13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

August 1-6, 2004
Paper No. 3018

AN EFFICIENT RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF

STRUCTURES UNDER MULTI-SUPPORT SEISMIC EXCITATIONS

Jianhua Li1, Jie Li2

SUMMARY

A response spectrum method is proposed for the seismic analysis of a multi-support structure subjected to
spatially varying ground motions. Based on theoretical framework by Heredia-Zavoni and Vanmarcke, an
approximate and efficient analysis of the frequency integral of spectral parameters and cross-correlation
coefficients is presented. The proposed procedure is demonstrated for a two-span beam-like structure under
multi-support excitations. Computed results based on this simplified method are shown to be in close
agreement with results obtained from Monte Carlo simulation and the MSRS. Furthermore, a dramatic
reduction of the computational time is achieved.

INTRODUCTION

Except the temporal variability, the spatial variability is the other important aspect of ground motions.
This spatial variability is primarily the consequence of three effects: the wave passage effect, the ground
motion ‘incoherence’ effect and the local-soil condition effect [1]. For large, multi-support structures, the
spatially varying excitation becomes a multi-support excitation. The multi-support excitation input can
induce a response very different from that calculated on the basis of the assumption that the free-field
ground motions are spatially uniform, which has been widely used for analysis and design of
conventional structures.
For the analysis of structures under multi-support excitations, response spectrum method is still an
attractive means for the engineering community. The main reason is that most seismic design codes and
specifications specify the earthquake motion in terms of the response spectrum. Several attempts have
made at developing a response spectrum method for multiply supported structures. Berrah and Kausel
[2,3] suggested a modified response spectrum method, in account of the spatially variability effect by
adjusting the spectrum at each support and the existing modal cross-correlation coefficients through two
correction factors. Der Kiureghian and Hofer [1] proposed a multi-support response spectrum (MSRS)
method using the fundamental principles of random vibration theory. The method can properly account
for the effects of correlation between the support motions as well as between the modes of vibration of the
structure. Another methodology, discussed by Heredia-Zavoni and Vanmarcke [4], is characteristic in the
analysis of the dynamic component of the response. It reduced the analysis of MS systems to that of a
series of one-degree modal oscillators in a way that fully takes into consideration the multi-support input.

1
Dept. of Building Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, P.R.China. Email: Lijianhua_tj@yahoo.com.cn
2
Dept. of Building Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, P.R.China.
As a result, instead of cross-modal terms, it just needs to compute spectral moments, which are
independent of the dynamic properties of a given multi-support structural system. This seems more
advantageous in computation and application.
Nevertheless, there exists a major disadvantage common in the above methods. Namely, the
computation of cross-correlation coefficients or spectral moments is not straightforward, and tedious
numerical integration is required. Certainly, this is not appealing for engineering purposes. In this paper, a
response spectrum method is proposed for the seismic analysis of a multi-support structure subjected to
spatially varying ground motion. Based on the theoretical framework by Heredia-Zavoni and Vanmarcke
[4], an approximate and efficient analysis of the frequency integral of the spectral moments is presented.
The proposed procedure is demonstrated for a two-span beam-like structure under multi-support
excitations. Computed results based on this simplified method are shown to be in close agreement with
results obtained from Monte Carlo simulation and the MSRS. But a dramatic reduction of the
computational time is achieved, compared to the MSRS.

SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF SEISMIC EXCITAIONS

In general, the spatial variability of earthquake ground motions is characterized by the cross power
spectral density (PSD) of ground accelerations. The cross-PSD between the ground accelerations at
support k and l can be expressed as
[ ]
S u&&k u&&l (iω ) = γ kl (iω ) S u&&k u&&k (ω )S u&&l u&&l (ω )
12
(1)
in which γ kl (iω ) denotes the coherence function, and S u&&k u&&k (ω ) is the auto-PSD at support k .
Various theoretical and empirical models of the coherence function have been developed in recent years
[5-7]. In this study, the following model is used [5]:

⎡
⎛ ω d ⎞⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎟ ⎥ exp ⎢i ωd ⎥
γ kl (iω ) = exp ⎢ − α ⎜⎜ (2)
⎟
⎢⎣ ⎝ Vs ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ Vapp ⎥⎦
in which α is the incoherence factor, and α = 1 16π , d denotes the separation distance between two
stations k and l , Vapp is the apparent wave velocity, and Vs is the shear wave velocity of the soil
medium. It should be noted that d may be positive or negative depending on the station alignment and
the direction of wave propagation. For engineering practice, useful approximations may be obtained by
setting the apparent wave velocity Vapp equal to the shear wave velocity Vs , i.e., Vapp = Vs = vs , and
then the coherence function becomes
γ kl (iω ) = exp[− αω τ ]exp(iωτ ) (3)
where τ = d v s .
The auto-PSD can be defined by the popular models, such as Kanai-Tajimi spectrum or filtered
Kanai-Tajimi spectrum [8]. For the purpose of response spectrum analysis, however, it’d better transform
the PSD from the given response spectrum. The transformation relationship as proposed by Der
Kiureghian [1] is used
4 ⎞ ⎡ D(ω ,ζ ) ⎤
2
⎛ 2ζωω θ +2
S u&&k u&&k (ω ) = θ
⎜⎜ + ⎟⎢ ⎥ (4)
⎝ π πTd ⎟⎠ ⎣ ps (ω ) ⎦
ω + ω θf
where D(ω ,ζ ) is the given response spectrum, Td is the duration of ground motion and is taken as 15s,
ω f and θ are two constants which can be obtained by iteration procedure, and p s (ω )0 is the peak factor
for the oscillator response. In this analysis, response spectra of four types of site conditions specified in
the Chinese design code for transportation engineering are taken, and the modification of their
expressions has been made to fit them to analyze structures whose fundamental period is over 5s [9]. Fig.
1 shows these modified spectra, which are normalized, and their corresponding PSD functions when the
peak ground acceleration u&&k ,max = 0.2 g , θ = 2 and ω f = 1.608, 0.998, 0.698, 0.509 rad/s for four site
conditions, respectively.
2.5 10

Type 1
2.0 8
Type 2
Normalized Accel. RS

Type 3

PSD (cm /sec )

3
1.5 Type 4 6

2
1.0 4

0.5 2

0.0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Periond (sec) Frequency (Hz)
Fig.1 Normalized response spectra and their corresponding PSD

ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES UNDER MULTI-SUPPORT EXCITATIONS

Equation of motion
The equation of motion for a discretized, n-degree-of-freedom linear system subjected to m support
motions can be written in the matrix form as [8]
⎡ M M c ⎤ ⎧⎪ X && ⎫ ⎡ C C c ⎤ ⎧ X& ⎫ ⎡ K K c ⎤ ⎧ X ⎫ ⎧ 0 ⎫
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬ + ⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬ + ⎢ ⎥⎨ ⎬ = ⎨ ⎬ (5)
⎢⎣ M c M g ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩U&& ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣C c C g ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩U& ⎪⎭ ⎢⎣ K c K g ⎥⎦ ⎪⎩U ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ F ⎪⎭
T T T

where X = [x1 ,L, xn ] is the n-vector of displacement of the unconstrained degrees of freedom;
T

U = [u1 ,L, um ] is the m-vector of prescribed support displacement; M , C and K are the n × n mass,
T

damping and stiffness matrices associated with the unconstrained degrees of freedom, respectively;
M g , C g and K g are the m × m matrices associated with the support degrees of freedom; M c , C c and
K c are the n × m coupling matrices associated with both sets of degrees of freedom; and F is the
m-vector of the reacting forces at the support degrees of freedom.

Modal spectral analysis

In the analysis of such a system, it is common to decompose the response into pseudo-static and dynamic
components,
X = Xs + Xd (6)
s
X can be given by
X s = − K −1 K cU = RU (7)
Substituting equations (6) and (7) into equation (5) and neglecting the minor damping forces, the dynamic
component of the response X d is obtained in the differential form
MX && d + CX& d + KX d ≈ −(MR + M )U&& (8)
c

By employing the normal mode approach to the above equation, the decoupled equations of motion are
obtained as below
 m
&y&i + 2ζ iω i y& i + ω i2 yi = ∑ ε ki u&&k (t ) i = 1, L, n (9)
k =1

where the index k denotes the degree-of freedom associated with the prescribed support motions, the
subscript i denotes the mode number, ε ki is the modal participation factor. Assume that
m
yi (t ) = ∑ ε ki s ki (t ) , and then s ki (t ) satisfies the equation
k =1

&s&ki + 2ζ iω i s&ki + ω i2 s ki = u&&k (t ) (10)

s d
Using the pseudo-static component X from equation (7) and the dynamic component X in terms of
the normalized modal responses, the generic response z (t ) can be written as
m m n
z (t ) = ∑ a k u k (t ) + ∑∑ bki s ki (t ) (11)
k =1 k =1 i =1

in which a k and bki denote the effective influence factors and effective modal participation factors.
Both of these factors are a function of the structural properties.
Using equation (11), the power spectral density of the generic response z (t ) can be written in the form
m m m m n
S zz (ω ) = ∑∑ ak al Su k ul (iω ) + 2∑∑∑ ak bli H i (− iω )S uk u&&l (iω )
k =1 l =1 k =1 l =1 i =1
m m n n
(12)
+ ∑∑∑∑ bki blj H i (iω )H j (− iω )Su&&k u&&l (iω )
k =1 l =1 i =1 j =1

where S xy (iω ) denotes the cross-PSD of process x and y , and H i (iω ) = ω i2 − ω 2 + 2iζ iω iω [ ]−1

represents the frequency response function of mode i .

If let S zzd (iω ) denote the cross-spectral density between the dynamic components, namely the third
term on the right-hand side of equation (12), then it can be expressed as [4]
[
S zzd (iω ) = ∑∑∑ α kli + β kli (1 − ω i2 ω 2 ) H i (iω ) S u&&k u&&l (iω ) ]
m m n
2

k =1 l =1 i =1
(13)
[ ]
m m n
+ i ∑∑∑ θ kli (ω ω i ) + φ kli (ω ω i ) H i (iω ) S u&&k u&&l (iω )
3 2

k =1 l =1 i =1

where the coefficients α kli , β kli , θ kli and φ kli depend on the structure’s mass, stiffness and damping
properties only.

Development of the response spectrum method

Shown as in equation (1), the cross-spectral density function S u&&k u&&l (iω ) is in general complex and can be
written in terms of its real and imaginary part, then
S u&&k u&&l (iω ) = Ru&&k u&&l (ω ) + iQu&&k u&&l (ω ) (14)
where Ru&&k u&&l (ω ) and Qu&&k u&&l (ω ) are the even and odd functions of ω , respectively. From equations (1)
and (3), we can obtain
[
Ru&&k u&&l (ω ) = exp(− αω τ )cos(ωτ ) S u&&k u&&k (ω )S u&&l u&&l (ω ) ] 12

(15)
Qu&&k u&&l (ω ) = exp(− αω τ )sin (ωτ )[S u&&k u&&k (ω )Su&& u&&
l l
(ω )] 12

Integrating S zz (ω ) over the frequency domain − ∞ < ω < +∞ and substituting equations (13), (14)
into equation (12), the mean-square response is obtained
 m m m m n
σ zz2 = ∑ ∑ ak al ρ u k ul σ u k σ ul + 2∑∑∑ ak bli ρ uk sli σ u k σ sli
k =1 l =1 k =1 l =1 i =1
(16)
⎡ m
⎛ Λ1,kli ⎞
m n
⎛ Λ 3, kli ⎞ ⎤
+ ∑∑∑ ⎢α kli Γ0, kli − θ kli ⎜
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎟ − φ kli ⎜ ω 3 ⎟ ⎥σ ski σ sli
k =1 l =1 i =1 ⎢
⎣ ⎝ ωi ⎠ ⎝ i ⎠ ⎥⎦
in which the term associated with the coefficient β kli is neglected because it is expected to be very small
when the damping ratio is small [4]. The terms ρ u k ul , ρ u k sli in equation (16) are cross-correlation
coefficients defined by
1
Su k ul (iω )dω
+∞
ρ u k ul =
σ uk σ ul ∫ −∞
(17)

