Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1361–1377 | Cite as

Application of Travelling Wave Method for dynamic analysis of plane frame structures

  • N. Merve ÇağlarEmail author
  • Erdal Şafak
Review Article
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

The dynamic behavior of a structure can be formulated in terms of the waves propagating through its members. This approach is commonly known as the Travelling Wave Method (TWM). The propagation of an external excitation within structural members, and the behavior of waves at a discontinuity are defined by the amplitude of displacement waves, and the wave reflection and transmission coefficients. The assemblage of these properties provides a concise method to formulate the dynamic response of structures. Although it has been used for the analysis of aerospace structures, the TWM has rarely been used for the analysis of civil engineering structures. This paper presents the theoretical basis and the formulation of the wave-propagation approach to analyze the dynamic response of civil-engineering-type structures, and discusses its advantages over the commonly used Finite Element Method (FEM). It is shown by examples that TWM requires less computational time than FEM, can incorporate the frequency-dependent soil–structure interaction effects in the analysis directly, and gives more accurate results at high frequencies. The last one is particularly important for detecting small and invisible damages in structures, since most of such damage is hidden in high frequencies.

Keywords

Travelling Wave Method Dynamic analysis Wave propagation 

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40 Report, Redwood City, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Beale LS, Accorsi ML (1995) Power flow in two-and three-dimensional frame structures. J Sound Vib 185(4):685–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brillouin L (1946) Wave propagation in periodic structures. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cai GQ, Lin YK (1991) Wave propagation and scattering in structural networks. J Eng Mech 117(7):1555–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chouvion B, Popov AA, Mcwilliam S, Fox CHJ (2011) Vibration modelling of complex waveguide structures. Comput Struct 89(11–12):1253–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cremer L, Heckl M, Petersson BAT (2005) Structure borne-sound: structural vibrations and sound radiation at audio frequencies. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Desmond TP (1981) Theoretical and experimental investigation of stress waves at a junction of three bars. J Appl Mech 48(1):148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyle JF (1989) Wave Propagation in Structures. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle JF, Kamle S (1985) An experimental study of the reflection and transmission of flexural waves at discontinuities. J Appl Mech 52(3):669–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doyle JF, Kamle S (1987) An experimental study of the reflection and transmission of flexural waves at an arbitrary T-joint. J Appl Mech 54(1):136–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duhamel D, Mace BR, Brennan MJ (2006) Finite element analysis of the vibrations of waveguides and periodic structures. J Sound Vib 294(1–2):205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA (2004) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Part 1: provisions, FEMA 450-1/2003 Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. FEMA (2005) Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA 440, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. FEMA (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, FEMA P-750/2009 Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Graff KF (1975) Wave motion in elastic solids. Ohio State University Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo YQ, Chen WQ, Pao YH (2008) Dynamic analysis of space frames: the method of reverberation-ray matrix and the orthogonality of normal modes. J Sound Vib 317(3–5):716–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinke L, Mace BR, Brennan MJ (2004) Finite element analysis of waveguides. In: ISVR Technical Memorandum 932Google Scholar
  20. Howard SM, Pao YH (1998) Analysis and experiments on stress waves in planar trusses. J Eng Mech 124(8):884–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knopoff L (1964) A matrix method for elastic wave problems. Bull Seismol Soc Am 54(1):431–438Google Scholar
  22. Kohler MD, Heaton TH, Bradford SC (2007) Propagating waves in the steel, moment-frame factor building recorded during earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(4):1334–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krawczuk M, Grabowska J, Palacz M (2006) Longitudinal wave propagation. Part icomparison of rod theories. J Sound Vib 295(3–5):461–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mace BR (1984) Wave reflection and transmission in beams. J Sound Vib 97(2):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mei C (2014) An analytical study of dynamic characteristics of multi-story Timoshenko planar frame structures. J Dyn Syst Meas Control 136(5):051004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mei C (2015) Comparison of the four rod theories of longitudinally vibrating rods. J Vib Control 21(8):1639–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mei C (2016) Experimental validation of wave vibration analysis of complex vibrations in a two-story metallic space frame based on the Timoshenko bending theory. J Vib Acoust 138(2):021003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mei C, Mace BR (2005) Wave reflection and transmission in Timoshenko beams and wave analysis of Timoshenko beam structures. J Vib Acoust 127(4):382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mei C, Sha H (2015) An exact analytical approach for free vibration analysis of built-up space frames. J Vib Acoust 137(3):031005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller DW, Von Flotow AH (1989) A travelling wave approach to power flow in structural networks. J Sound Vib 128(1):145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milne HK (1987) A note on beam reflection matrices and reciprocity. J Sound Vib 114:149–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mylonakis G, Nikolaou S, Gazetas G (2006) Footings under seismic loading: analysis and design issues with emphasis on bridge foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(9):824–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagem RJ, Williams JH Jr (1989) Dynamic analysis of large space structures using transfer matrices and joint coupling matrices. J Struct Mech 17(3):349–371Google Scholar
  34. NIST GCR 12-917-21 (2012) Soil–Structure interaction for building structures. Prepared by NEHRP consultants joint venture (a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering)Google Scholar
  35. Pao YH, Chen WQ (2009) Elastodynamic theory of framed structures and reverberation-ray matrix analysis. Acta Mech 204(1–2):61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pao YH, Keh DC, Howard SM (1999) Dynamic response and wave propagation in plane trusses and frames. AIAA J 37(5):594–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pao YH, Chen WQ, Su XY (2007) The reverberation-ray matrix and transfer matrix analyses of unidirectional wave motion. Wave Motion 44(6):419–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Renno JM, Mace BR (2013) Calculation of reflection and transmission coefficients of joints using a hybrid finite element/wave and finite element approach. J Sound Vib 332(9):2149–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sieffert JG, Cevaer F (1991) Handbook of impedance functions. Quest Editions, Presses Academiques, Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  40. Snieder R, Şafak E (2006) Extracting the building response using seismic interferometry: theory and application to the Millikan Library in Pasadena, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Şafak E (2006) Time-domain representation of frequency-dependent foundation impedance functions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26(1):65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2008) Impulse response analysis of the Van Nuys 7storey hotel during 11 earthquakes and earthquake damage detection. Struct Control Health Monit 15(1):90–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trifunac MD, Ivanovic SS, Todorovska MI (2003) Wave propagation in a seven-story reinforced concrete building: III. Damage detection via changes in wavenumbers. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(1):65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tu TH, Yu JF, Lien HC, Tsai GL, Wang BP (2008) Free vibration analysis of frames using the transfer dynamic stiffness matrix method. J Vib Acoust 130(2):024501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Von Flotow AH (1986) Disturbance propagation in structural networks. J Sound Vib 106(3):433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations