Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.
Introduction
Todays engineers are familiar very well in operating and using user-friendly
commercial computer programs; keep and believe for granted that everything had been
solved perfectly and correctly from the printed computer outputs. Prof. Wilson (2004)
remarks specifically that do not use a structural analysis program unless you fully
understand the theory and approximations used within the program and do not create a
computer model until the loading, material properties and boundary conditions are clearly
defined. The author personal observation shows that most of engineers in structural
design offices have not enough back up knowledge and understanding in dynamic
analysis theory of structures.
3D dynamic analysis is becoming a routine structural analysis which is currently required
for buildings design subjected to earthquake loads in this era of modern existence of
inexpensive personal computers. Unfortunately not many textbooks and course
subjects are available to be taught in the university in emphasizing the background and
practical application of the theory into the reality of daily structural design office
practices.
It is interesting to note what Prof Powel (2010) felt that most of young engineers use
computer programs blindly, without understanding what they are doing, This is probably
true, and it is unfortunate. However, my experience tells me that young engineers are not
to blame. The paper is written for the purpose of filling the niche of many members of
engineering profession who used to work with the assistance of commercial structural
analysis and design computer programs but loss of confident about their doing.
Many design aspects to be mentioned for examples; present seismic code weakness
that it does not state specifically how to define the principal directions for a 3D-structure
of arbitrary geometric shape.
Unawareness by most engineers in predefining
earthquake directions may produce base shears that underestimate the appropriate
design values since it is not a unique design base shear that associated with the
fundamental modes of vibration in the major principal direction. In most of mix-used
development buildings project, it is not uncommon to have several building towers which
significant differences in building masses and number of stories then these to be united
and integrated into one large several lower stories for podiums or basement floors.
This particular 3D-structural frames may produce large lateral torsional moments
associated to the higher modes induced by larger masses contribution at lower stories of
podiums or basement floors movements.
A well designed structure should be capable of equally resisting earthquake motion from
all possible directions and also should have minimum amount of lateral torsional
moments in the mode shapes associated with the lower frequencies of the structure.
*Associate Professor Trisakti University & President Director Haerte Widya Consulting Engineers
2.
Fundamental Assumptions
..
m u (t ) c u (t ) k u (t )
..
..
m x u xg (t ) m y u yg (t ) m z u zg (t )
..
m r u g ...(1)
The number of degrees of freedom is equal to the number of lumped masses in the
system. In building type of structures, in which the floor system can have any number of
columns and beams connecting to it; at the floor level intersection end of each member,
six degrees of freedom exist for 3D structure and the masses are lumped at the nodes..
The in-plane deformations in the floor systems are small compared to the interstory
horizontal displacements, then, it has become common practice to assume the in plane
motion of all points on the floor diaphragm move as a rigid body. The in plane
displacements of each floor diaphragm can be expressed in terms of two lateral
displacements ux(m) , uy(m) , and a lateral rotation about the z- axis , uz(m).
For relatively small displacements of each structural member, the materials property
could be reasonably assumed as linearly elastic isotropic material where the stressstrain relationships of the materials is linear and its have equal properties in all
directions.
There are several different classical methods that can be used for the solution of Eq. (1).
The most common and effective approach for seismic analysis is the mode superposition
method. For the purpose of dynamic response analysis, it is often advantages to
express the displaced position u(t) in terms of the free-vibration mode shapes
=
(separation variables) ;
1 , 2 , 3 , ..... N
u (t )
Y (t ) .(2)
where
is an Nd x N matrix containing N spatial vectors that are not a function of
time, and Y (t ) is a vector containing N function of time. It was noted that vibration mode
amplitudes obtained from the eigen problem solution are arbitrary, in the analysis
process the amplitude (the first, actually) has been set to unity, and the other
displacements have been deterimined relative to this reference value (normalizing the
mode shapes with respect to the specified reference coordinate) :
T
n
1n
2n
3n
, ..........
Nn
1
1 , u 2 n , u 3n , .......... u Nn ..(3)
u kn
0,
T
n
0 , for m n , therefore,
I and
T
n
i.e.
0,
, where I
2
n
and n may or may not of free vibration frequency in radians per second. The use of
normal modes coordinates serve to transform the equations of motion, Eq. (1) from a set
M n Yn (t ) C n Yn (t ) K nYn (t )
Pn (t ) ..(4)
where :
..
..
