Shakib Reza

Yulin Liu

CE 573- Dynamic response of wooden structure




Abstract

Timber has been used as a structural member for long time. The performance of wooden
structure under seismic load is well documented. Due to its lightweight it performs well.
In this study we will try to simulate the response of a simple wood structure under dynamic
loading. We will use Kanai-Tajimi spectrum for input. Response of the same structure after
installing a damper will also be investigated. A parameter optimization study of the damper will
also be conducted.








Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

Introduction
For this project, we have considered a simple three-story single bay timber structure for
observing the response when excited by a dynamic force. Kanai-Tajimi spectrum is used to
simulate the ground acceleration. We also observed the response of the same structure when a
tuned mass damper is installed at the top floor of the structure. Finally an attempt to optimize
some parameter of the tuned mass damper is made.
Structural Details
The structure is built on four 12in. x 12in. columns and connected by 6 in. x12 in. beams.
Figure 1 shows the plan view of the structure and Figure 2a shows the elevation of the structure
from the short direction.


Fig 1
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu


Seasoned Ash Commercial White timber is readily available in the market and we picked it for
all the structural members. It has a modulus of elasticity value of 9900 MPA
1


Loading Condition
ASCE recommended minimum design loads for a residential structure are as follows
2
,
Design dead load = .005 KN/m
3

Design live load = 1.92 KN/m
2
Design live load for roof = 0.92 KN/m
2
We have consider only one load combination: 1.4 x Dead load + 1.4 x Live Load

Fig 2 Fig 3
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

Shear model
For simplicity while analyzing the structure we considered it as a shear building i.e. the beams
are rigid axially and also for flexure. Usually it gives good result for simple structure like this
one. From the load conditions mentioned above loads on each floors have been determined. Then
the calculated loads have been considered as lumped masses on each floor. Figure 3 shows the
lumped mass system of the structure.
The converted lumped masses are as follows:
Lumped mass of 1
st
story = 13000 kg
Lumped mass of 2
nd
story = 13000 kg
Lumped mass of roof = 6900 kg
(Mathcad calculation sheet is attached in Appendix A)
Stiffness of column
In order to determine the equivalent stiffness of column, we use the minimal elasticity modulus
of glulam column as described in the Timber construction manual
2
.
E
min
=(1.05 xE
05
)/1.66 (1)
Where E
05
is given by,
E
05
= E(1-1.645 CoV
E
) (2)
For glulam CoV
E
= 0.10

Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

The calculated value of E
min
is 5200MPa. Using this value we found the stiffness of each column,
K = 6.4 x 10
6
N/m ((Mathcad calculation sheet is attached in Appendix A)
Damping ratio of the structure
The recommended damping ratio (%) for wood structures with nailed joints is 1520.
3
We assumed 15% for our case.
Earthquake simulation
Earthquakes are often characterized in term of peak ground acceleration and spectral properties.
The Kanai-Tajimi spectrum (code provided by Professor Dyke) has been used to simulate the
earthquake induced ground motion. The Kanai Tajimi spectrum takes the form

Where ( )
xgxg
S e is called the power spectral density of the ground acceleration,
g
e is the
natural frequency of the local earth surface,
g
, is the damping ratio of the local earth surface and
S
0
is the intensity of the seismic waves. We used a
g
= 6,
g
= 0.5.
The Tuned Mass Damper (TMD)
The Tuned Mass Damper (TMD) is a vibration mitigation technique that has been used
worldwide to decrease the effects of wind, seismic and ice-induced vibration. Usually it consists
of a mass, a spring and a damper. It applied to the location of maximum dynamic response; in
our case which is the roof top. The spring with the damping mechanism absorb the energy from
the excitation resulting a reduction of the dynamic response of the structure.
4

Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

Results and Discussion
All the inputs and outputs have been generated using MATLAB.
At first we compared the response of the structure without a damper to one with a damper
installed on the roof. For the damper we assumed the following properties:
Mass ratio = 5%, Damping ratio = 10% and stiffness is same as the main structural column.

Figure 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
2
4
x 10
-3
frequency
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

1st floor


nodamper
5% damper
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.005
0.01
frequency
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

2nd floor


nodamper
5% damper
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.005
0.01
frequency
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

3rd floor


nodamper
5% damper
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu


Figure 5
In order to avoid the special circumstances, we run this program for 100 times and pick the peak
values for each condition. That means in Figure 4 the displacement of each floor is the maximum
displacement of an earthquake input. Same approach is been followed to plot figure 5 where
acceleration is the ordinates.
From figure 4 it is clear that the damper significantly reduces the displacement of the structure
for all the floors. In figure 5 reduction of acceleration also can be seen for the 3
rd
floor but not
very much for 2
nd
and 1
st
floor.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.5
1
frequency
A
C
C
1st floor


nodamper
5% damper
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.5
1
frequency
A
C
C
2nd floor


nodamper
5% damper
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
0.5
1
frequency
A
C
C
3rd floor


nodamper
5% damper
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

At this point we investigated the damping parameters of the TMD. Figure 6 shows the pick
displacement of the 3
rd
floor of the structure when a damper of 5% mass ratio and 10% damping
ratio is used. The same response has been plotted in Figure 7 but this time a damper of 8% mass
ratio is used (other parameters were same).

Figure 6

Figure 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
-3
frequency
p
e
a
k

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

3
r
d

f
l
o
o
r
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
x 10
-3
frequency
p
e
a
k

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

3
r
d

f
l
o
o
r
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

A reduce amount of displacement is been observed in Figure 7. So in our case increasing the
mass ratio decrease the response. It can be derived from the theory also because increasing the
mass of the damper increase the damping ratio of the damper.
While installing TMD on the top floor, relative motion of the damper with respect to the top
floor is often a concern. It is due to the accommodation problem of the TMD at the roof top. So
we ran some simulation to investigate this. Figure 8 shows the relative displacement of the
damper for a wide range of mass ratio. It should be noted that in this Figure each displacement is
the pick displacement from 100 earthquakes.

Figure 8
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
x 10
-4
Mass ratio
R
e
l
a
t
e
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

3
r
d

f
l
o
o
r

t
o

d
a
m
p
e
r

(
m
)

Optimized mass ratio at 10% damping ratio
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

So from Figure 8 we found that at 8% mass ratio the relative displacement is lowest. Again if we
fix the mass ratio to 8% and plot the pick relative displacement with respect to different damping
ratio we found a damping ratio of 5% for lowest relative displacement.

Figure 9
The TMD will operate effectively when its natural frequency is tuned to the structures and
operates on a phase shift but those parameter have not been studied in this paper.



0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
x 10
-4
r
e
l
a
t
e
d

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

3
r
d

f
l
o
o
r

t
o

d
a
m
p
e
r
dampering ratio of damper
optimized damping ratio at 8% mass ratio
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

References
1. Mechanical Properties of wood by David W. green et al.
2. Timber Construction Manual (6th Edition)
3. Dynamics of Structures by Anil K. Chopra
4. Vibration Control by Tuned Mass Damper and Tuned Liquid Damper Bridge
Mellichamp Department of Physics and Mathematics , Colby College .













Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu

Appendix A


























LL
r
15psf :=
LL
s
40psf :=
41
lbm
ft
3
:=
H 10ft :=
a 15ft :=
b 20ft :=
b
b
6in :=
t
s
6in :=
t
r
4in :=
h
col
1ft :=
h 1ft :=
s a b :=
w
r
s t
r
2 h a b + ( ) b
b
+ 4
1
2
h
col
2
H +

(
(

g 6.4 kip = :=
w
2
s t
s
2 h a b + ( ) b
b
+ 4 h
col
2
H +

g 9.2 kip = :=
w
1
w
2
9.2 kip = :=
W
ur
LL
r
a b w
r
+
( )
1.4 15.2kip = :=
W
2
LL
s
a b w
2
+
( )
1.4 29.7kip = :=
W
1
LL
s
a b w
1
+
( )
1.4 29.7kip = :=
m
1
W
1
g
1.3 10
4
kg = :=
m
2
W
2
g
1.3 10
4
kg = :=
Shakib Reza
Yulin Liu






for glulum


for glulam column


stiffness
damping ratio
m
3
W
ur
g
6.9 10
3
kg = :=
E 9900MPa :=
E 1.4 10
3
ksi =
CoV
E
0.1 :=
E
05
E 1 1.645CoV
E

( )
:=
E
min
1.05E
05
1.66
758.8 ksi = :=
I
c
h
col
4
12
1.7 10
3
in
4
= :=
k
48E
min
I
c

H
3
6.4 10
6

N
m
= :=
, 15% :=