Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Effect of in-plan eccentricity on vertically stiffness irregular buildings under

earthquake loading
Archana J. Satheesh *, B.R. Jayalekshmi , Katta Venkataramana
Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Karnataka Surathkal, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A regular building happens to be an idealized concept since real buildings have numerous discrepancies or ir­
Stiffness irregularity regularities along the height or along the planar directions. These buildings under the effect of wind, earthquake,
In-plan eccentricity or other dynamic loads, exhibit torsional behavior attributed to the significance of the higher modes of vibration.
Transient analysis
The present study evaluates the seismic responses of buildings with an integration of vertical stiffness irregu­
larities as well as in-plan eccentricity in stiffness distribution. Transient analysis was carried out on three
dimensional building frames with stiffness irregularities in plan as well as along the height by subjecting them to
seismic loading and the torsional response of the irregular configurations were assessed in terms of the variations
in natural period, base shear, roof deflection, roof rotation and storey drifts. Soft storey at the base of the building
is the most critical case which when combined with the in-plan stiffness eccentricity has the most adverse effect
on the seismic behavior of the buildings. A new coefficient to quantify the irregularity in a vertically stiffness
irregular building based on its geometrical dimensions, in-plan stiffness eccentricity and location of stiffness
irregularity along the height has also been proposed.

1. Introduction Further, in the recent past, studies on the seismic behavior of

multi-storey irregular buildings have also escalated, mainly due to the
Regular building is more of an idealization and practically, majority efficiency of nonlinear dynamic programming and coding [3]. Dimova
of the buildings are irregular in nature. Major seismic codes classify and Alashki [4] stated that even if the symmetric building has minor
structural irregularities into irregularities in plan and elevation, whereas accidental eccentricities, they exhibited irregular behaviour and hence
quite often the structural irregularity is present in buildings as a com­ by application of static torsional moments, the accidental torsional ef­
bination. The irregularity in buildings due to asymmetric placement of fects cannot be estimated accurately. Ladinovic and Folic [5] studied
mass, stiffness and strength along the plan leading to torsional behavior, asymmetry in buildings by employing a base shear and torque (BST)
causes the most severe damages since it leads to floor rotations in surface. Michalis et al. [6] carried out an incremental dynamic analysis
addition to translations as observed from various earthquake damage on a nine-storey steel frame building, with irregularities in; stiffness,
histories. This issue has been under scrutiny for over 60 years since the strength, combined stiffness and strength and the capacities for several
emergence of seismic engineering as a distinct field of engineering [1]. limit-states from elasticity to a final instable state were calculated.
Stiffness irregularity is the most widely researched type of irregu­ Sadasiva et al. [7] studied the stiffness irregular buildings with variation
larity among the vertical variants of irregularity in buildings. Stiffness in inter-storey height causing stiffness reductions at various levels. Time
irregularity has the highest seismic demand especially in combination history analysis was employed for this purpose by subjecting the
with strength variations and makes the buildings more vulnerable in buildings to earthquake ground motions, and the maximum inter-storey
comparison to other irregularities. Ali-Ali and Krawinkler [2] studied in drift ratio was evaluated to compare the responses of regular and
detail the responses of buildings with irregularities in mass, stiffness and irregular structures. Whereas, D’Ambrisi et al. [8] studied the seismic
strength individually and also in combination. It was concluded that the performance of irregular 4-storey existing RC framed structures sub­
responses of the buildings were more influenced by the stiffness irreg­ jected to seismic loading using the computer code Seismo Structure and
ularities as compared to the mass irregularities of the same magnitude. it was concluded that even lower values of the eccentricity lead to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.J. Satheesh), [email protected] (B.R. Jayalekshmi), [email protected] (K. Venkataramana).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106251
Received 12 February 2020; Received in revised form 28 May 2020; Accepted 30 May 2020
Available online 7 August 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

considerable variations in the seismic performance of the structure. ratio from the structural response to torsional forces in real multi-storey
Benavent-Climent et al. [9] carried out several uniaxial shaking table buildings. A major factor in seismic response evaluation and a signifi­
tests on a scaled RC framed structure and it was inferred that even within cant reason for the controversies in the area of asymmetric buildings is
the elastic range, the presence of eccentricity increases the displacement the application of an appropriate set of ground motions [25].
demand in the frames by about 30%. The literature review shows that the type of analysis, coupling of
Varadharajan et al. [10] summarized the research works carried out irregularities, and a number of other factors leading to eccentricities in a
previously on different classifications of structural irregularities and building are substantial parameters which are to be considered in the
discussed the criteria and limits as per different codes of practice. Var­ study of irregular buildings. Researches on single storey irregular
adharajan et al. [11] proposed an index to quantify mass, stiffness and buildings are more in number than those on multi-storey irregular
strength irregularity in terms of its magnitude, location and the dynamic buildings. Moreover, regularity studies and indices based on single
characteristics of the building. Ouazir et al. [12] investigated the effects storey models cannot be put into application to quantify irregular multi-
of the torsional coupling and soft storey effects on the seismic behavior storey buildings. Also, dynamic analysis especially time history methods
of reinforced concrete frame buildings. For the buildings considered, the were found to be more reliable and accurate in comparison to that of
maximum storey drift was concentrated on the first storey and further, static pushover methods. Overall, it was concluded by many researchers
the variation in displacement and storey drift of irregular building were that the extent of irregularity depends on the type, magnitude and
more dependent on the coupling of the stiffness ratio and in-plan location of the irregularities. The most significant problem associated
eccentricity. with discontinuous stiffness is soft storey at the ground level which
Majority of the initial research work was based on elastic models but occurs when the first storey of a frame becomes more flexible or less stiff
then gave way to studies on inelastic building models. Further, these than the one above it. Soft stories are less stiff which can be problematic
building models were also subjected to linear and nonlinear analysis if present at any height. Since the cumulative loads are highest at the
which was further bifurcated into the static and dynamic analysis. base of the building, this discontinuity in stiffness between the first and
Kumar and Gornale [13] carried out a review of the research work done second floor results in the worst condition and can create significant
on the torsionally balanced and unbalanced buildings subjected to variations in the seismic response of the buildings. It can be inferred that
pushover analysis. Kara and Celep [14] studied the seismic effect of the literature on irregular buildings are available in plenty but the
structural irregularity due to discontinuous column in a plane frame by combination of irregularity along the height of a building and in-plan
carrying out linear and non-linear static and dynamic analyses of the eccentricity is rarely researched. The studies on the combination of
structural system. Herrera et al. [15] studied an original building and its vertical stiffness irregularity and in-plan eccentricity or torsional
redesigned version on which nonlinear static analysis and non-linear 3D coupling due to the integration of various irregularities together are
dynamic analysis were applied. Maximum torsional effects were limited. Hence, the effect of in-plan eccentricity in buildings with soft
observed at the re-entrant corners of the irregular plan, which was found storeys at bottom, middle and upper floor levels is evaluated in this
to reduce in mid-rise buildings by incorporating a rigid diaphragm. study. Aspect ratio of buildings, stiffness modification and in-plan ec­
Similarly, La Brusco et al. [16] carried out the seismic study of a real RC centricity are the other variables considered and the seismic responses of
existing building by performing pseudo-dynamic elastic, non-linear the generated groups of buildings are evaluated in terms of natural
static analysis and non-linear dynamic analysis as per EC8 and period, seismic base shear, roof deflection and storey drift. The torsional
concluded that the seismic performance in the ultimate limit state can be behavior of the buildings is assessed with respect to the measured roof
said to be highly dependent on the analysis type. Dutta et al. [17] carried rotation and torsional resultants and further a coefficient ‘β’ purely
out case studies to evaluate seismic behavior of different configurations based on the geometric dimensions of the building has been proposed
of irregular structures employing both response spectrum and non-linear which can be utilized to assess the combination of vertical and in-plan
time history analyses. Bakalis and Makarios [18] stated that, in order to stiffness eccentricity in buildings. Employing this coefficient, the natu­
consider the effect of dynamic eccentricities, its magnitude along with ral period and base shear values of any stiffness irregular building can be
the appropriate horizontal orientation of the lateral static floor force predicted, using which, the base shear of a building having soft stories at
should be known. The pushover analysis method even after the appli­ any height from the base can be computed. Consecutively the structural
cation of improvement techniques was not as accurate in comparison system can be planned and designed suitably for better performance
with dynamic analysis. under the action of earthquake forces.
Numerous studies have focused on set-back structures and most of
the researchers have observed a variation in drift demand in the tower 2. Structural idealisation
portion of the set-back structures due to an abrupt change in stiffness at
the level of the setbacks. Athanassiadou [19] studied ten-storey 2D plane The buildings considered for the study of irregularities were three-
frames with large setbacks in the upper storeys subjected to inelastic dimensional (3D) idealized frames of 5 storey, 10 storey and 15 storey
pushover analysis and dynamic time history analysis for the input buildings storeys (aspect ratio 0.937, 1.875 and 2.813) categorized into
ground motions. Sarkar et al. [20] and Varadharajan et al. [21] groups A, B and C respectively. The storey height and bay length of all
attempted to quantify the setback irregularity along with a modified the building frames were chosen as 3 m and 4 m respectively. The floor
equation for estimating the fundamental natural period in the case of 2D slab and the raft slab thicknesses were taken as 0.15 m and 0.5 m
and 3D frames with setback irregularity. Georgoussis et al. [22] carried respectively. The beam dimensions of 0.3 × 0.4 m and column di­
out an approximate analysis of setback buildings by provision of two mensions of 0.4 m × 0.4 m, 0.5 m × 0.5 m and 0.6 m × 0.6 m were
structural walls through the full height of the tower section. considered for the 5, 10 and 15 storey regular buildings respectively and
Improper load applications lead to irregularities in buildings which labeled as 5R, 10R and 15R. The dimensions of building components
further generates complex structural behavior. Earthquake loads give were selected and the structural design was carried out as per Indian
rise to extra shear, torsion, etc. on irregular buildings and therefore standard codes IS 456:2000 and IS 13920:2016 [26]. Concrete of M25
structural irregularities affect their seismic performance significantly. grade and steel of Fe 415 grade were considered as the material for the
Stathopoulos and Anagnostopoulos [23] investigated the seismic structural elements. The live loads of 3.0 kN/m2 and 1.5 kN/m2 were
response of eccentric, 3 and 5 storey buildings and studied the variation provided on floor and roof respectively as per [33]. The buildings were
of ductility demands of the frames on the flexible side of the buildings idealized as 3D frames in finite element software LS-DYNA using
and the stiff side and hence suggested a reassessment of the existent code resultant Hughes-Liu beam elements with six degrees of freedom at each
provisions. Bosco et al. [24] described a new technique for the assess­ node. The roof, floor and foundation slabs were modeled with
ment of the in-plan eccentricity and the torsional to lateral frequency four-noded Hughes-Liu shell elements with bending and membrane

2
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

capabilities and six degrees of freedom at each node. MAT_CONCRE­ irregular building with soft storey at the middle floor level. The eleva­
TE_EC2 which is a non-linear concrete material type in LS-DYNA was tion of the regular buildings 5R, 10R and 15R along with the plan reg­
adopted as the material for the Hughes-Liu elements to represent a ular configurations in group A, group B and group C (AIS0, BIS0 and
smeared combination of concrete and reinforcing steel. This material CIS0) are schematically represented in Fig. 1. The location of the soft
model is used generally for basic structural applications including cyclic storeys with change in inter-storey height at the top, middle and bottom
loading or seismic loading. The input data includes mass density, of the buildings are highlighted in Fig. 1.
compressive strength, tensile stress of concrete, Young’s modulus, ulti­ A second set of buildings was considered in which torsional irregu­
mate stress, Poisson’s ratio of reinforcement and the reinforcement ratio larities were incorporated within the initial set of buildings having soft
along both the directions. Concrete cracking in tension and crushing in stories at different locations along the height. To incorporate in-plan
compression, reinforcement yield, and hardening and failure as per stiffness eccentricity, column dimensions were varied in a particular
Eurocode 2 are also included in this material model. Using these inputs fashion about a central Y axis, keeping the center of mass constant.
the stress strain relations are generated automatically as per the data and Numerous cases with in-plan stiffness irregularities were generated in
calculations from Eurocode 2. This particular material model is also used this manner, out of which, a group of 8 configurations designated as IS1–
for thermal and fire analysis of concrete sections. In order to represent IS8 with dynamic eccentricities (ed) in the range of 0.05–0.3 in terms of
the non-linearity of the reinforced concrete sections and considering the total plan width (L) were considered in the study. For example, in the
seismic analysis, Type 6 Mander model [27] was employed in the model case of group A, 5R building, the columns are of dimensions 400 mm ×
and mesh size of 1 m was used to discretize all the building components. 400 mm. To generate in-plan stiffness irregularity, in AIS1, dimensions
Since the interaction between soil and structure is neglected in this of the columns along the second axis are changed to 380mmX 400 mm
study, the base is considered fixed, restricting the degrees of freedom of and dimensions of the columns along the fourth axis to 420mmX 400
the node in the raft foundation or the base of the building. For the dy­ mm, thus keeping the total mass as in the case of 5R constant as well as
namic analysis, the degree of freedom along the direction of application the stiffness distribution about the X axis symmetrical. Similarly, pat­
of the seismic load is alone released keeping all the other degrees terns of increasing in-plan eccentricity have been generated from IS1 to
restricted. IS8 by changing the column dimensions about the Y axis.
Seismic response variations in buildings due to stiffness irregularity Fig. 2 shows the in-plan stiffness irregular configurations AIS1 to
is studied here wherein, stiffness irregularities were provided at the AIS8 belonging to group A generated from the plan regular configura­
lower, middle and upper floor levels in the 5, 10 and 15 storey plan tion IS0 with initial column size 400 mm × 400 mm. The dynamic ec­
regular building frames which are designated as the AIS0, BIS0 and CIS0 centricities of the stiffness irregular buildings are given in Table 2. Three
respectively. As per IS 1893:2016 [28]; the criterion of vertical stiffness height variants namely, A, B and C groups with stiffness modifications
irregularity or soft storey irregularity is considered to exist when the K0 to K4 and eccentricity variants IS0 to IS8 were considered in totality.
stiffness of a storey is less than that of the storey above it. As per FEMA The nomenclature of the building models indicated the height of the
450, ASCE 7-16 [34,35], the lateral stiffness of a soft storey is less than
70% of that in the storey above or less than 80% of the average stiffness
of the three stories above. A change in inter-storey height along the
height of the building results in a change in the storey stiffness. Re­
lationships between the storey stiffness due to a modified inter-storey
height, hm can be obtained for various types of lateral force-resisting
systems as in Sadashiva et al. [7]. Here, the modified lateral stiffness
at a particular storey, Km, is the product of the initial lateral stiffness at
the storey, Ko and the stiffness modification factor corresponding to the
lateral force-resisting system as given by Equation (1):
ho 3
Km = [ ] Ko (1)
hm
The nominal height of storey (ho) was taken as 3 m. Four inter-storey
height variations were provided in the buildings as shown in Table 1 to
give modified stiffness, K1 to K4. The storey heights at the bottom,
middle and top floor levels were varied from 3 m to 3.25 m, 3.5 m, 3.75
m and 4 m to generate modified stiffness K1 to K4.
This forms the first set of buildings with three different aspect ratios
0.937, 1.875 and 2.813 with modified storey stiffness K1 to K4 located at
the top, middle and bottom levels. These buildings with vertical irreg­
ularities but without any in-plan eccentricity were designated as AIS0,
BIS0 and CIS0 in group A, group B and group C buildings respectively.
Further a subscript notation, ‘b’, ‘m’ or ‘t’ corresponding to bottom,
middle or top floor level was also given to indicate the location of ir­
regularity. Therefore CIS0m corresponds to the 15 storey vertically

