Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Nuclear Engineering and Design 44 (1977) 255-262 255

North-Holland Publishing Company

DETERMINATION OF FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA ON THE BASIS OF THE RESPONSE


SPECTRUM METHOD

K.A. PETERS, D. SCHMITZ and U. WAGNER


INTERA TOM, Internationale Atomreaktorbaugesellschaft mbH, D-5060 Bergisch Gladbach 1, Fed. Rep. Germany

Received 26 November 1976

In this paper a method to determine floor response sepctra is proposed which is based on the modal analysis of a support
structure with interaction-free, one-degree-of-freedomsystem attached. The time-consumingmethods using real or artificial
soil accelerations are avoided as well as some of the arbitrarinesses in the approaches of Biggs or Kapur-Shao.

1. Introduction such as natural frequencies and damping values which


usually are available only rather unexactly.
Whatever method is used to calculate the dynamic This paper presents a calculation method for floor
response of structures, practical considerations 6ften response spectra which solves the described problems
require a subdivision into support structure and sup- in the following manner.
ported structure or equipment. If the equipment af- (a) The maximum accelerations of the one-degree-
fects the dynamic behaviour of the support only to a of-freedom systems derived from calculations accord-
small extent, the response of the support structure is ing to the response spectrum method and the floor
the input for calculating the load on the equipment. response data calculated according to the method des-
Using the response spectrum method means develop- cribed below are identical outside the resonance range.
ing floor response spectra from defined soil response (b) In the case of resonance, at which any rule for
spectra, i.e. determining the acceleration of interaction- the superimposition of modular fractions is question-
free one-degree-of-freedom systems which are arranged able, the evaluation of the floor response spectra is
on the investigated 'floor' of the support structure. derived from the dynamic behaviour of certain two-
In the past, Biggs and Roesset [1], Biggs [2] and degree-of-freedom systems. The description of the dy-
Kapur and Shao [3] proposed methods to calculate namic properties of these systems is given in simple
floor response spectra which avoid time history meth- formulae and can be considered as empirically well
ods with spectrum compatible soil accelerations. The proven over the interesting range of structure and
fact that these methods are not used very often may equipment damping.
be due to the following reasons. (1) The necessary There is one and only one condition for the pre-
magnification factors for two-degree-of-freedom sys- sented method to be valid. We must assume the res-
tems are not given by means of simple equations, but ponse spectrum analysis to be a suitable tool to pre-
have to be determined (perhaps statistically) for each dict dynamic loads. If we do not so why should we
special case. (2) There is some arbitrariness in fixing evaluate floor response spectra?
the frequency boundaries where certain formulae are
considered valid. Furthermore, it is often overlooked
2. The dynamics of interaction free one-degree-of-free-
that time history methods may not yield reliable re-
dom systems attached to a support structure
suits. We may consider the choice of a special time
history as the choice of a special rule to superimpose 2.1. General assumptions and notations
modular effects. This rule is very sensitive to and in a
most unclear way dependent on structure properties Let ~n be a linear elastic support structure with n
256 K.A, Peters et al. / D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f floor response spectra

degrees of freedom. Let In this section, only the solution for (*) is given. For
the proof, see section 4.
K = [k/] ] be the stiffness matrix,
M = [mq] be the mass matrix,
2.2.1. Eigenva&es
=[t¢ii] be an eigenvector matrix of
There are scalar functions X~(m) ..... X*(m) contin-
the eigenvalue problem
uous in 0 satisfying the following statements:
K¢ = kM~p with ~TM~b = I.
Thereby I is identity. X*(m) is a multitude 1 eigenvalue o f ( * ) , (la)
lim X*(m) = co~. (lb)
At the nth degree of freedom of Y'n a one-degree- m--+O
of-freedom system is attached which is characterized
2.2.2. Eigenvectors
by mass m, circular frequency Wo and degree of damp-
There are vectorial functions ff~(m) ..... ¢*(rn) and
ing Do. The thus defined structure will be referred to
ro(m ) continuous in 0 satisfying
as Zn+l(m, COo,Do).
We assume that the circular frequencies col, ..., Wn ~*(m) is eigenvector of (*) with respect to X*(m), (2a)
of 2;n (i.e. the eigenvalues co~ ..... con2 of K¢ = kMtp),
are of multitude 1. Furthermore, w o 4: wi for 1 ~< i
~< n. These conditions do not constitute essential lim-
lim ~*(m) = ~°ni
w~ , forl<i~<n, (2b)
itations with respect to the problems with which we
are concerned. Moreover, we assume that Zn is mod-
ularly damped with dampings D1, ..., Dn, respectively.

