Vol.12, No.

2 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION June, 2013

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2013) 12: 307-317 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-013-0173-1

New lumped-mass-stick model based on modal characteristics of

structures: development and application to a
nuclear containment building
Hwasung Roh1†, Huseok Lee2‡ and Jong Seh Lee2§

1. Department of Civil Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do 561-756, South Korea
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan, Gyeonggi-do 426-791, South Korea

Abstract: In this study, a new lumped-mass-stick model (LMSM) is developed based on the modal characteristics of
a structure such as eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The simplified model, named the “frequency adaptive lumped-massstick
model,” hasonly a small number of stick elements and nodes to provide the same natural frequencies of the structure and is
applied to a nuclear containment building. To investigate the numerical performance of the LMSM, a time history analysis is
carried out on both the LMSM and the finite element model (FEM) for a nuclear containment building. A comparison of the
results shows that the dynamic responses of the LMSM in terms of displacement and acceleration are almost identical to those
of the FEM. In addition, the results in terms of floor response spectra at certain elevations are also in good agreement.

Keywords: new lumped-mass-stick model; frequency adaptive; nuclear containment buildings; seismic response; floor
response spectrum

1 Introduction configuration (e.g., beam-to-column connections) or

Full finite element modeling of structures is the
best possible method to achieve a highly accurate
seismic analysis. However, depending on the structural
complexity and the size of the finite element model
(FEM), full modeling can require long computational
times for dynamic response. In order to overcome this
shortcoming, a simpler model like the lumped-mass stick
model (LMSM) is usually considered. The LMSM is
commonly used at the beginning of the seismic design of
tall structures such as buildings (Takada and Yamaguchi,
2002; Moussa and Ali, 2010), tower type structures
(Halabian et al., 2002; Wilson, 2003; Halabian and
Kabiri, 2004), nuclear containment buildings (Varma
et al., 2002; Paskalov et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2010),
liquid storage tanks (Malhotra, 1997; Jadhav and Jangid,
2004), and electric post bushings (Reinhorn et al., 2011;
Roh et al., 2012), etc.
With the LMSM, an actual structure is discretized by
a series of column elements, considering the structural
Correspondence to: Jong Seh Lee, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan,
Gyeonggi-do 426-791, South Korea
Tel: +83324005146; Fax: +82324004103
E-mail: jonglee@hanyag.ac.kr
†
Assistant Professor; ‡Post-Doctoral Research Associate; §Professor
Supported by: Energy Efficiency & Resources of the Korea
Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
(KETEP), Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Republic of
Korea under Grant No. 2010T100101066
Received May 1, 2012; Accepted December 19, 2012
certain interesting locations. Each element has two nodes
at its ends and the mass is lumped at the two nodes. The
amount of the lumped mass at the node is determined
on the basis of “tributary area considerations” (Chopra,
2006). Regarding the stiffness of each element of the
LMSM, equivalent flexural and shear stiffnesses are
considered. Static and geometric methods are adopted
to evaluate such equivalent stiffnesses (Varma et al.,
2002; Bose et al., 1996). The static method, like a
pushover analysis, considers an arbitrary static load
applied to the 3D-FEM of the structure, while the
geometric method considers the geometric shape of
the cross-section to calculate the sectional moment of
inertia and shear-coefficients. Alternatively, Bose et al.
(1996) proposed a strain energy method to evaluate
the equivalent stiffnesses for complex structures. The
strain energy method considers the first mode-shape
and corresponding mode-participation factor of the
actual structure to determine the distribution of static
forces applied to each layer of the FEM and to calculate
the equivalent flexural rotation and shear displacement
based on the strain energy balance. From the numerical
results in Bose et al. (1996), the strain energy concept
and the static method provide a better static response
than the geometric method. The information described
above is relevant to the conventional LMSM.
In the present study, the equivalent stiffnesses of the
LMSM are evaluated based on conventional methods
such as the static method (SM) or geometric method
(GM). However, the lumped mass is evaluated based
on the eigen-properties of the actual structure, i.e.,
308 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
natural frequencies and eigenvectors. The new LMSM
developed in the present study provides the same
natural frequencies of the actual structure and a high
accuracy in dynamic responses. Detailed procedures
and examples are presented in the next sections. Note
that the development of the study is limited to an axial-
symmetric structure considering their lateral modes and
its elastic behavior.
2 Frequency adaptive LMSM
2.1 Determination of lumped-mass locations
The locations of the lumped-masses of the stick
model are determined in this new approach by
investigating the mode-shapes of the structure. The
number of lumped-masses is taken to be equal to the
number of target modes or frequencies of the structure,
based on either a modal mass participation ratio or the
maximum frequency required by the design response
spectrum. A modal mass participation ratio above
about 90% is generally acceptable (Varma et al., 2002;
Chopra, 2006), but values over 90% can be considered if
more accurate responses are desired. Figure 1 shows the
procedure to determine the lumped-mass locations. The
first four mode shapes are presented as an example. The
mode shapes or eigenvectors are obtained through an
eigenvalue analysis on the FEM of the actual structure
of concern. If there are several nodes on each layer
of the FEM, a representative average deigen vector is
considered for each layer. The dots in Fig. 1 indicate
the vertexes of each mode shape. As shown in Fig. 1(a),
Point “b” of the second mode is close to Point “d” of
the third mode. Interpolating these two points linearly,
the new Point “e” on the right hand side of Fig. 1(a) is
obtained. Point “c” remains where it is since there is
no adjacent point. Note that the first mode is omitted
because its vertex is always at the top of the structure
(Point “a”). The three points (“a”, “c”, and “e”) are
the lumped-mass locations for the first to third modes.
Interpolation is then made with the fourth mode, as
shown in Fig. 1(b). Since Point “e” is close to Point “g”
of the fourth mode, linear interpolation between these
2nd mode 3rd mode Three nodes Three nodes
Fig. 1 Interpolation procedure for lumped-mass locations: for example (a) between 2nd and 3rd modes and (b) combined with 4th mode
Vol.12
two points provides a new Point “j”. Moreover, Point “c”
is close to Point “f” and linear interpolation provides a
new Point “i”. Finally, the four points (“a”, “i”, “j”, and
“h”) are the new lumped-mass locations for the first to
fourth modes. This procedure leads to the same number
of lumped-masses as the number of modes considered.
2.2 Stiffness matrix of LMSM
In the LMSM, equivalent bending and shear
stiffnesses are considered in order to represent the
stiffness variation of the actual structure. These
stiffnesses are defined by the equivalent flexural and
shear rigidities, EIeq and GAs,eq respectively. Herein,
the parameter As is an effective shear area. If the
sectional shape is uniform or a regular shape, then the
stiffnesses are calculated by closed-form formulas. As
an alternative way to calculate the equivalent flexural
and shear rigidities, a pushover analysis is performed by
applying an arbitrary lateral load (force or displacement)
to the FEM, as shown in Fig. 2.
The total lateral stiffness, kl, evaluated from the
pushover analysis is related to the bending and shear
stiffnesses as follows:
k b ⋅ ks
kl = (1)
k b + ks
where kb and ks are the equivalent bending and shear
stiffnesses, respectively. For the separation of the total
stiffness into the flexural and shear stiffnesses, one
of the stiffnesses needs to be defined by a theoretical
formulation. Normally, the shear stiffness is selected
since it has a simpler form than the flexural stiffness. The
remaining stiffness is then calculated by using Eq. (1).
The equivalent rigidities are calculated by using the
separate stiffnesses and the length of the stick element.
The pushover analysis (static method) may be more
accurate in the evaluation of each stiffness and rigidity
if the actual structure has a non-uniform cross-sectional
shape. The equivalent flexural and shear rigidities are
input into the LMSM implemented in a computational
frame structural analysis platform (Reinhorn et al.,
2009; Computers and Structures, 2011).
4th mode Four nodes
No.2 Hwasung Roh et al.: New lumped-mass-stick model based on modal characteristicsof structures
a evaluated by considering the geometry of the structure
i as those of the actual structure. In this study, a new
Loading
j
h
Fig. 2 Example of pushover analysis for total lateral stiffness
of j-h in Fig. 1
If the lateral stiffness of the stick elements is required
in matrix form, theoretical formulations can be used. It
is well known that the unit force method provides the
flexibility matrix, which by inversion gives the stiffness
matrix. On the other hand, the unit displacement method
yields the stiffness matrix directly. The lateral stiffness
matrix can also be obtained from the LMSM by using
a computational frame structural analysis program.
Arbitrary lumped-masses are input at the locations or
nodes determined in Section 2.1 and the eigenvalue
analysis is performed to obtain the eigenvector and
eigenvalue matrices. Using the eigen-results and the
arbitrary lumped-mass matrix, the stiffness matrix is
simply evaluated by the relationship k = ( T ) −1  2 T m ,
which holds since the stiffness matrix of the stick model
does not depend on the distribution of the lumped-
masses. This procedure yields a static condensation
stiffness matrix due to the consideration of the lateral
modes.
2.3 Frequency adaptive lumped-mass matrix
In the conventional LMSM, the nodal masses are
Mass influence co- Mass influence coefficients
efficients for u1 = 1 for u2 = 1
Fig. 3 Preparation for the initial shooting mass matrix
309
(tributary area consideration). However, the natural
frequencies of the model are normally not the same
technique is developed to obtain the nodal lumped-
masses that provide the same natural frequencies of the
structure. The mass matrix is named here “frequency
adaptive lumped-mass matrix”. As a first step, an
eigenvalue analysis is performed on the FEM structure.
Once the target frequencies (eigenvalues) and vertexes
of each mode-shape are evaluated as explained in
Section 2.1, the preliminary lumped-mass matrix M L0 is
calculated as follows:
−1
M L0 = ⎡( dT ) ( )⎤⎦⎥
−1
( t )
2
T
KL (2)
⎣⎢ d
KL is the static condensation stiffness matrix of the stick
model defined in Section 2.2. The parameter ωt is the
matrix diagonally assembled with the eigenvalue of
the actual structure. In this study, the matrix is named
a target eigenvalue matrix for the LMSM. The matrix
 d is the corresponding maxim normalized eigenvector
matrix for the same mass locations of the LMSM
defined in Section 2.1 (vertexes of each mode shape).
The preliminary mass matrix M L0 obtained from Eq. (2)
is neither symmetric nor diagonal since the eigenvector
matrix  d is not orthogonal. In order to obtain a
diagonal mass matrix, the summation of the rows of
the mass matrix is performed as shown in Fig. 3. This
consideration provides a mutual mass distribution for
each node to cover all mass influence coefficients for u i
as far as possible. In the present study, the diagonal mass
matrix obtained by summing the rows of the preliminary
mass matrix ( M L0 ) is named the “initial shooting mass
matrix” and indicated by M L* .
Performing an eigenvalue analysis using the
stiffness matrix (KL) and the initial shooting mass
matrix ( M L* ) provides a new eigenvalue matrix (ωL) and
corresponding eigenvector matrix (  L). These matrices
Mass influence coefficients ML*
for un = 1
310 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.12

are related as shown below: Repeating Eqs. (6) to (9) leads to a zero value of the
error matrix (ΔML=0) since the eigenvectors of Eq. (6)
K L = ( LT ) ( )
−1 −1
( L )
2
L
(3) become adaptive to the target eigenvalues during the
iterations. Once the mass matrix is diagonal from Eq. (7),
Herein, the matrix  L is a mass normalized eigenvector the eigenvalues are equal to the target eigenvalues.
matrix. However, the obtained eigenvalues are A flow chart of the iterative numerical procedure is
required to be equal to the target eigenvalues (ωt). For shown in Fig. 4. In the present study, the procedure
this purpose, Eq. (3) is rearranged, adding the target is implemented in MATLAB (MATLAB, 2010) and
eigenvalues (ωt) as follows: the diagonal mass matrix is the “frequency adaptive
lumped-mass matrix”.
K L = ⎡( LT ) ( )( ) ⎤⎥⎦ ⎡⎣( ) ( )⎤⎦ ⎡⎢⎣( ) ( ) ( )
⎤
−1 T T −1 T −1 −1

⎢⎣ L t ⎥⎦
t t t L L

(4) 3 Application to nuclear containment building

Equation (4) can be written in terms of a new eigenvector
matrix, new , which is a scaled mass normalized
eigenvector matrix:
K L = ( ) (  ) ( )
−1
T
new
new = ( L ) ( L )
Using the new matrix new , the corresponding new mass
matrix (ML) is calculated as follows:
M L = (new )
T −1
However, the new mass matrix is still not diagonal since
the eigenvectors are scaled with ωt/ωL. In order to obtain
a diagonal mass matrix, as shown in Eq. (8), the off-
diagonal terms are removed by adding ΔML, which is an
error matrix assembled with the off-diagonal terms of
the new mass matrix.
M L = M L − ΔM L
Using the diagonal mass matrix obtained, the
eigenvalue analysis is performed with the stiffness
matrix (KL) to obtain new eigenvalue and eigenvector
matrixes.
⎡⎣ L ,  L ⎤⎦ = eig ( K L , M L ) (9)
3.1 Finite element model and natural frequencies
As an application of the LMSM to a practical civil
structure, an axial-symmetric nuclear containment (NC)
2 −1
t new
(5)
building as shown in Fig. 5 is considered. It has a height
of 77.27 m and inner diameter of 45.72 m, its wall
( t )
−1
(6) thickness is 1.22 m. Its shape is similar to a standard
Korean reactor building (Ahn et al., 2006). Its three-
dimensional FEM is composed of 10680 solid elements
and 19683 nodes. The Young’s and shear modulus used
are 29.16 GPa and 14.58 GPa, respectively, and the
−1
(new )
(7) behavior is assumed to be elastic. The total mass of
the NC building is 33,089,588 kg. From the eigenvalue
analysis of the FEM, the first natural frequency is 3.90
Hz as shown in Table 1. The modal participating mass
ratio is over 90% with three modes. As addressed in
Section 2.1, the number of modes to be considered in the
LMSM is determined by either the modal participation
mass ratio or the maximum frequency considered in
the design response spectrum. In the present LMSM,
(8) the first four modes are considered since the design
spectrum for the NC building considers until 33 Hz for
seismic design (Varma et al., 2002; Regulatory Guide,
1973). More details about the design spectrum are
presented in Section 3.3. Note that the fifth mode of the
structure has a natural frequency of 38 Hz.

M L0 (Eq.(2))
Diameter of inside:
∗
45.72 m
Initial shooting mass matrix, M ( Fig.3)
L
Thickness of wall:
24.08 m
1.22 m
Eigenvalue analysis, ( M L∗ , K L )

 L , L

77.27 m
new = (L )( L ) −1 ( T )(Eq.(6))
 L , L
53.19 m
M L = (new
T
) −1 (new ) −1 (Eq.(7))
Eigenvalue analysis (ML, KL) (Eq.(9))

No
ΔML=0

Yes
Frequency adaptive lumped-mass matrix, ML

Fig. 4 Flowchart for the frequency adaptive lumped-mass matrix Fig. 5 Three-dimensional-FEM of the nuclear containment building
No.2 Hwasung Roh et al.: New lumped-mass-stick model based on modal characteristicsof structures 311

Table 1 Eigenvalues and modal participating mass ratio

Mode Eigenvalue (rad/s) Natural frequency (Hz) Modal participating mass ratio (%)
1st 24.48 3.90 67.71
2nd 75.56 12.03 88.30
3rd 152.45 24.26 91.20
4th 190.75 30.36 92.20

3.2 Frequency adaptive LMSM
Using the linear interpolating procedure, as shown
in Fig. 6(a), the LMSM of the NC building is obtained,
as shown in Fig. 6(b). The number of mass locations
is four since the first to fourth modes are considered.
Node number 3 is at the location where the dome starts.
The second moment of inertia (I) and the effective
shear area (As) are calculated by using a simple closed
formula (geometric method). These values are used to
define the equivalent flexural and shear rigidities of the
cross-section. Herein, the effective shear coefficient (  )
is 0.5 for the circular-hollow cross-section. Regarding
the upper part of the NC building, as shown in Fig.
6(c), a pushover analysis is conducted to obtain the
total lateral stiffness. Arbitrary displacement loading is
applied to all nodes positioned at the same elevation of
the top thickness. Displacement loading is considered,
rather than force loading, since it makes it easier to
calculate the total stiffness of the dome part. If arbitrary
force is applied, the displacement of each node can be
different due to local concentration effects, and thus it
is not easy to determine the representative displacement
corresponding to the arbitrary force applied. In such
case special techniques are needed such as the energy
equivalence and average deflection methods (Varma
et al., 2002). In the use of Eq. (1), the shear stiffness of
the dome part is assumed to be infinite since the shear
deformation of such a dome typed structure is very small
while the flexural deformation of the section and the
axial action through the dome thickness are relatively
apparent. Table 2 summarizes the flexural and shear
rigidities of the each stick element and the corresponding
static condensation stiffness matrix is shown in Eq. (10).
Applying 1.0 m of the lateral displacement to the top of
the building, Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the overall
lateral stiffness between the FEM and LMSM. The
LMSM provides 6,066,371 kN/m of the lateral stiffness
while the FEM provides 6,280,373 kN/m, the difference
is 3.41%.
Using the initial shooting mass matrixas shown in
Eq. (11) and following the procedure described in Section
2.3, Fig. 8 shows the variation of the mass matrix (4 by
4 matrix) during the iterations. All off-diagonal terms
of the matrix converge to zero. The total mass obtained
from the iterations is 27,776,894 kg which is about 84%
of the total mass of the actual structure. The variation of
the eigenvalues during the iterations is shown in Fig. 9.

