Comparison of the calculation results of structures for specified accelerograms by nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic methods

Cover Page

Cite item


Relevance. Modern national standards for the design of buildings and structures for seismic impacts suggest the calculation of structures in a nonlinear setting. Only linear-spectral method, which has been used and is still used, is not enough for calculation. This is due to the fact that it does not allow directly taking into account the nonlinear work of the structures. To solve the problem, nonlinear dynamic methods of calculation in the time domain can be used. At the moment, such methods are implemented only in specialized software complexes, and in most cases cannot be used by ordinary designers. Thus, it became necessary to apply simpler nonlinear calculation methods. In foreign standards for calculation of seismic resistance of buildings and structures, nonlinear static methods, or pushover analysis, have long been used. But in the national design practice until recently, these methods have not received due attention. Thus, the relevance of the study of the possibility of using these methods in engineering practice is beyond doubt. The aim of work. The purpose of this article is to estimate the accuracy of a nonlinear static method in comparison with a nonlinear dynamic method when calculating structures for given accelerograms. Solution technique. In the article three steel frames are considered: one-, threeand seven-story. The selection of sections was made in accordance with the requirements of the national standards on earthquake-resistant construction for seismic loads of the basic safety earthquake (BSE) level. Next, frames are designed for the seismic loads of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level on a set of accelerograms of different frequency composition. The calculation was performed by a nonlinear dynamic method in the LS-DYNA software package and a nonlinear static method in the LIRA 10.6 and MATLAB software complexes. Results. Calculations showed that in all the cases considered, except for one, a nonlinear static method showed a conservative estimate of the response of the system, in comparison with the nonlinear dynamic method. But in some cases the reaction was greatly overestimated.

About the authors

Sergey V Bulushev

Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University)

Author for correspondence.

Engineer, the Research Laboratory “Reliability and Seismic Stability of Structures”

26 Yaroslavskoye Shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation


  1. Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. (2000). Capacity-demand diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Proceedings of 12 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand. Paper № 1612.
  2. Chopra A.K., Goel R.K. (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, (31), 561–582.
  3. Datta T.K. (2010). Seismic Analysis of Structures. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd, 464.
  4. Fajfar P., Krawinkler H. (2004). Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation. Proceedings of the International Workshop Bled, Slovenia, June 28 – July 1, 2004. PEER Report 2004/05. College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
  5. Gupta B. (1998). Enhanced pushover procedure and inelastic demand estimation for performance-based seismic evaluation of buildings (PhD Thesis). Orlando, Florida, University of Central Florida.
  6. Paz M., Leigh W. (2004). Structural Dynamics: Theory and Computation. 5th ed. 844.
  7. Themelis S. (2008). Pushover analysis for seismic assessment and design of structures (PhD Thesis). HeriotWatt University, School of Built Environment.
  8. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Bulushev S.V., Kolesnikov A.V. (2016). Nonlinear static method of analysis of seismic resistance of buildings and structures. Earthquake engineering. Constructions safety, (5), 39–47. (In Russ.)
  9. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Bulushev S.V. (2017). Accuracy evaluation of the nonlinear static analysis method of the structures seismic resistance. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings, (2), 41–48. (In Russ.)
  10. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Bulushev S.V. (2018). Accuracy evaluation of the nonlinear static analysis method of the structures seismic resistance. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings, 14(1), 70–79. (In Russ.)
  11. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A. (2015). Nelineinye dinamicheskie metody rascheta zdanii i sooruzhenii s zadannoi obespechennost'yu seismostoikosti [Nonlinear dynamic methods of calculation of buildings and structures with a given security seismic stability] (Abstract of Dr Dissertation). Moscow: MGSU Publ., 46. (In Russ.)
  12. Sosnin A.V. (2015). The features of evaluation of deficit of seismic resistance of reinforced concrete frame buildings by the method of nonlinear static analysis in SAP2000. Technical Regulation in Transport Construction, 14(6), 97–110. (In Russ.)
  13. Mkrtychev O.V., Dzhinchvelashvili G.A. (2012). Problemy ucheta nelineynostey v teorii seysmostoykosti (gipotezy i zabluzhdeniya) [Accounting problems of nonlinear seismic stability in the theory (hypothesis and error)]. Moscow: MGSU Publ, 192. (In Russ.)
  14. Mkrtychev O.V., Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Dzerzhinskij R.I. (2016). The philosophy of multi-level design in light of the provision of seismic stability of buildings. Geology and Geophysics of the South of Russia, (1), 71–81. (In Russ.)
  15. Mkrtychev O.V., Dzhinchvelashvili G.A. (2012). Ocenka raboty zdanij i sooruzhenij za predelami uprugosti pri sejsmicheskih vozdejstviyah [Assessment of buildings and structures beyond the elastic limit at the seismic influences]. Theoretical Foundation of Civil Engineering, XXI Russian-Slovak-Polish Seminar, Moscow – Archangelsk, July 3–6, 177 – 186. (In Russ.)
  16. Nemchinov Ju.I., Mar'enkov N.G., Havkin A.K., Babik K.N. (2012). Proektirovanie zdanii s zadannym urovnem obespecheniya seismostoikosti (s uchetom rekomendatsii Evrokoda 8, mezhdunarodnykh standartov i trebovanii DBN) [Designing buildings with a given level of seismic resistance (taking into account the recommendations of Eurocode 8, international standards and DBN requirements)]. Kiev: Minregion Ukrainy, GP NIISK Publ., 53. (In Russ.)
  17. Sosnin A.V. (2016). On the peculiarities of the methodology of nonlinear static analysis and its consistency with the basic normative methodology for calculating buildings and structures for the action of seismic forces. Bulletin of the South Ural University. Serie: Construction Engineering and Architecture, 16(1), 12–19. (In Russ.)
  18. Sosnin A.V. (2017). About refinement of the seismic-force-reduction factor (K1) and its coherence with the concept of seismic response modification in formulation of the spectrum method (in order of discussion). Bulletin of Civil Engineers, 60(1), 92–116. (In Russ.)
  19. Chkhikvadze K.T., Tsiskreli Ts.G., Chlaidze N.Sh., Kadzhaya L.D. (2010). The application of nonlinear static (Pushover) methods for estimating the behavior of structures under seismic excitation. Structural Mechanics and Analysis of Construction, (2), 48–52. (In Russ).
  20. Chkhikvadze K.T., Tsiskreli Ts.G., Chlaidze N.Sh., Kadzhaya L.D. (2010), Pushover Curve Plotting to Assess Nonlinear Behavior of Plane Frame under Earthquake Effect. Earthquake engineering. Constructions safety, (2), 31–33. (In Russ.)

Copyright (c) 2018 Bulushev S.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies