Efficient Estimation of Seismic Response of

Large-Span Structures Considering the Effect

of Multiple-Support Excitation
Han Qin 1; Luyu Li 2; and Billie F. Spencer Jr., F.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: For the seismic design of structures in which the respective supports are located at long distances from each other, the assumption
of uniform ground motion may be inadequate. In this study, an efficient time domain method is proposed to determine seismic structural
response considering the effect of stochastic multiple-support excitation (MSE). This method improves the Markov vector method by
considering the frequency-dependent coherence function of the excitations, proposing a new modeling framework and solving strategy.
The location of the time-modulating function is studied theoretically, the and the calculation method of the time-modulating function
for an arbitrary excitation envelope of the MSE is studied. A natural way of calculating support damping is given. Based on the principle
that a model built in absolute coordinates should be consistent with a model built in relative coordinates, the formulation of a damping matrix
in absolute coordinates was studied. The nonstationary response variances were obtained by solving the governing ordinary differential
equations. The results were compared with extensive Monte Carlo simulation, demonstrating that the proposed method is efficient and
accurate for analysis of stochastically structures considering multiple-support excitation. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001667.
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Multiple-support excitation; Lyapunov equation; Monte Carlo simulation; Vector fitting; Balanced model reduction.

Introduction of structure, including beams (Harichandran and Wang 1990), life-

The seismic design of most structures assumes uniform ground
motion, which implies that the motion of all of the supports of the
structure is identical. However, for structures in which the respective
supports are located long distances from each other, this assumption
may not be sufficient. Indeed, ground motions at spatially distributed
locations may differ substantially because of scattering of seismic
waves through a heterogeneous medium, differences in arrival time
of the various wave components, different local soil conditions, and
so on (Kiureghian 1996). Studies as early as the 1960s (Bogdanoff
et al. 1965) demonstrated that neglecting the effects of multiple-
support excitation (MSE) can result in deficient seismic designs.
The MSE problem can also be used in substructure hybrid simulation
(Li et al. 2012), in which different ends of the substructure are under
different excitation; vehicle dynamics (Prabakar et al. 2016); and ve-
hicle–bridge interaction (Liu et al. 2013) problems in which a half-
car or more sophisticated model is used to simulate the motion of a
vehicle under the excitation of rugged pavement; and so on. In the
years following these first efforts, numerous studies have been con-
ducted to show the importance of MSE in the design of various types
1
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Dalian Univ. of Tech-
nology, Dalian 116024, China. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2014
-9921
2
Associate Professor, State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore
Engineering, Dalian Univ. of Technology, Dalian 116024, China (corre-
sponding author). Email: liluyu@yeah.net
3
Professor and Nathan M. and Anne M. Newmark Endowed Chair in
Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL 61801.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 17, 2018; approved
on April 30, 2019; published online on September 24, 2019. Discussion
period open until February 24, 2020; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9399.
line systems (Hindy and Novak 1980; Zerva 1994), foundations
(Harichandran 1987), different types of bridges (Abdel-Ghaffar and
Rubin 1982; Hao 1993), and so on.
Most of the early research focused on the effect of MSE
assuming stationary structural responses. However, earthquakes are
intrinsically nonstationary processes, rendering the entire structural
response problem nonstationary. Moreover, this problem is exacer-
bated because structures that are sensitive to MSE usually have
long natural periods and require more time to reach stationarity.
As a result, analysis of the structure assuming stationary responses
may not reflect the true behavior of such structures during
earthquakes.
In the existing literature, five primary approaches have been
proposed for determining the nonstationary response due to MSE.
Spectral analysis methods, response spectrum methods, and pseu-
doexcitation methods are frequency domain methods; Monte Carlo
methods and Markov vector methods are time domain methods.
Frequency domain methods are mostly used in stochastically
analysis considering MSE. In spectral analysis methods, the inte-
gral of the power spectral density (PSD) function is required,
making it a computationally costly method. In addition, two ap-
proximations are used in this method. First, models of the structure
are built employing the relative motion method (RMM) (Leger
et al. 1990). Here, the inertial and damping forces of the pseudo-
static part in the support degrees of freedom (DOF) are neglected.
Second, Harichandran et al. (1996), Ates (2012), and Bayraktar
et al. (2016) proposed that the Heaviside function should be used
as the time-modulating function, yielding accuracy to computa-
tional efficiency. The response spectrum method (Kiureghian and
Neuenhofer 1992; Soyluk 2004; Mezouer et al. 2010) improves
upon the spectral analysis methods by expressing the PSD of the
response with respect to the response spectrum of the ground mo-
tion. Consequently, this method retains the deficiencies of the
spectral analysis method. In terms of the pseudoexcitation method