T
T
T
T
T
Pn (t )
Ln u g (t ) ,
Mn
n p (t )
n m r u g (t )
nc n ,
n m n , Kn
n k n , Cn
Ln is defined as modal participation factors or in this case earthquake excitation
factors., r is a vector of ones for the structure which represents the displacements
resulting from a unit ground displacement excitation either in x, y (both translations), or z
N
T
n
mi
2
in
i 1
be
used
in
the
above
equations,
and
which
T
n
Io
T
n
Io
Ioi
2
in
1)
i 1
3.
spectral values and shapes , S pa for earthquake ground motions depend upon many
independent variables respectively such as as source mechanism (SM), epicentral
distance (ED), focal depth (FD), geological conditions (GC), Richter magnitude (RM), soil
condition (SC), damping ratio and period. Due to the lack of knowledge as to their
influences, in the modern design response spectrum curves when normalized and
averaged to a fixed intensity level , currently are specified in terms of only two
parameters SC and . Using the direct statistical approach as similarly developed by
Seeds (1976) the average pseudo-acceleration spectra for different types of site-soil
conditions and correlated to the numerous recorded past earthquakes expressed in
terms of g had been normalized with respect to peak ground accelerations as shown in
Fig 2, of the Indonesian seismic design code SNI 1726-2002 (2010 ?), the typical
design spectra for Jakarta was copied and shown in Fig.1.
(Tanah sedang)
0.20
0.20
0.05
(Tanah keras)
T
C
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.15
0.12
0.2
0.5 0.6
1.0
2.0
3.0
0 0.2
0.5 0.6
1.0
2.0
Wilayah Gempa 3
0.75
0.75
(Tanah lunak)
T
0.60
0.42
(Tanah sedang)
T
0.23
(Tanah keras)
T
0.45
0.85
(Tanah lunak)
T
0.70
0.33
(Tanah sedang)
T
0.55
Wilayah Gempa
0.85
C
0.30
0.30
(Tanah kera
T
0.34
0.28
0.23
0.24
0.18
0.2
0.5 0.6
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.2
0.5 0.6
1.0
2.0
Wilayah Gempa 5
0.95
0.83
Wilayah Gempa
0.90
The standard design procedures
for dynamic analysis
will be described
as follows :
0.90
0.83
T
0.35
(Tanah keras)
T
0.38
0.36
0.33
0.36
0.32
0.95
(Tanah lun ak)
T
0.54
(Tanah sedang
T
C
C
0.42
(Tanah kera
T
, Tn =
Cn , is found from the seismic design code which is usually expressed in units of
0.28
gravitational acceleration
g.
3. Calculate the modal mass participating factor or modal earthquake excitation factor.
By definition the modal participation
factor and 2.0
the generalized
mass M n
0 0.2 0.5 0.6
1.0
3.0
0 0.2
T
N
Ln =
T
n
mi
mr =
in =
i 1
1.0
1
g
Wi
in
(5)
i 1
L1 , L2 , L3 , ...... LN (6)
1 m
L2n
as effective modal mass.
Mn
MT
0.5 0.6
1 m 1 =
L2n
Mn
L2n
);
1 M n
1 Io 1 =
n
f sin
Ln
S am , n
Mn
Ln
C n g (7)
Mn
2.0
L2n
S am , n
1 fs =
n 1 Mn
N
Vn
f si
i 1
L2n
C n g (8)
1 Mn
N
n
f sin hi ..(9)
OTM n
i 1
t sn
un
4.
Io
Ln
S am , n
Mn
Ln S am , n
2
Mn
n
Ln
C n g (10)
Mn
Ln C n g
..(11)
2
Mn
n
Practical Examples
ETABS OUTPUT
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Period
Mode
0.521735
0.496507
0.488673
0.144574
0.138088
0.134828
0.071017
0.069642
0.063753
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
UX
UY
RZ
SumRX
SumRY
SumRZ
-0.0354
0
0
0 99.1767
0
-0.0296
0
0 98.8866 99.1767
0
-0.0195
0
0 98.8866 99.1767 93.6149
0 -0.0349
0 98.8866 99.9515 93.6149
0 -0.0297
0 99.9569 99.9515 93.6149
0 -0.0202
0 99.9569 99.9515 99.3592
0
0 0.00349 99.9569
100 99.3592
0
0 0.00285
100
100 99.3592
0
0
0.0018
100
100
100
-0.0321
0
0
0.0117
0
0
0.0361
0
0
0 -0.0324
0
0
0.0106
0
0
0.0363
0
0
0 -0.00309
0
0 0.00126
0
0 0.00345
-0.0177
0
0
0.038
0
0
-0.0264
0
0
0
0.0182
0
0 -0.0382
0
0
0.0257
0
0
0 -0.00168
0
0 0.00362
0
0 -0.00261
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
story 3
story 2
story 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
384.9984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 384.9984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 40712.54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 407.1168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 407.1168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 43836.77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 419.5584
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 419.5584
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 45594.14
mode shapes
1
-0.0354
0
0
-0.0296
0
0
-0.0195
0
0
2
0
-0.0349
0
0
-0.0297
0
0
-0.0202
0
3
0
0
0.00349
0
0
0.00285
0
0
0.0018
4
-0.0321
0
0
0.0117
0
0
0.0361
0
0
5
0
-0.0324
0
0
0.0106
0
0
0.0363
0
6
0
0
-0.00309
0
0
0.00126
0
0
0.00345
7
-0.0177
0
0
0.038
0
0
-0.0264
0
0
8
0
0.0182
0
0
-0.0382
0
0
0.0257
0
9
0
0
-0.00168
0
0
0.00362
0
0
-0.00261
Lnx
Lny
Lnz
Lnx
Lny
Lnz
-33.861
0
0 1146.567
0
0
0 -34.0029
0
0 1156.197
0
0
0 349.0910266
0
0 121864.5
7.550876
0
0 57.01573
0
0
0 7.07146
0
0 50.00554
0
0
0 86.73236352
0
0 7522.503
-2.42038
0
0 5.858215
0
0
0 2.23776
0
0 5.00757
0
0
0 -28.7086896
0
0 824.1889
= 1209.441 1211.21 130211.2
2
total
99.82
fs1
Vby
fs2
2487.428
0
0
2199.374
0
0
1493.191
0
0
6179.994
fs1
99.96
fs3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fs2
0
0
0 2462.572
0
0
0
0
0 2216.053
0
0
0
0
0 1553.275
0
0
0
6231.9
100.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S am
Vbx
630.6116 6179.994
0
0
0
0
13.11362 128.5135
0
0
0
0
1.34739 13.20442
0
0
0
0
accuracy (%)
Vbx
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.17652
0
0
-84.3994
0
0
60.42726
0
0
13.20442
fs8
Vby
0
0
635.9082
6231.9
0
0
0
0
11.50128 112.7125
0
0
0
0
1.151741 11.28706
0
0
fs9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fs9
Note : ETABS OUTPUT agrees very well with the theoritical results of backward-analysis
ETABS OUTPUT
Mode
BACKWARD ANALYSIS
Period Mode UX
UY
SumRX SumRY SumRZ
1 0.277944
1 0.0915 0.0259
1.838 22.9208 76.0175
2 0.187345
2 -0.1654 0.0463
7.697 97.739 93.8501
3 0.170171
3 -0.0287 -0.1837
100
100
100
m
27.36
27.36
0 434.0511
0.0915
0.0259
-0.04163
-0.1654 -0.0287
0.0463 -0.1837
-0.0211 -0.01119
Lnx2
6.267212
20.47874
0.616589
27.36254
Lny2
0.502148
1.604701
25.261
27.36785
Lnz2
326.5085
83.87772
23.59076
433.977
Iox=Lnx
-45.236
41.44526
3.813897
0.023134
Ioy=Lny
-12.8045
-11.6017
24.4116
0.005415
Vbx
4.700409 46.06401
15.35905 150.5187
0.462442 4.531931
fs1
Vby
0.376611 3.690788
1.203526 11.79455
18.94575 185.6683
TORQUES
Tbx
-33.927 -332.485
31.08395 304.6227
2.860423 28.03214
Tbx
-9.60339 -94.1132
-8.70125 -85.2723
18.3087 179.4252
NOTE : ETABS OUTPUT agrees very well with the theoritical results of backwardanalysis
ETABS OUTPUT
Mode
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
BACKWARD ANALYSIS
UX
UY
RZ
-0.0897 -0.0062 0.03659
-0.0415 -0.0073 0.01792
0.1491 -0.0051
0.0224
0.0652 -0.0052 0.01052
0
0.1687 0.00363
0.0029
0.0863 -0.00091
0.0364
0.0269 -0.01883
-0.0749 -0.0294 0.03637
0.0632 -0.0471
0.0063
-0.1362
0.0861 -0.01192
0.0309
0.0712 0.00747
-0.0676 -0.1375 -0.01716
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
Period
SumUX
SumUY
SumRZ
0.511953 23.7206
0.2562 65.7177
0.367243 86.8642
0.4052 88.5947
0.319362 86.8769 90.2398 88.8441
0.163567 89.2762 90.2624 96.7824
0.107548 97.8402 92.7827
97.726
0.100288
100
100
100
STORY
m
2
27.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
434.0511
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.8
0
Lxn
Lyn
Lzn
13.31806 0.144303 578.6564
Iox n
Ioy n
-87.7871 -9.13793
86.5032 -4.20085
0.006976
1.348423
4.811039
1.213205
56.18517
50.42522
0.012262
1.418538
4.048015
56.13203
1.346883
70.81639
7.30196
21.01625
889.9955
0.096929
-9.77192
5.927058
5.049458
0.017588
8.241168
-0.93187
-3.2184
9.223563
-0.02432
0
0
0
0
0
456.102
Lxn 2
13.31806
35.48747
0.006976
1.348423
4.811039
1.213205
56.18517
Cumm
13.31806
48.80553
48.81251
50.16093
54.97197
56.18517
2x
2y
2z
1x
1y
1z
1
-0.0897
-0.0062
0.03659
-0.0415
-0.0073
0.01792
% Cumm
23.70387
86.8655
86.87791
89.27788
97.8407
100
2
0.1491
-0.0051
0.0224
0.0652
-0.0052
0.01052
Lyn 2
0.144303
0.083692
50.42522
0.012262
1.418538
4.048015
56.13203
Cumm
0.144303
0.227995
50.65322
50.66548
52.08402
56.13203
3
0
0.1687
0.00363
0.0029
0.0863
-0.00091
% Cumm
0.257077
0.406176
90.23941
90.26126
92.7884
100
4
0.0364
0.0269
-0.01883
-0.0749
-0.0294
0.03637
5
0.0632
-0.0471
0.0063
-0.1362
0.0861
-0.01192
Lzn 2
578.6564
210.8576
1.346883
70.81639
7.30196
21.01625
889.9955
6
0.0309
0.0712
0.00747
-0.0676
-0.1375
-0.01716
Cumm
578.6564
789.514
790.8609
861.6773
868.9792
889.9955
% Cumm
65.0179
88.70989
88.86122
96.81816
97.63861
100
BASE SHEARS V
7.324934
19.51811
0.003837
0.310137
1.106539
0.279037
Vbx
71.78435402
191.2774596
0.037598432
3.039344537
10.84408113
2.734564791
0.079367
0.046031
27.73387
0.00282
0.326264
0.931044
Vby
0.777792
0.451101
271.792
0.02764
3.197385
9.124226
BASE TORQUES
Tbx
-48.28293 -473.1726716
47.57676 466.2522513
0.053311 0.522449246
-2.247542 -22.02590784
1.363223 13.35958785
1.161375 11.38147895
-5.02586
-2.310467
4.532642
-0.21433
-0.740232
2.121419
TbY
-49.25342
-22.64258
44.4199
-2.100437
-7.254277
20.78991
NOTE : ETABS OUTPUT agrees very well with the theoritical results of backwardanalysis
5.
Conclusions
Theoretical 3D-dynamic analyses had been briefly elaborated and clearly applied
through practical design examples by the assistance of ETABS computer program. It has
been shown that for simple regular plans through irregular structural plans with only one
type of rigid diaphragm, ETABS output agrees very well with the theoretical results of
backward analysis.
Particular cases for the irregular structural plans with multi masses and multi rigid
diaphragms as commonly found in the case of mixed use building analytical model will
be separately written for the next publication.
6.
References
Wilson, E. L. (2004), Static & Dynamic Analysis of Structures, A Physical Approach With
Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering, 4th Edition, Computer and Structure Inc., 390 pp.
Seed, H.B., Ugas, C., and Lysmer, L. (1976), Site Dependent Spectra for Earthquake
Resistant Design, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, No.1,
February.
Powell, G., H. (2010), Modeling for Structural Analysis, Behavior and Basics, Computer
and Structure Inc., 365 pp.