Improved Earthquake-Resistant Design of Irregular Steel Buildings

  • Miltiadis T. Kyrkos
  • Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 24)


In the past several years, the seismic behavior of eccentric buildings has been studied with detailed models of the plastic hinge type, first for reinforced concrete buildings and then for steel, braced frame type buildings, all of them designed in accordance with the appropriate new Eurocodes. In all cases, it was found that the distribution of ductility demands is not as uniform throughout the structure as one might have expected and desired for a well-designed structure. Such an uneven distribution indicates suboptimal material use and a potential for premature failure of certain members. In this chapter, a design modification that has been proposed earlier and improved substantially the inelastic earthquake behavior of buildings with biaxial eccentricity but with rectangular layouts is applied to eccentric, L-shaped buildings. Both a torsionally stiff and a torsionally flexible building are examined, and it is found that the modification gives also good results for such buildings, especially the torsionally stiff one. The improvement of the behavior of the torsionally flexible building may be considered marginal, but this is probably associated with characteristics of the specific building. In any case, modern codes suggest avoidance of torsionally flexible buildings whose seismic behavior is more difficult to control, and for this reason, stricter design requirements are specified.


Plastic Hinge Ductility Demand Interstory Drift Ductility Factor Stiffness Center 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anagnostopoulos SA (1981) Inelastic beams for seismic analyses of structures. J Struct Div ASCE 107(7):1297–1311Google Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulos SA, Alexopoulou C, Stathopoulos K (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. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:521–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr AJ (2005) Ruaumoko manual, vol 3. User manual for the 3-dimensional version- Ruaumoko 3DGoogle Scholar
  4. Chopra AK, Goel RK (1991) Evaluation of torsional provisions in seismic codes. J Struct Div (ASCE) 117(12):3762–3782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De La Colina J (2003) Assessment of design recommendations for torsionally unbalanced multistory buildings. Earthq Spectra 19(1):47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Stefano M, Pintucchi B (2008) A review of research on seismic behavior of irregular building structures since 2002. Bull Earthq Eng 6:285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I (2004) Influence of ground motion intensity on the inelastic torsion response of asymmetric buildings. In: The 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, No. 3496, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. Ghersi A, Marino E, Rossi PP (2000) Inelastic response of multi-storey asymmetric buildings. In: Proceeding of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, No. 1716, Auckland New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. Humar JL, Kumar P (2000) A new look at the torsion design provisions in seismic building codes. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, No. 1707, Auckland New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  10. Karabalis DL, Cokkinides GJ, Rizos DC, Mulliken JS (2000) Simulation of earthquake ground motions by a deterministic approach. Adv Eng Softw 31:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kyrkos MT (2011) Improved earthquake resistant design of eccentric steel buildings with diagonal braces. PhD thesis, University of Patras (in Greek)Google Scholar
  12. Kyrkos MT, Anagnostopoulos SA (2011a) An assessment of code designed torsionally stiff asymmetric steel buildings under strong earthquake excitations. Earthq Struct 2:109–126Google Scholar
  13. Kyrkos MT, Anagnostopoulos SA (2011b) Improved earthquake resistant design of torsionally stiff asymmetric steel buildings. Earthq Struct 2:127–147Google Scholar
  14. Rutenberg A (1998) EAEE Task Group (TG)8: behavior of irregular and complex structures – state of the art report: seismic nonlinear response of code-designed asymmetric structures. In: 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. Rutenberg A (2002). EAEE Task Group (TG)8: behavior of irregular and complex structures – asymmetric structures – progress since 1998. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Stathopoulos KG, Anagnostopoulos SA (2000) Inelastic earthquake response of buildings subjected to torsion. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engineering no. 781, Auckland New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  17. Stathopoulos KG, Anagnostopoulos SA (2003) Inelastic earthquake response of single-story asymmetric buildings: an assessment of simplified shear- beam models. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1813–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stathopoulos KG, Anagnostopoulos SA (2005) Inelastic torsion of multistory buildings under earthquake excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1449–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miltiadis T. Kyrkos
    • 1
  • Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations