Review On Research Work On Various Irregularities

Journal of Structural Engineering
Vol. 39, No. 5, December 2012 - January 2013 pp. 393-418
No. 39-51
Review of different Structural irregularities in buildings

S.Varadharajan*, V.K. Sehgal**, and B.Saini*
Email:
* Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana - 136 119, INDIA.
Received: 28 April 2011; Accepted: 09 September 2011
The present study summarizes the research works done in the past regarding different types of structural irregularities
i.e. Plan and vertical irregularities. Criteria and limits specified for these irregularities as defined by different codes
of practice (IS1893:2002, EC8:2004 etc.) have been discussed briefly. It was observed that the limits of both Plan and
vertical irregularities prescribed by these codes were comparable. Different types of modeling approaches used have
also been discussed briefly. The review of previous research works regarding different types of plan irregularities
justified the preference of multistorey building models over single storey building models and concept of balanced
CV (Center of strength) CR (Center of rigidity) location was found to be useful in controlling the seismic response
parameters. Regarding the vertical irregularities it was found that strength irregularity had the maximum impact and
mass irregularity had the minimum impact on seismic response. Regarding the analysis method MPA (Modal pushover
analysis) method even after much improvement was found to be less accurate as compared to dynamic analysis.
KEYWORDS: Plan irregularity; vertical irregularity; structural irregularities in buildings.
When a building is subjected to seismic excitation,

horizontal inertia forces are generated in the building.
The resultant of these forces is assumed to act through
the center of mass (C.M) of the structure. The vertical
members in the structure resist these forces and the
total resultant of these systems of forces act through
a point called as center of stiffness (C.S). When
the center of mass and center of stiffness does not
coincide, eccentricities are developed in the buildings
which further generate torsion. When the buildings
are subjected to lateral loads, then phenomenon of
torsional coupling occurs due to interaction between
lateral loads and resistant forces. Torsional coupling
generates greater damage in the buildings. Eccentricity
may occur due to presence of structural irregularities.
These irregularities may be broadly classified as Plan
(Horizontal) and Vertical irregularity as shown in

Fig.1.
Irregularity
Vertical
Irregularity
Mass Stiffness Strength Setback
Horizontal
Irregularity
Asymmetrical Re-Entrant Diaphragm
plan shapes
discontinuity
corners
Irregular distribution of Mass,

Strength, Stiffness along plan
Fig. 1 Classification of irregularities
A structure can be classified as irregular if the

structure exceeds the limits as prescribed by different
seismic design codes. The irregularity limits for both
horizontal and vertical irregularities as have been
discussed briefly in Table 1 and Table 2.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Vol. 39, No. 4, OCTOBER - NOVEMBER 2012
393
TABLE 1
IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IS 1893:2002, EC8:2004, UBC 97, NBCC 2005
Type of Irregularity
IS 1893:2002] [14]
EC8 2004 [26]
UBC 97 [81]
NBCC 2005 [57]
Ri 15% (Fig.2)
Ri 5%
Ri 15%
dmax 1.2 davg
rx > 3.33 eox

dmax 1.2 davg
dmax 1.7 davg
Od > 50%
Horizontal
a) Re-entrant corners
b) Torsional irregularity
ry > 3.33 eoy

rx and ry > ls,
c) Diaphragm
Discontinuity
rx2 > ls2 + eox2
Od > 50%
Sd > 50%
ry > ls + eoy
Sd > 50%
M i < 2 Ma
Should not reduce abruptly
Mi < 1.5 Ma
Vertical
a) Mass
Mi < 1.5 Ma
b) Stiffness
Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8 Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8
0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
(Fig.2b)
c) Soft Storey
Si < 0.7Si+1 or Si < 0.8

(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8

(Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
Si < Si+1
d) Weak Storey
Si < 0.8Si+1
Si < 0.8Si+1
SBi < 1.5 SBa (Fig 2c)
Rd < 0.3Tw < 0.1 Tw at any

level
SBi < 1.3 SBa
SBi < 1.3 SBa
e) Setback irregularity
TABLE 2
IRREGULARITY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY IBC 2003, TEC 2007 AND ASCE 7.05
Type of Irregularity
IBC 2003 [37]
TEC 2007 [71]
ASCE 7.05 [5]
Horizontal
a) Re-entrant corners
Ri 20%
Ri 15%
b) Torsional irregularity
dmax 1.2 davg
dmax 1.2 davg

dmax 1.4 davg
c) Diaphragm Discontinuity
Oa > 33%
Oa > 50% S > 50%
Mi < 1.5 Ma
Mi < 1.5 Ma
Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Vertical
a) Mass
b) Stiffness
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

c) Soft Storey
d) Weak Storey
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
[ki = (i / hi) avr /
Si < 0.7Si+1 Or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
(i+1 / hi +1) avr > 2.0 or
Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
Si < Si+1
[ci = (Ae)i / < 0.80]
Si < 0.6Si+1 Or
Si < 0.7 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)
e) Setback irregularity
SBi < 1.3 SBa
The Horizontal and vertical irregularity limits as per

IBC 2003, Turkish code 2007 and ASCE 7 05 are
shown in Table 2.
SBi < 1.3 SBa
Figure 2 Shows the pictorial representation of

different irregularity limits as per IS 1893:200219.

394
A/L >0.15 - 0.20
A/L >0.15 - 0.20
A/L >0.15 - 0.20
A
A
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
Heavy Mass
(c)
A/L >0.15
A/L >0.10
A
A/L >0.25
L
d1
d2
(d)
d3
Fig. 2 a) Re-entrant corner irregularity b) Irregular stiffness

distributions c) Irregular mass distributions d) Vertical
Setback irregularity.
represent the actual building systems. So predictions

given by these models are less accurate. In the second
type of models the plastic hinges are modeled at end of
beams and columns to evaluate the nonlinear response
of building systems. Some researchers have adopted
this type of model as given in Table 17. These models
are closer to reality as compared to first type of models
but still do not represent the actual building systems.
The application of first two models is more frequent in
case of 2D plane frames than 3D building frames due
to complex geometry of 3D building frames. The third
type of models can be termed as 3D frame models and
these models have been developed by recent researchers.
These models are quite complex and involve large
number of degree of freedom systems and are prepared
with the help of complex software programs. These
models are very close to the actual building systems and
yield accurate results.
The second system of classification of building
systems is based on the force displacement hysteretic
relationship of resisting elements of buildings. The
resisting elements can have different type of forcedeformation represented by models namely
a. Elasto plastic and bilinear hysteric model
b. Cloughs model
c. Takedas model
These models have been pictorially described in
Fig.3.
a. Elasto- plastic and bilinear hysteric models
Models Used for Analytical Study
The models used by authors can be broadly categorized

by two systems of classifications. As per first system of
classification these models can be broadly categorized
into three types namely Shear beam (SB), plastic hinge
(PH) and 3D frame models. In the first model the building
system is assumed to consist of a rigid rectangular deck
of mass m supported by lateral load resisting elements
represented by a shear beam. This type of building model
is used to represent single and multistorey building
systems with lesser degree of freedom. But use of this
model to represent multistorey systems is questionable
due to variety of reasons as discussed in Table 17.This
model is used by a large number of researchers due
to its simplicity and easy representation. Since the
shear beam model (SB) is not suitable for representing
multistorey building systems these models does not
The elasto-plastic hysteretic model has been used by

many researchers due to its simplicity. The maximum
displacement of a building system with elasto-plastic
force deformation relationship was found same as for
elastic force deformation relationship for building
systems with initial time period greater than 0.5 s. To
account for the strain hardening effect a positive slope
was assigned to post yield stiffness and this model was
called as bilinear model. The main disadvantage of this
model is that with increase in displacement amplitude
reversal this model does not represent the stiffness
degradation appropriately. So, this model is not suited
for non-linear analysis of RC structures.
b. Cloughs model of stiffness degradation
A qualitative model incorporating the stiffness
degradation in conventional elasto plastic model
395
was developed by Clough and this model was called

cloughs stiffness degrading models. In this model the
main response point during the loading cycle shifted
towards the maximum response point but the slope
during unloading remained same as the initial elastic
slope. By virtue of this modification, the Cloughs
model was able to represent the flexural behavior of
reinforced concrete. From the analysis of series of
SDOF system using this model Clough arrived at the
following conclusion
a. For building systems with higher initial time
period both cloughs and elasto-plastic model
yielded same results in terms of ductility demand
b. The cloughs model yielded larger ductility
demand as compared to elasto-plastic model for
short period structures.
c. Response waveforms of both models were
different.
The main advantage of this model is that it is simple
and can be used for non-linear analysis using strain
hardening characteristics.
Force
Force
ki
REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORKS

REGARDING PLAN IRREGULARITIES
Assessment of the performance of building structures
during past earthquakes suggests that plan irregularities
are one of the important causes of damage during
occurrence of an earthquake. Plan irregularity may
occur due to irregular distribution of mass, stiffness
and strength along the plan. In past years lot of research
effort has been done to study the behavior of plan
asymmetric buildings during seismic excitation74-77.
ki
ki
d
Displacement
rki
(a)
(b)
Force
F
rki
Previous yield in Tension
ki
ki
Displacement
ki
No yield in compression
rki
(c)
Force
d. Takedas hysteretic model

A more refined and complex model for representing the
stiffness degradation was prepared by Takeda in 1970
based on his experimental observations. The proposed
model includes the stiffness changes due to flexural
cracking, yielding and strain hardening. In Takedas
model the stiffness during unloading cycle was reduced
as the fraction of the previous maximum deformation.
Takeda also prepared set of guidelines for the load
reversals within the outermost hysteresis loop which
were major improvement over Cloughs model. The
main disadvantage of this model was that extensive
damage caused by shear and bond deterioration was
not considered in this model.
ki
ki
ki
rki
Previous yield
ku
ki
dy
dm
Displacement
ku
No yield
rki
(d)
Fig. 3 a) Elasto-plastic model b) Bi-linear hysteresis models
c) Cloughs degrading stiffness model d) Takedas
hysteresis model
In Fig. 3 Ki, rKi and Ku are intial, modified and

unloading stiffness
Single Storey Building Models
Earlier studies investigated the torsional effects on plan

irregular building systems with single storey building
models. One of the main reasons for adopting single
storey models was their simplicity. These models
were used to determine the influence of torsion on
seismic response parameters and these results were
used to formulate design methodologies for plan
irregular building systems. However in recent years
multistorey building models are used to determine the
396
realistic inelastic torsional response of plan irregular

building systems. But due to complexities, the use of
multistorey building models is limited and it is one of
the major reasons that single storey building models
are still preferred by many researchers46-48. Previous
researchers on plan irregularities using single storey
models mainly focused on variation of positions of
C.M (Center of mass) or C.S (Center of stiffness) with
respect to each other to create eccentricity. The Main
aim of these researches was to determine the torsional
response of building systems due to eccentricity. To
create eccentricity some researchers varied position
of C.S or C.R keeping position of C.M. constant,
the eccentricity generated in this case was called as
stiffness eccentricity (es)76, 77. Some researchers varied
position of C.M. keeping position of C.S as constant,
the eccentricity generated in this case was called
as mass eccentricity(em)46. Differing from earlier
approaches some researchers created differences in
strengths of resisting elements to vary position of center
of strength (C.V) with respect to C.M the eccentricity
generated was known as strength eccentricity (ev)10,66.
The definitions of eccentricity have been described
pictorially in Fig. 4.
e.m
e.m
on the ductility demand after the elastic range. The

comparison of results of showed a 20 % difference in
the results obtained.
Irregular distributions of strength and stiffness are one
of the major causes of failures during the earthquakes.
Both of these irregularities are interdependent and
to study the effect of these irregularities on seismic
response, the researchers like Tso and Bozorgnia
(1986) determined the inelastic seismic response of
plan asymmetric building models (as described in
Table 3) with strength and stiffness eccentricity using
curves proposed by Dempsey and Tso. Results of
analytical study showed the effectiveness of the curves
proposed by Tso and Dempsey except for torsionally
stiff structures with low yield strength.
Sadek and Tso (1989) performed inelastic analysis
of mono-symmetric building systems with strength
eccentricity as described in Table 3. The center of
strength was defined in terms of yield strength of
resisting elements. From analytical studies it was
found that the code defined eccentricities based on
stiffness criteria were useful in predicting the elastic
seismic response. However in inelastic range parameter
of strength eccentricity was found to be useful in
determining seismic response.
TABLE 3
C.M
C.M
C.S
C.S
(a)
C.V
DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT MODELS ADOPTED

S.No
Model Name
Description
Mass eccentric model with all

three resistant elements having
equal yield deformation
S1
Stiffness eccentric Model with

identical yield strength.
S2
Stiffness eccentric Model with

identical yield deformation.
C.M
(c)
Fig. 4 Definitions of different types of eccentricity a) Mass

eccentricity, b) Stiffness eccentricity, c) Strength
eccentricity
Research works on plan irregular building systems

started in early 1980s with Tso and Sadek (1985)
determined the variation in ductility demand by
performing inelastic seismic response of simple one
storey mass eccentric model with stiffness degradation
using Cloughs stiffness degradation model and bilinear hysteric model. Results of analytical study
showed that the time period had predominant effect
Pekau and Guimond (1990) checked the adequacy

of accidental eccentricity to account for the torsion
induced due to the variation of strength and stiffness
of the resisting elements which was achieved using
elasto-plastic force-deformation relationship. Results
of analytical study showed occurrence of torsional
amplification due to strength and stiffness variation.
Finally the code prescribed provision of 5% for
accidental eccentricity was found to inadequate.
Duan and Chandler (1991) based on their analytical
studies on plan irregular building systems the change
397
in design eccentricity in Mexico code 87 was

recommended as 1.5es + b and 0.5es - 0.1b. as compared
to the earlier value of es 0.1b and es 0.05b.
Chandler and Hutchinson (1992) determined the
effects of torsional coupling on one storey stiffness
eccentric building systems and from analytical
studies the strong dependence of torsional coupling
effects on natural time period of the structure was
found. The authors also evaluated the effectiveness of
torsional design provisions as prescribed by different
codes of practice (ATC 3-06, NEHRP, NBCC 90, and
EC8:1989). The code evaluation results obtained for
asymmetric building system as per different codes are
shown in Table 4.
Codes namely UBC code, NBCC code and New
Zealand code of practice. The authors carried out Elastic
and inelastic analysis methods on one storey stiffness
eccentric building systems. Results of analytical study
showed the greater displacement of flexible edge
as compared to stiff edge. The results obtained by
consideration of different codes are given in Table 5.
models were further divided into two types namely A1

and A2 having moderate and low torsional stiffness.
Results of analytical studies showed the variation in
seismic response in models A1 and A2 with flexible
edge experiencing greater deformation as compared
to the stiff edge. The stiff edge of building systems
with small time period (T < 1 Sec) designed according
to NZS 4203 [58] and EC8:198924 experienced least
additional ductility demand. However the additional
ductility demand was found to be largest for building
systems with T > 1 Sec. In case of TU systems designed
according to EC 8 -1989 the ductility demand exceeded
by 2.5 % as compared to the TB system.
TABLE 4
Ferhi and Truman (1996) determined seismic

response of building systems with presence of stiffness
and strength eccentricity. Both elastic and inelastic
seismic behavior were studied. From analytical study
of the building systems it was found that the seismic
response showed greater dependence on stiffness
eccentricity and in the inelastic range influence
of strength eccentricity on seismic response is
predominant.
Duan and Chandler (1997) developed an optimized
procedure for determining the seismic response of
torsion balanced and unbalanced structures. The
parameters like eccentricity (e), normalized stiffness
radius of gyration (Pk), force reduction factor (R) and
uncoupled lateral period (Ty) were included in the
proposed optimized procedure. The authors proposed
design eccentricity expression and over strength
factor expressions and compared it with code defined
expressions. The codes used in the study were UBC
9480, EC8-9325 and NBCC-9557 .The analytical study
was conducted both on Torsionally balanced (TB)
and torsionally unbalanced (TU) models. Results of
analytical study showed that the over strength factor
proposed by authors was found to be substantially
lower as compared to UBC-94 and NBCC-95 but higher
CODE EVALUATION RESULTS

S.No
Code
Results
NEHRP [59]
Inadequate for building systems with

small and moderate eccentricity.
Satisfactory results for building
systems with large eccentricity.
ATC [6]
NBCC [56]
Same as NEHRP.
Inadequate for buildings with low
time periods (T<0.5S)
Over-conservative for higher time
periods at all eccentricities.
EC8 [24]
Conservative for small eccentricity.

Over conservative for medium to
large eccentric buildings system with
higher time periods.
Tso and wong (1995) made assessment of torsional

provisions as prescribed by seismic design
Chandler et al. (1995) verified the torsional
provisions prescribed by different codes of practice.
For analytical study the authors considered two types of
building models namely torsionally balanced(TB) and
torsionally unbalanced (TU).The torsional unbalance
in the building model was created by varying position
of center of stiffness inducing stiffness eccentricity
equal to 0.05b. The torsionally unbalanced building
TABLE 5
RESULTS OBTAINED CONSIDERING DIFFERENT CODES
S.No
Code Name
Results
NZS [58]
Conservative Estimate of displacement
UBC [79]

for DAF/FRF = 1
NBCC [56]

for DAF/FRF = 0.6-1.0

398
E4
nb
E2
E5
E1
E3
C.M
C.R
Elastic analysis using unidirectional seismic excitation

was found to overestimate the seismic response.
De Stefano and pintuchhi (2002) considered the
phenomenon of inelastic interaction between axial
force and horizontal forces in modeling of plan irregular
stiffness asymmetric building systems. Based on results
of analytical study it was concluded that consideration
of interaction phenomenon between axial force and
horizontal force resulted in reduction of floor rotation
by 20%.
Dutta and Das (2002) studied the seismic response
of a single storey plan asymmetric structures subjected
to bidirectional seismic excitation. For analytical study
the authors proposed two hysteric models as represented
in Fig 6 (a, b). These hysteric models account for
strength and stiffness deterioration of RC structural
elements subjected to cyclic loading. From results of
analytical study it was found that local deformation
demands both at stiff and flexible edge showed
variation when strength deterioration was considered.
The consideration of unidirectional seismic excitation
results in lower values of deformation demands at both
flexible and stiff edge. These results were found similar
to Tso and Myslimaj (2002).
Force
than EC8 for entire range of Pk. However the results

of proposed procedure are comparable to code defined
procedures for torsionally unbalanced structures (TU).
The parameters e, pk, R, Ty considered in the design
procedure were found to influence the seismic response.
Finally the procedure was found to be applicable to
single storey and multistorey torsionally unbalanced
structures.
De-La-Colina (1999) studied the effects of torsion
on simple torsionally unbalanced building systems
considering the earthquake components in two
perpendicular directions. The effects of following
parameters were studied a) seismic force reduction
factor b) design eccentricity c) natural time period. The
structural model used for the analytical study is shown
in Fig 5.
E6
Based on the results of analytical study it was

conclude that, with increase in the force reduction
factor, the ductility demand reduces for flexible element.
Regarding the effect of initial lateral time period it was
found that for torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the
ductility demand increased with time period and vice
versa for torsionally unbalanced flexible elements and
increase in value of stiffness eccentricities reduced the
normalized ductility demand. Based on these results it
was concluded that strength eccentricity had greater
effect on seismic response as compared to stiffness
eccentricity.
Ghersi and Rossi (2001) determined the influence
of bidirectional seismic excitation on seismic response
of stiffness eccentric one storey building systems using
elastic and inelastic analysis. The seismic response of
the inelastic analysis was compared with the results
of elastic analysis. Results of analysis showed that
the consideration of effects of bidirectional seismic
excitation results in minor variation in seismic response.
Unloading branch with initial

stiffness k
F
Displacement
Deteriorated loading
branch
Target points of loading

branch
= 1-3
= 1-2
= 1-
F
- Rate of strength deterioration
(a)
Force
Fig. 5 Structural model considered by De-La colina
Unloading branch with initial

stiffness k
= 1-3
= 1-2
= 1-
k(1-2)
Displacement
k(1-3)
k(1-)
- Rate of strength deterioration
(b)
Fig. 6 (a, b): Second Hysteretic model proposed by Dutta and Das
(2002)
Tso and Myslimaj (2003) proposed a new approach

called yield distribution based approach for strength
and stiffness distribution. For analytical study the
authors modeled a single storey structure with a rigid
rectangular deck supported by two resisting elements
399
in X and five resisting elements in Y direction. The

resisting elements were modeled using elasto-plastic,
the bilinear and Cloughs hysteresis models for force
deformation relationship. The authors proposed
a design parameter on which location of center of
mass (C.M), rigidity (C.R), strength (C.V) and yield
displacement (C.V) depend. Table 6 shows different
position of centers for different values of . The models
were subjected to dynamic analysis to determine the
balanced CV-CR location. From results of analytical
study it was found that the structure satisfied balanced
CV-CR location and had low torsional response when
value of lies between zero and unity.
Fujii et al. (2004) suggested a simplified non-linear
analysis procedure for plan asymmetric structures with
stiffness eccentricity modeled as SDOF and MDOF
system. Results of analytical study showed that the
torsionally stiff building systems experienced greater
oscillations in first mode as compared to the torsionally
flexible building systems. On comparison of responses
of MDOF and SDOF models for TS and TF building
systems it was found that SDOF models were found to
be applicable to torsionally stiff building systems only.
Finally the proposed analysis procedure was found to
efficient in determining the seismic response of TS
building systems.
TABLE 6
DIFFERENT POSITION OF CENTERS OF MASS,
STIFFNESS, STRENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT FOR
DIFFERENT VALUES OF .
S.NO
Positions of C.M, C.V, C.D
Position of CV coincides with CD, strength

distribution takes same shape as yield
displacement
0-1
Value of ev decreases position of CV starts

shifting from CD towards CM.
Position of CV coincides with CM and

position of CR is shifted towards left of
C.M at a distance equal to ed.
<1
CR and CV shift towards left of CM.
Moghadam and Aziminejad (2005) performed PBD

