DESIGNING AND DETAILING OF BUILDING SYSTEMS. MECHANICS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

The history and development prospects of one of the methods for solving multidimensional problems of structural mechanics

Vestnik MGSU 12/2015
  • Mkrtychev Oleg Vartanovich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Doctor of Technical Sciences, Head of Research Laboratory “Reliability and Earthquake Engineering”, Professor, Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation.
  • Dorozhinskiy Vladimir Bogdanovich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Candidate of Technical Sciences, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation.
  • Sidorov Dmitriy Sergeevich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Candidate of Technical Sciences, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation.

Pages 66-75

Earthquakes can be very strong and can lead to significant damages. Effect of earthquakes depend on seismic action characteristics (intensity, spectral composition, etc.), foundation soil properties in region of construction, design and construction quality. In seismically dangerous regions structural calculations the current design standards suppose the use of the coefficient K1, which takes account the non-linear work of construction material and the allowable damages of structures. Our research shows that a stiffening core fails in case of intensive earthquake if the walls are designed according to current design standards. Thus, plastic deformations do not occur and develop in the supporting elements at the beginning of the process, so the lowering coefficient K1 should be disregarded. As stiffening core is projected with account for the reduction factor K1, the existing reinforcement is not enough for standing the emerging stress and its failure happens followed by a redistribution of the stress to frame columns. The columns are also projected with account for the reduction factor K1 and are not able to take such an increase stress beyond design. There is destruction of column frame and complete collapse of the building. So seismic resistance of bearing structures is reduced several times. The approach to estimating K1 must be responsible, based on the latest scientific research, which sometimes could not be done according to the acting design standards.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2015.12.66-75

