Slides

1
Dynamics of St ruct ures

Lect ure 1
Anil K Chopra Anil K. Chopra
Universidad de los Andes
Bogot , Colombia
May 23, 2011
Simple Syst em
Universidad de los Andes Bogat a, Colombia 2
Simple Syst em
Free Vibrat ion of I dealized Syst ems
I dealized Syst ems Free Vibrat ion
2
Decay of Free Vibrat ion
Aluminum Model
Plexiglass Model
Equat ion of Mot ion
+ + =
1
0
D S
f f f
1 D S
( ) + + =

g
mu cu ku mu t
Single-Degree-of-Freedom Syst em
Lat eral St iffness
=
3
3EI
k
h
= EI EI
b c
=
3
96
7
c
EI
k
h
Undamped Free Vibrat ion
+
0 mu ku + = 0 mu ku
( ) ( )
( )
e e
e
= +

0
0 cos sin
n n
n
u
u t u t t
k
e =
n
k
m
3
Nat ural Frequency (Period) of Vibrat ion
e = rads/sec
k
t
e
=
2
sec
n
n
T
e = rads/sec
n
m
e
(H )
n
f
e
t
= cps (Hz)
2
n
n
f
Three-St ory St eel Frame Building
Direct ion Period, sec
Long 0.63
Short 0.74
Torsion 0.46
49-St ory St eel Frame Building
Period = 2.90 sec
Golden Gat e Bridge
Direct ion Period, sec
Transverse 18.2
Vert ical 10.9
Longit udinal 3.8
Torsional 4.4
4
Pine Flat Dam, 400 ft high
Wat er Dept h, ft Period, sec
310 0.288
345 0.306
Damped Free Vibrat ion
Equat ion of Mot ion Damping Rat io q
+ + =

0 mu cu ku
,e e + + =

2
2 0
n n
u u u
,
e
= =
cr
2
n
c c
m c
p g
Effect s of Damping (,< 1)
Effect s of Damping
5
Measurement of Period & Damping
,
t
+
=

1
ln
2
i
i j
u
j u
Example
Peak Ti me, Peak, Peak Ti me,
t
i
( sec)
Peak,
1 1.110 0.915
11 3.844 0.076
( )
i
u g
= =
3.844 1.110
0 273 sec
D
T
( )
,
t
= =
= =
0.273 sec
10
1 0.915
ln 0.0396 or 3.96%
2 10 0.076
D
T
g
g
Vibrat ion Generat or
( )
e e + + =

2
sin
e
mu cu ku m e t
( )
e e + + sin
e
mu cu ku m e t
6
Measurement of Frequency & Damping
Frequency
n
f
,

=
Damping Ratio
2
b a
n
f f
f
Eart hquake Ground Mot ions
Eart hquake Ground Mot ions
Ground Accelerat ion, Velocit y & Displacement
7
Equat ion of Mot ion
( ) + + =

mu cu ku mu t ( ) + + =
g
mu cu ku mu t
( ) ,e e + + =

2
2
n n g
u u u u t
( ) ( )
For a given , response depends on

g
u t u t
( ) ( )
,
g p p
Natural vibration period
Damping ratio
g
n
T
St ruct ural Response Depends on T
n
and ,
St ruct ural Deformat ion & Forces
Equivalent St at ic Forces
( ) ( ) f k
Pseudo-Accelerat ion
( ) ( ) =
s
f t ku t
( ) ( ) ( ) e = =
2
s n
f t m u t mA t
( ) ( ) e =
2
n
A t u t
I nt ernal Forces by St at ic Analysis
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) = =
b b b
V t mA t M t hV t
Eart hquake Response Spect rum
Peak Response Peak Response
Plot of
f fi d d i
( )
max r r t
o
versus r T
o n
for fixed damping
8
Deformat ion Response Spect rum
Pseudo Velocit y Response Spect rum
Plot of V vs T
n
t
e = =
2
n
n
V D D
T
1 2 3
T
n
, sec
Pseudo Accelerat ion Response Spect rum
Plot of A vs T
nn
t
e
| |
= =
|
\ .
2
2
2
n
n
A D D
T
= = =
bo So
A
V f mA w
g
Peak Force
Combined D-V-A Spect rum
t
e
e t
= = = =
2
2
n
n
n n
T A
V D A V D
T
9
Combined D-V-A Spect rum
, = 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20%
Pseudo-Accelerat ion Response Spect rum
, = 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20%
Deformat ion Response Spect rum
, = 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20%
Peak Response from Spect rum
| |
2
t t
| |
= = =
|
\ .
2
2 2
n n
o
T T
u D V A
= =
So
f kD mA
I nt ernal forces by st at ics
= = =
bo bo bo
V kD mA M hV
10
Example
3
0 211 kip/in
EI
k = =
3
0.211 kip/in k
L
= =
2
5.20
kip-sec /in
386
w
m
g
k
e = = 3.96 rad/sec
n
k
m
= 1.59 sec
n
T
Example
= 5.0 in. D
= 0.20 A g
= = 5.0 in.
o
u D
Example
= = 1.04 kips
So
A
f w
g
g
=
max
12.48 kip-ft M
o = =
max
46.5 ksi
Mc
I
Response Spect rum and Peak Ground
Acclerat ion, Velocit y, and Displacement
11
Response Spect rum Plot t ed on Normalized Scales
Mean Response Spect rum & Design Spect rum
Const ruct ion of Elast ic Design Spect rum
Amplificat ion Fact ors
Median (50
t h
percent ile) One Sigma (84 1t h percent ile)
Damping,
,
(%)
Median (50
t h
percent ile) One Sigma (84.1t h percent ile)
o
A
o
V
o
D
o
A
o
V
o
D
1 3.21 2.31 1.82 4.38 3.38 2.73
2 2.74 2.03 1.63 3.66 2.92 2.42
5 2.12 1.65 1.39 2.71 2.30 2.01
10 1.64 1.37 1.20 1.99 1.84 1.69
20 1.17 1.08 1.01 1.26 1.37 1.38
N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Eart hquake Spect ra and Design, EERI , Berkeley, CA, 1982, pp. 35, and 36.
12
Const ruct ion of Design Spect rum, 84
t h
Percent ile, , = 5%
= = =

1 , 48in. / sec, 36in.
go go go
u g u u
Elast ic Design Spect rum, 84
t h
Percent ile, , = 5%
= = =

1 , 48in. / sec, 36in.
go go go
u g u u
Elast ic Design Spect rum, , = 1, 2, 5, 10, 20%
= = =

1 , 48in. / sec, 36in.
go go go
u g u u
Elast ic Design Spect rum, , = 1, 2, 5, 10, 20%
= = =

1 , 48in. / sec, 36in.
go go go
u g u u
1
D i f St t Dynamics of St ruct ures
Lect ure 2
Anil K. Chopra
Bogot , Colombia
May 23, 2011
Mult i-Degree-of-Freedom (MDF) Syst em
Universidad de los Andes Bogot a, Colombia 2
Mult i-Degree-of-Freedom (MDF) Syst em
MDF Syst em
2
Equat ions of Mot ion
( )

+ + = -
g
u t mu cu ku m1
di l t t ( 1) N
= displacement vector ( 1) N u
= mass, stiffness, damping matrices m, k, c
= influence vector 1
Free Vibrat ion
Nat ural Frequency (Period) of Vibrat ion
e = rads/sec
k
t
e
=
2
sec
n
n
T
e = rads/sec
n
m
e
(H )
n
f
e
t
= cps (Hz)
2
n
n
f
Free Vibrat ion: Mode 1
2
t
e
=
1 1
1
2
Mode Shape : Period:T |
3
Free Vibrat ion: Mode 2
t
=
2 2
2
e
=
2 2
2
Eigenvalue Problem
N solut ions such t hat e =
2
n n n
k m | |
Eigenvalues and Eigenvect ors
Nat ural period of vibrat ion,
e
2
n
n
|
t
=
2
T
Nat ural period of vibrat ion,
Nat ural mode of vibrat ion,
e
=
n
n
T
n
|
Example: 5-St ory Shear Frame
m = 100 kips/g k = 31.54 kips/in.
Vibrat ion Periods and Modes
=
1
2.0 T =
2
0.685 T =
3
0.435 T =
4
0.338 T =
5
0.297 sec T
4
Vibrat ion Periods and Modes
Millikan Library, Calt ech
Frequency Response Curve
5
Period & Damping Rat io: N-S Direct ion
Exci t at i on Roof Accel er at i on ( g) Per i od, sec Dampi ng, %
Vibrat ion Generat or 5x10
-3
t o 20x10
-3
0.51-0.53 1.2-1.8
Lyt le Creek
Eart hquake
0.05 0.52 2.9
San Fernando
Eart hquake
0.312 0.62 6.4
Recorded N-S Mot ions, San Fernando
Eart hquake
Recorded E-W Mot ions, San Fernando
Eart hquake
Relat ive Displacement of Roof
6
Folsom Dam, Cailfornia
Vibrat ion Generat or on Folsom Dam
Frequency Response Curve
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Frequency
Frequencies and Damping Rat ios
Resonant Frequency
D i %
Resonant Frequency,
HZ
Damping, %
4.65 4.0-6.5
5.46 5.6-8.4
6.24 4.0-8.0
7 16 6 3 8 0
7.16 6.3-8.0
8.00 6.0-8.0
8.87 6.0-8.0
7
Modal Expansion of
( ) ( )
=

eff
g
t u t p mi
= I

N N
n n n
m s m i = |
= = 1 1 n n
T T
I = =
n
n n n n n n
n
L
L M
M
= m m | i | |
n t h-mode component s
( ) ( ) = = I
eff,n n g n n n
t u t p s s m|
Example: Modal Expansion of = s mi
Modal Response Hist ory Analysis (RHA)
Modal Response

Tot al Response
( ) ( ) =
st
n n n
r t r A t

N N
( ) ( ) ( )
= =
= =

st
1 1
N N
n n n
n n
r t r t r A t
Response Hist ory Analysis: Example
Deformat ions and Pseudo Accelerat ions
( )
n
A t
( )
n
D t
8
Response Hist ory Analysis: Example
Modal and t ot al responses
Modal Response Spect rum Analysis (RSA)
Peak response est imat ed direct ly from
d i t response or design spect rum
Peak modal responses
d l b l
=
st
no n n
r r A
( ) , ,
n n n
A A T
Modal combinat ion rule
=
| |
~ |
|
\ .
1/ 2
2
1
N
o no
n
r r
5 5
RSA vs RHA: One Ground Mot ion
2
3
4
5
F
l
o
o
r
RHA
RSA
1 Mode
2 Modes
3 Modes
2
3
4
5
S
t
o
r
y
RHA
RSA
1 Mode
0 0.5 1
G
1
Displacement/height,%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
G
1
Story drift A
RSA
or A
RHA
,%
1 Mode
2 Modes
3 Modes
5 5
RSA vs RHA: Median Response t o 20 Ground Mot ions
2
3
4
5
F
l
o
o
r
RHA
RSA
1 Mode
2 Modes
3 Modes
2
3
4
5
S
t
o
r
y
RHA
RSA
1 M d
0 0.5 1
G
1
Displacement/height,%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
G
1
Story drift A
RSA
or A
RHA
,%
1 Mode
2 Modes
3 Modes
9
Finit e Element Syst em
2D Finit e Element Syst ems
Degrees of Freedom
d i
y
x
node i:
Displacement vect or u:
i i
y
x
u u
i i
i = and , 1,2
y
x
u u N
Equat ions of mot ion
( ) ( )

+ + = - -
g g
u t u t mu cu ku m1 m1
y
x x y
Analysis of Finit e Element Syst ems
RHA and RSA procedures valid
Ext end met hods t o include dam-wat er-
foundat ion rock int eract ion effect s
foundat ion rock int eract ion effect s
Syst ems wit h Dist ribut ed Mass
& Elast icit y
10
Syst ems wit h Dist ribut ed Mass & Elast icit y
Examples
Tower
Chimney
Concret e dam
Approximat e analysis by reducing
pp y y g
problem t o a generalized SDF syst em
Generalized SDF Syst em
Vibrat ion period (Rayleighs Met hod) Vibrat ion period (Rayleigh s Met hod)
t
e
e
= =

2
n n
n
k m T
Approximat e Analysis Procedure
Spect ral Ordinat es Spect ral Ordinat es
Peak Response
Deflect ions
( ) ( ) , , = = , ,
n n
D D T A A T
( ) ( ) = I
o
u x D x
L
EI(x)
m(x)
x
f
o
(x)
Lat eral forces
( ) ( ) ( ) = I
o
f x m x x A
Concret e Dams
Dam on rigid foundat ion, no wat er
Change of not at ion
( ) ( ) ( )
o
L A
f x w x x
m g
=

( )
( )
( ) ( )
1 1 1
, A T L
f y w y y
( )
( )
( ) ( ) | =

1 1 1
1
1
s
f y w y y
g M
11
Modificat ions t o I nclude Dam-Wat er-Foundat ion
Rock I nt eract ion
Vibrat ion Period
=
1 1 r f
T R R T
1
T
R
=
fundament al vibrat ion period of dam alone
period lengt hening rat io due t o dam wat er int eract ion
r
R
f
R
=
period lengt hening rat io due t o dam-wat er int eract ion
=
period lengt hening rat io due t o dam-foundat ion rock
int eract ion
Rock I nt eract ion
Damping Rat io p g
( )
= + +
1 1
3
1 1
r f
r
f
R
R
1 =
damping rat io for dam alone
f
=
added damping due t o dam-wat er int eract ion
and reservoir bott om absorpt ion
=
added radiat ion and mat erial damping due
t o dam-foundat ion rock int eract ion
Rock I nt eract ion
Lat eral Forces
I nclude added hydrodynamic mass in
( )
( )
( ) ( )
1 1 1
1
1
,
a
s
S T L
f y w y y
g M
| =

1 1
L M
I nclude hydrodynamic pressure t erms in ( )
1
f y
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
1
1
1
,
,
a
s r
S T
L
f y w y y gp y T
g M
|
(
= +

1
Earthquake Analysis, Design, and
Safety Evaluation of Concrete
Gravity Dams Gravity Dams
Lecture 3
Anil K. Chopra
Bogot, Colombia
May 23, 2011
E th k P f f K Earthquake Performance of Koyna
Dam
2 Universidad de Los Andes
Traditional Design Procedures
Lateral
Earthquake
Forces
Design Criteria
Factors of safety against
Overturning
Slidi
3
Sliding
Overstressing in compression
At most small tension permitted
Cracking possibility not considered
Stresses generally do not control design
Universidad de Los Andes
Koyna Dam
2
Koyna Dam - Sections
Koyna Dam Plan and Elevation
6
Accelerogram Recorded at Block 1-A of
Koyna Dam on Dec. 11, 1967
7
Locations of Cracks in Koyna Dam Caused by Earthquake
8
3
Koyna Dam: Downstream Face
Koyna Dam: Construction of Butresses
10
Koyna Dam After Adding Butresses
Computed Stresses vs Concrete
Strength in Koyna Dam
12
4
Limitations of Traditional Design
Procedures
13
Lateral
Earthquake
Forces
Design Criteria
Factors of safety against
Overturning
14
Overturning
Sliding
Overstressing in compression
At most small tension permitted
Cracking possibility not considered
Stresses generally do not control design
Traditional Procedures vs Dynamic Response
Traditional Procedures vs Dynamic Response
5
Uniform Seismic Coefficient: Undesirable Results
Decreasing Concrete Strength with Increase in Elevation
Envelope Tensile Stresses in Koyna Dam Due to
Koyna Earthquake
18
Uniform Seismic Coefficient: Undesirable Results
19
Structures on Dam Crest
20
6
21
Hydrodynamic Effects
Upstream Ground Motion
22
Analyses in Traditional Design
Procedures Do Not Recognize:
Dynamic response of dam Dynamic response of dam
Hydrodynamic effects
Earthquake ground motion properties
23
q g p p
Dam-foundation rock interaction
Factors To Be Considered in Factors To Be Considered in
Dynamic Analysis
24
7
Approximate Interaction Model
25
Hydrodynamic and Reservoir Bottom
Absorption Effects
26
27
Reservoir Bottom Absorption Effects
28
8
Hydrodynamic and Reservoir Bottom
Absorption Effects
Vertical Ground Motion
29
Water Compressibility Effects
E
s
= 0.65 million psi
30
Water Compressibility Effects
E
s
= 4.0 million psi
31
Foundation Interaction Effects
32
9
Dynamic Analysis Procedures
Dam-Water-Foundation Rock System
Factors to consider
Dynamics of system
Dam-water interaction including water compressibility g p y
Reservoir bottom absorption
Dam-foundation rock interaction
34
Substructure Representation of Dam-Water-
Foundation Rock System
35
Pine Flat Dam: Finite Element Model
36
10
Taft Ground Motion, 1952
37
Displacement Response
Pine Flat Dam Taft Ground Motion
38
Critical Stresses
Pine Flat Dam Taft Ground Motion
39
Pine Flat Dam
40
11
Forced Vibration Generator
41
Hydrodynamic Pressure Gauge
42
Acceleration and Pressure Frequency Responses
43
Reduction in Fundamental Frequency Due to Water
Analytical vs Experimental Results
44
12
Simplified Analysis Procedure
45
Simplified Analysis Procedure
Purpose: Preliminary design and safety
evaluation
Objective: Maximum forces from earthquake
spectrum
Concepts:
Fundamental mode response (considering dam-
water-foundation rock interaction) from an
46
equivalent SDF system
Higher mode response (neglecting both interaction
effects) by static correction method
SRSS combination of the two responses
Earthquake Design Spectrum
47
Critical Stresses
Lateral Forces
static
analysis
Stresses

1
f y
r
1
f y

sc
f y
1
r
sc
r
Dynamic Response

2 2
1 d sc
r r r
48

1 d sc
Total Response

2 2
max 1 st sc
r r r r
13
Lateral Earthquake Forces
Fundamental Vibration Mode
49
Fundamental Vibration Period and
Mode: Several Cross Sections
50
Standard Fundamental Period and Mode Shape
of Vibration for Dam Design
51
52
14
Period Lengthening Ratio, R
r
53
54
Dam-Foundation Rock Interaction
Period Lengthening Ratio, R
f
55
56
15
Added Damping Ratio,
r
57
Dam-Foundation Rock Interaction
Added Damping Ratio,
f
58
59
Hydrodynamic Pressure Function, p(y)
60
16
Higher Vibration Modes
61
Hydrodynamic Pressure Function, p
o
(y)
62
Critical Stresses
Lateral Forces
static
analysis
Stresses

1
f y
1
r
1
y

sc
f y
1
r
sc
r
Dynamic Response

2 2
1 d sc
r r r
63
Total Response

2 2
max 1 st sc
r r r r
Pine Flat Dam: Tallest Non-Overflow Monolith
64
17
Taft Ground Motion, 1952
65
Response Spectrum Taft Ground Motion
66
Evaluation of Simplified Procedure
Flexible Foundation/Full Reservoir
67
Seismic Design & Safety Evaluation
68
18
Seismic Design and Safety Evaluation
Selection of earthquake motion and
design spectrum
Linear analysis of dynamic response of
dam
Stage 1: simplified analysis
Stage 2: refined analysis
Prediction of dam performance
69
Prediction of dam performance
tensile stresses < tensile concrete strength
NO DAMAGE
tensile stresses > tensile concrete strength
ESTIMATION OF DAMAGE
Tensile Strength of Concrete
2 3
2.6
c t
f f
70
Koyna Dam
71
Pacoima Dam
72
19
Lower Crystal Springs Dam
73
Application to Design of New Dams
74
Richard B. Russel Dam, USA (1980s)
170 ft high
75
Balambano Dam, Indonesia (1997)
Roller-compacted concrete, 90 m high
76
20
Olivenhain Dam, California (2003)
Roller-compacted concrete, 315 ft high
77
San Vicente Dam, California (2009)
Current height: 220 ft
Raised height: 337 ft
Roller-compacted concrete for dam raise
78
Applications to Evaluation and pp
Remediation of Existing Dams
79
Thermalito Diversion Dam, California, USA
80
21
Folsom Dam, California
340 ft high
81
Old Aswan Dam, Egypt
82
Seven Mile Dam, Canada
215 ft high
Seismic remediation:
fifty-two 92-strand post-
tensioned anchors
Gatun Spillway, Panama Canal
107 ft high
84
22
Madden Dam, Panama Canal
85

Slides

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Slides

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

1

Dynamics of St ruct ures

For a given , response depends on

También podría gustarte