© ASCE 04019096-1 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 (PEM) (Jia et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2014), the structural model is
built with respect to absolute coordinates using the large mass
method (LMM) (Leger et al. 1990). Here, the damping matrix is
formed similarly to the uniform excitation problem, but adding
nonphysical damping into the result. Moreover, the propagating
PSD of the responses are solved frequency by frequency, making
the PEM a computationally expensive method. Frequency do-
main methods require point-by-point calculation of the structural
frequency response function (FRF). When sharp peaks exist in
the FRF, the accuracy can only be guaranteed by increasing the
number of the points. These methods also have a high request on
the time-modulating function and thus are not suitable for nonsta-
tionary study.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Time domain methods show better performance in nonstation-
ary analysis. In the Monte Carlo method (Price and Eberhard 1998;
Bi et al. 2013; Hacıefendioğlu 2017), many time histories must
be calculated with structural analysis software. The Markov vector
method (DebChaudhury and Gazis 1988; Allam and Datta 2004;
Allam and Datta 2003) is relatively computationally efficient.
However, in this method, the variance is solved modewise, which
requires high accuracy in computing the mode shapes and eigen-
values. Frequency independent coherency of the correlated excita-
tions is used, which is not sufficient for describing the complex
correlation of these excitations. The state transition matrix is cal-
culated by solving the governing ordinary differential equation,
which is computationally expensive.
PEM, the Markov vector method, and some articles of the Monte
Carlo method build the model in absolute coordinates. However,
these methods pay little attention to the performance of the damping
matrix in absolute coordinates. When a structural model is built in
absolute coordinates, directly forming the damping matrix with
methods used in the uniform excitation case can bring in unexpected
damping forces. Consider any structure, and build the equation of
motion (EOM) of the structure, including all the support degrees
of freedom. The value in the damping matrix C can be defined
as the sum of two parts, namely self-balance damping Csb and
external-source damping Ces . When the structure, including all the
supports, moves in any direction at a constant velocity v̇, the self-
balance damping is the part that satisfies Csb v̇ ¼ 0, and external-
source damping Ces ¼ C − Csb is the remaining part. Traditional
ways of formulating the damping matrix are established in relative
coordinates. Damping offered by dampers and stiffness proportional
damping are self-balancing, whereas in methods such as modal and
Rayleigh damping, external-source damping exists, and using these
damping formulating methods would cause an error in calculation.
Some researchers also ignore terms like support damping and
the inertial forces caused by relative motion of the supports because
of their small influence on the response. Few articles have rigor-
ously studied this influence. Ignoring support damping in absolute
coordinates will also bring in external source damping in the damp-
ing matrix.
In this study, a time domain method was proposed to determine
seismic structural response considering the effect of nonstationary
stochastic multiple-support excitation. In the first section, a new
framework that can better describe the coherence function is pro-
vided to fit filter modeling–correlated earthquake ground motions
in the time domain. The location to multiply the time-modulating
function is studied; a calculating method is also given for generat-
ing excitations with an arbitrary time envelope. In the next section,
a natural way of calculating support damping is proposed, and a
structure EOM compensating the external source damping in abso-
lute coordinates is derived based on a modified LMM. After that,
the nonstationary response variances are obtained by solving the
governing ordinary differential equations. The model reduction
© ASCE 04019096-2
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096
method is used to speed up the calculation. In the last section,
two examples are given. In the first example, EOMs derived in
different coordinates are compared to demonstrate the external
damping problem and testify to the effectiveness of the introduced
modeling method. In the second example, an analysis of a three-
span rigid frame bridge is carried out to demonstrate the efficacy
of the proposed method. Both medium and firm soil conditions
are studied. Results compared with an extensive Monte Carlo sim-
ulation demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed
method.
Generation of Spatially Correlated Earthquake
Ground Motion Signals
Many studies have focused on generating nonstationary correlated
signals (Zerva and Zervas 2002). In this section, a widely accepted
method for generating nonstationary spatially correlated artificial
ground motions is briefly reviewed at first. Then, to realize this
method in the time domain, a better fitting strategy is proposed.
After that, the location to multiply the time-modulating function
is studied theoretically and its calculation method is introduced.
No actual ground motion time series is required in the introduced
method; the signal-generating process is represented in the time
domain as a state-space function for further calculating the final
response of the structure.
Review of Generating Nonstationary Correlated Signals
In general, a nonstationary process yðtÞ is often represented by a
quasistationary form (Clough and Penzien 1995)
yðtÞ ¼ Ae ðtÞxðtÞ ð1Þ
where Ae ðtÞ = time-modulating function; and xðtÞ = stationary pro-
cess. The correlated signals can be generated by filtering indepen-
dent white noise processes. The frequency response functions of
these filters can be calculated using existing methods.
First, the calculating method of these FRFs is reviewed.
The ground motions at different supports i and j can be de-
scribed by Sij (Kiureghian 1996), which is the cross-spectral
density function of the ground acceleration ẍi and ẍj
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sij ðωÞ ¼ γ ij ðωÞ Sii ðωÞSjj ðωÞ ð2Þ
where γ ij = coherence function for ẍi and ẍj .
The autopower spectral density function Sii is assumed to have
the form of the Clough-Penzien spectrum (Clough and Penzien
1995)
ω4g;i þ 4ζ 2g;i ω2g;i ω2 ω4
Sii ¼ S0
ðω2g;i− ω Þ þ 4ζ g;i ωg;i ω ðωf;i − ω Þ þ 4ζ 2f;i ω2f;i ω2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ð3Þ
where S0 = power spectral density of the filtered white noise
process; ωf;i , ωg;i , ζ f;i , and ζ g;i = parameters of the spectrum
corresponding to the ith support, and the suffix i is omitted for
simplicity in the following context. The value of the param-
eters frequently used for different soil conditions is provided in
Table 1.
A stationary signal, which is assumed to be the ground accel-
eration, with the Clough-Penzien spectrum, can be realized by
the modified Kani-Tajimi filter (MKT filter). The state-space
representation of the MKT filter is shown in Eq. (4). When the
J. Eng. Mech.
 Table 1. Parameters of the Clough-Penzien spectrum
Soil condition ωf (rad=s) ωg (rad=s) ζf ζg
input output
Soft soil 0.5 5 0.6 0.2
Medium soil 1 10 0.6 0.4
Firm soil 1.5 15 0.6 0.6

Fig. 1. Diagram of fitting Lij .

corresponding ground displacement is required, the state-space rep-
resentation can be easily derived and is named Af , Bf , Cf , and Df
0 1 In terms of the time-modulating function, the well-known
0 0 1 0 0
B C modulating function of Shinozuka and Sata (1967) is frequently
 B 0 0 0 1 0 C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 B C used and also recommended in this study

Afa Bfa B C
¼ B −ω2g ω2f −2ζ g ωg 2ζ f ωf −1 C ð4Þ
Cf a D f a B C
B 0 −ω2f 0 −2ζ f ωf 1 C
@ A Ae ðtÞ ¼ Cðe−B1 t − e−B2 t ÞSðtÞ ð10Þ
−ω2g 0 −2ζ g ωg 0 0

Many studies have introduced models for the coherence func- where SðtÞ = Heaviside function; C ¼ ðB1 Þ=ðB2 − B1 Þ
tion (Kiureghian 1996; Smith et al. 1982; King 1982; McLaughlin eðB2 Þ=ðB2 −B1 Þ logðB2 =B1 Þ ; and B2 > B1 > 0. In this study, B1 ¼
et al. 1983). In this paper, the one proposed by Kiureghian (1996) is 0.045π and B2 ¼ 0.05π is chosen.
used as shown in Eq. (5)

γ ij ðωÞ ¼ γ iij ðωÞγ wij ðωÞγ sij ðωÞ ¼ γ iij ðωÞ exp½iðθwij ðωÞ þ θsij ðωÞÞ Realization of the Filters in Time Domain

ð5Þ In the following context, a new fitting strategy guaranteeing the

fitting of the coherence functions is proposed. The Cholesky
where γ iij ðωÞ, γ wij ðωÞ, and γ sij ðωÞ represent the incoherence effect, factorization considering different soil conditions is derived as
the wave-passage effect, and the site-response effects, respectively. follows:
Harichandran and Vanmarcke (1986) further studied the incoher-
ence effect with the records obtained from the Smart-1 seismograph 2 3
array (Hao et al. 1989) H 1 c11
6 7
  6 H 2 c21 γ s21 γ w21 H 2 c22 7
2dij 6 7
γ ij ðωÞ ¼ A exp −
i
ð1 − A þ αAÞ L¼6 7 ð11Þ
αθðωÞ 6 H 3 c31 γ s31 γ w31 H 3 c32 γ s32 γ w32 H 3 c33 7
4 5
  .. .. .. ..
2dij . . . .
þ ð1 − AÞ exp − ð1 − A þ αAÞ ð6Þ
θðωÞ
    1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ω b −2 where p ¼ 1, c21 ¼ γ i21 , c31 ¼pγffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
c11ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 31 , c22 ¼
i
1−γ i21 , c32 ¼ ðγ i32 −γ i21
θðωÞ ¼ k 1 þ ð7Þ γ 31 Þ=ð 1−γ 21 Þ, and c33 ¼ 1 − γ 31 − ðγ i32 − γ i21 γ i31 Þ2 =ð1 − γ i21 Þ;
i i i2
2πf 0
and Hi ðωÞHi ðωÞ ¼ Gii ðωÞ, where Hi ðωÞ is the MKF filter corre-
where dij = distance between different supports i; and j. A, α, k, f 0 , sponding to the soil condition at the location of the support i.
and b = model parameters; the following values are recommended As described in Eq. (11), in each row of matrix L, the same MKF
by Harichandran et al. (1996). A ¼ 0.636, α ¼ 0.0186, f 0 ¼ filter is used. The diagonal elements of matrix L have zero phase,
1.51 Hz, and b ¼ 2.95. which is not possible for a dynamic system. A constant time delay
The wave passage effect, shown in Eq. (8), and the site-response e−jT d ω is added to each filter. Different Hi values have different
effect, shown in Eq. (9), are considered in the phase of γ ij ðωÞ. The energy concentration areas, and the curve-fitting methods tend to
phase of this filter is demonstrated in Eqs. (8) and (9). perform worse in the low-energy area. To better describe the coher-
ence between the excitations, the following strategy is used for
dLij realizing the filters Lij in state-space form.
θwij ðωÞ ¼ − ω ð8Þ
ve As shown in Fig. 1, instead of Hi cij γ sij γ wij , cij γ sij γ wij e−jT d ω is
fitted by a vector-fitting method and cascaded with the filter Hi.
θsij ðωÞ ¼ θj ðωÞ − θi ðωÞ ð9Þ Details of the vector-fitting method can be found in Gustavsen
and Semlyen (1999).
where dLij = projection of dij on the propagation direction of the The filters are fitted in a finite area; as a result, the fitting method
earthquake; ve = velocity of the earthquake; and θi ðωÞ = phase of can only guarantee accuracy in the fitting area. After fitting,
the local soil FRF. the FRF of the fitted filter around the poles out of the fitting
To generate correlated signals, Bendat and Piersol (1980) gave a area should be checked in case that unexpected energy would be
general form to calculate the FRF of the filters. For generating n brought into the structure. If unexpected energy is found, this en-
correlated signals, ðn2 þ nÞ=2 filters and n independent white noise ergy can be eliminated by cascading a low-pass filter. Filters with
are required. The process introduced by Bendat and Piersol (1980) flat passbands, such as Butterworth or Chebyshev II filters, are
is the same process as the Cholesky factorization proposed by Hao recommended.
(1989). Including this paper, Cholesky factorization is widely used The state-space representation of filters that can generate one of
in calculating the FRF of the filters. the correlated excitations is demonstrated in Eq. (12)

© ASCE 04019096-3 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 !
Af i Bf i nonzero velocity free motion, the corresponding displacement
would diverge.
Cf i Df i Fortunately, if the time-modulating function is multiplied before
0 1
ALi1 0 ··· 0 BLi1 0 ··· the filter, the corresponding variance of the displacement would
B .. C converge to zero. This process is expressed in Eq. (15)
B C
B 0 ALi2 . 0 0 BLi2 ··· C  
B C 1
B .. C DðtÞ ¼ eðtÞ × ξðtÞ ⊗ HðtÞ ⊗ F−1 2 ð15Þ
¼ B .. .. .. .. C
B . ··· . . . ··· .C ω
B C
B C
@ Bl CLi1 Bl CLi2 ··· Al 0 0 ··· A
where eðtÞ = time-modulating function by which the resulting
0 0 ··· Cl 0 0 ··· envelope of eðtÞ × ξðtÞ ⊗ HðtÞ is Ae ðtÞ. According to the trans-
ð12Þ fer function of the MKF filter, the combined system HðtÞ ⊗
F−1 ð1=ω2 Þ is a linear stable system, which means when the input
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where i = row number in matrix L, and i is also the number of in- eðtÞ × ξðtÞ is zero after a certain time point tz , the output of the
put white noise process; ALij , BLij , and CLij = state-space repre- system will converge to zero wherever the state is at time point tz
sentations of the fitted filter Lij ; and Al , Bl , and Cl = state-space in the state-space.
representations of the low-pass filter. Solving eðtÞ when Ae ðtÞ is known is an inverse process of giv-
ing the envelope of the excitation to solve the propagating variance
of output. The method of solving the forward problem is intro-
Study of Time-Modulating Function duced first.
The location where the time-modulating function is multiplied The propagating variance of the output of a system, given the
affects the result of the analysis. Practically, the envelope is multi- input of a white noise process with power spectral density S0 ðtÞ ¼
plied after the whited noise is filtered. However, when double- e2 ðtÞ, can be solved with Eq. (16)
integrating the generated acceleration signal into the displacement
DðtÞ, the variance of the displacement would diverge. This process Γ̇fa ¼ Afa Γfa þ Γfa ATfa þ 2πS0 ðtÞBfa BTfa
can be represented with the formula shown in Eq. (13)
Γyfa ¼ Cfa Γfa CTfa ð16Þ
 
−1 1
DðtÞ ¼ ξðtÞ ⊗ hk ðtÞ × Ag ðtÞ ⊗ F ð13Þ where Γfa and Γyfa are the variance of the states xfa and the output
ω2
 
Afa Bfa
where ξðtÞ = white noise process; × stands for multiplication time yfa of system .
Cf a Df a
point by time point; ⊗ stands for the convolution operation;
F−1 ð1=ω2 Þ stands for the inverse Fourier transform of the operator To solve Eq. (16), the derivative Γ̇fa can be approximated by the
double integration by time; and hk ðtÞ stands for the impulse re- first backward difference
sponse function of the MKF Filter. The result of sðtÞ ¼ ξðtÞ ⊗
Γfa ðtÞ − Γfa ðt − ΔtÞ
hk ðtÞ is a colored stationary Gaussian white noise with zero mean Γ̇fa ðtÞ ¼
whose Fourier spectrum amplitude is jHk ðωÞj. The variance of the Δt
corresponding velocity of DðtÞ is shown in Eq. (14) ¼ Afa Γfa ðtÞ þ Γfa ðtÞATfa þ 2πBfa S0 ðtÞBTfa ð17Þ
Z Z t 
t
E sðt1 ÞAg ðt1 Þdt1 sðt2 ÞAg ðt2 Þdt2
0 0 0 ¼ ðΔtAfa − IÞΓfa ðtÞ þ ΔtΓfa ðtÞATfa
Z tZ t þ 2πΔtBfa S0 ðtÞBTfa þ Γfa ðt − ΔtÞ ð18Þ
¼ Rii ðt1 − t2 ÞAg ðt1 ÞAg ðt2 Þdt1 dt2 ð14Þ
0 0
To guarantee the symmetric property of Γfa ðtÞ, transpose
where Rii ðt1 − t2 Þ = correlation function of sðtÞ; and Ef□g =
Eq. (18) and add it to Eq. (18), then divide the resulting equa-
expectation of the inside variables. The results of Eq. (14) for dif-
tion by 2
ferent soil types are shown in Fig. 2. When the envelope Ag ðtÞ
approaches zero, the velocity converges to a nonzero value. For a
0 ¼ ðΔtAfa − 0.5IÞΓfa ðtÞ þ Γfa ðtÞðΔtATfa − 0.5IÞ
þ 2πΔtBfa S0 ðtÞBTfa þ Γfa ðt − ΔtÞ ð19Þ

Eq. (19) is a Lyapunov equation, and Γfa ðtÞ can then be solved
step by step. The concerned variance of the output y fa ðtÞ can be
calculated by

Γyfa ðtÞ ¼ Cfa Γfa ðtÞCTfa ð20Þ

In this problem, Γyfa ðtÞ ¼ A2e ðtÞ is known. The envelope func-
tion eðtÞ can be calculated iteratively; the flowchart is shown
in Fig. 3.
Monte Carlo simulation is used in Example 1 of the numerical
simulation section to show the effectiveness of this strategy.
Finally, the diagram for generating the nonstationary excitation
Fig. 2. Result of Eq. (14) for different soil types.
is demonstrated in Fig. 4.

© ASCE 04019096-4 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 Balancing the pros and cons of the LMM, instead of the widely
used relative motion method, it is chosen for theoretical derivation
in this study.
The traditional large mass method is briefly introduced as
follows. The undamped EOM of a structure is shown in Eq. (21)
       
Mii Mie Ÿ i Kii Kie Yi 0
þ ¼ ð21Þ
Mei Mee Ÿ e Kei Kee Ye 0

where the subscript i = interior DOF; the subscript e = excitation

DOF; and M, K, and Y = mass, stiffness matrix, and displacement
of different DOFs, respectively. In the large mass method, a large
mass is attached to each of the excitation DOFs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

     
Mii Mie Ÿ i Kii Kie Yi
þ
Mei Mee þ ml M~ ee Ÿ e Kei Kee Ye
 
0
¼ Ÿ e ð22Þ
~ ee
Mee þ ml M
Fig. 3. Flowchart of calculating envelope function.
~ ml is the
In this study, the large mass matrix is defined as ml M;
large mass, usually 104 to 108 times of the total mass of the struc-
Model Building Considering the Effect of ture; and M ~ defines the relationship between the large masses.
Multiple-Support Excitation In Eq. (22), the excitation DOFs are not constrained. Fig. 5 shows
how the model is built in LMM. Fig. 5(a) shows the structure to be
In this section, the support damping that was usually ignored in most analyzed. As shown in Fig. 5(b), release the constraints of the ex-
previous studies is derived naturally with a modified LMM. A better citation DOF and attach each excitation DOF to a large mass. This
way of deriving the EOM without assumption is introduced. process can bring in rigid-body modes. The rigid-body modes will
The LMM is a natural way of describing the motion of structure result in external-sourced damping, as mentioned previously.
under MSE. The model in this method can describe the modes of The formulation of the damping in absolute coordinates when
the structure, including the movement of the supports. The reaction all the excitation DOF are given the same excitation should result in
of the structure cannot easily affect the movement of the supports. the same response as the case when the uniform excitation method
No neglect is required in this method. It approaches the real situa- is used. The model in traditional LMM is built with respect to the
tion when the large masses approach infinity. The LMM involves absolute coordinates; when Rayleigh and modal damping are used
superlong periods in the system, making it unsuitable to be used in the building damping matrix, the external-source damping will
directly in this paper. However, it can be used for derivation. definitely be involved in the result.

Fig. 4. Diagram of generating the nonstationary excitations.

© ASCE 04019096-5 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 The damping matrix of this structure is calculated after the mass
and stiffness are determined. Modal damping is used
⌢ ⌢
!  ⌢ ⌢
!−1
Φii Φis Λii Φii Φis
CL ¼ M L ⌢ ⌢ ⌢ ⌢ ð25Þ
Φ Φ Λss Φ Φ
si ss si ss

Large mass Large mass

where CL = mass and damping matrix of the modified large mass
⌢
model; Φ = mode shape function calculated with ML andpKffiffiffiffiLffi;
(a) (b) Λ = diagonal matrices with their diagonal terms being 2ξ j λj ;
λj ¼ jth eigenvalue of the undamped system; and ξ j = damping
Fig. 5. Drawing of the example structure: (a) original structure; and ratio of the ith mode. The mode shapes of the corresponding DOF,
(b) equivalent large mass model. which are normalized by the mass matrix, and the parts correspond-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing to the fixed DOF are removed. Then, the complete EOM of this
model is
     
Ẍi Ẋi Xi
ML þ CL þ KL
Ẍs Ẋs Xs
      
0 Φir Mir
¼ Ÿ s − ML þ Ÿ r ð26Þ
~ ss
Mss þ ml M Φsr 0
Large mass  
Cii Cis
The matrix CL can be partitioned as . In the model
Csi Css
of the modified LMM, with the increase of the large mass, the
Fig. 6. Equivalent modified large mass model. damping matrix Cii converges to the damping matrix when the
model under uniform excitation is derived. The matrices Csi , Cis ,
Cri , and Cir would converge to a constant matrix. The proof of
convergence and the calculation method of these matrices is pre-
In the modified LMM, in each rigid-body mode, fix one of
sented in the Appendix. The formula for calculating Cis and Cir is
the excitation DOFs with the ground, and the model is built with
presented in Eq. (27)
respect to these fixed excitation DOFs to forbid rigid-body mode,
as illustrated in Fig. 6.
Set Cie ¼ ð Cis Cir Þ ¼ Cii K−1 −1
ii Kie ¼ Cii Kii ð Kis Kir Þ ð27Þ

ð XTi XTs XTr ÞT ¼ ð Y Ti Y Ts Y Tr ÞT − Φr Y r ð23Þ Extract the first row of Eq. (26)
Mii Ẍi þ Mis Ẍs þ Cii Ẋi þ Cis Ẋs þ Kii Xi þ Kis Xs
where the subscript r = fixed excitation DOF; the subscript s =
excitation DOF, except for the fixed excitation DOF; and Φr ¼ ¼ −ðMii Φir þ Mir ÞŸ r − Mis Φsr Ÿ r ð28Þ
ð ΦTir ΦTsr ΦTrr ÞT = mode shape matrix of the rigid-body modes,
with fixed rigid mode normalized by setting the value of the fixed When relative coordinates are used, the EOM of the structure is
DOF to 1. For a zero eigenvalue, Φrr can be formulized to I, which shown in Eq. (29)
is an identity matrix. For rigid-body modes, KΦr ¼ 0, so that
    
Kii Kis Φir Kir Mii Ẍi þ Cii Ẋi þ Kii Xi ¼ −ðMii Φir þ Mir ÞŸ r − Mis Ÿ s
Yr þ Φrr Y r ¼ 0. Extract the inner
Ksi Kss Φsr Ksr − Cis Ẋs − Kis Xs ð29Þ
DOF and the DOF marked with s from Eq. (22) and transform the
reference coordinates to relative coordinates with respect to the When absolute coordinates are used, define a virtual damping
fixed DOF. The EOM can be expressed in Eq. (24) matrix
     
Mii Mis Ẍi Φir C ¼ MΦΛΦ−1 ð30Þ
þ Ÿ r
Msi ~ ss
Mss þ ml M Ẍs Φsr
   C can be diagonalized by the mode shape matrix Φ. It is easy to
Kii Kis Xi prove that Cii Φir þ Cis Φsr þ Cir Φrr ¼ 0. Substitute Y i ¼ Xi þ
þ Φir Y r and Xs ¼ Y s − Φsr Y r into Eq. (28). Also, KΦr ¼ 0 and
Ksi Kss Xs
    Kii Φir þ Kis Φsr þ Kir ¼ 0. The EOM of the structure can be
0 Mir derived as shown in Eq. (31)
¼ Ÿ s − Ÿ r ð24Þ
~ ss
Mss þ ml M 0
Mii Ÿ i þ Cii Ẏ i þ Kii Y i ¼ −Mis Ÿ s − Mir Ÿ r − Cir Ẏ r − Cis Ẏ s
because when the large mass approaches infinity, the theoretical − Kis Y s − Kir Y r ð31Þ
solution of this differential equation converges to the exact solution.
The eigenvalues corresponding to the excitation DOFs approach Both Eqs. (29) and (31) are valid for solving the MSE problem.
zero. Set ML , KL as the mass and stiffness matrix on the left-hand When the lumped mass approach is used, Mis ¼ 0 and Mir ¼ 0,
side of Eq. (24). Eq. (31) enjoys a more concise expression. In this study, Eq. (31) is

© ASCE 04019096-6 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 used. Setting Y i2 ¼ Żv and Y i1 ¼ Z̈a , Eq. (28) can be expressed as Γ̇a ¼ Aa Γa þ Γa ATa þ 2πBa S0 BTa
follows:
Γya ¼ Ca Γa CTa ð39Þ
Mii Z̈a þ Cii Ża þ Kii Za ¼ −Mis Y s − Mir Y r
where Γa = variance of the states xa ðtÞ ¼ ½xA ; xf1 ; xf2 ; · · · T of the
Y i1 ¼ Z̈a ð32Þ  
Aa Ba
system ; xA ¼ ½Za ; Ża ; Zv ; Żv ; Y i3 ; Y i3 T is the states
Ca Da 
Mii Z̈v þ Cii Żv þ Kii Zv ¼ −Cis Y s − Cir Y r A A BA
of the system ; xfi is the states of the filters; Γa ¼
Y i1 ¼ Żv ð33Þ CA DA
Efðxa ðtÞ − μxa ðtÞÞðxa ðtÞ − μxa ðtÞÞT g, μxa ðtÞ is the mean of the
Mii Ÿ i3 þ Cii Ẏ i3 þ Kii Y i3 ¼ −Kis Y s − Kir Y r ð34Þ states xa ðtÞ; Γy a is the variance of the concerned responses y a ;
and S0 ðtÞ is the auto and cross power spectral densities of the input
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Y i ¼ Y i1 þ Y i2 þ Y i3 ð35Þ white noise. Because all the inputs are independent, only the diago-
nal elements are nonzero
If the displacements of all the DOFs are the concerning output, 0 1
eðtÞEfw1 ðtÞw1 ðtÞg 0
the state-space representation of this structure is B C
B eðt − td1 ÞEfw2 ðtÞw2 ðtÞg C
0 1 S0 ¼ B C
Ab BA 1 @ A
..
  B C 0 .
AA BA B Ab BA 2 C
¼B B
C ð36Þ
CA DA @ Ab BA 3 C
A ð40Þ
CA1 CA2 CA3 0ni ×ni where tdi ¼ ðdL1j =ve Þ is the time delay of the excitation. The equa-
tion can be solved step by step with Eqs. (19) and (21). When a
where CA1 ¼ ð−M−1 −1
ii Kii ; −Mii Cii Þ, CA2 ¼ ð0ni ×ni ; Ini ×ni Þ, and large structure is studied, the scale of the system can be very large,
CA3 ¼ ðIni ×ni ; 0ni ×ni Þ; BA1 ¼ ð−M−1 −1
ii Mis ; −Mii Mir Þ, BA 2 ¼ and when the response of nonstationary excitation is concerned,
−1 −1 −1 −1
ð−M C ; −Mii Cir Þ, BA3 ¼ ð−Mii Kis ; −Mii Kir Þ; and Ab ¼ solving the step-by-step integration would cost a lot of computa-
 ii is 
0ni ×ni Ini ×ni tional time.
, and the input to this system is Y e ¼
−M−1 ii Kii −M−1 ii Cii
One approach to solve the large-scale problem is to directly
ðY Ts ; Y Tr ÞT . For a lumped mass model, a smaller model can be used, solve the governing equations with one of the recently developed
as shown in Eq. (37) methods, including the Krylov subspace method (Jaimoukha and
Kasenally 1994), the alternating direction implicit iteration algo-
0 1
  Ab BA 2 rithm (Benner et al. 2008), matrix sign function decomposition
AA BA B C with Newton’s method (Higham 2008), and so on. These methods
¼B @ Ab BA 3 C
A ð37Þ can solve large-scale Lyapunov equations quickly and accurately.
C A DA
CA2 CA3 0ni ×ni Another way to solve this problem is to first perform model
reduction (Varga 1991), which is the approach used in this paper.
Model reduction is carried out only once, which will highly in-
crease the speed of solving the problem.
Solution for Nonstationary Covariance of Structural In this paper, the upper bound of the relative error of the sta-
Responses tionary output variances is used as criterion for selecting the order
of the reduced system. The stationary response of a system is
To solve the propagating variance of the response, the method calculated by setting Γ̇a ¼ 0 and S0 setting as a constant matrix
introduced in Eqs. (16)–(20) requires the whole process to be pre- in Eq. (39). Then, the corresponding Lyapunov equation is solved
sented in one state-space representation. The filters and structure for the stationary responses.
model derived in the previous sections will be assembled in one For the ith output, the relative error of the output variance is
augmented system.
The state-space expression of the augmented system is r Γy − a Γy
ai ai
Esi ¼ ð41Þ
  aΓ
Aa Ba ya i

Ca Da where r Γyai = stationary variance of the output yai calculated by

0 1
AA fBA g;1 Cf1 fBA g;2 Cf2 fBA g;3 Cf3 0 the reduced system; a Γyai = stationary variance of the output yai
B C
B 0 Af1 0 0 Bf 1 C calculated by the augmented system; and j□j = absolute value of
B C
B 0 0 Af2 0 Bf 2 C
the inside variable. The upper bound of all the relative error is cal-
¼B
B
C
C culated as shown in Eq. (42)
B .. .. C
B 0 0 0 . . C
@ A Eu ¼ sup fEs1 ; Es2 ; : : : ; Esno g ð42Þ
i∈½1;no 
CA 0 0 ··· 0
ð38Þ where supf□g returns the upper bound of the inside set; and no =
number of the output.
where fBA g;i ¼ ith column of matrix BA . The variance can be In this study, the authors recommend using the model reduction
solved by the following governing ordinary differential equations method. Because only the variances of the responses are concerned,
(Soong and Grigoriu 1993): the augmented system is reduced to several one-output systems,

© ASCE 04019096-7 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 respectively. Setting z1 ¼ x1 − xg and z2 ¼ x2 − xg , two ways of
modeling the structure can be used. One way is to build the EOM
of the structure in the relative coordinates with respect to xg ðtÞ. The
first approach is termed W 1 for convenience. Another way is to
use the absolute coordinates, which is termed herein W 2 . The
state-space representations formed by these approaches are listed
in Eqs. (43) and (44), respectively
0 1
  02×2 I2×2 02×1
Ar1 Br1 B C
¼ @ −M−1 K −M−1 Cm −12×1 A ð43Þ
Cr1 Dr1
I2×2 02×2 02×1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 1
Fig. 7. Two DOF structure in absolute coordinates.   02×2 I2×2 02×1
Ar2 Br2 B C
¼ @ −M−1 K −M−1 Cm kg1 A ð44Þ
Cr 2 Dr2
I2×2 02×2 −12×1
Table 2. Parameters of the Two-DOF structure   
1 0 k1 þ k2 −k1
Parameters Value where kg1 ¼ ½k1 ; 0 ; M ¼ T
; K¼ ;
0 1 −k1 k1
m1 1
m2 1
and Cm = modal damping matrix  of the structure.  If modal
2ξ 1 λ1
k1 354.95 damping is adopted, Cm ¼ MΦ Φ−1 , where
k2 354.95 2ξ 2 λ2
ξ1 0.04 λi is the natural frequency of the undamped structure, and
ξ2 0.04 Φ is the mode shapes of the undamped structure. Because
the mass and stiffness matrices of both representations are the
same, the two representations share the same damping matrix.
and taking advantage of parallel computation, this strategy can The input of Eq. (43) is a realization of white noise ẍg , whereas
largely increase the computation speed and guarantee accuracy at the input of Eq. (44) is xg , obtained by double integrating ẍg
the same time. with respect to time. The outputs of Eqs. (43) and (44) are both
ð x 1 − xg x2 − xg Þ T .
The relative displacement with respect to xg is compared in
Numerical Simulations Fig. 8(a). It is shown that the longer the excitation, the larger the
discrepancy. Fig. 8(b) shows the calculated value of ẋ1 in different
In this section, two examples are used to verify the aforementioned
methods of modeling. Different velocity values multiplied by the
method. In Example 1, a two-DOF structure is used to show the
same damping matrix result in different damping forces. However,
influence of damping when a different reference system is used and
the structure should have the same damping force regardless of the
to verify the introduced modeling method. Example 2 is used to
modeling method.
verify the efficiency of the overall introduced method.
The damping matrix in physical coordinates,
 resulting from
 the
2.022 −0.674
Example 1 modal damping assumption, is Cm ¼ .
−0.674 1.3481
A two-DOF structure with two masses m1 and m2 and two springs Suppose this matrix can be explained as viscous damper placed
whose stiffness are k1 and k2 is shown in Fig. 7. The parameters are between different locations. Then, these two systems can be equiv-
listed in Table 2. alent to the systems as shown in Fig. 9.
Here xg ðtÞ, x1 ðtÞ, and x2 ðtÞ are the displacement of the ground, The damping of the dampers in Fig. 9 is c1 ¼ 1.348,
m1 , and m2 with respect to a fixed point in absolute coordinates, c2 ¼ 0.674, and c3 ¼ 0.6741. In terms of the system in Fig. 9(b),

Fig. 8. Result comparison when different coordinates are used with modal damping method: (a) displacement of m1 ; and (b) velocity of m1 .

© ASCE 04019096-8 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Equivalent component damping when modal damping is used in different coordinates: (a) W 1 approach; and (b) W 2 approach.

Fig. 10. Time history comparison of the newly derived EOM with respect to the result from W 1 approach: (a) displacement comparison; and
(b) difference between the results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

8m
16 17 18

30m 40m 40m 30m

Fig. 11. Geometric features of the bridge.

the absolute velocity will cause overestimation of the damping in Example 2

the structure. This part of damping can be compensated from the
input, as demonstrated in the model building section. Only when
the model is built in relative coordinates can the traditional method
to form damping be used.
When the EOM derived in the model building is used, the result
is compared with the result obtained by W 1 in Fig. 10(a), and the
newly derived state-space representation can obtain almost the
same result as the result obtained from the approach W 1 . The error
is very small, as shown in Fig. 10(b). The result shows the intro-
duced modeling method can obtain the same results as the model
derived in relative coordinates.
In this section, a four-span bridge with a total length of 140 m and
damping ratio of 4% is used as an example to testify the efficiency
of the method derived in this paper. The data of this bridge can be
found in Leger et al. (1990). The data of this bridge are demon-
strated in Fig. 11 and Table 3.
In this study, the earthquake was assumed to propagate along the
longitudinal direction of the bridge, and only the longitudinal and
vertical responses are studied. The site conditions of each support
were considered the same in this example. Supports located on firm
and medium soil conditions are both studied. The apparent propa-
gation velocity is 1,000 m=s for firm soil and 700 m=s for medium

© ASCE 04019096-9 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 Table 3. Mechanical and material properties of the bridge the energy is concentrated between 0 and 20 Hz; thus, [0,20] Hz
Property Deck Piers was chosen as the fitting range. The relative fitting error Ef for
different soil type is shown in Table 4
Area (mm2 ) 4,365,000 201,069
Inertia (mm4 ) 1.7989 × 1012 0.32169×1012

Ff ðωÞ − Ft ðωÞ

Density (kg=m3 ) 2,600 2,600 Ef ¼

ð45Þ
Young’s modulus (MPa) 25,000 25,000 F ðωÞ
t ∞
Distributed mass (kg=m) 11,349 5,228
where Ff ðωÞ = fitted FRF; Ft ðωÞ = target FRF; and k□k∞ = infin-
ity norm of the inside series. The largest relative fitting error was
−34.8 db. Fig. 12 shows the amplitude and phase fitting results of
Table 4. Fitting error of the FRFs for different soil conditions the filter L22, which had the worst fitting result.
FRF fitting error (db) Fig. 13 compares the calculated coherence γ 32 , which was
Fitted Frequency
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

calculated from the fitted FRFs, and the corresponding target

filter range (Hz) Firm soil Medium soil
coherence. The relative error Ec of the coherence for different soil
L21 [0,20] −63 −63.1 types is shown in Table 5
L22 [0,20] −36.4 −35
L31 [0,20] −57.4 −59.2

γ c ðωÞ − γ t ðωÞ

L32 [0,20] −45.2 −49.5 Ec ¼

ð46Þ
L33 [0,20] −34.8 −35.7 γ ðωÞ
t ∞

where γ c ðωÞ = calculated coherence; and γ t ðωÞ = target coherence.

soil. For supports having different site conditions, the method in-
troduced in this paper can easily be extended by using different
autospectral density function in the filter fitting procedure, as
shown in Eq. (11).
First, the filters were fitted. For this bridge, to generate three
correlated excitations, six filters are required: one filter is the cor-
responding MKF, and the other five filters need to be fitted. Most of
The largest relative error was −38.2 db, showing the effectiveness
of the introduced fitting strategy.
In this example, no large energy was concentrated in the high-
frequency area, so no low-pass filter was required in the augmented
system.
The finite-element model of this bridge was built with a two-
dimensional (2D) beam element. The lumped mass approach
was used. Rotational inertia was neglected. The inner forces,

Fig. 12. FRF fitting results of L22 for different soil conditions: (a) firm soil; and (b) medium soil.

Fig. 13. Calculated coherence compared with target coherence: (a) coherence γ 32 in firm soil; and (b) coherence γ 32 in medium soil.

© ASCE 04019096-10 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 including the axial force, shear force, and moment, as shown in The augmented system had over 200 states. A model reduc-
Fig. 14, of the elements around Nodes 4, 8, and 12, with 27 DOF tion method, balance model reduction, was used, and the re-
were studied. The responses around Node 4 are marked as shown sults from the reduced system were compared with the results
in Fig. 14. from the augmented system. Responses from stationary exci-
tation were used to determine the size of the reduced system
and study the precision of the reduced model. Two strategies
Table 5. Fitting error of the coherence for different soil type were used for model reduction. In Strategy 1 (S1 ), the aug-
Fitting error (db) mented system was reduced to one small system. In Strategy 2
Fitted
coherence Firm soil Medium soil
(S2 ) the augmented system was reduced to several one-output
systems.
γ 21 −59.4 −59.1 Fig. 15 is a semilog plot; the lines represent the relative errors of
γ 31 −44.6 −47.0 the output variance Esi .
γ 32 −38.2 −38.5
In firm soil conditions, as shown in Figs. 15(a and b), when the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

augmented system was reduced to one smaller system, the reduced

system with 39 states could achieve an accuracy of 99%. How-
ever, when the system was reduced to several one-output systems,
eight-state systems could achieve the same accuracy. The same
node4 phenomenon holds in medium soil conditions, as shown in
Figs. 15(c and d). The one-output reduced system can achieve an
accuracy of 99% with 10 states, whereas directly reducing the
augmented system to one smaller system would require a system
with 41 states to achieve the same precision. The second strategy
can be used in parallel computation and requires less computa-
tion time.
Table 6 lists the stationary variance of r1 , r2 , and r3 calculated
by the augmented system, the reduced system using Strategy 2,
and the Monte Carlo simulation in medium soil conditions. The
simulation time was 2,000 s. The results were quite close to
each other, showing the accuracy of the reduced system using
Fig. 14. Concerned outputs of this study.
Strategy 2.

Fig. 15. Error ratios of the stationary responses versus number of states of the reduced system: (a) S1 in firm soil condition; (b) S2 in firm soil
condition; (c) S1 in medium soil condition; and (d) S2 in medium soil condition (solid lines: error ratios of the outputs, dashed lines: reference lines of
the marked error ratio).

© ASCE 04019096-11 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 Table 6. Comparison of the stationary response of r1 , r2 , r3 from different In terms of excitation, the Monte Carlo simulation was also used
methods to validate the time-modulating strategy. Band-limited white noise
Response Augmented system Reduced system Monte Carlo was first modulated by the time-modulating function, calculated,
r1ðN 2 Þ 8.654 × 1012 8.657 × 1012 8.64 × 1012
and then transformed by L11. One thousand results were averaged.
r2 ðN 2 Þ 2.428 × 1012 2.436 × 1012 2.36 × 1012 The results exhibited in Fig. 16 testify to the effectiveness of the
r3 ðN 2 Þ 1.047 × 1015 1.050 × 1015 1.02 × 1015 time-modulating strategy.
Then, the nonstationary excited responses were calculated by
solving the Lyapunov equations step by step for both the aug-
mented and reduced systems. Monte Carlo simulations were carried
out to test the effectiveness of the introduced method. Excitations
were generated by filtering band-limited white noise with the pre-
viously fitted filters. The model of the bridge used in the Monte
Carlo simulations was built by the modified LMM introduced in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the model building section. Ten thousand simulations were carried

out and averaged. The variances of r1 and r3 are shown in Fig. 17 as
representatives.
Fig. 17 shows good agreement among different solving meth-
ods in different soil conditions. The results show that both
reduced and augmented systems can obtain good results, suffi-
cient to describe the nonstationary response of the structure. The
difference between the results generated by the reduced system
and those of the augmented system is negligible. The one-output
reduced system cost far less time for calculating 18 outputs than
the augmented system. All 27 results were compared, and the
results exhibit the same character as Fig. 17 demonstrates. These
Fig. 16. Testifying time-modulating strategy with Monte Carlo results testified to the efficiency of the methods derived in
simulation. this paper.

Fig. 17. Comparison of the nonstationary responses of (a) r1 and (b) r3 from the reduced system, the whole system, and the Monte Carlo simulation
result in medium soil conditions; and (c and d) counterparts in firm soil conditions.

© ASCE 04019096-12 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 Conclusion Kc ¼ Kee þ Kei K−1
ii Kie ð48Þ
In this paper, a method for stochastically solving the transient re- Define ½Φc ; Dc  ¼ eigðKc ; M~ ee Þ, and eigðKc ; M
~ ee Þ calculates
sponse of large-span structures under nonstationary excitation was the extended eigenvalue and eigenvector so that Kc Φc ¼
proposed. A new fitting strategy was introduced for realizing cor- ~ ee Φc Dc ; Φc and Dc are the mode shapes and eigenvalues of
M
related excitations in the time domain, the location and calculation
the condensed system. The eigenvector of the condensed system is
method of the time-modulating function was studied, and a modi-
 
fied large mass method was used to calculate the support damping 1 ~ ee Þ
and derive multiple-support excited structures in both relative and ½Φee ; Dee  ∼ Φee ; Dc ¼ eigðKc ; ml M ð49Þ
ml
absolute coordinates. The transient variances of the response were
efficiently obtained by solving Lyapunov equations with a reduced where Φee = mode shape matrix of the excitation DOF; and Dee =
system. matrix of eigenvalues of the structure corresponding to these mode
The following conclusion can be drawn: shapes Φee . As demonstrated in Eq. (49), as ml increases, Dee
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1. The introduced fitting strategy can guarantee good fitting of the approaches zero; however, Φee is not affected by ml when ml is
excitation coherence. large enough, validating Eq. (47). Then, the mode shape of the
2. In absolute coordinates, directly forming the damping matrix interior DOF corresponding to the eigenvalue Dee can be calculated
with methods used in the uniform excitation case was proved to as follows:
bring in unexpected damping forces. A numerical study of a
two-DOF structure was used to demonstrate this phenomenon. Φie ∼ −K−1
ii Kie Φee ð50Þ
A modified large mass method was introduced to solve this
problem. The model built by the large-mass method preserves the impor-
3. Time modulating before the MKF filters can guarantee stability tant properties of the structure. The mode shapes and eigenvalues of
of the displacement response. the interior DOF should approach those of the model usually built
4. When model damping is used in the modified large mass to simulate the structure under uniform excitation. They can be
method, the support damping vector converges to a constant calculated by ½Φii ; Dii  ∼ eigðKii ; Mii Þ, and the corresponding
value as the large masses approach infinity. mode shape of the support DOF should be Φei ∼ 0. The mode
5. The introduced modeling method can eliminate the error caused shapes
 and eigenvalues
 of the whole large-mass model are
by using the damping formulating methods, which are estab- Φii Φie Dii
Φ∼ and D ∼ . Then, both in CL
lished in relative coordinate, in absolute coordinates. 0 Φee Dee
6. The numerical study of a three-span rigid-frame bridge on both and C, Cii ∼ Mii Φii Λii ΦTii when ml approaches infinity.
medium and firm soil shows the effectiveness of the introduced  
−1 Q1 Q2
method. The proposed one-output reduced system can achieve Set Φ ¼ Q ¼ , such that
Q3 Q4
the same precision with a smaller system compared to the   
directly reduced system. Φii Φie Q1 Q2
¼I ð51Þ
7. The proposed method can be used in both stationary and nonsta- Φei Φee Q3 Q4
tionary analysis. Combined with parallel computation, the proposed
solving strategy can greatly improve computational efficiency. Solve Eq. (51), when ml approaches infinity, Q1 ∼ Φ−1 ii ,
Q2 ∼ −Φ−1
ii Φ Φ −1
ie ee , Q 3 ∼ 0, and Q 4 ∼ Φ−1
ee .
Solve Cie ¼ ðCis Cir Þ with Eq. (30), which is C ¼ MΦΛΦ−1
Appendix. Convergence Proof and Solution of the
Support Damping Matrix Cie ¼ Mii ðΦii Λii Q2 þ Φie Λee Q4 Þ

In the Appendix, the model in the large mass method is used to þ Mie ðΦei Λii Q2 þ Φee Λee Q4 Þ ð52Þ
prove the convergence of Cis and Cir and to calculate their value.
The value ml does not appear directly in Eq. (52); when ml is
When using the model described by the modified LMM, because
large enough Φei ∼ 0, and obviously, Λee ∼ 0; substitute Q2 and
the modified LMM is based on a similar model building method,
Eq. (50) into Eq. (52). Then, Cie can be approximated by Eq. (53)
the derivation can follow the same process.
In the large mass
 method, the large masses  are attached to the Cie ∼ Mii Φii Λii Q2 ¼ −Cii Φie Φ−1 −1
ee ¼ Cii Kii Kie ð53Þ
Mii Mie
excitation DOFs , and the stiffness can be
Mei  Mee þ ml M ~ ee Follow the same process, and when ML and KL derived in the

Kii Kie modified LMM are used, the value of Cis is equal to
written as . When the large masses are so large that
Kei Kee
  Cis ¼ Cii K−1
ii Kis ð54Þ
Mii Mie
all the other inertial factors in the matrix
Mei Mee þ ml M ~ ee The value of Cis cannot be affected by the mode shapes solved
are negligible, this mass matrix can be approximated by Eq. (47).” with respect to different reference coordinates. Because Kis is a
after this incomplete sentence part of Kie , the values of Cis obtained in Eqs. (53) and (54) are
    the same.
Mii Mie 0 0
∼ ð47Þ
Mie Mee þ ml M ~ ee 0 ml M ~ ee
Acknowledgments
The sign ∼ stands for the approach when ml approaches infinity.
Static condensation can be used to solve the mode shape of the The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of China
condensed system. The stiffness of the condensed system can be Scholarship Council on his visit at the University of Illinois at
solved by Eq. (48). after this incomplete sentence Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). This work was supported in part by

© ASCE 04019096-13 J. Eng. Mech.

J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096

 the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Award
No. 51678116.
References
Abdel-Ghaffar, A. M., and L. I. Rubin. 1982. “Suspension bridge re-
sponse to multiple-support excitations.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. 108 (2):
419–435.
Allam, S. M., and T. Datta. 2003. “Seismic response of suspension
bridges under multi-component non-stationary random ground motion.”
J. Seismol. Earthquake Eng. 5 (1): 15.
Allam, S. M., and T. Datta. 2004. “Seismic response of a cable-stayed
bridge deck under multi-component non-stationary random ground
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
motion.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33 (3): 375–393. https://doi.org
/10.1002/eqe.35710.1002/eqe.357.
Ates, S. 2012. “Seismic behaviour of isolated multi-span continuous bridge
to nonstationary random seismic excitation.” Nonlinear Dyn. 67 (1):
263–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-011-9976-7.
Bayraktar, A., Y. Bilici, and M. Akköse. 2016. “The effect of the spatially
varying earthquake ground motion on random hydrodynamic pres-
sures.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 13 (6): 1153–1165. https://doi.org/10.1260
/1369-4332.13.6.1153.
Bendat, J. S., and Piersol, A. G. 1980. Engineering applications of corre-
lation and spectral analysis, 315. New York: Wiley.
Benner, P., J. R. Li, and T. Penzl. 2008. “Numerical solution of large-scale
Lyapunov equations, Riccati equations, and linear-quadratic optimal
control problems.” Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 15 (9): 755–777.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nla.622.
Bi, K., H. Hao, and W.-X. Ren. 2013. “Seismic response of a concrete filled
steel tubular arch bridge to spatially varying ground motions including
local site effect.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 16 (10): 1799–1817. https://doi.org
/10.1260/1369-4332.16.10.1799.
Bogdanoff, J., J. Goldberg, and A. Schiff. 1965. “The effect of ground
transmission time on the response of long structures.” Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 55 (3): 627–640.
Clough, R. W., and J. Penzien. 1995. Dynamics of structures. Berkeley,
CA: Computers and Structures.
DebChaudhury, A., and G. D. Gazis. 1988. “Response of MDOF systems
to multiple support seismic excitation.” J. Eng. Mech. 114 (4): 583–603.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1988)114:4(583).
Gustavsen, B., and A. Semlyen. 1999. “Rational approximation of
frequency domain responses by vector fitting.” IEEE Trans. Power
Delivery 14 (3): 1052–1061. https://doi.org/10.1109/61.772353.
Hacıefendioğlu, K. 2017. “Stochastic dynamic response of short-span
highway bridges to spatial variation of blasting ground vibration.” Appl.
Math. Comput. 292 (Jan): 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2016
.07.039.
Hao, H. 1989. Effects of spatial variation of ground motions on large
multiply-supported structures. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Univ. of California.
Hao, H. 1993. “Arch responses to correlated multiple excitations.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 22 (5): 389–404. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.4290220503.
Hao, H., C. Oliveira, and J. Penzien. 1989. “Multiple-station ground motion
processing and simulation based on SMART-1 array data.” Nucl. Eng.
Des. 111 (3): 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(89)90241-0.
Harichandran, R. S. 1987. “Stochastic analysis of rigid foundation filtering.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 15 (7): 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1002
/eqe.4290150709.
Harichandran, R. S., A. Hawwari, and B. N. Sweidan. 1996. “Response of
long-span bridges to spatially varying ground motion.” J. Struct. Eng.
122 (5): 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)
122:5(476).
Harichandran, R. S., and E. H. Vanmarcke. 1986. “Stochastic variation
of earthquake ground motion in space and time.” J. Eng. Mech.
112 (2): 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1986)
112:2(154).
Harichandran, R. S., and W. Wang. 1990. “Response of indeterminate
two-span beam to spatially varying seismic excitation.” Earthquake
© ASCE 04019096-14
J. Eng. Mech., 2019, 145(12): 04019096
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 19 (2): 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.4290190203.
Higham, N. J. 2008. Functions of matrices: Theory and computation.
Philadelphia: Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers.
Hindy, A., and M. Novak. 1980. “Pipeline response to random ground
motion.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. 106 (2): 339–360.
Jaimoukha, I. M., and E. M. Kasenally. 1994. “Krylov subspace methods
for solving large Lyapunov equations.” SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 31 (1):
227–251. https://doi.org/10.1137/0731012.
Jia, H.-Y., D.-Y. Zhang, S.-X. Zheng, W.-C. Xie, and M. D. Pandey. 2013.
“Local site effects on a high-pier railway bridge under tridirectional spa-
tial excitations: Nonstationary stochastic analysis.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake
Eng. 52 (Sep): 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.05.001.
King, J. L. 1982. “Observations on the seismic response of sediment-filled
valleys.” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Earth Science, Univ. of California
San Diego.
Kiureghian, A. 1996. “A coherency model for spatially varying ground mo-
tions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 25 (1): 99–111. https://doi.org/10
.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<99::AID-EQE540>3.0.CO;2-C.
Kiureghian, A. D., and A. Neuenhofer. 1992. “Response spectrum method
for multi-support seismic excitations.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
21 (8): 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290210805.
Leger, P., I. Ide, and P. Paultre. 1990. “Multiple-support seismic analysis of
large structures.” Comput. Struct. 36 (6): 1153–1158.
Li, J., B. F. Spencer Jr., A. S. Elnashai, and B. M. Phillips. 2012.
“Substructure hybrid simulation with multiple-support excitation.”
J. Eng. Mech. 138 (7): 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM
.1943-7889.0000394.
Liu, N., W. Gao, C. Song, N. Zhang, and Y.-L. Pi. 2013. “Interval dynamic
response analysis of vehicle-bridge interaction system with uncer-
tainty.” J. Sound Vib. 332 (13): 3218–3231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jsv.2013.01.025.
McLaughlin, K. L., L. R. Johnson, and T. V. McEVILLY. 1983. “Two-
dimensional array measurements of near-source ground accelerations.”
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 73 (2): 349–375.
Mezouer, N., K. Silhadi, and H. Afra. 2010. “Importance of spatial vari-
ability of seismic ground motion effects on long beams response.”
J. Civ. Eng. Constr. Technol. 1 (1): 1–13.
Prabakar, R. S., C. Sujatha, and S. Narayanan. 2016. “Response of a
half-car model with optimal magnetorheological damper parame-
ters.” J. Vib. Control 22 (3): 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1177
/1077546314532300.
Price, T. E., and M. O. Eberhard. 1998. “Effects of spatially varying ground
motions on short bridges.” J. Struct. Eng. 124 (8): 948–955. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:8(948).
Shinozuka, M., and Y. Sata. 1967. “Simulation of nonstationary random
process.” J. Eng. Mech. Div. 93 (1): 11–40.
Smith, S. W., J. E. Ehrenberg, and E. N. Hernandez. 1982. “Analysis of the
El Centro differential array for the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake.”
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72 (1): 237–258.
Soong, T. T., and M. Grigoriu. 1993. Random vibration of mechanical and
structural systems. NASA STI/Recon Technical Rep. No. A 93. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Soyluk, K. 2004. “Comparison of random vibration methods for multi-
support seismic excitation analysis of long-span bridges.” Eng. Struct.
26 (11): 1573–1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.016.
Varga, A. 1991. “Balancing free square-root algorithm for computing singu-
lar perturbation approximations.” In Proc., 30th IEEE Conf. on Decision
and Control 1991. New York: IEEE.
Zerva, A. 1994. “On the spatial variation of seismic ground motions and its
effects on lifelines.” Eng. Struct. 16 (7): 534–546. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0141-0296(94)90089-2.
Zerva, A., and V. Zervas. 2002. “Spatial variation of seismic ground mo-
tions: An overview.” Appl. Mech. Rev. 55 (3): 271–297. https://doi.org
/10.1115/1.1458013.
Zhang, D.-Y., H.-Y. Jia, S.-X. Zheng, W.-C. Xie, and M. D. Pandey. 2014.
“A highly efficient and accurate stochastic seismic analysis approach
for structures under tridirectional nonstationary multiple excitations.”
Comput. Struct. 145 (Dec): 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc
.2014.07.017.
J. Eng. Mech.