Abstract
There are two models in use today to analyze structural responses when subjected to earthquake ground motions, the Displacement Input Model (DIM) and the Acceleration Input Model (AIM). The time steps used in direct integration methods for these models are analyzed to examine the suitability of DIM. Numerical results are presented and show that the time-step for DIM is about the same as for AIM, and achieves the same accuracy. This is contrary to previous research that reported that there are several sources of numerical errors associated with the direct application of earthquake displacement loading, and a very small time step is required to define the displacement record and to integrate the dynamic equilibrium equation. It is shown in this paper that DIM is as accurate and suitable as, if not more than, AIM for analyzing the response of a structure to uniformly distributed and spatially varying ground motions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamson NA (1991), “Empirical Spatial Coherency Functions for Application to Soil-structure Interaction Analyses,” Earthquake Spectra, 7: 1–28.
Bathe K (1982), Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Harichandran RS and Vanmarke EH (1986), “Stochastic Variation of Earthquake Ground Motion in Space and Time,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 112(2): 154–174.
Kiureghian AD (1996), “A Coherency Model for Spatially Varying Ground Motions,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25: 99–111.
Lou L and Zerva A (2005), “Effects of Spatially Variable Ground Motions on the Seismic Response of a Skewed, Multi-span, RC Highway Bridge,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(7–10): 729–740.
Nazmy A Abdel-Ghaffar A (1992), “Effect of Ground Motion Spatial Variability on the Response of Cablestayed Bridges,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21(1): 1–20.
Nuti C and Vanzi I (2005), “Influence of Earthquake Spatial Variability on Differential Soil Displacements and SDF System Response,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34(11): 1353–1374.
Sextos AG, Pitilakis KD and Kappos AJ (2003), “Inelastic Dynamic Analysis of RC Bridges Accounting for Spatial Variability of Ground Motion, Site Effects and Soil-structure Interaction Phenomena. Part 1: Methodology and Analytical Tools,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32(4): 607–627.
Soyluk K and Dumanoglu AA (2004), “Spatial Variability Effects of Ground Motions on Cable-stayed Bridges,,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(3): 241–250.
Wilson EL (2000), Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures: A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering, Berkley: Computers and Structures, Inc.
Yang QS and Chen YJ (2000), “A Practical Coherency Model for Spatially Varying Ground Motions,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 9(2): 141–152.
Yang QS, Saiidi MS, Wang H and Itani A (2002), “Influence of earthquake ground motion incoherency on multi-support structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 1(2): 167–180.
Zerva A and Zervas V (2002), “Spatial Variation of Seismic Ground Motions: An Overview,” Applied Mechanics Reviews, 55(3): 271–296.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tian, Y., Yang, Q. On time-step in structural seismic response analysis under ground displacement/acceleration. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 8, 341–347 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-009-8126-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-009-8126-4