CONFIGURATION

REQUIREMENTS
__________________________________
Each structure shall be designated as
being structurally regular or irregular
in accordance with the provisions of the
code.
 CAUSES
OF
DAMAGE

INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO
HORIZONTAL GROUND SHAKING

SOIL AMPLIFICATION

PERMANENT DISPLACEMENT
(SURFACE FAULTING & GROUND
FAILURE)

IRREGULARITIES IN ELEVATION
EARTHQUAKES AND PLAN

CASE HISTORIES TSUNAMI WAVE RUNUP

LACK OF DETAILING AND POOR

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

LACK OF ATTENTION TO
NON-STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
 REGULAR
STRUCTURES
__________________________________
Regular structures have no significant physical
discontinuities in plan or vertical configuration or
in their lateral-force-resisting systems
 IRREGULAR
STRUCTURES
__________________________________
Irregular structures have significant physical
discontinuities in configuration or in their lateral-
force-resisting systems.
 BUILDING ELEVATIONS

FACT: Unnecessary horizontal

and vertical changes in
symmetry, mass, and stiffness
will increase a building’s
vulnerability to strong ground
shaking.
FACT: UNUSUAL BUILDINGS
ARE LIKELY TO BE MORE
VULNERABLE IN AN
EARTHQUAKE
A CHURCH: REYKJAVEK,
ICELAND
ATLANTIS HOTEL: DUBAI,
UAE
EMP MUSEUM: SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON (USA)
A HOTEL: PYONGYANG,
NORTH KOREA
“THE GHERKIN,” AN OFFICE
BUILDING: LONDON
SKY CITY (2,749 FEET--NOT YET
FINISHED) : CHANGSHA, CHINA
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] None, if attention
given to foundation
1-2 and non-structural
elements. Rocking
may crack foundation
and structure. X-
Box Cracks around
windows.
DAMAGED HOUSE:CHINA
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] None, if attention
given to foundation
1 and non structural
elements. Rocking
may crack foundation.

Pyramid
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Top heavy,
asymmetrical structure
4-6 may fail at foundation
due to rocking and
overturning.

Inverted Pyramid
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry and
horizontal transition in
5-6 mass, stiffness and
damping may cause
failure where lower
and upper structures
“L”- Shaped join.
Building
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Vertical transition and
asymmetry may cause
3-5 failure where lower
part is attached to
tower.

Inverted “T”
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Vertical transition in
mass, stiffness, and
2-3 damping may cause
failure at foundation
and transition points
at each floor.
Multiple Setbacks
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Top heavy
asymmetrical structure
4-5 may fail at transition
point and foundation
due to rocking and
overturning.
Overhang
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal and vertical
transitions in mass
6-7 and stiffness may
cause failure on soft
side of first floor;
rocking and
Partial “Soft” Story overturning.
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Vertical transitions in
mass and stiffness
8 - 10 may cause failure on
transition points
between first and
second floors.
“Soft” First Floor
THE TYPICAL SOFT-STOREY
BUILDING
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal and vertical
transitions in mass
9 - 10 and stiffness may
cause failure at
transition points and
possible overturning.
Combination of
“Soft” Story and
Overhang
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal transition in
stiffness of soft story
10 columns may cause
failure of columns at
foundation and/or
contact points with
structure.
Building on
Sloping Ground
 SOFT STORY BUILDING ON
SLOPING GROUND
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal and vertical
transition in stiffness
8-9 cause failure of
individual members.

Theaters and
Assembly Halls
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

BUILDING LOCATIONS OF
ELEVATION POTENTIAL FAILURE

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Horizontal and vertical
transition in mass and
9 - 10 stiffness may cause
failure columns.

Sports Stadiums
SIMPLICITY IN A BUILDING’S
FLOOR PLAN REDUCES ITS
VULNERABILITY TO STRONG
GROUND SHAKING
 BUILDING FLOOR PLANS
• FACT: CHANGING FLOOR PLANS
FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX
AND FROM SYMMETRICAL TO
ASYMMETRICAL WILL
INCREASE A BUILDING’S
VULNERABILITY TO GROUND
SHAKING.
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] None, if symmetrical
layout maintained.
1

Box
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Differences in length
and width will cause
2-4 differences in
strength, differential
movement, and
possible overturning.
Rectangle
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry will cause
torsion and enhance
2-4 damage at corners.

Street Corner
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry will
enhance damage at
5 - 10 corner regions.

“U” - Shape
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Open space in center
reduces resistance
4 and enhance damage
at corner regions.

Courtyard in Corner
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry will cause
torsion and enhance
8 damage at intersection
and corners.

“L” - Shape
TORSION
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Directional variation in
stiffness will enhance
5-7 damage at intersecting
corner.

“H” - Shape
 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry and
directional variation in
8 - 10 stiffness will enhance
torsion and damage at
intersecting.

Complex Floor Plan

 ANALYSIS OF VULNERABILITY

POTENTIAL
FLOOR PLAN
PROBLEMS

RELATIVE
VULERABILITY
[1 (Best) to 10 (Worst)] Asymmetry and
irregularities will cause
5- 9 torsion and enhance
damage along
boundaries and at
corners.
Curved Plan
 TYPES OF BUILDING
IRREGULARITIES
1. VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
2. PLAN IRREGULARITY
 VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
Vertical irregularities can be divided into two categories as:

 Dynamic force distribution irregularity that includes Types 1, 2 and 3

irregularities. This category requires that the distribution of lateral forces be
determined by combined dynamic modes of vibration.

For regular structures without abrupt changes in stiffness or mass (I.e.,

structures without “vertical structural irregularities”), this shape can be assumed
to be linearly-varying or a triangular shape as represented by the code force
distribution pattern.
However, for irregular structures, the pattern can be significantly
different and must be determined by the combined mode shapes from the
dynamic analysis procedure and thereby bypass the checks for vertical
irregularity Types 1, 2 and 3.

 Irregularity in load path or force transfer that includes Types 4 and 5. When
this irregularity exists, there is the possibility of having localized concentrations
of excessive inelastic deformations due to irregular load path or weak story.
In this case, the code prescribes additional strengthening to correct the
deficiencies.
 VERTICAL IRREGULARITY
The five vertical irregularities are as follows:

 Type 1. Stiffness Irregularity – Soft Story. A soft story is one in which the lateral
stiffness is less than 70% of that in the story above or less than 80% of the
average stiffness of the three stories above.
 Type 2. Weight (mass) Irregularity. Mass irregularity shall be considered to
exist where the effective mass of any story is more than 150% of the effective
mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below need not
be considered.
 Type 3. Vertical Geometric Irregularity. Vertical geometric irregularity shall be
considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-
resisting system in any story is more than 130% of that in adjacent story. One-
story penthouses need not be considered.
 Type 4. In-Plane Discontinuity In Vertical Lateral-Force-Resisting System. An in-
plane offset of the lateral-force-resisting elements is greater than the length
of those elements.
 Type 5. Discontinuity in Capacity – Weak Story. A weak story is one in which
the storey strength is less than 80% of that in the story above. The story
strength is the total strength of all seismic-resisting elements sharing the story
for the direction under consideration.
Soft Story Failure
Weak and Soft Story Failures
Failure due to pounding: Close Adjacent buildings
may suffer pounding failures

1995 Kobe EQ
 PLAN IRREGULARITY
Plan irregularities can be categorized as being either special response conditions or cases
of irregular load path. The five types of plan irregularities are:

 Type 1. Torsional Irregularity. This type is considered when diaphragms are not
flexible. Torsional irregularity shall be considered to exist when the maximum storey
drift, computed including accidental torsion, at one end of the structure transverse to
an axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts of the two ends of the
structure.

 Type 2. Re-entrant Corners. Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral-force-

resisting system contain re-entrant corners, where both projections of the structure
beyond a re-entrant corner are greater than 15% of the plan dimension of the
structure in the given direction. The opening and closing deformation response or
flapping action of the projecting legs of the building plan adjacent to re-entrant
corners can result in concentrated forces at the corner point. Elements must be
provided to transfer these forces into the diaphragms.

 Type 3. Diaphragm Discontinuity. Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or

variations in stiffness, including those having cut-out or open areas greater
than 50% of the gross enclosed area of the diaphragm, or changes in
effective diaphragm stiffness of more than 50% from one storey to the next.
Excessive openings in a diaphragm can result in a flexible diaphragm
response along with force concentrations and load path deficiencies at the
boundaries of the openings. Elements must be provided to transfer the forces
into the diaphragm and the structural system.
 PLAN IRREGULARITY

 Type 4. Out-of-Plane Offsets. This type describes discontinuities in a lateral

force path, such out-of-plane offsets of the vertical elements. In this case,
shears and overturning moments must be transferred from the level above
the offset to the level below the offset, and there is a horizontal “offset” in the
load path for the shears.

 Type 5. Nonparallel Systems. The vertical lateral-force-resisting elements are

not parallel to or symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the lateral-
force systems. The response deformations and load patterns on a system with
nonparallel lateral-force-resisting elements can have significant differences
from that of a regular system. Further analysis of deformation and load
behavior may be necessary.