The effects of the accidental torsional

eccentricity on the seismic behaviour of building

structures
Joo Miguel Parece Pereira Raposo
October 2014
Civil Engineering Department, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Key-words: Accidental eccentricity, Torsion, Natural Torsion, Centre of mass displacement; Regularity;
Regulations

1. Introduction and Objectives

The torsional motion of building structures is a characteristic that tends to aggravate the linear
and nonlinear response, being responsible for introducing additional uneven forces, stresses and
deformation in the loadbearing structural elements. Rosenblueth (1960), when studying the
effects of 1957 Mexico Citys earthquake, concluded that torsion effects introduced a combination
of shear, bending and axial forces, creating serious complications in structural concrete columns.

According to De la Llera and Chopra (1994a), torsion could be originated from natural or
accidental causes. Natural causes are associated with the imbalance between the stiffness and
mass distributions (figure 1.1) or the presence of low torsional stiffness (figure 1.2) while
accidental causes are due to the uneven distribution of mass, uncertainties in the distribution of
rigidity and the rotational effects at the base of the building.

Figure 1.1- Eccentricity between centres of m ass and stiffness

Figure 1.2- Low torsional stiffness

The main objective of this work is to deepen the knowledge on accidental eccentricities, their
origin and effects, in the light of regulations such as EN1998-1 in order to evaluate its underlying
assumptions.

2. Regulation
2.1. Introduction
Introducing notions about regulation of accidental eccentricity used, this chapter describes the
prescriptions enunciated in EN 1998-1, indicating the combination methods of seismic actions
and accidental eccentricities in the two directions of seismic act ions.

2.1.1. Accidental eccentricities

Several codes use the same approach on analysing accidental eccentricities. EN 1998-1 in
chapter 4.3.2 introduces this question through the moving of the centre of mass in the amount of
5% of the dimension of the floor in the perpendicular direction to the seismic analysis.

The European seismic code, EN1998-1, distinguishes two ways of analysing accidental
eccentricity, separating them into static and simplified analysis.

Depending on the type of analysis and the presence of masonry walls, it could change the
considered fractions floor. Other codes like American code, ASCE 7-10, prescribe a multiplication
of the value of accidental eccentricity by a factor of amplification.

Fardis (2009) suggest that the most accurate way to take into account the effect of accidental
eccentricity is using a 3D model and proceeding to the displacement of the mass in the
percentage of 5% of the floor in the perpendicular direction of seismic action in study.

2.1.1.1. Static analysis

The study of accidental eccentricities through a static analysis is characterized by introducing an
accidental torsion moment (Z-axis) in the centre of mass of each floor. The model is a spatial
model, according to clause 4.3.3.3.3 (1) of EN 1998-1. The torsional moment applied is measured
according to the equation 2.1:

(2.1)

This accidental torsion moment is calculated through the multiplication of accidental eccentricity
by the force induced by the seismic action. This force corresponds to a portion of base seismic
shear defined through the displacement of the mass of the first vibration mode in the direc tion of
the horizontal component.

2.1.1.2. Simplified analysis

In Clause 4.3.3.2.4 of EN1998-1, proposes a simplified method where the forces and stresses in
structural components efforts are increased by a coefficient (3.13). This conservative method
can only be applied in symmetric structures.

= 1 + 0,6

(2.2)

In this analysis, the variable x is the distance of the element in the perpendicular direction of
seismic action, and L is the dimension of the floor in the perpendicular direction of seismic action .

According to Bisch et al (2011) it is also important to consider the designs calculation. If these
effects are determined by a spatial model, this approach is correct. However, if these effects are

determined by a planar analysis the coefficient changes to = 1 + 1,2 .

2.1.2. Resume
The table below resumes the application of seismic action.

Tabel 2.1- Resum e of seism ic action application

The presence of masonry walls doubles all the coefficients, whatever the design method.

2.2. Combination of seismic action and accidental torsional moments

The regulation stipulates that the horizontal components of the seismic action should act
simultaneously, bearing in mind that each seismic direction should be calculated separately.

The regulation EN 1998-1 is unclear in respect to the combination mode to be carried out between
the seismic components and the effects of accidental eccentricities in the presence of excitation
of two orthogonal components. Clause 4.3.3.3.3 of EN 1998-1 only admits that the torsional
moments "(...) may be determined as the envelope of the effects resulting from the application of
static loadings, consisting of sets of torsional moments Mai about the vertical axis of each storey
(...) ".

Fardis (2009) and Bish et al (2011) also propose other combination modes, which depend
essentially on the analysis model used in computing the internal forces, as can be seen in Table
3.3.

Tabel 2.2-Combinations betw een Accidental Eccentricities and Seism ic action in both seism ic directions

Seismic Combination + MT

Method of Combination
= ( + ); = ( + )
(2.3)

First Combination

Second Combination

= ( ) 2 + ( )2

(2.4)

= ( )2 + ( )2

(2.5)

= ( ) 2 + ( ) 2

(2.6)

= +

(2.7)

= (+ ; ; + ; )

(2.8)

= ( ) 2 + ( ) 2 +

(2.9)

= + ; = +

(2.10)

= + 0,3 ; = + 0,3

(2.11)

Third Combination

Linear Combination

3. Study

of the

method

of application

of

accidental

eccentricities
The study herein consists of a comparative analysis of the effects on accidental eccentricity as a
result of displacement of the centre of mass when compared with the simplified prescriptions of
EN1998-1. The first phase of the study takes place through the excitation of just one direc tion of
seismic action and the second phase the seismic action is performed through the two seismic
directions.

Two types of model were built:

Model DM was performed with the centre of mass displaced from its original position.

Model EC8 built through the insertion of an accidental torsion moment in the centre of
mass, according with the static prescription of EN1998-1.

3.1.1. Structural concept

A diaphragm translational movements in the orthogonal directions and deformation in the vertical
axis is ensured by a slab with thickness of 0,18m 5x5m area. The floor structure (slab) is
supported in four 0,25 mx 0,3 m

beam. The collumns considered in both models have an

modification of the cross section in height, depending on the number of floors of the system. The
foundation has been considered as rigid.

Figure 3.1-Generic m odel studied

The interaction between accidental and natural eccentricities was studied through the application
of three natural eccentricities in both model types. Those three natural eccentricities considered
were null, medium (displacement of 10% of the floor) and high (displacement of 30% of the floor).

A more comprehensive comparative analysis is required in the development of models with 1, 2,

5 and 10 floors. Therefore, the variables in question are the number of floors (1,2,5,10) and the
presence of natural eccentricity (zero, medium and high).

A constant acceleration of 0.3 was introduced in the two types of models.

The representation of values was performed in a dimensionless form in order to exclude a

possible error factor in the present study. Therefore, the coefficients were divided according to
the various analyses by the value of the normal force that these elements were exposed.

3.1.2. DM model- Particular Structural Concepts

The DM model has the particularity of recreating the displacement of mass with respect to the
centre of mass according to the EN1998-1. Hence, a displacement of 5% of the floor in the
perpendicular direction of seismic action was implemented, and the system was subjected to a
modal response spectrum analysis, combined in one direction or both directions, depending on
the case in the study.

Figure 3.2- Displacem ent of m ass

The displacement points of the centre of mass was determined based on the New Zealand
Standard NZS 1170.5 regulation, which considers the displacement of the centre of mass through
an ellipse with semi-axes with the value of the orthogonal directions of eccentricities, in this case
5% of the dimension perpendicular to the action of seismic movement, instead of the 10%
recommended by this regulation.

For each static eccentricity the centre of mass was displaced according to figure 3.1.

Torsion component was isolated through the subtraction of the displacements done (P1 to P8) by
the point P0.

3.1.3. EC8 model- Particular Structural Concepts

The model in question was subject to static prescription of EN1998-1 through the application of
an accidental torsional moment (z axis) at the point P0 of each natural eccentricity in study.

The base shear of each system was determined through a modal response spectrum analysis
and distributed in height by equation 4.3 of the prescription 4.3.3.2.3 presented in EN1998.1.

3.1.4. Comparison between DM model and EC8 model

A comparison between the coefficients from DM model and EC8 model by fractional error was
made. Fardis (2009) admits that the most accurate way of determining the effects of accidental
eccentricity is by moving mass associated with model DM. As such, the error was determined by:

(% ) = (

8
8

) 100

3.2. Description of Studies

3.2.1. Study 1- Error between DM model and EC8 model through a
unidirectional action
DM model was used with the mass shifted in x axis (positions P1 and P5) to take into account the
accidental eccentricity result of a seismic action according to y, as showed in Figure 3.2.
Moreover, the eccentricity result of accidental seismic second X was represented by the mass
shift of y by the points P3 and P7.

Figure 3.2- Displacem ent of m ass P1/ P5 and P3/P7

The analysis performed in DM models was a modal response spectrum analysis.

Prescription 4.3.3.3.3(2) of EN 1998-1 requires the implementation of accidental torsional

moments in positive and negative senses. This was ensured through the use of the points P1 /
P5 and P3 / P7, as can be seen in Figure 4.11.

