9 vues

Transféré par ZineNBA

- ma lab
- Laser Dynamics - T. Erneux, P. Glorieux (Cambridge, 2010) BBS
- Differential Equations Midterm 1 v1 Solutions
- Handbook of Ocean Wave Energy - 2017
- PQE Vibration 09+Solution
- WB_harmonic_shaker_table.pdf
- Pde Paper Uta
- basdyn
- Problem 6 003
- 1984 [H.kuhlmann] Model for Taylor-Couette Flow
- Modal Analysis
- WB Harmonic Shaker Table
- AE383_Fall2015_HW1
- Lecture26 Ground Response Analysis Part2
- Ap12 Physics c Mechanics q1
- Experiment_Instructions_TM150_Universal.pdf
- Coupled Pendulums
- ME451_S07_lecture17
- Mechanical Vibration Laboratory Manual
- Chp3 Non Linear Stability_latest PDF

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

models from earthquake responses

G. Benzoni & C. G e n t i l e

Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy

arrays. In such cases it is difficult to assess a reliable structural scheme for the

seismic analysis of a single building of the array. Two methods for interpreting the

earthquake records of complex arrays are presented. The aim is to identify

structural schemes of a single building or part of the array which account for the

effects of the adjacent structures, in order to transform a complex system, with

several parts interacting together, into a simpler one suitable for design purposes.

Both methods are limited to linear behaviour and to planar systems. The

structural parameters of the models are evaluated from recorded seismic

responses. The equivalent models both comprise the addition, to the assessed

scheme of the analysed building, of an appropriate distribution of masses and

stiffnesses which represent the effect on that building of all the neighbouring

connected units. In the first procedure, such a distribution is evaluated according

to a predefined scheme, while in the second approach the physical characteriza-

tion of the model is defined a posteriori. The two methods are applied to generated

sample data in order to verify their reliability and accuracy.

structural scheme) in isolation the notation AA will be

In many instances buildings are connected to one used, while the notation A refers to the actual building

another, giving rise to complex assemblies, as for (A + B) in its real configuration.

instance in European historical urban nuclei. This The presented procedures are both based on the

creates a major problem when structural analysis must assumption that the structural scheme AA is known; the

be performed on a single building or part of the array. definition o f the equivalent model of A has then been

Basically, the problem is the uncertainty about the developed following two different strategies.

appropriate structural scheme to be used in the analysis The first method I is completely based upon a priori

of the building of interest in order to account for the assumptions o f the structural scheme, and for this

effects exerted on it by the adjacent structures. reason the related model will be referred to as the

This paper presents two different approaches to 'Structural Model' (ST-model).

reproduce through equivalent models the dynamic and The second approach, 2 perhaps more general does not

static behaviours of a building, taking into account the require any prior structural hypothesis besides those

interaction with the connected structural units. Both regarding the AA scheme. The physical characterization

methods are limited to linear behaviour and to planar of the model is defined a posteriori, so that the related

systems. The structural parameters of the models are model will be referred to as the 'Non Structural Model'

estimated from recorded earthquake responses. (NST-model).

In order to present the problem more clearly, consider In the ST-model, a simple shear-type scheme is

the typical array shown in Fig. l(a), where the building assumed for system AA. Then, in order to describe the

to be analysed is denoted by A. The dynamic behaviour behaviour of A in its real configuration, the known AA

of A, as standing alone, is expected to be modified by model is rigidly linked to a 'black box' (as shown in

the other substructures of the array, denoted by B in Fig. l(b)), whose content is modelled according to a

predefined scheme. The problem is thus reduced to the

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 026%7261/93/$06.00 evaluation of a prior specified mass and stiffness

1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd. distribution which reproduce the effective responses

113

114 G. Benzoni, C. Genti~

(a)

XA(t)

I

I NST - MODEL I

I I

"~'k "'k

x A(f) X A(Y)

A

(b) (c)

when added to AA. It will be shown that the unknown array (A + B) are referred to as 'measured' while the

structural parameters are (locally) identifiable if records corresponding quantities of the equivalent schemes will

of the base input and of the building response at two be said to be 'calculated'. Moreover, quantities

different storeys are available. Further, if an assumption evaluated through an analytical or numerical model

is made about the first modal shape of the model, the are represented as x(t), klAA,k(f), etc.

number of records required for the parameter evaluation Both models have been applied to data generated by

could be reduced to one. finite element analysis of sample systems in order to

In the NST-model, once the model of AA (with no verify their effectiveness and accuracy. The check

restriction of being chain-like) has been assessed, the consists of the comparison between measured and

effectively recorded acceleration at each floor level k of calculated responses.

the structure is seen as the sum of the response of the As to dynamic responses, due to space limitation, only

AA scheme plus its modification due to the action of the one match is presented for each numerical example. In

surrounding buildings. This assumption, in terms of order to prove synthetically the accuracy of the results,

signal analysis in frequency domain, is expressed as the measure of fit between each available record and the

shown in Fig. l(c), w h e r e /-tAA,k(f) is the (known) corresponding model response is described through the

transfer function of AA at the location k and HaA,k(f ) following quantity: 3

is a function relating the input transform Z ( f ) to the

output transform "~aA,k(f), whose role is to 'force' the R.M.S.[.~k(t) - Xk(t)]

: (l)

response of AA to be equal to the recorded response of I~k,maxl

A. The function HBA,k(f), as will be shown later,

contains information on the dynamic behaviour of both where ~k(t) and Xk(t) are respectively the sequel of peaks

A and AA. This function is approximated by the in the measured and computed accelerations and [~k,ma~[

transfer function of a mechanical shear-type system is the maximum absolute value of the measured record.

(BA) whose consistent distribution of mass and stiffness As to static responses (of particular interest from an

is identified. Further, it will be proved that the model engineering point of view), since the mass distribution is

obtained by rigidly linking the two systems AA and BA different in the original system and in the equivalent

turns out to be a satisfactory representation of the real schemes, the comparison cannot be performed by

behaviour. applying a constant set of lateral forces. It is instead

In the following, quantities pertaining to the original carried out by applying to each system a set of

Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 115

kc,rl the model, whike kci and k* are the stiffnesses of the

mn [ ] m=

elements in Fig. 2(b). The matrix C is assumed to allow

ran-1 [] E

r a n - 1 kn modal decoupling.

The structural unknowns governing the model

m2 m behaviour are modal dampings, the entire stiffness

distribution, and the value of mass m*. Dampings may

m1 i~ be evaluated separately from other parameters; in fact, if

the base motion ~(t) and the structural response at some

7////, y/////////h

position p are available, it turns out 4 that: (a) the

(a) ~)

effective participation factors are determined uniquely

Fig. 2. (a) Simplified scheme of interaction; (b) the equivalent for all modes; and (b) the modal frequencies and

ST-model. dampings are determined uniquely if the rth mode

horizontal static forces proportional to the actual contributes to the response ofp.

masses. The identification of the structural parameters is

strictly connected to the least number of records needed

to produce local identifiability. It can be shown 4 that for

2 DESCRIPTION OF ST-MODEL AND a general class of linear time-invariant systems with N

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE degrees of freedom, which possess classical modes and

for which the mass matrix is known, the local

As previously stated, the behaviour of the actual identifiability of K requires measurements at half or

building as standing alone is approximated by means more of the degrees of freedom. In the analysed model

of a simple shear-type model. Then, the dynamic the special analytical form of the stiffness and mass

properties of the structure in its real configuration are matrices allows identifiability to be ensured if the

described by assuming that the AA model is rigidly number NR of available records is at least 2, as will be

connected to a 'black box' (see Fig. l(b)) representing discussed in the Appendix.

the interaction effects. Figure 2(a) shows the assumed The identification procedure used herein consists of

structural scheme, where the effects exerted by the two main phases:

adjacent structures are accounted for by means of the (1) analysis of the available records and estimation

actions due to an additional mass m*, a modification of of modal parameters;

storey stiffnesses and an appropriate distribution of (2) evaluation of structural parameters by means of

springs. a least-squares approach, using as 'measure-

Once the storey stiffnesses due to interaction are ments' the modal frequencies and effective

summed up to AA ones, the model may be represented participation factors previously determined.

as shown in Fig. 2(b). The motion of such a model is The estimation of modal parameters is performed by

described by the following equation: a modal minimization approach in the frequency

Mf~(t) + Cx(t) + Kx(t) = - M l ( t ) (2) domain: which usually yields better results than

traditional spectral methods. 6

where the mass matrix M is diagonal and positive

The second step is related to the identification of

definite, and the stiffness matrix K is symmetric and

positive definite and may be expressed in partitioned system structural parameters, the unknowns being K

form as and the mass m*. A brief outline of this procedure

follows.

(nK] 1) 1,] Let

PM = {PMI, PM2,...,/)Ms} T (4)

K= [ (lO;n ) denote the 'measurement' vector, whose components are

the modal frequencies and effective participation factors

kcl 0 0 .. -kel of the physical system evaluated during the previous

step, and let

0 kc2 0 ... -ke2

" ".. PC( a ) : {ecl (a))ec2(a),... ecs(a)} r (5)

+ (3) denote the corresponding quantities in the structural

0 ... 0 kc~ -ken

n model, which depend on the structural unknown

-kcl parameters grouped in the vector a. Defining the ith

-kc2 ... - ken E kci component of the error vector

i=1

K1 and n being respectively the stiffness matrix and the ei(a ) PMi -- Pci(a)

number of degrees of freedom of the shear-type part of -- PMi (6)

116 G. Benzoni, C. Genti&

wl

1 1 1

1 1 1 I !

m m m 7ii i

I ' I "

14.00 10.00 10.00 ......

the weighted mean-square error used in this study is limitations, only the example shown in Fig. 3 wilt be

presented.

J(a) = eT(a)We(a) = ~ W/e2(a) (7) The procedure was applied to the part of the structure

i=l denoted as Wl in Fig. 3. A rigid slab is simulated at each

where W is a diagonal matrix containing the weighting storey level of Wl. The assumed weight per unit volume

constants. This matrix has been introduced mainly in is 18.00kN/m 3, while the elastic properties used in the

order to account for the different level of uncertainty in finite element model are E = 4 8 0 . 0 0 M P a and

the estimated measurement values (modal frequencies G = 80.00 MPa.

may be evaluated with better confidence than par- For the dynamic analysis the following values for

ticipation factors). Moreover, numerical methods modal dampings (i have been assumed:

often show a better rate of convergence if more O~

emphasis is placed on matching the magnitude of (i = 47rf~ (8)

natural frequencies.

The above two-step approach is more efficient where a = 4.00 and f / i s the ith modal frequency of the

than the usual methods based upon response fit system.

(in the time or frequency domain) for the following The structural model has been excited by a base input

reasons: derived from the Southern Italy earthquake recorded in

Sturno (28 November 1980) scaled to aM = 100cm/s 2.

(1) the first step allows one to perform an efficient The masses in the shear-type part of the equivalent

estimation of dampings separately from other scheme are determined by lumping at floor level the

unknowns; effective mass distribution of W1. The following values

(2) in structural parameter identification, the eva- are used:

luation of the objective function (7) requires only

the solution of a small eigenvalue problem 1st storey ml = 8625 N sE/cm

without the need to integrate the equations of 2nd storey mE = 7448 N s2/cm

motion in time or frequency domain. 3rd storey m3 = 7087 N s2/cm

4th storey m4 = 4174Ns2/cm

Moreover, the use of quantities which are uniquely

determined from input and output leads to a correct The identification is performed assuming that

correspondence between the physical system and the the acceleration records at the first and fourth

identified model. storey levels (plus the input base motion) are

known. The modal parameters estimated by means

of a five-mode match of the Fourier transform

3 EXAMPLE OF ST-MODEL APPLICATION for each recorded acceleration are summarized in

Table 1.

The above approach has been applied to various finite The results of the second step of the identification

element models representing plane walls or frames, procedure, concerning the stiffness values and mass m*

usually giving satisfactory results. Here, due to space and the initial values of structural unknowns, are listed

Equivalent structural models from earthquake response l 17

Table 1. Masonry wall Wl: modal parmneter estimates when a limited number of accelerometers is installed on

Mode no. fi ~ /31i /~4i the structure. In any event the above procedure may still

i (Hz) (%) 1st storey 4th storey be applied if an approximation is introduced.

1 2-91 9"60 0"453 3 1-615 0 According to the discussion given in the Appendix,

2 5"59 4"98 O"120 4 -0-622 7 the lack of one record causes the loss of N - 1

3 7-87 3"76 0"1579 -0-1266 conditions between the unknown parameters. The

4 9"30 3"00 0"1048 0"1803 assumption that the first mode shape is approximately

5 11-41 2"28 0"1756 -0"0363 known in the shear-type part of the model (e.g., that it is

linear) provides a number of conditions sufficient to

in Table 2. The initial stiffness distribution in the shear- ensure that ArE > N 2. Then, it is determined whether the

type part of this model is evaluated by considering use of only one record allows satisfactory identification

masonry piers at each storey as columns of equivalent of the model. The approximate first mode shape relative

lateral stiffness determined as illustrated in Refs 7 and 8. to the shear-type part of the scheme has been assumed to

It may be noted that the stiffness value k~ is zero and be linear. Results of this identification procedure are

the storey stiffness k4 is satisfactorily close to that of the shown in the third column of Table 2 where the record is

isolated building, since the interaction effects are supposed to be available at the first storey level. As can

negligible at the fourth storey of Wl. be observed, the numerical values are satisfactorily

As an example, Fig. 4 reports the calculated and the similar to those obtained when two records are known;

measured relative acceleration at the fourth storey level this also happens when the available record relates to

(dotted and solid line, respectively). The accuracy of the other locations at levels other than the first storey.

identified model is apparent and may be confirmed: (a)

on the basis of modal parameters estimated from

structural responses and the corresponding quantities 4 D E S C R I P T I O N OF NST-MODEL AND

of the model; and (b) from the low values of c (see eqn IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE

(1)) for each pair of recorded and computed accelero-

grams. Such results are listed in Table 3. A main difference between the ST-model and the NST-

Finally, the results of the static check in terms of model is that the latter requires prior structural

lateral storey displacements xi and of storey shears Vi assumptions only with reference to the known scheme

are summarized in Table 4. of AA, which may be different from a chain-like model

Up to now the available number of records NR has and is established by engineering judgement.

been assumed to be 2, since that is the least number Suppose that the system of Fig. l(a) is subjected to

which allows model identifiability. However, this may ground acceleration (t). The function A~(t), repre-

not be the case when instrumental malfunction occurs or senting the relative acceleration at a given location k of

300.0

Measured

Calculated

200.0

q

o

/1

100.0

E

O

V

0.0

c

o

em

o

!,,.

- 100.0

(i)

O

O

-200.0

o

-300.0

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

time (seconds)

Pig. 4. Masonry wall Wl: relative acceleration (4th storey level) of the original system and of the identified ST-model.

118 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

Mode no. Initial values Identified values Identified values

(2 records) (1 record)

(kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm)

1 990 300 1685 328 1644 34l

2 845 500 1141 696 1 166 661

3 640 500 690 518 655 671

4 640 300 645 0 588 0

m* k* m* k* m* k*

(N s2/cm) (kN/cm) (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) (N sZ/cm) (kN/cm)

700 500 1 608 710 1 565 670

A, can be seen as resulting from the sum of two signals: The function nBA,k(f) may be considered a transfer

function in the wide sense of signal analysis theory, that

.~A,k(t) = XAA,k(I) q- .~BA,k(I) (9) is, a function correlating an output to an input, while it

XAA~(t ) being the response acceleration of the AA is not the Fourier transform of the impulse response

mo~el to the same input motion at the same position function of a mechanical system. Moreover, HBA,k(f),

k and 2AB,k(t) a sort of 'noise' that accounts for the being defined as the difference between the transfer

effects of adjacent structures on AA. Equation (9) may functions of the mechanical systems A and AA, contains

be written in the frequency domain as follows (see information about the modal parameters of both of

Fig. l(c)): them.

At this step, HBA,k(f) is approximated by the transfer

"~"a,~(f) = HA,k(f)Z(f) function HBA,k(f) of a mechanical shear-type system

":.

BA. It should be noted that BA is not intended to

= X'AA,k(f) + 2BA,k(f) represent the real structural properties of buildings B,

= I:IAA,k(f)Z(f) + HBA,k(f)Z(f) (10) but only aims to account for their effects on AA, in the

sense that the responses of A A and BA are summed up

where HA,k(f) a n d / t ~ , k ( f ) are the transfer

functions to reproduce approximately the effectively recorded

of the relative acceleration for structural systems A and accelerations.

AA at point k, while HBA,k.(.f) is the function The structural properties of BA (masses, stiffnesses

correlating the input transform Z ( f ) to the transform and dampings) are determined in two stages.

XBA,k(f)" In eqn (10), only HBA,k(f ) is unknown since The first step consists of the estimation of some basic

H a , k ( f ) may be estimated from the recorded signals and modal parameters from the functions HBA,k(f). This

HAA,k(f) is analytically evaluated. Then, eqn (10) preliminary estimate is performed by the means of

allows one to determine the complex valued function standard spectral techniques. Thus, the maxima of

HBa,k(f) at locations k where recordings are available: IHBA,k(f)I are used to evaluate modal frequencies, and

HBA,k(f ) = HA,k(f ) -- I?tAA,k(f ) (11) the amplitudes of the peaks and the half-power

bandwidths are used to estimate modal dampings;

Table 3. Masonry wall WI: modal parameters of the original system and of the identified ST-model

Mode no. fi fill fl2i fl3i fl4i

i (Hz) 1st storey 2nd storey 3rd storey 4th storey

1 (Measured) 2.91 0.453 3 0.8864 1.302 6 1.615 0

1 (Computed) 2.91 0.418 8 0.824 9 1.234 9 1.576 9

2 (Measured) 5"59 0"120 4 0" 178 3 -0.224 4 -0"622 7

2 (Computed) 5.54 0.139 6 0' 170 3 -0-138 1 -0" 640 4

3 (Measured) 7.87 0.157 9 0.187 6 0.095 2 -0.126 6

3 (Computed) 7.85 0.155 7 0.178 4 0.048 6 -0.084 3

4 (Measured) 9.30 0.104 8 0.073 1 -0.168 0 0.180 3

4 (Computed) 9.37 0.1240 0.012 1 -0-227 1 0-182 7

5 (Measured) 11.41 0.175 6 -0-083 7 0-077 6 -0.036 3

5 (Computed) 11.44 0.161 8 -0.185 8 0.081 7 -0.0349

e -- 0.053 8 0-048 0 0.058 1 0.0524

Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 119

system and of the identified ST-model

I.AI

Storey no. xi (era) xi (era) V~( k N ) V/(kN)

i real model real model

1 1.598 1.585 2 663 2 670

2 2.775 2.801 1 259 1 388

3 3.687 3.751 669 654 |

autospectral density function of the response accelera-

tion at the ith modal frequency and at the kth location.

In this phase, it is assumed that records are available at

all levels of A. However, it is to be noted that, as shown

in Ref. 3, the identification procedure may also be

applied if only one response is available and an i

introduced.

The choice of modal parameters needs a comment. As

stated earlier, the theoretical form of IHBA,k(f)I, by (c)

definition (eqn (10)), displays peaks at the modal

frequencies of both the A and AA systems. Since it is

desired that the response of BA summed to that of AA

gives a reasonable approximation of the effectively

recorded acceleration, the estimation of BA modal

parameters must be carried out discarding the modal r--

properties of AA, because they are already accounted to

for in f-IAA,k(f). Operating in such a way, the basic Fig. 5. Single degree of freedom system.

modal parameters of BA are the same as those of the A

system in its real configuration.

The second step is related to the identification of BA system A, which is used to evaluate the calculated

masses and storey stiffnesses (since modal dampings response acceleration via the Inverse Fourier Trans-

have been just estimated). During this phase, the form:

l(1 < N, N being the number of degrees of freedom of

BA) modal frequencies and the corresponding mode XA,k(t) = IFT[/tAA,k(f)Z(f) + HBA,k( f ) Z ( f ) ]

shapes (at all levels of the structure) previously (12)

determined are used as 'measured' quantities. The

identification procedure, that is basically a least-square Once BA structural properties have been evaluated,

fit between measured and computed values, is outlined we have two mechanical systems AA and BA, which

in Ref. 2. have been defined so that at each level the sum of the

It must be noted that the identification problem has responses to a given ground motion (t) approximates

no unique solution in terms of mass and stiffness the responses of the A structure at the same points. The

distribution. This fact is of minor importance here match between the recorded accelerations and those

because the corresponding BA masses and stiffnesses evaluated by means of eqn (12) is roughly approximated

vary, in such instances, according to common ratios so since/teA,k(f) is an approximate model of the function

that they give rise to the same spectral parameters. This HaA,k(f ) defined by eqn (10).

is to say that, although the uniqueness of the solution At this stage of the analysis, an equivalent scheme of

in terms of storey mass and stiffness m i and k i is the behaviour of building A in its real configuration has

not ensured, the ratios kx/m i ( i = I , . . . , N ) , k l / k i not yet been defined. It may be verified that the desired

(i = 2 , . . . , N) are uniquely specified by the knowledge model may be assessed by means of a rigid connection at

of frequencies and modal shapes. floor levels between the two systems AA and BA. In

After finding MBA and KBA it is possible to build the order to prove the latter statement, let us first consider

corresponding transfer function HBA,k(f) at location k the single degree of freedom (s.d.o.f.) system A shown in

in the same way as was previously seen for HAA,k(f). By Fig. 5, obtained by linking with a rigid connection two

summing flAA,k(f) and HBA,k(f), one obtains an oscillators of mass and stiffness respectively (rex, kl) and

approximation of the transfer function of the real (m2, k2). The circular frequency and the modal

120 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

3

~A =

k~m

~ + k2

+m 2

(13)

I 2

1

Ii~iiiiiii!iiiiiiiiilliiii]]iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill

lilhi{iiiiiiii[ii iiiiiiiiii*ii!ililiiiiiiiiiiiiii~*l

t~A= 1 ~!! ll!ii!iiilliiiiii ~]ii~]~

~i i]ii]iiiii]ii~]]i

m..m ~..

i~iiiii H ~ i i i i i i i i i ] i i ]

300~ Z~ ~'~

Now, let us refer to the oscillator (m~,k~) as the AA

i! iiiiiiiiiiiiii i[ i iiiii I iiiiiiiiiiiii

~Wii2iii2i~ ii~iLii21~i!2i!jiiiii[~ii~i!2i!2i2!i2

......

50O 500 200 500 500 500

WAA = k~mk~l

1

AA 8A

(14)

~bAA= 1

The function IH~AI = IHA - HAAI shows peaks on both

WA and WAA. If the BA system is defined so that, as

stated earlier, its circular frequency and modal ampli-

Fig. 6. Frame system Fh (a) original array; (b) equivalent

tude are scheme.

O"BA = ~AA provided that the BA properties are defined so that

(15)

CBA = CAA ~'~BA = ~A

(20)

then the mass and stiffness of BA are the following:

tuBA = c~(ml + m2) Again, if a is large enough, it turns out from eqns (19)

(16)

and (20) that the scheme (AA + BA) has nearly the same

kBA = a(ki + k2) modal parameters as the original system. In other

The system obtained by a rigid connection of AA and words, if modal dampings are properly estimated the

BA has the following circular frequency: dynamic response of the system (AA + BA) is expected

to match the effective recorded response better than the

+ a(k + k2) (17) one obtained by eqn (12).

~(AA+BA) -- ml + ot(m1 + m2) ~ Wg In practice, the condition on the value of c~ may be

readily satisfied; once the ratios kl/mi (i = 1 , . . . , N ) and

if the value of multiplier a is high enough to make k l / k i (i = 2 , . . . , N ) have been evaluated, the values of

a(kl +k2) prevalent on kl and a(ml +m2) on ml. mi, k i (i :- 1,... N ) to be used in the model (AA + BA)

Moreover, if the systems (A + B) and (AA + BA) are are increased according to the above ratios until the

subjected to a static load proportional to their own modal parameter of the equivalent scheme does not

masses, the static displacements and the base shear of match the BA ones, within the desired tolerance.

the subsystem A will be nearly equal in the two cases, if Further, simply by putting w = 0 in eqn (18), it may

the preceding condition on a is satisfied. It is to be noted be observed that the original system and (AA + BA)

that the same features continue to hold if the s.d.o.f. have the same response if they are subjected to static

system AA has structural properties different from load proportional to their own masses.

(ml,kl). The same conclusions are expected to remain

The extension of the above to the case in which the approximately valid (as will be shown in numerical

system of Fig. 6 is a m.d.o.f, shear-type model is examples) for the general case in which the mass and

straightforward. In fact, the equations of motion for the stiffness matrices of the original system are no longer

(AA + BA) system in the frequency domain (neglecting diagonal and tridiagonal, respectively.

damping for simplicity) may be written as

= --(~IrAA q- ~fBA)IZ(o;) (18)

The application of the above procedure is presented

being with reference to two different systems (a frame and a

MBA = o t n A wall, denoted in the following as F1 and W2). For each

(19) structural assembly the subsystems A and B were chosen

and the response accelerations were numerically evalu-

ated, by finite element simulation, at all levels k of A.

Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 121

These responses constitute the input measured quantity show respectively the moduli of HA,k(f) and HBA,k(f),

for the procedure. k = 2 , 3.

In order to assess the efficiency of the method,

5.1 Frame system (F1)

only two modes have been used to determine

the structural properties of the BA system. The

The plane frame shown in Fig. 6 has been con-

frequencies of such modes are fl =3.491Hz and

sidered. The subsystems A and B are three storeys

f2 = 6.796 Hz.

high, but A is two-span and B three-span. Table 5

The results of the identification procedure are

shows the main characteristics of the two sub-

summarized in Table 6, where the values of mBA,i and

systems. Dynamic analysis of the frame was per-

kaA,; (i = 1, 2, 3) used for the definition of the systems

formed by assuming a damping factor ~ = 0.05 for

BA and (AA + BA) are shown.

all modes.

Modal frequencies fk'S and effective partici-

The frequencies of the three natural modes for AA are

pation factors, /3pk'S of BA, (A + B) and (AA + BA)

respectively 2.44, 5.46 and 8.50 Hz.

are shown in Table 7. They are nearly the same,

The functions HBA,k(f), determined for all the

as anticipated in Section 4; as a consequence, a

levels, supply the quantities needed by the identifi-

good match is expected between the responses of

cation procedure, i.e. frequencies, modal shapes,

the equivalent model (AA + BA) and of the original

and modal damping estimates. In order to evaluate

(A + B) system. As an example, the relative acceler-

the functions HBA,k(f ) from eqn (11), the trans-

ation at the second floor of the equivalent

fer functions H A , k ( f ) are required. The latter func-

model ( A A + B A ) compared with the measured

tions have been determined, submitting the original

values is shown in Fig. 9, where dotted lines refer to

system to a ground motion derived from the Northern

calculated responses and solid lines to the measured

Italy earthquate recorded in Tolmezzo (6 May

ones. The accuracy of the model is confirmed by the

1976) scaled to aM = 100"00cm/s2. Figures 7 and 8

values of c evaluated at each level (el = 0.0334,

Table 5. Frame system FI: structural properties of A and B c2 = 0.0285 and e3 = 0.0181).

Finally, Table 8 reports the results of a static test in

A B terms of total base shear and roof displacements.

Storey no. mi ki mi ki

i (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) 5.2 Wall system (W2)

1 398"0 315"0 490"0 1920-0

2 306"0 315"0 392-0 1 108"0 Figure 10(a) shows the masonry system to which

3 184"0 180"0 294"0 240"0 the procedure has been applied. The subsystems

A and B are also shown in the figure with geo-

16.0

...... LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

12.0

m 8.0

"1-

,!

'/!

I

4.0

I

0.0 I I I I I I I | I I I

0.00 2.50 5.00 '7.g o ' ' ' i 0.00

'. . . . 12 .50

frequency (Hz)

Fig. 7. Frame system FI: amplitude of HA(f) at second and third storey level.

122 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

14.0

...... LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

12.0

10.0

8.0

m

"I- 6.0

4.0

"x

2.0 I I

%

I

0.0

0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50

frequency (Hz)

Fig. 8. Frame system FI: amplitude of HBA(f) at second and third storey level.

metrical sizes. A rigid slab is simulated at each The equivalent scheme used in this case is shown in

floor level of A. The assumed weight per unit volume is Fig. 10(b), where the model of AA has the same

16-00kN/m 3, while the elastic properties used in the geometrical sizes and masses as the original configura-

finite element model are E = 360-00MPa and tion while its elastic properties are different

G - - 4 0 . 0 0 MPa. The damping factors assumed for the ( E = 300-00MPa, G = 33.33MPa). The natural fre-

dynamic analysis are evaluated by means of rule (8) and quencies of the first three natural modes of AA are

a = 4.00. respectively 1.95, 5-51 and 7.17Hz.

The original system was submitted to the base

Table 6. Frame system FI: identified structural excitation recorded in Central Italy, Gubbio: as an

properties of BA example, Fig. 11 shows [HBA,k(f)I at all storeys. The

Storey no. mBA,i kBA,i frequencies of the selected modes are fl = 2.34Hz,

i (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) f2 = 6-00Hz and f3 = 10-35 Hz.

1 2 119-0 5 034-0 The identified properties of BA are summarized in

2 1 330"0 2 747"0 Table 9, while the modal frequencies of the systems BA,

3 938'0 828-0 (A + B) and (AA + BA) are shown in Table 10. It is to

be noted that the latter values are, as expected, very

similar.

the systems (A + B), BA and (AA + BA) Table 8. Frame system FI: static responses of the original system

and of the identified NST-model

Mode no. .~ fill ~2i ~3i

i (Hz) 1st storey 2nd storey 3rd storey x] (cm) X 2 (~'l'l) X3 (cm) V (kN)

1 (A + B) 3-43 0.304 3 0.693 8 1-476 5 F1 real 3-261 1 5"6166 7.7667 1 023.41

(BA) 3.49 0.278 2 0.684 9 1.504 8 F1 model 3.2506 5-318 8 7.1009 1 020.43

(AA + BA) 3.43 0.3280 0.775 6 1.499 1

2 (A+B) 6-76 0-3814 0.551 6 -0.5245

(BA) 6.80 0.434 6 0.605 4 -0.568 0 Table 9. Masonry wall W2: identified structural properties of BA

(AA + BA) 6-76 0.3969 0.501 4 -0-573 1

i 1 2 3

3 (A+B) 11.66 0.314 3 -0.2453 0.0480

(BA) 11-18 0.2972 -0.2902 0.0632 mBA,i(Ns2/cm) 1 410"0 1 526'0 1 635"0

(AA + BA) 10.76 0.275 1 -0.2770 0.0740 kaA,i (kN/cm) 1 738"0 1 962-0 1 199'0

Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 123

200.0

Measured

....... Calculated

N t

o 100.0

<

"~ 0.0

o

~- 100.0

121

-200.0

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

time (seconds)

Fig. 9. Frame system FI: relative acceleration (2nd storey level) of the original system and of the identified NST-model.

a) A B

relative accelerations at the second storey (dotted and

solid line, respectively). The match between the two data

---'----'----:---:---t .......

nun i

22.90

Hi m m

9.50

.... -'-

.... _,_.....

..... :-

. ....

31.40

.... -'--t

m j__

iI sets is apparent and is confirmed by the values of

obtained at each level (el = 0.1077, c2 = 0.0988 and

~3 = 0.0827).

Table 11 reports the results of the equivalent static

analysis in terms of storey displacements and total base

b) shear; again, computed data match reasonably well the

set of real quantities.

I I l I

I I l I

unto nun 6 CONCLUSIONS

Fig. 10. Masonry wall W2: (a) original array; (b) equivalent Two methods for interpreting the earthquake

scheme. records of complex arrays have been described.

The aim is to identify structural schemes of a

single building or part of the array accounting

Table 10. Masonry wall W2: comparison of modal frequencies of

for the effects of the adjacent structures, in order to

the systems (A + B), BA and (AA + BA)

transform a complex system, with several parts inter-

(A + B) BA (AA + BA) acting together, into a simpler one, suitable for design

ft (Hz) 2-34 2.34 2.32 purposes.

f2 (Hz) 6-00 6.00 6-17 The procedures are approximate in nature and limited

f3 (Hz) 10.35 9.80 9.91 to linear behaviour and two-dimensional systems;

however, numerical results support the capability of

both the proposed models of representing the dynamic

and static behaviour of planar arrays.

Table 11. Masonry wall W2: static responses of the original Results are satisfactory in spite of the simplicity

system and of the identified NST-model of the proposed equivalent ST- and NST-models,

xt ( c m x 2 (cm) x 3 (cnl) g (kN) mainly because the identification procedures

needed to assess the values of structural parameters

W2 real 2.861 2 4"828 3 5-947 7 3 224-13

W2 model 2.8272 4"848 6 6"2970 2 982"85 are guided by a preliminary estimate of modal

parameters.

124 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

8.0

....... LEVEL 1

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

6.0

--4.0

OO

"i-

ll I

f~

2.0 :v

/._.\ -.,

I

:

0.0 .... i i I I i i i i i I I ] i I i I i i i I i i i i I I i

frequency (Hz)

Fig. 11. Masonry wall W2: amplitude of H~A(f), k = 1, 2, 3.

6.0

Measured

Calculated

4.0

tN

o

2.0

E

o

0.0

c-

o

im

-e-

o -2.0

0)

o -4.0

o

o

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

time (seconds)

Fig. 12. Masonry wall W2: relative acceleration (2nd storey level) of the original system and of the identified NST-model.

quake records, Report No. EERL 78-01, California

1. Gentile, C. Parametric identification of equivalent models Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1978.

for masonry structures. In Structural Dynamics, ed. W.B. 5. McVerry, G.H. Structural identification in the frequency

Kratzig et al., Proc. EUROD YN90, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 457-64. domain from earthquake records, Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn.,

2. Benedetti, D. & Benzoni, G. Identification of equivalent 1980, 8, 161-80.

structural schemes for coupled systems, Earth. Eng. Struct. 6. Bendat, J.S. & Piersol, A.G. Engineering Applications of

Dyn., 1991, 20, 317-33. Correlation and Spectral Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1980.

3. Peng, C.Y. & Iwan, W.D. An identification methodology 7. Benedetti, D., Benzoni, G. & Pezzoli, P. Seismic behaviour

for a class of hysteretic structures, Earth. Eng. Struct. of a non-symmetric masonry building, European Earth-

Dyn., 1992, 21, 695-712. quake Engineering, 1987, 1, 20-30.

Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 125

8. Tomazevic, M. Dynamic modelling of masonry buildings: (1) the availability of NR records allows

storey mechanism model as a simple alternative, Earth. modal frequencies and damping factors to be

Eng. Struct. Dyn., 1987, 15, 731-49. evaluated;

(2) the mass matrix is considered to be completely

known, since m* may be uniquely evaluated, as

APPENDIX previously stated;

(3) the stiffness matrix satisfies the following equa-

As previously pointed out in Section 2, the structural tion:

unknowns governing the ST-model behaviour are the K = Mf~2OTM (A3)

stiffness distribution, the value of mass m* and the

modal dampings. provided that the matrix of mode shapes

First, it is to be noted that m* is uniquely specified by satisfies the orthogonality condition:

the knowledge of modal frequencies. In order to verify

this proposition, let us consider two different models, cbTM = I (A4)

both belonging to the analysed class and having the

same mass distribution in the chain-like part and equal Finally, consider the equations satisfied by the N 2

modal frequencies. In such a case, frequency equality unknown parameters. The knowledge of NR output

gives rise to equality of characteristic equation coeffi- measurements and the constraints (A4) supply

cients as well: N R ( N - 1) + N ( N - 1) independent equations. Fur-

ther, after symmetry is taken into account, the

a2NA2N + a2N- 1A2N-l + . . . + a l A + a 0 = 0 (A 1) analytical form of K yields l ( N - 2 ) ( N - 3 ) homo-

geneous relationships obtained by imposing kij = 0

In particular, the coefficient a2N turns out to be ( i = 1 , . . . , N - 1; j = i + 2 , . . . , N - 1). Thus, in order

to have a number of equations:

a21v = det M = mira2.., m* (A2)

NE(N 2 + 1) + (NR - 2 ) ( N - 1) (A5)

Then, the system dynamic behaviour is uniquely

specified if the N 2 mode shape components are greater than or equal to the number of unknowns N 2, it

determined. In fact: is required that NE _> 2.

- ma labTransféré parMiaosen Wang
- Laser Dynamics - T. Erneux, P. Glorieux (Cambridge, 2010) BBSTransféré parSerban Cristina
- Differential Equations Midterm 1 v1 SolutionsTransféré parRodney Hughes
- Handbook of Ocean Wave Energy - 2017Transféré parmrwestra
- PQE Vibration 09+SolutionTransféré parucv vibraciones mecanicas
- WB_harmonic_shaker_table.pdfTransféré parSerge Parbaud
- Pde Paper UtaTransféré parDibesh Joshi
- basdynTransféré parRicky Dao
- Problem 6 003Transféré parLDP
- 1984 [H.kuhlmann] Model for Taylor-Couette FlowTransféré parTont Ekawuth
- Modal AnalysisTransféré parTrinh Duy Tan
- WB Harmonic Shaker TableTransféré parnetkasia
- AE383_Fall2015_HW1Transféré parSubayyal Ilyas
- Lecture26 Ground Response Analysis Part2Transféré parArun Goyal
- Ap12 Physics c Mechanics q1Transféré paro4ever
- Experiment_Instructions_TM150_Universal.pdfTransféré parAli A. Ismaeel
- Coupled PendulumsTransféré parMatthew Berkeley
- ME451_S07_lecture17Transféré parMohe Elnaser
- Mechanical Vibration Laboratory ManualTransféré parMarcus Mercado
- Chp3 Non Linear Stability_latest PDFTransféré parSriram Kumar
- IB Physics Unit 4 Oscillation and Waves Worked ExamplesTransféré parkobeadjordan
- Which is the best Damping Coefficient for a Compass?Transféré parFigueira, S. Jalves
- Artigo Do Leme Agostinho Enviado_13julhoTransféré parMartim Leme
- Final ReportTransféré parbabyjakes
- Springs&Dampers Tech Tip 4Transféré parDaniel Araújo
- ResonanceTransféré par92_883755689
- modeling.pdfTransféré parmdhyderali
- Nordac 08 Stability Tt Ej ASPTransféré parBrf RF
- Lecture 25Transféré parpusa123
- Icvram2014-Tubaldi Et Al_extended_abstract - ReviewTransféré parEnrico Calcetto

- book1_10096.pdfTransféré parZineNBA
- SAP2000 TutorialTransféré pargolovamasina
- الواجب المنزلي الثاني للرابعة متوسط 2016 2017Transféré parZineNBA
- Profiles Europeens ArcelorMittalTransféré pardocteur84
- بكالوريا تجريبية 2017Transféré parZineNBA
- الواجب المنزلي الثاني للرابعة متوسط 2016 2017 FB.pdfTransféré parZineNBA
- chapitre 6: Fonctions trigonométriquesTransféré parZineNBA
- مقالات تكنولوجيا لاعلام والاتصالTransféré parZineNBA
- 23 probabiliteTransféré parZineNBA
- Resume Complexes AlgebreTransféré parZineNBA
- exercices_rdmTransféré parNanescu Liliana
- 09 Ctle Complexes 26-01-2017 CorrectionTransféré parZineNBA
- المتتالياتTransféré parZineNBA
- مبادئ اولية في الاعلام الاليTransféré parDina Handoussa
- طــــرائق و أمثلة في الهندسة الفضائية للمــــراجعــةTransféré parZineNBA
- GUERRIN TOME COUPOLE - 5.pdfTransféré parlilhaq93
- Module 11 Implantation Et Releve Un Batiment (1)Transféré parMohamed Moha Tinghir
- Bael_exrecicesTransféré parحمزة متسو
- Ad 140771Transféré parZineNBA
- 3- Water EngineeringTransféré parZineNBA
- List Dlmd Fst Go-matriaux Et EnvironnementTransféré parZineNBA
- Placard Concoursdoctorat Lmd 2016Transféré parZineNBA
- concrete construction - some floor systems.pdfTransféré parZineNBA
- Formulaire Inscription EntreprisesTransféré parZineNBA
- TD2 Charges Sur Les Structures-eleveTransféré parZineNBA
- Demande de l AnnexeTransféré parZineNBA
- Semelle de FondationTransféré parZineNBA
- Boudiaf Mohamed - Ou Va l'AlgerieTransféré parcrazycavan
- Chap ReseauVoirie(1)Transféré parZineNBA

- Control & Instrumentation Volume 2Transféré parRamachandran Marappan
- Model Tests on Sloshing of a Floating Roof in a Cylindrical Liquid Storage Tank Under Seismic ExcitationTransféré paroscargon19
- R&T 2008 - Principles and Practices of Vibrational Analysis - Keefer.pdfTransféré parMuhammad Imran
- Blast-Resistant Design Considerations for Precast Prestressed Concrete StructuresTransféré pariscrdmyslf
- 2007_the theory of a continuos damped vibration absorber to reduce broad-band wave propagation in beams.pdfTransféré parJinho Jung
- Vibration With ControlTransféré parhamidrezachamani
- Machine Vibration Standards - Part 2 - Absolute-GeneralTransféré pardimachampion
- aai syllabusTransféré parsuresh_496
- Machine Tool Spindle UnitsTransféré parMaricel Cearmel
- !Thorough, 86 Pages! Recent Advances in Nonlinear Passive Vibration IsolatorsTransféré parCristina Cojocea
- Sinopse Forum 10 Waukesha Bearing ISFDTransféré parmarciofelipessantos
- 16i12 Ijaet0112177 Cepstral AnalysisTransféré parBenjaminVazquez
- Dynamics Response Spectrum AnalysisTransféré parBart Lucena Jr.
- SAG Mill Drive Motor InspectionTransféré parMauritz Roni
- Low frequency machinery monitoring: measurement considerationsTransféré parRaphael
- Subconcious Mind Programming for Maximum ResultsTransféré parrenewcor
- Modern Outlook to Condition Based Maintenance on Board Merchant ShipsTransféré parSaptarshi Basu
- Dynamic and Static Balancing of Rolls - How, Why and WhenTransféré parAbolfazl Khaki
- tietsch2016.pdfTransféré parJhalin Gutierrez
- Rigid Body Dynamics of Powertrains.pdfTransféré parcolintroth
- Cbm Coal HandlingTransféré paralexisvlad
- IRJET-Fault Diagnosis of a Rolling Element Bearings using Acoustic Condition Monitoring and Artificial Neural Network TechniqueTransféré parIRJET Journal
- Lightweight structuresTransféré parIuliaVicol
- Simulation RecordTransféré parVinoth Malaikani
- easybalancermanual1Transféré parFaisal Shahzad
- Sound in DuctsTransféré parconcord1103
- DNV - Comfort ClassTransféré parlonghvac
- worksheet_16.pdfTransféré parVijay Bhaskar
- Chopra, Dynamic Stiffness Matrices for Homogeneous ViscoelasticTransféré parCarlos Eduardo Cueva Caller
- Optimal Slot CombinationTransféré parFrankGriffith