Evaluation of the American Approach for Detecting Plan Irregularity

Abstract

The European seismic code 8 (Eurocode 8) classifies buildings as planwise regular according to four criteria which are mostly qualitative and a fifth one, which is based on parameters such as stiffness, eccentricity, and torsional radius, that can be only approximately defined for multistory buildings. Therefore, such plan-regularity criteria are in need of improvement. ASCE seismic code, according to a different criterion, considers plan (or “torsional”) irregularity in a building when the maximum story drift, at one end of the structure, exceeds more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts at the two ends of the structure under equivalent static analysis. Nevertheless, both the ASCE approach and the threshold value of 1.2 need to be supported by adequate background studies, based also on nonlinear seismic analysis. In this paper, a numerical analysis is carried out, by studying the seismic response of an existing R/C school building taken as the reference structure. Linear static analysis is developed by progressively shifting the centre of mass, until the ratio between the maximum lateral displacement of the floor at the level is considered and the average of the horizontal displacements at extreme positions of the floor at the same level matches and even exceeds the value of 1.2. Then, nonlinear dynamic analyses are carried out to check the corresponding level of response irregularity in terms of uneven plan distribution of deformation and displacement demands and performance parameters. The above comparison leads to check the suitability of the ASCE approach and, in particular, of the threshold value of 1.2 for identifying buildings plan irregularity.

A sustainable material for sustainable architecture: wood in parasite architecture

“…concentric bracing must be chosen in such a way as to give the structure adequate qualities of translating bi-directional stiffness and resistance as well as torsional stiffness qualities (Alecci et al 2019).…”

Integrated Cost-Analysis Approach for Seismic and Thermal Improvement of Masonry Building Façades

“…In the past, masonry buildings were generally not designed to withstand seismic actions, due to improper vertical connections between walls and horizontal connections between more or less flexible diaphragms [1] or roofs and walls [2,3]. These aspects worsen the structural behavior in case of irregular in-plan buildings [4,5]. In addition, in some cases, the masonry texture is such that localized damages can occur, making this aspect extremely difficult to evaluate in a seismic analysis.…”

Out-of-Plane Seismic Response of Masonry Façades Using Discrete Macro-Element and Rigid Block Models

“…When the connections between walls or, more in general, between vertical and horizontal structural elements do not guarantee a box-type behavior, the out-of-plane failure mechanisms represent the main source of seismic vulnerability of the building. Irregular buildings, where torsional modes increase the seismic demand in specific parts, are also vulnerable to out of plane modes [1] [2]. Simplified models [3] generally do not account for the in and out-plane behavior in a unique numerical model, being based on numerical strategies that accounts for in-plane walls behavior only.…”