REPORT NO. UcB/EERC-88/09 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER JUNE 1988 ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARD MODE SUPERPOSITION FOR ANALYSIS OF NON-CLASSICALLY DAMPED SYSTEMS by A.A. KUSAINOV R.W. CLOUGH COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING | UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEYFor sale by the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161 See back of report for up to date ERC reports. ing of DISCLAIMER ions, findings, and conclusions ot recommendations expressed in this publica- ‘are those of the authors and do not nec- essorily reflect the views of the Sponsor the Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at BerksALTERNATIVES TO STANDARD MODE SUPERPOSITION FOR ANALYSIS OF NON-CLASSICALLY DAMPED SYSTEMS by Amirlan A. Kusainov Visiting Scholar, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California on leave from Alma-Ata Architecture & Civil Engineering Institute Alma-Ata, Kazakh SSR, USSR and Ray W. Clough Nishkian Professor of structural Engineering, Emeritus University of California Report No. UCB/EERC-88/09 Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering University of California Berkeley, California duly 1988ABSTRACT The dynamic response of systems with nonclassical damping may be solved exactly by mode superposition, using the complex mode shapes derived from the damped eigenproblem to uncouple the equations of motion. However, to reduce the computational effort, an approximate procedure that avoids the complex mode solution often is preferred, in which the undamped mode shapes based on the system mass and stiffness matrices are applied as generalized coordinates, and the resulting ccupling terms in the generalized damping matrix are merely ignored. In this presentation two other approximate procedures that parallel this are described: (1) the mass matrix is transformed using eigenvectors based on the stiff- ness and damping matrices, and (2) the stiffness matrix is trans- formed using eigenvectors based on the damping and mass matrices; the transformed equation sets are then uncoupled by ignoring the coupling coefficients of the generalized mass and stiffness matrices, respectively. A third procedure also is presented that involves the use of corrected diagonal terms in the transformed property matrices, taking into account contributions based on the off-diagonal terms. To demonstrate the accuracy of these approximations, a 2- DOF system is solved in closed form, using the standard method and each of the three alternatives; results are compared with the exact solution obtained using the complex eigenvectors. The behaviour of general 2-DOF damped systems under various conditions is considered with respect to the conventional and proposed decompositions. Free vibration decay and forced vibrations of an assumed "structure-equipment" system are studied as illustrative examples. ‘The analysis is extended to MDOF systems; the appropriate conditions for the approaches to be valid are obtained. The response of a 9-story building undergoing a single sine wave impulse in the basement are calculated using the different ap- proximate procedures.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The IREX (International Research & Exchange Board) Visit- ing Fellowship awarded to the first author is gratefully acknow- ledged, as is IREX support toward publication of this work. Ms. B. Bolt of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center is thanked for her detailed editorial assistance in preparation of the manuscript; the publication subsidy provided by the Na- tional Information Service for Earthquake Engineering of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center also is acknowledged.—iii- TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. © 6. 1 ee ee ee ACKNOWLEDGMENTS © 6. - ee ee ee ee TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . - e+ + ee ee LIST OF FIGURES . - - . ee ee ee ee 1. INTRODUCTION... ee ee ee ee 2. APPROXIMATE MODAL UNCOUPLING. . . . . « « 3. CLOSED FORM SOLUTION FOR 2-DOF SYSTEM. . . 3.1. Free Vibration Parameters . . . . . 3.2. Forced Harmonic Vibration Parameters. . . 3.3. Examples... 1 ee ee eee 3.3.1. Vibration of a 2 lumped mass system. 3.3.2. Different test loadings. . . . . 4. APPLICATION OF THE APPROXIMATE MODE SUPERPOSITION METHODS TO MDOF DAMPED SYSTEMS . . . . . 4.1. Criteria for validity of approximation methods 4.2. Vibration of 9 story building with external 4.3. Analytical and numerical comparison. . 5. CONCLUSIONS. ©. 2 ee ee ee ee REFERENCES... ee ee ee ee ee APPENDIX A. Dynamic Characteristics of the Two Lumped Mass system. . . . . APPENDIX B. Transformed Property Matrices for the 9-story Building . . . . . FIGURES. - ee ee ee ee ee page ii iii iv a 4 9 9 18 22 22 28 30 30 damper 37 39 40 43 45 47 48a LIST OF FIGURES Figure 10. ql. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. a. 2-DOF "structure-equipment" model . . . 2-DOF system eigenfrequercies v/s mass ratio. . 2-DOF system damping ratios v/s mass ratio . - 2-DOF system amplitude approximation errors v/s mass ratio in first resonance. . . . ~~ 2-DOF system amplitude approximation errors v/s mass ratio in second resonance. . . . + 2-DOF system eigenfrequencies v/s stiffness ratio 2-DOF system damping ratios v/s stiffness ratio. 2-DOF system amplitude approximation errors v/s stiffness ratio in first resonance. . - 2-DOF system amplitude approximation errors v/s stiffness ratio in second resonance . ~ 2-DOF system eigenfrequencies v/s damping ratio 2-DOF system damping ratios v/s damping ratio . 2-DOF system amplitude approximation errors v/s damping ratio in first resonance . . . 2-DOF system amplitude approximation errors v/s damping ratio in second resonance. . - - Harmonic response of “structure-equipment" system Time response of "structure-equipment" system . 9-DOF structural model: a) added damper is at sth floor; b) added damper is at 2nd floor . . . 9-DOF system time response under sine wave load Page + 52 - 531. INTRODUCTION The discrete equations of motion expressing the behaviour of a dynamically loaded structure may be written as follows: MV +CV+KV=Q, qa) in which V is the displacement vector, M and K are the mass and stiffness matrices, respectively, Q is the applied load vector, and C represents the viscous damping matrix. In most cases it may be assumed that the system has classical damping, in which case the coordinate transformation based on the undamped system eigen- vectors will lead to diagonalization of the generalized coor- dinate damping matrix in the same way that it produces diagonal- ized generalized mass and stiffness matrices. Thus, for a classi- cally damped system, the modal coordinate transformation leads to a set of independent modal equations; the dynamic response then may be obtained by solving separately these single-degree-of- freedom modal equations and superposing the modal responses to obtain the total response. In some situations, however, it is not reasonable to assume that the system is classically damped; then the damping matrix will not be diagonalized by the undamped modal coordinate transformation. In such cases, an exact solution may be obtained by mode superposition if the damped eigenproblem is solved for the complex mode shapes. The orthogonality properties of these damped mode shapes are such that they serve to diagonalize the mass, damping and stiffness matrices when they are utilized in a coordinate transformation. Thus the modal response equations are uncoupled, and the total response may be obtained by solving the independent equations and superposing the results [1-3]. In principle this complex modal coordinate procedure will provide the exact solution for any nonclassically damped structure; however, it has the major disadvantages that the order of the eigenproblem to be solved to get the mode shapes is doubled, and that the mode shapes contain imaginary as well as real terms.One alternative to this complex mode shape solution is to use the undamped mode shapes in transforming to modal coordinates the nonclassically damped equations of motion. This leads to the same diagonalization of the mass and stiffness matrices as is obtained with a classically damped structure; however, the damp- ing matrix is not diagonalized and the off-diagonal terms in the generalized damping matrix provide coupling between the modal response equations. These coupled modal equations can then be solved simultaneously by standard step-by-step dynamic analysis procedures [4]. In most cases this coordinate transformation is very useful in that it permits a great reduction in the number of equations to be solved simultaneously even though it does not lead to uncoupled equations; the reduction is possible because usually only the first several modal coordinates contribute significantly to the response. However, a major disadvantage of this approach is that the coupled modal equations cannot be solved by the response spectrum nethod. For this reason an ap- proximate solution sometimes is obtained by uncoupling the modal response equations by neglecting the off-diagonal coefficients in the generalized damping matrix. omitting these terms introduces an error in the dynamic response results, but it has been found in many cases that the error is small enough to be acceptable U1. The purpose of this paper is to describe some alterna~ tives to the approximate decoupling procedure explained above. It is apparent in Eq.(1) that there are two possible equivalents to the undamped eigenproblem which results from setting c = 0 : the zero mass eigenproblem obtained by setting M = 0 and the zero stiffness eigenproblem obtained if K = 0. Eigenvectors calculated from each of these eigenproblems can be used to perform a coor- dinate transformation of the equations of motion (Eq.1), leading to diagonalization of the generalized damping and stiffness matrices in the first case and of the generalized damping and mass matrices in the second case. Off-diagonal coefficients remain in the generalized mass and stiffness matrices in the two cases, respectively, and an approximate mode superposition solu-tion can be obtained in each case by neglecting these coupling coefficients. An additional approximation procedure also will be discussed briefly, in which the off-diagonal terms of the generalized damping matrix are used to derive modified diagonal elements of the approximately uncoupled damping matrix. In the following, the general principles of such ap- proximate modal uncoupling procedures will be explained first; then the concepts will be applied to a general 2-DoF system for which closed-form solutions can be derived for the error result- ing from neglect of the generalized modal coupling coefficients. Finally, the approximate procedures will be applied to a multi- degree-of-freedom system to give a general example of the type of results that may be obtained.2. APPROXIMATE MODAL UNCOUPLING A-Superposition For convenience in referring to the alternative uncou- pling procedures, the standard approximate mode superposition analysis based on neglecting modal damping coupling coefficients will be denoted the A-Superposition method. Neglecting the damp- ing matrix, the free vibration eigenproblem associated with Eq.(1) may be written -A,V=AV (2) where A=M'K and The minus sign is used with the eigenvalue \,, for generality in describing this and the subsequent approximations. As is well known, the matrix A of Eq.(2) may be decon- posed into its eigenvalues and eigenvectors, thus $4,851 A @) where the eigenvectors $, have been normalized so that oJMé, =1, OIKb, =—A, 4) in which A, is a diagonal array of the eigenvalues. Now using the mode shapes #, to transform the coordinates V=o,a (5) in which a is the vector of modal coordinate amplitudes, Eq.1 may be transformed to the set of modal equations a+C,a-A,a=Q, (6) where the generalized load vector Q, is given by Q, = #79and the generalized damping matrix is given by ©, =8Jcb, . (7) Because the damping matrix C is assumed to be nonclassical, this modal damping matrix includes off-diagonal coefficients that couple the modal equations, Eq.6. As was described above, an approximate uncoupled set of equations may be obtained by neglecting the off-diagonal coeffi- cients in C,. The corresponding modal frequencies wj, and damp- ing ratios ¢% may then be expressed as follows: we, = iV, (7a) Cija eg = St (7) & wf, Finally, the approximate response of the system in physical coordinates is given by v $,0° (7e) where a° is the vector of solutions of the uncoupled modal equa- tions. B-Superposition The corresponding B-Superposition formulation is developed by omitting the mass matrix from the homogeneous equa- tions of motion with the result -A,V =BV (3) where B=C"K Following the standard procedure, the B matrix now may be decomposed into its eigenvalues and eigenvectors , thus Ao = B (9) in which the eigenvectors are nornalized so that bce, = $e, =A, (20)where A, is the diagonal eigenvalue array. Now using the coordinate transformation V=4b an the equation of motion in terms of the generalized coordinates b becomes M,b+b—A,b =Q,, (22) in which the generalized load vector is Q, = 2/Q and the non-diagonal generalized mass matrix is M, = JM, . (13) Eq. (12) may now be approximately uncoupled by neglecting the off-diagonal coefficients of M,; then the approximate values of the "modal" eigenfrequencies and modal damping ratios can be expressed as follows: Vip (13a) &8 ——s (13b) Min ws Consequently, the final approximate response is v= 4,5" (130) where 6° is a vector of solutions of Eq.12 neglecting the off- diagonal terms of the M, matrix. De sition ‘The D-Superposition is performed similarly by omitting the stiffness matrix from Eq.(1), which leads to -A,V =DV (14) in which D=M"'Cc.D then is decomposed into its eigenvalues A, and eigenvectors %, bAybz' = as) with the vectors normalized so that o]Mo, =1 foe, =-A, - (16) Now the coordinate transformation V= $,d transforms Eq.1 to the following generalized coordinate form d-Ajd+K,d=Q, qa7) where the generalized load vector is Q, = 4/Q and the non-diagonal generalized stiffness matrix is K, =$]Ke, - qs) The approximate uncoupling is achieved by ignoring the off-diagonal coefficients of this matrix. Eigenfrequencies and corresponding modal damping ratios are evaluated according to the approximations wo =V Kia (18a) », & eo (8b) why Finally, the total response vector of the system in physical coordinates is obtained from contributions of all modes vy=o,d° (ase) where d° is the vector of modal responses obtained from Eq.17 when the off-diagonal terms in the transformed stiffness matrix are neglected. R-Superposition A modification of the A-Superposition method that has been applied in some cases [6,7], is to compensate for neglectingthe off-diagonal terms of the transformed damping matrix by making adjustments to the diagonal terms. For a two-degree-of- freedom system, eigenfrequencies of the A - Superposition are used as the basis for the eigenfrequency calculation; these eigenfrequencies then give a better approximation of the damping ratios. This concept will be called R-Superposition; it will be demonstrated in the following as a modification of A- Superposition, but in principle the same idea could be applied with each of the approximation methods.3. CLOSED FORM SOLUTION FOR 2-DOF SYSTEM The error that results when the A-Superposition ap- proximation is applied has been the subject of many investiga- tions [4,6-11]. A major purpose of the present work is to evaluate similarly the other proposed methods of mode superposi- tion and to estimate the relative approximation errors in all the methods under consideration. The analysis of a two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) system is used for a demonstration example because it permits a closed form solution. In the following, comparisons will be made between the exact analysis obtained by solving the complex eigenproblem, and results derived from the various approximation procedures. Quan- tities that are compared include first the free vibration parameters and second the amplitudes of forced harmonic response. Finally, a specific numerical example is presented. 3.1. Free Vibration Parameters The general 2-DOF system has property matrices of the following form mir Mae mar Ma oa [ a cas) ear 22 ey &, x= [fu fe [i Fon Complex mode superposition method (exact solution) The characteristic equation of this system may be written in Foss’s form [12] (20)-10- and after certain simplifications may be represented by the fourth order polynomial equation Bnd + Ane + (Ap + Aner? + Aad + Ay (2a) where A, =detM, A, =detK, A, =detC, Ane = det (M+C)-Ay AL, Ane = det (M+K)—A,, —A, , Ag = det (C+K)—A, - Ay. This is a linear algebraic equation with constant coeffi- cients which has two pairs of conjugate roots in the complex plane de=o iB, (22) Ysa = 2 + iB These may be expressed in terms or tne traditional free vibration parameters, undamped frequency wand modal damping ratio €, by transforming the complex plane from rectangular coordinates to polar coordinates as follows: B=weosp, a=wsinp, (23) where the polar angle is related to the damping ratio as p= —aresin€ The negative sign in the last expression is explained in complex eigenfunction theory. Then, the real and imaginary parts of the characteristic equation, in terms of the polar parameters reduce to =0, Wty (188) tub | (A, Bah) BE jes (ea) uF (1 — 267) Ay, +4? (1 —4PA) Ane — 260 (A, + Ang ) + Aa =O Tf we take into account that for many engineering problems-1- @ << 025, the last pair of equations may be rewritten om a (Ae + Ame ) +26 ne Joa, 2a Ay + WAme — 260 (Ae + Ame) + Ace (25) 0 Two levels of approximation In the evaluation of approximation errors that result from the neglect of off-diagonal terms in the generalized property matrices we note that two levels of approximation may be identified due to the fact that the uncoupled equation system has two free vibration parameters in each mode - frequency and damp- ing ratio. In the simplest approach or first level of approxima- tion, both frequencies and damping ratios are evaluated directly from the approximately uncoupled equations, as was described in Chapter 2. Thus, in the standard method (A-Superposition) the first level of approximation for frequencies and damping ratios is given by Eqs.7a and 7b, respectively; i.e. =u, 26: 2 = He» CO and fi Teta (27) where superscript o is used for designating the approximate value of those parameters. In the second level of approximation for A-Superposition, the eigenfrequencies still are given by Eq.26, but the damping ratios are calculated from the diagonal elements of the uncoupled damping matrix together with these approximate frequency values, as was mentioned in Chapter 2 in the description of the R- Superposition method. A-Superposition (standard approxinate solution) The equations of motion (Eq.1) describe vibrations of a corresponding conservative system if we set C = 0, Q = 0. In order to determine eigenfunctions of the matrix A it is necessary to consider first Eq.2, from which the following characteristic-12- equation is obtained: Add + Aned? + A, =O . (28) Eq.28 can also be derived from Eq.21, if A, = Ane = Ag =O Since the property matrices are positive definite, the biquadratic equation (28) has a discriminant Dy = Bde = 4y Ay = = mikiy {« mE "kE" — mp ke P44 (mp — ke") me" — bE) Jean which is non-negative and less than the square of the second coefficient. The squares of the roots of the equation are real and negative, so the roots themselves are imaginary. In the above expressions, the following notation was adopted for the ratios of the off-diagonal terms to the diagonal terms of the matrices =z (7 =12) Calculation of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, cor- responding to matrix A, is carried out using the standard algo- rithm. If A-Superposition is used to change the equation of motion in physical coordinates (Eq.1) to the general coordinate form (Eq.6), then the characteristic equation to obtain the complex eigenvalues becomes (8 ~ dfs + Cred) (P — Me + Cone) — CrzeCrie =0 (30) where C,4, Cp2q are the elements of the principal diagonal, and Cizar Coq are the off-diagonal elements of the transformed damping matrix; also \;, , y, are eigenvalues shown in the matrix (Eq.4). Note that Eq.30 is identical to Eq.25, thus exact values of the eigenfrequencies and damping ratios are obtained by solv- ing the latter equation. After some calculation, the characteristic equation (Eq.30), which has a complex argument of the form (23), can be-13- written as (1-4?) ~t ft to = 26 (Cire + Cre) =e rates <0 ny As may be concluded from the expression in the brackets, approximation (26) is valid if the following conditions are imposed @ << 0.25 (32) AE+2E w( Cus + Cre) << wh, + uh in which the determinant of the transformed damping matrix is denoted as = detC, = C116 Core — Care Cize Finally, the error of the frequency calculations is introduced as a new parameter, defined as follovs: [| If the first expression (Eq.26) is precise enough for engineering calculation, the damping ratios are easily calculated from 2 Cija — C120 Care Rah << 1, (j=1,2). (33) C116 C20 — Crze Core fe 20 = 5——— > 34 ete ~ Dive ae ( Cite + Cae ) ef But the second expression (Eq.27) implies the damping ratio expressions _ Cire Crr0 2as20 (Cire + Core ) (35) 0.20 Hence, the damping ratio errors that result from using the first level of approximation may be evaluated according to the formula Se =a = Ted (36) where ratios of the off-diagonal and the diagonal terms of the transformed damping matrix are denoted as * Cre (37)-u- B-Superposition The first alternative eigenproblem (8) applied to the case of a 2-DOF system leads to the quadratic characteristic equation AM + Aghy +A, =0 (38) Two eigenvalues and two corresponding eigenvectors are determined by solving this equation, in which the discriminant is y | (39) The same notation as used in the Eq.29 is adopted here. Also the same syllogism applied before leads to the same conclusion about the negative roots of Eq. (38). According to the new proposed approach, the free vibra- tion parameters are to be defined from the equation of motion transformed to the B -coordinates as shown by Eq.(12), while the = cba rar eS bP +4 (ef* — ky") (es — off-diagonal terms of My (which induce coupling of the equations) are neglected. Thus, the simplified formulas for determination of frequency and damping ratio are as follows: wh =i aM : 4 j=1,2) (40 Eh = (2Mypeiy I (412) (40) An effective tool for verifying the accuracy of the method is to compare the values obtained with these from the complex mode solution. The transformation to the B-domain or, in another words, from source equations of motion to transformed ones, does not change the roots of the characteristic equation. Hence, as in the standard method, the complex roots in polar coordinates can be determined from the transformed characteristic equation fo +420) — 81 — een | + {tn + Magy yy) + 266 1M + 206 val + AA =O-15- The assumption that the approximate eigenfrequencies satisfy the last equation leadsto two conditions: the first is the same as (Bq.32), and the second is 1 be I= agraneary OV [Mie (wis +h ) The values of the second level approximation damping ratios for each of the modes then are derived from the formulas << 1 (a1) , tte Mou Min loo =1,2 42 & 20) (Mie + Mee ) Me ) aa on the other hand, if the non-diagonal terms of the transformed mass matrix are assumed to be zero, for the first level approximation the damping ratios are & \ =o (j=12). (43) u? 2M jin 5 ( Thus, the errors for the less refined assumption are evaluated by Sh =~ Sh oh si MinMay eh, (44) D-Superposition Considering now the D-Superposition type of eigenproblem (Bq.14), one obtains another pair of basis vectors by solving the characteristic equation And + AmedA$ + AF =0, (45) Retaining only the non-singular roots, this equation may be rewritten as a quadratic equation with a discriminant =f) }. (46) Eigenvalues of the D matrix are again negative because of the positive definite property matrices, as was indicated above. According to the D-Superposition approach, the original equation (Eq.1) is transformed to the form given by Eq.(17)+ then Da = ( mizere + mires) — mie; +4 ( mip — ef) ( mi-16- neglecting the off-diagonal terms of the transformed stiffness matrix allows the separate solution of the uncoupled modal equa~ tions. Now, it is relatively easy to obtain free vibration parameters from each of the uncoupled transformed equations as follows d, 2, oe ; wh = Vii Sia a Gj =12). (47) The exact solution of the transformed equations by the complex mode method gives a characteristic equation (45) in the D-superposition general coordinates of the form AC 12 eho + og )— area — Kira — Kove +E Org tae — aoe ) Jae 0 (48) where 4 AP = KyaKoe — Koa K a To verify the first assumption (26) we note that the eigenfrequencies of the simplified system will satisfy the characteristic equation (42) only when conditions (32) and the following expression SER why Bid wha + Re <1, (j=12). (49) are satisfied. The corresponding damping ratios are given by Mraroaeje + Kiva Kore fan ’ 20% Our + ae ) » (J=12). (50) Finally, the parameter to evaluate the second assumption (damping ratio) errors, analogous to those from the previous approximation procedures, is expressed by KieKara Maveefe _ ab Sia » (J=12). R-Superposition As was emphasized above, a revised superposition method-w- could be derived from any of the approximation methods (A-, B-, or D - Superposition) by extending it to the second level of approximation. In this study , only the extension based on the standard method will be considered because it has been used most widely in engineering practice. Thus, R - Superposition here is nothing more than the second level of approximation of A - Super- position, as described above. In this case, it is convenient to express the second level damping ratio as a correction of the first level approximation, as expressed by Eqs.34 and 35, respec- tively. The improved damping ratio approximations thus are given by C120 Co oli . 51. Remarks For further development of the 2D0F system response to various loadings, the following conclusions from this preliminary general analysis may be useful: (1) The accuracy of the approximately determined eigenfrequencies (33) obtained by the standard (A-Superposition) method depends on the terms which are neglected in the trans- formed damping matrix, whereas the accuracy of the eigenfre- quencies derived from the B-and D-transformations (41) and (49) do not depend directly on the corresponding terms. (2) The errors in damping ratios donot depend on the eigenfrequencies for the standard method, but they increase as the frequency increases for the B - Superposition method and they decrease with frequency for the D- Superposition method. Conse- quently, it may be recognized that the first of the newly proposed methods gives approximate parameters which match better to the correct values for the lower harmonics ,while the second proposed method gives better results for the higher harmonics; (3) All the methods could be improved by using two levels of approximation, that is, by using the frequencies from the first level to calculate the damping ratios for the second level (as illustrated by R - Superposition based on Eq.34).- 18 - 3.2. Forced Harmonic Vibration Parameters. For completeness of the comparative analysis it is desirable to formulate the frequency response characteristics of all the simplified systems, because it is rather difficult to predict the role of the neglected terms in the final behaviour of a system from the free vibration parameters only. The paper by Duncan P.E. and Taylor R.E. [10] has investigated 2DoF systems already transformed by the standard method and with very a specific damping property. That analysis shows the possibility of significant errors in determination of the second harmonic mode. The estimation of the degree of modal coupling causing the errors in the different approximate procedures is most precisely carried out in general coordinates. In this way, it is possible to observe the contribution error from the neighbour mode and to get simpler closed form expressions for the mode amplitudes. Hence, the purpose of the analysis herein is to plot amplitude functions of the two principal modes in the two har- monic regimes for all of the considered methods. A-Superposition. After the A-transformation (standard method) has been applied, the source equation of motion (Eq.1) for harmonic load~ ing becomes +0,a—Aja= qe (52) an fue} - The solution of this equation with a full transformed damping matrix gives an amplitude vector of the form Ate a= [i] (53) where-19- in which the elements are determined according to the conven- tional Gauss procedure with deterninants of the form —w? + iCy,u —d?, ) iC yw iC yg ( -o + 1Cy9,w — dF, ) Bj = djs (4G) + HW ( Hs Caja-j0 — Go-je C28) « For convenience let us define the dimensionless parameters Ag Cio ARG go (i =42) ja 2a (5a) 1 where Af is derived from Aj, when Kyq = 0- The points of main interest in the frequency domain are, of course, the resonant peaks. Therefore, the resonant amplitudes for the two modes of vibration (first subscript indicates number of the mode, second shows number of the resonance) are estimated herein as follows a 1+ GAR,@ ulm, J? Al = (55) . 1+ G7)R, ee | Gil where L al Gje =1+ |g . r b (<2 =mec5 (mcs —2) (56) a = Me tef (metef —2) R, = cfc ( eje3 —2 ) B-Superposition The transformed equations of motion in the B-coordinates are derived similarly from the source equation (Eq.1) by trans- formation with respect to the B-eigenvectors, with the result:= 20 - Mb +b Ayb =que'* (87) where a-{o] . The vibration mode amplitudes in this case have the form Ay A= : le in which the elements are Ay ape (i212). Here the expressions for the main and secondary deter- minants of the transformed system of equations have the form (-Miyw? + ivy ) — Mie? A, 58 7 = Ma? (= May? + iw — rap) aa A = Wap (Mine? rag) + aaj Mine? + igye, (F=12), Hence, the resonances are given by + 14+ Gy) Rim . 14+ Gy Rim Ain = |l>aaa be =) 1+ Go) Hos T+ (ny Min } (59) a Gi Ram . [1+ Gian it = a Als J VF (iene P) Git BF in which 1-6 1-8? j Gy =1+ j= Gy =14+ JG " fee * 2B Hy = nj 'mi ine tm] —2(1-657)) (60) Hay =1mm3[mm5 —2 (1-85 )] mms (mim) + 861560095 ) (265608 Y mimi (mims + 86162085") (26,58 580" F Rim = Rom =-21- In the last expressions, the same parameters (54) are used as in the standard method with the only differences being the replacing of c¥ by m} and of the subscript a by b. D-Superposition Exactly the same procedure can be used to obtain the frequency characteristics for the second of the proposed methods. Applying the D -eigenvectors for the transformation of the equa~ tion of motion (Eq.1) to the general D-coordinates, one obtains —Agd + Ky sage" . (61) The vector of modal amplitudes then has the form Aig A, = (62) a {i (j=12) (63) where In this case the relevant determinant expressions are (—P -Pyw + Kus) K A, = ne “ Kua (-w — yg + Kooe ) coal Aig = ga (+ bajaj) — I3-5,eK ine — Hrs jae, Thus, the resonant amplitudes for the D-Superposition will take the form 1+ GR Bd Alu = > Abe = J T+ (2mab era Kat)? (65) Pe 14+ GiPRo + 1+ Gio iad ~ |7 ie ee ot? Aba = = 4 1+ [ng "&a%2aK ine) Lt GitHihi in which , 1-8 1- pj? oun1+ fet j oun [ie~ 22 - Aye =ng'k{ [ng'ki —2(1-87)] Hyg = 143 [nak —2 (1 - 87?) ] Co) _ BRE (AYRE + 861482487") (28 aba wikS (AIRE + 86146484 ) (26i48e8s In the last expressions, dimensionless parameters are used similar to Eq.54, replacing F by ed and the subscript a by d. Rx R-Superposition All frequency response characteristics related to the R- Superposition method are the same as those derived for the stand- ard method (Eq.56) except for the parameters c} (j=1,2) that are defined in Eq.54. In the R - Superposition these terms should be replaced by the corresponding revised damping ratios as given by Eq.51. 3.3. Examples 3.3.1. Vibration of a 2 lumped mass system As a 2-DOF example, we will consider a simple two lumped mass system as shown in Fig.1. This might represent many dif- ferent specific applications, but here it is assumed to be a structure with equipment mounted on it. Many papers have been written about the dynamic behaviour of such systems, for example [9,11,13-15]. If an eigenfrequency of the added equipment alone is the same as that of the structure alone, the "structure- equipment" system is called highly tuned. It was shown [14] that a tuned system can represent a distinctly non-classically damped structure, while a detuned system may have classical damping. For such a system, usually the first (top) mass is less than the second= 23 - one, and, correspondingly, the stiffness of the connection be- tween the masses is smaller than that between the second mass and the base. Parameters that will be useful in this discussion are (2) the given equipment mass, stiffness and damping coeffi- cients, respectively, my, yy ey (67) and the derived frequency and damping ratio of the equipment ¢ ay = Vinitk a" ee (68) 1k (2) the given structure mass, stiffness and damping coeffi- cients, respectively, ma, ky, ey (69) and the structure derived frequency and damping ratio (70) (3) the combined system natural frequencies and damping ratios; respectively, Wir Ee (71) where j is mode number 1 or 2 and x = a,b or d corresponding to the specific transformation being applied. Property matrices in the physical coordinates and in all the generalized coordinates, as well as the characteristic equa- tions related to the A-, B-and D-Superposition methods, are listed in Appendix A. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors, in this case can be expressed in closed form as shown below. For the A-Superposition the eigenvalues are, for j = 1,2; Nia -¢ fot +B 4 * [lt +m +t} —sona], (72) 2 and the mode shape matrix normalized with respect to the first degree of freedom is:= 24 - le Vive 1 a [iw =| | oh “GP w? Also the mode shape matrix normalized with respect to the mass is (my + myViig ) 8 (my + me )~°% 19 More (11 mooie )-® Wang (1m, + maVang )-08] , =$,,M>°o = -| where M, is the mass matrix transformed by the 4, matrix; its elements are shown in Appendix A (A.3). For B-Superposition the eigenvalues are w, peo =12 74) ib aa G ) (74) and the mode shape matrices, normalized with respect to the first degree of freedom and to the mass, respectively, are 11 _ fer’ ex% [; ale a-[4 cr cr) For D-Superposition, the eigenvalues are obtained from m de --faea +o) tae 2 [fos + my/ms) +t = sate] (4-12) 2 (78) Then the mode shape matrix normalized with respect to the first elements of normal vectors is: 6 ye gine 1 1 14 Mare Satna _ Soave Ey my and normalized with respect to the mass it is: o, =%,,M;° sa [net mete (m+ mW.) | Gy z 1d (my + mM Woyg )~F yag (my + maWoo4 ) where My is the generalized mass matrix transformed by the ,, mode shapes; its elements are shown in Appendix A (A.10). The first conclusion that results from consideration of~ 25 - the transformed mass matrix (A.6) is that the B-Superposition method is not applicable to the analysis of a two lumped mass system, because the off-diagonal terms of the transformed matrix are the same as a first diagonal term; thus, great errors can be expected when these terms are neglected. For this reason the B ~ Superposition method will not be applied in the analysis of the "structure-equipment" system that follows. Taking into account the specific expressions shown in Appendix A, the behaviour of the approximate solutions with respect to the mass, stiffness and damping properties of the two masses has been analyzed with results as shown in Figs.2-13. Two groups of parameters were investigated and corresponding curves were plotted for the eigen frequencies (Figs.2,6,10) and for the modal damping ratios (Figs.3,7,11). According to the Eqs.55, 59 and 65 the amplitude errors were plotted (Fig.4,5,8,9,12,13) in comparison with exact solutions to estimate errors of approxima- tions defined by AR AZ - Sar : 9% m7 Aj-l, (iG =125 2 a,b,d ) (78) where ays and ay; , respectively, represent approximate and exact amplitudes of the i-th mode in the j-th resonance; AT; are rela~ tive amplitudes obtained from expressions (55), (59),(65)- It is obvious that in the first resonance the main contribution is given by the first mode, and in the second resonance, correspond- ingly, by the second mode. Let us also define the acceptable limit of the approximation error as 6% for many engineering problems. The main conclusions that may be drawn from the plotted curves are: (1) Anfluence of the mass properties (Fig.2-5); The greater the mass ratio (which is equivalent to increasing equip- ment mass in comparison with structure mass), the greater the divergence between the exact and the approximately calculated frequencies and damping ratios. The exact first eigenfrequency is closer to that obtained by R-Superposition while the exact second eigenfrequency almost coincides with the one obtained by D-= 26 - Superposition (Fig.2). As for damping ratios (Fig.3), the stand- ard method gives the closest value in the first mode, while the exact second mode damping ratio is located between those calcu- lated by the standard and R-Superposition method. Analyzing the amplitude calculation errors, it is seen (Figs.4,5) that all the approximate methods give an acceptable error (about 2-6%) in the range with very small mass of the equipment ; hence, for the detuned "structure-equipment" system