2.2. Eigenvalues, eigenvectors and participation factors


- m i:1 CO2o-W~ ~Oni~Oli
Throughout this section, coo and D o are assumed ~(m) = + ro(m ) ,
to be fixed. Stiffness matrix K*(m) and mass matrix n
(2c)
M*(m) of Zn+l(m, ~ o , D o ) are then as follows:
- m i=IG w ~ - w ~ ~°ni~°ni
kin 0 1
kq where ro(m ) of at least second order tends to 0 for
m-*O.
i = l ..... n - 1
]=1 ..... n - 1 2.2.3. Participation factors
K*(m) = Let F i be the participation factor of E n with res-
kn_l, n 0
pect to ~i, 1 ~< i ~< n. Let ~o~(m), ..., ~0*(m) be eigen-
knl ... kn, n-t II knn +rnw2 -mw~ vectors of (*) normalized to 1 according to M*(m).
Let P * ( m ) b e the corresponding participation factors.
0 ... 0 ', -mw 2 meg_ Then the following equations are valid:
lira F*(m) = Fi , for 1 ~< i ~< n , (3a)

I ol
t 0 m-*O
M I "
f lira P~(rn) ~on+l,o(m)
*
M*(m) = m -* O
-5-
n
...0 I
i=1 ¢-O~-ZL 2 l~i~Oni " (3b)
Using these notations the following class of eigenvalue
problems is solved: 2.3. Modular dampings

(*) K*(m)qJ* = X*M*(m)~*, (a) Although it is presumed that Zn is modularly


m small due to non-interaction. (b) damped, Zn+l(m, Wo, Do) in general will not be
K.A. Peters et aL / Determination or floor response spectra 257

damped modularly. However, if equivalent-energy £'/=lri¢ni = 1 and eq. (5) becomes


modular dampings Di(m) are determined according to n 2
methods described e.g. by Sachs [4], it is easily de-
# = [ ~--~ rich' ( 1 - 000200°-
~;2 b) l)(/~3° +
rived from eqs. (1) and (2) that
lim Di(m) = Di , for 0 < i ~< n.
m"*0 + " 002 ri~ni(~i + b ) .
i=1
2. 4. The govern&g equation for the interaction-free,
Thus eqs. (6) mean that
one-degree-of-freedom system
ri~m (1 002-00H
00~
Now we are able to describe the governing equation
for the interaction-free, one-degree-of-freedom system is neglected for i 4=]. One can see that eq. (6b) is the
[i.e. for the (n + 1)th degree of freedom of Y'n+l(m, governing equation for an interaction-free, one-degree-
000, Do)] in a form suitable to be applied to the res- of freedom system connected to a one-degree-of-free-
ponse spectrum method. If ~ is the acceleration of the dom support structure.
one-degree-of-freedom system induced by an accelera-
tion b(t) acting on the fixed points of the support
structure, in accordance with sections 2.2 and 2.3, the 3. Determination of floor response spectra according
following equations result: to the response spectrum method

"
3.1. General assumptions and notations
"~ = ~i=1 03 2 -- 002 r ; ~Oni(~i + b) To evaluate floor response spectra F(00, D) we as-
sume that the accelerations acting upon the fixed
( . 002 ) (5a)
points of the support structure are given by a response
spectrum S(00, D). In addition, the response spectrum
+ I - ~i:, co2- 00] Pi~Pni (~o + b),
method is characterized by a superimposition rule for
~i + 2Di6°i~i + 00217i = -b, for 0 < i < n . (5b) the modal parts of the motion such as the root-sum-
square (rss) rule. It was already stated in the introduc-
In the case of resonance, i.e. in the case that there is tion that such rules are only meaningful for clearly
1 ~<j ~< n with kO2o- ~o~1 small, eq. (5a) becomes ap- separated natural frequencies. By determining floor
proximately: response spectra we therefore distinguish between the
non-resonance and the resonance case. The latter is
defined in section 2.4. In the following we use the no-
= r/~n/e(00o, 00/) tations of section 2.

" 002 3.2. F(00o, Do)for 000 in the non-resonance range


+~i=, 002-~o2 l-','~oni(~i+b), (6a)
i4:/ In this case - according to the response spectrum
2 method - maxt~(t)l can be estimated by means of the
rss-rule. Observing eqs. (5) the following equality re-
suits:
002
+~
000 --(~0~
(~/+b). (6b)
F(00 o, Do) = {[(1 i)
~i=1 002 _ 002 ri~°n S(000, Do

To verify eqs. (6) we make use of the fact that ¢qffM


= I is valid because of #~TM= q~-l. Then it follows that + ,=,L00o-00, r,,n,S(00,,D,)] I
2 2 (7)
258 K.A. Peters et al. / Determination o f floor response spectra

~
I D1 I 02 I
2
+
is~
c o 2 7 ~ PieniS(coi'Di
1/2
(11

I I I It is obvious that the estimation for 2 according to eq.


L. . . . ~e [ . x1 t ~ X2

Fig. 1. Resonance system R(coO, D l, D2), where k 1/m 1 (7) yields too high values for coo in the vicinity of co/.
= k2/m 2 = tog, D 1, D2 are degrees o f damping, and m 2 < < rn I- Therefore, we define the resonance range with respect
co/to be the neighbourhood of co/where
F(co/, Do) is smaller than the value according to eq. (7).
3.3. F(Wo, Do)for coo in the resonance range In the resonance rage we set

3.3.1. The resonance system F(Wo, Do) = F(CO/,Do). (12)


The vibrating system shown in fig. 1 will be de- If the dynamically relevant data of the support struc-
noted as resonance system R(coo, DI, Dz). Let ture are known, the-floor response values for all pairs
bi(e, We, D1, D2) be the acceleration of the mass m i (coo, Do) can be determined by means of the rather
due to e. The following inequality is the result: simple eqs. (7) and (12), respectively.

Ib2(e, coo D1 ,D2)I = b2(e, coo,D1 ,D2)


' bl(e, coo,D1 ,D2) 4. The Zn+ l-problem

Xlbl(e, Coo,Dx,D2) (8) Let K,M, 0, coo be choosen as in section 2.1. The
category of eigenvalue problems
<~ V(e, coo,D1 ,D2)S(coo,D1)
K*(m) if* : X*M*(m)ff*, (13a)
with the 'magnification factor'
m>0, (13b)
b2(e, coo, DI ,D2) (9)
V(e, Coo,D1, D2 ) = i-~, (e--~,co-~o~ , ~ 2 ) will be referred to as the £n+ 1-problem with respect
i
to K, M, coo. K*(m) and M*(m) are defined in section
In the special case of e being a soil motion induced by 2.2. We will solve the Zn+ 1-problem for small m. The
an earthquake, the authors consider the following esti- following statements are readily shown. For ~ v~ 6o1
mation to be meaningful: and ~ eigenvalue of the Zn+ l-problem with eigenvec-
1 tor ~the following equations are satisfied:
V(e, coo,D1 ,D2) <,
2x/D2(D1 +D2)
0 K " ~M(m,~,) , (14a)
= V(D1,D2). (10)
The reasons for eq. (10) are given in section 5. In this cog
section the factor V(D1, D2)will also be compared (14b)
with the magnification factors proposed by Biggs and :%+, cog_ 7.,
Newmark et al. [5].
mi j m In
3.3.2. The resonance range i,j=l ..... n-1 !
If coo ~ coj for an appropriate j, analogously to the = mn-l,.
response spectrum method and according to eqs. (6)
and (1 O) we may estimate I L m cog
toni ... mn, n-1 I mnn L1 + 60I_~_
I mnn
max I~(t) l ~< F(co/, Do)
t
(14c)
= [[ r::n/ S(co/, On the other hand, if the pair ~,, ~'satisfies eq. (14a),
( L2x/Do~/+ Do) D/)I2
K.A. Peters et al. / Determination of floor response spectra 259

(14b) and (14c) for a certain m, then it is a solution lyrically on m, because ~b~(m) and X*(m) are analyt-
of eqs. (13). ical functions• Therefore all functions involved are
In section 2.1 we assumed the eigenvalues 602 of analytical and we conclude from eqs. (1 5) and from
K¢ = kM~pto be of multitude 1. Therefore it follows the equation (qffM) -1 = ~b:
by means of the implicit function theorem from eq.
(14) that there are analytical functions XT(m) ..... k~o(m)
X*(m) and ~O~(m)..... ff*(m) defined on a neighbour- 60g_
hood of 0 with • -~ - - m ~ ) + r(m) (16)
60g
X*(m), ff*(m) is a solution ofeq. (13) k*o(m) 60g_
form > 0 , (15a)
where r(m) of at least second order tends to 0 for
X*(m) is of multitude 1, (15b) m~O.
Solving eq. (13a) for ~ ( m ) , eq. (16) yields the fol-
lim X*(m) = 60], (15c)
m---~ 0 lowing result for X~(m):
lim qJ~(m) = ~i], (15d) lim Xg(m) -- 602. (17)
m---~ O m----~O

For m > 0 and 0 ~< i ~< n let tp*(m) be the eigenvector


60~
0*+ 1,i(m) - 602 __X*(m) ~*i(m) . (15e)
of X*(m) normalized to 1 with respect to M*(m). Let
['*(m) be the participation factor• From the choice of
Eqs. (15a)-(15e) are valid for 1 ~< i, j ~< n.
4~and eq. (15) follows
Owing to definiteness and symmetry the Zn+ 1
problem has another solution ~b~(m), X~(m). O~(m) lim ¢~.(m) = ~il, for 1 ~< i, ] ~< n
is characterized by being orthogonal with respect to m.--~ O

M*(m) and O*(m) for all 1 ~< i ~< n. It is easily shown and therefore
that the vector
lim W(m)= re, for 1 ~< i ~< n. (18)
[~b~o(m)
qJ~(m) = [~*o(m) The following equation is an easily proved consequence
of the orthogonality condition and normalization of
¢*(m):
fulfils this condition of orthogonality, if the follow- n
ing equation is satisfied: ~FT(m)~p~l(m)=l, forl<.i<.n+l.

[
j=o
~b~.(m)
TM[qj~°(m)" Now eqs. (1 5) and (1 8) give the following result:
lim r~(m)~*+l,o(m)
m--'~ O
i,]=l ..... n lqJ*o(m) " 602
=1- ~ 2 2 ri~ni " (19)
Jo i = 1 O 3 0 - - 60i
60g-x~(m) ~n*l(m)
With eqs. (15)-(19) the statements in sections 2 . 2 . 1 -
=-m
2.2.3 are proved.
602 •
2 • ~bn,n(m)
60o - Xn(m)
Due to continuity and eq. (15d), the matrix [~k~.(m)] 5. Magnification for resonance systems
can be considered as regular• Thus, the equation for
Og(m) can be solved (on a whole neighbourhood of In the following, the notations of section 3.3.1 are
0) in an unequivocal way. The solution depends ana- used. The governing equations for the resonance sys-
260 K.A. Peters et al. /Determination of floor response spectra

tern R(coo, D1, D 2) due to excitation e at the base are (a) the magnification V(D1, D2) according to eq. (10);
(b) the magnification according to Newmark et al.
21 + 2Dlcoo21 + CO2X 1 = 2DlCOOd + COge,
= 1/(D1 +D2);
22 + 2D2COo5C2 + COgx2 = 2D2COo~:1 + CO2oxl. (20) (c) for all nine earthquake-like accelerations 0 the max-
According to eqs. (20) the transfer functions H i with imum of V(e, COo,D1, D2) for 0.27r ~< c~o ~< 407r
[according to eq. (9)]; and
respect to acceleration input at the base and accelera-
(d) the sum of average and variance of V(e, Coo,D1,
tion output for the masses m i are the following:
D2). Average and variance are taken over all nine
CO~ + 2iDl COCOo accelerations 0 and 0.27r ~< coo ~< 287r.
HI (CO,COo,Dl ) = CO2
° _ CO2+ 2iDl COCOo ' (21) [ - magnification (a), - - - magnification (b),
• magnification (c), • magnification (d)].
H2(CO, COo,D2) =Hi(CO, COo,Dl)Hl(CO, COo,D2) •
In fig. 7, the magnifications according to Biggs-
For 0 a stationary random process with spectral den- Roesset and (d) are compared.
sity P we get the following equation for the time From figs. 2 - 6 it is evident that V(D1, D2) may
average of the acceleration squares: be considered a rather good estimation of the highest
magnification we have to expect in the case of an
earthquake. The factor according to Biggs-Roesset
(2~) = ; Ini(CO, COo,Oi)l 2 P(CO) dCO. (22)
gives results comparable to (d) and therefore may be
0
considered as not exceeded in the average. The New-
Especially for white noise we get an interpretation of mark et al. factor does not describe correctly the de-
the proposed magnification factor V(D1, D2): pendence of magnification from D l . In the case of
large dampings it is exceeded essentially by (d).
/; dg2 (co, COo,D2)[ 2 dCO
20-
/o ___
\\ o

g j 114t(CO,COo,D1)t dCO
0

1
-~ = V(D1, D2). (23)
2x/D2(Dt + D2)
" '~\\\\
Of course, these considerations - due to our limited
knowledge about the statistical characteristics of
earthquakes - permit only rough conclusions on the I0 ¸

magnifications to be expected. Therefore, V(D1, D2)


and the magnification factors according to Newmark
and Biggs-Roesset have been counterchecked on the

basis of earthquake-like accelerations which have been


determined from published acceleration diagrams of
the earthquakes listed below: ¥
E1 Centro 1940; NS
Taft 1952; N12E
Parkfield 1966
Pacoima Dam 1971; S16E, $74W, vert.
Golden Gate 1957; NIOE, S80E, vert. a'ol o'o2 oh3 o~, obs o'o6 , " D2
Q07

Figs. 2 - 6 show Fig. 2. For legend see text (D 1 = 0.05).


K.A. Peters et al. / Determination o f floor response spectra 261

1'0.

~7

- ? -
V
o01 abe ob~ ob~ ob5 0'06
Fig. 5. For legend see text (D 1 = 0.15).
0'0~ oe

5
¥

a#; oe
abl abz o~3 ab~ o.b5 o.~
Fig. 3. For legend see text ( O 1 = 0.07).

o.bl ab2 ab3 ab= ab5 o,b6 oh; °2 abl 0'02 oh3 a'o~ abs oh6 o'o~ °2

Fig. 4. For legend see text (D 1 = 0.10). Fig. 6. For legend see text (D 1 = 0.30).
262 K.A. Peters et al. /Determination of floor response spectra

20. 2o~ References

[1] Biggs and Roesset, in: Seismic Design for Nuclear


Power Plants, R.J. Hansen, ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1970).
DI -" 0.0? [2] Biggs, Seismic response spectra for equipment design
15 + ~ Dt ~ O'04 in nuclear power plants, 1st SMIRT Conf., Berlin, 1971
[3] Kaput and Shao, Generation of seismic floor res-

\\\\ ~.. ponse spectra for equipment design, Specialty Confer-


ence on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities,
ASCE, Chicago, I11., 1973.
[4] Sachs, MODAL-Programmbeschreibung, KWU-Bericht
R2-3338 (1975).
[5 ] Newmark, Walker, Veletos and Mosborg,
m \ \ \ \ " ~ Report RTD TDR-63-3096, Vol. IV, Contract AF 29
(601)-6253 (1965).

~o5 abt ~15 a~" o2 l'dos obl ob~s oh.; o2


Fig. 7. Comparison of the magnifications according to Biggs-
Roesset ( - - - ) and the sum of average and variance of V(e,
too, D I , D 2 ) : ( - - - - ) .