Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Engineering
online 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2943–2948

X International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017

X International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017
A Fast Computational Framework for Seismic Random Response of
A Fast Computational Framework for Seismic Random Response of
Multi-support Structures
Multi-support Structures
Xianting Du*, He Xia, Hong Qiao
Xianting Du*, He Xia, Hong Qiao
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing, Jiaotong University,No.3 Shuangyuancun, Hai Dian District, Beijing 100044, China
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing, Jiaotong University,No.3 Shuangyuancun, Hai Dian District, Beijing 100044, China

Abstract
Abstract
This paper presents a fast computational framework for seismic random response of multi-support structures, of which
This paper presents
computational efficiencya fast computational
handers framework
its application forengineering.
to practical seismic randomFirst ofresponse
all, after of multi-support
structural modelling structures,
based on of
thewhich
finite
computational
element method, efficiency
the largehanders its application
mass method is usedtotopractical engineering.
exert the load on theFirst of all, in
supports after
thestructural
form of modelling based on the
seismic acceleration finite
history,
element method,
which ensures thethe
that large mass method
equations of motionis used
of theto system
exert the
areload on the
solved supports
directly. in the form
Secondly, of seismicload
the impulsive acceleration
is exertedhistory,
on the
which
supportsensures that the equations
and corresponding of motion
dynamic analysisofisthe system
carried areOn
out. solved directly.
the basis of theSecondly,
impulsive theresponse,
impulsivea load is exerted
generalized on the
frequency
supports
response and corresponding
function (FRF) candynamic analysis
be obtained viaisthe
carried out.transform.
Fourier On the basis of theaccording
Thirdly, impulsivetoresponse, a generalizedauto
classic formulation, frequency
power
response
spectrum function (FRF)functions
density (PSD) can be obtained via response
of structural the Fouriermaytransform. Thirdly,
be calculated, which according
involvestotheclassic formulation,
generalized autothepower
FRFs and PSD
spectrum densityof(PSD)
function matrix functions
the seismic of structural
accelerations response
at the may
supports. The beproposed
calculated, which involves
framework the by
is verified generalized
comparingFRFs and the PSD
its computational
function matrix
results with of the seismic
the analytical accelerations
solution of a singleatDOF
the supports.
system. AThe proposed
5-span framework
bridge is verified byiscomparing
during earthquakes taken as aits computational
case study. The
results with
results showthe analytical
that solution
three factors of a singlespatial
influencing DOF system. A of
variation 5-span bridge
seismic during
ground earthquakes
motion should be is taken
taken into
as a consideration
case study. The to
results
get show
safer that response
random three factors
of a influencing spatial
multi-support variation of seismic ground motion should be taken into consideration to
structure.
get safer random response of a multi-support structure.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The under
Peer-review Authors. Published by
responsibility of Elsevier Ltd. committee of EURODYN 2017.
the organizing
organizing
Peer-review under responsibility of the committee of EURODYN 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
Keywords: multi-support structure; seismic random response; large mass method; generalized frequency response function.
Keywords: multi-support structure; seismic random response; large mass method; generalized frequency response function.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-010-51683786; fax: +86-010-51683360.

* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding Tel.: +86-010-51683786; fax: +86-010-51683360.
wadmdxt@163.com
E-mail address: wadmdxt@163.com
1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review©under
1877-7058 2017responsibility
The Authors. of the organizing
Published committee
by Elsevier Ltd. of EURODYN 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.351
2944 Xianting Du et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2943–2948
2 X.T.DU, H. Xia, H. Qiao/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

The theoretical framework of a methodology for stochastic-response analysis to random excitation fields is
already available [1]. However, it is not widely adopted by practicing engineers to analyze structures with a big
number of degrees of freedom and supports owing to its complexity and lower computational efficiency.
In this regard, the time-history analysis method (THAM), response spectrum method (RSM) and the spectrum-
based random vibration method (SRAM) are commonly used by various researchers [2].
THAM is mainly carried out based on a substantial number of earthquake sample records so that a reliable
statistical average can be obtained, which greatly increases the computational effort [3].
The conventional RSM that appears in the codes of most countries can’t account for the spatial variation of
seismic ground motion. Konakli et al presented a generalized formulation of the multiple support response spectrum
(MSRS) method and extended it by accounting for the quasi-static contributions of truncated modes [4].
The SRAM possesses better theoretical accuracy. Lin et al presented the pseudo excitation method (PEM) for
seismic random vibration analysis of long-span structures, which transformed the stationary random analyses into
harmonic ones and accurately took into account the cross-correlation terms between the participant modes and
between the excitations [3].
As for the SRAM, the seismic response of the structure with a large number of degrees of freedom and supports is
divided into the dynamic component and the pseudo-static component. To enhance its computational efficiency, only
parts of structural lower modes are usually used, which implies that the structural damping matrix should satisfy the
orthogonal assumption and that the influence of the higher structural modes is smaller and neglected.
This paper presents a fast computational framework for seismic random response of multi-support structures
which avoids the decomposition of the dynamic response, the mode and the PSD function matrix of the ground
accelerations. First of all, after structural modelling based on the finite element method, the large mass method is
used to exert the load on the supports in the form of seismic acceleration history, which ensures that the equations of
motion of the system are solved directly [6]. Secondly, the impulsive load is exerted on the supports and
corresponding dynamic analysis is carried out. On the basis of the impulsive response, a generalized FRF can be
obtained via the Fourier transform. Thirdly, according to classic formulation, auto PSD functions of structural
response may be calculated, which involves the generalized FRFs and the PSD function matrix of the seismic
accelerations at the supports. Finally, the proposed framework is verified by comparing its computational results
with the analytical solution of a single DOF system. A 5-span bridge during earthquakes is taken as a case study.

2. Generalized FRFs

2.1. Concept of generalized FRFs

On the basis of finite element method, the equation of motion of a multi-support structure during earthquakes under
the absolute coordinates can be expressed in the form of matrix [5],
 Mss Msb  us   Css Csb  us   K ss K sb  us   0 
M         (1)
 bs M bb  ub  Cbs Cbb  ub   K bs K bb  ub   Pb 
where M, C, K are the mass, damping and stiffness matrix, respectively; the subscript s denotes the superstructure
and the subscript b stands for the supports of the bridge; P represents the external force acting on the supports.
An assumption that the external force equals to the product of the mass sub-matrix of the supports and the seismic
acceleration vector of ground motion xb is introduced as:
Pb  Mbb xb (2)
If the mass of the supports tends to infinity, namely M bb   , the following expression can be obtained
ub  xb (3)
With Equation (3), the equation of motion of the superstructure under the absolute coordinates can be obtained by
expanding the first item in Equation (1). Thus, the external load resulting from seismic ground motions is exerted on
 Xianting Du et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2943–2948 2945
X.T. Du, H. Xia, H. Qiao/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

the structural system without the decompositions of the dynamic response, expressed as
Mss us  Css us  Kss us   Msb xb  Csb xb  Ksb xb (4)
Transforming both sides of Equation (4) into frequency domain via the Fourier transform leads to:
U s     K ss  iCss   2 M ss  M  Csb / i  K sb /  2  X b  
1
sb (5)
A FRF matrix reflecting the relationship between the input acceleration and the output displacement in frequency
domain can be defined as:
H     K ss  iCss   2 M ss  M  Csb / i  K sb /  2 
1
sb (6)
Therefore, the generalized FRFs can be defined in order to directly express the relationship between the concerned
variables and the seismic accelerations in frequency domain.
 H1     h1,1   h1,2   h1,3m   
   
H g   

H 2     h2,1   h2,2   h2,3m   
(7)
   
   
 H n     hn,1   hn,2   hn,3m   
where the superscript g represents generalized FRF, the first and second subscripts stand for the response and the
support direction, respectively; n and m represent the number of the output and the number of the support.

