Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 12 (1993) 113-125

Two approaches to identify equivalent structural

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

(Received 15 February 1993; accepted 1 March 1993)

In many instances buildings are mutually connected, giving rise to complex

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.

1 INTRODUCTION Fig. l(a). When reference is made to building A (or to its

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
114 G. Benzoni, C. Genti~




"~'k "'k
x A(f) X A(Y)

(b) (c)

Fig. 1. (a) Typical array; (b) ST-model; (c) NST-model.

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
(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
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&

1 1 1
1 1 1 I !
m m m 7ii i
I ' I "
14.00 10.00 10.00 ......

Fig. 3. Masonry wall Wl: original configuration of the structure.

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



- 100.0


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

Table 2. M a m m y wall Wl: identified structural parameters of the ST-model

Mode no. Initial values Identified values Identified values
(2 records) (1 record)

i ki kci ki kei ki kci

(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

Table 4. Masonry wall Wl: static responses of the original (a)

system and of the identified ST-model
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 |

4 4.301 4.398 415 417 to

modal shapes are determined through the one-sided (b)

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

approximate assumption about the first mode shape is tO

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

amplitude of the A system are (a) A B


~A =
~ + k2
+m 2
I 2


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

system; its circular frequency and modal amplitude are

50O 500 200 500 500 500

WAA = k~mk~l
~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
CBA = CAA ~'~BA = ~A
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)
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-

...... LEVEL 2


m 8.0

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

...... LEVEL 2



"I- 6.0


2.0 I I


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

Table 7. Frame system F 1: comparison of modal parameters of

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

....... Calculated

N t
o 100.0
"~ 0.0

~- 100.0


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.

Figure 12 shows the calculated and the measured

a) A B
relative accelerations at the second storey (dotted and
solid line, respectively). The match between the two data

---'----'----:---:---t .......
nun i
Hi m m
.... -'-
.... _,_.....

..... :-
. ....

.... -'--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
124 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

....... LEVEL 1



ll I
2.0 :v

~.~ \ ~11 \'.x ,, \ /

/._.\ -.,
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

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00

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




o -2.0

o -4.0

-6.0 "t---1--'~"-~ 1 r----r---r r ~ T ~ 1

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.

REFERENCES 4. Beck, J.L. Determining models of structures from earth-

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.