NOTES ON 3D MULTI MASSES DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

HADI RUSJANTO TANUWIDJAJA*

1.

Introduction

Todays engineers are familiar very well in operating and using user-friendly
commercial computer programs; keep and believe for granted that everything had been
solved perfectly and correctly from the printed computer outputs. Prof. Wilson (2004)
remarks specifically that do not use a structural analysis program unless you fully
understand the theory and approximations used within the program and do not create a
computer model until the loading, material properties and boundary conditions are clearly
defined. The author personal observation shows that most of engineers in structural
design offices have not enough back up knowledge and understanding in dynamic
analysis theory of structures.
3D dynamic analysis is becoming a routine structural analysis which is currently required
for buildings design subjected to earthquake loads in this era of modern existence of
inexpensive personal computers. Unfortunately not many textbooks and course
subjects are available to be taught in the university in emphasizing the background and
practical application of the theory into the reality of daily structural design office
practices.
It is interesting to note what Prof Powel (2010) felt that most of young engineers use
computer programs blindly, without understanding what they are doing, This is probably
true, and it is unfortunate. However, my experience tells me that young engineers are not
to blame. The paper is written for the purpose of filling the niche of many members of
engineering profession who used to work with the assistance of commercial structural
analysis and design computer programs but loss of confident about their doing.
Many design aspects to be mentioned for examples; present seismic code weakness
that it does not state specifically how to define the principal directions for a 3D-structure
of arbitrary geometric shape.
Unawareness by most engineers in predefining
earthquake directions may produce base shears that underestimate the appropriate
design values since it is not a unique design base shear that associated with the
fundamental modes of vibration in the major principal direction. In most of mix-used
development buildings project, it is not uncommon to have several building towers which
significant differences in building masses and number of stories then these to be united
and integrated into one large several lower stories for podiums or basement floors.
This particular 3D-structural frames may produce large lateral torsional moments
associated to the higher modes induced by larger masses contribution at lower stories of
podiums or basement floors movements.
A well designed structure should be capable of equally resisting earthquake motion from
all possible directions and also should have minimum amount of lateral torsional
moments in the mode shapes associated with the lower frequencies of the structure.
*Associate Professor Trisakti University & President Director Haerte Widya Consulting Engineers

2.

Fundamental Assumptions

One of the most important applications of the theory of structural dynamics is an

analyzing the response of structures to ground motion caused by an earthquake. In
general, structural response is expressed in terms of the displacement of the structure,
through the solution of the dynamic force of equilibrium or equations of motion. Typical
standard
equations of motion due to three components of free field ground
displacements can be set in the form of Ns second order differential equations :
..
..

..

m u (t ) c u (t ) k u (t )

..

..

m x u xg (t ) m y u yg (t ) m z u zg (t )

..

m r u g ...(1)

The number of degrees of freedom is equal to the number of lumped masses in the
system. In building type of structures, in which the floor system can have any number of
columns and beams connecting to it; at the floor level intersection end of each member,
six degrees of freedom exist for 3D structure and the masses are lumped at the nodes..
The in-plane deformations in the floor systems are small compared to the interstory
horizontal displacements, then, it has become common practice to assume the in plane
motion of all points on the floor diaphragm move as a rigid body. The in plane
displacements of each floor diaphragm can be expressed in terms of two lateral
displacements ux(m) , uy(m) , and a lateral rotation about the z- axis , uz(m).
For relatively small displacements of each structural member, the materials property
could be reasonably assumed as linearly elastic isotropic material where the stressstrain relationships of the materials is linear and its have equal properties in all
directions.
There are several different classical methods that can be used for the solution of Eq. (1).
The most common and effective approach for seismic analysis is the mode superposition
method. For the purpose of dynamic response analysis, it is often advantages to
express the displaced position u(t) in terms of the free-vibration mode shapes
=
(separation variables) ;
1 , 2 , 3 , ..... N

u (t )

Y (t ) .(2)

where
is an Nd x N matrix containing N spatial vectors that are not a function of
time, and Y (t ) is a vector containing N function of time. It was noted that vibration mode
amplitudes obtained from the eigen problem solution are arbitrary, in the analysis
process the amplitude (the first, actually) has been set to unity, and the other
displacements have been deterimined relative to this reference value (normalizing the
mode shapes with respect to the specified reference coordinate) :
T
n

1n

2n

3n

, ..........

Nn

1
1 , u 2 n , u 3n , .......... u Nn ..(3)
u kn

Because of the orthogonality property with respect to mass,

T
n

0,

T
n

0 , for m n , therefore,

is a diagonal unit matrix and

I and

T
n

i.e.

0,

, where I

is a diagonal matrix in which the diagonal terms are

2
n

and n may or may not of free vibration frequency in radians per second. The use of
normal modes coordinates serve to transform the equations of motion, Eq. (1) from a set

of N simultaneous differential equations, which are coupled by the off-diagonal terms in

mass , stiffness and damping matrices, to a set of N independent (uncoupled) normalcoordinate equations :
..
.

M n Yn (t ) C n Yn (t ) K nYn (t )

Pn (t ) ..(4)

where :
..

..

T
T
T
T
T
Pn (t )
Ln u g (t ) ,
Mn
n p (t )
n m r u g (t )
nc n ,
n m n , Kn
n k n , Cn
Ln is defined as modal participation factors or in this case earthquake excitation

factors., r is a vector of ones for the structure which represents the displacements
resulting from a unit ground displacement excitation either in x, y (both translations), or z
N

(rotational), and n is the mode number ; so that

T
n

mi

2
in

i 1

Note : For rotational excitation the Mass Moment of Inertia (MMI) = r 2 m = I O

shall

be

used

in

the

above

equations,

and

which
T
n

Io

T
n

Io

Ioi

2
in

1)

i 1

3.

Dynamic Analysis Using Design Response Spectra

In designing structures to perform satisfactorily under earthquake excitations, the

engineer needs a much more precise characterization of the ground shaking of the
specific site under consideration. For this purpose, study and observation of the
response of a single oscillator freedom (SDOF) induced by ground motion has proved to
be invaluable. The graphs showing the absolute maximum values of the structural
response, S pa ( , ) , plotted as function of period (T
damping ratio,

) for discrete values of

, are called pseudo acceleration response spectra. The response

spectral values and shapes , S pa for earthquake ground motions depend upon many
independent variables respectively such as as source mechanism (SM), epicentral
distance (ED), focal depth (FD), geological conditions (GC), Richter magnitude (RM), soil
condition (SC), damping ratio and period. Due to the lack of knowledge as to their
influences, in the modern design response spectrum curves when normalized and
averaged to a fixed intensity level , currently are specified in terms of only two
parameters SC and . Using the direct statistical approach as similarly developed by
Seeds (1976) the average pseudo-acceleration spectra for different types of site-soil
conditions and correlated to the numerous recorded past earthquakes expressed in
terms of g had been normalized with respect to peak ground accelerations as shown in
Fig 2, of the Indonesian seismic design code SNI 1726-2002 (2010 ?), the typical
design spectra for Jakarta was copied and shown in Fig.1.

(Tanah sedang)

0.20

0.20

0.05
(Tanah keras)
T

C
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.04

0.15
0.12

0.2

0.5 0.6

1.0

2.0

3.0

0 0.2

0.5 0.6

1.0

2.0

Wilayah Gempa 3
0.75

0.75
(Tanah lunak)
T

0.60

0.42
(Tanah sedang)
T

0.23
(Tanah keras)
T

0.45

0.85
(Tanah lunak)
T

0.70

0.33
(Tanah sedang)
T

0.55

Wilayah Gempa

0.85

C
0.30

0.30
(Tanah kera
T

0.34
0.28

0.23

0.24

0.18

0.2

0.5 0.6

1.0

2.0

3.0

0.2

0.5 0.6

1.0

2.0

Fig.1 Design Spectra for Jakarta (SNI 1726-2002)

0.90

Wilayah Gempa 5

0.95

0.83

Wilayah Gempa

0.90
The standard design procedures
for dynamic analysis
will be described
as follows :
0.90
0.83
T

(Tanah lun ak)

1. The first step in the dynamic

analysis of a structural
model is the calculation of the 3D
0.50
0.70
C
(Tanah sedang)
T
mode shapes and natural frequencies of vibration (or natural periods), n or Tn .
C

0.35
(Tanah keras)
T

2. The value of maximum response for the modal spectral acceleration, S am ,n

0.38
0.36
0.33

0.36
0.32

0.95
(Tanah lun ak)
T

0.54
(Tanah sedang
T

C
C

0.42
(Tanah kera
T

, Tn =

Cn , is found from the seismic design code which is usually expressed in units of
0.28
gravitational acceleration
g.
3. Calculate the modal mass participating factor or modal earthquake excitation factor.
By definition the modal participation
factor and 2.0
the generalized
mass M n
0 0.2 0.5 0.6
1.0
3.0
0 0.2

T
N

Ln =

T
n

mi

mr =

in =

i 1

1.0

1
g

Wi

in

(5)

i 1

L1 , L2 , L3 , ...... LN (6)

1 m

L2n
as effective modal mass.
Mn

4. Define the quantity of

N

MT

0.5 0.6

1 m 1 =

L2n
Mn

Since total mass

L2n
);
1 M n

(for rotational excitation then I oT

1 Io 1 =
n

the number of significant modes of vibration to be considered in design for most of

building codes require that at least 90% of the effective modal participating mass
should be included in the calculation of response for each principal direction.
5. Calculate respectively the modal story shears ( f s ), base shears ( V ), overturning
(OTM) and lateral torsional moments (ts, torques) , displacements (u) or drifts :

f sin

Ln
S am , n
Mn

Ln
C n g (7)
Mn

2.0

L2n
S am , n
1 fs =
n 1 Mn
N

Vn

f si
i 1

L2n
C n g (8)
1 Mn

N
n

f sin hi ..(9)

OTM n
i 1

t sn

un
4.

Io

Ln
S am , n
Mn

Ln S am , n
2
Mn
n

Ln
C n g (10)
Mn

Ln C n g
..(11)
2
Mn
n

Practical Examples

EXAMPLE 1 - Regular Symmetrical Plan

A three story with regular plan

ETABS OUTPUT
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Period
Mode
0.521735
0.496507
0.488673
0.144574
0.138088
0.134828
0.071017
0.069642
0.063753

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9

UX
UY
RZ
SumRX
SumRY
SumRZ
-0.0354
0
0
0 99.1767
0
-0.0296
0
0 98.8866 99.1767
0
-0.0195
0
0 98.8866 99.1767 93.6149
0 -0.0349
0 98.8866 99.9515 93.6149
0 -0.0297
0 99.9569 99.9515 93.6149
0 -0.0202
0 99.9569 99.9515 99.3592
0
0 0.00349 99.9569
100 99.3592
0
0 0.00285
100
100 99.3592
0
0
0.0018
100
100
100
-0.0321
0
0
0.0117
0
0
0.0361
0
0
0 -0.0324
0
0
0.0106
0
0
0.0363
0
0
0 -0.00309
0
0 0.00126
0
0 0.00345
-0.0177
0
0
0.038
0
0
-0.0264
0
0
0
0.0182
0
0 -0.0382
0
0
0.0257
0
0
0 -0.00168
0
0 0.00362
0
0 -0.00261

BACKWARD ANALYSIS FROM ETABS

m
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

story 3
story 2
story 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
384.9984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 384.9984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 40712.54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 407.1168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 407.1168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 43836.77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 419.5584
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 419.5584
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 45594.14

mode shapes
1
-0.0354
0
0
-0.0296
0
0
-0.0195
0
0

2
0
-0.0349
0
0
-0.0297
0
0
-0.0202
0

3
0
0
0.00349
0
0
0.00285
0
0
0.0018

4
-0.0321
0
0
0.0117
0
0
0.0361
0
0

5
0
-0.0324
0
0
0.0106
0
0
0.0363
0

6
0
0
-0.00309
0
0
0.00126
0
0
0.00345

7
-0.0177
0
0
0.038
0
0
-0.0264
0
0

8
0
0.0182
0
0
-0.0382
0
0
0.0257
0

9
0
0
-0.00168
0
0
0.00362
0
0
-0.00261

Lnx
Lny
Lnz
Lnx
Lny
Lnz
-33.861
0
0 1146.567
0
0
0 -34.0029
0
0 1156.197
0
0
0 349.0910266
0
0 121864.5
7.550876
0
0 57.01573
0
0
0 7.07146
0
0 50.00554
0
0
0 86.73236352
0
0 7522.503
-2.42038
0
0 5.858215
0
0
0 2.23776
0
0 5.00757
0
0
0 -28.7086896
0
0 824.1889
= 1209.441 1211.21 130211.2
2

total

99.82

fs1

Vby

fs2

2487.428
0
0
2199.374
0
0
1493.191
0
0
6179.994

fs1

Base Shear V = Lnx

99.96

fs3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

fs2
0
0
0 2462.572
0
0
0
0
0 2216.053
0
0
0
0
0 1553.275
0
0
0
6231.9

100.05

x-x SEISMIC FORCES FOR EACH STORY

fs4
fs5
fs6
fs7
0 -210.337
0
0
0
0
0 81.06925
0
0
0
0
0 257.781
0
0
0
0
0 128.5135

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

S am

Vbx
630.6116 6179.994
0
0
0
0
13.11362 128.5135
0
0
0
0
1.34739 13.20442
0
0
0
0

1211.674 1211.674 130143.5

accuracy (%)

Vbx

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

37.17652
0
0
-84.3994
0
0
60.42726
0
0
13.20442

fs8

Vby
0
0
635.9082
6231.9
0
0
0
0
11.50128 112.7125
0
0
0
0
1.151741 11.28706
0
0

fs9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

y-y SEISMIC FORCES FOR EACH STORY

fs3
fs4
fs5
fs6
fs7
fs8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -198.823
0
0 35.34254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 68.78407
0
0 -78.4422
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 242.7516
0
0 54.38673
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 112.7125
0
0 11.28706

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

base sehar x-x

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

base shear y-y

fs9

Note : ETABS OUTPUT agrees very well with the theoritical results of backward-analysis

EXAMPLE 2 - Single story irregular plan

Single story irregular plan

ETABS OUTPUT

Mode

BACKWARD ANALYSIS

Period Mode UX
UY
SumRX SumRY SumRZ
1 0.277944
1 0.0915 0.0259
1.838 22.9208 76.0175
2 0.187345
2 -0.1654 0.0463
7.697 97.739 93.8501
3 0.170171
3 -0.0287 -0.1837
100
100
100

m
27.36

27.36

0 434.0511

0.0915
0.0259
-0.04163

-0.1654 -0.0287
0.0463 -0.1837
-0.0211 -0.01119

Lnx2
6.267212
20.47874
0.616589
27.36254

Lny2
0.502148
1.604701
25.261
27.36785

Lnz2
326.5085
83.87772
23.59076
433.977

Iox=Lnx
-45.236
41.44526
3.813897
0.023134

Ioy=Lny
-12.8045
-11.6017
24.4116
0.005415

should equal to zero

Vbx
4.700409 46.06401
15.35905 150.5187
0.462442 4.531931

fs1

Vby
0.376611 3.690788
1.203526 11.79455
18.94575 185.6683

x-x seismic forces

fs2
fs3

TORQUES

Tbx
-33.927 -332.485
31.08395 304.6227
2.860423 28.03214

Tbx
-9.60339 -94.1132
-8.70125 -85.2723
18.3087 179.4252

y-y seismic forces

fs1
fs2
fs3
13.03888 -42.1343 29.00752
3.690788 11.79455 185.6683 Vby

46.06401 150.5187 4.531931 Vbx

13.03888 -42.1343 29.00752
-332.485 304.6227 28.03214 Tbx

-94.1132 -85.2723 179.4252 Tby

NOTE : ETABS OUTPUT agrees very well with the theoritical results of backwardanalysis

EXAMPLE 3 - Second Story irregular plan

Second Story irregular plan

ETABS OUTPUT

Mode
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6

BACKWARD ANALYSIS

UX
UY
RZ
-0.0897 -0.0062 0.03659
-0.0415 -0.0073 0.01792
0.1491 -0.0051
0.0224
0.0652 -0.0052 0.01052
0
0.1687 0.00363
0.0029
0.0863 -0.00091
0.0364
0.0269 -0.01883
-0.0749 -0.0294 0.03637
0.0632 -0.0471
0.0063
-0.1362
0.0861 -0.01192
0.0309
0.0712 0.00747
-0.0676 -0.1375 -0.01716

Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

Period
SumUX
SumUY
SumRZ
0.511953 23.7206
0.2562 65.7177
0.367243 86.8642
0.4052 88.5947
0.319362 86.8769 90.2398 88.8441
0.163567 89.2762 90.2624 96.7824
0.107548 97.8402 92.7827
97.726
0.100288
100
100
100


STORY

m
2
27.36
0
0
0
0
0

0
27.36
0
0
0
0

0
0
434.0511
0
0
0

0
0
0
28.8
0
0

0
0
0
0
28.8
0

Lxn
Lyn
Lzn
13.31806 0.144303 578.6564

Iox n
Ioy n
-87.7871 -9.13793

35.48747 0.083692 210.8576

86.5032 -4.20085

0.006976
1.348423
4.811039
1.213205
56.18517

50.42522
0.012262
1.418538
4.048015
56.13203

1.346883
70.81639
7.30196
21.01625
889.9955

56.18517 56.13203 889.9955

0.096929
-9.77192
5.927058
5.049458
0.017588

8.241168
-0.93187
-3.2184
9.223563
-0.02432

0
0
0
0
0
456.102

Lxn 2
13.31806
35.48747
0.006976
1.348423
4.811039
1.213205
56.18517

Cumm
13.31806
48.80553
48.81251
50.16093
54.97197
56.18517

2x
2y
2z
1x
1y
1z

1
-0.0897
-0.0062
0.03659
-0.0415
-0.0073
0.01792

% Cumm
23.70387
86.8655
86.87791
89.27788
97.8407
100

2
0.1491
-0.0051
0.0224
0.0652
-0.0052
0.01052

Lyn 2
0.144303
0.083692
50.42522
0.012262
1.418538
4.048015
56.13203

Cumm
0.144303
0.227995
50.65322
50.66548
52.08402
56.13203

3
0
0.1687
0.00363
0.0029
0.0863
-0.00091

% Cumm
0.257077
0.406176
90.23941
90.26126
92.7884
100

4
0.0364
0.0269
-0.01883
-0.0749
-0.0294
0.03637

5
0.0632
-0.0471
0.0063
-0.1362
0.0861
-0.01192

Lzn 2
578.6564
210.8576
1.346883
70.81639
7.30196
21.01625
889.9955

6
0.0309
0.0712
0.00747
-0.0676
-0.1375
-0.01716

Cumm
578.6564
789.514
790.8609
861.6773
868.9792
889.9955

% Cumm
65.0179
88.70989
88.86122
96.81816
97.63861
100

BASE SHEARS V
7.324934
19.51811
0.003837
0.310137
1.106539
0.279037

Vbx
71.78435402
191.2774596
0.037598432
3.039344537
10.84408113
2.734564791

0.079367
0.046031
27.73387
0.00282
0.326264
0.931044

Vby
0.777792
0.451101
271.792
0.02764
3.197385
9.124226

BASE TORQUES

Tbx
-48.28293 -473.1726716
47.57676 466.2522513
0.053311 0.522449246
-2.247542 -22.02590784
1.363223 13.35958785
1.161375 11.38147895

-5.02586
-2.310467
4.532642
-0.21433
-0.740232
2.121419

TbY
-49.25342
-22.64258
44.4199
-2.100437
-7.254277
20.78991

NOTE : ETABS OUTPUT agrees very well with the theoritical results of backwardanalysis

5.

Conclusions

Theoretical 3D-dynamic analyses had been briefly elaborated and clearly applied
through practical design examples by the assistance of ETABS computer program. It has
been shown that for simple regular plans through irregular structural plans with only one
type of rigid diaphragm, ETABS output agrees very well with the theoretical results of
backward analysis.
Particular cases for the irregular structural plans with multi masses and multi rigid
diaphragms as commonly found in the case of mixed use building analytical model will
be separately written for the next publication.

6.

References

BSN (2002), Indonesian Earthquake Resistance Design Requirements for Buildings,

SNI 03-1726-2002, 64 pp.
RSNI 03-1726-xxxx, (2010), Draft of The Indonesian Earthquake Resistance Standard
Design Requirements for Structural and Non- Structural Buildings, 106 pp.
Clough, R., Penzien, J. (2003) , Dynamic of Structures, 2nd Edition (revised), Computer
and Structure Inc., 739 pp.
Paz, M, (1991), Structural Dynamics, Theory and Computation, 3rd Edition, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 626 pp.
Chopra, A.K. (1995), Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice Hall , New Jersey, 729 pp.

Wilson, E. L. (2004), Static & Dynamic Analysis of Structures, A Physical Approach With
Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering, 4th Edition, Computer and Structure Inc., 390 pp.
Seed, H.B., Ugas, C., and Lysmer, L. (1976), Site Dependent Spectra for Earthquake
Resistant Design, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 66, No.1,
February.
Powell, G., H. (2010), Modeling for Structural Analysis, Behavior and Basics, Computer
and Structure Inc., 365 pp.