Structural Engineering & Statics
where the load goes
Concept

Plan torsion — where it appears

The twisting of a storey about its centre of rigidity, caused by any eccentricity of the applied force and worst at the wall furthest from that centre. The displacement it adds grows with distance from the centre of rigidity, so the corner furthest away moves most and is where the cladding is.

Named by 5 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two centres, and the distance between them is a torque. A storey 30 by 18 m with its walls drawn heavy, pushed in one direction by 1000 kN. The force acts through the centre of mass and the storey turns about the centre of rigidity — the stiffness-weighted centroid of the walls, at x = 15.0 m — and the distance between the two is an eccentricity of 0.00 m before the 5% that has to be assumed anyway. The table below the plan splits each wall's force into its direct share and its torsional one. Torsion relieves the walls near the centre of rigidity and loads the far ones, so the wall in trouble is not the wall carrying the most: west wall is asked for 8% more than its direct share, and the walls at right angles to the push carry 19 kN each with nothing applied along them at all.

The corner that moves most

A lateral force is shared out in proportion to stiffness only if it passes through the centre of rigidity, which is not the centre of the plan and not the centre of mass. The distance between the two is a torque, and the wall that pays for it is the one furthest away and carrying least.

structures · Plan torsion Whether the floor shares the load out by stiffness or by area. The share of a uniform storey force taken by each of three equally stiff walls, against the stiffness of the floor plate that spans between them. A plate far stiffer than the walls translates almost rigidly, every wall deflects the same and the share is the ratio of stiffnesses — 60% to the middle wall here, the same as everyone else. A plate far softer than the walls behaves as a continuous beam over them and the middle wall takes 33%. Neither end is the tributary-area answer of 50%, which assumes a plate that is both soft and discontinuous over the wall, and which nothing here ever reaches.

The floor is a beam lying down

A floor plate spans horizontally between the walls that resist a lateral load, carries a distributed inertia load, and has chords, a web and a span-to-depth ratio like any other beam. Its stiffness decides whether the walls share the load by their stiffness or by the area of floor nearest them — and the familiar tributary answer turns out to be neither limit.

structures · Diaphragm The corner columns take what the middle ones did not. Axial stress in the columns across one flange face of a 36 by 36 m framed tube, at the base. Plane sections says the flat line: every column on the face at the same distance from the neutral axis, therefore at the same stress. The solved distribution is the curve — 78.5 N/mm² at the corner against 13.4 in the middle, a ratio of 5.88. The middle columns lag because the only route the axial force has into them is the in-plane shear of the spandrel frame, bay by bay from the corner. The face is carrying its resultant on an effective width of 45 per cent, and the tube deflects as though its second moment were 64 per cent of the gross.

The columns that lean

A framed tube carries its wind load by bending the spandrel beams between its columns, and it does it badly — the corner columns take nearly six times what the middle ones do. Tilt the columns instead, so the perimeter is triangulated, and the same shear is carried axially. The concentration falls to 1.21 and the tube recovers most of the stiffness the plan said it had.

structures · Diagrid The ratio stops growing and the twist does not. For a 30 × 18 m floor with a torsional radius of 10.6 m (0.35 of its length), against the distance of the centre of rigidity from the plan's middle as a share of the length, with the accidental eccentricity of 5 per cent of the plan: solid, the codes' ratio of the worst edge's displacement to the average of the two edges; dashed, the worst edge's displacement over the translation of a plan with no eccentricity. Dotted, the thresholds 1.2 and 1.4. The ratio rises to 1.76 at an eccentricity of 0.30 of the length and then falls, to 1.72 at 0.45; the edge's movement rises the whole way, from 1.20 to 4.83. The core-and-façade plan, at 0.14, reads 1.63 and moves 1.98.

A measure of twist that divides by the twist

The seismic codes decide whether a building is torsionally irregular by one ratio: the worst edge's displacement over the average of the two edges'. For a plan with no natural eccentricity that ratio is exactly how much further the corner moves than a plan without torsion would. For an eccentric plan it is not, because the twist moves the average as well as the corner, and the ratio divides one by the other. It saturates: at a torsional radius a third of the plan's length it never passes 1.76, however far the stiffness is moved off-centre, while the corner's movement keeps growing past four times. Past a point a more eccentric plan reads more regular, and the amplifier the codes build from the ratio inherits its ceiling.

structures · Plan torsion The dynamic ratio peaks where the modes couple, and falls where the static one climbs. The standards' ratio, the larger edge's displacement over the average of the two edges', for a 30 × 18 m floor swaying with a period of 0.5 s, against Ω, the torsional radius over the floor's radius of gyration, for natural eccentricities of 2.1 and 4.2 m: from a static push at the centre of mass (dashed) and from a response spectrum combined by CQC (solid); the dotted lines are 1.2 and 1.4. At 2.1 m, static 2.05 at Ω = 0.5 falling to 1.08 at 2; dynamic 1.08 at 0.5, highest at 1.42 near Ω = 1.15, and 1.10 at 2. At 4.2 m, static 2.46 at Ω = 0.5 falling to 1.15 at 2; dynamic 1.17 at 0.5, highest at 1.55 near Ω = 1.20, and 1.19 at 2.

The floor that twists in its own time

Seismic design standards flag a twisting floor by the ratio of its worst edge's movement to the average of its two edges', and a static push saturates that ratio. Give the floor mass and shake it, and it sways and twists in two modes that share the motion. A response-spectrum analysis then reads the same ratio from combined peaks — and gives a different verdict on a third of the plans tried. Floors torsionally stiffer than they sway read worse than a push says, because the coupled modes put twist at the edges. Floors torsionally flexible read better, because combining the modes keeps how far each edge moves and forgets which way, so a twisting floor's two edges both look large.

structures · Plan torsion

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Centre of rigidityAccidental eccentricityLateral systemDiaphragmLoad sharingShear wallStorey driftTorsional irregularityTorsional radiusAxial forceBracingCentre of mass

All concepts