The aim of this paper is to discuss the advantages and the precision of various solution methods of seismic effects. We are focused mainly to the rendering of the torsion effects. The first method is the easiest one and indeed the quasi static method. We used two options of this method. The classic one with determining the quasi static forces and applying them to the individual structural parts with taking into account the torsion effects and second one with applying the quasi static forces to the whole 3D structure. This results are compared with the response spectrum results obtained from 3D solution and with the time history analysis.

Topics
Thermodynamic states and processes, Earthquakes
1.
E.
 
Horacek
,
Panel structures, Design and calculation of structural systems
,
SNTL Praha
,
1977
(in Czech).
Google Scholar
 
2.
ENV 1998- Eurocode 8, (
1995
).
3.
ÖNORM B 4015-1,2
 
Belastungsannahmen im auwesen, Außergewöhnliche Einwirkungen, Erdbebeneinwirkungen, Grundlagen, erechnungsverfahren
,
Vorschlag
(April
1994
).
4.
P. C
 
Kohnke
,
Ansys, Engineering System, Theoretical Manual, Swanson Analysis System
, (
2017
).
5.
K.
 
Meskouris
,
W. B.
 
Krätzig
,
A.
 
Elenas
,
L.
 
Heiny
,
F.
 
Meyer
,
Mikrocomputer-unterstiitzte Erdbebenuntersuchung von Tragwerken, Reasearch Reports
,
Ruhr-Universität ochum
, (
1988
).
Google Scholar
 
6.
R.
 
Flesch
,
M.
 
Sokol
,
Endbericht zum Forschungsvorhaben Nr. 5024 Praktische Erprobung von Erdbebennormen
,
JFÖN
,
Wien Arsenal
, (
1996
).
Google Scholar
 
7.
R.
 
Flesch
,
M.
 
Sokol
,
Earthquake resistant design of high-rise-buildings using different structural models and methods
,
Proc. 11 WCEE
,
Acapulco/Mexico
, (
1996
).
Google Scholar
 
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2022 Author(s).
2022
Author(s)
You do not currently have access to this content.