Recommended Citation
Postprint version. Published in Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Volume 27, Issue 2, February 1, 1998, pages 173-185.
The definitive version is available at https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199802)27:2<173::AID-EQE724>3.0.CO;2-W.
Abstract
Static torsional provisions in most seismic codes require that the lateral force at each floor level be applied at some distance from the reference centre at that floor. However, codes do not specify how to determine the locations of these centres. As a result, several different definitions of the reference centres are being used to implement the code analysis. This investigation examined how the results using various reference centres differ and which of these centres would lead to results that are in agreement with those of dynamic analysis. For this purpose three different buildings ranging form torsionally stiff to torsionally flexible were analysed. It was shown that for the class of buildings studied in this investigation that although the locations of the reference centres were quite different, the results were very similar and nearly independent of the reference centre. Comparison of results calculated from static code equivalent lateral force procedures and results from dynamic response spectrum analyses showed that the static code procedures led to design forces very close (flexible wall) or slightly conservative (stiff wall) when compared to the dynamic analysis for the torsionally stiff building. However, the static code procedures significantly underestimated the design forces of the stiff walls and significantly overestimated the design forces of the flexible walls for the torsionally flexible buildings.
Disciplines
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd..
Number of Pages
13
URL: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cenv_fac/342