Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 113–127 | Cite as

Development of basic technique to improve seismic response accuracy of tributary area-based lumped-mass stick models

  • Yu-Chen Ou
  • Ibrahim Hashlamon
  • WooSeok Kim
  • Hwasung RohEmail author


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.


lumped-mass stick models seismic responses modal frequency eigenvectors response accuracy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

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.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Amirihormozaki E, Pekcan G and Itandi A (2015), “Analytical Modeling of Horizontally Curved Steel Girder Highway Bridges for Seismic Analysis,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 19(2): 220–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Cho SG, Cui J and Kim D (2011), “Procedure for Generating in-Cabinet Response Spectra Based on State-Space Model Identification by Impact Testing,” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 43(6): 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi IK, Choun YS, Ahn SM and Seo JM (2008), “Probabilistic Seismic Risk Analysis of CANDU Containment Structure for Near-Fault Earthquake,” Nuclear Engineering Design, 238(6): 1382–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi Y, Park KS, Park NC, Park YP and Jeong KH (2014), “Seismic Analysis Model Construction of the Integrated Reactor Internals,” Procedia Engineering, 79: 362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chopra AK (2014), Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Halabian AM and El-Naggar MH (2001), “Effect of Foundation Flexibility on Seismic Response of R/C TVTowers,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(3): 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Huang YN, Whittaker AS and Luco N (2010), “Seismic Performance Assessment of Base-Isolated Safety-Related Nuclear Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(13): 1421–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Lee H, Ou YC, Roh H and Lee JS (2015), “Simplified Model and Seismic Response of Integrated Nuclear Containment System based on Frequency Adaptive Lumped-Mass Stick Modeling Approach,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(6): 1757–1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Li C, Yuan J, Yu H and Yuan Y (2018), “Mode-Based Equivalent Multi-Degree-of-Freedom System for One-Dimensional Viscoelastic Response Analysis of Layered Soil Deposit,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 17(1): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Meng JY and Lui EM (2002), “Refined Stick Model for Dynamic Analysis of Skew Highway Bridges,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, 7(3): 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mandal TK, Ghosh S and Pujari NN (2015), “Seismic Fragility Analysis of a Typical Indian PHWR Containment: Comparison of Fragility Models,” Structural Safety, 58: 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paultre P (2010), Dynamics of Structures, ISTE & Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Roh H, Lee H and Lee JS (2013), “New Lumped-Mass-Stick Model based on Modal Characteristics of Structures: Development and Application to a Nuclear Containment Building,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 12(2): 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roh H, Ovileto ND and Reinhorn AM (2012), “Experimental Test and modeling of Hollow-Core Composite Insulators,” Nonlinear Dynamics, 69(4): 1651–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang J, Lu L and Zhu F (2018), “Efficiency Analysis of Numerical Integrations for Finite Element Substructure in Real-Time Hybrid Simulation,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 17(1): 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Zhao X, Wang S, Du D and Liu W (2017), “Simplified Analysis of Frame Structures with Viscoelastic Dampers Considering the Effect of Soil-Structure Interaction,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 16(1): 199–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu-Chen Ou
    • 1
  • Ibrahim Hashlamon
    • 2
  • WooSeok Kim
    • 3
  • Hwasung Roh
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringTaiwan University (NTU)TaiwanChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringChonbuk National UniversityJeonjuSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringChungnam National UniversityDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations