Berkeley M.S. Exam: Dynamics 2018
Uploaded by
Mao Cristhian Pinto CruzBerkeley M.S. Exam: Dynamics 2018
Uploaded by
Mao Cristhian Pinto CruzUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Dept.
of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Spring Semester 2018 Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials
M.S. Comprehensive Examination: Dynamics
Name: ________________________________
QUESTION 1 [40%]:
An air-conditioning unit weighing 1200 lb is bolted at the middle of two parallel simply supported
steel beams (E = 30,000 ksi) as shown below. The clear span of the beams is L = 8 ft. The second
moment of cross-sectional area of each beam is I = 10 in4. The motor in the unit runs at 300 rpm
and produces an unbalanced vertical force of 60 lb at this speed. Neglect the weight of the beams
and assume ζ = 1% viscous damping in the system. Determine the amplitudes of:
1) steady-state deflection, and 2) steady-state acceleration (in g’s) of the beams at their
midpoints which result from the unbalanced force.
Hints:
Deformation response factor:
g = 386 in/sec2
1
QUESTION 2 [60%]:
The umbrella structure shown below has 3 DOF with the listed eigen solution. It is made of
standard steel pipe and has the following properties: I = 28.1 in4, E = 29,000 ksi, weight = 18.97
lb/ft, m = 1.5 kips/g, and L = 10 ft. It is required to determine the peak response of this structure
to horizontal ground motion characterized by the design spectrum shown below (for 5%
damping) scaled to 0.20g peak ground acceleration and using the SRSS modal combination rule.
It is required to perform the following: 1) Check that the distributed weight of the umbrella
structure can be neglected (i.e. less than 10%) compared to the lumped weights and find the
corresponding mass matrix, and 2) Compute the displacements u1, u2, and u3.
Elastic pseudo-acceleration design spectrum for
ground motion: ügo = 1g (g = 386 in/sec2) and ζ = 5%.
2
Name: ________________________
University of California at Berkeley Structural Engineering, Mechanics & Materials
Civil and Environmental Engineering Spring Semester 2017
Comprehensive Examination in Dynamics
When needed, consider the pseudo-acceleration S
a
response spectrum shown to the right in your solutions SDs = 1.75g
to the following problems. Provide a brief narrative
discussion of the procedures and assumptions you use. SD1 = 0.9g
1. Provide an estimate of the peak earthquake ground Period, sec.
acceleration that would be needed to produce this 1
spectrum.
2. Consider the small 2 DOF system shown below. The numbering convention is such that DOF
1 is at the roof. The system is mounted rigidly on the ground, and is subjected to an
earthquake excitation represented by the pseudo-acceleration response spectrum provided
above. Viscous damping may be neglected.
a. What modal combination rule will you use to estimate the peak responses of the
structure, and briefly, why?
b. Considering two modes of response, what is the expected peak base shear?
c. What percentage of the total base shear is contributed by the first mode? That is, what is
the shear computed for the first mode alone divided by the total peak base shear
computed considering the modal combination method you used.
d. Similarly, what percentage of the top story drift is contributed by the first mode?
æ 1/ 2 0 ö ì1 ü ì1 ü ì0.63 ü
M = 0.0836 k - s 2 / in ç ÷ f1 = í ý f2 = í ýT = í ý sec
è 0 1 ø î0.33þ î-0.53þ î0.12 þ
3. Consider the seismically isolated structure to the right.
Using engineering fundamentals, estimate the maximum
lateral displacement of the isolators, if an aircraft strikes
the structure.
The structure above the isolators weighs 500,000 kips
and can be considered completely rigid. The isolators
have elastic-perfectly plastic properties in the lateral
direction as shown to the right. Vertically, the isolators
are inextensible. The aircraft weighs 300 kips and is
traveling horizontally at 800 ft/sec at the time of impact.
The aircraft “sticks” to the structure during/following
the impact. The duration of the impact loading is 0.1 sec, which may be considered
significantly shorter than the natural period of the structure. Energy dissipation of the
structure, other than in the isolators, should be considered minimal (zero).
Name: ________________________
University of California at Berkeley Structural Engineering, Mechanics & Materials
Civil and Environmental Engineering Spring Semester 2016
Comprehensive Examination in Dynamics
When needed, consider the pseudo-acceleration S
a
response spectrum shown to the right in your solutions SDs = 1.75g
to the following problems.
SD1 = 0.9g
1. For an elastic single degree-of-freedom (DOF)
system, weighing 1000 kips, what is the minimum Period, sec.
lateral stiffness of the system required such that it 1
does not displace laterally more than 4.5 inches
when subject to the spectrum shown?
2. Consider the 2 DOF shown below. The numbering convention is such that DOF 1 is at the
roof. The structure is subjected to an earthquake excitation represented by the pseudo-
acceleration response spectrum provided above.
a. Considering only the first mode response, what is the expected base shear?
b. What percentage of the total base shear is contributed by the first mode?
c. Is the percentage of story shear contributed by the first mode to the story shear in the top
story more, less or the same as for the bottom story? Briefly explain. You do not need to
compute the second story or second mode shear!
d. What maximum lateral story drift do you expect in the top story of the building due to the
first mode response?
1000kips é1 0ù ì 1 ü ì 1 ü ì 1.0sec. ü
1 M= ê ú f1 = í ý f2 = í ý T =í ý
g ë0 1û î 0.5 þ î -2 þ î 0.25 sec. þ
3. The floors in a one-story seismically isolated structure each weigh 1000 kips. The first mode
shape is give as < 1, 1 >T, where the first value corresponds to the roof and the second value
correspond to the floor just above the isolation plane. The second mode shape is < 1, ? >T.
a. What is the value of the missing term?
b. How much does the second mode contribute to the base shear of this structure?
4. When might one use an explicit numerical integration method (such as the Central Difference
Method) rather than an implicit method (such as the “constant average acceleration
method”)?
5. When would the pseudo-acceleration differ significantly from the actual acceleration of a
SDOF structure subjected to earthquake motions? Provide a sketch to illustrate your answer.
Name: ________________________
6. Modal responses are often combined in modal analysis methods using the square root of the
sum of the squares method.
a. List two cases where this method might not be an adequate approximation?
b. What other method might be used instead?
Common questions
Powered by AIAssessing maximum lateral displacement involves calculating the impulse delivered by the impact force and using the dynamic equations of motion, considering the elastic-perfectly plastic behavior of the isolators. The key is determining the energy transfer from the aircraft to the structure and accounting for the dynamic response modulated by the isolators' mechanical properties. The aircraft's velocity, mass, and impact duration play crucial roles, as do assumptions of rigid behavior above the isolation plane and negligible energy dissipation elsewhere .
The pseudo-acceleration can differ from actual acceleration when the damping is low, and the system's natural frequency is close to the excitation frequency, creating resonance conditions. In these cases, the response may be exaggerated, and the pseudo-acceleration indicated by the design spectrum might not capture transient peak accelerations accurately. Such discrepancies are critical in seismic analyses where approximations could misestimate the required structural resilience .
The Square Root of the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) modal combination rule is used to estimate peak structural responses by combining the contributions of different modes, assuming their phases are statistically independent. This rule is applicable in seismic analysis when modal responses exhibit distinct frequencies, providing a more accurate estimate of the structure's overall response than simply summing individual mode contributions. In seismic design, considering modes with the SRSS rule accounts for maximum expected responses like displacement or acceleration under ground motion .
The damping ratio significantly affects the amplitude responses, including both the steady-state deflection and acceleration of dynamic systems like beams under unbalanced forces. A higher damping ratio can reduce the peak responses, implying that less energy is stored in the system's vibration modes, leading to smaller deflections and accelerations. In this context, with a damping ratio (ζ) of 1%, the damping is relatively low, allowing higher amplitude responses to occur .
The first mode often contributes significantly to overall seismic responses, as it represents the fundamental mode with the largest mass participation factor. Evaluating its contribution allows for understanding the primary driving mechanism of the base shear, which dictates structural safety and performance during earthquakes. Furthermore, determining this percentage helps engineers design more effective reinforcement strategies and appropriately distribute mass and stiffness to mitigate shear forces .
The choice between explicit and implicit methods depends on stability, computational cost, and the problem type. Explicit methods like the Central Difference Method are conditionally stable and preferred for problems with small time steps and rapid loading changes, such as impact analyses. Implicit methods, like the constant average acceleration method, are unconditionally stable and suitable for larger time-step simulations, offering robustness for slowly evolving dynamic problems. The problem's characteristics and desired numerical accuracy drive the selection .
The SRSS method may not adequately approximate combined modal responses when modal frequencies are closely spaced, leading to modal coupling, or when higher modes significantly impact the response, which the SRSS method tends to underestimate. In these cases, more sophisticated methods like the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) should be considered, which account for the interactions between closely spaced modes, providing a more accurate assessment of the structure's dynamic behavior under realistic loading conditions .
Confirming that the distributed weight is negligible ensures that mass concentration assumptions used in model simplifications remain valid. This verification allows for using reduced complexity models, focusing computational intensity on significant mass locations (lumped weights), leading to more robust simulations and predictions of dynamic behaviors, particularly under seismic loading. It simplifies the analysis without significantly affecting accuracy, streamlining design and evaluation processes .
Determining the mass matrix involves identifying and aligning the mass distribution with the system's degrees of freedom. For seismic analysis, this assumes formulating a matrix that contains the mass values at the nodes corresponding to each degree of freedom, incorporating any lumped masses at specific points. Properly assembling this matrix is crucial for accurately simulating the kinetic responses due to seismic excitations, ensuring realistic modal analyses and subsequent response predictions .
Considering shear force distribution involves understanding that shear contributions vary with building height and dynamic characteristics. Typically, lower stories experience higher shear concentrations due to higher relative stiffness, while upper stories show varying shear distributions depending on mode shapes and mass participation. Evaluating the shear pattern ensures appropriate reinforcement and compliance with performance-based design criteria, mitigating story drift and potential failure modes in high seismic regions .