1. What is the meaning of mode shapes in dynamic analysis of MDOF system? Why do not we consider other shapes in between?

Any real structure will have its mass and for its give form it will have its unique mass distribution as well as stiffness (or flexibility). These two properties when seen together define basic characteristics of that structure particularly in domain of its dynamics. On lighter side and as a crude simulation, but still staying technical, I propose two very well known veteran cinema actors, namely Padma Bhushan Dr Amitabh Bachchan and Mr Dharmendra Deol. You might perhaps know how well they actually dance!!! From the first look itself one may say that Dr Bachchan possesses less mass and more flexibility than Mr Dharmendra, and hence is the difference in their dance moves! For this example, one may easily find who dances better qualitatively as quantitative answer (such as how much better one dances?) is not generally required. Similarly for a structure also, its mass and stiffness decides primarily as to how it will dance (i.e. vibrate) when it is acted upon by an external disturbance. But we surely need to capture this dance quantitatively so that we can include it into our analysis and model using our computers. And for this, we engineers as usual get back to our trusted language mathematics. Mode shapes, in this sense, are a mean of quantifying structural vibrations for our own structural purposes. As stated earlier, mass, stiffness and their distributions are the key characteristic parameters. As we know that a real structure is made up of real material and geometric form so in reality all its elements carry some mass and some stiffness for sure. But in order to simplify the picture, we need to identify in a structure which elements predominently represent mass and which predominently represent stiffness. Thus, a real structure we convert into an equivalent model in which at some points we can lump the mass conveniently and workout how stiffness can be represented. Depending upon how much degrees of freedom are really warranted for practical purposes, we thus arrive at a dynamically simulated equivalent model which can conveniently describe its vibration mathematically. The pattern of vibration, in quantitative terms, is the mode shape of that structure; number of possible mode shapes depends upon the degrees of freedom we have considered. Higher the DOFs considered, more are the possible mode shapes. In fact, the mode shape is an instantaneous picture of a free-undamped vibrating structure, representing proportionate positions of all considered DOFs when a particular DOF has been displaced by a unit amplitude value, and with each mode shape there exists a unique value of associated frequency. This answers first part of your first question. Now you know that there are more than one possible modes for a structure depending upon how we idealise it. For the second part of the question, you should remember that these mode shapes are for the equivalent structural model and NOT explicitly for the real structure, so these mode shapes will at the most CLOSELY, but indubitably NOT EXACTLY, give the actual structures behaviour during vibration. A real structure can vibrate in more than one mode at a time. This is called coupling of modes. Considering such coupling of modes makes mathematics much more tedious and complex. For keeping our mathematics (reasonably) simpler, we very intuitively use a principle called orthogonality of the mode shapes, which attempts to mathematically tell us that all the possible modes are orthogonal to one another. This simply decouples the possible modes and in simple words it can be said that when the structure is vibrating in one particular mode, all the other possible modes are sleeping (i.e. inert). Hence, though the real structure might have coupling of modes, for mathematical ease we assume that these modes are decoupled. For most framed structures, this assumption is practically digestible. However, in some special structures, such as a suspension bridge, there might be a need of considering coupling of modes. 2. Is it true that only the vibration in mode shapes are simple harmonic? Why? Since motion considered while deriving normal mode shapes are under free undamped vibrations, the resulting motion is harmonic and consequently periodic as well. This you will see from the governing equation of motion. Many textbooks will give you this quite simply.

3. When a building is subjected to an earthquake, does the building undergo different mode shapes at different instances of earthquake wave? I mean when does a building undergo vibration in different mode shapes or is it that a building vibrates in combination of mode shapes? As already said, mode shapes are defined for free undamped vibration condition. Truly speaking, EQ ground motion is a random loading and in a crude way it can be said that it is a series of waves with each wave group having different predominant period and hence frequency. When a structure experiences such a series of external disturbances, it obviously behaves differently under each of them in reality. Since this is a series of wave groups attacking structure, the last position of a structure under one wave group is its initial position under next wave group. Further, actual structure is having its inherent damping capacity as well and hence in reality structural motion will not be as same as we obtain theoretically through the mode shape. This has become unusually long mail, but I hope it will be of your use. Further, the above is my personal lookout and the language I used is to avoid heavy technical terms in order to be simple as you asked to be so. If you are intending to use this for any interview, viva or exam purpose, please try to use technical terms more than the examples I put on lighter side. Thanks for your patience for reading through the whole mail upto this point. Best wishes, Kunal Kansara