See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313427190

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL BY THE DYNAMIC METHOD FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF

BUILDINGS

Article · June 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 4

5 authors, including:

Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas

Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Torreón, Coahuila, México
84 PUBLICATIONS   245 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MODELOS MATEMATICOS EN LA ADMINISTRACION DE EMPRESAS PARA MEJORAR LA EFICIENCIA View project

MODELOS MATEMATICOS PARA DISEÑO DE ELEMENTOS ESTRUCTURALES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas on 07 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Far East Journal of Dynamical Systems
Volume 16, Number 2, 2011, Pages 87-105
Published Online: December 2011
Available online at http://pphmj.com/journals/fjds.htm
Published by Pushpa Publishing House, Allahabad, INDIA

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL BY THE DYNAMIC METHOD

FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS

Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas, Alberto Diosdado Salazar,

José Betancourt Hernandez, Oscar Conte Duclaud and Sergio Lopez Gómez

Facultad de Ingeniería, Ciencias y Arquitectura

Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango
Av. Universidad S/N, Fracc. Filadelfia
CP 35010, Gómez Palacio, Durango, México
e-mail: arnulfol_2007@hotmail.com

Abstract

In this paper, we present a model for seismic analysis of buildings. In this

model, two masses concentrated by each level are taken and applied in the
free joints of the structure. Also, a comparison is made with the traditional
method to consider a discrete mass by each level, i.e., a mass by each
floor of all the buildings, in this all the values are not conservative, as can
be seen in the problem considered. The two models take into account the
shear deformations. Therefore, the usual practice of considering one mass
concentrated by each level is not a recommended solution and it is
proposed to consider two masses concentrated by each level, and in
addition, it has conditions nearer to the reality.

Introduction

For the seismic analysis of structures in buildings, three types of analysis can be
used: simplified method, static method and dynamic method. The simplified method
is applicable to regular structures with not greater height of 13m and simultaneously
© 2011 Pushpa Publishing House
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 37.
Keywords and phrases: modal analysis, spectral analysis, eigenvalues, eigenvectors, modal
participation factor, spectral acceleration, vector coordinates maximum normal.
Received June 29, 2011
88 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

fulfills all the indicated requirements. The static method is applicable to buildings
whose height is less than or equal to 30m and irregular structures with not greater
height of 20m. In rocky land, these limits are increased to 40 and 30m, respectively.
The dynamic method consists of the same basic steps that the static method, with the
reservation of which the applicable lateral forces in the centers of mass of the floors
are determined from the dynamic response of the structure. For the dynamic method,
the modal spectral analysis and analysis step by step or calculation of responses with
registries of specific acceleration [1] can be used.

The objective of this study is to show a model that takes into account two
masses by level in the free joints of the building and considers the three degrees of
freedom in the joint. Making a comparison with the traditional model that considers
a mass by each level and considering a degree of freedom by floor (horizontal
displacement by level). The two models take into account the shear deformations.

Analytical Development

Equations of motion in a structural dynamic system

The general equations of motion in a structural dynamic system [2], without

including conditions of border, can be written in matrix form as follows:

⎡ M 11 M 12 ⎤ ⎡U1 ⎤ ⎡ C11 C12 ⎤ ⎡U1 ⎤ ⎡ K11 K12 ⎤ ⎡U1 ⎤ ⎡ P1 ⎤

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥, (1)
⎣ M 21 M 22 ⎦ ⎣⎢U2 ⎦⎥ ⎣C21 C22 ⎦ ⎣⎢U 2 ⎦⎥ ⎣ K 21 K 22 ⎦ ⎣U 2 ⎦ ⎣ P2 ⎦

where

U1 = a vector of n × 1 of absolute generalized displacements (not known),

corresponding to the degrees of freedom not restricted n,
U 2 = a vector of m × 1 of absolute generalized displacements (null or
prescribed), corresponding to the degrees of freedom of the support points m,
M ij , Cij , K ij = masses, damping and stiffness matrices, are associated to the
degrees of freedom n and/or m, respectively,
P1 = a vector of n × 1 that represents associates dynamics requirements to the
degrees of freedom n,
P2 = a vector of m × 1 that represents the reaction (not known) associated to
the degree of freedom of the support m.
 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 89

Then considering orthogonality properties of the normal coordinates may now

be used to simplify the equations of motion of the Multi-Degree-of-Freedom system.
In general form, these equations are given by equation (1). For the undamped system
[3] and [4] they become

M 11U1r + K11U1r = 0, (2)

where

U1r = relative displacement.