The EC8 model was subject to the application of an accidental torsional moment (z-axis),
corresponding to directional analysis in question, according to 4.3.3.3.1 of EN 1998-1. The
application of accidental bending moment happened at the point P0 of each natural eccentricity.

3.2.2. Study 2- Error between DM model and EC8 model through a

bidirectional action
The second study is based on the same comparison carried out in Study 1, with the particularity
of the action transmitted to the structure in two seismic directions. The DM model has a mass
displacement on x and y directions, as revealed in Figure 3.3. The positive and negative senses
were guaranteed by the displacement of the mass P4 / P2 and P8 / P6.

The action performed in DM models is a modal response spectrum combined in both directions
by a SRSS seismic combination.

Figure 3.3- Displacem ent of m ass P2/ P6 and P4/P8

EC8 model is subjected to the combined accidental torsion moments of the seismic action in the
two horizontal directions, calculated from independent way and applied in the centre of mass of
each natural eccentricity (P0).

The combination is performed by the first three combination methods, in which was isolated the
portion corresponding to accidental torsional moment. This isolation was made to avoid larger
proportions that would happen if the study was conducted through a full seismic action.

4. Unidirectional analysis study

An analysis of the first study has proved to be satisfactory in many structural systems analysed,
both with different eccentricities and a different number of floors. It was verified that in most cases
the values for DM model were higher than those in EC8 models.

The difference between the two models was more pronounced in buildings with a smaller number
of floors and higher natural eccentricity, mainly in irregularity plan structures.

The modification in height of the cross section of the pillars was implemented in different models,
and revealed an increase of the relative error in all natural eccentricities studied, especiall y in
high natural eccentricity.

5. Bidirectional analysis study

The comparative study by seismic activity in the two perpendicular directions proceeded in a first
step through the choosing two of the six possible movements of mass. Second phase of the study
had the intention to analyse which combinations of accidental torsional moments applied in EC8
models, would provide better results when compared with the DM models. All combinations
presented higher values than performed in DM models.

This situation resulted from the coefficient decrease in the seismic model DM, due to the smaller
eccentricity inherent of a smaller displacement mass, and the fact that the bidirectional seismic
action was combined in both directions via SRSS.

Structure classification demonstrated some compliance between the results obtained in models
with zero and medium natural eccentricity, while the models with high natural eccentricity exposed
more anarchic values.

The change of the cross section continues to reveal an increase in error between the two models.

The combinations tested in EC8 model, in order to combine the effect of the earthquake with the
accidental torsional moments in both directions of analysis were instructive allowing the
combination MaxMt choice, which by the way is the easiest to apply, as it presents better results
compared to the coefficients from the model DM subjected to mass displacement in two
orthogonal directions.

6. Conclusion
The study was carried out on the best way to account the effect of accidental eccentricity in order
to make the most correct design in support of a common designer.

Both studies proved to be satisfactory, as the values were relatively similar in the various
structural systems studied. It was verified, however, more irregular results in the presence of
natural systems with high eccentricities.

Unidirectional study reveal DM model coefficients superior than EC8 model coefficients, on the
other side the bidirectional study reveal the opposite.

MaxMt combination reveals the best choice to combine the accidental torsional moments in two
direction of seismic analysis.

7. Bibliography
ASCE 7-2010- Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard
ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2010.

Bisch P.; Carvalho E.; Degee H.; Fajfar P.; Fardis M.; Franchi n P.; Kreslin M.;, Pecker,P.
Pinto A.; Plumier V; Somja V; Tsionis G. (2013) Eurocode 8: Seismic Design of Buildings
Worked examples, Worked examples presented at the Workshop EC 8: Seismic Design of
Buildings, Lisboa, 10-11 Feb. 2011.

CEN (Ed.). NP EN 1998-1 - Eurocdigo 8 - Projecto de estruturas para resistncia aos

ismos Parte 1 - Regras Gerais, aces ssmicas e regras para edifcios , Portugal, Maro, 2010.

De la Llera J.C.; Chopra A. K., (1994a)- Accidental and natural torsion in earthquake response
and design of buildings, Proceedings of the 11 th Word Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,
Acapulco, Mexico, 23-28 June, 1996.

Fardis, M., (2009) Seismic Design, Assessment and Retrofitting of Concrete Buildings,
Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, Springer.

New Zealand Standard (2004)- NZS 1170.5, Council of Standards New Zealand,2004.

Rosenblueth, E. (1960) The earthquake of 28 July 1957 in Mexico City, Proceedings of the
second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering: Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, July, 1960.

10