Chapter 8: Generation of Floor Response Spectra and Multiple Support Excitation

G. R. Reddy & R. K. Verma

8.1 Introduction
Industrial structures support systems and components (SCs) at different elevations. These
systems and components are designed using Floor Time History (FTH) or Floor
Response Spectra (FRS). The FTH is obtained at various floor levels and at the locations
where SCs are supported, from structural analysis. The FRS is generated for damping of
the SCs using time history analysis, stochastic analysis or direct simplified methods.
8.2 FRS generation
Generally, time history methods are used for generating FRS from FTH because of its
simplicity and realistic. For conservative design of SCs, direct method which is simple
and less time consuming can be adopted.
8.2.1 Time History Analysis
The various steps involved in the time history analysis are given below:
1. Generate design basis ground motion called design basis time history.
2. Generate mathematical model of the structure. The model could be beam model
or 3D FE Model as shown in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b).
13
Raft
Foundation
Outer
Containment
Inner
Containment
Tail
Pipe
Tower
Calandria
Fig. 1(a): Typical Reactor Building and 3D FE model
3. Generate floor time histories from the structural analysis using design basis time
history.
4. Generate FRS using floor time histories. While generating FRS, the spectrum
ordinates shall be computed at sufficiently small frequency intervals to produce
accurate response spectra, including significant peaks normally expected at the
natural frequencies of the structure. One acceptable frequency intervals to
compute FRS is, at frequencies listed in Table 1 [1]. Fig. 2 shows the FRS at
various levels of a typical reactor building.
Table 1: Frequency steps for FRS generation
14
Outer
Containment
Inner
Containment
Tail Pipe
Tower
Calandria
Fig. 1(b): Typical Reactor Building and Beam model
Frequency Range
(Hz)
Increment (Hz)
0.5-3.0
3.0-3.6
3.6-5.0
5.0-8.0
8.0-15.0
15.0-18.0
18.0-22.0
22.0-34.0
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.50
1.0
2.0
3.0
8.2.2 Stochastic Analysis
The various steps involved in stochastic method are given below:
1. Generate design basis ground motion called design basis Power Spectral Density
Function (PSDF).
2. Generate mathematical model of the structure. The model could be beam model
or 3D FE Model.
3. Generate floor Power Spectral Density Function from the structural analysis using
design basis PSDF.
4. Generate FRS using floor PSDF. The frequency intervals shall be chosen as
explained above.
15
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
0.00
0.51
1.02
1.53
2.04
Floor Response Spectra at Bottom of
Calandria (Node 2) in Z - Direction
1%
2%
5%
S
a


/
g
Frequency (Hz)
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Floor Response Spectra at Steam Drum Level
EL. 123.00 m (Node 14) in Z - Direction
1%
2%
5%
S
a


/
g
Frequency (Hz)
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Floor Response Spectra at Top of Calandria
EL. 95.00 m (Node 5) in Z - Direction
1%
2%
5%
S
a


/
g
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 2: Floor Response Spectra at various floor levels of a
typical reactor building
8.2.3 Simplified Analysis
The various steps involved in the simplified analysis are given below:
1. Generate design basis ground motion called design basis response spectrum as
shown in Fig. 3(b) for given structural damping.
2. Generate mathematical model of the structure as shown in Fig. 3(a). The model
could be beam model or 3D FE Model.
3. Generate FRS based on the procedure out lined below [2].
2 2 2
2 2 2 2
) , ( )} , ( ) {(
) ( ) ( 4 } ) ( 1 {
1
A A Bi Bi
Bi
A
Bi
A
Bi A
Bi
A
Ei
h S h S
h h
S

+
+ +

2
( )
E i Ei
i
S U S

S
E
- Floor response spectrum taking into account every evaluated mode of the
structure

U
i
- The i-th mode excitation function value of the floor. It is the product of
modal participation factor and the floor mode shape in i-th mode
S
Ei
- The maximum value of absolute acceleration response of the systems and
components under i-th mode acceleration of structure
h
A
- Damping factor of systems and components
T
A
- Natural period of systems and components
h
Bi
- Damping factor of the structure
T
Bi
- Natural period of the structure
S (T
Bi
, h
Bi
)- The standard design ground spectrum corresponding to T
Bi
, h
Bi
of the
structure
S (T
A
, h
A
)-The standard design ground spectrum corresponding to T
A
, h
A
of the
systems and components.
Notes-
(1) The mass m
A
of the systems and components needs to be sufficiently smaller than
the mass m
Bi
of the structure.
16
(2) The floor response spectra, obtained from the above method, need to be
broadened by at least 10% to account the uncertainty of frequency analysis of
SSCs.
Using the above procedure, FRS at the top of the building is generated and
compared with time history analysis and shown in Fig. 3(d). It can be seen that the
spectra generated using simplified method is conservative compared to the one generated
using TH analysis.
17
Fig. 3(c): Time History compatible to the
given spectra
Fig. 3(b): Typical Design
Response Spectrum
Y
X
Fig. 3(a): Beam model of a
typical cantilever structure
Fig. 3(d): FRS at top of the building
8.3 Analysis of Systems subjected to Multiple Support Excitation
Consider the following simple spring mass system, for this system equation of motion
can be written as follows.
Fig. 4: Spring mass system
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ] { } 1
g
x M x K x C x M + + 1
where M is mass matrix (lumped/consistent), C is damping co-efficient matrix and K is
stiffness matrix. In the absence of external damping and neglecting the structural
damping, the free vibration of the system is expressed by
[ ]{ } [ ]{ } 0 x K x M +

or
{ } [ ] [ ]{ } 0 x K M x
-1
+
Let
{ } { } { } { } { }
2 2
- t) sin( - x so and t) sin( x

Free vibration characteristic of the system becomes
{ } [ ] [ ]{ } 0 K M -
-1 2
+

[ ] [ ]{ } { } K M
2 -1
or

[ ] [ ] and A, as K M Taking
2 -1


[ ]{ } { } A

The above eigen value problem can be solved for eigen values called natural
frequencies (
n
) of the system and the eigen vectors called mode shapes ( n

) of the
system. The number of eigen values and eigen vectors will be equal to the number of
degrees of freedom of the system. However, the number of modes that are important for
response evaluation is fixed based on the procedure explained earlier.
{ } { }X x Let
2
18
{ } nt displaceme d generalize the is X and shape e the is Where mod

Substituting Eq. 2 into 1,

[ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ]{ } [ ] { } 1
g
x M X K X C X M get we

+ + 3
Multiplying Eq. 3 with { }
T
on both sides we get
{ } [ ]{ } { } [ ]{ } { } [ ]{ } { } [ ] { } 1
g
T T T T
x M X K X C X M

+ + 4
Considering excitations from ns supports [1,3,4], Eq. 4 can also be written as
{ } [ ]{ } { } [ ]{ } { } [ ]{ } { } [ ] { }
s g
T
ns
s
T T T
U x M X K X C X M


1
+ + 5
where U
s
is the influence vector. It has unity values along each degree of freedom for
uniform support excitation. For the case of multiple support excitations, it is the
displacement vector of the structural system when the support s undergoes a unit
displacement in the direction of motion of the support while the other supports remain
fixed.
Equation 5 can be solved using direct time history method. To solve using modal
superposition technique, Eq. 5 can be simplified as follows.
Using orthogonal properties of mode shapes, Eq. 5 can be written as
[ ] [ ]
2
1
1 2
nsp
n n n n ns g
s
n
X X X x

1 + +
]
&& &
&&
6
where
ns
is the participation factor for support s, mode n. The equation for evaluation of
residual rigid response due to the missing mass is changed to the following.
[ ] { } [ ] { } { }
{ }
1 1
nsp n
r ns si i g
s i
K x M U x


&&
7
Case Study: 1
19
Let us consider a piping running from the reactor to the steam drum as shown in Fig.
5(a). This piping called tail pipe will be subjected to the support motion at top of the
reactor and at the steam drum location. The spectra at two locations are shown in the
Figs. 6(a) and (b) respectively. The interaction between two piping can be neglected
because they are connected to large size components. For explaining the method of
analysis of systems subjected to multiple support excitations, the piping is idealized as
shown in Fig. 5(b). For simplicity, consider a two degree of freedom system as shown in
Fig. 7, similar to the system shown in Fig. 5(b), the frequencies and mode shapes of the
system are evaluated using the similar procedure explained in chapter 4 and are given
below.
Frequencies are 17.6 rad/sec (2.8 Hz) and 28.3 rad/sec (4.5 Hz) in first and second
mode respectively. The ortho-normalized mode shapes are given below.
20

'

'

'

'

185 . 0
657 . 0
465 . 0
261 . 0
23
22
13
12

and
In the above vectors, the first suffix indicates mode number and the second suffix
indicates the node number.
21
The combined stiffness and mass matrix for the full system can be written as
follows
[ ]
1000 1000
1000 1500 500
500 1500 1000
1000 1000
K
1
1

