Evaluation of seismic forces under modified structural schemes in the process of vibrations

Cover Page

Cite item


The aim of the work - development of one of the possible methods for seismic analysis that considers the inelastic behavior of structures under seismic loads. This requires the development of seismic analysis methods that take into account the change (decrease) in the bearing capacity or the destruction of individual elements until the final loss of the bearing capacity of the structure. Methods. The dependences and algorithms include determining seismic forces using the method of normal forms, which until now is the main one in solving problems of the seismic resistance theory in seismic regions, calculation formulas to calculate seismic forces at each time step are presented in the form of expansions into natural vibration modes, which regard the changes in the design scheme. The calculation is repeated at each time step as a static calculation for the action of seismic forces determined at the previous stage, before the building collapses. Results. The developed dependencies and algorithms allow to consider changes in the design scheme during vibrations at each time step, changes in the dynamic properties of the building and, as a result, the values of seismic forces. The value of the coefficient of inelastic work of structures K 1, which are given in regulatory documents, do not give fully correspond to the actual behavior of the structure under seismic influences. The proposed calculation method allows to determine the estimated values of seismic forces and their distribution taking into account the influence of damage of elements and the appearance of inelastic zones in the design process of fluctuations at each time step and to assess the dynamic behavior of the building.

About the authors

Yury T. Chernov

Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: ChernovYT@mgsu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0808-9981

Dr Sci. (Eng.), Professor of the Structural Mechanics Department

26 Yaroslavskoye Shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russia Federation

Jaafar Qbaily

Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University)

Email: jaafarqbaily@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3875-9413

postgraduate, Structural Mechanics Department

26 Yaroslavskoye Shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russia Federation


  1. Ehsan H., Tom L., Sreekanth B., Kifaytullah M., Amir M. Earthquake safety assessment of buildings through rapid visual screening. Buildings. 2020;10(3):51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/buildings10030051
  2. Čada P., Máca J. Comparison of methods used for seismic analysis of structures. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings. 2017;13:20. http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/app.2017.13.0020
  3. Yazdani A.R., Ala M. Nonlinear seismic response of stiffening SDOF systems. Engineering Structures. 2001; 23(10):1269-1280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0141-0296(01)00030-x
  4. Shih-Ho C., Subhash C., Soon-Sik L. A seismic design lateral force distribution based on inelastic state of structures. Earthquake Spectra. 2007;23(3):547-569. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2753549
  5. Michael H., Erol K. Special issue on computational simulation in structural engineering. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2014;140(8). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001062
  6. Penna A., Rota M., Mouyiannou A., Magenes G. Issues on the use of time-history analysis for the design and assessment of masonry structures. 4th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Kos Island, Greece, 12-14 June 2013. Athens: National Technical University of Athens; 2014. p. 669-686. http://dx.doi.org/10.7712/120113.4549.C1327
  7. Amory M., Deierlein G.G. Structural topology optimization of tall buildings for dynamic seismic excitation using modal decomposition. Engineering Structures. 2020;216:110717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110717
  8. Pinho R., Antoniou S. Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2004;8(4):497-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632460409350498
  9. Zou X., Chan M. Optimal seismic performance-based design of reinforced concrete buildings using nonlinear pushover analysis. Engineering Structures. 2005;27(8):1289-1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.04.001
  10. Lei Z., Yunfeng X., Yiguang C., Siqian J., Wei X., Xianjie L. Seismic damage evaluation of concrete-encased steel frame-reinforced concrete core tube buildings based on dynamic characteristics. Applied Sciences. 2017;7(4):314. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app7040314
  11. Chernov Y.T. Vibrations of structural building. 2nd edition. Moscow: Publishing House ASV; 2011. (In Russ.)
  12. Hakim R.A., Alama·M.S., Ashour S.A. Seismic assessment of RC building according to ATC 40, FEMA 356 and FEMA 440. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 2014;39(11):7691-7699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1395-x
  13. Bulushev S.V., Jinchvelashvili G.A., Kolesnikov A.V. Nonlinear static method for the analysis of seismic resistance of buildings and structures. Earthquake Engineering. Constructions Safety. 2016;(5):39-47. (In Russ.)
  14. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Bulushev S.V. Accuracy evaluation of the nonlinear static analysis method of the structures seismic resistance. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings. 2017;(2):41-48. (In Russ.)

Copyright (c) 2021 Chernov Y.T., Qbaily J.

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