0.07 3% 0.10 7% 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.23 0.10 -1% 0.10 0% 0.09 0% 0.16 18% 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.10 0% 0.09 7% 0.11 2% 0.23 8%
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12
0.06 0.12 1.83 0.18 0.06 0.12 1.83 0.18 0.06 0.12 1.83 0.18 0.11 0.11 1.68 0.21 0.06 3% 0.12 1.84 0.17 0.06 4% 0.12 1.83 0.18 0.06 2% 0.12 1.83 0.18 0.09 8% 0.11 1.78 0.19 0.09 0.10 1.51 0.26 0.09 0.09 1.37 0.31 0.08 0.10 1.59 0.24 0.20 0.08 1.23 0.38 0.09 -1% 0.10 1.58 0.24 0.07 5% 0.09 1.42 0.29 0.08 -1% 0.09 1.49 0.27 0.13 18% 0.08 1.29 0.35 0.10 0.09 1.49 0.27 0.11 0.09 1.38 0.31 0.10 0.08 1.23 0.38 0.23 0.06 0.97 0.52 0.10 -1% 0.10 1.55 0.25 0.09 8% 0.09 1.40 0.30 0.10 2% 0.08 1.20 0.39 0.17 15% 0.07 1.03 0.48
BSSC SDC B
*P(Collapse|MCE)
E-55
41.86% Draft
Table EE-14

Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio Edge Exceeds LVCC (LVCC drifts computed *P(Collapse|MCE) using interior column Improvement of ACMR from axial loads) Designing for Accidental Torsion Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building *P(Collapse|MCE) Edge Exceeds 6% Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion Nonsimulated Collapse Occurs if IDR at Building Edge Exceeds 3% 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.02 1.42 1.38 1.38 1.11 1.11 0.96 1.00 0.83 1.10 1.02 0.93 0.86 1.06 1.01 0.82 0.70 1.08 1.02 0.84 0.72 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.49 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.43 0.43 0.53 0.50 0.61 0.44 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.47 0.49 0.62 0.71 0.45 0.49 0.60 0.69
3102100 3102200 3102300 3102400 3102110 3102210 3102310 3102410 3102101 3102201 3102301 3102401 3102111 3102211 3102311 3102411 3102102 3102202 3102302 3102402 3102112 3102212 3102312 3102412
10 200 psf
1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 **0 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 5% 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 10% 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04
2.18 2.17 2.17 1.38 2.23 2.22 2.29 1.47 2.02 2.21 2.20 1.17 2.09 2.27 2.21 1.33 2.04 2.24 2.18 1.15 2.05 2.24 2.28 1.24
0.11 0.12 0.12 0.31 0.11 2% 0.11 2% 0.10 6% 0.28 6% 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.41 0.13 3% 0.10 3% 0.11 1% 0.33 14% 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.41 0.13 1% 0.11 0% 0.10 5% 0.37 8%
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02
1.98 1.93 1.94 1.15 1.91 1.90 1.94 1.26 1.46 1.52 1.35 0.93 1.46 1.45 1.31 0.94 1.40 1.38 0.97 0.72 1.38 1.40 0.94 0.68
0.15 0.16 0.15 0.42 0.16 -3% 0.16 -2% 0.15 0% 0.36 10% 0.28 0.26 0.32 0.54 0.28 0% 0.29 -5% 0.34 -3% 0.54 1% 0.30 0.31 0.52 0.69 0.31 -1% 0.30 1% 0.54 -3% 0.72 -6%
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03
2.17 2.17 2.17 1.22 2.18 2.17 2.20 1.35 1.91 2.01 2.02 1.03 1.95 1.96 2.04 1.15 1.89 2.00 1.75 0.99 1.91 1.97 1.85 1.04
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.38 0.11 1% 0.12 0% 0.11 2% 0.32 11% 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.48 0.15 2% 0.15 -3% 0.14 1% 0.42 11% 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.50 0.16 1% 0.15 -2% 0.17 6% 0.48 5%
E-56
BSSC SDC B
Improvement of ACMR from Designing for Accidental Torsion -3% -6% -7% 9% -1% 6% -7% 4% 2% 1% 2% 3%
Gravity
Stories
ID
*P(Collapse|MCE)
*P(Collapse|MCE)
50% Draft
Table EE-15
Modal Periods of the 11-Story, Low Gravity, Symmetric Archetypes for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 1
S/L = 0.75
S/L = 0.5
S/L = 0.25
Mode Period Torsional Period Torsional Period Torsional Period Torsional or or or or (s) (s) (s) (s) Lateral Lateral Lateral Lateral 1 2 3 1.40 1.40 0.78 lat lat tors 1.40 1.40 1.05 lat lat tors 1.62 1.40 1.40 tors lat lat 3.98 1.40 1.40 tors lat lat
Table EE-16
Modal Periods of the 11-Story, High Gravity, Symmetric Archetypes for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 1 Mod e 1 2 3 Perio d (s) 1.52 1.52 0.84 Torsion al or Lateral lat lat tors
S/L = 0.75 Perio d (s) 1.52 1.52 1.13 Torsion al or Lateral lat lat tors
S/L = 0.5 Perio d (s) 1.76 1.52 1.52 Torsion al or Lateral tors lat lat
S/L = 0.25 Perio d (s) 4.49 1.52 1.52 Torsion al or Lateral tors lat lat
Table EE-17
Modal Periods of the 11-Story, High Gravity, II-Shaped Archetypes for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 0.5
S/L = 0.45
S/L = 0.4
Mode Period Torsional Period Torsional Period Torsional or or or (s) (s) (s) Lateral Lateral Lateral 1 2 3 Mode 1 2 3 2.00 tors 1.52 lat 1.52 lat S/L = 0.35 3.14 tors 1.52 lat 1.52 lat 2.26 tors 1.52 lat 1.52 lat S/L = 0.3 3.97 tors 1.52 lat 1.52 lat 2.62 tors 1.52 lat 1.52 lat S/L = 0.25 5.65 tors 1.52 lat 1.52 lat
BSSC SDC B
E-57
41.86% Draft
Table EE-18
Modal Periods of the 11-Story, High Gravity Archetypes with Inherent Torsion for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 0.5
S/L = 0.25
Mode Period Torsional Period Torsional or or (s) (s) Lateral Lateral 1 2 3 2.28 1.42 1.22 tors lat lat 5.94 1.43 1.33 tors lat lat
Table EE-19
Modal Periods of the 44-Story, Low Gravity Symmetric Archetypes for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 1 Mod e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perio d (s) 2.34 2.34 1.29 0.80 0.80 0.49 0.49 Torsion al or Lateral lat lat tors lat lat lat lat
S/L = 0.75 Perio d (s) 2.34 2.34 1.74 0.80 0.80 0.61 0.49 Torsion al or Lateral lat lat tors lat lat tors lat
S/L = 0.5 Perio d (s) 2.70 2.34 2.34 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.56 Torsion al or Lateral tors lat lat tors lat lat tors
S/L = 0.25 Perio d (s) 6.99 2.34 2.34 2.14 1.25 0.89 0.80 Torsion al or Lateral tors lat lat tors tors tors lat
Table EE-20
Modal Periods of the 44-Story, High Gravity Symmetric Archetypes for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 1 Mod e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perio d (s) 2.34 2.34 1.30 0.83 0.83 0.51 0.51 Torsion al or Lateral lat lat tors lat lat lat lat
S/L = 0.25 Perio d (s) 6.78 2.34 2.34 2.21 1.32 0.91 0.83 Torsion al or Lateral tors lat lat tors tors tors lat
E-58
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
Table EE-21
Modal Periods of the 1010-Story, High Gravity Symmetric Archetypes for which Accidental Torsion was not Considered in Design (Torsional Modes in Grey)
S/L = 1 Mod e Perio d (s) 4.28 4.28 2.32 1.67 1.67 0.98 0.98 Torsion al or Lateral lat lat tors lat lat lat lat
S/L = 0.25 Perio d (s) 14.6 8 5.24 4.28 4.28 2.90 1.89 1.67 Torsion al or Lateral tors tors lat lat tors tors lat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BSSC SDC B
E-59
41.86% Draft
References ACI 318-10, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 2010. Altoontash, A., 2004, Simulation and Damage Models for Performance Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford CA. Anagnostopoulos1, S.A., Alexopoulou1, C., Stathopoulos, K.G., 2010, 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 Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 39 (5), pp. 521540. Aslani, H., 2005, Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A., 2006, Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34 (10), pp. 1193-1217. Chang, H.Y., Lin, C.C.J., Lin, K.C., and Chen, J.Y., 2009, Role of accidental torsion in seismic reliability assessment for steel buildings, Steel and Composite Structures, an International Journal, 5 (9), pp. 457-472. Elwood, K., 2004, Modeling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 31, pp. 846859. De la Llera, J.C., and A.K. Chopra, 1992, Evaluation of code-accidental torsion provisions using earthquake records from three nominally symmetric-plan buildings, SMIP92 Seminar on Seismological and Engineering Implications of Recent Strong-Motion Data, pp. 4-1 - 416.
E-60
BSSC SDC B
50% Draft
De La Llera, J. C. and Chopra, A. K., 1995, Estimation of accidental torsion effects for seismic design of buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 121(1 ), pp. 102-114. Haselton, C.B., Liel, A.B., Lange, S.T., and Deierlein, G.G., Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER 2007/03, May 2008. Ibarra, L. F., R. A. Medina and H. Krawinkler (2005). "Hysteretic Models that Incorporate Strength and Stiffness Deterioration." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34, pp. 1489- 1511 Lowes, L. N., N. Mitra and A. Altoontash, 2004, A Beam-Column Joint Model for Simulating the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames, PEER. Stathopoulos, K.G., Anagnostopoulos, S.A., 2010, Accidental design eccentricity: Is it important for the inelastic response of buildings to strong earthquakes? Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 30, pp. 782797. Tso, W.K., and Smith, R.S., 1999, Re-evaluation of seismic torsional provisions, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28, pp. 899-917.
BSSC SDC B
E-61

Accidental Torsion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accidental Torsion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

50% Draft

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

E 1.1 Literature Review on Accidental Torsion

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Flow chart schematic of FEMA P695 methodology (FEMA 2009)

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Plan view of a symmetric archetype structure with a rectangular frame layout

Design Base Shear (Normalized) 1 1 1 1

1 (Perimeter) 0.75 0.5 0.25

Figure E-3 E.2.5

I-shaped frame layout

Building Plans with Inherent Torsion

E.2.6 Natural Accidental Torsion

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Table EE- 2 Design # 1 2

Building Height (stories) 1

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Building Height (stories)

Gravity (Story Weight) 160 psf 100 psf

Relative Frame Spacing (S/L) 1* 0.25 1*

Design Accidental Torsion None 5% None

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

1 196 Total Archetypes 4 10 Concrete OMF

1 0.75 0.5 0.25 *0.45 *0.4 *0.35 *0.3

Rectangular Frame Layout

None (Torsionally Symmetric)

*I-Shaped Frame Layout

*Properties only represented by selected subgroups of the archetype design space

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Table EE- 4 Building Height (stories)

Rectangular Frame Layout

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Building Height (stories)

Gravity (Story Weight)

Design for Accidental Torsion No

Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM)

*0 Rectangular Frame Layout None (Symmetric) Yes

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Building Height (stories)

Gravity (Story Weight)

Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 0.25 1 0.75 0.5

Design for Accidental Torsion Yes

Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM) 5%

No Rectangular Frame Layout None (Symmetric) Yes 10%

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Building Height (stories)

Gravity (Story Weight)

Design for Accidental Torsion

Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM)

No *0 Yes None (symmetric) No 5% Yes

1 0.75 0.5 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

Building Height (stories)

Gravity (Story Weight)

Relative Frame spacing (S/L) 1 0.75 0.5

Design for Accidental Torsion

Natural Eccentricity (Offset of CM)

No Rectangular None (symmetric) 10% Yes

No Rectangular None (symmetric) Yes 5%

E: Accidental Torsion Studies

1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3