Should accidental eccentricity be eliminated from Eurocode 8?

Abstract

Modern codes for earthquake resistant building design require consideration of the so-called accidental design eccentricity, to account for torsional response caused by several factors not explicitly considered in design. This provision requires that the mass centres in the building floor be moved a certain percentage of the building's dimension (usually 5%) along both the x and y axes and in both positive and negative directions. If one considers also the spatial combinations of the two component motion in a dynamic analysis of the building, the number of required analyses and combinations increases substantially, causing a corresponding work load increase for practicing structural engineers. Another shortcoming of this code provision is that its introduction has been based primarily on elastic results from investigations of oversimplified, hence questionable, one story building models. This problem is addressed in the present paper using four groups of eccentric braced steel buildings, designed in accordance with Eurocodes 3 (steel) and 8 (earthquake design), with and without accidental eccentricities considered. The results indicate that although accidental design eccentricities can lead to somewhat reduced inelastic response demands, the benefit is not significant from a practical point of view. This leads to suggestions that accidental design eccentricities should probably be abolished or perhaps replaced by a simpler and more effective design provision, at least for torsionally stiff buildings that constitute the vast majority of buildings encountered in practice.