Its solution is defined as:

G
U1r = ∅ eiωt , (3)

where

ω = natural vibration frequency,

G
∅ = modal vector (mode-shaped vector) associated to ω.
G
The values of ω and ∅ are determined by the solution of eigenproblems as:
G
( K11 − ω2 M11 ) ∅ = 0. (4)

The participation factor Ln is calculated in [5, 6] and is defined as:

G G
∅ tn M 11r
Ln = G t G , (5)
∅ n M 11∅ n

where
G
∅ tn = the transpose of the modal vector corresponding to mode n,
G
r = the pseudostatic influence vector.
The maximum normal coordinates (Yn )max of the system for each mode are
denoted as:
Ln S an
(Yn )max = , (6)
ω2n
where

S an = spectral acceleration.
90 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

The vectors corresponding to the components of the maximum relative

displacement vector for each mode {U1rn }max are denoted as:
G
{U1rn }max = {∅ n }(Yn )max . (7)

The maximum value of the vector for relative displacements in the structural
dynamic system {U1r }max is obtained as:
12
⎧ n ⎫
{U1r }max
⎪
=⎨ ∑
⎪⎩ j =1
⎪
(U1rj )2max ⎬
⎪⎭
, (8)

{U1r }max = {(U11

r 2
)max + (U12
r 2
)max + " + (U1rn )2max }1 2 . (9)

The value of the equivalent mechanical elements that act in the free joints P, [7],
may be expressed as:
P = K11{U1r }max . (10)

Finally, the mechanical elements that act on members Fi [8], are defined as:

Fi = K i U ij , (11)

where

K i = stiffness matrix of member i, in the global or general system,

U ij = displacements vectors of member ij, in the global system.

Application

As an illustration of the dynamic method for seismic design, taking into account
the shear deformations, for a offices building, it is developed solely in the transverse
direction, i.e., the sense of 10m, constructed with structural steel profiles, according
to it is seen in Figure 1, and the spectrum of horizontal response is observed in
Figure 2, that is the motion of soil, where it supports the building. In Table I, the
properties of the steel profiles are presented.

The load to consider in analysis through a level is given below:

Weight of the Level # 1 = 700 kg m 2 ,

Weight of the Level # 2 = 600 kg m 2 ,

 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 91

Weight of the Level # 3 = 500 kg m 2 ,

Weight of the Level # 4 = 300 kg m 2 ,

Elasticity modulus = 2,040,734 kg cm 2 ,

Poisson’s ratio = 0.32.

The properties of the used steel profiles are given in Table I. The spectrum of
horizontal response of the ground is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Plant and elevation of the office buildings constructed with structural steel
profiles.

Figure 2. The spectrum of horizontal response.

92 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

Table I. Properties of the steel profiles

Total area Shear area Inertia moment
Profiles
(cm )
2
(cm )2
(cm 4 )
W10 × 60 113.55 27.69 14193
W10 × 45 85.81 22.81 10323
W10 × 22 41.87 15.75 4912
W24 × 94 178.71 80.77 112382
W24 × 62 117.42 70.07 64516

Model 1

In this model, the beams and the columns are considered for the analysis. Take
into account the mass concentrated and the three degrees of freedom in each joint.
The building is analyzed solely in the transverse direction. The mathematical model
is appeared in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Vector model of two concentrated masses by each level of the building.
 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 93

Matrix of discrete mass M i of a joint is

⎡M x 0 0 ⎤
M i = ⎢⎢ 0 My 0 ⎥⎥ ,
⎢⎣ 0 0 M z ⎥⎦

where

i = it goes 1 to 8,

M x = mass in direction X’,

M y = mass in direction Y’,

M z = rotational mass, i.e., around Z’-axis.

Our problem is: M 1 = M 8 , M 2 = M 7 , M 3 = M 6 and M 4 = M 5 .

Mass matrix M 11 in the global system is

⎡M 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 0 M2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 M3 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
0 0 0 M4 0 0 0 0 ⎥
M 11 =⎢ .
⎢ 0 0 0 0 M5 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 M6 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 M7 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 8 ⎥⎦

Stiffness matrix K j of a structural member is

⎡K ( j ) ( j)⎤
K12
Kj = ⎢ ⎥,
11
⎢K ( j ) ( j)⎥
⎣ 21 K 22 ⎦

where

j = it goes 1 to 12.

Stiffness matrix of a column in the global system [9] and [10] is

94 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

⎡ 12 EI ⎡ 6 EI ⎤ 12 EI ⎡ 6 EI ⎤ ⎤
⎢ 3 0 −⎢ ⎥ − 0 −⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢ L (1 + α ) ⎣ L (1 + α ) ⎦
2
L (1 + α )
3
⎣ L (1 + α ) ⎦ ⎥
2
⎢ EA EA ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 − 0 ⎥
L L
⎢ ⎡ ⎤ ⎥
⎢− ⎢ 6 EI ⎥ 0 ⎡ 4 + α ⎤ EI 6 EI
0 ⎡ 2 − α ⎤ EI ⎥
⎢ ⎣ L2 (1 + α ) ⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L L (1 + α )
2 ⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L ⎥
Kj = ⎢ ⎥.
12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI
⎢ − 0 0 ⎥
⎢ L (1 + α )
3
L2 (1 + α ) L3 (1 + α ) L2 (1 + α ) ⎥
⎢ EA EA ⎥
⎢ 0 − 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ L L ⎥
⎢− ⎡ 6 EI ⎤ ⎡ 2 − α ⎤ EI 6 EI ⎡ 4 + α ⎤ EI ⎥
⎢ ⎢ L2 (1 + α ) ⎥ 0
⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L L (1 + α )
2
0
⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L ⎥
⎣ ⎣ ⎦ ⎦

Stiffness matrix of a beam in the global system [9] and [10] may be expressed
as:

⎡ EA 0 0 −
EA
0 0 ⎤
⎢ L L ⎥
⎢ 12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI ⎥
⎢ 0 0 − ⎥
⎢ L (1 + α )
3
L (1 + α )
2
L (1 + α )
3
L (1 + α ) ⎥
2

⎢ 6 EI ⎡ 4 + α ⎤ EI −
6 EI ⎡ 2 − α ⎤ EI ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L
0
⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L ⎥
L2 (1 + α ) L2 (1 + α )
Kj = ⎢ ⎥.
⎢− EA 0 0
EA
0 0 ⎥
⎢ L L ⎥
⎢ 12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI ⎥
⎢ 0 − − 0 − ⎥
⎢ L (1 + α )
3
L (1 + α )
2
L (1 + α )
3
L2 (1 + α ) ⎥
⎢ 0 6 EI ⎡ 2 − α ⎤ EI 0 −
6 EI ⎡ 4 + α ⎤ EI ⎥
⎢ L2 (1 + α ) ⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L L2 (1 + α ) ⎢⎣ 1 + α ⎥⎦ L ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Values of α and G are

12 EI
α= ,
GAc L2

E
G= ,
2(1 + ν )

where

E = elasticity module,

I = inertia moment,

L = member length,
 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 95

A = total area,

α = form factor,

G = shear modulus,

Ac = shear area,

ν = Poisson’s ratio.

Stiffness matrix of all the buildings in the global system is

⎡ K (1) + K ( 2 ) + K (12 ) (2)

K12 0 0
⎢ 22 11 11
⎢ (2 )
K 21 ( 2 ) + K (3) + K (11)
K 22 K (3 ) 0
⎢ 11 11 12
⎢ 0 K ( 3)
K 22 + K114 ) + K11
( 3) ( (10 ) (4)
K12
⎢ 21
⎢ (4 ) ( 4 ) + K (9 )
⎢ 0 0 K 21 K 22 11
K11 = ⎢
( 9)
⎢ 0 0 0 K 21
⎢
⎢ 0 0 K (10 )
21 0
⎢
⎢ 0 K (11)
21 0 0
⎢
⎢⎣ (
K 2112 )
0 0 0

0 0 0 (12 )
K12 ⎤
⎥
0 0 (11)
K12 0 ⎥
⎥
0 (10 )
K12 0 0 ⎥
⎥
⎥
K (9 )
12 0 0 0 ⎥
(9 ) + K (5 ) (5 ) ⎥.
K 22 22 K 21 0 0 ⎥
⎥
K (5 )
12
(6 ) + K (5) + K (10 )
K12 11 22
(6 )
K 21 0 ⎥
( 6) (7 ) + K (6 ) + K (11) ( 7)
⎥
0 K 12 K 22 11 22 K 21 ⎥
⎥
0 0 K (7 )
12
(8) ( 7) (12 ) ⎥
K 22 + K11 + K 22 ⎦

Model 2

This model considers that the beams are rigid in comparison to the columns, and
therefore the beams do not influence the dynamic analysis of the building. It also
considers a degree of freedom by level that is the horizontal displacement [11]. The
mathematical model is presented in Figure 4.
96 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

Figure 4. Vector model of a concentrated mass by each level of the building.

Mass matrix M 11 in the global system is defined as

⎡M 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 0 M2 0 0 ⎥⎥
M 11 = ⎢ .
⎢ 0 0 M3 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 0 0 0 M 4 ⎦⎥

Stiffness matrix K j of a structural member is

⎡K ( j ) ( j) ⎤
K12
Kj = ⎢ ⎥,
11
⎢K ( j ) ( j) ⎥
⎣ 21 K 22 ⎦
 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 97

⎡ 12 EI −
12 EI ⎤
⎢ L3 (1 + α ) L (1 + α ) ⎥
3
Kj = ⎢ ⎥.
⎢ 12 EI 12 EI ⎥
⎢− 3 ⎥
⎣⎢ L (1 + α ) L3 (1 + α ) ⎦⎥
Stiffness matrix of all the buildings in the global system is
⎡ K (1) + K ( 2 ) (2)
K12 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 22 11
⎥
⎢ (2 ) (2) (3 ) (3 )
K 21 K 22 + K11 K12 0 ⎥
K11 = ⎢ ⎥.
⎢ (3) (3 ) (4 ) (4 ) ⎥
0 K 21 K 22 + K11 K12
⎢ ⎥
⎢ (4 ) (4 ) ⎥
⎣ 0 0 K 21 K 22 ⎦
Evaluating mass matrix and stiffness in each one of the members, immediate
change of the local system in the general system is realized. Right away the coupling
of each mass matrix and stiffness is found; subsequently the general matrix of
system is obtained. This matrix is organized for separating the degrees of
freedom in the structure ( M 11 and K11 ) and degrees of freedom in the supports
( M 22 and K 22 ). A “similar transformation” is applied through exchange of rows
and columns matrix.

Taking into account the condition of free vibration given by equation (2), being
U1r , a vector of relative displacements (24 × 1 for Model 1 and 4 × 1 for Model 2)
corresponding to the degree of freedom in the structural system of the building is
obtained. Right away solving the determinant given by equation (4), the eigenvalues
and eigenvectors are evaluated.

Using the MATLAB software for solving the determinant, we obtain the
polynomial and the roots. The results of the first four modes of the 16 for Model 1
(M1) and the four modes for Model 2 (M2) are presented in Table II.

Table II. Eigenvalues

Circular frequency Frequency Period ω2n
Mode (rad/sec) (Hz) (sec) (rad sec )2
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
1 5.8479 6.5879 0.9307 1.0485 1.0744 0.9537 34.198 43.400
2 14.8181 15.9421 2.3584 2.5373 0.4240 0.3941 219.576 254.151
3 25.7784 27.3889 4.1028 4.3591 0.2437 0.2294 664.526 750.152
4 32.4698 33.4725 5.1677 5.3273 0.1935 0.1877 1054.288 1120.408
98 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

In Table III, there are the spectral accelerations of the first four ways of Model 1
and those of Model 2.

Table III. Spectral accelerations

Frequency ωn Acceleration S an
Mode (Hz) (cm sec 2 )
M1 M2 M1 M2
1 0.9307 1.0485 0.1772g = 173.778 0.1920g = 188.2877
2 2.3584 2.5373 0.2928g = 287.1387 0.3000g = 294.1995
3 4.1028 4.3591 0.3000g = 294.1995 0.3000g = 294.1995
4 5.1677 5.3273 0.3000g = 294.1995 0.3000g = 294.1995

In Figure 5, the first four modes of Model 1 as well as the configuration of the
building are shown:

Figure 5(a). First vibration mode.

Figure 5(b). Second vibration mode.

 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 99

Figure 5(c). Third vibration mode.

Figure 5(d). Fourth vibration mode.

In Figure 6, the 4 modes of Model 2 as well as the configuration of the building

are shown:

Figure 6(a). First vibration mode. Figure 6(b). Second vibration mode.
100 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

Figure 6(c). Third vibration mode. Figure 6(d). Fourth vibration mode.

Using equation (5), the modal participation factor Ln is obtained, the maximum
normal coordinates (Yn )max of the system for each mode are located by means of
equation (6) and the first four values for Model 1 and those of Model 2 appear, in
Table IV. The vectors corresponding to the components of the vector maximum
relative displacements for each mode {U1rn }max are by means of equation (7) and
finally, the maximum value of the vector of relative displacements for the structural
system of the building {U1r }max is obtained by equation (8). These values appear,
for both models in Table V.

Table IV. The participation factors Ln and the maximum normal coordinates
(Yn )max of the system for each mode
Participation factors Maximum normal coordinates of
Mode Ln the system for each mode (Yn )max
M1 M2 M1/M2 M1 M2 M1/M2
1 +1.3390 +1.3316 1.0056 +6.8038 +5.7770 1.1777
2 –0.4325 –0.4028 1.0737 –0.5656 –0.4663 1.2130
3 +0.1277 +0.0952 1.3414 +0.0566 +0.0373 1.5174
4 –0.0972 –0.0799 1.2165 –0.0271 –0.0210 1.2905
 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 101

Table V. Vector of deformations

Relative Amount
Joint Concept Unit
deformations M1 M2 M1/M2
U1r 1 Displacement X cm 2.8763 2.6577 1.0823

U1r 2 1 Displacement Y cm 0.0504 0 -

U1r 3 Rotation rad 0.0018 0 -

U1r 4 Displacement X cm 4.3305 3.6668 1.1810

U1r 5 2 Displacement Y cm 0.0848 0 -

U1r 6 Rotation rad 0.0012 0 -

U1r 7 Displacement X cm 6.0494 5.1725 1.1695

U1r 8 3 Displacement Y cm 0.1337 0 -

U1r 9 Rotation rad 0.0007 0 -

U1r 10 Displacement X cm 6.8275 5.7959 1.1780

U1r 11 4 Displacement Y cm 0.1555 0 -

U1r 12 Rotation rad 0.0004 0 -

U1r 13 Displacement X cm 6.8275 5.7959 1.1780

U1r 14 5 Displacement Y cm 0.1555 0 -

U1r 15 Rotation rad 0.0004 0 -

U1r 16 Displacement X cm 6.0494 5.1725 1.1695

U1r 17 6 Displacement Y cm 0.1337 0 -

U1r 18 Rotation rad 0.007 0 -

U1r 19 Displacement X cm 4.3305 3.6668 1.1810

U1r 20 7 Displacement Y cm 0.0848 0 -

U1r 21 Rotation rad 0.0012 0 -

U1r 22 Displacement X cm 2.8763 2.6577 1.0823

U1r 23 8 Displacement Y cm 0.0504 0 -

U1r 24 Rotation rad 0.0018 0 -

102 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

Once obtained the deformations is used equation (10), the values for the forces
in X and Y, and moments are found, these are applied in the free joints. Such effects
are equivalent as if it acted a movement in the ground where the building is located.
Right away the mechanical elements in the joints on the members of the building are
determined by equation (11), immediately they are obtained for each frame of the
building. For a central frame, axial forces in Figure 7, shear forces in Figure 8 and
moments in Figure 9, are shown.

Figure 7. Axial force.

Figure 8. Shear force.

 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 103

Figure 9. Moments.

Results and Discussions

The values of the frequencies in the vibration modes of the building appear in
Table II. It is observed that Model 1 is minor with respect to Model 2 and logically
the periods are inverses. In this table, the first four modes for Model 1 appear, but
the work was developed with the sixteen modes that result of the dynamic analysis.

In Table III, the spectral accelerations are observed. These values are obtained
with the frequency of each one of the modes of excitation in the structure and these
results are obtained by means of Figure 2, where the spectrum of horizontal response
of the ground in the place of the building appears.

Participation factors and the maximum normal coordinates of the system for
each mode are observed in Table IV, in which all the values in Model 1 are majors,
as far as the participation factor, that has an increase until of 34.14% and in the
coordinates maximum normal has an increase until of 51.74%, both percentages
appear in the third mode.

With regard to Table V, where are the relative deformations of the structural
system, also they are majors in Model 1, with an increase of the 18.10%, this
104 Arnulfo Luévanos Rojas et al.

comparison is made solely in the horizontal displacements, since Model 2 does not
take into account the others deformations, and in any structure will be presented.

In Figure 7, the axial forces of the structure are shown, in this part there is an
increase in Model 1 up to 5.0731 times major in absolute value with respect to
Model 2 (traditional model). This occurs only in the columns, therefore designs are
uncertain and in the beams does not exist axial forces for Model 1, and in Model 2, if
it exists value, in this case are exceeded the designs.

The shear forces are presented in Figure 8, in all the columns exist differences
great until 96.10% majors for Model 1 with respect to Model 2, and in the beams
show an increase, in the member superior of 14.06%, for Model 1, but difference
goes declining, as it passes to the next lower level, thus until the first floor that
happens to be even greater in Model 2.

The moments that act in the members of the structure are shown in Figure 9, in
Model 1 are majors for all the columns, until of 2.0944 times majors than in Model
2, in the beams behave similar that the shear forces, that has an increase in Model 1,
in the member of the superior floor is the 14.22% and for the member of the inferior
floor is major in Model 2.

Conclusion

Of the obtained results is observed that the difference, between Model 1

(proposed model) and Model 2 (classic model) are major in some members, as it is
presented in the tables and figures of the considered problem. Therefore, the general
practice to consider concentrated mass one by each level will not be a
recommendable solution. Taking into account the obtained results, it turns out to be
Model 1, more appropriate for the seismic analysis of structural systems in buildings.

Now with respect to Model 1 and Model 2, one observes that in the second case
we have not taken into account several degrees of freedom, which are reflected in
the response of the system and not of the preservative side. On the other hand, when
realizing the frequency analysis, demonstrates that considering Model 2, beforehand
implies not to consider certain modal forms (symmetrical modes and/or anti-
symmetrical) of the structure, that in the case for excitations in the soil that could be
present in certain situations, these must be considered, as in some cases they
correspond to relatively low frequencies.
 A Mathematical Model by the Dynamic Method for Seismic Design … 105

References

[1] G. Zárate, A. G. Ayala and O. García, Método sísmico estático para edificios
asimétricos: revisión de enfoques, Revista de Ingeniería Sísmica 69 (2003), 25-44.
[2] J. S. Przemieniecki, Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 1985, pp.
150-163; 278-287.
[3] R. Aguilar Falconi, Acciones para el diseño sísmico de estructuras, Limusa-Wiley,
1998, pp. 119-135.
[4] L. E. García Reyes, Dinámica estructural aplicada a diseño sísmico, Departamento
de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá,
Colombia, 1998, pp. 321-329; 505-548.
[5] R. W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw-Hill, 1975, pp.
145-284.
[6] E. Bazan and R. Meli, Diseño sísmico de edificios, Limusa-Wiley, 1998, pp.
225-239.
[7] J. C. McCormac, Structural Analysis: Using Classical and Matrix Methods, John
Wiley & Sons, 2007, pp. 550-580.
[8] A. Tena Colunga, Análisis de estructuras con métodos matriciales, Limusa-Wiley,
2007, pp. 93-98.
[9] Appendix. Formulario de Teoría de Estructuras. Matrices de Rigidez Elementales, de
Masa Congruentes, y de Rigidez Geométrica, http://www.esiold.us.es/php/infgen/
aulav/teorestructurasind/Matrices_de_rigidez_elementales.pdf
[10] A. Luévanos Rojas, F. Cortés Martinez, C. Uranga Sifuentes, R. Luévanos Rojas and
M. E. Luévanos Soto, Vibrations in systems of pipes with different movements in
the supports, considering the deformations by sharp, Adv. Appl. Stat. 20(2) (2011),
109-132.
[11] A. Luévanos-Rojas, Seismic analysis of a building of four levels: making a
comparison, despising and considering the deformations by sharp, Inter. Rev. Civil
Eng. (I.RE.C.E.) 1(4) (2010), 275-279.

View publication stats