2.2. Computation of generalized FRFs

The condition that the mass of the supports tends to infinity can be satisfied approximately by using the large mass
method [6]. Then Equation (1) can be written as:
 Mss Msb  us   Css Csb  us   K ss K sb  us   0 
         (8)
 M bs M bb  M L  ub  Cbs Cbb  ub   K bs 
K bb  ub   M bb  M L  xb 
where ML is the large mass, which is usually 103～106 times of the total mass of the bridge. It should be noted that
the solution of Equation (8) with discrete time interval Δt can be easily carried out using different numerical
integration methods.
After the numerical solution, the generalized FRF can be computed as the ratio of the Fourier transform of the
concerned variable outputted to that of the impulsive acceleration time history inputted as follows:
DFT  Oi  j  
hi ,l  j   (9)
DFT  xl  j  
Obviously, there are 3m times of time history computation in order to determine the generalized FRFs.
It should be noted that the integral process may inevitably incur the truncated error and the accumulated error,
which lead to the deviation of the velocity and displacement time histories. Therefore, the generalized FRFs related
to displacement response of multi-support system should be computed on the basis of that of accelerations via the
frequency relationship instead of directly using Equation (9).

3. Proposed computational framework

Based on the above-mentioned theoretical derivation, the essential task of the seismic random response analysis
of a multi-support structure is focused on structural modelling by means of finite element method and performing
dynamic analysis under the action of the white noise acceleration time history. The detailed framework proposed
can be implemented on the basis of the numerical integration method, the large mass method, the Fourier transform
and the inverse Fourier transform, as shown Figure 1.
From the above-mentioned analysis, it is easily to see that the proposed framework has the following advantages:
(1) Compared with traditional THAM, the proposed framework can greatly decrease the number of time history
analysis to 3 times of the support number and avoid the simulation of seismic acceleration time histories considering
2946 Xianting Du et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2943–2948
4 X.T.DU, H. Xia, H. Qiao/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

the spatial variation while having the higher accuracy.

(2) Compared with the MRSM, the proposed framework has better theoretical accuracy.
(3) Compared with the PEM, the proposed framework can not only avoid the decomposition of the dynamic
response, the mode and the PSD function matrix of the ground accelerations, but also transfers harmonic analysis
into time history analysis while possessing the higher theoretical accuracy owing to considering the influence of
higher modes.
Input control parameters

Input bridge information Input site information

Choose auto PSD functions of

Establish mass and stiffness matrix
seismic accelerations at supports

Form damping matrix according to Determine incoherence model

Rayleigh assumption parameters

Add large mass at the support Form PSD function matrix of

direction seismic accelerations

Perform dynamic analysis Generate white noise time history

using numerical integration method using inverse Fourier transform

No Compute the generalized FRFs

Generate random phase angle
using Fourier transform

All support translational

Yes
directions are finished

Compute auto PSD function vector of

structural response

Compute probability features

Figure 1. Implement flow chart of proposed framework

4. Application example

A (75+128+148+128+75) m continuous beam bridge carrying two railway tracks is taken as a case, as shown
Figure 2. A finite element model is established for the bridge using a commercial computer package. The first
natural frequency of the bridge is 0.401Hz. The damping of the bridge is assumed to satisfy the Rayleigh assumption,
in which the proportionality constants of the mass and stiffness matrices equal to 0.2050and 0.0073, respectively.
The bridge is subjected to spatially varying earthquake ground accelerations and the seismic waves propagate in
the direction from support No. 1 to support No. 6. The site condition of the bridge is assumed to be medium clay.
The stationary PSD functions of seismic accelerations at supports are assumed to be the same and determined with
 Xianting Du et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2943–2948 2947
X.T. Du, H. Xia, H. Qiao/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

the Kanai-Tajimi Acceleration Spectrum which is modified by Clough and Penzien. A model accounting for the
main effects of spatial variation of seismic ground motion in Eurocode 8 is adopted which has the following form
 2
   d kl     d klL 
 
 kl  i  
exp      exp i   exp ikl   (10)
v  vapp  
  s  
  
where vs is the shear-wave velocity, α is a constant varying from 0.2 to 0.6, vapp is the so-called apparent velocity of
waves, d klL is the distance between supports k and l projected along the direction of propagation of the waves, and
θkl(ω)is the frequency-dependent angle.
Node No.1 Node No.5
Moment No.1 Moment No.5

Node No.2 Node No.3 Node No.4

Moment No.2 Moment No.3 Moment No.4

Support 1 Support 2 Support 3 Support 4 Support 5 Support 6

Figure 2. 5-span continuous beam bridge
The corresponding key parameters are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Major parameters
Item Value Item Value
Shear-wave velocity vs 300m/s Site characteristic damping ratio ξg 0.60
Incoherence constant α 0.35 Site characteristic frequency of support ωg 5π
Apparent velocity of waves 1000m/s Filter cutoff frequency of support, ωf 0.5π
Filter peak parameter ξf 0.60
The bending moments at middle spans between supports Nos. 1 and 6 are analysed, as shown in Figure 2. In order
to investigate the influence of different factors, the uniform case, the partially non-uniform case only considering the
wave travelling effect and the full non-uniform case considering are computed and labelled as “Uniform”,
“Travelling” and “Fully” in the subsequent figure.
Figure 3 gives the auto PSD functions of moments with respect to the vertical axis under the action of horizontal
seismic ground motions. From the comparison between the uniform case and the travelling case, it is easily to see
that the wave travelling effect greatly enlarges the moment in frequency, which is the same to the influence of
spatial incoherence based on the comparison between the uniform case and the travelling case.
13
Uniform 8.0x10 Uniform
13 Travelling Travelling
8.0x10
Fully Fully
13
6.0x10
13
6.0x10
S()/S0

13
13
4.0x10
4.0x10
S()/S0

13
2.0x10
13 2.0x10

0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
Frequency/(Hz) Frequency/(Hz)
(a) No.1 (b) No.2
6 X.T.DU, H. Xia, H. Qiao/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
2948 Xianting Du et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 2943–2948

14 Uniform
8.0x10 Travelling
Fully
14
6.0x10

S()/S0
14
4.0x10

14
2.0x10

0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Frequency/(Hz)
(c) No.3
Figure 3. Auto PSD functions of moments with respect to horizontal axis

5. Conclusions

The major results drawn from the study can be summarized as follows:
(1)The resultant accuracy based on the proposed framework satisfies the demand of the project. The proposed
framework can greatly decrease the number of time history analysis to 3 times of the support number and show good
effectiveness in application.
(2)The consideration of the wave travelling effect may lead to much larger internal force compared with the
uniform ground motion.
(3)The consideration of the spatial incoherent effect may yield much larger internal force compared with the
consideration of wave passage only. Both the wave travelling effect and spatial incoherence effect of the seismic
ground motion shall be taken into consideration.

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (“973”Project, Grant No.
2013CB036203) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2014JBM092).

References

[1] Heredid-Zavoni E. Vanmarcke E.H. Seismic random-vibration analysis of multi-support-structural systems. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics.120(5)(1994)1107-1128.
[2] Soyluk K. Comparison of random vibration methods for multi-support seismic excitation analysis of long-span bridges. Engineering
Structures. 26(2004)1573-1583.
[3] Lin J.H., Zhang Y.H., Li Q.S. Li and Williams F.W. Seismic spatial effects for long-span bridges using the pseudo excitation method.
Engineering Structures. 26(2004)1207-1216.
[4] Konakli K. and Der Kiureghian A. Extend MSRS rule for seismic analysis of bridge subjected to differential support motions. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 40(2011)1315-1335.
[5] Wilson EL. Three-dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures: A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering.
Computers and Structures Inc: California, 2002.
[6] Léger P., Idé I.M.and Paultre P. Multiple-Support seismic analysis of large structures. Computers and Structures. 36(6)( 1990)153-1158.