1
H i (− iω )S uk u&&li (iω )dω
+∞
ρ u k sli =
σ u k σ sli ∫−∞
(18)

Λ1, kli Λ 3,kli

The terms Γ0 ,kli , and are spectral parameters defined by
ωi ω i3
1
H i (ω ) Ru&&k u&&l (ω )dω
+∞
∫
2
Γ0, kli = (19)
σ s ki σ sli −∞

Λ 0, kli 1
ω N H i (ω ) Qu&&k u&&l (ω )dω
+∞
∫
2
= N = 1, 3 (20)
ω i
N
ω σ ski σ sli
i
N −∞

where σ uk and σ s ki are the root-mean-squares of the ground displacement u k (t ) and the normalized
modal response s ki (t ) , respectively. These are given by the integrals
σ u2k = ∫−∞ Su k u k (ω )dω
+∞
(21)

σ s2ki = ∫−∞ H i (iω ) S u&&k u&&k (ω )dω

+∞ 2
(22)

In general, one may write u k ,max = puk σ uk and Dk (ω i ,ζ i ) = p ski σ ski , where u k ,max denote the mean
value of the peak displacement at the k-th support; Dk (ω i , ζ i ) denote the mean response spectrum for
ω = ω i and ζ = ζ i ; puk , pski are known as peak factors. Using these relations in equation (16) and
considering that ratios of the peak factors are near unity [10], we obtain
⎧m m
E [max z (t ) ] = ⎨∑∑ ak al ρ u k ul u k ,max ul , max + 2∑∑∑ ak bli ρ uk sli u k , max Dl (ω i ,ζ i )
m m n

⎩ k =1 l =1 k =1 l =1 i =1
12 (23)
m m ⎡n
⎛Λ ⎞ ⎛ Λ ⎞⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ∑∑∑ ⎢α kli Γ0, kli − θ kli ⎜⎜ 1,kli ⎟⎟ − φ kli ⎜⎜ 3,3kli ⎟⎟ ⎥ Dk (ω i ,ζ i )Dl (ω i ,ζ i )⎬
k =1 l =1 i =1 ⎢
⎣ ⎝ ωi ⎠ ⎝ ω i ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭

REDUCTION OF THE COMPUTATIONAL EFFORT

As they stand, equations (17)~(22) are not appealing for engineering purposes since the numerical
integration are required. Good approximate methods, however, can be developed to overcome these
difficulties as follows.

Spectral parameters
The simplified analysis of integrals of spectral parameters in equations (19) and (20) presupposes that
 S u&&k u&&k (ω ) can be approximated by a white noise process, that is S u&&k u&&k (ω ) = S 0 . This assumption is
feasible mainly due to two points: first, auto-PSD functions transformed from given response spectra (see
Fig. 1) are broad-banded; second, the spectral parameters in equations (19), (20) are express as rations of
integrals over the spectral shapes, and hence they are only mildly dependent on the specific forms of these
functions. As a consequence, substituting equations (15), (21) and (22) into equations (19) and (20), Γ0 ,kli
Λ N ,kli
and (N = 1, 3) can be reduced to
ω iN
H i (ω ) exp(− a ωτ )cos(ωτ )dω
+∞
∫
2

Γ0, kli = −∞
(24)
H i (ω ) dω
+∞
∫
2

−∞

ω H i (ω ) exp(− a ωτ )sin (ωτ )dω

+∞
∫
N 2
Λ N ,kli
= −∞
N = 1, 3 (25)
ω iN ∫−∞ H i (ω ) dω
+∞
ω iN 2

Below the simplified computation of Γ0 ,kli is discussed in detail for example. From equation (24), it is
proved that Γ0 ,kli is the function of only ω iτ . This is shown in Fig.2 where Γ0 ,kli remain constant when
ω i varies but ω iτ 2π equals to 0.4, 1.0, 1.6, 2.2, respectively.
1.0
Γ0 , kli ω iτ 2π = 1.0
0.5
ω iτ 2π = 2.2

0.0

ω iτ 2π = 1.6
-0.5
ω iτ 2π = 0.4

-1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
ω iτ 2π ( Hz )
Fig. 2 Γ0 ,kli values when ω iτ 2π ＝0.4, 1.0, 1.6 and 2.2

Berrah and Kausel [2] approximated H i (ω ) as follows:

2

⎧ 1 ω i4 for ω ≤ ω i
⎪
H i (ω ) = ⎨ 1 ⎛ π ⎞
2
(26)
⎪ ω 3 ⎜ 4ζ − 1⎟δ (ω − ω i )
⎜ ⎟
⎩ i ⎝ i ⎠
with δ (ω − ω i ) being Dirac’s delta function. With this simplification, Γ0 ,kli can be evaluated analytically
after some algebra, then
4ζ ⎧⎪ ⎡ sin (ω iτ ) a cos(ω iτ ) ⎛ π ⎞ ⎤ a ⎫⎪
Γ0.kli = i ⎨exp(− aω i τ )⎢ − + ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ cos(ω iτ )⎥ + ⎬ (27)
π ⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ ω iτ ωi τ ⎝ 4ζ i ⎠ ⎥⎦ ω i τ ⎪⎭
Since ζ i is small, generally ζ i < 0.1 , the above equation can be reduced more as below with little
accuracy lost,
Γ0.kli = exp(− aω i τ )cos(ω iτ ) (28)
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of Γ0 ,kli values from equation (24) through numerical integration and those
from equation (28) with the above simplification. It is clear from the Fig. 3 that there are relatively

Numerical Integration
1.0
Equation (28)
Γ0 , kli

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ω iτ 2π ( Hz )
Fig. 3 Comparison of Γ0 ,kli values by using numerical integration and equation (28)
significant discrepancies between Γ0 ,kli values by using numerical integration and equation (28),
especially for the greater ω iτ 2π . This indicates that the assumption in equation (26) will bring an
obvious error. Nevertheless, Γ0 ,kli values from these two analyses have consistent trends, both varying in
an attenuating cosine form. When ω iτ = nπ , they both reach the amplitude though the numerical results
are less than the corresponding approximated ones; and when ω iτ = (n + 1 2 )π , the approximated results
equal to zero, but the numerical results are close to zero, and slightly lag behind the approximated ones.

1.0
Numerical Integration
Γ0 , kli
Equation (29)
0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ω iτ 2π ( Hz )
Fig. 4 Comparison of Γ0 ,kli values by using numerical integration and equation (29)
In view of this feature, we can assume Γ0 ,kli values from the numerical integration as the following form:
Γ0, kli = exp(− α sω i τ )cos(ω iτ + ϕ s ) (29)
then by modifying the values of α s , ϕ s , Γ0 ,kli obtained from the above equation can be in close
agreement with results from the direct integration. Fig. 4 compares these two sets of results when
α s = 0.419 and ϕ s = −0.074 .
Λ N ,kli
This simplification procedure is the same with spectral parameters (N = 1, 3) , but they should be
N
ωi
expressed as
Λ N ,kli
= exp(− α sω i τ )sin (ω iτ + ϕ s ) N = 1, 3 (30)
ω iN
Λ1, kli Λ 3,kli
Fig. 5 shows and values from the direct integration and from equation (30), respectively.
ωi ω i3
1.0
Λ 1,kli Numerical Integration
ωi Equation (30)
0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ω iτ 2π ( Hz )
1.0
Λ 3,kli Numerical Integration
ω 3 Equation (30)
i
0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ω iτ 2π ( Hz )
Λ 1,kli Λ 3,kli
Fig. 5 Comparison of , values by using numerical integration and equation (30)
ωi ω i3
As shown in Table 1, α s , ϕ s will take different values for different spectral parameters. In above
analysis, the damping ratio ζ i is 0.05, but for flexible structures, such as a long-span bridge, ζ i is
generally taken as 0.02 or 0.03, so α s , ϕ s relative to the damping ratio of 0.02 and 0.03 are also listed in
Table 1.
Table 1 Values of α s , ϕ s

Λ 1, kli Λ 3, kli
Γ0 ,kli
ζi ωi ωi3
αs ϕs αs ϕs αs ϕs
0.02 0.260 0.000 0.260 0.000 0.260 0.060
0.03 0.325 -0.045 0.325 0.000 0.325 0.100
0.05 0.419 -0.074 0.419 0.000 0.419 0.165

Cross-correlation coefficients
Fig. 6 shows plots of the cross-correlation coefficient ρ u k ul for the ground displacements at two supports
k and l for sites with four types of soil conditions. It is concluded that ρ u k ul is a monotone decreasing

1.0
ρukul Type 1
0.8 Type 2
Type 3
0.6 Type 4

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
τ (sec)
Fig. 6 ρukul for sites with four types of soil conditions

function of τ , decreasing sharply when τ is small ( τ < 2.0 sec ) and then more gently. According to this
feather, ρ u k ul can be approximated easily by regression analysis in the following form:
⎧⎪1 − k1 τ τ ≤ τ1
ρ u k ul = ⎨
(
⎪⎩exp − k 2 τ ) τ > τ1
(31)

Table 2 Values of k1 , k 2 and τ 1

Soil
τ1 k1 k2
condition
1 0.60 0.66 0.65
2 1.20 0.40 0.60
3 1.90 0.28 0.55
4 2.30 0.22 0.45
where k1 , k 2 and τ 1 have different values for different types of soil conditions(see Table 2). Fig. 7
shows the comparison of ρ u k ul values for four types of soil conditions through numerical integration and
those from equation (31). Seen from this figure, two sets of results match very well.

1.0 1.0

ρukul 0.8 Numerical Integration 0.8

Equation (31)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Type 1 Type 2
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
1.0 1.0

ρukul 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
Type 3 Type 4
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
τ (sec) τ (sec)
Fig. 7 Comparison of ρuk ul values by using numerical integration and equation (31)

Large, multi-supported structures are generally flexible. For these flexible structures, the covariance
component between dynamic and pseudo-static responses has very smaller contribution to the total
response compared to the pseudo-static and dynamic component [11-13]. Thus, it is reasonably
considered that little accuracy is lost by neglecting the contribution of ρ u k sli .

NUMERICAL STUDY

Consider a two-span continuous beam, which has been discussed in Reference [1], with uniform mass and
stiffness properties and simple supports as shown in Fig. 8. Three response quantities are considered for
the analysis: the deflection, the moment and the shear force along the beam. These quantities are analyzed
by the proposed response spectrum method, MSRS and the Monte Carlo simulation respectively. In the
study, EI m = 2.53 × 10 6 m 4 s 2 , where EI denotes the flexural rigidity and m denotes the mass per
unit length of the beam, ν s = 500 m s , and assume that site conditions underneath three supports are all
“type 2” soil. 50 sets of multi-support ground motions are used here, which were obtained using the

EI, m

50 m 50 m

Fig. 8 Example structure, two-span continuous beam

simulation method by Hao et al [7], and the motion at each support is vertical.
Comparison of the maximum displacement, moment and shear force of the two-span beam obtained
using the proposed approximation method, MSRS and Monte Carlo simulation are shown in Fig. 9. It is
6.0

Max. Displacement (cm)

Proposed method
5.6 MSRS
Monte Carlo simulation
5.2

4.8

4.4

0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance along beam (m)

