Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 12 (1993) 113-125

Two approaches to identify equivalent structural

models from earthquake responses
G. Benzoni & C. G e n t i l e
Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy

(Received 15 February 1993; accepted 1 March 1993)

In many instances buildings are mutually connected, giving rise to complex

arrays. In such cases it is difficult to assess a reliable structural scheme for the
seismic analysis of a single building of the array. Two methods for interpreting the
earthquake records of complex arrays are presented. The aim is to identify
structural schemes of a single building or part of the array which account for the
effects of the adjacent structures, in order to transform a complex system, with
several parts interacting together, into a simpler one suitable for design purposes.
Both methods are limited to linear behaviour and to planar systems. The
structural parameters of the models are evaluated from recorded seismic
responses. The equivalent models both comprise the addition, to the assessed
scheme of the analysed building, of an appropriate distribution of masses and
stiffnesses which represent the effect on that building of all the neighbouring
connected units. In the first procedure, such a distribution is evaluated according
to a predefined scheme, while in the second approach the physical characteriza-
tion of the model is defined a posteriori. The two methods are applied to generated
sample data in order to verify their reliability and accuracy.

1 INTRODUCTION Fig. l(a). When reference is made to building A (or to its

In many instances buildings are connected to one
another, giving rise to complex assemblies, as for
instance in European historical urban nuclei. This
creates a major problem when structural analysis must
be performed on a single building or part of the array.
Basically, the problem is the uncertainty about the
appropriate structural scheme to be used in the analysis
of the building of interest in order to account for the
effects exerted on it by the adjacent structures.
This paper presents two different approaches to
reproduce through equivalent models the dynamic and
static behaviours of a building, taking into account the
interaction with the connected structural units. Both
methods are limited to linear behaviour and to planar
systems. The structural parameters of the models are
estimated from recorded earthquake responses.
In order to present the problem more clearly, consider
the typical array shown in Fig. l(a), where the building
to be analysed is denoted by A. The dynamic behaviour
of A, as standing alone, is expected to be modified by
the other substructures of the array, denoted by B in
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 026%7261/93/$06.00
1993 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.
113
structural scheme) in isolation the notation AA will be
used, while the notation A refers to the actual building
(A + B) in its real configuration.
The presented procedures are both based on the
assumption that the structural scheme AA is known; the
definition o f the equivalent model of A has then been
developed following two different strategies.
The first method I is completely based upon a priori
assumptions o f the structural scheme, and for this
reason the related model will be referred to as the
'Structural Model' (ST-model).
The second approach, 2 perhaps more general does not
require any prior structural hypothesis besides those
regarding the AA scheme. The physical characterization
of the model is defined a posteriori, so that the related
model will be referred to as the 'Non Structural Model'
(NST-model).
In the ST-model, a simple shear-type scheme is
assumed for system AA. Then, in order to describe the
behaviour of A in its real configuration, the known AA
model is rigidly linked to a 'black box' (as shown in
Fig. l(b)), whose content is modelled according to a
predefined scheme. The problem is thus reduced to the
evaluation of a prior specified mass and stiffness
distribution which reproduce the effective responses
114 G. Benzoni, C. Genti~
XA(t)
I
I I
A
(b)
Fig. 1. (a) Typical array; (b) ST-model; (c) NST-model.
when added to AA. It will be shown that the unknown
structural parameters are (locally) identifiable if records
of the base input and of the building response at two
different storeys are available. Further, if an assumption
is made about the first modal shape of the model, the
number of records required for the parameter evaluation
could be reduced to one.
In the NST-model, once the model of AA (with no
restriction of being chain-like) has been assessed, the
effectively recorded acceleration at each floor level k of
the structure is seen as the sum of the response of the
AA scheme plus its modification due to the action of the
surrounding buildings. This assumption, in terms of
signal analysis in frequency domain, is expressed as
shown in Fig. l(c), w h e r e /-tAA,k(f) is the (known)
transfer function of AA at the location k and HaA,k(f )
is a function relating the input transform Z ( f ) to the
output transform "~aA,k(f), whose role is to 'force' the
response of AA to be equal to the recorded response of
A. The function HBA,k(f), as will be shown later,
contains information on the dynamic behaviour of both
A and AA. This function is approximated by the
transfer function of a mechanical shear-type system
(BA) whose consistent distribution of mass and stiffness
is identified. Further, it will be proved that the model
obtained by rigidly linking the two systems AA and BA
turns out to be a satisfactory representation of the real
behaviour.
In the following, quantities pertaining to the original
(a)
I NST - MODEL I
"~'k "'k
x A(f) X A(Y)
(c)
array (A + B) are referred to as 'measured' while the
corresponding quantities of the equivalent schemes will
be said to be 'calculated'. Moreover, quantities
evaluated through an analytical or numerical model
are represented as x(t), klAA,k(f), etc.
Both models have been applied to data generated by
finite element analysis of sample systems in order to
verify their effectiveness and accuracy. The check
consists of the comparison between measured and
calculated responses.
As to dynamic responses, due to space limitation, only
one match is presented for each numerical example. In
order to prove synthetically the accuracy of the results,
the measure of fit between each available record and the
corresponding model response is described through the
following quantity: 3
R.M.S.[.~k(t) - Xk(t)]
: (l)
I~k,maxl
where ~k(t) and Xk(t) are respectively the sequel of peaks
in the measured and computed accelerations and [~k,ma~[
is the maximum absolute value of the measured record.
As to static responses (of particular interest from an
engineering point of view), since the mass distribution is
different in the original system and in the equivalent
schemes, the comparison cannot be performed by
applying a constant set of lateral forces. It is instead
carried out by applying to each system a set of
 Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 115
kc,rl the model, whike kci and k* are the stiffnesses of the
mn [ ] m=
elements in Fig. 2(b). The matrix C is assumed to allow
ran-1 [] E
r a n - 1 kn modal decoupling.
The structural unknowns governing the model
m2 m behaviour are modal dampings, the entire stiffness
distribution, and the value of mass m*. Dampings may
m1 i~ be evaluated separately from other parameters; in fact, if
the base motion ~(t) and the structural response at some
7////, y/////////h
position p are available, it turns out 4 that: (a) the
(a) ~)
effective participation factors are determined uniquely
Fig. 2. (a) Simplified scheme of interaction; (b) the equivalent for all modes; and (b) the modal frequencies and
ST-model. dampings are determined uniquely if the rth mode
horizontal static forces proportional to the actual contributes to the response ofp.
masses. The identification of the structural parameters is
strictly connected to the least number of records needed
to produce local identifiability. It can be shown 4 that for
2 DESCRIPTION OF ST-MODEL AND a general class of linear time-invariant systems with N
IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE degrees of freedom, which possess classical modes and
for which the mass matrix is known, the local
As previously stated, the behaviour of the actual identifiability of K requires measurements at half or
building as standing alone is approximated by means more of the degrees of freedom. In the analysed model
of a simple shear-type model. Then, the dynamic the special analytical form of the stiffness and mass
properties of the structure in its real configuration are matrices allows identifiability to be ensured if the
described by assuming that the AA model is rigidly number NR of available records is at least 2, as will be
connected to a 'black box' (see Fig. l(b)) representing discussed in the Appendix.
the interaction effects. Figure 2(a) shows the assumed The identification procedure used herein consists of
structural scheme, where the effects exerted by the two main phases:
adjacent structures are accounted for by means of the (1) analysis of the available records and estimation
actions due to an additional mass m*, a modification of of modal parameters;
storey stiffnesses and an appropriate distribution of (2) evaluation of structural parameters by means of
springs. a least-squares approach, using as 'measure-
Once the storey stiffnesses due to interaction are ments' the modal frequencies and effective
summed up to AA ones, the model may be represented participation factors previously determined.
as shown in Fig. 2(b). The motion of such a model is The estimation of modal parameters is performed by
described by the following equation: a modal minimization approach in the frequency
Mf~(t) + Cx(t) + Kx(t) = - M l ( t ) (2) domain: which usually yields better results than
traditional spectral methods. 6
where the mass matrix M is diagonal and positive
The second step is related to the identification of
definite, and the stiffness matrix K is symmetric and
positive definite and may be expressed in partitioned system structural parameters, the unknowns being K
form as and the mass m*. A brief outline of this procedure
follows.
(nK] 1) 1,] Let
PM = {PMI, PM2,...,/)Ms} T (4)
K= [ (lO;n ) denote the 'measurement' vector, whose components are
the modal frequencies and effective participation factors
kcl 0 0 .. -kel of the physical system evaluated during the previous
step, and let
0 kc2 0 ... -ke2
" ".. PC( a ) : {ecl (a))ec2(a),... ecs(a)} r (5)
+ (3) denote the corresponding quantities in the structural
0 ... 0 kc~ -ken
n model, which depend on the structural unknown
-kcl parameters grouped in the vector a. Defining the ith
-kc2 ... - ken E kci component of the error vector
i=1
K1 and n being respectively the stiffness matrix and the ei(a ) PMi -- Pci(a)
number of degrees of freedom of the shear-type part of -- PMi (6)
116 G. Benzoni, C. Genti&