1

1
1

]
[ ]
0
2
4
0
M
1
1
1

1
1
]
Applying unit displacement at support 2 (Node 1) and at support 1 (node 4), the
influence vectors respectively can be obtained as follows.
{ } { }

'

'

4
3
4
1
4
1
4
3
1 2
U U
The suffix of the influence vector indicates the support number. Now using Eqs. 5
and 6, the participation factors can be obtained as follows.
The participation factor for support 1 excitation in mode 1 is obtained as follows.
22
Fig.7: Idealized model for the
piping along vertical direction
Support 2
Support 1
K
3
= 1000
K
2
= 500
K
1
= 1000
m
1
=2
m
2
=4
Node 1
Node 2
Node 3
Node 4
[ ] [ ] { }
11 1

T
M U
[ ] ) 382 . 2 ( 526 . 1
4
3
4
1
4
2
465 . 0 261 . 0
11

'

1
]
1

T
Similarly the participation factor for support 2 excitation in mode 1 is
[ ] [ ] { }
12 2
T
M U
[ ] ) 382 . 2 ( 8565 . 0
4
1
4
3
4
2
465 . 0 261 . 0
12

'

1
]
1

T
The values in the bracket are the participation factors for uniform support excitation.
For evaluating the acceleration response, the modal acceleration at this frequency
can be obtained from the Fig. 6 as 2g and 1g at support 2 and support 1 respectively. The
damping of piping considered is 2%. Now the acceleration response at node 2 and 3 can
be obtained using Eq. 6 as follows.
1 1
nsp n
j s ij s
i s
x X



&&
Considering one mode, the response
) 243 . 1 ( 845 . 0 261 . 0 2 8565 . 0 261 . 0 1 526 . 1
..
2
g g g g x +
) 576 . 2 ( 506 . 1 465 . 0 2 8565 . 0 465 . 0 1 526 . 1
..
3
g g g g x +
The values in the bracket are evaluated considering uniform excitation which is
basically coming from support 2 and corresponding spectral acceleration is 2g. It is also
sometimes called envelope response spectrum analysis. It can be clearly seen that
envelope response spectrum analysis gives conservative results compared to the response
obtained in multiple support excitation analysis.
23
Case Study: 2
In general, dynamic analysis of a piping system subjected to earthquake excitation is
performed using single-point response spectrum method. In a single-point response
spectrum method, one response spectrum curve is specified at all supports. This method
is acceptable as long as the piping system is single or multiple supported system,
subjected to uniform translational excitations at all its support points. This is true for a
piping system attached to one floor of a building or structure via some passive devices
such as anchors. In case of a piping system supported at different floor levels or in
different building structures, each support point (or group) would experience a different
excitation. The current practice is to assume a set of envelope response spectra which
encompasses all the input excitations. This practice gives very conservative results as we
can see in previous case. But in case of overhang in the piping systems or equipments,
envelope response spectra may underestimate the response of the system [5].
24
Analysis of a piping system with overhang as shown in Fig. 8 has been
performed. Analysis has been performed for the two cases, one using envelope response
spectrum and other using multiple support excitations. The spectra at two support points
are shown in Fig. 9. Responses at various nodes of piping are given in Table 2.
Table 2: Responses (Displacement) at various nodes of the piping
Node Envelope Response
Spectrum
Multiple Support
Excitations
41 9.37621 14.0785
40 8.31053 12.5642
39 7.24857 11.0525
38 6.19611 9.54808
37 5.16189 8.05796
It is clear from the Table 2 that Envelope Response Spectrum analysis may
significantly underestimate the response of piping systems or equipments with overhang.
References:
1. ASCE 4-98, Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures and
commentary, Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191-4400.
25
Fig. 8: Piping System
Fig. 9: Response Spectra
All DOFs are
fixed
Translational
DOFs are fixed
Node 41
Node 40
2. IAEA-TECDOC-1347, Consideration of external events in the design of nuclear
facilities other than nuclear power plants, with emphasis on earthquakes, March
2003.
3. C. W. Lin and E. Loceff, A new Approach to compute System Response with
Multiple Support Response Spectra Input, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 60,
pp 345-352, 1980.
4. J. K. Biswas, Seismic Analysis of Equipment Supported at Multiple Levels,
Proceedings of ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, PVP-Vol.65,
Oriando, Florida, 1982.
5. A. Neelwarne, H. S. Kushwaha, A. Kakodker, Seismic Qualification of Nuclear
Equipment under Multiple Support Excitations, SMiRT 11 Transactions Vol. K,
August 1991.
26