Development of basic technique to improve seismic response accuracy of tributary area-based lumped-mass stick models
- 52 Downloads
Although a detailed finite element (FE) model provides more precise results, a lumped-mass stick (LMS) model is preferred because of its simplicity and rapid computational time. However, the reliability of LMS models has been questioned especially for structures dominated by higher modes and seismic inputs. Normally, the natural frequencies and dynamic responses of a LMS model based on tributary area mass consideration are different from the results of the FE model. This study proposes a basic updating technique to overcome these discrepancies; the technique employs the identical modal response, D(t), to the detailed FE model. The parameter D(t) is a time variable function in the dynamic response composition and it depends on frequency and damping ratio for each mode, independent of the structure’s mode shapes. The identical response D(t) for each mode is obtained from the frequency adaptive LMS model; the adaptive LMS model which can provide identical modal frequencies as the detailed FE model. Theoretical backgrounds and formulations of the updating technique are proposed. To validate the updating technique, two types of structures (a symmetric straight column and an unsymmetric T-shaped structure) are considered. From the seismic response results including base shear and base moment, the updating technique considerably improves the seismic response accuracy of the tributary area-based LMS model.
Keywordslumped-mass stick models seismic responses modal frequency eigenvectors response accuracy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and technology under Grant No. 20151D1A3A01020017.
- Agrawal S and Jain AK (2009), “Seismic Analysis of a S-Curved Viaduct Using Stick and Finite Element models,” International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering, 3(2): 34–44.Google Scholar
- Ali A, Kim D, Dong Y and Cho SG (2012), “Seismic Performance of Base Isolated Nuclear Power Plans under Real & Simulated Long-Period Seismic Excitations,” Proceeding of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
- Anderson LM, Hashemi A and Ostadan F (2014), “Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on Nuclear Structures Founded on Rock Sites,” Proceeding of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, Alaska.Google Scholar
- Chen Bo, Guo WH, Li PY and Xie WP (2014), “Dynamic Response and Vibration Control of the Transmission Tower-Line System: A State-of-the-Art Review,” The Scientific World Journal, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Article ID. 538457.Google Scholar
- Chopra AK (2014), Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Computers and Structures (2015), SAP2000 Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of Three-dimensional Structures-Version 17.3, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
- Hardy G, Soto R, Steve S and Kassawara R (2015), “Finite Element and Lumped Mass Structure Modelling for SPRAs,” 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Vol.V, Manchester, United Kingdom, Paper ID. 465.Google Scholar
- Huo L, Qu C and Li H (2014), “TLCD Parametric Optimization for the Vibration Control of Building Structures Based on Linear Matrix Inequality,” Journal of Applied Mathematics, Article ID. 527530.Google Scholar
- Leonardo TS, Richard SO, Sener T and Diego PR (2007), “Finite Element Modeling of the AP1000 Nuclear Island for Seismic Analysis at Generic Soil and Rock Sites,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237(12–13): 1474–1485.Google Scholar
- Lin FR, Chai JF, Lai ZY, Chen MY, Chou PF, Huang YN and Lio WI (2014), “Seismic Evaluation of Relays in Motor-Control-Center Type Cabinet in Taiwan Nuclear Power Plants,” 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska.Google Scholar
- Paultre P (2010), Dynamics of Structures, ISTE & Wiley.Google Scholar
- Radford T, Damolini S and O’sullivan J (2015), “A Case Study on the Effect of Detailed 3D Finite Element Modelling on Nuclear Power Plant Building Response,” 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Vol.V, Manchester, United Kingdom, Paper ID. 738.Google Scholar
- Wibowo H, Sanford DM, Buckle IG and Sanders DH (2014), “Preliminary Parametric Study of the Effects of Live Load on Seismic Response of Highway Bridges,” Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, Alaska.Google Scholar
- Xu J, Miller C, Costanio C, Hofmayer C and Graves H (2005), “Assessment of Seismic Analysis Methodologies for Deeply Embedded NPP Structures,” 18th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Beijing, china.Google Scholar