×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

(OP)
Hello all,

My colleagues and I want some other structural engineer's opinions on something, specifically Section 12.3.4.2 of ASCE7-10 for buildings with extreme torsional irregularity. It states pretty clearly that any building with an extreme torsional irregularity has to use a redundancy factor of 1.3 (can't use 1.0). But my question is when can you say the magnitude of the drift is so low that you can ignore the irregularity?

For example, if the average story drift is 1.3mm and the left side of the diaphragm deflects to 2.1mm, that is an extreme torsional irregularity. But at that magnitude it's so small that engineering judgement says I can just ignore that. The building basically doesn't move.

My building is 75m tall and each story is 5 meters floor-to-floor. It's a shear wall with moment frame duel system, so R=7. Between levels 5 and 8 the floor plan changes dramatically. You can sort of think of it as a tower with a podium, but the podium gets smaller and smaller from Level 5 to 8. It also has a ton of shear walls on the south side of the main shear wall core, and none on the north side. So extreme torsional irregularity. By the time we get to the typical tower footprint the extreme irregularity is gone. But Levels 5 to 8 all have extreme irregularity. The magnitude of the maximum inter-story drift is about 16mm (when including the dynamic amplification factor of 5.5). So at my worst case story I have an average drift of 10mm and a maximum drift of 16mm. This is story-to-story so not a global displacement. The question becomes: is that small enough to ignore? Or large enough to have a real effect?

The outcome is that I either set my redundancy factor to 1.3, or I ignore the extreme irregularity and set it to 1.0.

Thoughts?

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

I sympathise but would not be prepared to waive the penalty in my own work. That, in part, because the irregularity business is meant to capture undesirable behavior manifesting itself in the distribution of lateral force resistance. And that will be fairly agnostic with respect to the absolute magnitude of the drift.

How does the period of your first torsional mode compare to that of your first couple of translational modes?

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?



Quote (But my question is when can you say the magnitude of the drift is so low that you can ignore the irregularity?)


Definition of Extreme Torsional Irregularity: Copy and paste from ASCE 7 ;

Quote (Extreme torsional irregularity is defined to exist where the maximum story drift, computed including accidental torsion with Ax =1.0, at one end of the structure transverse to an axis is more than 1.4 times the average of the story drifts at the
two ends of the structure. Extreme torsional irregularity requirements in the reference sections apply only to structures in which the diaphragms are rigid or semirigid.)


You did not define the Design Category . Pls look 12.3.4.1 Conditions Where Value of ρ is 1.0.
In case of SDC E and F , extreme torsional irregularities are prohibited.


If thre is torsional irregularity at any storey of a building for loads acting in any direction, the entire structure is torsionally irregular.

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

(OP)
Kookt,

That's our feeling as well. We are planning to just add the 1.3 redundancy factor and up-size what we need to. Just wanted to see if other agreed. Modes are as follows:

Mode 1 - T= 2.24sec (Y-direction)
Mode 2 - T= 1.90sec (X-direction)
Mode 3 - T= 1.77 sec (Torsion)

HTURKAK,

It's SDC D, so the extreme torsional irregularity is allowed, we just have to take the punishment on the redundancy factor as discussed above.

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

Yes, as noted above, these factors are there to account for the fact that the behavior of the structure is starting to deviate from what the building code force distribution is based on, along with observed problems in structures containing these irregularities.

Is there any way to follow the two stage analysis outlined in 12.2.3.2? not sure if that opens up other problems though.

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

Quote (OP)

Modes are as follows:

Yeah, you're a ways off from being torsion dominant but, also, a ways off from being torsion irrelevant.

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?


Quote (It's SDC D, so the extreme torsional irregularity is allowed, we just have to take the punishment on the redundancy factor as discussed above.)



My opinion is, this is a “penalty ” clause for discouraging the use of Extreme Torsional Irregular structure..

I will not encourage you to circumvent the code..

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

We've had the same discussion in our office before. We agreed that certain low absolute deflection magnitude cases were a bit ridiculous, but we applied rho = 1.3 anyway because the code doesn't address any exceptions.

RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

As others have pointed out, the torsional irregularity ratio can be thought of as an index to measure building sensitivity to torsion. Sensitivity to torsion is unaffected by the magnitude of building drifts. That said, it is likely that buildings with minuscule drifts will have increased collapse resistance over buildings with large drifts. The redundancy factor trigger is meant to increase the collapse resistance of torsionally sensitive buildings, but it's a bit of a blunt instrument since research has found that it's not necessary for all torsionally sensitive layouts. Some changes have been proposed for ASCE 7-22 based on the analytical studies performed in FEMA P-2012 (see below) that would eliminate the redundancy trigger for most buildings in favor a more refined approach of applying the 100%/30% orthogonal load combinations to capture torsional effects. There are also proposals to eliminate the ELF and SDC E-F prohibitions if the additional requirements are adopted.





I also want to point out that some jurisdictions may have already modified the requirements in some form, so it's worth checking out depending on where your project is located. For example, DSA (the regulatory agency that oversees the design of public schools and essential service buildings in California) has already adopted the following changes:




RE: ASCE-7 Extreme Torsional Irregularity - When to Ignore?

(OP)
Deker, that is very interesting! Too bad it will probably be 10 years before we can apply the 2022 ASCE code. Our client is Department of State and we still have to use the 2010 version. Building is overseas but US federal property so we apply Overseas Building Operations code, which is essentially just ASCE 7-10.

Thanks for the responses everyone, and confirming what we were already thinking.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

White Paper - Addressing Tooling and Casting Requirements at the Design Stage
Several of the tooling and casting requirements of a part can be addressed at the design stage. If these requirements are not addressed at the design stage, lot of time is spent in design iteration when the design reaches the die caster. These design issues lead to increase in time and cost of production leading to delay in time to market and reduced profits for the organization. Download Now
White Paper - The Other Side of Design for Assembly
Assembly level constraints need to be satisfied before the design can move downstream. This white paper will go through the various assembly level issues, which need to be tackled by various organizations on a regular basis. Know more about DFMPro, a design for assembly software. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close