See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285601424

COMPARISON BETWEEN SINGLE AND MULTIPLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SYSTEMS FOR THE SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION OF COMPOSITE
STRUCTURES

Conference Paper · December 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 4,813

4 authors:

Dionisios N. Serras George Hatzigeorgiou

Hellenic Open University Hellenic Open University
9 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   1,530 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rijal Rameshwar Tasos Dagiuklas

Kantipur Engineering College London South Bank University
7 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    189 PUBLICATIONS   1,165 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CiProVoT View project

SocialTruth - Open Distributed Digital Content Verification for Hyper-connected Sociality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dionisios N. Serras on 05 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COMPARISON BETWEEN SINGLE AND
MULTIPLE DEGREES OF FREEDOM SYSTEMS
FOR THE SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION OF
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Dionsios N. Serras1, George D. Hatzigeorgiou1, Rijal Rameshwar2, Tasos Dagiuklas1

1
School Science and Technology
Hellenic Open University
Patras, Greece
Email: dionisios.serras@ac.eap.gr, hatzigeorgiou@eap.gr, dagiuklas@eap.gr
2
Kantipur Engineering College,
Tribhuvan University
Kathmandu, Nepal
Email: rijal_rameshwar@yahoo.com

Abstract: The object of this paper is to compare a Single-Degree-
Of-Freedom (SDOF) system with Multiple-Degree-Of-Freedoms
(MDOFs) structures using the Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA)
method. Through this method, Newmark and Explicit Central
Difference methods are developed to estimate the seismic response
of composite structures accurately. The validity of this approach is
established by using both Nonlin program for the SDOF and
Ruaumoko program for three and six storey buildings. Then, an
extensive parametric study is conducted in order to create a
databank for seismic response behavior of the above composite
structures in conjunction with the seismic response behavior of
SDOFs. On the basis of this computational study, expressions are
used to determine the necessity parameters which will be used for
the implementation of the proposed analytical method. The results
of this method showed that the seismic response estimation between
MDOF and SDOF present a very good convergence.
Keywords: Newmark method; Central Difference Explicit method;
composite structures; seismic response.
I. INTRODUCTION
In contrast to the situation for linear systems, nonlinear
systems present analytical and experimental problems.
However, these problems need to be overcome, as many
engineering structures contain nonlinearities which have
significant effects on their dynamical behavior. However,
numerous techniques have been demonstrated on simulated
systems experimental work is often confined to Single-
Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF) systems. For this reason, in
order to estimate the seismic response of composite
structures between a Single-Degree-Of-Freedom (SDOF)
system and a Multiple-Degree-Of-Freedom (MDOF)
structure an accurate approach for the solution of the
dynamic response of structural systems is required. In this
study, two well-known methods, Newmark method and
Explicit Central Difference method, are used for the analysis
of structural dynamics problem.
The Explicit Central Difference method is the most
widely used method because it is very simple for
implementation in the nonlinear systems and provides
accurate results [1,2,3]. It is worth noting that Explicit
Central Difference method is based on finite difference
expressions for the derivatives in the equation of motion and
does not involve the solution of a set of linear equations at
each step. Basically, this method uses the differential
equation at time “t” to predict a solution at time “t + Δt”. For
most real structures, which contain stiff elements, a very
small time step is required in order to obtain a stable solution
[3, 4-10].
On the other hand, Newmark method is the most common
method in structural dynamics problems. This method is
more complicated but more versatile and trustworthy than the
Explicit Central Difference method because it can be made
unconditionally stable (if β=1/4 and γ=1/2) and that larger
time steps can be used with better results. Computer models
of large real structures normally contain a large number of
periods which are smaller than the integration time step [11].
Therefore, it is essential that one select a numerical
integration method that is unconditional for all time steps.
Because of the unconditional stability of the average
acceleration method, it is the most robust method to be used
for the step-by-step dynamic analysis of large complex
structural systems in which a large number of high
frequencies, short periods, are present. The only problem
with that method is the short periods, which are smaller than
the time step, oscillate indefinitely after they are excited.
Vamvatsikos and Cornell [12] developed a computer-
intensive procedure that offers thorough (demand and
capacity) prediction capability by using a series of nonlinear
dynamic analyses under suitably multiply-scaled ground PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
motion records. While it is a simple concept, performing an SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) requires the following 0.25 0,02154 0,01841
steps: (1) Create an appropriate model for the structure under 0.5 0,03173 0,03458
investigation, (2) Select a suite of ground motion records, (3) 0.75 0,05973 0,05163
For each record, incrementally scale it to multiple levels and 1.0 0,06288 0,07345
run a nonlinear dynamic analysis each time, (4) Select a 1.25 0,1231 0,1276
1.5 0,1849 0,2416
ground motion by a Strong Ground Motion Database and (5)
1.75 0,2724 0,3657
Use the IDA data to better understand the behavior of the 2.0 0,3808 0,4844
structure.
In the following sections we are going to provide a Table 2: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement
trustworthy approach by applying IDA for composite for the edge node of the top floor according to Newmark
structures in conjunction with the aforementioned methods. method, in the case of the six storey building.

II. PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR MDOF STRUCTURES PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
A) Proposed Approach
0.0 0 0
To estimate the seismic response of a three and six storey 0.25 0,04242 0,047
building accurately, the IDA method was developed in 0.5 0,09437 0,09428
0.75 0,1052 0,166
Ruaumoko program [13] combining the aforementioned two 1.0 0,1764 0,2742
methods. Moreover, 6 different seismic records were taken 1.25 0,2474 0,3146
into consideration by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering 1.5 0,3290 0,3475
Research Center (PEER) Strong Ground Motion Database 1.75 0,43 0,3207
[14] which were also used in Ruaumoko program. 2.0 0,5533 0,2784
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
Implementing the Newmark method in Ruaumoko SCALE Ux(max)
program, the first two Tables (Tables 1 and 2) show the PGA 0.0 0 0
scale which ranged from 0.0 to 2.0 as well as the results of 0.25 0,04519 0,04104
the maximum in absolute value displacement in m relative to 0.5 0,07034 0,06277
the horizontal direction for the edge node of the top floor. 0.75 0,1127 0,1076
1.0 0,1667 0,156
These tables illustrate the six different seismic records for the
1.25 0,2659 0,2028
third and six storey buildings, respectively. On the other 1.5 0,3999 0,2368
hand, the next two Tables (Tables 3 and 4) show the 1.75 0,6403 0,254
implementation of the Explicit Central Difference method for 2.0 0,9264 0,3149
the third and six storey buildings, respectively. PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
Table 1: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement 0.25 0,04997 0,04296
for the edge node of the top floor according to Newmark 0.5 0,09120 0,08223
method, in the case of the three storey building. 0.75 0,1074 0,09758
1.0 0,1324 0,1359
PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD 1.25 0,1638 0,2144
SCALE Ux(max) 1.5 0,213 0,2954
0.0 0 0 1.75 0,2724 0,3321
0.25 0,02148 0,02136 2.0 0,3341 0,4155
0.5 0,03974 0,03988
0.75 0,05923 0,05703 Table 3: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement
.0 0,06018 0,09041
for the edge node of the top floor according to Explicit
1.25 0,09451 0,1181
1.5 0,1655 0,1302 Central Difference method, in the case of the three storey
1.75 0,2961 0,2266 building.
2.0 0,395 0,2048
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max) SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
0.25 0,02189 0,02067 0.25 0,02121 0,02127
0.5 0,04437 0,03546 0.5 0,03949 0,04045
0.75 0,06871 0,05448 0.75 0,054 0,05534
1.0 0,08779 0,07425 1.0 0,06343 0,09781
1.25 0,1336 0,1002 1.25 0,09978 0,1204
1.5 0,1875 0,12 1.5 0,1622 0,1494
1.75 0,2362 0,1432 1.75 0,3075 0,1753
2.0 0,2494 0,1776 2.0 0,3977 0,1779
 PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,02198 0,02105
0.5 0,04436 0,03712
0.75 0,06846 0,0584
1.0 0,08507 0,07718
1.25 0,1298 0,09354
1.5 0,1806 0,1143
1.75 0,2112 0,1425
2.0 0,2446 0,1715
PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,02162 0,01784
0.5 0,03797 0,03432
0.75 0,05667 0,0481
1.0 0,08279 0,07382
1.25 0,1217 0,1229
1.5 0,1905 0,2494
1.75 0,2998 0,362
2.0 0,399 0,4826 Fig. 1: Seismic records results and the average of them for
the three storey building in the case of the Newmark method.
Table 4: Results of the maximum horizontal displacement
for the edge node of the top floor according to Explicit
Central Difference method, in the case of the six storey
building.
PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,04197 0,04635
0.5 0,09385 0,09570
0.75 0,1070 0,1718
1.0 0,1794 0,2671
1.25 0,2462 0,3294
1.5 0,3221 0,3384
1.75 0,4146 0,3017
2.0 0,5633 0,1964
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,04516 0,04182
0.5 0,06883 0,06058
0.75 0,1127 0,1083 Fig. 2: Seismic records results and the average of them for
1.0 0,1664 0,1545 the six storey building in the case of the Newmark method.
1.25 0,2369 0,2058
1.5 0,3871 0,2508 On the other side, the next two Figures illustrate the behavior
1.75 0,6594 0,2598
of the three and six storey building under 6 different seismic
2.0 0,9067 0,3074
PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD records applying the Explicit Central Difference method.
SCALE Ux(max)
0.0 0 0
0.25 0,05006 0,04162
0.5 0,08941 0,08358
0.75 0,1045 0,09339
1.0 0,1325 0,1301
1.25 0,1749 0,1911
1.5 0,2117 0,2595
1.75 0,2558 0,3165
2.0 0,2993 0,4468

B) Performing the Analysis

The first two Figures represent the behavior of the three and
six storey building under 6 different seismic records applying
the Newmark method.
Fig. 3: Seismic records results and the average of them for
the three storey building in the case of the Explicit Central
Difference method.
Fig. 4: Seismic records results and the average of them for
the six storey building in the case of the Explicit Central
Difference method.
For a better understanding we compare the average of the
seismic records of these two methods for the three and six
storey building, as shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
Fig. 5: Comparison between Explicit Central Difference
method and Newmark method for the three storey building.
Fig. 6: Comparison between Explicit Central Difference
method and Newmark method for the six storey building.
As can be seen from the above two comparisons, the
proposed methods provide very good convergence each other
for composite structures.
III. PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR SDOF SYSTEM
A) Parameters Determination
In this section, expressions are applied in order to
compare SDOF and MDOF systems so as to estimate the
seismic response of composite structures. The necessary
parameters which are taken into consideration are presented
below:
where K is the stiffness in KN/m, T the period in sec and M Table 6: Mean values of structural strain hardening stiffness
the mass in KNsec2/m corresponds to the following load and yield strength for the three and six storey building.
combination:
THREE STOREY BUILDING
Structural Strain Hardening Stiffness Yield Strength
K’ (KN/m) Fy(KN)
2930.7667 623.8667
where is the characteristic design value of an action, the SIX STOREY BUILDING
permanent actions Gk=20KN/m, the live actions Qk=10 KN/m Structural Strain Hardening Stiffness Yield Strength
and the load reduction factor ψ=0.5. K’ (KN/m) Fy(KN)
2172.1667 846.1667
B) Experimental Investigation
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the comparison results of the SDOF
To estimate the seismic response of a SDOF system, the systems, which correspond to the three storey building under
IDA method was applied in Nonlin program [15] taking into the 6 seismic records, with the methods of Newmark and
account the same seismic records where they where they Explicit Central Difference as well.
were taken into consideration in the case of the MDOF
structures. Table 5 presents the PGA scale which ranged
from 0.0 to 2.0 as well as the results of the maximum
acceleration, where each seismic record has, multiplied with
the values of PGA scale.

Table 5: Acceleration results of each seismic record.

PGA 1st SEISMIC RECORD 2nd SEISMIC RECORD

SCALE Acceleration Results
0.0 0 0
0.25 733,6 735,2
0.5 1467,2 1470,4
0.75 2200,8 2205,6
1.0 2934,4 2940,8
1.25 3668 3676
1.5 4401,6 4411,2
1.75 5135,2 5146,4
2.0 5868,8 5881,6
PGA 3rd SEISMIC RECORD 4th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Acceleration Results
0.0 0 0
0.25 734,5 731,7 Fig. 7: Comparison between the seismic records results of
0.5 1469 1463,4 the SDOF system, which corresponds to the three storey
0.75 2203,5 2195,1 building developing the IDA method, and the Newmark
1.0 2938 2926,8
method.
1.25 3672,5 3658,5
1.5 4407 4390,2
1.75 5141,5 5121,9
2.0 5876 5853,6
PGA 5th SEISMIC RECORD 6th SEISMIC RECORD
SCALE Acceleration Results
0.0 0 0
0.25 734,3 735,75
0.5 1468,6 1471,5
0.75 2202,9 2207,25
1.0 2937,2 2943
1.25 3671,5 3678,75
1.5 4405,8 4414,5
1.75 5140,1 5150,25
2.0 5874,4 5886

The results of the above Table are implemented in Nonlin

program so as to calculate the appropriate structural strain
hardening stiffness (K’) in KN/m and yield strength (Fy) in
KN for each seismic record and PGA scale as well. The mean
values of K’ and Fy which were calculated for each seismic
record are presented in the following Table.
Fig. 8: Comparison between the seismic records results of
the SDOF system, which corresponds to the three storey
building developing the IDA method, and the Explicit
Central Difference method.
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the comparison results of the
SDOF systems, which correspond to the six storey building
under the 6 seismic records, with the methods of Newmark
and Explicit Central Difference as well.
Fig. 9: Comparison between the seismic records results of
the SDOF system, which corresponds to the six storey
building developing the IDA method, and the Newmark
method.
Fig. 10: Comparison between the seismic records results of
the SDOF system, which corresponds to the six storey
building developing the IDA method, and the Explicit
Central Difference method.
IV. SEISMIC RESPONSE COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE
STRUCTURES BETWEEN SDOF AND MDOF
The analysis of a SDOF was applied in Nonlin program, a
computer program for nonlinear dynamic time history
analysis of single-and multi-degree-of-freedom systems [15].
Implementing the IDA method for the case of SDOF in
conjunction with the six seismic records and comparing its
results with those of the previous methods which are referred
for the case of MDOF, we conclude that there is a very good
convergence between of them as shown in Figures 11 and 12,
respectively.
Fig. 11: Comparison between MDOF and SDOF for the
three storey building.
 [9] Paz, M. (1997), “Structural Dynamics: Theory and
Computation”, 4th edition, Chapman & Hall, New
York.
[10] Subbaraj, K., Dokainish, M. A. (1989), “A survey of
direct time integration methods in computational
structural dynamics. II. Implicit methods”, Journal of
Computers & Structures, 32 (6), 1387–1401.
[11] Newmark, N. M. (1959), “A Method of Computation
for Structural Dynamics”, ASCE Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, Vol. 85 No. EM3.
[12] Vamvatsikos D., Jalayer F. and Cornell A. C. (2003),
“Application of Incremental Dynamic Analysis to an
RC-Strucutres”.
[13] Carr A.J. (2006), “HYSTERES and RUAUMOKO-2D
Inelastic Time-History Analysis of Two-Dimensional
Framed Structures”, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
[14] Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
2010b. Technical report for the PEER ground motion
Fig. 12: Comparison between MDOF and SDOF for the six database web application [online]. Available at
storey building. http://peer.
berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database.
V. CONCLUSIONS [15] NONLIN (2011): Nonlinear Dynamic Time History
This study develops a simple and accurate method comparing Analysis [online]. Available at
a SDOF with a MDOF in order to estimate the seismic https://nees.org/resources/nonlin.
response of composite structures using the IDA method.
Newmark and Explicit Central methods were developed in VII. APPENDIX: DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURES
Ruaumoko program where their results compared with those EXAMINED
of Nonlin program. The comparisons between MDOF and
SDOF presented a very good convergence which indicates 1st Case: Three storey building.
that the seismic response for any structure has the same CIRCULAR CFT COLUMNS
behavior. CROSS-
MATERIALS GEOMETRY
SECTION
VI. REFERENCES Steel
Concrete
tube Section Diameter Thickness Height
Strength
[1] Belytschko, T., Liu,W. K., Moran, B. (2000), Strength
“Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and fc(MPa) fy(MPa) S(D/t)-fc-fy D(mm) t(mm) H(mm)
Structures”, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, (In each floor)
30 275 S65-30-275 406.4 6.30 3000
UK. CFT BEAMS (Bays:3)
[2] Chopra, A. (2007), “Dynamics of Structures: Theory CROSS-
MATERIALS GEOMETRY
and Applications to Earthquake Engineering”, 3rd SECTION
edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Concrete
Steel
[3] Humar, J. L. (1990), “Dynamics of Structures”, Strength
tube Section Length Slab Thickness
Strength
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. fc(MPa) fy(MPa) IPE L(m) d(cm)
[4] Bathe K. J. (1996), “Finite Element Procedures”, (In each floor)
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 30 275 270 6.0 15.0
[5] Clough, R. W., Penzien, J. (1983), “Dynamics of
Structures”, McGraw Hill.
[6] Crisfield, M. A. (1997), “Non-Linear Finite Element
Analysis of Solids and Structures”, John Wiley & Sons,
Vol. 2.
[7] Hughes, T. J. R., Belytschko, T. (1983), “A précis of
developments in computational methods for transient
analysis”, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 50,
1033–1041.
[8] Park, K. C. (1977), “Practical aspects of numerical time
integration”, Journal of Computers & Structures, Vol.
7, 343–353.
2nd Case: Six storey building.
CIRCULAR CFT COLUMNS
CROSS-
MATERIALS GEOMETRY
SECTION
Steel
Concrete
tube Section Diameter Thickness Height
Strength
Strength
fc(MPa) fy(MPa) S(D/t)-fc-fy D(mm) t(mm) H(mm)
(1st & 2nd Floor)
30 275 S56-30-275 559 10.0 3000
(3rs ~ 5th Floor)
30 275 S65-30-275 406.4 6.30 3000
(6th Floor)
30 275 S59-30-275 355.6 6.00 3000
CFT BEAMS (Bays:3)
CROSS-
MATERIALS GEOMETRY
SECTION
Steel
Concrete
tube Section Length Slab Thickness
Strength
Strength
fc(MPa) fy(MPa) IPE L(m) d(cm)
(1st & 2nd Floor)
30 275 360 6.0 15.0
(3rd & 4th Floor)
30 275 270 6.0 15.0
(5th Floor)
30 275 240 6.0 15.0
(6th Floor)
30 275 220 6.0 15.0

View publication stats