Table 1
Modified storey stiffness.
Modified Modified inter-storey height (hm) Modified stiffness (ho/
stiffness (m) hm)3K0

K1 3.25 0.79
K2 3.5 0.64
K3 3.75 0.51
K4 4 0.43
Fig. 1. Elevation of plan regular buildings of group A, group B and group C.

3
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 2. In-plan stiffness irregular configurations in Group A.

4
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Table 2 building is discretized by beam and shell elements following a mesh size
Design eccentricities of the stiffness irregular building configurations. of 1 m. Each element is mobilized into axial, bending and torsional ef­
Building Static eccentricity (es/ Design eccentricity ed/L fects, incorporating the boundary conditions and dynamic analysis is
configuration (es) L)% (ed) carried out using commercial software package LS-DYNA.
IS0 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.05 408 buildings generated in this manner were modeled in LS-DYNA
IS1 0.24 1.50 1.16 0.07 software and were subjected to transient analysis using El-Centro
IS2 0.48 2.99 1.52 0.09 ground motion (Imperial Valley, South California, 1940) with a PGA
IS3 0.71 4.44 1.87 0.12 of 0.343g. The El-Centro earthquake data is widely considered as the
IS4 0.95 5.95 2.23 0.14
IS5 1.41 8.83 2.92 0.18
ground motion data in the seismic analysis and has high amplitude
IS6 1.86 11.63 3.59 0.22 frequency contents in the range of fundamental frequency of buildings
IS7 2.07 12.91 3.90 0.24 considered here. The acceleration time history plot and Fourier spec­
IS8 2.67 16.68 4.80 0.30 trum plot of El-Centro earthquake data are given in Figs. 4 and 5
respectively and it can be observed that this ground motion contains
strong frequency contents in the range of 1Hz–2.5Hz. Time history
building, location and in-plan eccentricity of the irregularities, for
analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of the combination of
example, AIS4t denotes the 5 storey building with in-plan eccentricity of
vertical irregularities with in-plan eccentricity on the seismic response
0.14 as well as stiffness modification at the top floor.
of the frames in terms of fundamental natural period, base shear, roof
Fig. 3 shows the building models of the stiffness irregular buildings
deflection, storey drifts, torsional resultant and roof rotation. Further,
BIS8b, BIS8m and BIS8t with modified inter-storey height at the bottom,
based on these results, irregularity indices were also developed to
middle and top floor levels respectively.
quantify the combinations of stiffness irregularities and prediction
equations were established through regression analysis to estimate the
3. Methodology
natural period and base shear of the irregular buildings based on in-plan
eccentricity.
Buildings of 5, 10 and 15 storeys height with soft storeys at the top,
middle and bottom floor levels of the buildings were considered. Stiff­
ness irregularity or soft storey irregularity exists in a building when 4. Results and discussion
stiffness of any storey is less than that of the storey above it. Hence inter-
storey height was modified in the buildings so as to give stiffness re­ The variations in seismic and torsional behaviour of 408 building
ductions K1 to K4 which was applied at the bottom, middle and top floor frames due to inclusion of stiffness irregularities along the height as well
locations. Further, to incorporate in-plan eccentricity in the vertically as in plan were evaluated. The variations in fundamental natural period
irregular buildings, eight different plan configurations IS1-IS8 having were studied. Their absolute maximum responses of base shear, roof
torsional irregularities as per IS 1893:2016 [28] were considered. rotation, torsional resultant, roof displacement and storey drift were
The determination of the fundamental natural period is an integral obtained and percentage difference with respect to the regular frames
part of the lateral load calculation in a building. Every building has it’s were also computed. A stiffness irregularity coefficient has also been
sets of frequencies in which it starts vibrating if initiated by motion due proposed which quantifies the effect of in-plan eccentricity in buildings
to seismic or wind forces or due to any other building characteristics. with soft stories.
The most straightforward method to estimate the fundamental period is
to employ the empirical formula for the determination of the approxi­
4.1. Variation in fundamental natural period
mate natural period as per the international codes. But in practice, the
mode shapes of vibrations and the corresponding frequencies of a
Fundamental natural period is the time period of vibration of the
building are estimated by eigenvalue analysis. In this study eigenvalue
building in its first mode or the time taken for one cycle of building’s
analysis was carried out on the three-dimensional building models
vibration in the first mode. The fundamental natural period of vibration
generated using finite element software LS-DYNA in order to determine
is an intrinsic property of a structure and the natural periods of the
the natural period of vibration of the buildings and thus estimate the
stiffness irregular buildings were determined from eigenvalue analyses
seismic load effects in the buildings. In finite element method, the
of building frames. Fig. 6 shows the variation of the fundamental natural
building is discretized into finite number of small elements for an ac­
period of 5, 10 and 15 storey frames with modified storey stiffness K1 to
curate analysis of the building. In this study each component of the
K4 as compared to that of the regular building frames. The natural

Fig. 3. FEM models of the stiffness irregular buildings in group B.

5
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 4. Acceleration time history plot of El-Centro ground motion.

Fig. 5. Fourier spectrum plot of El-Centro ground motion.

periods of the 5R, 10R and 15R buildings, are obtained in the range of observed with respect to the corresponding plan regular IS0 configura­
0.578s–1.85s and that of the IS0 buildings with vertical stiffness irreg­ tions. Hence, the introduction of in-plan eccentricity in soft stories even
ularity are in the range of 0.59s–2.78s. Among the first set of buildings at the upper levels of buildings causes considerable variation in its
without any change in in-plan eccentricity or comparing among the IS0 natural period. The presence of stiffness irregularities tends to increase
configurations, it can be observed that the location of soft storeys with the overall flexibility of a structure and besides, the presence of torsion
stiffness reductions at the base of the buildings increases the natural further amplifies the effect of flexibility. Fundamental natural period
period. The buildings with soft stories at the ground floor level, has the being an inherent property of a structural system, any alterations in mass
highest variation in natural period in comparison to that of the regular or stiffness in the buildings reflects directly as the change in the natural
frame buildings. Considering this variation, CIS0b with the modified period of the building. The important parameters affecting the torsional
storey stiffness K4 at the bottom floor level has the highest variation in response of the asymmetric buildings are the eccentricity ratio and the
the natural period of 37% with respect to 15R. torsional to lateral frequency ratio. The frequency ratio is defined as:
Considering the second set of in-plan eccentric buildings, it is ωθ
observed that the inclusion of in-plan eccentricity increases the funda­ Ω= (2)
ωy
mental natural period in comparison to that of the in-plan regular IS0
buildings. Therefore, the change in natural period in buildings with Where, ωθ is the uncoupled elastic torsional frequency and ωy is the
stiffness irregularity along height as well as in-plan with respect to the uncoupled elastic translational frequency of the building. As per IS
in-plan regular buildings increases with reduction in storey stiffness 1893:2016 [28]; if the natural period corresponding to the torsional
which is further escalated due to change in ed/L of the buildings. In the mode is greater than that in the translational modes of vibration or if Ω is
irregular frames with stiffness reduction up to 70% (K1) and ed/L less less than 1, then the building can be categorized as a torsionally flexible
than 0.14, the variation of the natural period in buildings with soft or irregular one. The building response is mainly translational if Ω is
stories at the bottom floor level is nominal and less than 20% with greater than 1. According to Kan and Chopra [29]; planar behaviors are
respect to IS0 frames and 44% with respect to the regular frames. exhibited by buildings with very small eccentricities or if Ω ≥ 2. Fre­
Whereas in the case of stiffness modification K4 and ed/L of 0.14, quency ratio, Ω decreases in all the three groups of buildings as ed/L
considerable increase in natural period up to 70% with respect to the increases.S8 with the highest in-plan eccentricity ratio has the least Ω
regular buildings and 34% in comparison to IS0 buildings can be ratio among all the groups. Table 3 lists the frequency ratios of buildings
observed. When the storeys at the bottom of the frame have reduction in of IS8 configuration of the 15 storey buildings under 4 stiffness modi­
stiffness along with in-plan eccentricity, natural period increases and fications K1 to K4. For the configurations from IS1 to IS8, Ω is obtained in
becomes the highest in IS8b with a stiffness modification of K4. the range of 1.215 to 0.730. Ω is lesser for the configurations with higher
Considering all the variations in stiffness and in-plan eccentricities, ed/L and hence AIS8b, BIS8b and CIS8b with modified stiffness K4 with
provision of modified inter-storey height and in-plan eccentricity at the frequency ratios of 0.828, 0.775 and 0.730 are those with maximum
lower level of the buildings increases the natural period by maximum of torsional coupling.
71.8% in group A, 67% in group B and 54.6% in group C, in comparison
to corresponding IS0 buildings as a result of torsional coupling. IS8 with
highest ed/L ratio has the highest natural period in all groups. It can be 4.2. Variation in seismic base shear
concluded that due to the presence of stiffness modification along the
building height, the natural period increases and becomes the highest Base shear is the maximum force experienced at the base of a
when the stiffness modification is present at the bottom levels. When the building when it gets affected by earthquake ground motion. The
columns at the higher floor levels have modified stiffness in between K3 seismic base shear ratio or the base shear expressed in terms of the total
to K4, in combination with ed/L of 0.3, maximum variation in natural seismic weight (W) of the building configurations, under the effect of El-
period of 24% in group A, 38% in group B and 39% in group C is Centro earthquake ground motion is as shown in Fig. 7. It can be

6
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 6. Variations in fundamental natural period in group A, group B and group C stiffness irregular buildings.

significant variation in base shear ratio. However, due to the presence of

Table 3
soft storeys at various locations along the building height, a decrease in
Frequency ratios of the stiffness irregular buildings.
base shear ratio is observed with respect to the regular frames. This
Frequency ratio (Ω) reduction in base shear is mainly due to the increase in the natural
Building configuration K1 K2 K3 K4 period in buildings due to the presence of stiffness irregularity leading to
AIS8b 1.043 0.925 0.838 0.828 increased flexibility in the buildings. In the case of buildings without
AIS8m 1.073 0.904 0.845 0.845 eccentricity, due to the presence of the soft storey at the lower floor
AIS8t 1.111 0.863 0.869 0.86
BIS8b 1.001 0.936 0.821 0.775
level, the base shear ratio decreases by a maximum of 25% in CIS0b in
BIS8m 1.004 0.881 0.834 0.811 comparison to the regular buildings.
BIS8t 1.042 0.869 0.841 0.846 Considering the buildings with combination of vertical as well as in-
CIS8b 0.955 0.925 0.732 0.73 plan stiffness irregularity along the bottom half of the frames, the
CIS8m 0.996 0.904 0.752 0.749
variation in base shear ratio due to stiffness modification is amplified
CIS8t 1.004 0.863 0.811 0.78
remarkably by the incorporation of in-plan eccentricity. The maximum
reduction in base shear due to in-plan eccentricity with respect to the in-
observed that the seismic base shear ratios of the buildings considered plan regular IS0 frames are observed in AIS8b, BIS8b and CIS8b config­
here decrease with an increase in the aspect ratio of the buildings. The urations with a modified storey of stiffness K4 as 18%, 22% and 36%
base shear ratios of the group C, group B and group A buildings are respectively. The highest decrease of base shear in buildings with in-plan
obtained in the range of 0.061W–0.118W. It can be observed that the stiffness eccentricity in comparison to the 15R building is obtained in
location of the soft storey along the building height does not give CIS8b as 51%. Considering the buildings with the soft storey of stiffness

7
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 7. Variation in base shear ratios of group A, group B and group C stiffness irregular buildings.

reduction K1 and ed/L of 0.14 at the lower floor levels, the maximum configuration and 18% with respect to that of IS0 configuration.
decrease in base shear ratio is observed as 27% in comparison to the Whereas considering the combination K4 with ed/L of 0.3 at the higher
regular buildings and 18% in comparison to IS0 frames. When buildings storey levels, the maximum decrease in base shear becomes 28% as
with reduced storey stiffness K1 at the lower levels which have ed/L of compared to the regular frame and 22% as compared to IS0 frame.
0.3, the maximum decrease in the base shear ratio is 35% as compared to Therefore the in-plan eccentricity can be said to cause a considerable
the regular frame (R) and 25% as compared to plan regular frame (IS0). decrease in the base shear of stiffness irregular buildings which have the
However, the presence of the same irregularities at the upper floor soft storey at any floor level. Fig. 8 shows the time history plots of base
levels, leads to a maximum variation of 20% with respect to that of R shear in CIS0b and CIS8b buildings in comparison to that of 15R

Fig. 8. Time history of base shear of 15R and stiffness irregular buildings CIS0b and CIS8b with stiffness reduction K4.

8
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

building. be defined as the lateral displacement of one level of a multi-storey

building relative to the level below it. The greater the storey drift, the
4.3. Variation in roof deflection higher the likelihood of damage in the building. IS 1893:2016 [28]
specifies that storey drift should not be greater than 0.004 of the storey
Roof deflection values are normalized in terms of the buildings height under the action of the design base shear. IBC 2015 sets the
height (H) and these roof deflection ratios of the 5, 10 and 15 storey maximum drift for regular buildings between 0.7% and 2.5% of storey
regular buildings are in the range of 0.0052H–0.0085H. It can be height, while EC 8 specifies it between 1% and 1.5%. The inter-storey
observed that due to stiffness reduction in storeys along the height of the drift or the difference in the displacements of two consecutive floor
building, roof deflection increases. The roof deflections of the buildings levels normalized by the inter-storey height of the IS0 and IS4 config­
increase with an increase in aspect ratio and also vary with the location urations belonging to all the three groups of buildings are shown in
of irregularity. The maximum roof deflections of the frames are higher Figs. 11, 12 and 13. The IS4 configuration has an ed/L of 0.14 which is
when the soft stories are present at the bottom of the frames. The roof the mean of the dynamic eccentricities of the stiffness irregular patterns
deflection ratios of the stiffness irregular buildings is higher when the considered here. It can be observed that the storey drift pattern shows a
soft stories are present in the lower floor levels as compared to the significant variation at the location of stiffness irregularity and this
presence of soft storeys at the upper floor. Among the group C buildings, variation is substantially accentuated when in-plan eccentricity is also
when the soft storeys with stiffness modification K4 are located at the present in the buildings. The presence of soft storey remarkably in­
lower floor level, the maximum roof deflection ratio increases by 80% creases the storey drift demand in the particular storey level and reduces
with respect to that of 15R building configuration. In group A, group B the drifts in the others. Therefore storey drift demand is susceptible to
and group C buildings with stiffness reduction up to 70% (modified the variation in stiffness along the height of a building. The pattern of
stiffness K1) at the lower storey, 18%, 59% and 63% individual varia­ variation of storey drifts at the vicinity of the stiffness irregularity in the
tions in roof deflection ratio are observed in comparison to that of the buildings is similar in all the groups considered here. For the in-plan
regular buildings. The variation in maximum roof deflection due to regular models with soft stories, increase in the first-storey height has
stiffness modification along the height is further escalated by the great influence on storey drift response. The storey drifts are higher in 5
incorporation of in-plan eccentricity up to a maximum of 68% in group C storey buildings in comparison to the 10 and 15 storey buildings. The
buildings. The highest roof deflection of 0.016H is observed in CIS8b maximum storey drifts of IS0 buildings in 5, 10 and 15 storey variants
building with a stiffness modification K4. Nominal variations of 5%–18% are 1.25%, 0.89% and 0.85% respectively. In the case of plan irregular
in group A, 4%–20% in group B and 5%–21% in group C in roof buildings, the in-plan stiffness eccentricity increases the storey drift
deflection ratios are obtained in irregular buildings with stiffness demand in comparison with the IS0 buildings. The maximum storey drift
modification K1 at the upper storey with respect to the plan regular IS0t of IS4 building with in-plan eccentricity are 1.5%, 1.15% and 0.92% in
buildings. However, in buildings with stiffness modification K1 at the group A, group B and group C buildings respectively.
lower floors, the roof deflection ratios increase by a maximum of 34% Considering the buildings with soft storeys having stiffness modifi­
with respect to IS0 and 40% with respect to the regular frame. cation K4 at the lower floor levels, the variation of storey drift in IS4 for 5
In group C buildings, roof deflection ratio has a maximum variation storey, 10 storey and 15 storey buildings are 38%, 42% and 52% in
of 115% with respect to that of the regular buildings and 68% with the comparison to that of IS0 buildings. This variation increases to 72%,
IS0 buildings due to the effect of the in-plan eccentricity of 0.3L in 85% and 89% in the case of IS8 buildings for an ed/L of 0.3. In com­
combination with soft storey having stiffness reduction K4 at the lower parison to the storey drift demands of the regular buildings, the drift
floor level. Buildings with ed/L of 0.14, has a maximum variation of 45% demand of the IS4 configuration with stiffness modification K4 at the
and 23% with respect to that of IS0 frames when the stiffness irregu­ lower floor level increases by 86%–273%, by 72%–115% in the case of
larities are present at the bottom and the top storey levels respectively. soft storey at the middle floor level and by 75%–156% in the case of soft
However, when the same in-plan irregularities have an ed/L of 0.3, the storey at the top floor level. When the stiffness modification K1 is present
maximum variation in roof deflection becomes 68% and 34% with at the lower floor levels, increase of 51% with respect to IS0 building and
respect to that of IS0 frames. Fig. 9 shows the time history plot of roof 108% with respect to regular buildings is observed. Comparing the
deflection in CIS0b and CIS8b buildings with stiffness reduction K4. The variation of storey drifts obtained in buildings with stiffness modifica­
roof deflections of buildings with varying locations of stiffness modifi­ tion, K1 and K4, the highest variation of 56% is obtained in the frames
cations under the application of El-Centro ground motion are repre­ with soft stories at lower floor levels. Storey drift pattern along with the
sented in Fig. 10. roof displacement constitutes the global deformation of the building and
therefore even slight variation in the pattern of stiffness eccentricity
especially in the ground floor is found to cause considerable changes in
4.4. Variation in storey drift
the seismic response of the building in totality. Hence it can be observed
that storey drift of the group A buildings with stiffness irregularities
Storey drift relates to the lateral deflections within a building or can

Fig. 9. Time history of roof deflection of 15R and stiffness irregular buildings CIS0b and CIS8b with stiffness reduction K4.

9
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 10. Variation in roof deflection ratio in group A, group B and group C stiffness irregular buildings.

along the bottom floor level exceeds 0.004 times the storey height as per be seen from Fig. 14 that when the soft storeys are present in the bottom
limits set by IS 1893:2016 [28]. When in-plan eccentricity is present floor level of the building, roof rotation is the highest due to the
along with the soft storey effects, storey drifts further increases. Whereas increased flexibility at the base of the buildings giving rise to torsional
in the case of group B and group C buildings the limits are exceeded moments which leads to rotation of the building. The roof rotation of
when soft storey is present at the bottom floor level in combination with group C buildings with a modified stiffness K4 at the bottom floor level
stiffness eccentricity greater than 0.14L. increases by 2.5 times in comparison with that of the regular frames.
Whereas, in the case of modified stiffness K1 at the lower floor level, the
maximum roof rotation increases by 150% with respect to that of the
4.5. Variation in roof rotation
regular building.
Among the set of buildings with in-plan eccentricity, it is observed
Roof rotation is the maximum rotation expressed in Radians that the
that distinct variation is present between the roof rotations of the
building undergoes as a result of the torsional effect induced by the in-
building configurations IS1-IS8 with respect to that of IS0 buildings. IS8
plan irregularity. The roof rotation is determined by evaluating the
configuration with the highest ed/L has the highest roof rotation, among
maximum storey displacements at the extreme corners of the building
all the aspect ratio variants. CIS8b with a stiffness modification K4 at the
roof. The relative displacement of the building by considering the roof
lower floor has the highest roof rotation as 0.077 rad; whereas AIS1t
corners is divided by the plan width to obtain roof rotation in Radians.
with a modified stiffness K1 at the upper floor level has 0.0115 rad is the
The maximum roof rotation is highest for the 15 storey buildings. It can

10
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 11. Variation in storey drifts patterns on IS0 and IS4 in group A buildings.

minimum observed rotation. The roof rotation of CIS8b becomes 3.5 The variations of torsional moments in the corner column of the stiffness
times as that of CIS0b due to an ed/L of 0.3 in in-plan stiffness distri­ irregular building configurations are shown in Fig. 15. The torsional
bution and stiffness reduction K4 at the bottom floor levels. However, moments of the buildings with soft storeys at the lower floor levels have
CIS8t with stiffness modification K1 at the upper floor levels increases a maximum variation of 51% with respect to that of the buildings with
the roof rotation considerably by 150% as compared to the CIS0 soft storeys at the upper floor levels. The torsional moments of the
buildings. Considering buildings with an in-plan eccentricity of 0.14L at corner columns are the highest in the buildings with soft storey at the
the upper floor level, roof rotation has a variation of 60–120% and at the bottom floor level. The torsional moment increases with an increase in
lower floor level, it has a variation of 96–196% with respect to the stiffness reductions of the irregular buildings considered. The torsional
corresponding IS0 building. When soft storey with stiffness reduction K1 resultants of the buildings with stiffness reduction K1 is higher by a
is present at the bottom half of the buildings along with ed/L less than maximum of 45% with respect to the K0 buildings. Considering IS4b with
0.1, the increase in roof rotation reaches a maximum of 85% in com­ an ed/L of 0.14 has a maximum increase in torsional moment by 69%
parison to that of the vertically irregular IS0 buildings. This implies that with respect to that of IS0b. Comparing IS4b and IS8b buildings, torsional
the incorporation of in-plan eccentricity significantly escalates variation moments are higher in the latter as compared to the former by a
in roof rotation due to stiffness irregularities especially when the soft maximum of 140%. In the case of buildings with irregularities at the
storeys are located at the lower floor levels. Therefore in order to reduce upper floor level, IS4t with an ed/L of 0.14 has a maximum increase in
the torsional effects due to stiffness irregularities it is recommended to torsional moment by 48% with respect to that of IS0t. Torsional re­
avoid any change in stiffness at the bottom floor of a building. Also if any sultants in the columns increase significantly due to the presence of in-
variation in stiffness is unavoidable at the ground floor levels, it should plan eccentricity. Therefore any variation in stiffness should be
be ensured that they are kept clear of any in-plan eccentricity since even distributed throughout the floor without causing in-plan stiffness ec­
the slightest of eccentricity can induce root rotations due to torsion. centricities. In unavoidable circumstances, the columns of the irregular
building should be adequately designed so as to minimize the occur­
4.6. Variation in torsional resultant rences of any structural damages due to the torsional moments devel­
oped. Fig. 16 shows the times history of torsional moments in the corner
An accurate evaluation of the torsional response is quite complex columns of CIS0b and CIS8b buildings with stiffness reduction K4 in
because the coupled lateral-torsion vibration modes of the entire comparison with that of 15R.
building are to be taken into account by carrying out 3D response
assessment. Approximately, the torsional resultant or the highest 4.7. Stiffness irregularity coefficient
torsional moments in the corner columns are obtained from the transient
analysis. The static torsional responses are determined by computing the Many studies have attempted to quantify the irregularity of buildings
twist in the buildings implied by the roof rotation characteristics and the using regularity or irregularity coefficients or indices, based on the ge­
torsional moment induced in the columns. The torsional resultants are ometry of the buildings. Many irregularity studies have been carried out
observed to increase with an increase in the aspect ratio of the buildings. on stepped building frames based on which irregularity indices for such

11
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 12. Variation in storey drifts patterns on IS0 and IS4 in group B buildings.

buildings with combination of mass and stiffness irregularity have been the jo the kth mode for irregular and regular buildings. These irregularity
developed. Karavasilis et al. [30] had proposed storey-wise and bay-wise indices mainly depend on the dynamic response, the building properties
irregularity indices (Φs, Φb) as follows: and the irregularities under consideration. Vu-Bac et al. [31] suggested a
sensitivity analysis toolbox using Matlab to quantify and identify the
1 ∑ns − 1
Li 1 n∑b− 1
Hi influence of key input parameters in the prediction of a model. Archana
Φs = . Φb = . (4)
ns − 1 1 Li+1 nb − 1 1 Hi+1 et al. [32] attempted to quantify a similar combination of in-plan ec­
centricity with vertical mass irregularity ibuildings and had proposed a
Where ns is the number of storeys and nb is the number of bays at the first mass irregularity coefficient α for the same. In the present work, to study
storey of the frame. Hi and Li are the height and width of the ith storey. the combination of in-plan eccentricity and stiffness irregularity and the
However, this applies solely to stepped building frames and does not variation of the different parameters associated, a stiffness irregularity
depict the overall irregularity in the building. Sarkar et al. [20] also coefficient ‘β’ is proposed pely based on geometric dimensions and ec­
proposed regularity index (η) based on the dynamic response of the centricity as given below,
stepped building frame as given below:
Ri edi
Г1 Stiffness ​ Irregularity ​ Coefficient, ​ β = (7)
η= (5) hti Sri
Г 1,ref
At any storey level i, Sri is the stiffness modification ratio or the ratio
where Г 1 . is the first mode participation factor for the stepped frame and of the stiffness of the ith storey with irregularity to that of the regular
Г 1,ref . is the first mode participation for the regular frame. These ap­ storey, edi defines the in-plan dynamic eccentricity, Ri denotes the
proaches to define the irregularity indices as per the international codes, fraction of the height over which the irregularity is considered and hti
attempt to quantify the irregularity limits in terms of magnitude only, denotes the height of the soft storey from the ground level. This coeffi­
and the effect of location of irregularity is ignored. Varadharajan et al. cient ‘β’ quantifies the combination of in-plan stiffness irregularity and
[21] proposed the irregularity index on the basis of the results of variation in stiffness along the height for buildings with equal di­
sensitivity analysis as: mensions along the direction of seismic excitation and in the transverse
direction. This coefficient is applicable for buildings with eccentric
∑
k
Pi stiffness irregularity at any height from the base of the building.
βr = (6)
j
Pr Considering the set of stiffness irregular buildings, β varies from
0.0016 to 0.7 and increases with in-plan eccentricity and also with the
where, βr ., Pi and Pr are the combinations of participation factor from change in location of irregularity from the upper storey level to the
lower storey level. Here, this coefficient is in the range of 0.014–0.7 for

12
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 13. Variation in storey drifts patterns on IS0 and IS4 in group C buildings.

group A buildings, 0.0036–0.36 for group B buildings and 0.0016–0.24 natural periods (Ti/Tr) and base shear ratios (Bi/Br) of the buildings with
for group C buildings. ‘β’ is the lowest for buildings with stiffness ir­ stiffness irregularity to that of the regular one with respect to the pro­
regularity at the top floor level and becomes prominent when the ir­ posed stiffness irregularity coefficient β was evaluated. Ti and Bi denote
regularity is present in combination with the in-plan eccentricity at the the natural period and base shear ratio of irregular building and Tr and
bottom floor level of the frame. The value of β for the buildings with Br correspond to that of the regular one. Considering buildings with ed/L
eccentric stiffness irregularities at the upper floor level is 70–90% lower in the range of 0.05–0.3 in combination with soft stories in the lower
in comparison to the buildings with stiffness irregularities at the lower floor level with a stiffness reduction to 80% and β in the range of
floor levels. β also changes remarkably with the storey stiffness variation 0.022–0.39, Ti is obtained in the range of 1.04–1.17 times Tr and Bi in
of the buildings and the magnitude of increase of β in buildings with the range of 0.91–0.73 times Br. Similarly, for a stiffness reduction to
stiffness reduction K4 with respect to those with stiffness reduction K1 is 40%, Ti is obtained in the range of 1.12–2.3 times Tr and Bi in the range
in between 77-120%. β of IS8 configuration is 3.28 times as that of IS1 of 0.85–0.68 times Br. Based on non-linear regression analysis, the best
configuration and 5 times as that of IS0 configuration. Fig. 17 shows the fit relations to represent Tip (predicted natural period of irregular
variation of stiffness irregularity coefficients of the buildings considered building) in terms of Tr and β and Bip (predicted base shear ratio of
in this study. Buildings up to 15 storey height with soft storey at the irregular building) in terms of Br and β is obtained as,
ground floor level with a stiffness reduction up to 70%, have β in the
Tip = β0.067 Tr 1.71 (8)
range of 0.027–0.08 and if in-plan eccentricity is also present, β is
increased to the range of 0.16–0.48.
Bip = β− 0.021
Br 0.807 (9)
As shown in Fig. 17, AK1 to AK4 correspond to the group A buildings
with stiffness reduction K1 to K4 and similarly in group B and group C Figs. 18 and 19 show the plots between the actual values of Ti and Bi
buildings. In the present study, buildings with modified stiffness in the obtained from the seismic analysis of the irregular buildings and the
range of 80%–40% along with the highest dynamic eccentricity of 0.3L predicted values of Ti and Bi obtained from the proposed Equations (5.5)
have β in the range of 0.0016–0.7. Within this range of β, fundamental and (5.6). The model developed for predicting the natural period and
natural period, base shear ratio, and roof deflection ratio of the irregular base shear ratio of an irregular building on the basis of the proposed
buildings are higher by 98%, 51%, and 115% respectively as compared stiffness irregularity coefficient β has a well-fit plot (R2 > 0.9) with the
to that of the regular buildings. Further, the variation of the ratio of natural period and base shear ratio of the irregular building

13
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 14. Variation in roof rotation in group A, group B and group C stiffness irregular buildings.

configurations considered here. Therefore this proposed model can be Vertical stiffness irregularity increases the storey drift demands at
put into application to predict the responses of buildings having a the vicinity of the irregularity along the building height. Storey drift
combination of stiffness irregularity, along the height as well as in plan increases further due to in-plan eccentricity as compared to regular
at any floor level. frame buildings by a maximum variation of 72%, 85% and 89% in the
The effects of in-plan stiffness irregularity in the considered stiffness case of AIS8b, BIS8b and CIS8b buildings respectively, each with stiffness
irregular building configurations were assessed with respect to the modification K4. Stiffness irregularities with the highest in-plan eccen­
variations in response parameters by carrying out time history analysis tricity of 0.3L increase the maximum roof rotation by 2–3.5 times when
and the major findings are as follows; Vertical stiffness irregularity along they are present along with soft stories at the lower floor level. Due to in-
the height of the frames increases the natural period by 11%–37% in plan eccentricity of even 0.1L at the lower floor levels along with stiff­
comparison to that of the regular frames. Even in case of stiffness ness modification K1 a maximum increase in roof rotation of 85% is
reduction K1 and ed/L of 0.3 at the lower level, natural period amplifies observed with respect to IS0 building. The proposed stiffness irregularity
by 53% in group A, 43% in group B and 35% in group C buildings with coefficient β can quantify the stiffness irregularity of any building with
respect to the corresponding regular frames due to in-plan stiffness ec­ soft stories in terms of the in-plan eccentricity, stiffness reduction and
centricity. Base shear ratio decreases due to stiffness reduction which is location of the soft storey along the height.
further supplemented by the presence of in-plan eccentricity. Consid­
ering stiffness reduction K1 and ed/L of IS8, as compared to the regular 5. Conclusions
frame, base shear ratio of the irregular building decreases by a
maximum of 35%, whereas in the case of stiffness reduction K4, the Based on the response parameters considered in the study, it can be
maximum reduction in base shear ratio is 51% due to in-plan eccen­ inferred that the stiffness at the base of a building is highly influential of
tricity. Roof deflection ratio increases by 68% in CIS8t as compared to the overall stability and response of the building when subjected to
CIS0 due to in-plan eccentricity. Considering stiffness reduction K1 along seismic loading. Even if the storey stiffness reduction is only by 20% and
with ed/L of 0.3 at the lower floor level, roof deflection ratio increases by if these soft storeys are present in combination with in-plan eccentricity
40% with respect to that of regular frame. in the range of 0.05–0.3L at the lower floor levels, it can increase the

14
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 15. Variation in torsional resultant in group A, group B and group C stiffness irregular buildings.

Fig. 16. Time history of torsional resultant in corner column of 15R and stiffness irregular buildings CIS0b and CIS8b with stiffness reduction K4.

natural period by 70%. Based on the present investigations, a coefficient building to reduce the seismic effects. Employing this coefficient, the
‘β’ purely based on the geometric dimensions of the building can be natural period and base shear values of any stiffness irregular building
utilized to quantify vertical stiffness irregularity in combination with in- having soft stories at any height can be computed. Consecutively the
plan stiffness eccentricity in buildings and for the better planning of a structural system can be planned and designed suitably for better

15
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

Fig. 17. Variation of stiffness irregularity coefficient for all the buildings.

systems with any type of stiffness irregularity at the bottom levels of the
buildings are avoided.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Archana J. Satheesh: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal

analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualiza­
tion, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. B.R. Jaya­
lekshmi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Katta Venkataramana: Conceptual­
ization, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Writing - re­
view & editing.
Fig. 18. Actual Ti from dynamic analysis versus predicted Tip.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106251.

References

[1] Anagnostopoulos SA, Kyrkos MT, Stathopoulos KG. Earthquake induced torsion in
buildings: critical review and state of the art. Earthq Struct 2015;8(2):305–77.
Fig. 19. Actual Bi from dynamic analysis versus predicted Bip. [2] Ali-Ali AK, Krawinkler H. Effect of vertical irregularities on seismic behavior of
building structures. In: Report no: 130. The John A. Blume earthquake engineering
centre. Stanford University; 1998.
performance under the action of earthquake forces. Soft storeys should
[3] Stefano MD, Pintucchi B. A review of research on seismic behaviour of irregular
be avoided in the lower half of a building in seismically active areas, and building structures since 2002. Bull Earthq Eng 2008;6:285–308.
in case of any in-plan eccentricity, β should be possibly maintained [4] Dimova SL, Alashki I. Seismic design of symmetric structures for accidental torsion.
within the range of 0–0.4. Bull Earthq Eng 2003;1(2):303–20.
[5] Ladjinovic DZ, Folic RJ. Seismic analysis of asymmetric in plan buildings. In: The
It is concluded that the in-plan eccentricity is a very important 14th world conference on earthquake engineering; 2008. Beijing, China.
parameter which needs to be accounted for while checking the irregu­ [6] Michalis F, Dimitrios V, Manolis P. Evaluation of the influence of vertical
larity of a structure. It is also recommended to incorporate the evalua­ irregularities on the seismic performance of a nine-storey steel frame. Earthq Eng
Struct Dynam 2006;35:1489–509.
tion of in-plan eccentricity of any stiffness irregularity in buildings in the [7] Sadasiva VK, MacRae GA, Deam BL, Fenwick R. Effects of coupled vertical stiffness-
seismic codes of practice and restrictions therein to ensure that building strength irregularity due to modified inter-storey height. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng
2011;44(1):31–44.

16
A.J. Satheesh et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 137 (2020) 106251

[8] D’Ambrisi A, De Stefano M, Tanganelli M, Viti S. The effect of common [21] Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B. Fundamental time period of RC setback
irregularities on the seismic performance of existing RC framed buildings. Seismic buildings. Concr Res Lett 2013;5(4):901–35.
Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures. Geotech Geol [22] Georgoussis G, Tsompano A, Makarios T. Approximate seismic analysis of multi-
Earthq Eng 2013;24:47–58. story buildings with mass and stiffness irregularities. In: The 5th international
[9] Benavent-Climent A, Morillas L, Escolano-Margari D. Inelastic torsional seismic conference of Euro Asia civil engineering forum. EACEF-5; 2015.
response of nominally symmetric reinforced concrete frame structures: shaking [23] Stathopoulos KG, Anagnostopoulos SA. Earthquake induced inelastic torsion in
table tests. Eng Struct 2014;80:109–17. asymmetric multi-storey buildings. In: 13th world conference on earthquake
[10] Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B. Review of different Structural irregularities in engineering vancouver. Canada: B.C.; 2004.
buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 2012;39(5):538–63. [24] Bosco M, Marino EM, Rossi PP. An analytical method for the evaluation of the in-
[11] Varadharajan S, Sehgal VK, Saini B. Seismic response of multi-storey reinforced plan irregularity of non-regularly asymmetric buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2013;11:
concrete frame with vertical mass and stiffness irregularities. Struct Des Tall 1423–45.
Special Build 2012;23(5):362–89. Wiley. [25] Chakroborty S, Roy R. Seismic behavior of horizontally irregular structures:
[12] Ouazir M, Kassoul A, Ouazir A, Achour B. Inelastic seismic response of torsionally current wisdom and challenges ahead. Appl Mech Rev 2016;68(6). 0608021-17.
unbalanced structures with soft first story. Asian J Civ Eng 2018;19(5):571–81. [26] IS 13920. Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic
[13] Kumar BGN, Gornale A. Seismic performance evaluation of torsionally asymmetric forces- code of practice. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2016.
buildings. Int J Sci Eng Res 2012;3(6):1–11. [27] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress- strain model for confined
[14] Kara N, Celep Z. Nonlinear seismic response of structural systems having vertical concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114(8):1804–26.
irregularities due to discontinuities in columns. Lisboa: 15th World Conference on [28] IS 1893 (Part 1). Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of
Earthquake Engineering; 2012. structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2016.
[15] Herrera RI, Vielma JC, Ugel R, Alfaro A, Barbat A, Pujades L. Seismic response and [29] Kan CL, Chopra AK. Torsional coupling and earthquake response of simple elastic
torsional effects of RC structure with irregular plan and variations in diaphragms, and inelastic systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 1981;107(8):1569–88.
designed with Venezuelan codes. In: The 9th international conference on [30] Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE. Estimation of seismic inelastic deformation
earthquake resistant engineering structures ERES. Spain: A Coruna; 2013. demands in plane steel MRF with vertical mass irregularities. Eng Struct 2008;30:
[16] La Brusco A, Mariani V, Tanganelli M, Viti S, De Stefano M. Seismic assessment of 3265–75.
an existing irregular RC building according to Eurocode 8 methods. Seismic [31] Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework
behaviour and design of irregular and complex civil structures II. Geotech Geol for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Adv
Earthq Eng 2016;40:135–47. Eng Software 2016;100:19–31.
[17] Dutta SC, Das PK, Sengupta P. Seismic behaviour of irregular structures. Struct Eng [32] Archana JS, Jayalekshmi BR, Venkataramana K. Effect of in-plan eccentricity in
Int Taylor Francis 2017;27(4):526–45. vertically mass irregular buildings irregular RC framed buildings under seismic
[18] Bakalis AP, Makarios TK. Dynamic eccentricities and the capable near collapse loads. Asian J Civ Eng 2019;20(5):713–26. Springer Publishers.
centre of stiffness of reinforced concrete single-storey buildings in pushover [33] IS 875 (Part 2). Code of practice for design loads (other than earthquake) for
analysis. Eng Struct 2018;166:62–78. buildings and structures. New Delhi, India: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1987.
[19] Athanassiadou CJ. Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation. [34] FEMA 450. NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
Eng Struct 2008;30:1250–62. buildings and other structures. 2003.
[20] Sarkar P, Prasad AM, Menon D. Vertical geometric irregularity in stepped building [35] ASCE 7-16. Minimum design loads for building and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-
frames. Eng Struct 2010;32:2175–82. 16). New York, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2016.

17