Re-evaluation of seismic torsional provisions

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 28, Issue 7-8, 1999, Pages 899-917

  Tso, W K ^a   Smith, R S H ^a,b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Building codes; Dynamics; Earthquake engineering; Rotations; Structures; Torsion

Indexed keywords

SEISMIC RESPONSE; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; TORSION;

EID: 0032882178     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9845(199908)28:8<899::aid-eqe846>3.0.co;2-q     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. A. K. Chopra and R. K. Goel, 'Evaluation of torsional provisions in seismic codes', J. Struct. Engng. ASCE 117(12), 3762-3782 (1991).
2. A. Rutenberg, M. Eisenberger and G. Sholet, 'Inelastic seismic response of code designed single storey asymmetry structures', J. Engng. Struct. 14(2), 91-102 (1992).
3. M. De Stefano, G. Faella and R. Ramasco, 'Inelastic response of code-designed asymmetric systems', Eur. Earthquake Engng. 3, 3-17 (1993).
4. W. K. Tso and C. M. Wong, 'An evaluation of the New Zealand code torsional provision', Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soc. Earthquake Engng. 26(2), 194-207 (1993).
5. A. M. Chandler and X. N. Duan, 'Performance of asymmetric code-designed buildings for serviceability and ultimate limit states', J. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn. 26(7), 717-736 (1997).
6. Uniform Building Code, 1997. Structural design requirements, Chapter 16, Int. Conf. Building Officials, Whittier, California, 1997.
7. Eurocode 8, 'Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures', European Committee for Standardization, ENV 1998-1-1/2/3, 1994.
8. W. K. Tso and C. M. Wong, 'Seismic displacements of torsionally unbalanced buildings', J. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 24(10), 1371-1387 (1995a).
9. W. K. Tso and T. J. Zhu, 'Design of torsionally unbalanced structural systems based on code provisions. I: ductility demand', J. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn. 21(7), 609-627 (1992).
10. M. J. N. Priestley, 'Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering-conflicts between design and reality', Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthquake Engng. 26(3), 329-341 (1993); This paper is reprinted in Concrete Int. February 54-63 (1997).
11. M. J. N. Priestley, 'Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering-conflicts between design and reality', Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthquake Engng. 26(3), 329-341 (1993); This paper is reprinted in Concrete Int. February 54-63 (1997).
12. M. J. N. Priestley, F. Seible and E. M. Calvi, 'Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges', J Wiley, New York, 1996, 686 p.
13. M. P. Collins and D. Mitchell, 'RESPONSE: a program to determine the moment - curvature response of reinforced concrete sections using plane strain and strain compatibility theories', Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1990.
14. T. Paulay, 'Seismic torsional effects on ductile structural wall systems', J. Earthquake Engng. 1(4), 721-745 (1997).
15. M. J. N. Priestley and M. J. Kowalsky, 'Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rectangular cantilever structural walls', Bull. New Zealand Soc. Earthquake Engng. 31(2), 73-85 (1998).
16. C. M. Wong and W. K. Tso, 'Evaluation of torsional provisions in Uniform Building Code', J. Struct. Engng, ASCE, 121(10), 1436-1442 (1995).
17. A. S. Moghadam, 'Seismic torsional responses of asymmetrical multi-storey frame buildings. Ph.D Thesis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1998, pp. 222.
18. W. K. Tso and C. M. Wong, 'Eurocode 8 seismic torsional provisions evaluation', Eur. Earthquake Engng. 9(1), 23-33 (1995b).
19. Associate Committee on the National Building Code, National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1995.