References
  1. Aptikaev F.F. Mery po snizheniyu ushcherba ot zemletryaseniy [Measures to Reduce Earthquake Damage]. Prirodnye opasnosti Rossii [Natural Hazards of Russia]. Moscow, Kruk Publ., 2000, chapter 7, pp. 165—195. (In Russian)
  2. Bednyakov V.G., Nefedov S.S. Otsenka povrezhdaemosti vysotnykh i protyazhennykh zdaniy i sooruzheniy zheleznodorozhnogo transporta pri seysmicheskikh vozdeystviyakh [Evaluation of Seismic Damage to High and Extended Buildings and Structures of Railway Transport]. Transport: nauka, tekhnika, upravlenie [Transport: Science, Technology, Management]. 2003, no. 12, pp. 24—32. (In Russian)
  3. Polyakov S.V. Posledstviya sil’nykh zemletryaseniy [Consequences of Strong Earthquakes]. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1978, 311 p. (In Russian)
  4. Pshenichkina V.A., Zolina T.V., Drozdov V.V., Kharlanov V.L. Metodika otsenki seysmicheskoy nadezhnosti zdaniy povyshennoy etazhnosti [Methods of Estimating Seismic Reliability of High-Rise Buildings]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhitekturno-stroitel’nogo universiteta. Seriya: Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura [Bulletin of Volgograd State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Series: Construction and Architecture]. 2011, no. 25, pp. 50—56. (In Russian).
  5. Khachatryan S.O. Spektral’no-volnovaya teoriya seysmostoykosti [Spectral-Wave Theory of Seismic Stability]. Seysmostoykoe stroitel’stvo. Bezopasnost’ sooruzheniy [Antiseismic Construction. Structures Safety]. 2004, no. 3, pp. 58—61. (In Russian)
  6. Radin V.P., Trifonov O.V., Chirkov V.P. Model’ mnogoetazhnogo karkasnogo zdaniya dlya raschetov na intensivnye seysmicheskie vozdeystviya [A Model of Multi-Storey Frame Buildings for Calculations on Intensive Seismic Effects]. Seysmostoykoe stroitel’stvo. Bezopasnost’ sooruzheniy [Antiseismic Construction. Safety of Structures]. 2001, no. 1, pp. 23—26. (In Russian)
  7. Tyapin A.G. Raschet sooruzheniy na seysmicheskie vozdeystviya s uchetom vzaimodeystviya s gruntovym osnovaniem [Structural Analysis on Seismic Effects With Account for Interaction with Soil Foundation]. Moscow, ASV Publ., 2013, 399 p. (In Russian)
  8. Chopra Anil K. Elastic Response Spectrum: A Historical Note. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2007, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3—12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.609.
  9. Khavroshkin O.B., Tsyplakov V.V. Nelineynaya seysmologiya: nekotorye fundamental’nye i prikladnye problemy razvitiya [Nonlinear Seismology: Some Fundamental and Applied Problems of Development]. Fundamental’nye nauki — narodnomu khozyaystvu : sbornik [Fundamental Sciences to National Economy : Collection]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1990, pp. 363—367. (In Russian)
  10. Stefanishin D.V. K voprosu otsenki i ucheta seysmicheskogo riska pri prinyatii resheniy [Assessment and Consideration of Seismic Risk in Decision-Making]. Predotvrashchenie avariy zdaniy i sooruzheniy : sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Preventing Accidents of Buildings and Structures: Collection of Scientific Works]. 10.12.2012. Available at: http://www.pamag.ru/pressa/calculation_seismic-risk. (In Russian)
  11. Simbort E.Kh.S. Metodika vybora koeffitsienta reduktsii seysmicheskikh nagruzok K1 pri zadannom urovne koeffitsienta plastichnosti m [Methodology of Selecting Seismic Loads Gear Ratio of Reduction K1 with Given Plastic Ratio m]. Inzhenerno-stroitel’nyy zhurnal [Engineering and Construction Journal]. 2012, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 44—52. (In Russian)
  12. Mkrtychev O.V., Dzhinchvelashvili G.A. Analiz ustoychivosti zdaniya pri avariynykh vozdeystviyakh [Analysis of Building Sustainability during Emergency Actions]. Nauka i tekhnika transporta [Science and Technology on Transport]. 2002, no. 2, pp. 34—41. (In Russian)
  13. Mkrtychev O.V., Yur’ev R.V. Raschet konstruktsiy na seysmicheskie vozdeystviya s ispol’zovaniem sintezirovannykh akselerogramm [Structural Analysis on Seismic Effects Using Synthesized Accelerograms]. Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitel’stvo [Industrial and Civil Engineering]. 2010, no. 6, pp. 52—54. (In Russian)
  14. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Mkrtychev O.V. Effektivnost’ primeneniya seysmoizoliruyushchikh opor pri stroitel’stve zdaniy i sooruzheniy [Effectiveness of Seismic Isolation Bearings during the Construction of Buildings and Structures]. Transportnoe stroitel’stvo [Transport Construction]. 2003, no. 9, pp. 15—19. (In Russian)
  15. Mkrtychev O.V. Bezopasnost’ zdaniy i sooruzheniy pri seysmicheskikh i avariynykh vozdeystviyakh [Safety of Buildings and Structures in Case of Seismic and Emergency Loads]. Moscow, MGSU Publ., 2010, 152 p. (In Russian)
  16. Datta T.K. Seismic Analysis of Structures. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2010, 464 p.
  17. Dr. Sudhir K. Jain, Dr. C.V.R. Murty. Proposed Draft Provisions and Commentary on Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 (Part 1). Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 2002, 158 p.
  18. Guo Shu-xiang, Lü Zhen-zhou. Procedure for Computing the Possibility and Fuzzy Probability of Failure of Structures. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics. 2003, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 338—343. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02438271.
  19. Housner G.W. The Plastic Failure of Frames during Earthquakes. Proceedings of the 2nd WCEE, Tokyo&Kyoto. Japan, 1960, vol. II, pp. 997—1012
  20. Pintoa P.E., Giannini R., Franchin P. Seismic Reliability Analysis of Structures. Pavia, Italy, IUSS Press, 2004, 370 p.

Download

Comparison of linear spectral and nonlinear dynamic calculation method for tie frame building structure in case of earthquakes

Vestnik MGSU 1/2016
  • Mkrtychev Oleg Vartanovich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Doctor of Technical Sciences, head, Scientific Laboratory of Reliability and Seismic Resistance of Structures, Professor, Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
  • Bunov Artem Anatol’evich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Candidate of Technical Sciences, engineer, Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
  • Dorozhinskiy Vladimir Bogdanovich - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Candidate of Technical Sciences, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Pages 57-67

An earthquake is a rapid highly nonlinear process. In effective normative documents there is a coefficient K1, which takes into account limit damage of building structures, i.e. non-linear work of building materials and structures during seismic load. Its value depends on the building constructive layout. However, because of the development of construction and new constructive solutions this coefficient should be defined according to design-basis justification. The article considers the five-storey building calculation on seismic impact by linear-spectral and direct dynamic methods. Our research shows that the coefficient K1 for this building is 0.4, which was calculated using nonlinear dynamic method. According to effective normative documents K1 is 0.25…0.3 for buildings of this type. Thus we get a lack of seismic stability of bearing structures by 1.5…2 times. In order to ensure the seismic safety of buildings and facilities, especially of unique objects, the coefficient K1 should be determined by calculations with sufficient scientific justification, particularly with the use of non-linear dynamic methods.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2016.1.57-67

References
  1. Khavroshkin O.B., Tsyplakov V.V. Nelineynaya seysmologiya: nekotorye fundamental’nye i prikladnye problemy razvitiya [Nonlinear Seismology: Some Fundamental and Applied Problems of Development]. Fundamental’nye nauki — narodnomu khozyaystvu : sbornik [Fundamental Sciences to National Economy : Collection]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1990, pp. 363—367. (In Russian)
  2. Polyakov S.V. Posledstviya sil’nykh zemletryaseniy [Consequences of Strong Earthquakes]. Moscow, Stroyizdat Publ., 1978, 311 p. (In Russian)
  3. Tyapin A.G. Raschet sooruzheniy na seysmicheskie vozdeystviya s uchetom vzaimodeystviya s gruntovym osnovaniem [Structural Analysis on Seismic Effects with Account for Interaction with Soil Foundation]. Moscow, ASV Publ., 2013, 399 p. (In Russian)
  4. Aptikaev F.F. Mery po snizheniyu ushcherba ot zemletryaseniy [Measures to Reduce Earthquake Damage]. Prirodnye opasnosti Rossii [Natural Hazards of Russia]. Moscow, Kruk Publ., 2000, chapter 7, pp. 165—195. (In Russian)
  5. Mkrtychev O.V. Bezopasnost’ zdaniy i sooruzheniy pri seysmicheskikh i avariynykh vozdeystviyakh [Safety of Buildings and Structures in Case of Seismic and Emergency Loads]. Moscow, MGSU Publ., 2010, 152 p. (In Russian)
  6. Bednyakov V.G., Nefedov S.S. Otsenka povrezhdaemosti vysotnykh i protyazhennykh zdaniy i sooruzheniy zheleznodorozhnogo transporta pri seysmicheskikh vozdeystviyakh [Evaluation of Seismic Damage to High and Extended Buildings and Structures of Railway Transport]. Transport: nauka, tekhnika, upravlenie [Transport: Science, Technology, Management]. 2003, no. 12, pp. 24—32. (In Russian)
  7. Radin V.P., Trifonov O.V., Chirkov V.P. Model’ mnogoetazhnogo karkasnogo zdaniya dlya raschetov na intensivnye seysmicheskie vozdeystviya [A Model of Multi-Storey Frame Buildings for Calculations on Intensive Seismic Effects]. Seysmostoykoe stroitel’stvo. Bezopasnost’ sooruzheniy [Antiseismic Construction. Safety of Structures]. 2001, no. 1, pp. 23—26. (In Russian)
  8. Pshenichkina V.A., Zolina T.V., Drozdov V.V., Kharlanov V.L. Metodika otsenki seysmicheskoy nadezhnosti zdaniy povyshennoy etazhnosti [Methods of Estimating Seismic Reliability of High-Rise Buildings]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhitekturno-stroitel’nogo universiteta. Seriya: Stroitel’stvo i arkhitektura [Bulletin of Volgograd State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Series: Construction and Architecture]. 2011, no. 25, pp. 50—56. (In Russian)
  9. Stefanishin D.V. K voprosu otsenki i ucheta seysmicheskogo riska pri prinyatii resheniy [Assessment and Consideration of Seismic Risk in Decision-Making]. Predotvrashchenie avariy zdaniy i sooruzheniy : sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Preventing Accidents of Buildings and Structures: Collection of Scientific Works]. 10.12.2012. Available at: http://www.pamag.ru/pressa/calculation_seismic-risk. (In Russian)
  10. Simbort E.Kh.S. Metodika vybora koeffitsienta reduktsii seysmicheskikh nagruzok K1 pri zadannom urovne koeffitsienta plastichnosti m [Methodology of Selecting Seismic Loads Gear Ratio of Reduction K1 with Given Plastic Ratio µ]. Inzhenerno-stroitel’nyy zhurnal [Engineering and Construction Journal]. 2012, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 44—52. (In Russian)
  11. Khachatryan S.O. Spektral’no-volnovaya teoriya seysmostoykosti [Spectral-Wave Theory of Seismic Stability]. Seysmostoykoe stroitel’stvo. Bezopasnost’ sooruzheniy [Antiseismic Construction. Structures Safety]. 2004, no. 3, pp. 58—61. (In Russian)
  12. Chopra Anil K. Elastic Response Spectrum: A Historical Note. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2007, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3—12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.609.
  13. Mkrtychev O.V., Dzhinchvelashvili G.A. Analiz ustoychivosti zdaniya pri avariynykh vozdeystviyakh [Analysis of Building Sustainability during Emergency Actions]. Nauka i tekhnika transporta [Science and Technology on Transport]. 2002, no. 2, pp. 34—41. (In Russian)
  14. Mkrtychev O.V., Yur’ev R.V. Raschet konstruktsiy na seysmicheskie vozdeystviya s ispol’zovaniem sintezirovannykh akselerogramm [Structural Analysis on Seismic Effects Using Synthesized Accelerograms]. Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitel’stvo [Industrial and Civil Engineering]. 2010, no. 6, pp. 52—54. (In Russian)
  15. Dzhinchvelashvili G.A., Mkrtychev O.V. Effektivnost’ primeneniya seysmoizoliruyushchikh opor pri stroitel’stve zdaniy i sooruzheniy [Effectiveness of Seismic Isolation Bearings during the Construction of Buildings and Structures]. Transportnoe stroitel’stvo [Transport Construction]. 2003, no. 9, pp. 15—19. (In Russian)
  16. Datta T.K. Seismic Analysis of Structures. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd. 2010, 464 p.
  17. Dr. Sudhir K. Jain, Dr. C.V.R. Murty. Proposed Draft Provisions and Commentary on Indian Seismic Code IS 1893 (Part 1). Kanpur, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, 2002, 158 p.
  18. Guo Shu-xiang, Lü Zhen-zhou. Procedure for Computing the Possibility and Fuzzy Probability of Failure of Structures. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics. 2003, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 338—343. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02438271.
  19. Housner G.W. The Plastic Failure of Frames during Earthquakes. Proceedings of the 2nd WCEE, Tokyo&Kyoto. Japan, 1960, vol. II, pp. 997—1012.
  20. Pintoa P.E., Giannini R., Franchin P. Seismic Reliability Analysis of Structures. Pavia, Italy, IUSS Press, 2004, 370 p.

Download

Nonlinear calculation of reinforced concrete structures to the impact of the air shock wave

Vestnik MGSU 1/2019 Volume 14
  • Savenkov Anton Y. - АO «Atomenergoproyekt» Lead Engineer, АO «Atomenergoproyekt», 7 Bakuninskaya st., Moscow, 105005, Russian Federation.
  • Mkrtychev Oleg V. - Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU) Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of Department of Strength of Materials, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (National Research University) (MGSU), 26 Yaroslavskoe shosse, Moscow, 129337, Russian Federation.

Pages 33-45

Introduction. Researched methods of accounting for the nonlinear operation of reinforced concrete structures on the example of an industrial structure, when exposed to an air shock wave using modern software systems based on the finite element method. The calculation of reinforced concrete construction to the impact of an air shock wave, if no increased requirements for tightness are presented to it, in accordance with current regulatory documents, must be carried out taking into account the elastic-plastic work, crack opening in the stretched zone of concrete and plastic deformations of reinforcement are allowed. Reviewed by new coupling approach to determining the dynamic loads of a shock wave, implemented in the LS-DYNA software package, which allows to take into account the effects of a long-range explosion and wave-wrapping around a structure. Materials and methods. The study of the stress-strain state of the structures was carried out using numerical simulation. For the nonlinear equivalent-static method, a step-by-step calculation algorithm is used, with gradual accumulation and distribution of stresses, implemented in the LIRA-SAPR software package. For the nonlinear dynamic method, the Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation is used using the methods of gas dynamics in the LS-DYNA software package. Results. As a result of numerical simulation, the following was done analysis of existing methods of nonlinear calculations; analysis of the existing loads during the flow of shock waves around the structure; analysis of the forces and movements in the bearing elements, as well as pictures of the destruction of concrete and reinforcement. Conclusions. According to the results of the comparison of the two approaches, conclusions are drawn about the advantages and disadvantages of the methods. Advantages of nonlinear dynamic calculation methods are noted compared to the equivalent-static ones. Use of the combined approach to the description of the shock wave front gives a reduction in time and allows us to describe the interaction of the wave with the structure with sufficient accuracy. The findings indicate the relevance of the study and provide an opportunity to move to more reasonable computational models.

DOI: 10.22227/1997-0935.2019.1.33-45

Download

Results 1 - 3 of 3