24.08 m
41.61 m

19.65 m

21.15 m 20.85 m

14.51 m 12.69 m

2nd mode 3rd mode Three nodes Three nodes 4th mode Four nodes
77.27 m

53.19 m

33.54 m

12.69 m

Fig. 6 LMSM of the nuclear containment building: (a) interpolation for lumped-mass locations; (b) present model and (c)
pushover analysis for the dome part
312 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.12

The eigenvalues of the first and third modes converge to One massless node is added, as shown in Fig. 11,
the target values earlier than those of the other modes. in order to get a floor response spectrum, which will be
Table 3 compares the final or converged eigenvalues and discussed in Section 3.4. The addition of the massless
natural frequencies obtained from the iterations, which node does not affect the dynamic response of the
are almost identical. lumped-mass nodes, and does not change the natural
frequencies of the LMSM. It just provides additional
⎡158672308 −62247472 2156575 4847706 ⎤ → u1 response information at the location of the massless
⎢ −62247472 119464044 −671922002 8296482 ⎥ → u
⎥ kN node. In the present study, such massless nodes are
KL = ⎢ 2
named “optional nodes” while the other nodes (lumped-
⎢ 2156575 −67192002 108882416 −44563245⎥ m → u3
⎢ ⎥ mass nodes) are called “essential nodes”.
⎣ 4847706 8296482 −44563245 29809005 ⎦ → u4
The time history analysis is performed with a
(10) time increment of 0.005 s, considering 5% modal
constant damping ratio. Figures 12 and 13 compare the
displacement, acceleration, and shear force responses
⎡8878535 0 0 0 ⎤ of the LMSM to those of the FEM. Note that in both
⎢ 0 10421351 0 0 ⎥
⎥ kg cases, the results are almost identical. Figures 12(b),
M L0 = ⎢ 13(b) and 13(d) capture the responses up to 10 s in order
⎢ 0 0 6542418 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ to show the similarity of the response phase. Figure 14
⎣ 0 0 0 55410503⎦
compares the peak responses at each floor. As shown
(11) in Fig. 14(a), the maximum difference of the peak
displacement between the FEM and LMSM occurs at
3.3 Time history analysis the third floor, while the responses at the other floors
are very close. Figure 14(b) gives a comparison between
The ground motion shown in Fig. 10 is generated the story drift ratios of the two models. Note that the
based on the US NRC RG 1.60 design spectrum,which story drift ratio at the top story in the LMSM is bigger
is normally applied for the seismic design of nuclear than that of the FEM while the drift ratio at the other
containment (NC) buildings (Regulatory Guide, 1973). stories in the LMSM is smaller than that of the FEM.
The total duration is 30 s as per the Standard Review Plan However, the differences are very small. Figure 14(c)
recommendations (Standard Review Plan – Section 3.7.1, shows the peak floor acceleration response. Except for
2007), which recommends that the total duration of the the third and top floors, the peak acceleration response
artificial ground motion be long enough and more than 20 s in both models is almost identical. The differences in
(Standard Review Plan – Section 3.7.1, 2007). The peak peak acceleration at the third and top floors are 0.08 g
ground acceleration (PGA) of the horizontal excitation is and 0.04 g, respectively. Overall, the responses of both
0.3 g for a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE, Regulatory models are very close since the natural frequencies of the
Guide, 1974). LMSM are the same as those of the full FEM within the

Table 2 Equivalent flexural and shear rigidities of the stick elements

Element number EIeq (kN.m2) GAs,eq (kN)
1 Nodes 0-1 1444848548400 1310654520
2 Nodes 1-2 1444848548400 1310654520
3 Nodes 2-3 1444848548400 1310654520
4 Nodes 3-4 221028571800 Assumed as infinite value

5
Base shear (106kN)

2
FE model
1 Stick model

(2.5-scale factor) 0
z
z
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25
x x
Lateral displacement at top (m)
Fig. 7 Static displacement profile in the FEM and LMSM
No.2 Hwasung Roh et al.: New lumped-mass-stick model based on modal characteristicsof structures 313

12 1.0 1.0 1.0

m11 m12 m13 m14
0.5 0.5 0.5
Mass (106 kg)

8
0 0 0
7458324 kg
4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0 -1.0

1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30
1.0 12 1.0 1.0
m21 m22 m23 m24
0.5 0.5 0.5
9
Mass (106 kg)

0 8813656 kg 0 0
6
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
3
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0
1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30
1.0 1.0 12 1.0
m31 m32 m33 m34
0.5
Mass (106 kg)

0.5 9 0.5

0 0 0
6
4011830 kg
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
3
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0
1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30
1.0 1.0 1.0 12
m41 m42 m43 m44
0.5 0.5 0.5
Mass (106 kg)

9
0 0 0
6 7493083 kg
-0.5 -0.5 -0.5
3
-1.0 -1.0 -1.0
1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30
Number of iteration Number of iteration Number of iteration Number of iteration

Fig. 8 Variation of mass matrix during iterations

28 85 Target 180 Target 250

Eigenvalue (1st mode)

Eigenvalue (4th mode)

Eigenvalue (3rd mode)

Target
Eigenvalue (2nd mode)

Target
Iteration Iteration Iteration
Iteration
25 75 150 200

22 65 120 150
1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30
Number of iteration Number of iteration Number of iteration Number of iteration
(a) eigenvlaues of the LMSM (unit of eigenvalue: rad/s)
1.2 1.2 Target 1.2 1.2 Target
Target Target
ωt /ωL (1st mode)

ωt /ωL (4th mode)

ωt /ωL (3rd mode)
ωt /ωL (2nd mode)

Iteration Iteration
Iteration Iteration

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30 1 10 20 30
Number of iteration Number of iteration Number of iteration Number of iteration
(b) Ratio to target eigenvalues
Fig. 9 Variation of eigenvalues during iterations

Table 3 Comparison of natural frequencies

Eigenvalue (rad/s) / Natural frequency (Hz)
Mode
FEM (Actual structure) LMSM
1st 24.48 / 3.864 24.47 / 3.895
2nd 75.56 / 12.031 75.59 / 12.026
3rd 152.45 / 24.263 152.44 / 24.262
4th 190.75 / 30.359 190.70 / 30.351
314 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.12

1.5 0.4
Spectra acceleration (g)

Design spectrum (RG 1.60)

Acceleration (g)
Achieved response spectrum
0.2
1.0
0
0.5
-0.2 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
0 -0.4
0 10 20 30 40
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 10 Design spectrum RG 1.60 (5% damping) and artificial ground motion (PGA = 0.3g)

design spectrum range (below 33 Hz, see Fig. 10). Also, Node # 77.27 m Top floor
in the system equation (mass-damping-stiffness) of the 4
LMSM, the resisting and input inertia forces ( M L u and
M L 1ug , respectively) are simultaneously reduced due 53.19 m 3rd floor
to the reduced mass amount. Herein, ML is a frequency 3
adaptive mass matrix. Figure14(d) shows the peak shear
response for each story and shows a good agreement in 2
33.54 m 2nd floor
the time domain. From the LMSM, the ratio of the peak Optional node
20 m Optional floor
(massless
base shear corresponding to the total weight is 0.686. It node) 12.69 m 1st floor
is larger than that of the FEM, which is 0.652, but the 1
difference is only 0.035, resulting in a 5% error. Base
0

3.4 Floor response spectrum Fig.11 LMSM of the nuclear containment building: adding
a massless node (left side) and first mode shape in SAP
Floor response spectra (FRS) are required for 2000 (right side)
the seismic design of NC buildings since extensive
mechanical equipment, such as nuclear reactors and a damping ratio of 2% and 5% to the SDOF system.
electric cabinets, are installed there (Leonardo et al., The LMSM provides very similar floor response
2007; Curreri et al., 1983). The LMSM developed in spectrums, compared to the FEM. Due to the small
the present study can provide the acceleration response damping ratio applied, the damped frequencies, which
at any floor level by adding “optional nodes”, as shown correspond to the spikes of the spectral acceleration, are
in Fig. 11. The optional nodes are massless nodes. Since close to the first and second natural frequencies of the
most of the equipment is usually placed on the first and building.
second floors (Ahn et al., 2006; Leonardo et al., 2007),
the location of the optional node is selected at a height
of 20 m from the base. To generate a floor response 4 Remarks and conclusions
spectrum, the acceleration response at a given floor is
obtained and used as ground motion for a single degree A frequency adaptive lumped-mass-stick-model
of freedom (SDOF) system. Figures 15 and 16 show the (LMSM) has been developed, based on the variation
FRS results at the second and optional floors, providing of the frequencies and eigenvectors of a structure. A

(a)

Time (s)
(b)

Time (s)

Fig. 12 Displacement time history response: (a) entire duration and (b) up to 10 s
No.2 Hwasung Roh et al.: New lumped-mass-stick model based on modal characteristicsof structures 315

(a) 1.0
0.5
Acceleration at
2nd floor (g)

0
-0.5
-1.0
Time (s)

(b) 1.0
Acceleration at
2nd floor (g)

0.5
0
-0.5
-1.0
Time (s)

(c) 0.30
2nd floor (106kN)
Shear force at

0.15
0
-0.15
-0.30
Time (s)

(d) 0.30
2nd floor (106kN)
Shear force at

0.15
0
-0.15 10
-0.30
Time (s)
Fig. 13 Time history response: (a) entire duration of the acceleration; (b) up to 10 second; (c) entire duration of the shear force
and (d) up to 10-second

(a) (b)

Optional Optional

(b) (d)

Optional

. . .

Fig. 14 Peak floor responses: (a) displacement; (b) drift ratio; (c) acceleration and (d) shear force
316 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
(a)
Fig. 15 Floor response spectrum at the second floor: (a) 2% damping and (b) 5% damping
(a)
Fig. 16 Floor response spectrum at the optional floor: (a) 2% damping and (b) 5% damping
nuclear containment building has been taken as an
example building and time history analyses have been
performed for both the proposed model and a full finite
element model (FEM) of the building to study the
building’s seismic performance under artificial ground
motion, incorporating the seismic design spectrum.
The results of the seismic response of the nuclear
containment building obtained by the new LMSM in
terms of floor displacement and acceleration, including
peak values and phases, are almost identical to those of
the 3D-FEM representing the actual structure. Also, the
new LMSM is able to provide floor response spectra at
any location of the structure, just by adding optional
massless nodes at the desired locations. As shown in the
example building, the floor response spectrum using the
acceleration response achieved from the proposed model
is similar to that of the FEM. Based on the overall results
and comparisons, it can be concluded that the new
LMSM is suitable for analyzing the seismic response of
the structure. However, note that the example building
model considered in this study was restricted to an
axial-symmetric structure. To extend the model for other
structures, more degrees of freedom such as rotational
degrees of freedom may need to be introduced.
Vol.12
(b)
(b)
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by the Energy Efficiency
& Resources of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant, funded by the
Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Republic of Korea
(No. 2010T100101066).
References
Ahn KI, Park SY and Cho SW (2006), “MELCOR 1.8.4
Sensitivity Analysis of the Severe Accident Evolution
During the APR 1400 LOCA,” Annals of Nuclear
Energy, 33(1): 71–83.
Bose MK, Soni RS, Mahajan SC and Kakodkar A
(1996), “Strain Energy Concept for Developing Lumped
Mass Stick Mode of Complex Structures,” Proceeding
of 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1507.
Chopra AK (2006), Dynamics of Structures, Prentice
Hall.
Computers and Structures (2011), SAP2000 Linear and
Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of
Three-dimensional Structures-version 15.0, Computers
No.2 Hwasung Roh et al.: New lumped-mass-stick model based on modal characteristicsof structures
and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
Curreri J, Costantino C, Subudhi M and Reich M (1983),
“Seismic and Dynamic Qualification of Safety-related
Electrical and Mechanical Equipment in Operating
Nuclear Power Plants: Development of a Method to
Generate Generic Floor-response Spectra,” NUREG/
CR-3266, Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY.
Halabian AM, El Naggar MH and Vickery BJ (2002),
“Nonlinear Seismic Response of Reinforced-concrete
Free-standing Towers with Application to TV Towers
on Flexible Foundations,” The Structural Design of Tall
Buildings, 11(1): 51–72.
Halabian AM and Kabiri S (2004), “Soil Structure
Interaction Effects on Inelastic Response of R/C Stack-
Like Structures,” Proceeding of 13WCEE, Vancouver,
Canada.
Huang YN, Whittaker AS and Luco N (2010), “Seismic
Performance Assessment of Base-isolated Safety-related
Nuclear Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 39(13): 1421–1442.
Jadhav MB and Jangid RS (2004), “Response of Base-
isolated Liquid Storage Tanks,” Shock and Vibration,
11(1): 33–45.
Leonardo TS, Richard SO, Sener T and Diego PR
(2007), “Finite Element Modeling of the AP1000
Nuclear Island for Seismic Analyses at Generic Soil and
Rock Sites,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, 237(12-
13): 1474–1485.
Malhotra PK (1997), “Method for Seismic Base
Isolation of Liquid-storage Tanks,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 123(1): 113–115.
MATLAB (2010), The Math Works, Inc. Natick,
Massachusetts.
Moussa L and Ali Z (2010), “Approximate Earthquake
Analysis for Regular Base Isolated Buildings Subjected
to Near Fault Ground Motions,” Proceedings of the
World Congress on Engineering 2010, London, U.K.
Paskalov A, Saudy A and Elgohary M (2007), “Response
of ACR-1000TM Nuclear Power Plant to Eastern North
America High Frequency Input Motions,” Proceeding
317
19th International Conference on Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology (SMIRT-19), Toronto, Canada.
Regulatory Guide (1973), “Design Response Spectra for
Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,” Regulatory
Guide 1.60-revision 1.0, U.S. NRC, Washington, DC.
Regulatory Guide (1974), “Instrumentation for
Earthquakes,” Regulatory Guide 1.12, Revision 1.0,
U.S. NRC, Washington, DC.
Reinhorn AM, Oikonomou K, Roh H, Schiff A and
Kempner L (2011), “Modeling and Seismic Performance
Evaluation of High Voltage Transformers and Bushing,”
MCEER-11-0006, Multidisciplinary Center of
Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo,
the State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Reinhorn AM, Roh H, Sivaselvan M, Kunnath SK,
Valles RE, Madan A, Li C, Ozer C and Park YJ (2009),
“IDARC2D Ver. 7.0: A Program for the Inelastic
Damage Analysis of Structures,” MCEER-09-0006,
Multidisciplinary Center of Earthquake Engineering
Research, University at Buffalo, The State University of
New York, Buffalo, NY.
Roh H, Oliveto ND and Reinhorn AM (2012),
“Experimental Test and Modeling of Hollow-core
Composite Insulators,” Nonlinear Dynamics, 69(4):
1651–1663. .
Standard Review Plan-section 3.7.1 (2007), Seismic
Design Parameters, NUREG-0800, U.S. NRC,
Washington, DC.
Takada T and Yamaguchi K (2002), “Two-step Seismic
Limit State Design Procedure Based on Non-linear
LRFD and Dynamic Response Analyses,” Structural
Safety, 24(2-4): 397–415.
Varma V, Reddy GR, Vaze KK and Kushwaha HS
(2002), “Simplified Approach for Seismic Analysis of
Structures,” International Journal of Structural Stability
and Dynamics, 2(2): 207–225.
Wilson JL (2003), “Earthquake Response of Tall
Reinforced Concrete Chimneys,” Engineering
Structures, 25(1): 11–24.