all the approximations are valid as has been suggested by the results of previous research [14]. On the other hand, for mass and stiffness ratios that are close to each other or are close to 0.1 (or in other words, for a highly tuned system) errors can be as large as 7% . Fig.4 shows the range (m,/m, = 0.16 - 0.3 if Ky/k2 = 0-1 and &/€ = 3) where the standard method and the R- Superposition methods are not valid because they give hundred times magnified error in the second mode contribution to the response in the first resonance. In this case, with respect to the fundamental mode contribution in the first resonance, the D- Superposition method gives the more accurate solution. Further, as the mass ratio increases (i.e. the system is detuned), the D-Superposition method error grows significantly, A- and R-Superposition errors vary similarly to each other; they are almost constant (about 6%) in the first resonance and gradually increase in the second resonance starting at 3% with a mass ratio equal 0.4. R-Superposition leads to higher accuracy than the standard method in both resonance amplitudes. When the equipment response is evaluated, it is apparent that if the mass ratio is greater than 0.44, even the best of the of approximate methods gives an error greater than 6%; in this case the exact solution is recommended. (2) influence of stiffness properties (Fig.6-9). Eigenfrequencies and damping ratios obtained using the different approaches are different only when stiffness ratio varies in the range up to 0.2, including the tuned system range (Figs.5,6). All conclusions derived from mass ratio considerations can be trans- fered almost identically to the stiffness ratio range. For ex- ample, the standard method gives a high deviation from the exact-27- solution in the first resonance (Fig.7) because of second com- ponent error for the parameter values m/m, = 0.1, k,/ky = 0.8 - 1.4, €/& = 3 which also includes the tuned system range. D- Superposition has about the same error as the A-& R-Superposition methods in first mode amplitude, but only one-hundredth as large an error in the second mode amplitude. For the second resonance (Fig.8), the main contribution comes from the second mode. For the tuned “structure-equipment" system, R-Superposition gives a maximum of 16% error, D-Superposition gives up to 26% error and the standard method gives up to 30% error. Generally speaking, although the performances are similar, the stiffness ratio has less effect on the approximation error than does the mass ratio. The exact solution (complex mode superposition) need be applied for the equipment response cal- culation only in the stiffness ratio range of 0.6 ~ 1.4. (3) influence of damping properties (Fig.10-13). From the preceding analysis, we have chosen the case of the highly tuned “structure-equipment" system (m,/m, = k,/k2 = 0.1), because it displays almost the same discrepancies for all the approximate procedures. While the ratio of damping in the equipment and the structure (which we will call a damping index) is increasing, the modal damping ratios obtained by the standard and the R - Super- position methods are also smoothly increasing (Fig.11). But those obtained by D-Superposition diverge gradually: the first mode damping is almost exact in the damping index range greater than one, while the second mode damping error is increasing rapidly. As “the damping index increases, the relative value of the modal frequencies is reversed. This effect was also emphasized in Veletsos and Ventura’s paper [1]. As we can see, there is a significant point in all the amplitude error curves when the damping index for this tuned system is unity (which means that the damping ratios in both structure and equipment have the same value). In this case all methods give the exact solution because there is no modal cou~ pling. In the amplitude analysis of systems with equipment damp- ing less than structure damping (Figs.12,13) we would recommend the R-Superposition as it leads to less error (maximum 6 % error in the first resonance, and maximum 8% error in the second= 28 - resonance) than the standard method (correspondingly, 13% and 20%). D-Superposition is not recommended for such a system. If the damping index is greater than one but less than 2.7, the following conclusions may be drawn: (1) in first resonance (Fig.12) R - Superposition is best, the accuracy of the A-and D- Superposition varies depending on the second mode contribution ; (2) in the second resonance (Fig.13) R-Superposition is best (error < 13%), the standard method is not so good (error < 20%), and D-Superposition is worst (error > 20%). But when the equip- ment damping ratio is high enough (damping index greater than 2.7), D-Superposition becomes definitely better than the standard method; R-Superposition is still better ( error < 4% in the first resonance, and error is 13% in second resonance) . The complex mode solution is required for equipment response determination when the damping index is in the range 0.3-0.5 or greater than 1.5; however, it is not needed in the structure response analysis for any range of damping index. 3.3.2. Different test loadings. For numerical evaluation of the validity of the ap- proximation methods for “structure-equipment" system, we have chosen two types of loadings: harmonic excitation and single sine wave impulse. Harmonic excitation (Fig.14) A highly tuned “structure-equipment" system has been analysed which has non-classical damping in the traditional sense; damping in the connection between equipment and structure is 3 times greater than that in the structure itself. The exter- nal load (P, = 4 Ton) is applied harmonically to the equipment. The harmonic amplitude functions of both degrees of freedom for a wide frequency range demonstrate quite different behaviour and resonance values when the standard (A), revised standard (R) and D-Superposition methods are used in comparicon with the exact= 29 - D-Superposition methods are used in comparison with the exact (complex eigenvalues) results. The standard A-Superposition method underestimates the structure vibrations and gives a lower value for the structure eigenfrequency, while it overestimates amplitudes of the equip- ment vibrations. For this reason, the R-and D-Superposition methods are recommended in structure design problems. As for the equipment, the revised standard method gives almost twice the exact value for the resonance amplitude, so, it would be better to calculate equipment response using the D-Superposition method or the complex mode technique (for lower damping values). Sine wave impulse (Fig-15) A simple single sine wave acceleration impulse is applied at the base of the structure. The amplitude of the excitation is 100 sm/s? and the impulse frequency ( w = 96 rad/s) is close to the fundamental system frequency. Analysing the curves presented in Fig.15, it may be concluded that the D-Superposition method is quite reliable for analysis of a "structure-equipment" system, especially in evalua- tion of the structure behaviour. The equipment displacement decay obtained with D-Superposition is similar to the exact behaviour but with slightly modified frequency. The standard method is not recommended for analysis of tuned "structure-equipment" system. Remarks The conclusion derived from this analysis that a high error resulted from the standard superposition method applies only to cases with high damping in the system. For small damping, recent work by H.-C. Tsai and J.M. Kelly [16], showed that stand- ard method gives only small errors in structure response results; the method is not recommended for equipment response analysis even for low damping level.= 30- 4. APPLICATION OF THE APPROXIMATE MODE SUPERPOSITION METHODS TO MDOF DAMPED SYSTEMS For analysis of the vibrations of multi-degree-of-freedon systems, the approximation procedures described above are still valid, but further study must be given to the errors that are produced by their application. Two types of approximation errors should be distinguished: (1) those due to ignoring the off- diagonal terms in the transformed property matrices; and (2) those that result from modal truncation, as is usually done with finite element formulations involving a large number of degrees of freedom [17]. In the following, only the first type of approximation error is considered; specific criteria are derived for the stand- ard (A), the B-and the D-Superposition methods applied to MDOF systems subjected to harmonic loading. Numerical results are shown for the specific case of a 9-story building subjected to a sine wave displacement history applied at the base. The R- Superposition method is not discussed because it can be evaluated by closed form analysis, but those results are still under inves- tigation. 4.1. Criteria for validity of approximation methods Previous proposals In 1976, T.K. Hasselman [8] suggested the following as a criterion to indicate the validity of ignoring the modal coupling terms in the standard A - Superposition approximation: (79) in which € is the i-th mode damping ratio, wu, is the higher eigenfrequency and w; is the lower one. A more general criterion was proposed by Warburton and Soni [9] in 1977 using a different approach. In our notations, their criterion for neglecting modal-31- coupling is & << D; (80) in which the criterion parameter D; is given by Ca |e? 1 (81) Cy | oP ming using the error parameter ¢ = 0.05. In contrast with the Hassel- man criterion, the parameter Dj takes into account the ratio of the diagonal to the off-diagonal terms in the transformed damping matrix. Both criteria imply looking through the whole set of i and j pairs to find the extreme value, but in most practical cases " i" may be taken as unity (i.e. fundamental mode) while only " j " varies. Thus the criterion parameter (81) considers the minimum value with respect to " j " index. In our opinion, the Warburton and Soni criterion is the more rational,and also includes the Hasselman criterion as a special case. Hence, in the following, the equivalent approach will be used to obtain suitable criteria for each of the ap- proximation procedures. A-Superposition Starting with the transformed equations of motion (Eq.6), they can be rewritten taking account of the fact that only the transformed damping matrix is non-diagonal. Thus the i-th equa- tion of the full set of n coupled equations may be written a+ NGiads +h = LOO. (22) If a harmonic load is applied, both the loading and the response may be written as follows Qa = Qe", so Eq.82 becomes (83) BP )ar tiny Car = VdEQn . (84) ia oi Now considering the i-th resonance, Eq.84 takes the form-32- ais Caaf = DOSS. (88) int = According to the A-Superposition method, it is assumed that the off-diagonal damping coefficients Cj, are negligible. In this case, Eq.85 can be simplified to iis Cie? = DOS « (86) a Now we consider the exact modal equation (Eq.84) in the alterna- tive form Wig Chia af SOLOS - ie DG; fe inci (87) where j= means all values of the " j " index from 1 to n except " i ". In order to evaluate the last term on the right- hand side of this equation we have to express the j-th general displacement from the corresponding equation for the j-th coor- dinate in the i-th resonance aR) af + ini Cia? = DOL. (88) ia oat Until now we have followed the procedure used by Warburton and Soni. However, they neglected all the damping terms in the j-th modal equation imposing their snall effect on the j-th general displacement in the i-th resonance, i.e. the third summation in Eq.88. Such an approach seems to us to be too approximate. It is a good idea to retain at least the diagonal terms of the trans- formed damping matrix in the last equation. Then, we have (jn — 08 ) af + iis Cyjeaf = 4, (39) fai and the solution of this equation becomes Dope a ne (90) 7 2 w2, — Wh + iWin Cie After substitution of term (90) into the exact modal equation of motion (84) and interchanging the summation signs, the i-th modal-33- equation becomes Slesen io, Cut Gout 1 acid Wf — Whe + ida Cija i Wig Chia Q (92) Now, if we compare the last equation (which is the exact modal equation of i-th generalized coordinate in the i-th resonance) with the approximate one (Eq.86), we can conclude that the ap- proximation is valid if a following inequality is satisfied: o§ >> xs mod | iw, Cini ig . OO” je Why — Wh + 1g Cia where mod means the absolute value of the complex quantity. Considering the maximum term among all those under the summation sign after multiplication by the number of series member, the right and the left hand side expressions become even more unequal Caja dfs (92) (ah ak Faken | >> 2(n-1) big or, taking into account Eq.7b, CG, 2 O§ >> 2(m—-1) Eig (93) max After converting this inequality with respect to ¢,, we come to the final condition for validity of the A-Superposition 2 Cie e (94) 1 Se << SUHaay | Gin op ming If this condition is satisfied, the modal displacements may be found from Eq.90 as dbs Qe Taig (95) and the final displacements in the physical coordinates are-34- defined according to (7c). Thus, in a more general sense with only a minor assump- tion, the approximation criterion is formulated for the i-th mode vibrating under the s-th component of the external load expan- sion, evaluating all of the modal contributions to find the minimum one. It is interesting to compare criterion (Eq.94) to that formulated by Warburton and Soni. Neglecting the second term in the brackets in the denominator (which apparently is not always valid because of the possibly high ratio of the diagonal to the off-diagonal terms in the transformed damping matrix) and also assuming that the ratio of normal vector elements is unity, one comes to the condition 1 bia << 7a|—G, Cita inj which is equivalent to Warburton and Soni’s condition, but assum- ing their error parameter is given by ¢= 1/(n-1) ; of course its value is 0.05 in the case of a 21 degree-of-freedom system. B-Superposition Keeping the same algorithm, one can rewrite the trans- formed equations of motion in the B-general coordinates (Eq.12) as follows DMijsb; +0; nb = VbLQH, (J Hla). (96) it = For a harmonic load of the type of (Eq.83), the i-th physical displacement has an analogous form 8; = bpetwt (97) and i-th modal equation will be —wP Y) Magy bf + ib? — ind? = Vd8QA (98) int Fa At the i-th resonance it becomes “uh D Myf + nnd! = Sohs (99) in ast-35- If, according to the B-Superposition method, the off-diagonal terms in the transformed mass matrix are neglected, the i-th modal equation takes the simple but approximate form Vdeea (200) aol Let us rewrite the exact i-th modal equation (109) in twig bP correspondence to the approximate forn DU Gh08 +43 DY Min bf (201) = icity An expression for the modal contributions included in the second Hayy be term in the right-hand side (101) can be determined by consider- ing the j-th modal equation in the i-th resonance and neglecting off-diagonal terms in the transformed mass matrix. Hence, the mentioned equation becomes io Myjp bf + itty bf — gd? = DOL OS (102) et Solving this equation with respect to the term vf and substitut- ing the result in Eq.101, after interchanging the summation signs we obtain the exact modal equation of motion in j-th general coordinates a n Min oh, iu b? = 7 oh +48 Y in@s ooo Ob (103) sat — Oj +RMyy ) + fey Consequently, the condition for the two equations (100) and (101) to be equal is 2 Mea of a wis Mage Oia oh >> Yt mod] ——_--2 * __ (104) cin | Oe FORM) + fue or, considering only the largest term in this expansion, 2 Min oo dh >> (a1) WA Min bh fates) (Xp + OR Miz P + 0% maxj Applying relations (13a) and (13b) between approximate eigenfre- quencies and modal damping ratios from one side, using the ele- ments of the transformed property matrices from the other side, and solving the last inequality with respect to the i-th modal-36- damping ratio, ome can estimate the validity of the B- Superposition by the condition w 1p +465 (108) inj If this condition is satisfied, we can use the approximate solution derived from (100) Dehes of (207) Tw Then the final displacements in the physical coordinates are found according to formula (13c). D-Superposition method In order to get an equivalent expression related to the D-Superposition, we will repeat the procedure using equations of motion derived by the D-transformation (Eq.17). For the i-th general displacement we have 4, — iad + DK gad; = DOO (108) j=l * In the harmonic regime, when 4; ageist (109) the i-th modal equation becomes wd? — iwdied? + OKyad? = D968 jn = and in the i-th resonance (w = wy ) it reduces to the mini died? + YY Kyad = O8Q% (120) jects Fos) According to the idea of the D-Superposition method, the off- diagonal terms of the transformed stiffness matrix are neglected, and the equation is simplified to the form —iwiadiad? = S368 Q4 qa) ol It is possible to express the contribution from the other modes to the i-th modal displacement, similarly, by considering their-37- behaviour in the i-th resonance and retaining only the diagonal terms in the transformed stiffness matrix wd? — iwigdsudf + Kiyad? = Oh O4 (222) ot Thus, substitution of the approximate displacement a3 into the properly rewritten i-th modal equation results in the following Sye- 3 ot josie (Koja — i) — twig yu twig dia df Qu (118) So, Eqs.111 and 113 would be similar if the condition is met Kol 66 >>) mog| Met _ (a) j (Kiya — 02) — ioiadya or in terms of the maximum value of this expression Kiyabh $f >> (n-1) th (115) (Kia = 4 P= max} Substituting the expressions for the approximate eigenfrequency and damping ratio (18a),(18b), the approximation condition is obtained in the form Kia $8 | Whe Kia of | 0% & K, 1p +42, re (118) ming If condition (116) is satisfied, one can determine the modal response from the simple equation (111) as Lose a Oe aah (217) and the final response from formula (13c). 4.2. Vibration of 9 story building with external damper Response to an impulse load As an example of application of the approximation methods to MDOF systems we will consider a 9 story lumped mass building with uniform mass, stiffness and internal damping distribution- 38 - but with alternative positions of additional interstory dampers. Two cases were studied: (1) the added damper is installed in the eighth story (Fig.16a); (2) the added damper is installed in the third story (Fig.16b). The following values of the physical properties of a typical floor are assumed for the numerical analysis: floor mass m = 0.1 Ton, interfloor stiffness k = 104 KN/m, and interfloor viscous damping coefficient c = 5 Ns/m. The viscous coefficient for the added damper is three times larger, i.e. C = 15 Ns/m. The resulting transformed property matrices and eigenfrequencies are shown in Appendix B. In Table 2 eigenfre- quencies and corresponding modal damping ratios obtained from all the approximation procedures are given for both cases of external damper location. Absolute displacements of the 9th and 6th floors of the 9 story building subjected to a basement motion of the single sine wave impulse type were calculated using the cal 86 program. The input basement acceleration can ke expressed as follows: 100 sin 96t , 0 < t < 0.265. H(t) = Io 1 > 0.26s. ‘The exact solution was calculated by direct time integra~ tion using the Wilson 9 - method. Fig. 17 presents the time history response of the specified floors when the added damper is in the sth story. It is clear that the D - Superposition method gives a better approximation of the top displacement than does the standard method. But notice that the accuracy of D- Superposition deteriorates when a lower floor displacement is considered. If we install the added damper at the third floor instead of the 8th floor (Fig. 18), the standard method is more accurate for calculating response of 9th floor, but for the 6th floor, both the standard and D-Superposition methods give almost the same error (approximately 7%) in the maximum displacement evaluation. As was noted previously for the 2 lumped mass systen, the B-Superposition method can not describe the behaviour of the lumped mass system because of the regular tri-diagonal structure of the damping and stiffness matrices.-39- 4.3. Analytical and numerical comparison Usually in practical problems, a point of major interest is the response of the structure in its first resonance. The dominant contribution in such a case will be from the fundamental mode. That is why in the following, we will consider first mode, involving the first row in the non-diagonal transformed matrix. Based on the criteria derived in the previous section and the transformed property matrices from Appendix B, it is possible to conclude which of the highest modes has the greatest influence on the fundamental mode. For example, taking i=1 we observe the maximum contributions: for the standard method - from the eighth mode (3 mode ( ) and for the B-and D-Superposition methods - from ninth ). Note that the diagonal terms in the transformed matrices are increasing according to the number of the mode; therefore, it is necessary to keep in mind the high value of the ratios Cjja/Cijar Mjjp/Miip and Kj5q/Kiig that are contained in the corresponding criteria. Formally comparing the criteria (94), (106) and (116) shows that the accuracy of the proposed B-and D-Superposition procedures should increase as the damping in the system in- creases. For complicated systems with well spaced eigenfre- quencies the last mentioned ratios of diagonal terms are expected to be higher, and since for the standard method (94) this ratio is squared, one can expect deteriorating accuracy when this approximation is used. In the other cases, the error of the A- Superposition approximation is expected to be lower than the errors of B- or D-Superposition. In cases where the off-diagonal terms are small compared with those in the diagonal, and where the last diagonal term is large in comparison with the first one could expect less error when the B-Superposition is used (Eq.106). But for the chain type structures such as the examples considered here (Appendix B) we can note that B-Superposition gives a final off-diagonal term that is 2 to 3 times bigger than the first diagonal term. Hence, for such systems certainly, B- Superposition method is not recommended.= 40 - + CONCLUSIONS The following may be stated as the principal general conclusions drawn from the research described in this report: 1. The method of decoupling the equations of motion that generally is used in dynamic analysis of structural systems with non-proportional damping employs a coordinate transformation based on eigenvectors derived from the original system mass and stiffness matrices; this is referred to as the standard or A- Superposition method in this report. Results of this study show that A-Superposition should be used in the analysis of any lumped mass 2-DOF detuned system (i.e. a system in which the frequencies of the individual components are distinctly different). It also is recommended for multistory lumped mass shear buildings if the damping in the lower stories is greater than or equal to that in the upper stories. On the other hand, this method leads to rather large approximation errors in the second mode for tuned lumped 2- DoF systems, as well as in all response quantities for multistory shear building with greater damping in the upper stories than in the lower. Thus it is clear that the standard method may give unex- pected equipment response errors in analysis of 2-DOF equipment- structure system. The calculated response of the structure is more reliable than that of the equipment, but still is subjected to discrepancy for systems with high average damping due to the large approximation errors in the second mode contribution to the structure motion. In general, this work has confirmed previous research results that show the error sensitivity of the standard method (A-Superposition) to variations in the damping coeffi- cients - - either by increasing of average damping value or by increasing variation of the damping coefficients within the structure. Usually the response error is more sensitive to changes in damping of equipment than of the structure. 2. The first alternative to the standard decoupling method employs a coordinate transformation based on eigenvectors derived from the original system stiffness and damping matrices; it is referred to here as the B-Superposition method. As would be-41- expected, this method leads to errors that are more sensitive to mass variation than to damping and stiffness variation. In the lumped parameter systems considered in this study, the original stiffness and damping matrices are of tri-diagonal form while the original mass matrix is diagonal; the generalized mass matrix resulting from the coordinate transformation then often has off-diagonal terms equal to or greater than those on the diagonal. In this case, it is clear that neglect of the diagonal terms may lead to unacceptable errors. Also, the general analysis of MDOF systems shows that B-Superposition gives better results for the lower modes than the higher ones, but that the A- and D-Superposition methods are preferable in all respects. 3. The coordinate transformation employed in the second alternative to the standard method, called D-Superposition, is based on eigenvectors derived from original system damping and mass matrices. In contradiction to what might be expected, the approximation error in this method is not as sensitive to varia~ tion of the stiffness coefficients as is the standard method to the damping coefficients. In the analysis of a well detuned equipment-structure system, results from D-Superpositon are quite acceptable for cases in which the ratio of equipment to struc- ture stiffness is considerably greater than the corresponding mass ratio. D-Superpositon also is preferred to the standard method for tuned systems if the equipment damping is at least three times greater than that of the structure. In general, D- Superposition is especially recommended for analysis of the structure response, and is somewhat less reliable in predicting the equipment response. In cases where the equipment damping is equal to or less than the structure damping, D-Superposition can lead to large approximation errors. The D-Superposition method also is recommended for analysis of MDOF lumped mass shear buildings if the damping of the upper stories is greater than in the lower stories. 4. The revised standard method (R-Superposition) is a modification of the standard method and is based on the same coordinate transformation. The eigenfrequencies are calculated from the uncoupled equations of motion obtained by neglecting the= 42 - off-diagonal coefficients of the transformed damping matrix, as in the standard method, but uses these frequencies in calculating the modified modal damping ratios. The procedure can be applied directly only for 2- or 3-DOF systems, and was used in this work only for study of lumped equipment-structure systems. The results show that R-Superposition is most effective in reducing the equipment response amplitude error as compared with the error given by the standard method. In principle, similar improvements could be proposed for B- and D-Superposition applied to equipment-structure systems, but the concept has not been explored in this work. Also, no analyses have yet been done of MDOF systems using a revised standard (R-Superposition) method.- 43 - REFERENCES. 1. Veletsos A.S., Ventura C.E., ‘Modal Analysis of Non- classically Damped Linear Systems’, Earthq.Engng& struct. Dyn. , 14, 217-243 (1986). 2. Suarez L.E., Singh M.P., ‘Eigenproperties of Nonclas- sically Damped Primary structure and Oscillator systems’, J.Applied Mech. ,54,668-673(1987) . 3. Gupta A.K., Jaw J.-W., ‘Seismic Response of Nonclassi- cally Damped Systems’, Nuclear Engng & Design, 91,153-159(1986). 4. Clough R.W., Mojtahedi s., ‘Earthquake Response Analysis Considering Non-Proportional Damping’, Earthq.Engng & struct. Dyn. , 4,489-496(1976) . 5. Roesset J.M., Whitman R.V., Dobry R., ‘Modal Analysis for Structure with Foundation Interaction’, J.struct.Div., ASCE, 99,399-415 (1973). 6. Thomson W.T.,Calkins T.,Caravani P., ‘A Numerical study of Damping’, Earthq.Engng & struct.Dyn.,3,97-103(1974) « 7. Cronin D.L., ‘Approximation for Determining Harmoni- cally Excited Response of Nonclassically Damped systems’, J.Eng.Industry,Trans.ASME, 98B, 43-47(1976) 8. Hasselman T.K., ‘Modal Coupling in Lightly Damped structures’, AIAA J.,14, 1627-1628(1976). 9. Warburton G.B., Soni $.R., ‘Errors in Response Cal- culations for Non-Classically Damped Structures’, Earthg.Engng & struct. Dyn. ,5, 365-376 (1977). 10. Duncan P.E., Taylor R.E., ‘A Note on the Dynamic Analysis of Non-Proportionally Damped systems’, Earthq.Engng & Struct .Dyn. ,7,99-105(1979). 11. Tseitlin A.I., Kusainov A.A., ‘Methods of Dynamic Analysis of Damped Structures’, Alma-Ata, (1987) (in russian) . 12. Foss K.A., ‘Coordinates which Uncouple the Equations of Motion of Damped Linear = Dynamic _— Systems’, J.Appl.Mech. , ASME, 25, 361-364 (1958) 13. Sackman J.L., Kelly J.M., ‘Seismic Analysis of Inter- nal Equipment and Components in Structures’, Engineering= 44- Structures,1, No.4, 179-190(1979). 14. Igusa T., Der Kiureghian A., ‘Dynamic Characteriza~ tion of ‘Two-Degree-of-Freedom Equipment-Structure Systems’, J.Engng Mech. ,ASCE,111, No.1,1-19(1985) 15. Crandall S.H., Mark W.D., ‘Random Vibration of Mechanical Systems’, Academic Press, New York, N.Y. (1963) 16. Tsai H.-C., Kelly J.M., ‘Non-Classical Damping in Dynamic Analysis of Base-Isolated structures with Internal Equipment’, Earthg.Engng & Struct.Dyn.,16,29-43 (1988) « 17. Trail-Nash R.W., ‘Modal Methods in the Dynamics of Systems with Non-Classical Damping’, Earthq.Engng & Struct ..Dyn. ,9,153-169(1981) 18. Yamada Y., Kawano K., ‘Seismic Response Analysis of Nonproportional Damping System Due to Response Spectrum Method’, Struct.Eng./Earthq.Eng., 1, No.1, 1878-196s(1987).= 45 - Appendix A. Dynamic characteristics of the two lumped mass system. A.1. The properties matrices in the physical coordinates. (A.1) A.2. Transformed properties matrices in the general A -coordinates. =fto ape 0 M i S. K, -py 2| 14.2) eu cn C= My My f2 ose Mo, Maa where 4 = GB fe + ea-y (1 - Bh C12 = 2Eyuym (¢-1B-1) (A.3) My, =m, +m, (1-8), ) with the dimensionless parameters & & The characteristic equation in the A-Superposition modal coor- dinates via Bie = a » (J=12) 8 om . (A.4) wy k k. k. Aik; M+ (ee * tthe g Be eS (as) my my mim A.3. Transformed properties matrices in the general B ~coordinates.Pas ate ey ey Mr=|m, ms cs (A.6) ho ky/ey 0 o= fo el K= [ 0 ke/ep The characteristic equation in the B -basic coordinates ecg? + ( kyeg + hye, ) + kyko =O (A.7) of which roots are Ayer (a.8) A.4. Transformed properties matrices in the general D ~coordinates. ie 0 m= [bo] c= Pe a 1 i e=]0 (A.9) ku ie Ma Mya K, =|," a | Bie bee My Mag where kay = GB + aj (1 — Seiya } yg = wim, (+ —1) (A. 10) Myg = my +g (1 64Bja P with the dimensionless parameters of the form Sa By = —t, = (A.11) irs Sune The characteristic equation in the D -basic coordinates. cyte. Mp FSET Ce tr fy tien (a.12) mm, | * imam,-47- Appendix B. Transformed pr matrices PP for" the 3 story ballalag Transformed damping matrix (A-Superposition method) : 1.424 0.464 15.609 0.904 —6.928 45.767 0.908 —6.964 13.565 73.466 SYMM C, = | 0.252 -1.930 3.758 3.77 92.789 0.848 6.500 —12.662 —12.727 —3.525 136.428 1,820 -13.938 27.151 27.292 7.560 —25.474 209.320 2.070 15.868 30.909 31.070 8.607 —29.000 62.185 249.706 1.368 10.48 20.423 20.530 5.68 -19.162 41.090 46.777 225.490 Transformed mass matrix (B-Superposition method): 0133 0330 3434 —.0055 -.0745 .0339 —.0081 -.0456 0136 .0190 SYMM M, = | -.0173 —.1038 0223. 0179 .0447 0116 .0286 —.0048 —.0070 -.0150 .0200 0360 .2464 —.0528 —.0411 -.0872 .0312 .2103 0037 .0930 —.0118 —.0021 ~.0223 .0032 .0551 .0488 0306 .1670 —.0417 —.0352 ~.0638 .0265 .1549 .0250 .1403 Transformed stiffness matrix (D-Superposition method): 27E4 98E2 .26E5 —21E3 15E4 TIES 25E3—19F4 40E4 .13E6 SYMM K,=|-62E2 4623-9863 1264 18E6 12E3—91E3 1964-2484 5863 .25E6 —16E3 .12E4—25E4 31B4—15E3 15E4 336 11E3 —80E3 17E4—21E4 51E3—10E4 .13E4 386 2364 ATES —35E5 44E5—11E5 21E5 —27ES 18E5 33E6= 48 - Kt nt [4 oo ae ne| neve c were 1} ‘T Figure 1. 2-DOF "stracture-equipment" model a) added damper is at 8th floor b) added damper is at 3rd floor Figure 16. 9-DOF structural modelFREQUENCY (rod/2) 50, DAMPING RATIO Ot 150 190 og, O68 oR = 49 - Parameters: Oz oe oe 1 0 i mi/m2. Figure 2. 2-DOF system eigenfrequencies v/s mass ratio mi/m2 Figure 3. 2-DOF system demping ratios v/s mass ratio *** exact solution ‘AcSuperposition --- D-Supersosition s--= R-Superposition= 50 - soueuoses puovas ty ofyes sseUr s/a ixoudde apnyydue woisés JOC-e “¢ amnsiy aoueuosad ysig UW! ofyes sseuT s/A sioa uopeuxordde apnyydure wo}sKs JO *p ainBy 8 Son aNooas aon aNooas eu/ju 4 8 8 % uoysodiedng-y -—--~ -2 eon & Baap Som soduadng-q .——— sroyoureneg ls uonisodsodng-y |= ——— gqOW 1SaLd S ‘SQON Asai BIE © wowed sore uous onuhamy cone aar or ae ST a © vows aouruny w100... 180, 200 280 FREQUENCY (rad/s) 50 DAMPING RATIO O68 OB 4 92 -51- Parameters: oor fos ™ @ mode 2 on on 3S ora KI /e2 Figure 6. 2-DOF system eigenfrequencies v/s stiffness ratio t/a Figure 7. 2-DOF system damping ratios v/s stiffness ratio *#* — exact solution A-Superposition --- D-Superposition — R-Superposition- 52 - aoueUOseL puoDds UI OLE SsoUAIYS s/A siouso uoryeuxoudde apngydure waysks JOG-% “6 andy aoueuosad ISIY UY OVE ssaUTaS s/A suoue uoyemxoudde epniydure waysks FOG-% “g anBty 5 8 aon aNooas aon anooas : 4 48 om am te a a0 ro k go #2 *2 x0 & a roared _ 4 ta Eh og 8 3 some oo 7 r NN é s uomsodiodng-y === : <2 pt cena ee 9 tw uomysodiodng-y — —— isiojourwseg B0OW 1SuLd Fs gqOW Isat 8 4 aE ova a] ow oa aR eo k “9 og 2 iy e co oF80 100,120 140 FREQUENCY (rad/s) 50, 49, - 53 - Parameters mode 2 Moor Heor me te mode 1 OOS ios 20 28 30 5 &1/ 82 Figure 10. 2-DOF system eigenfrequencies v/s damping ratio g é ag °° mode 1 BO Sa SS 61/62 Figure 11. 2-DOF system damping ratios v/s damping ratio *** exact solution —— _— A-Superposition D-Superposition R-Superposition= 54 - aoueuosey puosas uy onyes Suydurep 5/A siouo uoyemxosdde opnyydure woysks JOC-G “BT ANSE aouetosal ys1y Ut Ofer Surdurep s/a siowo uoHeuxordde apnyydue woysds JOC-~ “el oanStg 8 3 8 8 gqoN GNOOaS | : don aNooas : 15 ny aly Se zfs 8S & ® Wann Sse Esse Zansea Zee bana SKA g eg hbase alae es °§ A +----- 25 8 \ bg — 1 € ons ode \ B ro ae uomsodiedng-yy ===> 8 r by uomsodadng-q. --— tsroyourere uonjsodiadng-y = —— SOON 1SuLd Bs BGOR Isuld Es ue —— LE BoE Ena Ean Easy Shan Eaaaa QR se s a Bball Bie Stag ant . Bs 8 \ 1 vfs 6=~ 55 - HARMONIC RESPONSE of STRUCTURE So rereeren perenne ry = ous e BBR Ty frequency Parameters: m ky & Teor feo & 2 . ms cn & o = £8 HARMONIC RESPONSE of EQUIPMENT Es Brrrerrerggrrrrrergirrrrerenygerrrrrrergreerrrergzrrerrnrrg sree frequency Figure 14, Harmonic response of "strueture-equipment" system eke exact solution —— — A-Superposition D-Superposition R-Superposition= 56 - TESTING LOAD 290 90 ACCELERATION (smm/sec*) 20 8 g IME 8 Parameters * m A & Moor Hacc £- s mp Ot FOOT G8 EQUIPMENT RESPONSE 8 ge es Y 44+ exact solution Wie —— _ A-Superposition === D-Superposition 0.91 0,92, -0,02 0.00 DISPLACEMENT ( Inch ) ot 0,02 Figure 15. Time response of “structure-equipment” system-57- peo] axea aus sapun asuodsas aumty maysAs JOC “21 aun 6 Jooy pig ye st yedurep pappe (q 8 Jooy tg 48 st sedwep poppe ( yooTd 19 yOOTs 119 008. ccm wardorasio 38 oN SI = 9 NYS =? w/NM Ol = 4 vol rO= 8 ssoyaureseg YOO 196 anaraowesia uomsodsadng-y uonjsodiadng-q uomisodiadng-y-59- EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESFARCH CENTER REPORT SERIES [EERC reports are availabe ftom the Nationa! Information Service for Earthquake Engincering(NISEE) and from the National Technical Information Service(NTIS). Number in parentheses are Aceon Numbers ssigoed by th National Technical Information Service, these are followed by a price code (Cones NTIS, 5265 Port Royal Road, SpringheldVinini, 22161 for more information. Repos without Accession Numbers were not availabe from NTIS at the time of printing For a current complet ist of EERC reports (tm EERC 67. ) and availablity information, pease contact University of Calforai, ERC, NISEE, 1301 South 46th Sree, Richmond, Calloria 9480s ‘VCBEERC.80/01 ‘UcBEERC-s0102 VCBERC.8003 VCBERC-S004 VCBERC-3005 ‘UCBEERC-£0106 ‘VCBEERC-S007 UCBEERC-s0/08 VCBEERC-s0109 UCBEERC-S0/10 ‘VowEERC-s0/11 ‘VCBEERC-80/12 VCBEERC-s0113 UCBEERC-04 VCBRERC-#0/15 UCBEERC-0/16 UcBRERCEOIT “1 UCBEERC-S018 UcBEERC-80719 ‘UCBIEERC-80720 ‘UcBrERC.s0/21 ‘VcB/EERC-50/22 UcBVEERC-80/23 ‘UCBIEERC-80/24 ‘VCB/EERC-s0725 ‘VCBIEERC-80726 UcBIEERC-80727 UCBIEERC-80/28 UCB/EERC-#0729 UCB/EERC-#0/30 UCB/EERC-E0/91 UCBIEERC-H0/32 “Earthquake Response of Concrete Gravity Dams Including Hydrodynamic and Foundation Eateraction Efets” by Chopra, AK, CChakrabani,P- and Gupta, S, January 1980, (AD-AOST297AA10. “Rocking Response of Rigid Blocks to Eanhquakes,” by Vin, CS., Chopra, AK. and Peni, J., January 1980, (PBEO 166 002)A04 “Optimum Inelastic Desgn of Seismic Resistant Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures” by Zagajesi, SW. and Bertero, V.V., January 1980, (PBEO 164 635)A0E “Bes of Amount and Arrangement of Wall-Pane!Reinfoxement on Hyseetic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Wall,” by Hiya, R. and Benero, V.V., February 1980, (PBBI 122 525408. "Shaking Table Research on Concrete Dam Models, by Nia, A. and Clough, RW. September 1980, (PBSI 122 368)A06. “The Design of Stel Enery-Absorbng Resiranes and thir Incorporation into Nuclear Power Plants for Enanced Safety (Val Ia Piping with Energy Absorbing Resiraines: Parameter Study on Soll Systems” by Powell, G.H., Oughourian, C. and Simons, 1960. “Ines Torsional Response of Structures Subjected to Earthquake Ground Motions,” by Yamazaki, sims "Study of X-Braced Steel Frame Stractres under Eartbquae Simulation,” by Ohana, Y., April 1980, (PBEI 122 335)AL1. “Hybrid Modeling of SoiStracture Interaction,” by Gupta, S., Lin, TW. and Peasin, J, May 1980, (PBS! 122 319)A07. “Genera Applicability of a Nonlinear Mode! of « One Sty Ste! Frame,” by Svensson, Bl. and MeNiven, HID, May 1980, (PBS 124 87406. “A Green-Function Method for Wave Interaction with a Submerged Body,” by Koka, W. Api 1 980 (PBI 122 269)A07. “Hydrodynamic Pressure and Added Mas for Axisymmetic Bodies,” by Nia, F, May 1980, (PBA! 122 343)A08. “Treatment of Non-Linear Drag Fores Acting on Offshore Fatforms," by Dao, BV. and Penziem, J, May 1980, (PBBI 153 413)A07. “2D Plane/Axiymmeic Solid Element (Type Elastic or Basic Perfectly Plasticore the ANSI Program” by Mondsr, DP. and Powel, GH. July 1980, (BEI 122 350)A03. “A Response Specirum Method for Random Vibration," by Der Kiurephian, A, Sune 1981, (PBB 1 122 301)A03 “Cyl Inelastic Bueklng of Tubulr Ste Brace by Zayas, V.A, Popov, EP. and Mari, S.A., Jane 1981, (PBBL 124 885)A10 ‘of Simple Arch Dams Including Hydredynamic Interaction,” by Porer, C'S. and Chopra, AK. July 1981, (PBE] ‘April 1980, (PBBL 122 ‘Dynamic 124 000)413. “Experimental Testing of a Friction Damped Ascismic Bar Isolation System with Fai-Safe Characteristic,” by Kelly, JM, Beveke, ‘E-and Skinner, MS. July 1980, PBBI 148 $95)404, “The Design of Stel Enengy-Absorbng Resiranes and thir Incorporation into Nuclear Power Plants for Enhanced Safety (Vol. ‘Stochastic Seismic Analyses of Nuclear Power Plant Structures and Piping Systems Subjecied to Multiple Supported Excitations Lee, MC. and Penzien, J, June 1980, (PB? 201 872408, “The Design of Stel Enery-Absorbng Resraiers and thar Incorporation into Nodear Power Plants for Enhanced Safty (Vat IC} "Numerical Method for Dynamic Substructure Analysis, by Dicken, 1M. and Wilop, EL, June 1960, “The Design of See! Energ-Absorbing Resaners and tir Incorporation into Nuclear Power Plaats for Enhanced Safety (Vol 2 Development and Testing of Restraints for Nucla Piping Stems, by Kely, JM. and Skinner, M.S, June 1980 “SD Soli Element (Type Elastic or Elastic Perfet-Planic) forthe ANSRCII Program,” by Moodkar, DP. and Powel, C.H, July 1980, BBL 123 242)K03, “Gap Friction Element (Type 5) forthe AnsrIt Program,” by Mondlar, DP. and Powell GH, July 1980, (PBBI 122 285)A03. “U.Bar Restraint Element (Type 11) forthe ANSRCII Program,” by Oughourlian,C. and Powell, GH, July 1980, (PBBI 122 293)403. “Testing of Natural Rubber Base Ilion Sytem by an Explsively Simulted Earthquake,” by Kelly, .M., August 1980, (PBBI 201 60)A04 “Input Idemiation from Stectural Vibrational Response.” by Hu, Y., August 1980, (PBB] 152 3O8)AOS. “Cyclic Inelastic Behavior of Steel Offshore Structures,” by Zayas, V.A, Mabin, SA. and Popov, EP., August 1980, (PBSI 196 OAL. "Sakng Table Testing ofa Reinforced Concrete Frame with Biaxial Response,” by Oliva, M.G., October 1980, (PBBI 154 304)A10, “Dynamic Properties of a Twelve-Sory Prefabricated Pane! Building.” by Bouwkamp, 1G. Kollegger, JP. and Stephen, RIM, October 1980, (B82 138 7707, “Dynamic Properties of 1960, (BS 200 313)408. “Predictive Dynamic Responte of Panel Type Structures under Earthquakes,” by Koller, .P. and Bouwhamp, .G., October 1980, (PBI 152 316)408, “The Design of Sie! Eneny-Absorbing Resaiers and tht Incorporation into Nuclear Power Plants for Enhanced Safety (Vat 3: ‘Testing of Commercial Stes in Low-CYcle Torsional Fatige,” by Spanner, P, Parker, ER. Jongewanr, E. and Dory, M, 1980, ; yy Eigh-Story Prefabricated Panel Building” by Bouwlamp, .G., Kolleger, JP. and Stephen, RM. OctoberUCBEERC80/33 UCBIEERC-80/3¢ UCBIEERC-80/35 UCBEERC-0136 UCREERC037 VCBEERCSO:36 VoBEERC0:39 UUCBIEERC-800 UCBVEERC-#0/41 UCBEERC-#0/42 UCBEERC-#0/43 VCBEERC1/01 ‘VCBEERC81/02 VCBIEERC-81703 UCBEERC-S1/0¢ UCB/EERC-81/05 UCBIEERC-81/06 VCBIEERC.81/07 VCBEERC81/08 VCBEERC.31/09 UCBIEERC-1/10 UCBEERCAI/ UCBEERCAV/IZ CBERCSH/S VCREERCIII4 UCBIEERC-#II'S ‘VCWEERC.81/16 CBEERCSI/7 UCBEERCI/8 UCBEERCAI/IS UCB/EERC-81/20 UCBEERC.82/01 UCREERC-#2002 - 60- “The Design of Steel Enery-Absorbing Resttiners and thet Incorporation jato Nuclear Power Plants for Enhanced Safety (Vol 4: Staking Table Tess of Piping Systeme with Energ-Aburbing Restainer,” by Suemer. SF- and Godden, W.G., September 1980, (P2201 840)408. “The Design of Ste! Enerzy-Absorbing Resininers and thei Incorporation into Nuclear Power Plants for Enhanced Safety (Vol 8: Summary Report” by Spencer, P, 1980 Experimental Testing ofan Enery-Abvorbng Base Holation System,” by Kelly. .M. Skinner, M.S. and Bevcks, KE, October 1980, (ast 188 072 408 “Simlating and Analyzing Artis] Non-Suaionary Earth Ground Motions” by Nau, RF, Oliver, RM. and Pister, KS. October 1990, (PBB 153 397404, “Earthquake Engineering a Berkeley - 1980,” by. September 1980 (PBBI 205 674)A03. ‘Inelastic Seismic Analysis of Large Pane! Buildings,” by Sericke,V. and Powell, G.H, September 1980, (PBB! 154 338)A13. “Dynamic Response of Embankment, Concret-Gavity and Arch Dams Including Hydrodynamic Intrtion. by Hall, and Chopra, ‘Ax, October 1980, (PBEI 152 528)A11. “Toeanic Bucking of Steel Struts under Cylic Load ReverL,”by Black, R.G., Wenger, W.A. and Popoy, EP, October 1980, (PBSI 184 312)A06, “Infivene of Site Characteristics on Buildings Damage uring the October 3.1974 Lima Earthquake,” by Repetto, P Arango, I and Seed, HB. Sepiember 1980, (PBBI 161 739)A0. “Evaluation ofa Shaking Table Test Program on Response Behavior of « Two Story Reinforced Concrete Frame," by Blondet, JM. Clough, RW. and Mahi, S.A, December 1980, (PBEZ 196 S44)A1 “Modeling of SoiStracure Interaction by Finite and Insite Elements,” by Medina, F, December 1980, (PB! 229 270)A04, “Conitl of Seismic Response of Piping Sytems and Other Structures by Base solution,” by Kely, JM, January 1981, (PBSI 200 7359405, “OPTNSR- An Interactive Sofware System for Optimal Design of Suacaly and Dynamically Loaded Structures with Nonlinear Response by Bbatt, M.A. Ciampi, V. and Pister, KS, Jenuary 1981, (PBBI 218 851)A08. “Analysis of Local Variations in Free Field Seitmic Ground Motions, by Chen, J-C., Lymer, J. and See, HB. Jamuary 1981, (AD- ADBSSOHAI3 “Inelastic Structra Modeling of Braced Offre Platfonns for Seismic Loading.” by Zayas, VA. Shing, P-SB., Mahin, S.A. and Popov, EP, January 1981, (PBED 138 777)ADT “Dynamic Response of Lipht Equipment in Structures," by Der Kiurepian, A, Sackman, J.L and Nour Omid, B, Apri 1981, (PBEI 218 497)A08 “Preliminary Experimental Investigation of «Broad Base Liquid Storage Tank,” by Boewkamp, 3.6, May 1981, (PBB2 140 385)403, “The Seismic Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Coupled Structural Walls” by Akin, AE. and Benero, V.V., June 1981, (PBB2 13358 “Unasigned” by Unusiged, 1981, “Experimental Bebavier of Spatial Piping Sytem with Stel Energy Absorbers Subjected to Simulated Diferemial Seismic Input" by Sumer, SF, Godden, W.G. and Kelly, JM, July 1981, (PBE2 201 898)A04. “Evaluation of Seismic Design Provisions for Masonry in the United States,” by Sveinson, BLL, Mayes, RL. and MeNives, HD. August 1981, (PBED 166 075)A0B. “Two-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Sil Structure Interaction,” by Tzog. T., Gupta, S. and Pensieo, J, August 1981, (PBS 142 p08 “Studies on Efects of Infils in Seismic Resistant R/C Construction,” by Brokken, §. and Bertero, VV, October I 190)A08, Linear Modes to Predict the Nonlinear Seismic Behavior of « One-Ston Stel Frame,” by Valéimarson, H., Shab, AH. and MeNiven, FLD, September 1981, (BED 138 793)A07 “TLUSH: A Computer Program forthe Taree-Dimensions! Dynamic Analysis of Earh Dams” by Kagawa, T, Melia, LH, Seed, HB and Lymer, J, September 1981, (PBE2 139 940)406, “Taree Dimensional Dynamic Response Anavsis of Earth Dams” by Mejia, LH. and Seed, H.B., September 1981, (PBE2 137 276)A12. “Experimental Study of Lead and Elstomeric Dampers for Base Iolation Systems. by Kelly, JM. and Hodder, SB, October 1981, (PBS? 166 182)A05. “The Influence of Base Isolation on the Seismic Response of Light Secondary Equipment,” by Kelly, LM, April 1981, (PB2 255 266)408, “Suudis on Evaluation of Shaking Table Response Analy Procedures” by Blonde, J. M., November 1981, (PBE2 197 278)A10. “DELIGHT.STRUCT: A Computer-Aided Design Enviroement for Stroctral Engineering” by Baling, RJ. Piste KS, and Polak, E., December 1981, (PBS? 218 498)A07 “Opimal Design of Seismic Resistant Planar Stel Frames’ by Baling. RJ. Ciampi. V. and Pistr, KS, December 1981, (PBE2 220 75407, ‘Dynamic Behavior of Ground fr Seismic Analysis of Ltn Systems” by Sato, T. and Der Kiureghian, A January 1982, (PBB? 218 926)a0s “Shaking Table Test of a Tubular Stel Frame Model” by Ghanat,Y- and Clough, RW. January 1982. (PBB2 220 161)A0? Kolleager, LP. and Stephes, BML, eras 166vcweeKC-su03 VCBIEERC-208 UCBIEERC-E205 UCBIEERC-206 UCBIEERC-S207 UCBIEERC-#208 VeBrERC.8209 UCREERC-ANIO UCBEERCA2/11 vewmerceni2 ‘veweercenns UCBEERCAUI6 ‘VCREERCD/IS ‘VCHEERC2/6 UCBIEERC-2I7 UCBEERCEUIE UCBEERCEUI9 LUCBrEERC-2720 UCBIEERC-S221 UCBEERCS222 UCBEERCS223 VCBEERCE224 UcBrEERC225 UCB/EERC-E226 UCBEERC-227 UCB/EERC-8301 UcBIrERC-8302 UCB/EERC-#303 UCB/EERC-8N06 UCB/EERC-8305 LVCB/EERC-8306 UcBmEERC-8307 UCBEERC-8308 UCBEERC-£309 ‘VOBEERC-#M10 ceeeRcsyii veRmERCeMt2 ‘VOREERC-EMI3 -61- ‘Benavor of Piping Sytem uncer Seamic Excution: Experimental lnvesgauons ofa Spatial Piping Sytem supporiea by Mecnan! cil Shock Arrest, by Sehneider, Lex, HM. and Godcen, W. G, May 1982, (PBS 172 344)A09, “New Approaches forthe Dynamic Analysis of Large Stace Systems.” by Wilson, EL. June 1982, (PBES 148 090)A05, “Model Sudy of Efes of Damage on the Vibration Propenies of Steel Ofthore Platforms," by Stabrivar, F. and Bouwkamp, 1.6. June 1982, (PBBS 148 742410. "States ofthe Ar and Pratce in the Optimum Seismic Design and Ansitcal Response Prediction of RIC Frame Wall Structures,” by ‘Attn, AE and Berto, ¥.V Jy 1982, (PBES 147 736) “Funkher Stody ofthe Earthquake Response ofa Broad Cindrical Liqud-Sorae Tank Model,” by Manos, G.C. and Clough, RW., uly 1982, (PBS3 167 T4H)AL “Am Evaluation of the Design and Ansical Seismie Response of Seven Story Reinforced Concrete Frame,” by Charney, FA. and Berter, V.V. July 1982, (BES 157 628)409 "Flu Suretre Interactions: Added Mass Computations fr Incompresible Fi” by Kuo, S.