Comparison Between Single and Multiple Degrees of Freedom Systems For The Seismic Response Estimation of Composite Structures
Comparison Between Single and Multiple Degrees of Freedom Systems For The Seismic Response Estimation of Composite Structures
Comparison Between Single and Multiple Degrees of Freedom Systems For The Seismic Response Estimation of Composite Structures
net/publication/285601424
CITATIONS READS
0 4,813
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
SocialTruth - Open Distributed Digital Content Verification for Hyper-connected Sociality View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dionisios N. Serras on 05 December 2015.
1
School Science and Technology
Hellenic Open University
Patras, Greece
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
2
Kantipur Engineering College,
Tribhuvan University
Kathmandu, Nepal
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: The object of this paper is to compare a Single-Degree- Explicit Central Difference method, are used for the analysis
Of-Freedom (SDOF) system with Multiple-Degree-Of-Freedoms of structural dynamics problem.
(MDOFs) structures using the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) The Explicit Central Difference method is the most
method. Through this method, Newmark and Explicit Central widely used method because it is very simple for
Difference methods are developed to estimate the seismic response
implementation in the nonlinear systems and provides
of composite structures accurately. The validity of this approach is
established by using both Nonlin program for the SDOF and accurate results [1,2,3]. It is worth noting that Explicit
Ruaumoko program for three and six storey buildings. Then, an Central Difference method is based on finite difference
extensive parametric study is conducted in order to create a expressions for the derivatives in the equation of motion and
databank for seismic response behavior of the above composite does not involve the solution of a set of linear equations at
structures in conjunction with the seismic response behavior of each step. Basically, this method uses the differential
SDOFs. On the basis of this computational study, expressions are equation at time “t” to predict a solution at time “t + Δt”. For
used to determine the necessity parameters which will be used for most real structures, which contain stiff elements, a very
the implementation of the proposed analytical method. The results small time step is required in order to obtain a stable solution
of this method showed that the seismic response estimation between
[3, 4-10].
MDOF and SDOF present a very good convergence.
On the other hand, Newmark method is the most common
Keywords: Newmark method; Central Difference Explicit method; method in structural dynamics problems. This method is
composite structures; seismic response. more complicated but more versatile and trustworthy than the
Explicit Central Difference method because it can be made
I. INTRODUCTION unconditionally stable (if β=1/4 and γ=1/2) and that larger
In contrast to the situation for linear systems, nonlinear time steps can be used with better results. Computer models
systems present analytical and experimental problems. of large real structures normally contain a large number of
However, these problems need to be overcome, as many periods which are smaller than the integration time step [11].
engineering structures contain nonlinearities which have Therefore, it is essential that one select a numerical
significant effects on their dynamical behavior. However, integration method that is unconditional for all time steps.
numerous techniques have been demonstrated on simulated Because of the unconditional stability of the average
systems experimental work is often confined to Single- acceleration method, it is the most robust method to be used
Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF) systems. For this reason, in for the step-by-step dynamic analysis of large complex
order to estimate the seismic response of composite structural systems in which a large number of high
structures between a Single-Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF) frequencies, short periods, are present. The only problem
system and a Multiple-Degree-Of-Freedom (MDOF) with that method is the short periods, which are smaller than
structure an accurate approach for the solution of the the time step, oscillate indefinitely after they are excited.
dynamic response of structural systems is required. In this Vamvatsikos and Cornell [12] developed a computer-
study, two well-known methods, Newmark method and intensive procedure that offers thorough (demand and
capacity) prediction capability by using a series of nonlinear
dynamic analyses under suitably multiply-scaled ground PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
motion records. While it is a simple concept, performing an SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) requires the following 0.25 0,02154 0,01841
steps: (1) Create an appropriate model for the structure under 0.5 0,03173 0,03458
investigation, (2) Select a suite of ground motion records, (3) 0.75 0,05973 0,05163
For each record, incrementally scale it to multiple levels and 1.0 0,06288 0,07345
run a nonlinear dynamic analysis each time, (4) Select a 1.25 0,1231 0,1276
1.5 0,1849 0,2416
ground motion by a Strong Ground Motion Database and (5)
1.75 0,2724 0,3657
Use the IDA data to better understand the behavior of the 2.0 0,3808 0,4844
structure.
In the following sections we are going to provide a Table 2: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement
trustworthy approach by applying IDA for composite for the edge node of the top floor according to Newmark
structures in conjunction with the aforementioned methods. method, in the case of the six storey building.
II. PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR MDOF STRUCTURES PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
A) Proposed Approach
0.0 0 0
To estimate the seismic response of a three and six storey 0.25 0,04242 0,047
building accurately, the IDA method was developed in 0.5 0,09437 0,09428
0.75 0,1052 0,166
Ruaumoko program [13] combining the aforementioned two 1.0 0,1764 0,2742
methods. Moreover, 6 different seismic records were taken 1.25 0,2474 0,3146
into consideration by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering 1.5 0,3290 0,3475
Research Center (PEER) Strong Ground Motion Database 1.75 0,43 0,3207
[14] which were also used in Ruaumoko program. 2.0 0,5533 0,2784
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
Implementing the Newmark method in Ruaumoko SCALE Ux(max)
program, the first two Tables (Tables 1 and 2) show the PGA 0.0 0 0
scale which ranged from 0.0 to 2.0 as well as the results of 0.25 0,04519 0,04104
the maximum in absolute value displacement in m relative to 0.5 0,07034 0,06277
the horizontal direction for the edge node of the top floor. 0.75 0,1127 0,1076
1.0 0,1667 0,156
These tables illustrate the six different seismic records for the
1.25 0,2659 0,2028
third and six storey buildings, respectively. On the other 1.5 0,3999 0,2368
hand, the next two Tables (Tables 3 and 4) show the 1.75 0,6403 0,254
implementation of the Explicit Central Difference method for 2.0 0,9264 0,3149
the third and six storey buildings, respectively. PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
Table 1: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement 0.25 0,04997 0,04296
for the edge node of the top floor according to Newmark 0.5 0,09120 0,08223
method, in the case of the three storey building. 0.75 0,1074 0,09758
1.0 0,1324 0,1359
PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD 1.25 0,1638 0,2144
SCALE Ux(max) 1.5 0,213 0,2954
0.0 0 0 1.75 0,2724 0,3321
0.25 0,02148 0,02136 2.0 0,3341 0,4155
0.5 0,03974 0,03988
0.75 0,05923 0,05703 Table 3: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement
.0 0,06018 0,09041
for the edge node of the top floor according to Explicit
1.25 0,09451 0,1181
1.5 0,1655 0,1302 Central Difference method, in the case of the three storey
1.75 0,2961 0,2266 building.
2.0 0,395 0,2048
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max) SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
0.25 0,02189 0,02067 0.25 0,02121 0,02127
0.5 0,04437 0,03546 0.5 0,03949 0,04045
0.75 0,06871 0,05448 0.75 0,054 0,05534
1.0 0,08779 0,07425 1.0 0,06343 0,09781
1.25 0,1336 0,1002 1.25 0,09978 0,1204
1.5 0,1875 0,12 1.5 0,1622 0,1494
1.75 0,2362 0,1432 1.75 0,3075 0,1753
2.0 0,2494 0,1776 2.0 0,3977 0,1779
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,02198 0,02105
0.5 0,04436 0,03712
0.75 0,06846 0,0584
1.0 0,08507 0,07718
1.25 0,1298 0,09354
1.5 0,1806 0,1143
1.75 0,2112 0,1425
2.0 0,2446 0,1715
PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,02162 0,01784
0.5 0,03797 0,03432
0.75 0,05667 0,0481
1.0 0,08279 0,07382
1.25 0,1217 0,1229
1.5 0,1905 0,2494
1.75 0,2998 0,362
2.0 0,399 0,4826 Fig. 1: Seismic records results and the average of them for
the three storey building in the case of the Newmark method.
Table 4: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement
for the edge node of the top floor according to Explicit
Central Difference method, in the case of the six storey
building.
PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,04197 0,04635
0.5 0,09385 0,09570
0.75 0,1070 0,1718
1.0 0,1794 0,2671
1.25 0,2462 0,3294
1.5 0,3221 0,3384
1.75 0,4146 0,3017
2.0 0,5633 0,1964
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,04516 0,04182
0.5 0,06883 0,06058
0.75 0,1127 0,1083 Fig. 2: Seismic records results and the average of them for
1.0 0,1664 0,1545 the six storey building in the case of the Newmark method.
1.25 0,2369 0,2058
1.5 0,3871 0,2508 On the other side, the next two Figures illustrate the behavior
1.75 0,6594 0,2598
of the three and six storey building under 6 different seismic
2.0 0,9067 0,3074
PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD records applying the Explicit Central Difference method.
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,05006 0,04162
0.5 0,08941 0,08358
0.75 0,1045 0,09339
1.0 0,1325 0,1301
1.25 0,1749 0,1911
1.5 0,2117 0,2595
1.75 0,2558 0,3165
2.0 0,2993 0,4468
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the comparison results of the IV. SEISMIC RESPONSE COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE
SDOF systems, which correspond to the six storey building STRUCTURES BETWEEN SDOF AND MDOF
under the 6 seismic records, with the methods of Newmark
and Explicit Central Difference as well. The analysis of a SDOF was applied in Nonlin program, a
computer program for nonlinear dynamic time history
analysis of single-and multi-degree-of-freedom systems [15].
Implementing the IDA method for the case of SDOF in
conjunction with the six seismic records and comparing its
results with those of the previous methods which are referred
for the case of MDOF, we conclude that there is a very good
convergence between of them as shown in Figures 11 and 12,
respectively.