(Performance based design) of asymmetric structures.
The authors evaluated the seismic response of single
storey structures (code designed) with irregular
configuration for optimizing mass, stiffness and strength
center configurations corresponding to different levels
of plastic hinge formations. The author has adopted
the concept of balanced CV-CR location proposed by
Tso and Myslimaj (2003) to evaluate best performance

level of the structure. Based on the analytical study it
was concluded that the best location of CV-CR (Center
of stiffness and Center of rigidity) depended upon the
required performance level of the structure and also on
damage indices.
Shakib and Ghasemi (2007) have determined
the effect of consideration of near fault and far fault
excitations on seismic response of different type of
plan asymmetric structures with stiffness asymmetry.
Following Tso and Myslimaj (2002) who suggested
balanced CV-CR location to minimize rotational
deformation, the authors suggested a new approach
to minimize rotational deformation. In the proposed
approach in which the strength distribution pattern is
made equal to Yield displacement distribution modified
by a parameter . From results of analytical study it
was found that in case of near fault motions when
> 0, the displacement demand on stiff edges is greater
as compared to the flexible edges. In case of far fault
motions when < 0, the displacement demands are
greater on flexible edges as compared to stiff edges.
Jarernprasert et al. (2008) determined the inelastic
torsional response of single storey plan asymmetric
systems with stiffness eccentricity designed in
accordance with IBC 2006 and Mexico city building
code 2004. For analysis of this building model modal
analysis procedure was adopted. The affect of seismic
excitation on following parameters was studied, a)
ratio of uncoupled torsional to transitional frequencies,
b) design target ductility, c) elastic natural time period
and normalized static eccentricity. The authors also
proposed new reduction and amplification factor for
these parameters (a,b,c). From results of analytical
study it was found that these parameters (a,b,c) had
large influence on the inelastic behavior of the building
system. Regarding the comparison of codes it was
found that IBC 200638 code overestimate the design
forces at both flexible and stiff edge of building system
whereas the Mexico city building code overestimates
design forces at flexible side. The use of reduction and
amplification parameters leads to the ductility demands
closer to target ductility demands but the displacements
computed are nearly four times to that of equivalent
symmetric structure.
Ladinovic (2008) represented inelastic seismic
response of plan asymmetric structures with stiffness
400
and structural eccentricity in form of base shear torque

surface (BST). The factors influencing BST surface
were strength eccentricity, lateral capacity, torsional
capacity and distribution of strength along plan.
Aziminezad and Moghadam (2010) determined the
effects of strength distribution and configuration of
strength, rigidity and mass on seismic response of one
storey plan asymmetric building system subjected to
near field and far field ground motions. Eight models
with different values of yield displacement, strength
and stiffness eccentricity were considered as shown in
Fig.7 and Table 7.
Cm
Cv
Cm
Cr
Cr
Model 1
Model 2
Cr
d
Cm
Cv
Model 5
Cv
Cv
d
Cm
Cr Cv
Model 3
Model 4
d
Cm
Cr
d
Cr
Cm
Cv
Model 6
Cm
Cr Cv
Model 7
Cm
Cr Cv
Model 8
Fig. 7 Models considered by Aziminejad and Moghadam [10]

TABLE 7
DIFFERENT POSITION OF CENTERS OF MASS, STIFFNESS,
STRENGTH AND DISPLACEMENT FOR DIFFERENT
VALUES OF .
S.No
Model Number
Model Name
ev/ed
Symmetric
Stiffness Symmetric
Balance
0.75
Balance
0.5
Balance
0.25
Strength Symmetric
-0.33
-1
The models were analyzed by dynamic nonlinear

analysis and from results of analytical study it was
found that for torsionally flexible building systems, the
strength distribution and configuration of centers had
minor effect both for near field and far field excitations.
But seismic response of torsionally stiff building
systems was largely influenced by strength distribution
and configuration of centers. Regarding the modal
periods it was found that modal periods along X-axis
had the maximum value as compared to other two
modal periods and ratio of lateral to torsional frequency
was found to be greater in y direction. Further it was

concluded that the torsionally stiff building systems
with balanced CV-CR location perform better than
other building models both in case of near and far field
excitation.
Luchinni et al. (2011) determined the nonlinear
seismic response of single storey building models with
eccentricities in both directions with BST procedure
and verified the BST approach using IDA analysis. For
analytical study four types of building models namely
S1, S2, R1, and R2 were modeled. The S1 model was a
one way asymmetric system with es = 0.1b.The model
S2 was a two way asymmetric system with es = 0.05b
in both directions. The model R1 contained uniform
strength distribution in x-direction only whereas model
R2 contained uniform strength distributions in both
directions. The results of analytical study showed that
BST surface is efficient in predicting the location of
center of rigidity. The seismic response predicted by
BST is comparable with that of IDA analysis. Table
8 shows Summary of research work regarding single
storey Plan irregular building models.
In Table 8 es, em and ev are stiffness, mass and
strength eccentricities and b is the Longer plan width.
Multistorey Plan Asymmetric Structures
In previous analytical studies on plan irregular

structures the single storey models were widely used
due to their simplicity and their ability to clearly depict
the effect of different seismic response parameters.
Most of the design criteria were formulated on basis
of results obtained in single storey models. But several
researchers66 proved that single storey models give
inaccurate prediction of torsional response. The
development of powerful software tools has made
modeling and analysis of multi-storey building models
much simpler and moreover the multi-storey building
models give realistic prediction of torsional response.
Although studies on plan irregular building models
started in 1990s, Fajfar et al. (2002) was one of the
major researcher in this field who proposed a new
method which was an extension of N2 method. The
proposed method was applicable to the realistic 3D
building models. For analytical study a eight storey
R.C. building with structural walls modeled. The mass
eccentricity was introduced in the building model by
displacing center of mass in both horizontal directions
401
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORK REGARDING SINGLE STOREY PLAN IRREGULAR BUILDING MODELS
S.No
Researcher
Year
Type and extent of eccentricity
Main conclusion
Tso Sadek
1985
es = 0 - 0.25b
Cloughs and bilinear hysteric model, a 20 % difference

in results of both models was observed.
Sadek Tso
1989
es and ep = 0 -0.2b
Code defined eccentricities were valid for elastic range

only. For the inelastic range Strength eccentricity is
more effective.
Duan Chandler
1991
ea= 0 - 0.1b
The recommended change in design eccentricity

in Mexico code 87 as 1.5es + b and 0.5es - 0.1b. as
compared to the earlier value of 1es 0.1b and 1ess
0.05b.
es= 0.1b- 0.3b
Chandler Hutchinson
1992
es = 0.05b-0.2b
Different codes of practice yielded different results.
Chandler et al.
1995
ea = 0.05b
The codified value of accidental eccentricity of 0.05 b

was most consistent.
De-La colina
1999
es = 0 - 0.20b R =1,3,6
For torsionally unbalanced stiff elements the ductility

demand increases with time period and vice versa for
torsionally unbalanced flexible elements
Dutta Das
2002
es = 0.05b - 0.2b
Strength
Fujii et al.
2004
es= 0.682b, 0.5b
Drift
Shakib and Ghasemi
2007
es = 0.09b -0.01b
For > 0 - displacement demand on stiff edges is

greater as compared to the flexible edges. For < 0,
the displacement demands are greater on flexible dges
as compared to stiff edges.
ev = 0.03b - 0.06b
10
Ladinovic
2008
em-0.1b -0.5b
11
Aziminejad Moghadam
2010
es = 0.025b - 0.10b,
12
Luchinni et al.
2011
es = 0 0.3 b
by 5% and 15%. The results of proposed procedure were

compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis.
From comparison of results the ability of proposed
method to predict the seismic response of torsionally
stiff structure was justified. However, the method did
not include the effects of lateral torsional coupling and
was found to be under-conservative as compared to the
N2 method.
De-la-Colina (2003) made assessments of several
code specified procedures regarding analysis procedures
for multistorey building systems with mass and stiffness
irregularity subjected to bidirectional seismic excitation
stiffness
irregularities
interdependent.
are
demand due to stiffness degradation

underestimated by SDOF model.
Distribution of strength. Stiffness eccentricity along

plan does not affect the shape of the BST surface.
es = ev -0.12b
ev = 0 0.2b
and
Torsionally flexible building systems are least affected

by strength distribution and location of centers both in
case of near and far field excitations. Torsionally stiff
building systems with balanced CV-CR location show
better seismic performance both in case of near and far
field excitations.
The seismic response predicted by BST is comparable
eith that of IDA analysis.
(EI Centro earthquake). Analytical studies were carried

out on several 5 storey buildings having mass and
stiffness eccentricity. Shear beam models were used by
researchers to represent resisting elements. Based on
the code defined procedures the authors had found out
the optimal values of storey eccentricity.
Chopra and Goel (2004) proposed a new method
based on extension of their earlier method (Chopra
and Goel 2002). In the proposed method the torsional
amplification of the structure was accounted for by
application of the lateral forces in combination with the
torsional moments at each floor of the structure. The
402
lateral forces and torsional moments were obtained

from the modal analysis of the structure. A comparison
between the results of the proposed method and nonlinear dynamic analysis were made for building
systems with different uncoupled lateral to torsional
vibration periods. From the results of analytical study
the accuracy of proposed procedure for symmetric
structures was verified. However the accuracy of
proposed procedure decreases with the increase in
magnitude of torsional coupling which is due to the use
of CQC modal combination rule.
Correlating with his earlier studies29 Fajfar et al.
(2005) again proposed a new method based on N2
method. In the proposed method, combination of
modal responses obtained from pushover analysis of
3D structures were made with the results obtained from
linear dynamic analysis. In the proposed procedure
the displacements and deformation distributions
along height were controlled by N2 method and the
magnitude of torsional amplification is defined by the
linear dynamic analysis.
Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos (2005) were
one of the few researchers who had made attempt to
evaluate torsional response of realistic 3D structures
by nonlinear analysis (Both as per EC8 and UBC 97).
The authors conducted analytical studies on realistic 3
storey and 5 storey RC framed buildings (with flexible
and stiff edges) subjected to bidirectional excitations.
From the results obtained (Multistorey structures) it
was found that the inelastic displacement was found to
be greater at flexible side as compared to the stiff side,
however the results obtained in case of single storey
structures were contradictory to the results obtained in
case of multistorey structures with mass irregularity
under the action of bidirectional seismic excitation.
Furthermore the authors found that the torsionally stiff
building systems undergo less plastic deformation as
compared to the torsionally flexible building systems.
These findings contradict the results obtained from
single storey models.
Penelis and kappos (2005) proposed a method
to determine the inelastic torsional response of plan
asymmetric single storey and multistorey structures.
The models used for analytical studies were single
degree of freedom (SDOF) systems and incorporated
the effects of torsional and transitional modes. In the
proposed method the spectral load vectors were obtained
from the elastic spectral analysis and these vectors

were applied on the structure to carryout 3D pushover
analysis. The results of the proposed procedure were
compared with that of non-linear dynamic analysis.
From the results it was found that the inelastic seismic
response obtained by both methods vary by 10% in
case of single storey structures and by 20 % in case of
multistorey structures.
Marusic and Fajfar (2005) determined the elastic and
inelastic seismic response of five storey steel framed
structure with mass eccentricity. The eccentricities
were taken as 5%, 10% and 15% of plan dimensions.
For Analytical study the author modeled three types of
building models as described in Table 9.
TABLE 9
DESCRIPTION OF MODELS USED BY MARUSIC AND
FAJFAR (2005)
Model Name
Description
Torsionally stiff building model with moment

resistant beam column connections (All beamcolumn connections).
F1
Building Model with torasional stiffness equal

to Model S with moment resisrtant beam
column connections (Corner beams only)
F2
Building Model with torasional stiffness less

than Model S and F1.
For the building model the first storey height was

kept as 4m and other storey heights were kept as
3.5m. The multistorey structure was subjected to the
bidirectional seismic excitation. The results obtained at
flexible edges were almost comparable with Perus and
fajfar (2005). However, the results of both papers did
not correlate in case of stiff edges of torsionally stiff
and flexible building systems.
Stefano et al. (2006) determined the difference
between the inelastic seismic response of single
storey and multistorey plan asymmetric structures.
For analytical study a single storey and a six storey
steel frame with mass applied at 0.15 b (b is the width
of longer plan) of the geometric structure, thus mass
eccentricity was created in the building model. The
effect of over-strength of resisting elements was also
evaluated. Analytical studies showed the influence
of over-strength on ductility demand of the building
systems and this influence showed variation for single
and multistorey building systems. Finally it was found
that seismic response obtained from single storey
403
models was different from those obtained from multistorey models. From results of analytical study it was
found that for e/r 0.5 and 0.4, number of resistant
planes in direction of seismic response had no influence
on seismic response and the lateral displacements
decrease with increase in ductility demand. Finally the
Parameters like degree of torsional coupling, uncoupled
lateral time period and eccentricity had larger influence
on seismic response.
Ghersi et al. (2007) determined the effectiveness
of modal analysis procedure in evaluating the inelastic
seismic response of multistorey plan asymmetric
structure. A six storey steel framed building and
asymmetry was induced by variation of applying load
at 0.15L away from geometric center inducing mass
eccentricity. Results of modal analysis was compared
with that of static analysis and by chandler procedure
to check the proposed procedure. The proposed method
leads to good seismic performance of buildings as
compared to other methods of analysis. However the
strength distribution along plan given by the proposed
method is comparable with method suggested by Ghersi
and Rossi but it is simpler in application as compared
to the latter method.
TABLE 10
DIFFERENT MODEL CONFIGURATIONS PROPOSED
S.No
Model Name
Ratio of Stiffness to
Yield displacement
eccentricity (ev/ed)
Symmetric
Stiffness Symmetric
Balance (0.75Cv Cr)
0.75
Balance (0.5Cv Cr)
0.5
Balance (0.25Cv Cr)
0.25
Strength Symmetric
De-Stefano (0.25Cm-Cr)
-0.33
De-Stefano (0.5Cm-Cr)
-1
Aziminejad and Moghadam (2009) determined

seismic performance of eight 5 storey plan asymmetric
(Stiffness and strength) building systems with different
strength distributions. The eight different building
systems in location of position of center of rigidity
and strength (Table 10). These building models
were analyzed for nonlinear dynamic response using
OPENSEES software. From results of analytical study
it was concluded that building systems with strength

eccentricity equal to one fourth of distance between
positions of strength and stiffness performed better on
rotation and drift criteria.
Stahopoulos and Anangnopoulos (2010) evaluated
the effectiveness of accidental eccentricity provisions.
For analytical study the authors created four types of
building models. The first and second models were one
storey shear beam with stiffness eccentricity and one
storey frame models with mass eccentricity respectively.
The third model was three storey frame type building
and fourth one was five storey frame type of models,
both these models had combination of mass and stiffness
asymmetry along plan. The shear beam models were
modeled considering a bilinear force-displacement
behavior and magnitude of strain hardening was taken
equal to 0.05. For idealization of frame members,
plastic hinge model was used and Takedas momentrotation relationships were used in creating the plastic
hinge model. The one storey and three storey building
models were subjected to the accidental eccentricities
from 0 to 0.05L, whereas the five storey building model
was subjected to an additional eccentricity of 1.0L in
addition to earlier mentioned eccentricities.. Results of
analytical study suggest that in case of one storey shear
beam models, the consideration of accidental design
eccentricity (ADE) results in reduction of ductility
demands of edge elements in case of building systems
with larger time period(Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility
demand reduces by 10 % for ADE = 0.05L and by 1020% for ADE = 0.10L.
Anangnopoulos et al.(2010) determined inelastic
torsional response of single storey and multi-storey
building models with mass and stiffness eccentricity.
The building models were designed in accordance with
EC8 and IBC code provisions. The inelasticity in the
building models were introduced by assuming Takedas
moment-rotation relationship and strain hardening ratio
was taken as 0.05. The inelastic plastic hinge models
were further subdivided into three categories namely
SIMP1, SIMP2 and SIMP3 as described in detail in
Table 10. The building models were analyzed using time
history analysis using ANSR software programs. From
results of analytical study it was found that for models
SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges of building were
found to be the critical elements which correlates with
results obtained for single storey models by previous
404
researchers. The seismic response of SIMP3 model

was found to be strongly dependent on seismic loading
and in this case critical elements were stiff edges which
contradicts with results obtained for single storey
models. Table 11 shows Summary of research works
regarding Multi storey plan asymmetric structures.
singly or in combination. Different types of vertical

irregularities have different effects on seismic response.
So, the effect of these irregularities should be considered
and incorporated in current seismic design codes. The
research works concerned with vertical irregularities
started in early 1970s with Chopra (1973) who studied
the seismic response of series of eight storey shear
buildings subjected to the earthquake motion data. The
main objective of the author was to determine the effect
of yielding of first storey on upper stories. From results
of analytical study it was found that an ideal plastic
mechanism and a low yield force are required in the
first storey for safety of higher floors of the structure.
REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORKS

REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES
Irregularities of mass, stiffness, strength and geometry
along building height may be termed as vertical
irregularity. These irregularities may be present
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING MULTI STOREY PLAN ASYMMETRIC STRUCTURES
S.No
1
Researcher
Year
Stahthopoulos
2003
3 5
Anagnopoulos
Type
and extent of
eccentricity
em= 0.1b - 0.3b

es = 0 - 0.3L
ea = 0 - 0.05b
Main conclusion
The Building Systems with biaxial eccentricity
showed the increased ductility demand.
The displacements at flexible edge was found
to be greater for SB models as compared to PH
models. SB models were found inefficient in
assessment of codal provisions.
Chopra Goel
2004
em = 4.57m
Accuracy of proposed procedure decreased with

the increase in magnitude of torsional coupling.
Fernandez et al.
2005
es = 0.25r - 0.75r
For e/r 0.5 and (Ductility coefficient) 0.4,

number of resistant planes in direction of seismic
response have no influence on seismic response.
Stefano et al.
2006
em = 0.15b
Ghersi et al.
2007
em = 0.05b - 0.30b
Luchinni et al.
2009
es = 0, 0.5b
Aziaenmizad
Moghadam
2010
Stahthopoulos
Anagnopoulos
2010
1 3 5
em = 0 0.3b es=0.1b Consideration of accidental design eccentricity

- 0.7b ea = 0 - 0.10b (ADE) results in reduction of ductility demands
of edge elements in case of building systems with
larger time period (Ty). For Ty > 0.5s the ductility
demand reduces by 10 % for A = 0.05L and by 1020% for A= 0.10L.
10
Anangnopoulos
et al.
2010
3 5
em es= 0-0.30 b ea = For models SIMP1 and SIMP2 the flexible edges
0.05b
were the critical elements. In SIMP3 models the
stiff edges were critical elements.
Overstrength factor influences the seismic

response.
The proposed method leads to good seismic
performance of buildings as compared to other
methods of analysis.
The deformation demand in the Irregular
buildings was found to be non-linear.
es = 0 - 0.14b est =0 In building systems with strength eccentricity

- 0.25b
equal to one fourth of the distance between
positions of strength and stiffness performed
better on rotation and drift criteria.
N Represents number of stories

405
The irregularities of mass, stiffness and strength are

represented by parameters of mass ratio (Mr), stiffness
ratio (Sr), Strength ratio (STr) which may be defined as
the ratio of mass, stiffness and strength of storey under
consideration to the adjacent storey.
Humar and Wright (1977) studied the seismic
response of multistorey steel building frames with and
without setback irregularity using one ground motion
data. Based on analytical study it was concluded that,
in case of building frames with setbacks, the storey drift
was found to be greater at upper portion of setback and
smaller in the base portion. Also, the drift of building
frames with setbacks was found to be lesser as compared
to the building frames without setback irregularity.
Aranda (1984) extended the approach of earlier
researchers36.The author determined and compared the
seismic response of structure with and without setback
irregularity founded on soft soil. From the results of
analytical studies it was confirmed that the ductility
demand and its increase in upper portion of setback was
higher as compared to the base portion and structures
with setbacks experienced higher ductility demand as
compared to their regular counterparts.
Fernandez (1983) determined the elastic and inelastic
seismic response of multistorey building frames with
irregular distribution of mass and stiffness. Reduction
in storey stiffness resulted in increased storey drift and
structures with constant variation of mass and stiffness
in vertical direction showed better seismic performance
as compared to the structures with abrupt variations.
Presence of shear walls leads to variation in stiffness
and researchers like Moelhe (1984) determined the
seismic response of R.C structures with irregularities.
For analytical study, nine storey building frames with 3
bays and structural walls were modelled. The irregularity
in building models was created by discontinuation of
structural walls at different storey heights. Based on the
analytical results it was found that the seismic response
not only depended on extent of structural irregularities
but also on the location of irregularities. Experimental
studies are necessary to verify the accuracy of analytical
results and researchers like Moehle and Alarcon (1986)
performed experimental tests on two small prototype
R.C. building frames subjected to the ground motion
data. The tests were performed using shake table. The
two building models used for the study were named
as FFW and FSW. The FFW model had two
frames of nine storey having 3 bays each and the third

frame was also of 9 storey but had prismatic wall, this
model represented the building systems without any
irregularity. The Vertical irregularities were introduced
in the building models by discontinuation of shear wall
at first storey and this building models were designated
as FSW Rest of the features in both FFW and
FSW were same. The displacements of top floor were
computed for all these building models using elastic and
inelastic dynamic analysis. From the analytical study it
was concluded that in case of FSWductility demand
increased abruptly at the vicinity of discontinuity
of shear wall and this increase was found to be 4 to
5 times higher as compared to the FFW models.
Further the inelastic dynamic analysis was found to
be more efficient as compared to the elastic analysis in
determining the effect of structural discontinuities.
Barialoa (1988) determined the effects of strength
and stiffness variation on nonlinear seismic response
of multistorey building frames. For analytical study 8
storey building with 5 bays were modeled. The building
frames were subjected to three different category of
time periods namely low, medium and high. Each
building category was further subdivided into two
more categories based on base shear namely weak and
strong. In the weak building the base shear was 15 %
of total seismic weight whereas in strong building the
bases shear was 30 % of total weight of the structure.
The results of analytical study showed that the time
period of structure increases during seismic excitation
and this increase is more pronounced in case for weaker
structures. A linear elastic spectrum can be used to
determine the seismic response if increase in damping
along with increase in damping is considered.
Ruiz and Diederich (1989) conducted analytical
studies on five and twelve storey building models with
strength irregularity. The strength irregularity in the
building model was created by modeling first storey of
the structure as the weak storey in the first case. In the
second case the infill walls in top storey were modeled
as brittle and in the third case the infill walls were
modeled as ductile. From results of analytical study it
was found that the yielding, failure and formation of
plastic hinges in infill walls was greatly influenced by
time period of seismic excitation.
Shahrooz and Moehle (1990) determined the
seismic response of building systems with vertical
406
setbacks. The authors conducted both experimental

and analytical tests to improve methodologies for
design of setback buildings. For performing the
experimental study model of a six storey R.C. frame
having 50 % setback at midheight was prepared. From
results of experimental study it was found that there
was no abrupt variation in the displacement along the
building height. The interstorey drifts were found to be
largest with increased damage and abrupt reduction in
lateral force at location of setbacks. The distribution of
lateral displacement and force along building height
suggest that the translational seismic response of the
building parallel to direction of setback is influenced
by fundamental mode of vibration. For performing
analytical study six storey building frames with six
different patterns of setbacks were modeled and
designed in accordance with UBC code of practice.
For all of these frames the floor plan dimensions and
mass ratios were varied from 3 to 9 times as suggested
by UBC 1988 code of practice which differentiated
symmetric and setback structures on basis of plan
dimensions and mass ratios. The analyses of these
frames were carried out by modal analysis procedure as
prescribed by UBC 1988 code of practice. From results
of analytical study it was concluded that all these frames
experienced similar magnitude and distribution of
ductility demand. The frames with similar mass ratios
and floor plan dimensions but with different setback
heights experienced different amount of damage which
contradicted the approach of UBC 1988 code.
Nasser and Krawlinker (1991) conducted parametric
study on multistorey (3, 5,10,20,30, 40 storey) SDOF
and MDOF systems (with strength irregularity) with
different periods of seismic excitation ranging from
0.217s 2.051s. The models used are described in
Table 12.
TABLE 12
BUILDING
MODELS USED BY NASSER

KRAWLINKER (1991)
AND
S.No
Model Name
No. of Stories
Model Description
Beam Hinge
3,10,20,30,40
Plastic hinges form

in beam only
Column Hinge
3,10,20,30,40
Plastic hinges form

in column only
Model 3
3,10,20,30,40
Plastic hinges form

in columns of first
storey only
Three types of building systems as described in Table

13 were studied.. In case of SDOF models the strength
demand was represented in terms of strength reduction
factor which represents the reduction in strength of
structural elements. In case of MDOF systems it was
found that strength demand and target ductility ratios
depend on failure mechanisms developed and presence
of weak first storey increased the ductility demand and
overturning moments.
Esteva (1992) evaluated the seismic response of
building frames with soft first storey by using nonlinear analysis. For simplification of analytical study
the shear beam model was used to represent the building
systems. The first main purpose of analytical study was
to observe the bilinear hysteric behavior of the building
systems with and without consideration of P-Delta
effects. The second main purpose of the analytical study
was to determine the affect of influence ratio r (which
was defined as the ratio of average value of lateral shear
safety factor for upper stories to the bottom stories) on
ductility demand. The results of analytical study are
shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13
RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL STUDY OBTAINED BY
ESTEVA (1992)
S.No
Time period
Influence ratio
Ductility Demand
Low
Increase from
1.0 to 3.0
Increase by 30 %
Medium
No impact
No impact
High
Increase from Increase from 50 %

1.0 to 3.0
- 100%
Wood (1992) found that presence of setbacks did

not affect the dynamic seismic response which was
more or less similar for symmetrical structures.
Wong and Tso (1994) used elastic response spectrum
analysis to determine seismic response of structures
with setback irregularity and it was observed that
buildings with setback irregularity had higher modal
masses causing different seismic load distribution as
compared to the static code procedure.
Duan and Chandler (1995) conducted analytical
studies on building systems with setback irregularity
using both static and modal spectral analysis and based
on the results of analytical studies, it was concluded
that both static and modal analysis procedures were
inefficient in preventing the concentration of damage
in structural members near level of setbacks.
407
Vamudson and Nau (1997) evaluated seismic

response of multistorey buildings with vertical
irregularities. For analytical study two dimensional
shear beam building models with five, ten and twenty
stories were prepared. The structural irregularities were
introduced in the building models by varying the mass,
stiffness and strength. From analytical studies it was
found that introduction of mass and stiffness irregularity
resulted in minor variation in the seismic response. The
storey drifts were increased in range of 20% - 40 %
for 30 % decrease in the stiffness of the first storey,
with constant strength. The strength reduction of 20 %
doubled the ductility demand.
Al-Ali and Krawinkler (1998) evaluated the effect
of mass, stiffness and strength and their combinations
on seismic response of a 10 storey structure. Elastic and
inelastic dynamic analyses were used for the analytical
study. Based on the results of analytical study it was
observed that, when irregularities were considered
separately; the strength irregularity had the maximum
impact on roof displacement and mass irregularity had
the minimum impact on the roof displacement. When
combination of irregularities was considered, the
combination of stiffness and strength irregularity had
the maximum impact on roof displacement.
Kappos and Scott (1998) made comparison between
static and dynamic methods of analysis for evaluating
the seismic response of R.C frames with setback
irregularity. On comparison between results of both
methods it was concluded that dynamic analysis yielded
results different from that of static analysis. However
in the analytical study the other forms of irregularities
like mass, stiffness and strength irregularity were not
included.
Magliulo et al. (2002) conducted parametric studies
on multistorey RC frames (5, 9 storey) with mass,
stiffness and strength irregularity designed for low
ductility class as per EC 8 provisions. The authors
evaluated the seismic response of the irregular frames
and have compared it with the seismic response of
building frames without any irregularity. From the
analytical studies it was found that mass irregularity
does not effect plastic demands. In case of strength
irregularity, irregular distribution of strength in beams
increased the seismic demand. However seismic
demands were not affected due to irregular strength
distribution in columns. Finally the authors concluded
that the parameter of storey strength as prescribed

by EC8 and IBC codes was ineffective in predicting
strength irregularity.
Das and Nau (2003) evaluated the effects of stiffness,
strength and mass irregularity on inelastic seismic
response of large number of multistorey structures. For
analytical study a large number of buildings with three
bays in direction of seismic action and with number of
stories ranging from 5-20 were modeled.
TYPE A
TYPE B
TYPE C
(a) TYPE A,B,C Taller first, intermediate and top storey
TYPE t
TYPE m
TYPE b
(b) TYPE t, m, b - Irregular mass distributions
TYPE E1 - E2
TYPE E3 - E6
(c) E1-E2 Open ground floor, E3 E6 Partial infill
a) TYPE A,B,C Taller first, intermediate and top storey b)

TYPE t, m, b - Irregular mass distributions c) E1-E2 Open
ground floor, E3 E6 Partial infill
Fig. 8 Different types of vertically irregular building models, Das
and Nau19
The structural irregularities in these building

models were introduced by variation of mass ratio,
stiffness ratio , storey strength and by considering the
effect of masonry infills. These frames were designed
as special moment resisting frames (S.M.R.F.) based
on strong column weak beam design philosophy in
accordance with different codes of practice namely
ACI 1999 and UBC 97. The forces on these S.M.R.F
frames were computed using ELF (Equivalent Lateral
force) procedure as prescribed in ACI 99 and UBC 97
code. From results of analytical study it was concluded
408
that the seismic response parameters like first mode

shape and fundamental time period as computed by
ELF procedure were similar for symmetrical and
unsymmetrical structure. The storey drift computed for
five storey and ten storey structures with combination
of mass, strength and stiffness irregularities at bottom
storey showed an abrupt increase over code prescribed
limit of 2 %. The ductility demands showed an abrupt
increase near the location of irregularity but this increase
never exceeded the designed ductility capacity of the
members. Finally the mass irregularity had least impact
on the structural damage index and for all the building
models analyzed it was found to be less than 0.40.
Chintanpakdee and Chopra (2004) evaluated
the effects of strength, stiffness and combination of
strength and stiffness irregularity on seismic response
of multistorey frames. For analytical study, different 12
storey frames were modeled based on strong column
weak beam theory. The irregularity in strength and
stiffness were introduced at different locations along
height of the building models. The building models were
analyzed using time history analysis by subjecting the
building model to 20 different ground motion data. From
analytical studies it was concluded that irregularities in
strength and stiffness when present in combination had
the maximum affect on the seismic response. Further
maximum variation in the displacement response along
height was observed when irregularities are present on
the lower stories.
Tremblay and Poncet (2005) evaluated the seismic
response of building frames with vertical mass
irregularity (Fig. 15) designed according to NBCC
provisions by static and dynamic analysis. Based on
the analytical study it was concluded that both static
and dynamic method of analysis (as prescribed by
NBCC provisions) resulted in similar values of storey
drifts and hence they were ineffective in predicting the
effects of mass irregularity.
Fragiadakis et al. (2005) determined the seismic
response of building systems with irregular distribution
of strength and stiffness in vertical direction. After
conducting the analytical study it was concluded that
seismic performance of the structure depended on type
and location of irregularity and on intensity of seismic
excitation. Modal pushover analysis (MPA) procedure
is an important analytical tool to evaluate the seismic
performance and several researchers like Lignos and
Gantes (2005) investigated the effectiveness of Modal

pushover analysis procedure (MPA) in determination
of multistorey steel braced frame (4, 9 storey) with
stiffness irregularities. Based on the results of analytical
study it was concluded that MPA procedure was
incapable of predicting failure mechanism and collapse
of the structure.
Khoure et al. (2005) designed a 9 storey steel framed
structures with setback irregularity as per Israeli steel
code SI 1225(1998).The authors made variation in
height and location of setbacks in building frames.
Results of analytical studies confirmed that higher
torsional response was obtained in tower portion of
setbacks.
Some researchers preferred dynamic analysis over
MPA procedure to evaluate seismic response due to
its accuracy. Fragiadakis et al. (2006) proposed an
IDA (Incremental dynamic analysis) procedure for
estimating seismic response of multistorey frame (9
storeys) with stiffness and strength irregularity contrary
to Lignos and Gantes (2005), Alba et al. (2005) who
used MPA procedure to evaluate the seismic response
of building frames with stiffness irregularity. Based
on the analytical results the authors concluded that the
proposed method was effective in predicting effects
of irregularity in building frames. Finally, the authors
concluded that effect of irregularity is influenced
by location and type of irregularity and building
systems subjected to unidirectional seismic excitation
underestimate the seismic demand significantly.
Tremblay and Poncet (2005) conducted extensive
study on multistorey building frames with mass
irregularity as per NBCC code. Ayidin (2007) evaluated
the seismic response of buildings with mass irregularity
by ELF procedure (as prescribed by Turkish code of
practice) and by time history analysis. The researcher
had modeled multistorey structure ranging from 5 to
20 storey height. The mass irregularity is created by
variation in mass of a storey with constant mass at other
stories. Based on the analytical study author concluded
that the mass irregularity effects the shear in the storey
below and ELF procedure overestimates the seismic
response of the building systems as compared to the
time history analysis.
Basu and Gopalakrishnan (2007) developed a
simplified method of analysis for determination
of seismic response of structures with horizontal
409
setbacks and torsional irregularity. The assessment

of the proposed method was made by applying it
on four building models. In case of building models
with scattered positions of C.M. the proposed method
evaluates seismic response considering average value
of position of C.M. whereas perturbation analysis
considers exact location of positions of C.M. at different
floor levels to evaluate the seismic response. Results
of analytical study showed that for building systems
with vertically aligned C.M. the frequencies obtained
by proposed procedure and perturbation analysis were
found to be in close agreement, but results of frame
shear forces differed by 7 %.. In case of second example,
the modal response obtained by proposed method and
perturbation analysis was similar, but difference in
frame shear force was found to be 4% for upper stories
and 1 % for base stories. In case of third building
model, the frequencies obtained by proposed procedure
and perturbation analysis were in close agreement, but
difference of results in case of frame shear forces were
10 % at ground storey level and 4% at first storey level.
In case of fourth example the difference of results in
estimation of frame shear forces were as high as 50 %,
so it was concluded that the proposed position is not
applicable to the building models where the prescribed
limit of scattering of C.M. is exceeded.
Karavallis et.al. (2008) performed extensive
parametric study on steel frames with different types of
setback irregularity designed as per European seismic
and structural codes. From analysis the databank of
different output parameters like no. of stories, beam
to column strength ratio, geometrical irregularity etc.
which influence the deformation demands was created.
Based on the deformation demands four performance
levels were identified and these are a) occurrence of
first plastic hinge b) Maximum interstorey drift ratio
(IDRmax) equal to 1.8 % ; c) IDRmax equal to 3.2%
d)IDRmax equal to 4.0%. The results for different
types of setback structure were expressed in terms of
these performance levels . From analytical study it was
concluded that interstorey drift (IDR) ratio increased
with increase in storey height and tower portion
of setback experienced maximum deformation as
compared to the base portion.
Athanassiadou (2008) made the assessment of seismic
capacity of the RC structures irregular in elevation. The
author modeled three multistorey frames, out of these
three frames two ten storey plane frames were modeled

with two and four large setbacks in their upper floors
and the third frame was regular in elevation. These
three frames were subjected to 30 different ground
motions d and designed by the researchers as DCH and
DCM frames (Designed for high ductility and medium
ductility) as per Euro code 8.Then non linear dynamic
analysis of the frames was carried out by subjecting the
frame to the ground motion data of the earthquake and
parameters of rotation, base shear and interstorey drift
were evaluated. Based on the analytical study it was
found that the performance of both DCM and DCH
frames were found to be satisfactory as per guidelines
of Euro code 8.
Karavallis et al. (2008) evaluated the seismic
response of family of 135 plane steel moment resisting
frames with vertical mass irregularities and created
databank of analytical results. Furthermore the authors
used regression analysis technique to derive simple
formulae to evaluate seismic response parameters
using the analysis databank. Results of analytical
studies suggested that the mass ratio had no influence
on deformation demand. The results obtained from
proposed formulae were found to be comparable with
results of dynamic analysis.
Sadasiva et al. (2008) evaluated the effect of location
of vertical mass irregularity on seismic response of the
structure. A 9 storey regular and irregular (with vertical
irregularity) frame was analyzed and designed as per
New Zealand code of practice in two ways, firstly it was
designed to have maximum interstorey drift at all levels
(represented as CDCSIR) . Secondly, it was designed
to have a constant stiffness (represented by CS) at all
levels. To make clear distinction between regular and
irregular structure, a special notation form was used
by the authors of form NS-M-L-(A), where N-no.of
stories, S-Shear beam, M- Type of model [i.e. S(Shear
beam) or SFB (Shear Flexure beam), (A) Mass ratio].
The deformation is represented in form of graphs. For
making the study Los Angeles earthquake records had
been used and authors carried out inelastic time history
analysis of the structure using Ruamoko software. Based
on this analysis it was concluded that in case of both
CS and CISDR model the interstorey drift produced is
maximum when mass irregularity is present at topmost
storey and irregularity increases the interstorey drift of
the structure. However this magnitude varies for both
410
CS and CISDR type of models .

Sarkar et al. (2010) developed a new parameter
called as regularity index (defined as the ratio of 1st
mode participation factor of the stepped building frame
to the regular frame) to express the extent of irregularity
and the authors developed an empirical formula to
calculate the fundamental time period of building
frames with vertical setbacks. By use of this formula
the fundamental time period was represented as the
function of regularity index. To validate the approach,
modal analysis of 78 different building frames with
different types of setback irregularity were conducted
and it was found that the empirical formula yielded
accurate results even for 3D building models. Table
14 shows the summary of research works regarding

vertical irregularity.
In Table Mr, Sr and STr are mass, stiffness and
strength ratios.
COMPARISON OF MODELS USED BY
DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
Classification 1: Table 15 shows First system of
classification of models used by different researchers
M 1 - Elasto-plastic hysteric model
M 2 - Bi-linear hysteric model
M 3 - Cloughs hysteric model
M 4 - Takedas hysteric model
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH WORKS REGARDING VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
S.No
Name of Researcher
Year
Key Parameters
Main conclusion
Ruiz and Diedrich
1989
Sr 4,0.9
Sr - 0.65-2.0
1.0-2.0
The behavior of infill wall is greatly influenced by

time period of seismic excitation.
Shahrooz and Moelhe
1990
50 % setback
Mr 300 % to 900%
High rotational ductility in vicinity of irregularity
Vamudsson and Nau
1997
Mr - 0.1,0.5,1.5,2,5
Sr - 0.5- 0.9
STr - 0.5-0.9
5,
10,
20
ELF predicts accurate response upto Mr =5.

Storey stiffness reduction by 30 % increases
storey drift by 20 40% and reduction of storey
strength by 20 % doubles the ductility demand.
Ali Ali and Krawlinker
1997
Mr - 0.25,0.5,2,4
Sr - 0.1,0.25,0.5, 2,4,10
STr -0.5
10
Mass irregularity had the least impact whereas

strength irregularity had the maximum impact.
Das Nau
2003
Mr - 2.5-5.0
Sr - 0.09 -1.6
- 0.09 - 1.7
- 0.08 - 1.81
STr - 0.27-1.05
5
10
20
Ductility demands increased in vicinity of

irregularity but never exceeded design ductility
demand.
Chintanpakdee Chopra
2004
Sr 0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0
STr -0.25,0.5, 2.0,5.0
12
Irregularities in upper stories had least influence

on displacement demand as compared to
irregularities in lower stories.
Fragiadakis
2006
Sr - 0.5,2.0
STr - 0.5,2.0
Seismic response depends on type of structural

irregularity.
Ayidin
2007
Mr 0.1,0.5,1,1.5,2,5
5 10 20
ELF procedure overestimates seismic response.

Mass irregularity affects shear.
Karavallis et al
2008
Mr = 2,4,6
3 9 15
Mass ratio has no influence on drift, rotation and

ductility demands.
10
Sadasiva et.al.
2008
Mr = 2.5,5
Effects of irregularity depends on Structural

model, Location and type of irregularity.

411
TABLE 15
TABLE 16
FIRST SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED

BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
SECOND SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS

USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
Reference
Advantages
Disadvantages
Simple
Less accurate for building

systems with T>0.5s.
S.
no.
No
23, 34, 35,

74, 77, 82
13, 22, 39, Includes

strain Does not account for
67, 68, 74 hardening effect. stiffness change due to
increase in displacement
amplitude reversal.
20, 21, 74, Used for nonlinear

77, 82
analysis includes
strain hardening
effect.
Larger ductility demand

as compared to elasto
plastic elements.
Comparable values with

model 1 for high period
structures.
19, 33, 68 Includes effects of Excessive damage caused

flexural, cracking by shear and bond not
and
strain considered.
hardening.
Classification 2: Table 16 shows Second system of

Reference
Advantages
Disadvantages
no.
SS
1, 13, 15, Simple

Easy
18, 20, 21, idealization and
22, 23, 34,
formulation.
35, 39, 46,
48, 67, 68,
69, 74, 75,
76, 77
Does not represent

the
actual
structure.
Represents
actual structure.
Seismic response
obtained much
closer to reality.
More complex and

difficult to model
as compared to
SB models.
MS 1, 2, 3, 4,
8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 16, 18,
19, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32,
36, 40, 41,
42, 43, 47,
48, 50, 52,
53, 62, 63,
64, 67, 68,
69, 72, 82,
83, 84.
Does not involve

building systems
with large degree
of freedom.
Need
of
Can involve large s o p h i s t i c a t e d
no. of degree of softwares.
freedom.
Classification 3: Table 17 shows third system of

SS - Single-storey models
MS Multi-storey models
TABLE 17
SECOND SYSTEM OF CLASSIFICATION OF MODELS USED BY DIFFERENT RESEARCHERS
S.No
Reference no.
Advantages
Disadvantages
SB
3, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22,

39, 46, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Simple
Easy idealization and formulation.
Does not represent the actual structure. Does not

involve building systems with large degree of
freedom.
Not suitable to represent multistorey building
systems as simplified S-B models are not designed
for gravity loads. So relation between strength and
stiffness for these models is different from that
of actual strength stiffness relation of framed
structures.
Strength of resisting elements can be adjusted
without changing the stiffness. However it has
been already proved by researchers that both these
parameters are interdependent.
PH
3, 9, 21, 67, 68, 69
3D
4, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19, 27, 28,

30, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47,
52, 53, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66,
68, 70, 72, 82, 83, 84
Non linear analysis. Inelastic seismic More complex and difficult to model as compared
response prediction. Plastic hinges to SB models. Seismic response depends on
formed at ends of beams and columns. location of plastic hinge. Plastic hinge assumed to
occur at ends of beams and columns only.
Closer to actual buildings.
Complex and difficult formulations.

412
SB - Shear Beam
PH - Plastic hinge
3D - 3D frame models
Some authors also have used two or more than two
models so same reference number in some cases appears
against two model names in classification 1, 2 and 3.
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The presence of structural irregularity changes the
seismic response and the change in the seismic
response depends upon type of structural irregularities.
As mentioned previously structural irregularities may
be classified into horizontal and vertical irregularities.
On comparing research works regarding plan and
vertical irregularity, it was found that large number of
research works were conducted on Plan irregularities
as compared to vertical irregularities.
In Plan irregularities some researchers used single
storey models and others used multistorey building
models as described in Table 16. The uses of former
models were larger in comparison to the latter. Most
of the building models in recent years are single storey
building models, so the expressions for seismic response
parameters and design philosophies formulated are not
valid for multistorey building models. So most of the
design codes which use expressions were formulated
on basis of single storey models need to be revised.
The expressions obtained considering a particular
multistorey model needs to be generalized so that it is
applicable to all kinds of multistorey structures.
Different centers of buildings like CM, CV and
CR have a huge impact on seismic response of
building systems as torsion generated depends upon
positions of these centers with respect to each other.
Several researchers10,73,74 have proposed the concept
of balanced CV-CR location to generate minimum
torsional response. One of the main issues in this
concept is that the previous researchers have not been
able to find a CV-CR location which gives optimum
values for all the seismic response parameters like
drift, ductility and rotation etc. In general it was found
that if some position of CV, CR, CM reduces drift and
ductility, then other portion reduces rotation i.e. no
particular position of CV, CR and CM result in optimum
values of seismic response parameters. So, selection of
seismic response parameters for optimization is up to

the priority of designer and it may vary according to
user requirements and building specifications. From
result of researches it was found that different locations
of CV, CR and CM yielded different results and the
effects of these locations were different on different
seismic response parameters. Further optimum position
of CV-CR was found to be highly depended of type and
period of seismic excitation23.
Research works regarding vertical irregularities
are fewer in number as compared to Plan irregularities
and the main focus of research works was to vary
either mass, stiffness and strength ratios to study the
effect of this variation in seismic response8,41,62,63.
Some researchers have varied either mass, stiffness
or strength ratios only i.e. the effect of presence of
single irregularity is studied, however the realistic
structures contain combination of irregularities and
consideration of single irregularity will not result in
realistic prediction of seismic response. So effect of
combination of irregularities should be studied and
very few researchers have made an attempt towards
this area1,82. One of the main conclusion was that
effect of irregularity depended on extent and location
of irregularity and variation in seismic response
parameters was found at the vicinity of irregularity.
Some of the vertical irregularities like strength and
stiffness were found to be interdependent and their
relation was evaluated by some of the researchers. Many
researchers created stiffness and strength irregularity
by discontinuation of Shear walls at particular storey
height, this method of introducing irregularity was
adopted for building models of different storey heights
and height and location of discontinuation of shear wall
was also varied and in every such case it was observed
that there was a large variation in ductility demand in
vicinity of discontinuation of irregularity11,30,52,53.
Regarding vertical setback irregularity, the top
portion of setback was found to have greater deformation
as compared to the base. Some of the researchers7,42
proposed new methods to estimate the seismic
response of vertically irregular structures but the code
defined procedures were found to be satisfactory and
appropriate in predicting the seismic behavior.
Regarding the method of analysis used by various
researchers, Inelastic dynamic analysis and Pushover
analysis were used by majority of researchers and
413
researchers especially like Chopra and Goel17,18 had

done extensive work in improvement of pushover
analysis to match the accuracy of dynamic analysis, but
it was found that pushover analysis even after a large
improvement was found short of dynamic analysis and
were applicable only for certain types of loadings and
building systems. Regarding the analysis method used
the main focus was on improving the Modal Pushover
analysis procedure to match results of dynamic analysis,
but with development of advance softwares using
which dynamic analysis of different types of complex
multistorey structures can be easily performed. So, use
of dynamic analysis is more preferable and moreover
MPA procedure are applicable to some type of loading
patterns only and are less accurate as compared to
dynamic analysis. So, use of Dynamic analysis is
justified. Finally regarding analysis methods it can be
concluded that the inelastic dynamic analysis methods
were found to yield accurate results as compared to
other methods used.
rx, ry
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
NOTATIONS
ci
- Stiffness Irregularity factor defined at

ith storey of building
ki
- Stiffness Irregularity factor defined at
ith storey of building
- Reduced storey drift of ith storey of
i
building
(i)ort - Average reduced storey drift of ith
storey of building
(Ae)i
- Area of the storey
(Ae)i+1 - Area of the storey above ith storey
Ri
- Re-entrant corner projection limit
Si, Si+1 - Stiffness of storey I and of storey above
SBi
- Setback irregularity limits
Oa, Sd - Open area in diaphragm and diaphragm
stiffness
Mi, Ma - Mass of Ith storey and the storey adjacent
to ith storey.
dmax
- Maximum drift computed at a particular
storey level
davg
- Average of drifts computed at both sides
of a structure.
ls
- Radius of gyration
- Torsional radius in x and y direction.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Al-Ali, A.A.K. and Krawinkler, H (1998). Effects

of Vertical Irregularities on Seismic Behavior
of Building Structures, Report No. 130, 1998,
The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
U.S.A.
Alba, F., Ayala, AG. and Bento, R . (2005) Seismic
performance evaluation of plane frames regular
and irregular in elevation, In: Proceedings of the
4th European workshop on the seismic behavior
of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM.
Thessaloniki, August 2005.
Anagnostopoulos, S.A., Alexopoulou, C. and
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 and Structural dynamics,
Vol.39, 2010, pp 521-540.
Aranda, G.R. (1998). Ductility Demands for R/C
Frames Irregular in Elevation, In Proceedings
of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, U.S.A., Vol. 4, 1984
pp. 559-566.
ASCE (2005). Minimum Design Loads for
Building and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-05),
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
U.S.A.
ATC (1978). Tentative positions for development
of seismic regulations of buildings (ATC 3-06),
Applied Technology council, Structural Engineers
association of California, US department of
commerce, Washington D.C.
Athanassiadou, C.J. (2008). Seismic performance
of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation,
Engineering Structures, Vol.30, No.5, pp. 12501261.
Ayidin, K. (2007). Evaluation of Turkish seismic
code for mass irregular buildings, Indian journal
of engineering and material sciences, Vol.14,
pp.220-234.

414
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S. (2009),

Performance of Asymmetric Multistorey Shear
Buuldings with Different Strength Distributions,
Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol.9, pp.10821089.
Aziminejad, A. and Moghadam, A.S. (2010),
Fragility-Based performance evaluation of
asymmetric single-storey buildings in near field
and Far field earthquakes, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, Vol.14, pp.789-816.
Bariola, V., and Brokken, S. (1991). Influence
of strength and stiffness on seismic structural
behavior, Bulletin of Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol.23, pp.427-434.
Basu, D. and
Gopalakrishnan, N. (2007).
Analysis for preliminary design of a class of
torsionally coupled buildings with horizontal
setbacks, Engineering Structures, Vol.30, No.5,
pp. 1272-1291.
Bugeja, M.N., Thambiratnam, D.P. and Brameld,
G.H. (1999). The influence of stiffness and
strength eccentricities on the inelastic earthquake
response of asymmetric structures, Engineering
Structures, Vol.21, No.9, pp.856-863.
IS 1893 (Part 1)-2002, BIS: Indian Standard
Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures, Part 1 General Provisions and
Buildings (Fifth Revision), Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
Chandler, A.M., Correnza, J.C. and Hutchinson,
G.L. (1995). Influence of accidental eccentricity
on inelastic seismic torsional effects in buildings,
Engineering structures, Vol.17, No.3, pp.167-178.
Chintanapakdee, C. and Chopra, A.K. (2004).
Seismic Response of Vertically Irregular Frames:
Response History and Modal Pushover Analyses,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
130, No. 8, pp. 1177-1185.
Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K. (2002). A modal
push over analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demands for buildings, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31,
pp.561582.
Chopra, A.K. and Goel, G.K. (2004), A Modal
pushover analysis procedure to estimate to
estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural

dynamics, Vol.33, pp.903-927.
Das, S. and Nau, J.M. (2003). Seismic Design
Aspects of Vertically Irregular Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19,
No. 3, pp. 455-477.
De-la-Colina. (1999). Effects of torsion factors on
simple non linear systems using fully bidirectional
analysis, Earthquake engineering and Structural
dynamics, Vol.28, pp. 691-706.
De-la-Colina. (2003). Assessment of design
recommendations for torsionally unbalanced
multistorey buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.
19, pp. 4766.
Duan, X.N. and Chandler, A.M. (1991). Seismic
torsional response and design procedures for a
class of setback frame buildings, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.24,
pp.761777.
Dutta, S.C., and Das, P.K. (2002). Validity and
applicability of two simple hysteresis models
to asses progressive seismic damage in R/C
asymmetric buildings, Journal of sound and
vibration, Vol.257, No.4, pp. 753 777.
EC8 (1989). Design for structures in seismic
regions, Part 1. General and building report,
(EUR12266EN), Commission of European
committee, Brussels.
EC8 (1993). Design for structures in seismic
regions, Part 1. General and building report
(EUR12266EN), Commission of European
committee, Brussels.
EC8 (2004). Design of structures for earthquake
resistance. General rules seismic actions and
rules for buildings (EN 1998-1:2004), European
committee for Standardization, Brussels,
Esteva, L. (1992). Nonlinear Seismic response of
Soft- First Storey Buildings Subjected to Narrow
Band Accelerograms, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.
8, pp.373-389.
Fajfar, P., Magliulo, G., Maruic, D. and Peru,
I. (2002). Simplified non-linear analysis of
asymmetric buildings, In: Proceedings of the
third European workshop on the seismic behaviour
of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM,
Florence, September 2002.

415
29. Fajfar, P., Marusic, D., and Perus, I. (2005).

Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic
analysis of buildings, Journal of Earthquake
engineering, Vol.9, No.6, pp.831-854.
30. Fernandez, J. (1983). Earthquake Response
Analysis of Buildings Considering the effects
of Structural Configuration, Bulletin of the
International Institute of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering (Tokyo, Japan, Nov
1983), Vol.19, pp.203-215.
31. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D. Papadrakakis,
M. (2005). Evaluation of the influence of vertical
Stiffness irregularities on the seismic response
of a 9-storey steel frame, In: Proceedings of the
4th European workshop on the seismic behavior
of irregular and complex structures, CD ROM.
Thessaloniki, August 2005.
32. Fragiadakis, M., Vamvatsikos, D. and
Papadrakakis, M. (2006). Evaluation of the
Influence of Vertical Irregularities on the Seismic
Performance of a Nine-Storey Steel Frame,
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 35, No. 12, pp. 1489-1509.
33. Fujii, K., Nakano, Y., and Snada, Y. (2004), A
simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for singlestorey Asymmetric buildings, Journal of Japan
Association for Earthquake Engineering, Vol.4,
No.2, pp.1-20.
34. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P. (2001). Influence
of bidirectional seismic excitation on inelastic
response of single storey plan irregular systems,
Vol.23, No.6, pp.579-591.
35. Ghersi, A. and Rossi, P.P. (2006). Influence
of Design procedures on Bi-eccentric Plan
asymmetric systems, Structural design of Tall
and special buildings, Wiley publications, Vol.15,
pp.467-480.
36. Humar, J.L. and Wright, E.W. (1977). Earthquake
Response of Steel-Framed Multistorey Buildings
with Set-Backs, Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 15-39.
37. IBC (2003). International building code 2003,
Illiniosis, International code council (ICC), 2002
Inc.
38. IBC (2006) International building code 2006,
Illiniosis, International code council (ICC), Inc.
39. Jarernprasert, S., and Bazan, E., and Bielak, J.

(2008). Inelastic torsional single storey systems,
In proceedings of Fourteenth world conference on
Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008,
Beijing, China.
40. Kappos, A.J. and Scott, S.G. (1998). Seismic
assessment of an R/C building with setbacks using
nonlinear static and dynamic analysis procedures,
In: Booth ED (ed) Seismic design practice into the
next century. Balkema, Rotterdam.
41. Karavasilis, T.L., and Bazeos, N. and Beskos,
D.E. (2008). Estimation of seismic inelastic
deformation demands in plane steel MRF
with vertical mass irregularities, Engineering
structures, Vol.30, pp.3265-3275.
42. Karavasilis, T.L., and Bazeos, N. and Beskos,
D.E.(2008). Seismic response of plane steel
MRF with setbacks: Estimation of inelastic
deformation demands, Journal of construction
and steel research Vol.64, pp.644-654.
43. Khoury, W., Rutenberg, A. and Levy, R. (2005).
On the seismic response of asymmetric setback
perimeter-frame structures, In: Proceedings
of the 4th European workshop on the seismic
behavior of irregular and complex structures, CD
ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.
44. Killar, V, and Fajfar, P. (1997). Simple push-over
analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 26,
pp.233249.
45. Killar, V. and Fajfar, P. (2002). Seismic analysis
of eccentric R/C buildings by the N2 methods. In:
Proceedings of the third European workshop on
the seismic behaviour of irregular and complex
structures, CD ROM. Florence, September 2002.
46. Ladinovic, D. (2008). Non-linear analysis of
Asymmetric in plan buildings, Architecture and
Civil Engineering, Vol.6, No.1, pp.25-35.
47. Lignos, D.G. and Gantes, C.J. (2005). Seismic
demands for steel braced frames with stiffness
irregularities based on modal pushover analysis,
In: Proceedings of the 4th European workshop
on the seismic behavior of irregular and complex
structures, CD ROM. Thessaloniki, August 2005.
48. Luchinni, A., Monti, G., and Kunnath, S. (2011),
Nonlinear response of two way asymmetric
416
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
single storey bulding under biaxial excitation,

Journal of structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.137,
pp.34-40.
Magliulo, G., Ramasco, R. and Realfonzo,
R. (2002). A critical review of seismic code
provisions for vertically irregular frames, In:
Proceedings of the third European workshop on
the seismic behavior of irregular and complex
structures, CD ROM. Florence, September 2002.
Maruic, D., and Fajfar, P. (2005). On the inelastic
seismic response of asymmetric buildings under
bi-axial excitation, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, pp.943963.
Moelhe, J.P. (1984), Seismic Response of
Vertically irregular structures, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol.110, pp.20022014.
Moehle, J.P. and Alarcon, L.F. (1986). Seismic
Analysis Methods for Irregular Buildings, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 1,
pp. 35-52.
Moghadam, A.S. and Aziminejad, A. (2005).
Interaction of torsion and P-Delta effects in
tall buildings, In proceedings of Thirteenth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004, Paper
No. 799.
Nassar, A.A. and Krawinkler, H. (1991). Seismic
Demands for SDOF and MDOF Systems,
Report No. 95, The John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, U.S.A.
NBCC (1990). National Building Code of Canada
1990, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, 1990.
NBCC (1995). National Building Code of Canada
1995, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario 1995.
NZS (1992). Code of practice for general
structural design and design loadings for buildings
(NZS 4203), Standards association of New
Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, 1992.
NEHRP (1988). NEHRP recommended
provisions for development of seismic regulations
of New buildings, 1988 edition, Earthquake
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
hazards Reduction Series 17 , Federal Emergency

management Agency (FEMA), Building seismic
safety council. Washington D.C. Part 1: Provisions,
1988.
Penelis, Gr.G. and Kappos A.J. (2005). Inelastic
torsion effects in 3D pushover analysis of
buildings, In: Proceedings of the fourth European
workshop on the seismic behaviour of irregular
and complex structures, CD ROM, Thessaloniki,
August 2005.
Peru, I. and Fajfar, P. (2005). On the inelastic
torsional response of single-storey structures under
bi-axial excitation, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, pp.931941.
Ruiz, S.E. and Diederich, R. (1989). The Mexico
Earthquake of September 19, 1985 The Seismic
Performance of Buildings with Weak First Storey,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 89-102.
Sadasiva, V.K., Deam, B.L. and Fenwick, R.
(2008). Determination of Acceptable Structural
Irregularity Limits for the Use of Simplified
Seismic Design Methods, In proceedings
of eighth pacific conference on earthquake
engineering, Singapore, December 2007.
Sarkar, P., Prasad, A.M., and Menon, D.(2010).
Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building
frames, Engineering Structures, Vol. 32, No., pp.
2175-2182.
Shahrooz, B.M. and Moehle, J.P. (1990). Seismic
Response and Design of Setback Buildings,
116, No. 5, pp. 1423-1439.
Shakib, H., and Ghasemi, A. (2007). Considering
different criteria for minimizing torsional response
of asymmetric structures under near-fault and farfault excitations, International journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol.5, No.4, pp.247-265.
Stathopoulos, K.G. and Anagnostopoulos, S.A.
(2003). Inelastic earthquake response of singlestorey asymmetric buildings: an assessment of
simplified shear-beam models , Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.32,
pp.18131831.
(2005). Inelastic torsion of multi-storey buildings
under earthquake excitations. Earthquake

417
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Engineering and Structural Dynamics , Vol. 34,

pp. 14491465.
(2010). Accidental design eccentricity: Is it really
important for inelastic response of buildings to
stroang earthquakes? , Engineering structures,
Vol.30, pp.782-797.
Shahrooz, B.M. and Moehle, J.P. (1990). Seismic
Response and Design of Setback Buildings,
116, No. 5, pp. 1423-1439.
TEC 2007 Turkish Earthquake Code, (2007),
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement,
Specification Structures To Be Built In Disaster
Areas, Part III Earthquake Disaster Prevention,
Government of Republic of Turkey, Turkey
Tremblay, R. and Poncet, L. (2005). Seismic
performance of concentrically braced steel frames
in multistorey buildings with mass irregularity,
Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.131,
pp.13631375.
Tso, W.K. and Myslimaj, B. (2002). Effect of
strength distribution on the inelastic torsional
response of asymmetric structural systems In:
Proceedings of the 12th European conference
on earthquake engineering, CD ROM, London,
September 2002.
Tso, W.K. and Myslimaj, B. (2003). A yield
displacement distribution-based approach for
strength assignment to lateral force-resisting
elements having strength dependent stiffness,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 32, pp.23192351.
Tso, W.K. and Bozorgnia,Y. (1986).Effective
eccentricity for inelastic seismic response of
buildings, Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics, Volume.14, No.3,pp.413-427.
76. Tso, W.K. and Sadek, A.W.(1985). Inelastic

seismic response of simple eccentric structures,
Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics,
Vol. 13, No.2, pp.255-269.
77. Tso, W.K. and Sadek, A.W., (1989). Strength
eccentricity concept for inelastic analysis of
asymmetrical structures, Engineering structures,
Vol.11, No.3, pp.189-194.
78. UBC (1988). Uniform building code (UBC 88),
International conference of building officials
(ICBO), Whittier, California,1988.
(ICBO), Whittier, California, 1991.
82. Valmundsson, E.V. and Nau, J.M. (1997). Seismic
Response of Building Frames with Vertical
Structural Irregularities, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 123, No. 1, pp. 30-41.
83. Wong, C.M. and Tso, W.K. (1994). Seismic
Loading for Buildings with Setbacks, Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.
863-871.
84. Wood, S.L. (1992). Seismic Response of R/C
Frames with Irregular Profiles, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 2,
pp. 545-566.
(Discussion on this article must reach the editor before
March 31, 2013)

418

Review On Research Work On Various Irregularities

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Review On Research Work On Various Irregularities

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 39, No. 5, December 2012 - January 2013 pp. 393-418

Review of different Structural irregularities in buildings

When a building is subjected to seismic excitation,

(Horizontal) and Vertical irregularity as shown in

Irregular distribution of Mass,

Fig. 1 Classification of irregularities

A structure can be classified as irregular if the

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

EC8 2004 [26]

NBCC 2005 [57]

dmax 1.2 davg

rx > 3.33 eox

dmax 1.7 davg

ry > 3.33 eoy

rx2 > ls2 + eox2

Should not reduce abruptly

Si < 0.7Si+1 or Si < 0.8

Si < 0.7Si+1 Or Si < 0.8

SBi < 1.5 SBa (Fig 2c)

Rd < 0.3Tw < 0.1 Tw at any

SBi < 1.3 SBa

SBi < 1.3 SBa

IBC 2003 [37]

TEC 2007 [71]

ASCE 7.05 [5]

dmax 1.2 davg

dmax 1.2 davg

Oa > 50% S > 50%

Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

[ki = (i / hi) avr /

Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

(i+1 / hi +1) avr > 2.0 or

Si < 0.8 (Si+1 + Si+2 + Si+3)

[ci = (Ae)i / < 0.80]

SBi < 1.3 SBa

The Horizontal and vertical irregularity limits as per

SBi < 1.3 SBa

Figure 2 Shows the pictorial representation of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

A/L >0.15 - 0.20

A/L >0.15 - 0.20

A/L >0.15 - 0.20

Fig. 2 a) Re-entrant corner irregularity b) Irregular stiffness

represent the actual building systems. So predictions

Models Used for Analytical Study

The models used by authors can be broadly categorized

The elasto-plastic hysteretic model has been used by

was developed by Clough and this model was called

REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORKS

Previous yield in Tension

d. Takedas hysteretic model

In Fig. 3 Ki, rKi and Ku are intial, modified and

Earlier studies investigated the torsional effects on plan

realistic inelastic torsional response of plan irregular

on the ductility demand after the elastic range. The

DESCRIPTIONS OF DIFFERENT MODELS ADOPTED

Mass eccentric model with all

Stiffness eccentric Model with

Stiffness eccentric Model with

Fig. 4 Definitions of different types of eccentricity a) Mass