OF
STRUCTURES
Third Edition
3.0
Yielding phase
2.0
Displacement v, in
Elastoplastic response
Static displacement
p
=
k
1.0
vi = inelastic
displacement
ve = elastic
limit
0
Elastic response
- 1.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time, sec
FIGURE E7-4
Comparison of elastoplastic with elastic response (frame of Fig. E7-3).
fs
fs
8k
8k
1 in.
8k
1.5 in.
1.5 in.
8k
fs = 12 [ 2 v
3
( 1.5
(a)
FIGURE P7-1
(b)
1
3
( 23v ) ]
v
1.5)
CHAPTER
GENERALIZED
SINGLEDEGREEOF-FREEDOM
SYSTEMS
a
2
L
2
L
12
j=m
a
2
m
b
2
j=m
a 2+ b 2
12
m = ab
m = mL
L
2
b
2
mass
m=
length
mass
= area
2b
3
j=m
a +b
18
m=
b
3
a
3
b
2
j=m
a 2+ b 2
16
m=
ab
2
b
2
ab
4
Ellipse
a
2
2a
3
a
2
FIGURE 8-1
Rigid-body mass and centroidal mass moment of inertia for uniform rod and uniform
plates of unit thickness.
x
p(x, t) = p a f (t)
A
B
c1
m
2a
Hinge
m2 , j2
E
k1
a
H
G
k2
c2
a
FIGURE E8-1
Example of a rigid-body-assemblage SDOF system.
p1(t) = 8 pa f (t)
8a
3
Mj
B
fD (t)
1
C
fI (t)
1
F
Mj
D
fS (t)
1
E
fD (t)
2
FIGURE E8-2
SDOF displacements and resultant forces.
F
fI (t)
2
G
fS (t)
2
Z(t)
e1
e1
Z
E
Z(t)
H
e
4a
3a
FIGURE E8-3
Displacement components in the direction of axial force.
fS (t)
mass
= area (uniform)
k
fI (t)
1
I (t)
fI (t)
Z(t)
a
2
FIGURE E8-4
SDOF plate with dynamic forces.
p(t)
N
Z(t)
e(t)
v t (x,t)
v(x,t)
pe ff (x,t) =
m(x) vg (t)
m(x)
EI(x)
(b)
vg (t)
(a)
FIGURE 8-2
Flexure structure treated as a SDOF
system.
2
2
(a)
v1
v2
v3
x
v4
Z (t)
L
m(x)
m1, j1
m4 , j4
(b)
x1
(c)
(d )
c(x)
k (x)
c2
a1(x)
k1
c3
EI (x)
k2
q (x)
(e)
p(x,t)
p1 (t)
p3 (t)
(f)
FIGURE 8-3
Properties of generalized SDOF system: (a) assumed shape; (b) mass properties; (c) damping
properties; (d ) elastic properties; (e) applied axial loading; ( f ) applied lateral loading.
Z (t)
b
w (x,y,t)
x
a
FIGURE 8-4
Simply supported two-dimensional slab treated as a SDOF system.
v
k
(a)
v
v0
t
.
v
(b)
v0
t
(c)
FIGURE 8-5
Free vibration of undamped SDOF
structure: (a) SDOF structure;
(b) displacement; (c) velocity.
v(x,t) =
EI(x)
m(x)
L
(x) Z(t)
FIGURE 8-6
Vibration of a nonuniform beam.
y (x)
FIGURE 8-7
Deflected shape resulting from
inertial load of assumed shape.
p(x) = m(x) g
p(x) = m(x) g
vd (x)
vd (x)
p(x) = m(x) g
vd (x)
p(x) = m(x) g
(c)
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 8-8
Assumed shapes resulting from dead loads.
Weight = W
L
2
L
2
Uniform beam
EI = stiffness
m = mass length
Assumed shape
x
v(x) = Z 0
3x 2L x 3
3
2L
Z0 =
pL3
3EI
FIGURE E8-5
Rayleigh method analysis of
beam vibration frequency.
m
1
kips sec 2 in
k
1.5
v1(0) = 1.0
kips in
v2(0) = 1.0
1,200
2.0
v3(0) = 1.0
1,800
(a)
Inertial loads =
(b)
2
mi vi(0)
1.0
Computed deflections
va =
600
(Shear = 2.5
2.0
vb =
v2(1) =
2.5
1,200
v3(1) =
(Shear = 4.5
v1(1) =
vc =
22.5
3,600
16.5
3,600
9.0
3,600
= Z 0(1)(1.0)
= Z 0(1)(0.733)
= Z 0(1)(0.40)
4.5
1,800
(c)
FIGURE E8-6
Frame for Rayleigh method frequency analysis: (a) mass and stiffness values; (b) initial assumed
shape; (c) deflections resulting from initial inertial forces.
2L
p (t)
load
length
Z (t)
Rigid uniform bar
Total mass = m
Pulley:
Total mass = m
(uniform over area)
Inextensible
massless cable
k
FIGURE P8-2
p(t)
k
Z(t)
L
c
L
2
L
2
FIGURE P8-3
Z (t)
v(x,t) =
(x) Z(t)
p=
load
length
Uniform column
m=
mass
length
EI = flexural rigidity
FIGURE P8-4
x
2
8 ft
(x) = 1
200 ft
cos
2L
Concrete stack:
density = 150 lb/ft3
E = 3 10 6 lb/in2
wall thickness = 8 in
0
18 ft
FIGURE P8-5
m1
m = mass
length
EI
Assumed shape
L
2
v(x)
L
2
FIGURE P8-6
v1(0) = 1
m1
k1
v2(0) = 2
3
v3(0) = 1
3
m2
k2
m3
k3
kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
FIGURE P8-8
CHAPTER
FORMULATION
OF THE
MDOF
EQUATIONS
OF MOTION
p(x,t)
1
m(x)
EI(x)
v1 (t)
v 2 (t)
vi (t)
vN (t)
FIGURE 9-1
Discretization of a general
beam-type structure.
CHAPTER
EVALUATION
OF STRUCTURALPROPERTY
MATRICES
~
v 1 = f 11
~
f 21
p1 = 1
~
f 12
~
fN 1
~
f i1
~
vi = fi 2
~
f 22
p2 = 1
~
fN 2
FIGURE 10-1
Definition of flexibility influence coefficients.
p 1 = k 11
p 2 = k 21
pi 1 = k i 1
pN 1 = k N 1
pi = k i 2
pN = k N 2
v1 =1
p 2 = k 22
p 1 = k 12
v2 =1
FIGURE 10-2
Definition of stiffness influence
coefficients.
Load system a:
p1 a
Load system b:
p2 a
p1 b
p3 a
p2 b
p3 b
Deflections b:
Deflections a:
v3 b
v1 a
v2 a
v3 a
FIGURE 10-3
Two independent load systems and resulting deflections.
v1 b
v2 b
v(x)
EI(x)
b
L
x
va
v1 = 1
1 (x)
v3 = 1
3 (x)
FIGURE 10-4
Beam deflections due to unit nodal
displacements at left end.
v(x) =
va
v3
=1
v1
1 (x)
v1
3 (x)
pa = k 13
FIGURE 10-5
Beam subjected to real rotation
and virtual translation of node.
v2
v3
4EI
v1
EI
EI
2L
(a)
k 21 = 2EI (3L)
L3
k 31 = 2EI (3L)
L3
2EI
k 11 =
v1 = 1
L3
(6)(2)
(b)
k 22 =
=
2EI
L3
2EI
L3
(2L 2 ) +
2(4EI )
(2L) 3
(2)(2L) 2
k 32 =
(6L 2 )
2(4EI)
(2L) 3
k 12 =
(2L) 2 =
2EI
L3
2EI
L3
(2L 2 )
(3L)
v2 = 1
(c)
FIGURE E10-1
Analysis of frame stiffness coefficients: (a) frame properties and degrees of freedom;
(b) forces due to displacement v1 = 1; (c) forces due to rotation v2 = 1.
m0 a
m1 a
m2 c
mi k
m1 b
m2 b
mi l
m1
m2
mi
mN
FIGURE 10-6
Lumping of mass at beam nodes.
v(x)
m(x)
b
a
L
v(x) =
v1
v3
1 (x)
v1
va
=1
a
FIGURE 10-7
Node subjected to real angular acceleration and virtual translation.
v2
v3
1.5 m
v1
1.5 mL
m11 = 4 mL
1.5 mL
0.5 mL
0.5 mL
m
2L
0.5 mL
0.5 mL
(a)
m 21 =
(b)
mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
420
210
m 31 =
mL
(11L)
210
(Axial motion
of girder)
mL
(156)(2) + (1.5 m)(2L)
420
mL
=
(786)
210
m 11 =
v1 = 1
(c)
m 22 =
=
(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
(4L2) +
(4)(2L)2
420
420
mL
(26L2)
210
m 32 =
(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
( 3)(2L2)2 =
( 18L2)
420
210
m 12 =
mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
210
420
v2 = 1
(d)
FIGURE E10-2
Analysis of lumped- and consistent-mass matrices: (a) uniform mass in members; (b) lumping of
mass at member ends; (c) forces due to acceleration v1 = 1 (consistent); (d ) forces due to
acceleration v 2 = 1 (consistent).
( , )
( )=
1(
3.0
Yielding phase
2.0
Displacement v, in
Elastoplastic response
Static displacement
p
=
k
1.0
vi = inelastic
displacement
ve = elastic
limit
0
Elastic response
- 1.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Time, sec
FIGURE E7-4
Comparison of elastoplastic with elastic response (frame of Fig. E7-3).
fs
fs
8k
8k
1 in.
8k
1.5 in.
1.5 in.
8k
fs = 12 [ 2 v
3
( 1.5
(a)
FIGURE P7-1
(b)
1
3
( 23v ) ]
v
1.5)
CHAPTER
GENERALIZED
SINGLEDEGREEOF-FREEDOM
SYSTEMS
a
2
L
2
L
12
j=m
a
2
m
b
2
j=m
a 2+ b 2
12
m = ab
m = mL
L
2
b
2
mass
m=
length
mass
= area
2b
3
j=m
a +b
18
m=
b
3
a
3
b
2
j=m
a 2+ b 2
16
m=
ab
2
b
2
ab
4
Ellipse
a
2
2a
3
a
2
FIGURE 8-1
Rigid-body mass and centroidal mass moment of inertia for uniform rod and uniform
plates of unit thickness.
x
p(x, t) = p a f (t)
A
B
c1
m
2a
Hinge
m2 , j2
E
k1
a
H
G
k2
c2
a
FIGURE E8-1
Example of a rigid-body-assemblage SDOF system.
p1(t) = 8 pa f (t)
8a
3
Mj
B
fD (t)
1
C
fI (t)
1
F
Mj
D
fS (t)
1
E
fD (t)
2
FIGURE E8-2
SDOF displacements and resultant forces.
F
fI (t)
2
G
fS (t)
2
Z(t)
e1
e1
Z
E
Z(t)
H
e
4a
3a
FIGURE E8-3
Displacement components in the direction of axial force.
fS (t)
mass
= area (uniform)
k
fI (t)
1
I (t)
fI (t)
Z(t)
a
2
FIGURE E8-4
SDOF plate with dynamic forces.
p(t)
N
Z(t)
e(t)
v t (x,t)
v(x,t)
pe ff (x,t) =
m(x) vg (t)
m(x)
EI(x)
(b)
vg (t)
(a)
FIGURE 8-2
Flexure structure treated as a SDOF
system.
2
2
(a)
v1
v2
v3
x
v4
Z (t)
L
m(x)
m1, j1
m4 , j4
(b)
x1
(c)
(d )
c(x)
k (x)
c2
a1(x)
k1
c3
EI (x)
k2
q (x)
(e)
p(x,t)
p1 (t)
p3 (t)
(f)
FIGURE 8-3
Properties of generalized SDOF system: (a) assumed shape; (b) mass properties; (c) damping
properties; (d ) elastic properties; (e) applied axial loading; ( f ) applied lateral loading.
Z (t)
b
w (x,y,t)
x
a
FIGURE 8-4
Simply supported two-dimensional slab treated as a SDOF system.
v
k
(a)
v
v0
t
.
v
(b)
v0
t
(c)
FIGURE 8-5
Free vibration of undamped SDOF
structure: (a) SDOF structure;
(b) displacement; (c) velocity.
v(x,t) =
EI(x)
m(x)
L
(x) Z(t)
FIGURE 8-6
Vibration of a nonuniform beam.
y (x)
FIGURE 8-7
Deflected shape resulting from
inertial load of assumed shape.
p(x) = m(x) g
p(x) = m(x) g
vd (x)
vd (x)
p(x) = m(x) g
vd (x)
p(x) = m(x) g
(c)
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 8-8
Assumed shapes resulting from dead loads.
Weight = W
L
2
L
2
Uniform beam
EI = stiffness
m = mass length
Assumed shape
x
v(x) = Z 0
3x 2L x 3
3
2L
Z0 =
pL3
3EI
FIGURE E8-5
Rayleigh method analysis of
beam vibration frequency.
m
1
kips sec 2 in
k
1.5
v1(0) = 1.0
kips in
v2(0) = 1.0
1,200
2.0
v3(0) = 1.0
1,800
(a)
Inertial loads =
(b)
2
mi vi(0)
1.0
Computed deflections
va =
600
(Shear = 2.5
2.0
vb =
v2(1) =
2.5
1,200
v3(1) =
(Shear = 4.5
v1(1) =
vc =
22.5
3,600
16.5
3,600
9.0
3,600
= Z 0(1)(1.0)
= Z 0(1)(0.733)
= Z 0(1)(0.40)
4.5
1,800
(c)
FIGURE E8-6
Frame for Rayleigh method frequency analysis: (a) mass and stiffness values; (b) initial assumed
shape; (c) deflections resulting from initial inertial forces.
2L
p (t)
load
length
Z (t)
Rigid uniform bar
Total mass = m
Pulley:
Total mass = m
(uniform over area)
Inextensible
massless cable
k
FIGURE P8-2
p(t)
k
Z(t)
L
c
L
2
L
2
FIGURE P8-3
Z (t)
v(x,t) =
(x) Z(t)
p=
load
length
Uniform column
m=
mass
length
EI = flexural rigidity
FIGURE P8-4
x
2
8 ft
(x) = 1
200 ft
cos
2L
Concrete stack:
density = 150 lb/ft3
E = 3 10 6 lb/in2
wall thickness = 8 in
0
18 ft
FIGURE P8-5
m1
m = mass
length
EI
Assumed shape
L
2
v(x)
L
2
FIGURE P8-6
v1(0) = 1
m1
k1
v2(0) = 2
3
v3(0) = 1
3
m2
k2
m3
k3
kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
FIGURE P8-8
CHAPTER
FORMULATION
OF THE
MDOF
EQUATIONS
OF MOTION
p(x,t)
1
m(x)
EI(x)
v1 (t)
v 2 (t)
vi (t)
vN (t)
FIGURE 9-1
Discretization of a general
beam-type structure.
CHAPTER
EVALUATION
OF STRUCTURALPROPERTY
MATRICES
~
v 1 = f 11
~
f 21
p1 = 1
~
f 12
~
fN 1
~
f i1
~
vi = fi 2
~
f 22
p2 = 1
~
fN 2
FIGURE 10-1
Definition of flexibility influence coefficients.
p 1 = k 11
p 2 = k 21
pi 1 = k i 1
pN 1 = k N 1
pi = k i 2
pN = k N 2
v1 =1
p 2 = k 22
p 1 = k 12
v2 =1
FIGURE 10-2
Definition of stiffness influence
coefficients.
Load system a:
p1 a
Load system b:
p2 a
p1 b
p3 a
p2 b
p3 b
Deflections b:
Deflections a:
v3 b
v1 a
v2 a
v3 a
FIGURE 10-3
Two independent load systems and resulting deflections.
v1 b
v2 b
v(x)
EI(x)
b
L
x
va
v1 = 1
1 (x)
v3 = 1
3 (x)
FIGURE 10-4
Beam deflections due to unit nodal
displacements at left end.
v(x) =
va
v3
=1
v1
1 (x)
v1
3 (x)
pa = k 13
FIGURE 10-5
Beam subjected to real rotation
and virtual translation of node.
v2
v3
4EI
v1
EI
EI
2L
(a)
k 21 = 2EI (3L)
L3
k 31 = 2EI (3L)
L3
2EI
k 11 =
v1 = 1
L3
(6)(2)
(b)
k 22 =
=
2EI
L3
2EI
L3
(2L 2 ) +
2(4EI )
(2L) 3
(2)(2L) 2
k 32 =
(6L 2 )
2(4EI)
(2L) 3
k 12 =
(2L) 2 =
2EI
L3
2EI
L3
(2L 2 )
(3L)
v2 = 1
(c)
FIGURE E10-1
Analysis of frame stiffness coefficients: (a) frame properties and degrees of freedom;
(b) forces due to displacement v1 = 1; (c) forces due to rotation v2 = 1.
m0 a
m1 a
m2 c
mi k
m1 b
m2 b
mi l
m1
m2
mi
mN
FIGURE 10-6
Lumping of mass at beam nodes.
v(x)
m(x)
b
a
L
v(x) =
v1
v3
1 (x)
v1
va
=1
a
FIGURE 10-7
Node subjected to real angular acceleration and virtual translation.
v2
v3
1.5 m
v1
1.5 mL
m11 = 4 mL
1.5 mL
0.5 mL
0.5 mL
m
2L
0.5 mL
0.5 mL
(a)
m 21 =
(b)
mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
420
210
m 31 =
mL
(11L)
210
(Axial motion
of girder)
mL
(156)(2) + (1.5 m)(2L)
420
mL
=
(786)
210
m 11 =
v1 = 1
(c)
m 22 =
=
(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
(4L2) +
(4)(2L)2
420
420
mL
(26L2)
210
m 32 =
(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
( 3)(2L2)2 =
( 18L2)
420
210
m 12 =
mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
210
420
v2 = 1
(d)
FIGURE E10-2
Analysis of lumped- and consistent-mass matrices: (a) uniform mass in members; (b) lumping of
mass at member ends; (c) forces due to acceleration v1 = 1 (consistent); (d ) forces due to
acceleration v 2 = 1 (consistent).
( , )
( )=
1(
v1
m
v3
L
x
2
JG = EI each member
3
L
m=
v2
x = 0.05
z
Fixed
1
0
0
0
1
0
4.59
4.83
14.56
y
FIGURE E26-7
3-DOF system subjected to rigid-base translation.
0
0 m
1
13
3
3
25
12
f=
-3
12
L 3
- 3
6EI
19
- 0.787
1.3
z (t)
z x (t)
1.2
max
max
Eq. (26-129)
1.1
Eq. (26-127)
1.0
0.2
0.4
B=
0.6
z y (t)
max
z x (t)
max
0.8
1.0
FIGURE 26-13
Statistical approach versus 30% rule
in combining two components of
horizontal response.
Story mass:
mi = 24 kips sec 2 ft
Total column stiffness:
EI = 4 10 6 kips ft2
L = 480 ft
Story height:
h = 12 ft
FIGURE P26-1
Uniform shear building.
z
L
m
EI
m
va
vb
2L
EI
w = 0.377
1.25
EI
mL3
EI
= 100 1/sec 2
mL3
z
F = 1.00 1.00
0.85 - 2.35
FIGURE P26-2
2-DOF plane frame.
CHAPTER
DETERMINISTIC
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE:
INCLUDING
SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
x
L
FIGURE 27-1
Rigid rectangular basemat of a large structure.
(1985) and
(1988), both published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3
4
5
4
3
2
7
4
D 2 D
=
Va
FIGURE 27-2
factor as a function of frequency and apparent wave velocity.
9
4
5
2
Structure
Structure and soil response
degrees of freedom
v(t)
Interface
Foundation medium
vg (t)
FIGURE 27-3
Finite-element model of combined structure and supporting soil.
v(t)
k
2
k
2
m 0 , J0
Fixed reference
m, J
h
k
2
vg (t)
Elastic half-space
v0 (t)
M0 (t)
v(t)
M0 (t)
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 27-4
Lumped SDOF elastic system on rigid mat foundation.
Substructure
No. 1
k
2
vz
m, J
(t)
I
(t)
Substructure
No. 2
p(t) = exp (i t)
T(t) = exp (i t)
M(t) = exp (i t)
v(t) = exp (i t)
2R
Half-space
p, G, v
FIGURE 27-5
Rigid massless circular plate on half-space.
1.0
v=0
= 3 G R(a 0 ) 16GR 3
v) G R(a 0 ) 4GR
1.0
1 3
0.5
= (1
v =1 2
1 3
1 2
(a)
2
4
a0 = R
1 3
1 2
1 3
1 2
0.5
(c)
0
0.7
0.6
Torsion
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
(b)
0
Torsion
4
a0 = R
Vs
v=0
1.0
0.8
= 3 (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 8GR 3a 0
= 3 (1 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR 3
= (2 v) G (a 0 ) 8 GR a 0
0.5
Vertical translation
= 3 G I (a 0 ) 16GR 3a 0
v=0
1.0
= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR
= (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 4GR a 0
Vertical translation
0.9
Lateral translation
4
a0 = R
1.0
Rocking
v=0
0.5
(d)
1 3
1 3
Vs
1 2
1 2
4
a0 = R
= (2 v) G I (a 0 ) 8 GR 2a 0
= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8 GR 2
0.3
v=0
0.2
1 3
0.1
1 2
v=0
0
0.1
0.2
(e)
1 2
1 3
FIGURE 27-6
Rigid massless circular plate impedances.
4
a0 = R
Vs
6
Vs
6
Vs
FIGURE 27-7
Example structures for soil-structure interaction analysis.
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
FIGURE 27-8
Substructures Nos. 1 and 2 for the systems shown in Fig. 26-7.
nA
nb
nc
Soil
Near field
nd
nd
Far field
Half-space with
surface cavity
FIGURE 27-9
Modeling of foundation full
half-space.
H. B. Seed, R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Analysis for Cohesionless Soils, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report No. EERC 84-14, 1984.
B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves,
, Vol. 98, No. SM7, July, 1972.
J. Lysmer, T. Udaka, C. F. Tsai, and H. B. Seed, Flush A Computer Program for Approximate
3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problem, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 7530, 1975.
I. Katayama, C. H. Chen, and J. Penzien, Near-Field Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Using Nonlinear
Hybrid Modeling, Proc. SMIRT Conference, Anaheim, Ca., 1989.
(0, t)
(0, t)
(0, t)
(0, t)
y, v
v(0, t)
w (0, t)
z, w
cp =
Column
Foundation
half-space
cs =
(b)
(a)
FIGURE 27-10
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform half-space having viscous boundary elements as its equivalent.
(0, t)
Layer
H1
vs 1 ,
(0, t)
(0, t)
1,
vs 2 ,
y1, v1
z 1, w 1
1
2,
v1 (0, t)
(0, t)
y2, v2
z 2, w2
cs
w1 (0, t)
Half-space
Shear-beam column
kp
ks
cp
(b)
(a)
FIGURE 27-11
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform layer on a uniform half-space having viscous and spring boundary
elements as its equivalent.
mg
Rigid hammer
vh
m
m
wm (t)
wm (t)
w(0, t)
Cushion
spring: k
m wm (t)
w(0, t)
k
cz =
z, w(z,t)
Vp =
AE
Vp
Pile: A, E,
N (0, t)
(a)
FIGURE E27-1
Hammer-cushion-pile system.
(b)
200
400
600
N (z, 0.005067)
10
Vp = (1.15)(10 5)
20
in sec
30
40
48.6
50
z
FIGURE E27-2
Axial-force distribution in concrete pile
0.00507 sec after initial hammer impact
with cushion.
T. J. Tzong, S. Gupta, and J. Penzien, Two-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction, Report No. UC-EERC 81/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, August, 1981.
T. J. Tzong and J. Penzien, Hybrid-Modeling of a Single Layer Half-Space System in Soil-Structure
Interaction,
, Vol. 14, 1986.
1.00
iIt
Cn n = R n iIn
1 exp (i t)
0.75
Ct t = Rt
1 exp (i t)
1.00
0.50
a a
t
= (Ct t G)exp(i t)
It
0.25
0.75
0.50
a a
un = (Cn n G)exp(i t)
0.25
1.00
2.00
a0
3.00
iIr
a a
ull = (Cll G )exp(i t)
1.0
a0
a a
0.20
Ir
0.10
Rl
0
Vs
Rr
0.30
Il
3.00
u rr = (Cr r a 2G)exp(i t)
0.40
Crr = Rr
iIl
Cll = Rl
1.5
0.5
2.00
a0
Vs
0.50
1.00
2.0
1.0
In
Rn
Rt
2.0
3.0
1.00
a0
Vs
2.00
3.00
Vs
FIGURE 27-12
Compliances of infinite rigid massless strip of width 2a; G = shear modulus, Vs = shear-wave velocity.
Cavity
R
Surface layer
of depth H
H
SR
vs 1 = G 1
1 , G1
C
L
Sym.
Half-space
vs 2 = G 2
2, G2
FIGURE 27-13
Continuous far-field impedance
functions Sp and SR along halfcylindrical cavity surface.
30
Real part
constant form
R G1)
14
0
R0
25
44
12
4
15
Imaginary part
freq. form
30
(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0
45
0
(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 1.0
3.0
10.0
28
15
Imaginary part
constant form
R G1)
R G1)
60
R1
20
10
R1
10
Real part
freq. form
19
R0
R G1)
20
60
b0
b0
Vs1
FIGURE 27-14
Parameters defining impedance SR along half-cylindrical cavity surface.
1
1
Vs1
10
R G1)
0
5
(Vs 2 Vs 1) =
1.0
3.0
10.0
10
R G1)
(
(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0
20
6
1
8
4
3
Imaginary part
constant form
13
11
Imaginary part
freq. form
13
6
R G1)
20
10
15
Real part
freq. form
18
R G1)
25
Real part
constant form
1
8
6
b0
15
Vs1
6
b0
Vs1
FIGURE 27-15
Parameters defining impedance S along half-cylindrical cavity surface.
A. S. Veletsos and Y. T. Wei, Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings, loc. cit.
J. E. Luco and R. A. Westman, Dynamic Response of Circular Footings, loc. cit.
A. S. Veletsos and V. V. D. Nair, Torsional Vibration of Foundations, Structural Research at Rice,
Report No. 19, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University, June, 1973.
Mode i
S
SR
Tributary area i
FIGURE 27-16
Far-field impedances over the hemispherical
cavity surface in spherical co-ordinates.
E. Kausel, Forced Vibrations of Circular Footings on Layered Media, MIT Research Report R74-11,
Mass. Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
J. E. Luco, Impedance Functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered Medium,
, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1979.
S. Gupta, T. W. Lin, J. Penzien, and C. S. Yeh, Three-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure
Interaction,
., Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. Feb., 1982.
Real part
Imaginary part
R G)
20
R G)
30
10
0
9
0
Normal component
10
R G)
15
R G)
0
0
0
9
0
Tangential component
8
15
R G)
10
R G)
2
0
6
p0 =
Vs
0
9
0
Circumferential component
FIGURE 27-17
Far-field impedance functions over the hemispherical cavity surface.
3
p0 =
Vs
4
1
J. Penzien, C. H. Chen, W. Y. Jean, and Y. J. Lee, Seismic Analysis of Rectangular Tunnels in Soft
Ground, Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, July,
1992.
X, U
Y, V y, v
Vf f
V( X,
t)
Direction of wave
propagation
x
Axis of tunnel
V(X, t)
x, u
FIGURE 27-19
Shear wave moving in the X direction at velocity Vf f .
Tunnel
no joints
a
a max
x
Tunnel
with joints
mp
x
FIGURE 27-20
Tunnel axial strains with and without
joints.
CHAPTER
STOCHASTIC
STRUCTURAL
RESPONSE
Sv , ft /sec
1.5
1.0
= 0.02
= 0.05
0.5
= 0.10
0.5
1.0
Multiplication factors
given by Housner
1.5
Period
2.0
El Centro
El Centro
Olympia
Taft
1940
1934
1949
1952
2.5
2.7
1.9
1.9
1.6
3.0
T, sec
FIGURE 28-1
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems
(stationary white-noise excitation).
=0
= .02
= .05
= .10
Sv , ft /sec
Sv , ft /sec
=0
= .02
= .05
= .10
Period T , sec
1
2
Period T , sec
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 28-2
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems (filtered stationary
white-noise excitation).
B = Vy W = 4
vt
m= W
g
vmax
V
V
y
= v max vy V
ve
max
Vy
vy
Vy
E
(a)
(b)
vy
D
(c)
FIGURE 28-3
Nonlinear SDOF models.
TABLE 28-1
Case
No.
Structural
type *
Period
T
sec
Damping
ratio,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
Elastic-plastic
SD
*E
Elastic
EP
Strength
ratio, B
Yield displ.
vy
in
0.10
0.10
0.088
0.088
0.10
0.10
0.088
0.088
0.048
0.048
3.42
3.42
0.048
0.048
3.42
Stiffness degrading
B
k
Vy
vg
vy gT 2
Displacement v
max,
in
FIGURE 28-4
Probability distributions for extreme values of relative displacement.
0
2.5
0.001
2.0
3.0 4.0 5.0
0.001
1.001
1.40
2.0
10
0.0
1.0
2.0
Probability distribution P( v)
0.100
1.10
(a)
3.0
0.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
(b)
2.0
0.950
Reduced variate, v
1.0
0.900
20
in
Reduced variate, v
0.0
Probability distribution P( v)
0.100
10
Ductility demand
5.0
1.40
1.10
max,
7.5
1.001
Displacement v
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
3.0
0.950
10
20
30
40
50
20
Ductility demand
d
(1)
(4)
(3)
0.5
0.5
E [vmax ] , 30
(6)
1.0
(5)
T = 0.3 sec
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
E [vmax ] , T0
(2)
E [vmax ] , T0
E [vmax ] , 30
1.0
1.0
(2)
(6)
(1)
(5)
0.5
(4)
(3)
T = 2.7 sec
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
0.5
T0
30
T0
30
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 28-5
Duration effect of stationary process on mean peak response of linear and nonlinear structures.
1.0
M. Murakami and J. Penzien, Nonlinear Response Spectra for Probabilistic Seismic Design and Damage
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report No. 7538, 1975.
H. Umemura et. al.,
, Giko-do, Tokyo, Japan, 1973 (in Japanese).
pB y
Original skeleton
curve
k1
ky
1 1
pB y
pB c = 3
pB c
O
vBy
= vmin
vBc
(a)
vBc
k2
ky
1
1
D
k2
vBy
vm ax
2 vB y
=
vmax vmin
pB c
pB y
pB y
1
pB c
O
vBy
S
(b)
k1
A 1
O
vB c
vB c
k1
k2
ky
1
D
vB y
FIGURE 28-6
Trilinear stiffness-degrading hysteretic
model.
EI(x)
m(x)
L
x,
FIGURE P23-2
Cantilever member of Prob. 23-3.
CHAPTER
SEISMOLOGICAL
BACKGROUND
, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
N
Strike
Strike-slip fault
(left-lateral)
Dip
Reverse
fault
Normal fault
FIGURE 24-2
Definition of fault orientation, and of the basic types of fault displacement.
[Adapted from Earthquake by Bruce A. Bolt, W. H. Freeman and Company 1988.]
P-wave
(a)
Compressions
Dilatations
S-wave
Double amplitude
(b)
Wavelength
Love wave
(c)
Rayleigh wave
(d)
FIGURE 24-3
Diagram illustrating the forms of ground motion near the ground surface in
four types of earthquake waves. [From Bruce A. Bolt, Nuclear Explosions
and Earthquakes: The Parted Veil (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and
Company. Copyright 1976).]
Earthquake focus
Reflection at
the surface
Mantle
Core
Seismograph
station
Refraction
at the core
FIGURE 24-4
Paths of some P-type earthquake waves
from the focus.
Crust
Mantle
Outer core (liquid)
FIGURE 24-5
Zonation of the earths interior. The crust, which includes continents at the surface
of the earth, rests on the mantle. The mantle, in turn, rests on the core. The outer
core is liquid, but the inner core is solid. [After W. J. Kauffman, Planets and Moons,
W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1979.]
Asiatic
Plate
Juan De Fuca
Plate
San Andreas
Fault
Philippine
Sea Plate
Cocos
Pacific Plate Plate
Australian
Plate
European
Plate
North
American
Plate
Caribbean
Plate
Nazca
Plate
Antarctic Plate
FIGURE 24-6
Simplified map of the Earths crustal plates.
South
American
Plate
African
Plate
Greenland
Iceland
British
Isles
M
i d-
Kilometers
tla
T IC
ntic R idge
AT L A
N
OCEA
Axis of ridge
100 150
50
30
60
Miles
90
FIGURE 24-7
Magnetic-anomaly pattern of the North Atlantic sea floor. Symmetrical striping is revealed
by measurement of the strength of the magnetic field at many locations from a ship.
The position of the area represented in the lower diagram is shown in the map above.
[From A. Cox et al., "Reversals of the Earths Magnetic Field." Copyright 1967 by
Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.]
0.3
Acceleration
Acceleration of gravity
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0
10
15
20
Time, sec
FIGURE 24-15
Accelerogram from El Centro earthquake, May 18, 1940 (NS component).
25
940 W
930 W
VI
Tarhazout
VII
VIII
Tamarhout
3030 N
Ait Lamine
Kasbah
Anza
Agadir
Atlantic
Ocean
Scale of Miles
3
Sous
VI
Ben
Sergao
Inezgane
ve
Epicenter
VIII
Yachech
Talbordit
New City
VII
Industrial Zone
(South)
Ri
IX
Ait Melloul
3020 N
FIGURE 24-16
Isoseismal map of Agadir
earthquake, 1960 (Modified
Mercalli intensity scale).
CHAPTER
FREE-FIELD
SURFACE
GROUND
MOTIONS
v t (t)
v(t)
Reference axis
m
k
2
vg (t)
k
2
FIGURE 25-1
Basic SDOF dynamic system.
10
S p v ( , T ), ft /sec
8
=0
6
4
2
0
= 0.2
= 0.02
= 0.4
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
250.0
Sp v ( , T ), cm sec
100.0
50.0
25.0
10.0
5.0
2.5
0.05
0.1
0.5
10
H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monograph
published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1982.
N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Monograph published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 1982.
G. W. Housner, Design Spectrum,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1970.
ad (t)
Ground surface
Shear
beam
model
Soil
Bedrock
b
a b (t)
a c (t)
FIGURE 25-4
The shear beam model used for soil response analyses.
H. B. Seed, C. Ugas, and J. Lysmer, Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake Resistant Design,
, Vol. 66, No. 1, February, 1976.
J. Penzien, Statistical Nature of Earthquake Ground Motions and Structural Response, Proc. U.S.Southeast Asia Symposium on Engineering for Natural Hazards Protection, Manila, Philippines, September, 1977.
Spectral acceleration
Maximum ground acceleration
3
Soft to medium clay and sand
15 records
30 records
31 records
28 records
0.5
1.0
1.5
Period T
2.0
2.5
3.0
seconds
FIGURE 25-5
Average pseudo-acceleration spectra for different site conditions (by Seed et al.).
4
Total number of records analysed: 104
Spectral acceleration
Maximum ground acceleration
15 records
30 records
31 records
Rock
28 records
0.5
1.0
1.5
Period T
2.0
2.5
seconds
FIGURE 25-6
84 percentile pseudo-acceleration spectra for different site conditions (by Seed et al.).
3.0
1.0
R = 1.60 T = 1.0 sec
= 0.05
R = 0.73
Deep
cohesionless
soils
P (R)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
R
1.0
R = 0.61 T = 1.0 sec
= 0.05
R = 0.40
Rock
P (R)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
R
2.0
2.5
FIGURE 25-7
Gumbel Type I probability
distribution functions for
response ratio R for two soil
types.
M. G. Bonilla, A Review of Recently Active Faults in Taiwan, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 75-41, 1975.
al
Lo
sc
Lo
a
Sv Log scale
vv
sc
al
v
a
f2 = 4 f1
f3 = 10 f1
0.1
f1
f=
Log scale
f2 f3
60
FIGURE 25-8
Design response spectrum.
W. J. Hall, Observations on Some Current Issues Pertaining to Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Design,
, North-Holland Publishing Co., Vol. 69, 1982.
B. Mohraz, A Study of Earthquake Response Spectra for Different Geological Conditions,
, Vol. 66, No. 3, June, 1976.
Spectral acceleration
Maximum ground acceleration
2.35
1.62
0.92
0.77
0.5
1.0
2.056
1.370
1.147
0.64
0.43
0.47
1.5
Period T
2.0
2.5
3.0
seconds
FIGURE 25-9
ATC-3 normalized response spectra recommended for use in building code.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for Buildings, ATC Publication ATC3-06, NBS Special Publication 510, and NSF Publication 78-8,
1978.
t(
el
isp
la
cc
at
er
)
10
(g
10
io
= 0.05
2
10 0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
en
m
ce
Velocity (m/sec)
10 1
cm
10 2
10 0
10
Period (sec)
10 1
10 2
FIGURE 25-10
Normalized response spectrum
curves for = 0.05 using eight
accelerograms recorded in
Taipei, Taiwan during the
earthquake of November 14,
1986.
t(
en
10
m
ce
la
le
Di
ce
sp
Ac
10
n(
10
tio
ra
g)
= 0.05
2
10 0
10
10
10
10
10
10
Velocity (m/sec)
10 1
cm
10 2
10 0
10
Period (sec)
10 1
10 2
FIGURE 25-11
Normalized design response
spectrum curve for = 0.05
representing Taipei, Taiwan,
soft soil conditions.
N. M. Newmark, J. A. Blume, and K. K. Kapur, Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants,
, Vol. 99, No. PO2, November, 1973.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design
of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, December, 1973.
HORIZONTAL
100
10
1.
10
0.
01
(in
t
10 n
0 . e me
lac
Ac
sp
ce
10
Di
le
0. rati
10 on
(g
1.
Velocity (in/sec)
0.5
10
10
Percent critical
damping
10
1000
0.
01
0
0.1
1.0
0.1
10
100
Frequency (cps)
VERTICAL
10
(g
10 n
0 . e me
lac
Ac
sp
ce
Di
le
0. rati
10 on
10
1.
1.
10
in
01
t(
)
0.
Velocity (in/sec)
0.5
100
10
10
Percent critical
damping
10
1000
0.
01
0
0.1
0.1
1.0
10
Frequency (cps)
100
FIGURE 25-12
NRC smooth design response spectrum
curves (mean 1 levels) normalized
to 1g peak ground acceleration.
H. B. Seed, C. Ugas, and J. Lysmer, Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake Resistant Design, loc. cit.
R. K. McGuire, A Simple Model for Estimating Fourier Amplitude Spectra of Horizontal Ground
Acceleration,
, Vol. 68, No. 3, June, 1978.
M. D. Trifunac, Preliminary Empirical Model for Scaling Fourier Amplitude Spectra of Strong Ground
Acceleration in Terms of Earthquake Magnitude, Source-to-Site Distance, and Recording Site Conditions,
, Vol. 66, No. 4, August, 1976.
D. M. Boore, Stochastic Simulation of High-Frequency Ground Motions Based on Seismological Models
of the Radiated Spectra,
, Vol. 73, No. 6, December, 1983.
f (t)
1
t
t1
t1
c (t
t 2)
t2
FIGURE 25-13
Intensity function f (t) for nonstationary
process a(t).
P. Ruiz and J. Penzien, Probabilistic Study of Behavior of Structures during Earthquakes, University
of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Rept. 69-3, 1969.
P. C. Jennings, G. W. Housner, and N. C. Tsai, Simulated Earthquake Motions, Rept., Earthquake
Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, April, 1968.
G. W. Housner, Design Spectrum, loc. cit.
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
H(i )
H1 (i ) H2 (i )
FIGURE 25-14
Absolute value of combined filter function.
1.5
Acceleration, g
1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
12
18
24
30
Time, sec
FIGURE 25-15
Synthetic accelerogram adjusted to be compatible with smooth design spectrum.
K. Lilhanand and W. S. Tseng, Development and Application of Realistic Earthquake Time Histories
Compatible with Multiple-Damping Design Spectra, Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo/Kyoto Japan (Vol. II), August 29, 1988.
M. Watabe, Characteristics and Synthetic Generation of Earthquake Ground Motions, Proc., Canadian
Earthquake Engineering Conference, July, 1987.
200
100
80
60
Velocity, in sec
40
20
10
8
6
4
.2
.1
.06 .08 .1
.2
.4
.6 .8 1
6 8 10
20
Period, sec
FIGURE 25-16
Smooth design response spectrum and response spectrum for adjusted synthetic
accelerogram; = 0.05.
1.5
1g peak acceleration
Acceleration, g
1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
12
18
24
30
18
24
30
Time, sec
FIGURE 25-17
Normalized accelerogram
1.5
Acceleration, g
1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
12
Time, sec
FIGURE 25-18
Taft accelerogram adjusted to be compatible with smooth design spectrum.
200
Spectrum compatible
Taft accelerogram
100
80
60
Velocity, in sec
40
20
Normalized
Taft accelerogram
10
8
6
4
2
1
.04 .06 .08 .1
.2
.4
.6 .8 1
6 8 10
20
Period, sec
FIGURE 25-19
Smooth design response spectrum and response spectra for normalized Taft
accelerogram and adjusted Taft accelerogram; = 0.05.
North
Acceleration
cm sec2
100
80
60
40
20
Interval t1-sec t2-sec
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
6
10
14
18
22
6
10
14
18
22
26
E
East
Tokachi-Oki, Japan
(Hachinoe Station)
May 16, 1968.
FIGURE 25-20
Directions of major principal axis of ground
motion Tokachi-Oki, Japan, earthquake
(Hachinoe Station) May 16, 1968.
C. H. Loh and J. Penzien, Identication of Wave-Types, Directions, and Velocities Using SMART-1
Strong Motion Array Data, Proc., 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco,
Ca., July 21-28, 1984.
T. Harada, Probabilistic Modeling of Spatial Variation of Strong Earthquake Ground Displacements,
Proc., 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Ca., July 21-28, 1984.
N. A. Abrahamson and B. A. Bolt, The Spatial Variation of the Phasing of Seismic Strong Ground
Motion,
, Vol. 75, No. 5, October, 1985.
R. S. Harichandran and E. H. Vanmarke, Stochastic Variation of Earthquake Ground Motion in Space
and Time,
, February, 1986.
H. Hao, C. S. Oliveira, and J. Penzien, Multiple-Station Ground Motion Processing and Simulation
Based on SMART-1 Array Data,
, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1989.
E. Samaras, M. Shinozuka, and A. Tsurui, Time Series Generation Using the Auto-Regressive MovingAverage Model, Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Columbia University, New York,
May, 1983.
CHAPTER
DETERMINISTIC
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE:
SYSTEMS
ON RIGID
FOUNDATIONS
v t (t)
v(t)
Reference axis
c
k
2
fS
2
vg (t)
k
2
fS
2
FIGURE 26-1
Lumped SDOF system subjected to rigid-base translation.
Z(t)
Reference axis
v t (x, t)
v(x, t) =
(x) Z (t)
EI(x)
m(x)
vg (t)
FIGURE 26-2
Generalized SDOF system with rigid-base translation.
f S (x)
L
f S (x) =
h
m(x) v(x)
h
Vh
Mh
(b)
V0
M0
(a)
FIGURE 26-3
Elastic-force response of generalized SDOF system: (a) base forces; (b) section forces.
Z (t)
Assumed shape:
v(x, t) = (1
cos
2L
) Z (t)
EI = 14
10 5 kips ft 2
= 5%
vg (t)
FIGURE E26-1
SDOF idealization of uniform
cantilever column.
t
v1
x
Reference axis
m1
m2
m3
vit
mi
vi
mN
vg ( t )
FIGURE 26-4
Discretized MDOF system with rigid-base translation.
fS 1
m1
m2
fS 2
fS 3
m3
mi
mN
v0
fS i
fS N
M0
FIGURE 26-5
Elastic forces in lumped MDOF system.
kip sec2/in
kips /in
kips sec2/in
kips /in
kips sec2/in
kips /in
1.000
0.644
0.300
4.58
9.83
14.57
1.000
0.601
0.676
1.00
2.57 ;
2.47
sec 1; Tn =
2.566
1.254
2.08
FIGURE E26-2
Building frame and its vibration properties.
kips sec2/in
1.37
0.639
0.431
21.0
0
0
0
96.6
0
sec ; M n =
0
0
212.4
1.801
2.455
23.10
= 0.05
sec
kips sec2/in ;
max
max
max
max
m3
Reference axis
m2
m1
vg (t)
v1
m4
v3
v4
v2
FIGURE 26-6
General lumped MDOF system with rigid-base
translation.
2m
EI
v1
L
EI
L
v2
m = 0.01 kips sec /ft
2
EI
= 1 kip/ft
L3
= 0.05
vg (t)
m=
3
0
0
2
0.431
1.000
FIGURE E26-3
Two-DOF frame and its vibration properties.
10
1.000
0.646
kips sec2/ft
k=
6
7
8
3
0.302 0
0
2.84
3
2
kips/ft
10 2 sec
y
v2
v
v3 1
FIGURE 26-7
Rigid slab subjected to base translation.
Direction of
ground motion
Rigid slab
Total mass m = 0.5 kips sec2/ft
v3
v2
L
k=
v1
EI
= 5 kips/ft
L3
(each column)
L
ke
ua
hq ion
a rt ita t
E xc
e
FIGURE E26-4
Slab supported by three
columns.
k 31 = 2 k
1
k 21 =
2k
k
k
k
1
k 11 = 4 k
(a)
(b)
FIGURE E26-5
Evaluation of stiffness coefficients for v1 = 1: (a) displacement v1 = 1 and resisting
column forces; (b) column forces and equilibrating stiffness coefficients.
v2 = 1
mL
6
1
m 32 = - m
2
m 22 = 2 m
mL
m 12 = - 1 m
1
(a)
(b)
FIGURE E26-6
Applied Technology Council (ATC), Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for Buildings, loc. cit.
x3
m2
v2
x4
m3
m4
v3
v1
h2
v4
m1
h1
=1
Reference axis
FIGURE 26-8
Lumped MDOF system with rigid-base rotation.
v1s
v3s
Reference axis
m1, J1
v2s
v4s
v3
v1
m2, J2
v2
v4
h1
h2
FIGURE 26-9
Tower with lumped masses having rotational inertias subjected to
rigid-base rotation.
Nodal response
degrees of freedom
vt
Support input
degrees of freedom
vg
FIGURE 26-10
General finite element earthquake
response model.
fs (v)
fs y
1
k
fs y
vy
v
FIGURE 26-11
Elastic-plastic force-displacement
relation.
fs
fs, el
fs
fs, el
fs y = fs, elpl
fs y = fs, elpl
v
vel = velpl = vg
vy
(a)
max
vy
(b)
FIGURE 26-12
Elastic and elastic-plastic force-displacement relations.
fs
fs, el
fs ,y = fs, elpl
vg
max
2 < f < 8 Hz
1
k
vy
vel velpl
(c)
2
2
v1
m
v3
L
x
2
JG = EI each member
3
L
m=
v2
x = 0.05
z
Fixed
1
0
0
0
1
0
4.59
4.83
14.56
y
FIGURE E26-7
3-DOF system subjected to rigid-base translation.
0
0 m
1
13
3
3
25
12
f=
-3
12
L 3
- 3
6EI
19
- 0.787
1.3
z (t)
z x (t)
1.2
max
max
Eq. (26-129)
1.1
Eq. (26-127)
1.0
0.2
0.4
B=
0.6
z y (t)
max
z x (t)
max
0.8
1.0
FIGURE 26-13
Statistical approach versus 30% rule
in combining two components of
horizontal response.
Story mass:
mi = 24 kips sec 2 ft
Total column stiffness:
EI = 4 10 6 kips ft2
L = 480 ft
Story height:
h = 12 ft
FIGURE P26-1
Uniform shear building.
z
L
m
EI
m
va
vb
2L
EI
w = 0.377
1.25
EI
mL3
EI
= 100 1/sec 2
mL3
z
F = 1.00 1.00
0.85 - 2.35
FIGURE P26-2
2-DOF plane frame.
CHAPTER
DETERMINISTIC
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE:
INCLUDING
SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
x
L
FIGURE 27-1
Rigid rectangular basemat of a large structure.
(1985) and
(1988), both published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
3
4
5
4
3
2
7
4
D 2 D
=
Va
FIGURE 27-2
factor as a function of frequency and apparent wave velocity.
9
4
5
2
Structure
Structure and soil response
degrees of freedom
v(t)
Interface
Foundation medium
vg (t)
FIGURE 27-3
Finite-element model of combined structure and supporting soil.
v(t)
k
2
k
2
m 0 , J0
Fixed reference
m, J
h
k
2
vg (t)
Elastic half-space
v0 (t)
M0 (t)
v(t)
M0 (t)
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 27-4
Lumped SDOF elastic system on rigid mat foundation.
Substructure
No. 1
k
2
vz
m, J
(t)
I
(t)
Substructure
No. 2
p(t) = exp (i t)
T(t) = exp (i t)
M(t) = exp (i t)
v(t) = exp (i t)
2R
Half-space
p, G, v
FIGURE 27-5
Rigid massless circular plate on half-space.
1.0
v=0
= 3 G R(a 0 ) 16GR 3
v) G R(a 0 ) 4GR
1.0
1 3
0.5
= (1
v =1 2
1 3
1 2
(a)
2
4
a0 = R
1 3
1 2
1 3
1 2
0.5
(c)
0
0.7
0.6
Torsion
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
(b)
0
Torsion
4
a0 = R
Vs
v=0
1.0
0.8
= 3 (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 8GR 3a 0
= 3 (1 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR 3
= (2 v) G (a 0 ) 8 GR a 0
0.5
Vertical translation
= 3 G I (a 0 ) 16GR 3a 0
v=0
1.0
= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR
= (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 4GR a 0
Vertical translation
0.9
Lateral translation
4
a0 = R
1.0
Rocking
v=0
0.5
(d)
1 3
1 3
Vs
1 2
1 2
4
a0 = R
= (2 v) G I (a 0 ) 8 GR 2a 0
= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8 GR 2
0.3
v=0
0.2
1 3
0.1
1 2
v=0
0
0.1
0.2
(e)
1 2
1 3
FIGURE 27-6
Rigid massless circular plate impedances.
4
a0 = R
Vs
6
Vs
6
Vs
FIGURE 27-7
Example structures for soil-structure interaction analysis.
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
FIGURE 27-8
Substructures Nos. 1 and 2 for the systems shown in Fig. 26-7.
nA
nb
nc
Soil
Near field
nd
nd
Far field
Half-space with
surface cavity
FIGURE 27-9
Modeling of foundation full
half-space.
H. B. Seed, R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Analysis for Cohesionless Soils, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report No. EERC 84-14, 1984.
B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves,
, Vol. 98, No. SM7, July, 1972.
J. Lysmer, T. Udaka, C. F. Tsai, and H. B. Seed, Flush A Computer Program for Approximate
3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problem, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 7530, 1975.
I. Katayama, C. H. Chen, and J. Penzien, Near-Field Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Using Nonlinear
Hybrid Modeling, Proc. SMIRT Conference, Anaheim, Ca., 1989.
(0, t)
(0, t)
(0, t)
(0, t)
y, v
v(0, t)
w (0, t)
z, w
cp =
Column
Foundation
half-space
cs =
(b)
(a)
FIGURE 27-10
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform half-space having viscous boundary elements as its equivalent.
(0, t)
Layer
H1
vs 1 ,
(0, t)
(0, t)
1,
vs 2 ,
y1, v1
z 1, w 1
1
2,
v1 (0, t)
(0, t)
y2, v2
z 2, w2
cs
w1 (0, t)
Half-space
Shear-beam column
kp
ks
cp
(b)
(a)
FIGURE 27-11
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform layer on a uniform half-space having viscous and spring boundary
elements as its equivalent.
mg
Rigid hammer
vh
m
m
wm (t)
wm (t)
w(0, t)
Cushion
spring: k
m wm (t)
w(0, t)
k
cz =
z, w(z,t)
Vp =
AE
Vp
Pile: A, E,
N (0, t)
(a)
FIGURE E27-1
Hammer-cushion-pile system.
(b)
200
400
600
N (z, 0.005067)
10
Vp = (1.15)(10 5)
20
in sec
30
40
48.6
50
z
FIGURE E27-2
Axial-force distribution in concrete pile
0.00507 sec after initial hammer impact
with cushion.
T. J. Tzong, S. Gupta, and J. Penzien, Two-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction, Report No. UC-EERC 81/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, August, 1981.
T. J. Tzong and J. Penzien, Hybrid-Modeling of a Single Layer Half-Space System in Soil-Structure
Interaction,
, Vol. 14, 1986.
1.00
iIt
Cn n = R n iIn
1 exp (i t)
0.75
Ct t = Rt
1 exp (i t)
1.00
0.50
a a
t
= (Ct t G)exp(i t)
It
0.25
0.75
0.50
a a
un = (Cn n G)exp(i t)
0.25
1.00
2.00
a0
3.00
iIr
a a
ull = (Cll G )exp(i t)
1.0
a0
a a
0.20
Ir
0.10
Rl
0
Vs
Rr
0.30
Il
3.00
u rr = (Cr r a 2G)exp(i t)
0.40
Crr = Rr
iIl
Cll = Rl
1.5
0.5
2.00
a0
Vs
0.50
1.00
2.0
1.0
In
Rn
Rt
2.0
3.0
1.00
a0
Vs
2.00
3.00
Vs
FIGURE 27-12
Compliances of infinite rigid massless strip of width 2a; G = shear modulus, Vs = shear-wave velocity.
Cavity
R
Surface layer
of depth H
H
SR
vs 1 = G 1
1 , G1
C
L
Sym.
Half-space
vs 2 = G 2
2, G2
FIGURE 27-13
Continuous far-field impedance
functions Sp and SR along halfcylindrical cavity surface.
30
Real part
constant form
R G1)
14
0
R0
25
44
12
4
15
Imaginary part
freq. form
30
(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0
45
0
(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 1.0
3.0
10.0
28
15
Imaginary part
constant form
R G1)
R G1)
60
R1
20
10
R1
10
Real part
freq. form
19
R0
R G1)
20
60
b0
b0
Vs1
FIGURE 27-14
Parameters defining impedance SR along half-cylindrical cavity surface.
1
1
Vs1
10
R G1)
0
5
(Vs 2 Vs 1) =
1.0
3.0
10.0
10
R G1)
(
(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0
20
6
1
8
4
3
Imaginary part
constant form
13
11
Imaginary part
freq. form
13
6
R G1)
20
10
15
Real part
freq. form
18
R G1)
25
Real part
constant form
1
8
6
b0
15
Vs1
6
b0
Vs1
FIGURE 27-15
Parameters defining impedance S along half-cylindrical cavity surface.
A. S. Veletsos and Y. T. Wei, Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings, loc. cit.
J. E. Luco and R. A. Westman, Dynamic Response of Circular Footings, loc. cit.
A. S. Veletsos and V. V. D. Nair, Torsional Vibration of Foundations, Structural Research at Rice,
Report No. 19, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University, June, 1973.
Mode i
S
SR
Tributary area i
FIGURE 27-16
Far-field impedances over the hemispherical
cavity surface in spherical co-ordinates.
E. Kausel, Forced Vibrations of Circular Footings on Layered Media, MIT Research Report R74-11,
Mass. Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
J. E. Luco, Impedance Functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered Medium,
, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1979.
S. Gupta, T. W. Lin, J. Penzien, and C. S. Yeh, Three-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure
Interaction,
., Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. Feb., 1982.
Real part
Imaginary part
R G)
20
R G)
30
10
0
9
0
Normal component
10
R G)
15
R G)
0
0
0
9
0
Tangential component
8
15
R G)
10
R G)
2
0
6
p0 =
Vs
0
9
0
Circumferential component
FIGURE 27-17
Far-field impedance functions over the hemispherical cavity surface.
3
p0 =
Vs
4
1
J. Penzien, C. H. Chen, W. Y. Jean, and Y. J. Lee, Seismic Analysis of Rectangular Tunnels in Soft
Ground, Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, July,
1992.
X, U
Y, V y, v
Vf f
V( X,
t)
Direction of wave
propagation
x
Axis of tunnel
V(X, t)
x, u
FIGURE 27-19
Shear wave moving in the X direction at velocity Vf f .
Tunnel
no joints
a
a max
x
Tunnel
with joints
mp
x
FIGURE 27-20
Tunnel axial strains with and without
joints.
CHAPTER
STOCHASTIC
STRUCTURAL
RESPONSE
Sv , ft /sec
1.5
1.0
= 0.02
= 0.05
0.5
= 0.10
0.5
1.0
Multiplication factors
given by Housner
1.5
Period
2.0
El Centro
El Centro
Olympia
Taft
1940
1934
1949
1952
2.5
2.7
1.9
1.9
1.6
3.0
T, sec
FIGURE 28-1
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems
(stationary white-noise excitation).
=0
= .02
= .05
= .10
Sv , ft /sec
Sv , ft /sec
=0
= .02
= .05
= .10
Period T , sec
1
2
Period T , sec
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 28-2
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems (filtered stationary
white-noise excitation).
B = Vy W = 4
vt
m= W
g
vmax
V
V
y
= v max vy V
ve
max
Vy
vy
Vy
E
(a)
(b)
vy
D
(c)
FIGURE 28-3
Nonlinear SDOF models.
TABLE 28-1
Case
No.
Structural
type *
Period
T
sec
Damping
ratio,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
Elastic-plastic
SD
*E
Elastic
EP
Strength
ratio, B
Yield displ.
vy
in
0.10
0.10
0.088
0.088
0.10
0.10
0.088
0.088
0.048
0.048
3.42
3.42
0.048
0.048
3.42
Stiffness degrading
B
k
Vy
vg
vy gT 2
Displacement v
max,
in
FIGURE 28-4
Probability distributions for extreme values of relative displacement.
0
2.5
0.001
2.0
3.0 4.0 5.0
0.001
1.001
1.40
2.0
10
0.0
1.0
2.0
Probability distribution P( v)
0.100
1.10
(a)
3.0
0.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
(b)
2.0
0.950
Reduced variate, v
1.0
0.900
20
in
Reduced variate, v
0.0
Probability distribution P( v)
0.100
10
Ductility demand
5.0
1.40
1.10
max,
7.5
1.001
Displacement v
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
3.0
0.950
10
20
30
40
50
20
Ductility demand
d
(1)
(4)
(3)
0.5
0.5
E [vmax ] , 30
(6)
1.0
(5)
T = 0.3 sec
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
E [vmax ] , T0
(2)
E [vmax ] , T0
E [vmax ] , 30
1.0
1.0
(2)
(6)
(1)
(5)
0.5
(4)
(3)
T = 2.7 sec
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
0.5
T0
30
T0
30
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 28-5
Duration effect of stationary process on mean peak response of linear and nonlinear structures.
1.0
M. Murakami and J. Penzien, Nonlinear Response Spectra for Probabilistic Seismic Design and Damage
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report No. 7538, 1975.
H. Umemura et. al.,
, Giko-do, Tokyo, Japan, 1973 (in Japanese).
pB y
Original skeleton
curve
k1
ky
1 1
pB y
pB c = 3
pB c
O
vBy
= vmin
vBc
(a)
vBc
k2
ky
1
1
D
k2
vBy
vm ax
2 vB y
=
vmax vmin
pB c
pB y
pB y
1
pB c
O
vBy
S
(b)
k1
A 1
O
vB c
vB c
k1
k2
ky
1
D
vB y
FIGURE 28-6
Trilinear stiffness-degrading hysteretic
model.