14
Max. Moment (10 ×Nm)

12 Proposed method
MSRS
10 Monte Carlo simulation
6

8
6
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance along beam (m)
Max. Shear Force (10 ×N)

Proposed method
12
MSRS
5

Monte Carlo simulation

8

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance along beam (m)
Fig. 9 Comparison of response of maximum displacement, moment and shear force
by using proposed method, MSRS and Monte Carlo simulation
found that the results from proposed method are in close agreement with simulation results, with all
relative errors less than 10%. The results from proposed method and those from MSRS also match well,
but as far as the computational time is concerned, the latter is much more than the former. For maximum
displacement, moment and shear force response, MSRS averagely spends 37.3s, 103.7s and 292.3s,
respectively, but the proposed method spends less than 1s.
 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the random-vibration method developed by Heredia-Zavoni and Vanmarcke [4] for seismic
response analysis of linear multi-degree-of-freedom, multiple supported structures under spatially varying
ground motions, an efficient response spectrum method is proposed. With the assumption of white noise
Λ N ,kli
and the introduction of two correction factors, spectral parameters Γ0 ,kli and (N = 1, 3) can be
ω iN
expressed in very straightforward forms. Since it is a monotone decreasing function of τ , the
cross-correlation coefficient ρ u k ul can be approximated well and conveniently by the regression analysis.
Also the effect of cross-correlation between pseudo-static and dynamic responses can be neglected in the
calculation of the response analysis without inducing any significant error. As example structure, a
two-span continuous beam is considered to demonstrate the proposed response spectrum method.
Computed results based on this method are in close agreement with results from Monte Carlo simulation
and from MSRS. But a dramatic reduction of the computational time is achieved, compared to the MSRS.
It can be concluded that the proposed computational algorithm provides an efficient method for the
analysis of multi-support structural system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The supports of the Natural Science Fund of China for Distinguished Young Scholars (Grant
No.59825105) and the Natural Science Fund of China for Innovative Research Groups (Grant No.
50321803) are greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

1. Der Kiureghian A, Hofer A. “Response spectrum method for multi-support seismic excitations.”
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 1992; 21:713-740.
2. Berrah M, Kausel E. “Response spectrum analysis of structures subjected to spatially varying
motions.” Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 1992; 21:461-470.
3. Berrah M, Kausel E. “A modal combination rule for spatially varying seismic motions.” Earthquake
Engng Struct. Dyn. 1993; 22:791-800.
4. Heredia-Zavoni E, Vanmarcke EH. “Seismic random-vibration analysis of multisupport-structural
systems.” J. Engng Mech. 1994; 120(5): 1107-1128.
5. Loh CH. “Analysis of the spatial variation of seismic waves and ground movements from SMART-1
array data.” Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 1985; 14: 561-581.
6. Harichandran RS, Vanmarcke EH. “Stochastic variation of earthquake motion in space and time.” J.
Engng Mech. 1986; 112(2): 154-174.
7. Hao H, Olivera CS, Penzien J. “Multiple-station ground motion processing and simulation based on
SMART-1 array data.” Nucl. Engng Design 1989; 111: 293-310.
8. Clough RW, Penzien J. “ Dynamics of structures.” New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.
9. Junjie W, Lichu F. “ Modification of code response spectrum in long-period phase.” Chinese J. of
Civil Engng 1998; 31(6): 49-55.
10. Der Kiureghian A. “ Structural response to stationary excitation.” J. Engng Mech. 1980; 106:
1195-1213.
11. Nakmura Y, Der Kiureghian A, Liu D. “Multiple-support response spectrum analysis of the golden
gate bridge.” Report No. UCB/EERC-93/05, EERC, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1993.
12. Hao H. “Arch response to correlated multiple excitations.” Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 1993; 22:
389-404.
13. Harichandran RS, Hawwari A, Sweidan BN. “Response of long-span bridges to spatially varying
ground motion.” J. Struct. Engng 1996; 122(5): 476-484.