-H, August 1982, (PBE3 136 261)A07. “Join- Opening Nonlinear Mechanism: Interface Smeared Crack Model, by Kuo, 15H., August 1982, (PBB3 149 195)A08. “Dynamic Response Analysis of Techi Dam, by Clough, RW, Stephen, RIM. and Kuo, SH, August 1982, (PBS3 147 496)A06, ‘Prediction of the Seismic Response of FIC Frame-Coupleé Wall Sructure” by Aka, AE, Berto, V.V. and Plazzo, M., Aupust 1982, (BES 149 203408, ‘Preliminary Report on the Smart 1 Stong Motion Aray in Taiwan,” by Bol BA, Lah, CHL, Penzien, J. and Tsai, YB, August 1982, (PBES 159 400/10, "Shaking-Table Studies of an Ezcentially X-Braced Stel Sirota,” by Yang. MS, September 1982, (PBES 260 78)A.12. “The Performance of Stairaysin Earthquakes, by Roba Adley, J.W. and Ben, V.V., September 1982 (PBS3 157 693)A07, “The Behavior of Submerged Maliple Bodies in Earthquakes,” by Lito, WG, September 1982, (PBE3 158 709)A07 “fers of Concrete Types and Loading Conditions on Loc Bond Slip Relationship,” by Cowell, AD., Popov, EP. and Bento, VV. September 1982, (PBBS 153 577)A04. "Mechanica Behavior of Shear Wall Vertical Boundary Menbers: An Experimesta Investigation,” by Wagner, MT. and Benteo,V.V., ‘October 1982, (PRBS 139 764405, 0 “Experimental Studies of Mali-ppor Seismic Loading on Piping System,” by Kelly, 1M, and Cowell AD., November 1982. “Generalized Piastic Hinge Concepts fr 3D Beam-Column Elements," by Che, PFS. and Powel, GH, November 1982, (PBS3 247 sana ANSRAL General Computer Progam for Nonlinear Strural Analysis,” by Ouphoulian, C.V. and Powel, GH, November 1982, (@Bs3251 S30A12, “Solution Stateyes for Sutically Loaded Nonlinear Strasures,” by Simons, 1W, and Powell, G1, November 1982, (PBS3 197 s70)A06 “Analytical Model of Deformed Bar Anchorage under Graeralized Exciutions,” by Ciampi, ., Bigchausen, R, Bertero, V.V. and Popo, E., November 1982, (PBES 169 S32)A06. “A Mathematical Model for the Response of Matonry Wall 1 Dynamic Excitation," by Sucuogly,H., Meng, Y. and MeNiven, H.D., [November 1982, (BSS 169 OLDA07. “Earthquake Response Considerations of Broad Liquid Stonge Tank,” by Cambra, FJ, November 1982, (PBB3 281 215)A08, “Computational Modes for Cylic Pascty, Rate Dependence and Creep” by Mosaddad,B. ancl Powell, G.H., November 1982, (PBE3 245 225)A08. “Inelastic Analysis of Piping and Tubular Structures” by Mahasuverachi, M. and Powell, G-H., November 1982, (PBB3 249 987)A07. “The Economic Feasibility of Seismic Rehabilitation of Buiings by Base Isolation,” by Kely,J.M., January 1983, (PB83 197 988/A08. ‘Seimie Moment Connection for Momeat-Resiting Steel Frames,” by Popov, EP. January 1983, (PBE3 198 412)A04, “Design of Links and Beam-o-Colama Connections for Essentially Brace Stel Frames,” by Popov, EP. and Malley, .0., January 1983, (BES 194 B11)A04 “Numerical Teehsigues forthe Evalution of Sol'Srucuse Interaction Efects in the Time Domain” by Bayo, E. and Wilton, EL, February 1983, (PBBS 245 605)A09 “A Transducer for Measuring the Internal Fores inthe Colamas of « Frame-Wal Reinforced Concrete Structure” by Sause,R, and Bertra, V.V« May 1983, (PBEA 119 454)A06, “Dynamic Interactions Between Foting Ice and OfshoreSructures” by Croteau,P, May 1983, (BSS 119 486)A16. ‘Dynamic Analysis of Muhiply Tuned and Arbitrary Supponed Secondary Systems, by Iqus, T. and Der Kiureghian, A, July 198 erpsa 18 272411, ‘A Laboratory Study of Submerged Muli-body Systems i Earthquakes” by Ansari GR. June 1983, (PRES 261 842)A17. “Elfcs of Transient Foundation Upliton Earthquake Response of Sirvctures,” by Vim, C-S. and Chopra, AK, June 1983, (PBB3 261 396)A07 “Optimal Design of Fricion-Braced Frames under Seismic Loading” by Austin, MA. and Pister, KS. June 1983, (PBBA 119 288)A06, ‘Shaking Table Study of Single Story Masonry Houses: Dynamic Performance under Thre Component Seismic Input and Recommen- ations.” by Manos, G:C, Cough, RW. and Mayes, RL, lly 1983, (UCB/EERC-EVI1)A08, “Experimental Eror Propagation in Pseudodynamic Testing” by Shing PB. and Main, S.A. une 1983, (PBBE 119 270)A09. “Experimental and Analytical Prediction of the Mechanical Characteristics ofa 1/Scale Model of 7-tory R/C Frame-Wall Building Siructure” by Attn, AE, Bene, V1, Chowdhury, A. and Nagashima, June 1983, (PBB 119 213)407UcBEERCA3I¢ VCREERC.A315 UCBEERCA3I6 UVCBIEERC.83117 UCBEERC-S3/18 UCBEERC-3/19 UCBEERC-#3720 UCBIEERCA32t VeBeERcs322 VCBEERC.A323 UCBIEERC.8372¢ ‘UCREERC-4401 ‘UCHEERC-#002 UCBMEERC-£403 UCBIEERC-S404 UCBEERC-$405 UCBEERC.#4/06 UCBVEERC-#4/07 VCBEERC-44/08 VeBEERC-s4/08 VUCBIEERC-84/0 UCBIEERC-S4/11 UCBEERC.#4/12 UCBEERC.S413 UcBEERCSH¢ UCRERCAWIS UCREERCE46 UCBEERC#4/17 VCBEERCS4I18 VCREERC.#4/19 UCBEERC-#4720 LUCBEERCS/O1 UcBeERcas02 = 62- “Seismic Behavior of Active Bear Links in Eccentrially Eraced Frames. by Hielmsad, KD. and Popov, EP. July 1983, (PHBE 119 6769408. “Sytem Idenuieation of Sutures wih Joim Rotation,” by Dimsdale 1S. July 1983, (BSE 192 210)A06. “Consruction of Ineasc Response Spectra for Single Degree-of-Freedom Syiems,” by Mahin, Sand Lin, J, June 1983, (PBBS 208 8549408, “Interacive Computer Anais Methods for Predicting the Inelastic Cycie Behaviour of Structural Sections,” by Kaba, S. and Main, uly 1983, (PHBA 192 O12)A06. “Brett of Bond Deterioration on Hyseretic Behavior of Rinforeed Concrete Joints” by Filippou, F.C, Popov, EP. and Bento, V.V. August 1983, (PBEE 192 02010. “Analytical and Experimental Creation of Larg-Pane! Precast Building Sytem Performance,” by Oliva, M.G., Clough, RW, Velox Mand Gavnovie,P., November 1983. “Mechanical Characters of Materials Used in 1/8 See Model ofa 7-StoryReiforent Concrete Test Structure,” by Beno, VV. ‘Arta, AE» Haris, H.G. and Chowdhury, AA, October 1983, (PBES 193 697)A0S "Hybrid Modeling of Soit-Srctre Interaction in Layered Medi,” by Tzon. T-J. and Penziea, J. October 1983, (PBS4 192 178)A08 “Local Bond StesSip Relationships of Deformed Bars under Generalized Excitation, by Eligchausen,R, Popov, EP. and Berio, V.N., October 1983, (PBES 192 648)A05. “Design Considerations for Shea Lnks in Eecenrically Brice Frames, by Malley, 1.0. and Popov, EP., November 1983, (PBBS 192 85)A07 “Pseadodynamic Test Method for Seismic Performance Evaluation: Theory and Implementation,” by Shing, P-S.B. and Mahin, SA. January 1984, (PBES 190 688)A08 “Dynamic Response Betavior of Kiang Hong Dian Dam,” >y Cough, R.W, Ching, KT, Chen, H-Q. and Stephen, RIM. April 1984, (B84 209 4021408. “Refined Modeling of Reinforced Coneret Columns for Seismic Analysis” by Kaba, SA. and Main, S.A. April 1984, (BS4 234 384 406 “A New Floor Response Spectrum Method for Seismic Analysis of Mulply Supported Secondary Systems” by Asfra A. and Der ‘iurephian, A, June 1984, (BEA 238 417406, “Earthquake Simulation Tess and Asocated Studies of /Stbacale Model ofa 7-Story RUC Frame: Wall Test Sircture,” by Ber, VN.,Adtan, AE, Chaney, FA and Stuse,R, June 1984, (PBES 239 409)A05, “WUC Structural Wal: Seismic Design for Shea." by Altan, AE. and enero, V.V., 1984 “Behavior of Imerior and Exterior Fat-Plate Connections mbjered to Inelastic Loud Reversals.” by Zee, HL and Moehle,1P, August 1984, (BEG 117 2B/ASIADT. “Experimental tod ofthe Seismic Behavior of « Two-Sery Fla-Plte Structure,” by Mochle, 1. and Diebold, J.W., August 1984, (PBbE 122 SSASIAL “Phenomenological Modeling of Sel Braces under Cyelic Loading” by Ihedn, K, Mahin, S.A. and Dermitzais, 1, May 1984, (PB6 152 T9WAS)ACE, ‘Auayis and Response of Concrete Graviy Dams’ by Fenves, G. and Chopra, AK. August 1984, (PBES 193 “Earthquake SOUAS)AI, “EAGD-44: A Computer Program for Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Gravity Dams, by Feaves, G. (PBL 193 613/A5)A0S. “A Refined Physical Theory Model for Preicting the Simic Beavior of Braced Stel Frames,” by Ikeda, K. and Mahin, S.A, July 1984, (PBES 191 4SOAS)AGS “Earhquake Engineering Research a Berkley - 1984," by, August 1984, (PBBS 197 4U/AS)ALO. “Moduli and Damping Factor for Dynamic Analyses of Coesionles Sis” by Seed, H.B., Wong, RT, leis, LM, and Tokimatsu, K., September 1984 (PBBS 191 468/AS)A04 “The lnuence of SPT Procedures in So! Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations by Seed, HB, Tokimatsy,K., Harder, LF. and Chung, RM, October 1984, (PBES 191 TS2/ASIADS “Simplied Procedures forthe Evaluation of Setlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking” by Tokimasu, K. and Seed. H.B (October 1984, (PBES 197 BETIASIADS “Evaluation of Energy Absorption Characteristics of Brits under Seismic Condit 1984 “Strcure Foundation Interactions under Dynamic Loads. by Liu, W.D. and Penie, J, November 1984, (PBB? 124 S89/ASIALL “Seismic Modeling of Deep Foundations,” by Chen, C-H. nd Penzien J, November 1984, (PBB7 124 798/4S)AOT. “Dynamic Response Behavior of Quan Shui Dam,” by Cugh, RW. Chang. KT. Chen, H-Q.. Stephen, RM. Ghana, Y. and Qi eH, November 1984, (PBUG11S171/AS)AT, ‘implied Methods of Anais for Eannquake Resinant Design of Buildings” by Cruz. EF. and Chopra, A.K. February 1985, (PBR6 HIRS8/AS)A “Estimation of Seismic Wave Coberency and Rup NA. March 1985, (PBSS 214 343)407 14 Chopra, AK, August 1984, 325 by Ibsen, RA. and Peazien J, November Veleity using the SMART 1 Stone-Motion Array Recordings” by Abrahamson.UCBIEERC-8108 UCBIEERC-#505 UCBIEERC-906 UCRIEERC-#S107 UUCBIEERC-#08 UCBIEERC-S109 VCBEERCES/I0 UCBIEERCESI UCBIEERC-ESII2 UCBIEERC-#SI3 VCHEERCSII4 UCBIEERC-SII5 UCBIEERCESI6 UCBIEERC-S6O1 UCBIEERC-62 ‘VCREERC-#6103 LVCREERC-#60¢ LUCBEERC-£605 UCBIEERC.86105 ‘VeBiEERC.8607 UCBIEERC-8608 UCREERC-86109 ‘VCMEERC-#610 UCBEERC-E6/1 UCBERC.86/12 UCREERC-#7/01 LUCREERC-#702 UCBEERC-#703 UCBIEERC-#7106 LCBIEERC-#715 UCBIEERC-#7106 UCBEERC-§707 UCBIEERC-#7108 UCBEERC-#7109 LUCBIEERC-#710 - 63- “Dynamic Propet of a Thy Story Condominium Toner Bulag” by Ste (BBE T18965/A5)A06. “Development of Subsirvcturing Techniques for On-Line Computer Controlled Seismic Performance Testing.” by Dermitzais, S. and Mahia, $, Febraary 1985, (PBBG 132941/AS)408, “A Simple Model or Reinforcing Bar Anchorages under CyeicExciations” by Fippou, FC, March 1985, (PBBG 112 915/AS)ANS, “Racking Behavior of Wood-framed Gypsum Panels under Dynamic Load” by Oliva, M.G., June 198. “Earthquake Analysis and Response of Concrete Arch Dams” by Fok, K-L. and Chopra, AK. June 1985, (PBB6 139672/AS)A10. “Efec of Incase Behavior onthe Analysis and Design of Eanquake Resiant Structures,” by Li, JP. and Mahin, SA. June 1985, (B46 13S3407AS)A08, “Earthquake Simulator Testing ofa Bas Isolated Bridge Deck,” by Kelly, JM, Buekle,LG. and Tasi, HC, January 1986, (PBST 124 15D/AS)406. “Simpled Anaiysis for Earthquake Resistant Design of Concrete Gravity Dams” by Fenves, G. and Chopra, AK., June 1986, (PBST 124 T60ras}A0s, “Dynamic Interaction Efects in Arch Dams," by Clough, RW. Chang. KT, Chen, H-Q. and Ghanaat, Y., October 1985, (PRBS 13S0271AS)A0S. Dynamic Response of Long Valley Dam in the Mammo Lake Earthquake Series of May 25-27, 1980," by Lai, S. and Seed, H.B [November 1985, (PBBE 142504/AS)A05, “A Metiodoogy for Computer-Aided Desig of Esrthquike-Resisant Stel Stuctares” by Austin, M.A, Pster, KS. and Mahia, S.A, December 1985, (PBB6 139490/A5)A10 “Response of Tension Leg Platforms to Vera! Seismic Exctations” by Liou, GS, Penzien, J. and Yeung, RW. December 1985, (B87 124 STLAS)A08, “Cyeic Loading Tess of Maton Single Piers: Volume 4 - Additonal Tet with Height to Width Ratio of 1,” by Sveinson,B, MeNiven, H.D. and Sucuogi, H,, December 1985, “an Experimental Program fr Studying the Dynamic Response ofa Steel Fame with Variety of infil Partitions.” by Yanev, B. and MeNiven, HD, December 1985. “A Sty ofSeismicaly Resistant Eocentriclly Braced Sel Frame Systems,” by Kasi, K and Popov, EP, January 1986, (PBST 124 TWAS ls Design Problems in Sol Liquefaction.” by See, HB, February 1986, (PBBT 124 186/AS)AGS. “Implications of Recet Earthquakes and Research on Exthquake-Resstant Design and Construction of Buildings,” by Bertero, V.V., ‘Mare 1986, (PBB? 126 194AS)AS, “The Use af Load Dependent Vector for Dynamic and Earthguake Analyte,” by Leger, 1986, (BET 124 200A5)A12 “Two Beam-ToColume Web Connections,” by Ts, K-C. and Popov EP, Api 1986, (PBE7 124 301/AS)AO4, “Determination of Penetration Resistance for Coarse-Gruined Soil wing the Becker Hammer Dri” by Harder, LF. and Seed, .B., ‘May 1986, (PBB7 124 210/A9)A07 “A Mathematical Mode! for Predicting the Nonlinear Retonse of Uneinorced Masonry Walls to In-Plane Earthquake Excitatons,” by ‘Meng, Y- and MeNiven,H.D. May 1986 (PBST 124 TEUAS}ADE. “The 19 September 1985 Mexico Eanhquake: Building Beavis.” by Bene, V.V. July 1986 “EACD-D: A Computer Program for Thre-Dimensionl Earthquake Analysis of Concrete Dams" by Fok, KL. Hall, LF. and (Chopra, AX, July 1986, (PBB? 124 228/A5)A08, “Earthquake Simulation Tess and Associated Studies of 2 03.Scale Mode ofa Six-Story Concentrically Brace Steel Structure’ by ang, CoM. and Bertero, VV, December 1986, (PBBY 163 S64AS)AT. “Mechanical Characteristics of Base Isolation Bearings fora Bridge Deck Model Test by Kelly, 1M, Buckle, LG, and Kob, C-G. 198, "Bec of Axial Load on Elstomerc Isolation Bearings by Keb, C-G. and Kelly, 1M. 1987 “The FPS Earinquake Resisting System: Experimental Repor,’ by Zayas, VA, Low, 8S. and Main, S.A June 1987 “Earthquake Simulator Tests and Associated Studies ofa 0.3.Scale Model ofa So-Stry Eceentrcally Braed Steel Structure” by Whit- takes, Ax Uang. CoM and Bere, VV. July 1987 “A Displacement Conol and Uplift Retrait Device for Bate-oated Structures,” by Kelly. JM. Grifith, MLC. 19, Wilton, EL. and Clough, RW, March 1d Aiken, LG. Apri “Earthquake Simulator Testing of a Combined Siding Bearing and Rubber Bearing Kolation System,” by Kelly, 1M, and Chalhow, MS. 1987, “Taree-Dimension! Inelastic Analyst of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Wal Structures” by Moazzami , and Berteo, V.V. May 1987 "Expenments on EcentricalyBraced Frames with Compeste Foor” by Ricks, J. and Popov, une 1987 “Dynamic Analysis of Sesmically Resistant Eccentcally Brace Frames by Rc, J and Popov, ..June 1987 ‘Undrnined Cyclic Trail Testing of Gravele-The Effect f Membrane Compliance” by Evans, M.D. and Seed, H.B, July 1987, “Hybrid Solution Techniques for Generalized Pseudo-Dytamic Testing” by Thewal.,C. and Mahia. S.A. July 1987 Investigation of Ulumate Behavior of AISC Group 4 and 5 Heavy Ste! Rolled Section Splices with Full and Paral Penetration Butt Welds by Bruneau, Mand Mahia, S.A July 1987