Kathmandu University

School of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Dhulikhel, Kavrepalanchowk

Dynamics of Structure (MSTR 500)

M.E. in Structural Engineering

PROJECT 2
Date of Submission: July,2024

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Tulsi Ram Khanal Er. Mahesh Raj Bhatta
I year / I semester- 2023 Department of Civil Engineering
ME Structural Engineering Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel
Q-Derive and plot the Response Spectrum (Deformation, Pseudo Velocity, Pseudo Acceleration
for different value of damping i.e. ξ) for that particular SDOF system for any one Earthquake
time history among (Gorkha Earthquake, Nepal Bihar Earthquake, Loma Prieta Earthquake,
Kobe earthquake, Elcentro Earthquake, Uttarkashi Earthquake or any other earthquake time
history) and do the following task

a) For any Earthquake Ground Motion (of above), construct Response Spectra (Deformation,
Pseudo Velocity and Pseudo Acceleration) for 5% damping ratio with the help of any Numerical
technique. Furthermore plot Response spectra for different damping ratios

Soultion:

For the structural analysis of the idealized building, a response spectrum curve was generated
using the El Centro earthquake record as a representative ground motion input. This seismic
event was selected due to its historical significance and well-documented acceleration data,
making it a standard choice for seismic analysis. The response spectrum provides a graphical
representation of the peak responses of a series of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems
subjected to the El Centro earthquake. The central difference method, a numerical technique, was
employed to solve the differential equations governing the dynamic response of the structure.
This analysis involved plotting response spectra for deformation, pseudo velocity, and pseudo
acceleration for different value of damping ratio. The deformation spectrum represents the
maximum displacement response of a series of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems to the
earthquake, providing insights into the expected structural deflections.

Data From Idealized Building

Seismic Weight 112077.0933 Kg

Total Stiffness(K) 105000000 N/m
Natural Vibration (Wn) 30.60808932 rad/sec
Time Period(T) 0.205278586 sec

Using the relationship between pseudo velocity, deformation and pseudo acceleration,

( )
2
2π 2π
V =ωn × D= D A=ωn2 × D= D
Tn Tn
where , D=Displacement
V =Pesudo−velocity A=Pesudo−acceleration
Now, The maximum Deformation induced by the El Centro ground motion for 5 %
damping was calculated then the calculation of pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration
was done , after that deformation response spectrum , response spectrum for pseudo-
velocity and pseudo-acceleration was plotted .
Natural Maximum Natural Pseudo Pseudo
Time Period Deformation Vibration Velocity Acceleration
(Tn ) D(cm) (Wn) V(cm/sec) A(cm/sec2)
0.09 0.161 69.81317008 11.23992 784.6944734
0.1 0.189 62.83185307 11.87522 746.1420927
0.15 0.419 41.88790205 17.55103 735.1758656
0.18 0.773 34.90658504 26.98279 941.877062
0.2 0.927 31.41592654 29.12256 914.912328
0.25 1.3039 25.13274123 32.77058 823.6145394
0.5 5.753 12.56637061 72.29433 908.4773459
0.58 6.296 10.83307812 68.20506 738.8707409
1 11.355 6.283185307 71.34557 448.2774319
1.25 7.774 5.026548246 39.07639 196.4193398
1.5 9.28 4.188790205 38.87197 162.8265402
2 13.496 3.141592654 42.39893 133.200181
2.5 27.723 2.513274123 69.6755 175.1136274
2.8 30.061 2.243994753 67.45673 151.3725397
3 27.495 2.094395102 57.58539 120.6065658
3.25 24.105 1.933287787 46.6019 90.09488818
3.5 22.091 1.795195802 39.65767 71.19328353
3.85 22.392 1.631996184 36.54366 59.63911128
4 23.208 1.570796327 36.45504 57.26344474
4.25 24.269 1.478396543 35.87921 53.04369367
4.5 25.182 1.396263402 35.1607 49.09360554
 35
Deformation Response Spectrum

30

25
D,cm

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Tn 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Figure : Deformation Response Spectrum For 5% Damping

Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum

80

70

60

50
V,cm/sec

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Tn

Figure : Pseudo - Velocity Response Spectrum For 5% Damping

 1.2
Pseudo Acceleration Response Spectrum

0.8

0.6
A,g

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Tn2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Figure : Pseudo – Acceleration Response Spectrum For 5% Damping

Q- State what would be the difference in Response Spectra in two cases (a) if you vary mass to
find out different time period of SDOF, (b) if you vary stiffness to find out different time period
of SDOF

Mass variation to find out different time period of SDOF

Deformation Response Spectrum

25

20

15
D,cm

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Tn2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
for ξ = 0% for ξ = 5% for ξ = 10% for ξ = 20%
 Figure : Deformation Response Spectrum

80 Pseudo Velocity Response Spectrum

70

60

50
V,cm/sec

40

30

20

10
for jai 0% for jai 5% for jai 10% for jai 20%
0 Tn
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Figure : Pseudo - Velocity Response Spectrum

1.2 Pseudo Acceleration Spectrum

0.8

0.6 jai 0% jai 5% jai 10% jai 20%

A,g

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Tn2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Figure : Pseudo – Acceleration Response Spectrum

Stiffness Variation to find out different time period of SDOF

 70 Deformation Response Spectrum
for ξ =0% for ξ = 5% for ξ = 10% for ξ = 20%
60

50
Displacement(cm)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Tn 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Figure : Deformation Response Spectrum

Pseudo Velocity Respons spectrum

250

for ξ 0 % for ξ = 5% ξ = 10% ξ = 20%

200
V , cm/sec

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Tn

Figure : Pseudo - Velocity Response Spectrum

 3.5
Pseudo Acceleration Response Spectrum
ξ = 0% ξ = 5% ξ = 10% ξ = 20%
3

2.5

2
A,g

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Tn

Time history of displacement, pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration of El Centro Earthquake

for ξ = 5%

For x=20%, the time history are as follows;

1
0.8
Displacement, cm

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
t, sec

Time history of displacement, pseudo-velocity and pseudo-acceleration of El Centro Earthquake

for ξ = 20%
Now, by changing mass (M) and natural time period (Tn) while keeping the stiffness (K)
constant, the values of maximum displacement are obtained for different damping ratios. The
 Pseudo-velocity, cm/sec
30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-10
Pseudo-aceleration , g

-20 1
0.8
-30
0.6 t, sec
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
t, sec

response spectra (deformation, pseudo-velocity and pseudo- acceleration for different damping
ratios are plotted as follows;
ξ 5%
Tn Displacement, Pseudo- Pseudo-
cm Velocity, acceleration,
cm/sec g
0.1 0.18 11.30973 0.724374635
0.2 0.927 29.12256 0.932632342
0.3 1.72 36.0236 0.769089119
0.4 3.031 47.61084 0.762353999
0.5 5.7539 72.30564 0.926217603
0.6 6.9353 72.62629 0.775270896
0.7 6.471 58.08356 0.531454452
0.8 7.889 61.96006 0.49605829
0.9 10.865 75.85201 0.539803183
1 11.3555 71.34871 0.456979787

ξ 15%
Tn Displacement Pseudo- Pseudo-
,cm Velocity, acceleration
cm/sec ,g
0.1 0.1599 10.04681 0.64348613
4
0.2 0.511 16.05354 0.51410477
6
 0.3 1.1 23.03835 0.49185932
0.4 2.135 33.5365 0.53699300
2
0.5 3.4826 43.76364 0.56060157
9
0.6 4.639 48.57949 0.51857622
4
0.7 4.675 41.9627 0.38395140
8
.8 4.673 36.70166 0.29383703
7
0.9 5.091 35.54188 0.25293492
9
1 5.786 36.35451 0.23284620
2

ξ 25%
Tn Displacement, Pseudo- Pseudo-
cm Velocity, acceleration,g
cm/sec
0.1 0.1331 8.36292 0.5356348
0.2 0.4 12.56637 0.402430353
0.3 0.9425 19.73967 0.421434008
0.4 1.676 26.32655 0.421545795
0.5 2.597 32.63486 0.41804465
0.6 3.3767 35.36072 0.377468492
0.7 3.54 31.77497 0.290735398
0.8 3.6494 28.66232 0.229473333
0.9 3.952 27.59016 0.196346266
1 4.253 26.72239 0.171153629
12

10

8 displacement, cm

4 For ξ=5%
For ξ=15%
2
For ξ=25%
80
0 For ξ=5%
700 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
For ξ=15%
Tn , sec
60 For ξ=25%
pseudo velocity,cm/sec

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Tn, sec
 1
For ξ=5%
0.9
For ξ=15%
0.8
For ξ=25%
0.7
Pseudo-acceleration, g

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Now,
0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Tn , sec

obtaining the response spectra by changing the stiffness (K) and nautral time period Tn, keeping
mass constant.

12

10
Displacement, cm

4 For ξ=5%

2 For ξ=15%
For ξ=25%
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Tn ,sec
80
For ξ=5%
70
For ξ=15%

Pseudo-Velocity,cm/sec
60
For ξ=25%
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

0.7
For ξ=5%
0.6 For ξ=15%
For ξ=25%
0.5
Pseudo-acceleration, g

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Tn , sec
Now, to construct the elastic design response spectrum, for the El centro earthquake, we have

For Median i.e. 50 Percentile

Ügo = 0.319 g
Úo = 33.12 cm/sec
Uo = 21.34 cm
For, ξ = 5 %

αA αV αD A(in g) V( in D(in
cm/sec) cm)
2.11558 1.65013 1.38545 0.67487 54.6523 29.5655
2 2 1 2 4

For, ξ = 15 %

V( in
αA αV αD A(in g) cm/sec) D(in cm)

1.368526 1.199699 1.088826 0.43656 39.73404 23.23556

For, ξ = 25 %

V( in
αA αV αD A(in g) cm/sec) D(in cm)
1.02116 0.99026 0.95090 0.32575 32.7974 20.2922
4 1 4 1 4 8

The design spectra is as follows;

From the above results, these can be interpreted:
a.) Consistency Between Displacement, Pseudo-Velocity, and Pseudo-Acceleration
Calculations: The results show no difference between calculations based on varying
mass while keeping stiffness constant, and those based on varying stiffness. This
indicates that the fundamental relationships governing the response of the system are
maintained regardless of whether mass or stiffness is the variable being changed.

b.) Effect of Damping Ratio: Above graphs results that the damping ratio of 2% results in
higher displacement, velocity, and acceleration compared to damping ratios of 5% and
10%. This inverse relationship between damping ratio and response indicates that
increasing damping ratio reduces the system's response to external forces. Therefore, it
can be concluded that damping is effective in dissipating earthquake energy and
mitigating its impact on a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) system.
 c.) Comparison with Elastic Design Spectra: The findings show that there is an agreement
between the response spectrum and the elastic design spectra due to matched ground
motion parameters. However, significant differences are observed:

-In the velocity- and displacement-sensitive regions, the response spectrum fluctuates
between the two elastic design spectra, sometimes falling below the median elastic design
spectrum.

d.) This indicates that while the response spectrum generally agrees with the design spectra,
discrepancies in specific regions suggest the need for careful consideration in the design
process, especially in relation to the acceleration, velocity, and displacement sensitivities.

In summary, these findings highlight the consistency in the response of SDOF systems regardless
of whether mass or stiffness is varied, the importance of damping in reducing system response,
and the nuanced agreement between response spectra and elastic design spectra depending on the
region of sensitivity.