Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 4971–5001 | Cite as

Graphic dynamic prediction of polarized earthquake incidence response for plan-irregular single story buildings

  • M. Faggella
  • R. Gigliotti
  • G. Mezzacapo
  • E. Spacone
Original Research Paper


A graphical dynamic model is presented to predict the directional earthquake response of two-ways plan-asymmetric buildings. The theoretical principles inherent to torsional dynamics and vibrations are investigated and the dynamic directional response is rationally explained based on modal rotational kinematics about modal torsional pivots. Seismic forces and response decomposition are handled through geometric modal torsional trends and the earthquake incidence response envelopes are described through directional modal participation radii and graphic spectrum-based ‘8-shaped’ directional influence circles. The graphic approach provides good predictions of the maximum response and of the critical angle computed through directional combination methods. A nonlinear 3D frame model with eccentric infills is analyzed through linear and nonlinear response history analyses (RHA, NLRHA) changing the earthquake incidence angle. Upon confirmation of weak modal coupling, graphic-dynamic modal torsional trends and directional inelastic response envelopes are used to predict the nonlinear response. Directional incremental dynamic analyses and uncoupled modal response history analyses confirm the prediction of polarization.


Plan asymmetry Irregular buildings Torsional behavior Directional earthquake incidence Response spectrum analysis Incremental dynamic analysis 


  1. Anastassiadis K (1985) Caracteristiques elastiques des batiments a etages. In: Annales de l’ITBTP no. 435 (in French) Google Scholar
  2. Athanatopoulou A (2005) Critical orientation of three correlated seismic components. Eng Struct 27(1):301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Athanatopoulou AM, Makarios T, Anastassiadis K (2006) Earthquake analysis of isotropic asymmetric multistory buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 15(4):417–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beghini LL, Carrion J, Beghini A, Mazurek A, Baker WF (2014) Structural optimization using graphic statics. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49(3):351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belluzzi O (1942) Scienza delle Costruzioni. Zanichelli, Bologna (in Italian) Google Scholar
  6. Benvenuto E (2006) La Scienza delle Costruzioni e il suo sviluppo storico. Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, RomaGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga F, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Laterza M (2005) Nonlinear dynamic response of HDRB and hybrid HDRB-friction sliders base isolation systems. Bull Earthq Eng 3(3):333–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  9. Chopra AK, Goel RK (2004) A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 33(8):903–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Computers and Structures Inc (CSI) (2008) SAP2000 Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures. CSI, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Cremona L (1890) Graphical statics: two treatises on the graphical calculus and reciprocal figures in graphical statics (trans.: Thomas Hudson Beare). Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Culmann K (1865) Die Graphische Statik (in German) Google Scholar
  13. Dempsey KM, Irvine HM (1979) Envelopes of maximum seismic response for a partially symmetric single storey building model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7(2):161–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolsek M, Fajfar P (2001) Soft story effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 5(1):1–12Google Scholar
  15. Faggella M (2013) Graphical modal analysis and earthquake statics of linear one-way asymmetric single-story structure. In: COMPDYN 2013 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Kos Island, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  16. Faggella M (2014a) The ellipse of elasticity and Mohr circle-based graphic dynamic modal analysis of torsionally coupled systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural dynamics, EURODYN 2014, 30th June–2nd July, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  17. Faggella M (2014b) Graphic dynamic earthquake response analysis of linear torsionally coupled 2DOF systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural dynamics, EURODYN 2014, 30th June–2nd July, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  18. Faggella M (2014c) Graphical dynamic earthquake response analysis of one-way asymmetric systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th national conference in earthquake engineering, earthquake engineering research institute, AnchorageGoogle Scholar
  19. Faggella M (2014d) Graphical dynamic earthquake response of two-ways asymmetric systems based on directional modal participation radii. In: CST2014, the twelfth international conference, on computational structures technology, Naples, Italy, 2–5 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  20. Faggella M, Gigliotti R (2015) Graphical earthquake response analysis of torsional systems based on Mohr circle. In: XVI conference ANIDIS L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, L’Aquila 13–17 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  21. Faggella M, Barbosa AR, Conte JP, Spacone E, Restrepo JI (2013) Probabilistic seismic response analysis of a 3D reinforced concrete building. Struct Saf 44:11–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Mezzacapo G, Spacone E (2015a) Graphical dynamic trends for earthquake incidence response of plan-asymmetric systems. In: COMPDYN 2015, 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Crete Island, Greece, 25–27 May 2015Google Scholar
  23. Faggella M, Mezzacapo G, Gigliotti R, Spacone E (2015b) Significance of earthquake incidence on response of plan-irregular infilled R/C buildings. In: COMPDYN 2015, 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Crete Island, Greece, 25–27 May 2015Google Scholar
  24. Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Morrone C, Spacone E (2017) Mohr circle-based graphical vibration analysis and earthquake response of asymmetric systems. In: X international conference on structural dynamics, EURODYN 2017, Rome 10–17 September 2017 (Submitted)Google Scholar
  25. Fajfar P, Marusic D, Perus I (2005) Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings. J Earthq Eng 9(6):831–854Google Scholar
  26. Fivet C, Zastavni D (2013) Constraint-based graphic statics: new paradigms of computer-aided structural equilibrium design. J Int Assoc Shell Spat Struct 54(4):271–280Google Scholar
  27. Fontara I-KM, Kostinakis KG, Manoukas GE, Athanatopoulou AM (2015) Parameters affecting the seismic response of buildings under bi-directional excitation. Struct Eng Mech 53(5):957–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fujii K (2014) Prediction of the largest peak nonlinear seismic response of asymmetric buildings under bi-directional excitation using pushover analyses. Bull Earthq Eng 12:909–938. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hejal R, Chopra AK (1989) Earthquake analysis of a class of torsionally-coupled buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 18:305–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iori T, Poretti S (2015) SIXXI 2. Storia dell’ingegneria strutturale in Italia, Gangemi (in Italian)Google Scholar
  31. Italian Code NTC08 (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. D.M. 14.01.08, G.U. No.9 – 04.02.08, 2008 (in Italian) Google Scholar
  32. Kalkan E, Reyes JC (2015) Significance of rotating ground motions on behavior of symmetric-and asymmetric-plan structures: Part II. multi-story structures. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1613–1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lin J, Tsai K (2007) Simplified seismic analysis of asymmetric building systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:459–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maxwell JC (1864) On reciprocal figures and diagrams of forces. Philos Mag J Ser 4(27):250–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKenna F, Fenves GL (2001) OpenSees manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center. Accessed 2017
  36. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB (1997) Finite element modeling of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(5):604–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Menun C, Der Kiureghian A (1998) A replacement for the 30%, 40% and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthq Spectra 14(1):153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mohammad AF, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Spacone E (2014) Influence of bond-slip effect and shear deficient column in the seismic assessment of older infilled frame R/C structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural dynamics, EURODYN 2014, 30th June—2nd July, Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  39. Mohammad AF, Faggella M, Gigliotti R, Spacone E (2016) Seismic performance of older R/C frame structures accounting for infills-induced shear failure of columns. Eng Struct. Google Scholar
  40. Mohr O (1900) Welch Umsttinde bedingen die Elastizitltsgrenze und den Bruch eines Materials? Zeitschrift Verein Deutsch Iwenieur 44(1524–1530):1572–1577 (in German) Google Scholar
  41. Mohr O (1914) Abhandlugen aus dem Gebiete der technische Mechanik, 2nd edn. Ernst und Sohn, Berlin (in German) Google Scholar
  42. Palermo M, Sammarco E, Silvestri S, Gasparini G, Trombetti T (2014) Nonlinear seismic response of planar asymmetric systems. In: Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Aug. 25–29Google Scholar
  43. Reyes J, Chopra AK (2011) Evaluation of three-dimensional modal pushover analysis for unsymmetric-plan buildings subjected to two components of ground motion. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(13):1475–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reyes J, Kalkan E (2015) Significance of rotating ground motions on behaviour of symmetric-and asymmetric-plan structures: Part 1. Single-story structures. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1591–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rigato AB, Medina RA (2007) Influence of angle of incidence on seismic demands for single-storey structures subjected to bi-directional ground motions. Eng Struct 29:2593–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ritter W (1865) Anwendungen der Graphischen Statik, 3, (Appendix), Zurich (in German)Google Scholar
  47. Skinner RI, Robinson WH, Mc Verry GH (1993) An introduction to seismic isolation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Trombetti TL, Conte JP (2005) New insight into and simplified approach to seismic analysis of torsionally coupled one-story, elastic systems. J Sound Vib 286:265–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 3:491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Mele T, Block P (2014) Algebraic graph statics. Comput Aided Des 53:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Faggella
    • 1
  • R. Gigliotti
    • 1
  • G. Mezzacapo
    • 1
  • E. Spacone
    • 2
  1. 1.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.University of Chieti-PescaraPescaraItaly

Personalised recommendations