wl
1 1 1
1 1 1 I !
m m m 7ii i
I ' I "
14.00 10.00 10.00 ......

Fig. 3. Masonry wall Wl: original configuration of the structure.

the weighted mean-square error used in this study is
J(a) = eT(a)We(a) = ~ W/e2(a) (7)
i=l
where W is a diagonal matrix containing the weighting
constants. This matrix has been introduced mainly in
order to account for the different level of uncertainty in
the estimated measurement values (modal frequencies
may be evaluated with better confidence than par-
ticipation factors). Moreover, numerical methods
often show a better rate of convergence if more
emphasis is placed on matching the magnitude of
natural frequencies.
The above two-step approach is more efficient
than the usual methods based upon response fit
(in the time or frequency domain) for the following
reasons:
(1) the first step allows one to perform an efficient
estimation of dampings separately from other
unknowns;
(2) in structural parameter identification, the eva-
luation of the objective function (7) requires only
the solution of a small eigenvalue problem
without the need to integrate the equations of
motion in time or frequency domain.
Moreover, the use of quantities which are uniquely
determined from input and output leads to a correct
correspondence between the physical system and the
identified model.
3 EXAMPLE OF ST-MODEL APPLICATION
The above approach has been applied to various finite
element models representing plane walls or frames,
usually giving satisfactory results. Here, due to space
limitations, only the example shown in Fig. 3 wilt be
presented.
The procedure was applied to the part of the structure
denoted as Wl in Fig. 3. A rigid slab is simulated at each
storey level of Wl. The assumed weight per unit volume
is 18.00kN/m 3, while the elastic properties used in the
finite element model are E = 4 8 0 . 0 0 M P a and
G = 80.00 MPa.
For the dynamic analysis the following values for
modal dampings (i have been assumed:
O~
(i = 47rf~ (8)
where a = 4.00 and f / i s the ith modal frequency of the
system.
The structural model has been excited by a base input
derived from the Southern Italy earthquake recorded in
Sturno (28 November 1980) scaled to aM = 100cm/s 2.
The masses in the shear-type part of the equivalent
scheme are determined by lumping at floor level the
effective mass distribution of W1. The following values
are used:
1st storey ml = 8625 N sE/cm
2nd storey mE = 7448 N s2/cm
3rd storey m3 = 7087 N s2/cm
4th storey m4 = 4174Ns2/cm
The identification is performed assuming that
the acceleration records at the first and fourth
storey levels (plus the input base motion) are
known. The modal parameters estimated by means
of a five-mode match of the Fourier transform
for each recorded acceleration are summarized in
Table 1.
The results of the second step of the identification
procedure, concerning the stiffness values and mass m*
and the initial values of structural unknowns, are listed
 Equivalent structural models from earthquake response l 17

Table 1. Masonry wall Wl: modal parmneter estimates when a limited number of accelerometers is installed on
Mode no. fi ~ /31i /~4i the structure. In any event the above procedure may still
i (Hz) (%) 1st storey 4th storey be applied if an approximation is introduced.
1 2-91 9"60 0"453 3 1-615 0 According to the discussion given in the Appendix,
2 5"59 4"98 O"120 4 -0-622 7 the lack of one record causes the loss of N - 1
3 7-87 3"76 0"1579 -0-1266 conditions between the unknown parameters. The
4 9"30 3"00 0"1048 0"1803 assumption that the first mode shape is approximately
5 11-41 2"28 0"1756 -0"0363 known in the shear-type part of the model (e.g., that it is
linear) provides a number of conditions sufficient to
in Table 2. The initial stiffness distribution in the shear- ensure that ArE > N 2. Then, it is determined whether the
type part of this model is evaluated by considering use of only one record allows satisfactory identification
masonry piers at each storey as columns of equivalent of the model. The approximate first mode shape relative
lateral stiffness determined as illustrated in Refs 7 and 8. to the shear-type part of the scheme has been assumed to
It may be noted that the stiffness value k~ is zero and be linear. Results of this identification procedure are
the storey stiffness k4 is satisfactorily close to that of the shown in the third column of Table 2 where the record is
isolated building, since the interaction effects are supposed to be available at the first storey level. As can
negligible at the fourth storey of Wl. be observed, the numerical values are satisfactorily
As an example, Fig. 4 reports the calculated and the similar to those obtained when two records are known;
measured relative acceleration at the fourth storey level this also happens when the available record relates to
(dotted and solid line, respectively). The accuracy of the other locations at levels other than the first storey.
identified model is apparent and may be confirmed: (a)
on the basis of modal parameters estimated from
structural responses and the corresponding quantities 4 D E S C R I P T I O N OF NST-MODEL AND
of the model; and (b) from the low values of c (see eqn IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE
(1)) for each pair of recorded and computed accelero-
grams. Such results are listed in Table 3. A main difference between the ST-model and the NST-
Finally, the results of the static check in terms of model is that the latter requires prior structural
lateral storey displacements xi and of storey shears Vi assumptions only with reference to the known scheme
are summarized in Table 4. of AA, which may be different from a chain-like model
Up to now the available number of records NR has and is established by engineering judgement.
been assumed to be 2, since that is the least number Suppose that the system of Fig. l(a) is subjected to
which allows model identifiability. However, this may ground acceleration (t). The function A~(t), repre-
not be the case when instrumental malfunction occurs or senting the relative acceleration at a given location k of

300.0
Measured
Calculated
200.0
q
o
/1
100.0

E
O
V
0.0
c
o
em

o
!,,.
- 100.0
(i)

O
O
-200.0
o

-300.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
time (seconds)
Pig. 4. Masonry wall Wl: relative acceleration (4th storey level) of the original system and of the identified ST-model.
118 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

Table 2. M a m m y wall Wl: identified structural parameters of the ST-model

Mode no. Initial values Identified values Identified values
(2 records) (1 record)

i ki kci ki kei ki kci

(kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm) (kN/cm)
1 990 300 1685 328 1644 34l
2 845 500 1141 696 1 166 661
3 640 500 690 518 655 671
4 640 300 645 0 588 0

m* k* m* k* m* k*
(N s2/cm) (kN/cm) (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) (N sZ/cm) (kN/cm)
700 500 1 608 710 1 565 670

A, can be seen as resulting from the sum of two signals:
.~A,k(t) = XAA,k(I) q- .~BA,k(I)
XAA~(t ) being the response acceleration of the AA
mo~el to the same input motion at the same position
k and 2AB,k(t) a sort of 'noise' that accounts for the
effects of adjacent structures on AA. Equation (9) may
be written in the frequency domain as follows (see
Fig. l(c)):
"~"a,~(f) = HA,k(f)Z(f)
":.
= X'AA,k(f) + 2BA,k(f)
= I:IAA,k(f)Z(f) + HBA,k(f)Z(f)
where HA,k(f) a n d / t ~ , k ( f ) are the transfer
functions
of the relative acceleration for structural systems A and
AA at point k, while HBA,k.(.f) is the function
correlating the input transform Z ( f ) to the transform
XBA,k(f)" In eqn (10), only HBA,k(f ) is unknown since
H a , k ( f ) may be estimated from the recorded signals and
HAA,k(f) is analytically evaluated. Then, eqn (10)
allows one to determine the complex valued function
HBa,k(f) at locations k where recordings are available:
HBA,k(f ) = HA,k(f ) -- I?tAA,k(f )
The function nBA,k(f) may be considered a transfer
function in the wide sense of signal analysis theory, that
(9) is, a function correlating an output to an input, while it
is not the Fourier transform of the impulse response
function of a mechanical system. Moreover, HBA,k(f),
being defined as the difference between the transfer
functions of the mechanical systems A and AA, contains
information about the modal parameters of both of
them.
At this step, HBA,k(f) is approximated by the transfer
function HBA,k(f) of a mechanical shear-type system
BA. It should be noted that BA is not intended to
represent the real structural properties of buildings B,
(10) but only aims to account for their effects on AA, in the
sense that the responses of A A and BA are summed up
to reproduce approximately the effectively recorded
accelerations.
The structural properties of BA (masses, stiffnesses
and dampings) are determined in two stages.
The first step consists of the estimation of some basic
modal parameters from the functions HBA,k(f). This
preliminary estimate is performed by the means of
standard spectral techniques. Thus, the maxima of
IHBA,k(f)I are used to evaluate modal frequencies, and
(11) the amplitudes of the peaks and the half-power
bandwidths are used to estimate modal dampings;

Table 3. Masonry wall WI: modal parameters of the original system and of the identified ST-model
Mode no. fi fill fl2i fl3i fl4i
i (Hz) 1st storey 2nd storey 3rd storey 4th storey
1 (Measured) 2.91 0.453 3 0.8864 1.302 6 1.615 0
1 (Computed) 2.91 0.418 8 0.824 9 1.234 9 1.576 9
2 (Measured) 5"59 0"120 4 0" 178 3 -0.224 4 -0"622 7
2 (Computed) 5.54 0.139 6 0' 170 3 -0-138 1 -0" 640 4
3 (Measured) 7.87 0.157 9 0.187 6 0.095 2 -0.126 6
3 (Computed) 7.85 0.155 7 0.178 4 0.048 6 -0.084 3
4 (Measured) 9.30 0.104 8 0.073 1 -0.168 0 0.180 3
4 (Computed) 9.37 0.1240 0.012 1 -0-227 1 0-182 7
5 (Measured) 11.41 0.175 6 -0-083 7 0-077 6 -0.036 3
5 (Computed) 11.44 0.161 8 -0.185 8 0.081 7 -0.0349
e -- 0.053 8 0-048 0 0.058 1 0.0524
 Equivalent structural models from earthquake response
Table 4. Masonry wall Wl: static responses of the original
system and of the identified ST-model
Storey no. xi (era) xi (era) V~( k N ) V/(kN)
i real model real model
1 1.598 1.585 2 663 2 670
2 2.775 2.801 1 259 1 388
3 3.687 3.751 669 654
4 4.301 4.398 415 417
modal shapes are determined through the one-sided
autospectral density function of the response accelera-
tion at the ith modal frequency and at the kth location.
In this phase, it is assumed that records are available at
all levels of A. However, it is to be noted that, as shown
in Ref. 3, the identification procedure may also be
applied if only one response is available and an
approximate assumption about the first mode shape is
introduced.
The choice of modal parameters needs a comment. As
stated earlier, the theoretical form of IHBA,k(f)I, by
definition (eqn (10)), displays peaks at the modal
frequencies of both the A and AA systems. Since it is
desired that the response of BA summed to that of AA
gives a reasonable approximation of the effectively
recorded acceleration, the estimation of BA modal
parameters must be carried out discarding the modal
properties of AA, because they are already accounted
for in f-IAA,k(f). Operating in such a way, the basic
modal parameters of BA are the same as those of the A
system in its real configuration.
The second step is related to the identification of BA
masses and storey stiffnesses (since modal dampings
have been just estimated). During this phase, the
l(1 < N, N being the number of degrees of freedom of
BA) modal frequencies and the corresponding mode
shapes (at all levels of the structure) previously
determined are used as 'measured' quantities. The
identification procedure, that is basically a least-square
fit between measured and computed values, is outlined
in Ref. 2.
It must be noted that the identification problem has
no unique solution in terms of mass and stiffness
distribution. This fact is of minor importance here
because the corresponding BA masses and stiffnesses
vary, in such instances, according to common ratios so
that they give rise to the same spectral parameters. This
is to say that, although the uniqueness of the solution
in terms of storey mass and stiffness m i and k i is
not ensured, the ratios kx/m i ( i = I , . . . , N ) , k l / k i
(i = 2 , . . . , N) are uniquely specified by the knowledge
of frequencies and modal shapes.
After finding MBA and KBA it is possible to build the
corresponding transfer function HBA,k(f) at location k
in the same way as was previously seen for HAA,k(f). By
summing flAA,k(f) and HBA,k(f), one obtains an
approximation of the transfer function of the real
119
(a)
I.AI
|
to
(b)
i
tO
(c)
r--
to
Fig. 5. Single degree of freedom system.
system A, which is used to evaluate the calculated
response acceleration via the Inverse Fourier Trans-
form:
XA,k(t) = IFT[/tAA,k(f)Z(f) + HBA,k( f ) Z ( f ) ]
(12)
Once BA structural properties have been evaluated,
we have two mechanical systems AA and BA, which
have been defined so that at each level the sum of the
responses to a given ground motion (t) approximates
the responses of the A structure at the same points. The
match between the recorded accelerations and those
evaluated by means of eqn (12) is roughly approximated
since/teA,k(f) is an approximate model of the function
HaA,k(f ) defined by eqn (10).
At this stage of the analysis, an equivalent scheme of
the behaviour of building A in its real configuration has
not yet been defined. It may be verified that the desired
model may be assessed by means of a rigid connection at
floor levels between the two systems AA and BA. In
order to prove the latter statement, let us first consider
the single degree of freedom (s.d.o.f.) system A shown in
Fig. 5, obtained by linking with a rigid connection two
oscillators of mass and stiffness respectively (rex, kl) and
(m2, k2). The circular frequency and the modal
120 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

amplitude of the A system are (a) A B

3

~A =
k~m
~ + k2
+m 2
(13)
I 2

1
Ii~iiiiiii!iiiiiiiiilliiii]]iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill

lilhi{iiiiiiii[ii iiiiiiiiii*ii!ililiiiiiiiiiiiiii~*l
t~A= 1 ~!! ll!ii!iiilliiiiii ~]ii~]~
~i i]ii]iiiii]ii~]]i
m..m ~..
i~iiiii H ~ i i i i i i i i i ] i i ]
300~ Z~ ~'~
Now, let us refer to the oscillator (m~,k~) as the AA
i! iiiiiiiiiiiiii i[ i iiiii I iiiiiiiiiiiii
~Wii2iii2i~ ii~iLii21~i!2i!jiiiii[~ii~i!2i!2i2!i2
......

system; its circular frequency and modal amplitude are

50O 500 200 500 500 500

WAA = k~mk~l
1
(14)
~bAA= 1
The function IH~AI = IHA - HAAI shows peaks on both
WA and WAA. If the BA system is defined so that, as
stated earlier, its circular frequency and modal ampli-
tude are
O"BA = ~AA
(15)
CBA = CAA
then the mass and stiffness of BA are the following:
tuBA = c~(ml + m2)
(16)
kBA = a(ki + k2)
The system obtained by a rigid connection of AA and
BA has the following circular frequency:
+ a(k + k2) (17)
~(AA+BA) -- ml + ot(m1 + m2) ~ Wg
if the value of multiplier a is high enough to make
a(kl +k2) prevalent on kl and a(ml +m2) on ml.
Moreover, if the systems (A + B) and (AA + BA) are
subjected to a static load proportional to their own
masses, the static displacements and the base shear of
the subsystem A will be nearly equal in the two cases, if
the preceding condition on a is satisfied. It is to be noted
that the same features continue to hold if the s.d.o.f.
system AA has structural properties different from
(ml,kl).
The extension of the above to the case in which the
system of Fig. 6 is a m.d.o.f, shear-type model is
straightforward. In fact, the equations of motion for the
(AA + BA) system in the frequency domain (neglecting
damping for simplicity) may be written as
AA 8A
Fig. 6. Frame system Fh (a) original array; (b) equivalent
scheme.
provided that the BA properties are defined so that
~'~BA = ~A
(20)
Again, if a is large enough, it turns out from eqns (19)
and (20) that the scheme (AA + BA) has nearly the same
modal parameters as the original system. In other
words, if modal dampings are properly estimated the
dynamic response of the system (AA + BA) is expected
to match the effective recorded response better than the
one obtained by eqn (12).
In practice, the condition on the value of c~ may be
readily satisfied; once the ratios kl/mi (i = 1 , . . . , N ) and
k l / k i (i = 2 , . . . , N ) have been evaluated, the values of
mi, k i (i :- 1,... N ) to be used in the model (AA + BA)
are increased according to the above ratios until the
modal parameter of the equivalent scheme does not
match the BA ones, within the desired tolerance.
Further, simply by putting w = 0 in eqn (18), it may
be observed that the original system and (AA + BA)
have the same response if they are subjected to static
load proportional to their own masses.
The same conclusions are expected to remain
approximately valid (as will be shown in numerical
examples) for the general case in which the mass and
stiffness matrices of the original system are no longer
diagonal and tridiagonal, respectively.

+ + + raA)lX( ) 5 EXAMPLES OF NST-MODEL APPLICATION

= --(~IrAA q- ~fBA)IZ(o;) (18)
The application of the above procedure is presented
being with reference to two different systems (a frame and a
MBA = o t n A wall, denoted in the following as F1 and W2). For each
(19) structural assembly the subsystems A and B were chosen
and the response accelerations were numerically evalu-
ated, by finite element simulation, at all levels k of A.
 Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 121

These responses constitute the input measured quantity
for the procedure.
5.1 Frame system (F1)
The plane frame shown in Fig. 6 has been con-
sidered. The subsystems A and B are three storeys
high, but A is two-span and B three-span. Table 5
shows the main characteristics of the two sub-
systems. Dynamic analysis of the frame was per-
formed by assuming a damping factor ~ = 0.05 for
all modes.
The frequencies of the three natural modes for AA are
respectively 2.44, 5.46 and 8.50 Hz.
The functions HBA,k(f), determined for all the
levels, supply the quantities needed by the identifi-
cation procedure, i.e. frequencies, modal shapes,
and modal damping estimates. In order to evaluate
the functions HBA,k(f ) from eqn (11), the trans-
fer functions H A , k ( f ) are required. The latter func-
tions have been determined, submitting the original
system to a ground motion derived from the Northern
Italy earthquate recorded in Tolmezzo (6 May
1976) scaled to aM = 100"00cm/s2. Figures 7 and 8
Table 5. Frame system FI: structural properties of A and B
A B
Storey no. mi ki mi ki
i (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) (N s2/cm) (kN/cm)
1 398"0 315"0 490"0
2 306"0 315"0 392-0
3 184"0 180"0 294"0
show respectively the moduli of HA,k(f) and HBA,k(f),
k = 2 , 3.
In order to assess the efficiency of the method,
only two modes have been used to determine
the structural properties of the BA system. The
frequencies of such modes are fl =3.491Hz and
f2 = 6.796 Hz.
The results of the identification procedure are
summarized in Table 6, where the values of mBA,i and
kaA,; (i = 1, 2, 3) used for the definition of the systems
BA and (AA + BA) are shown.
Modal frequencies fk'S and effective partici-
pation factors, /3pk'S of BA, (A + B) and (AA + BA)
are shown in Table 7. They are nearly the same,
as anticipated in Section 4; as a consequence, a
good match is expected between the responses of
the equivalent model (AA + BA) and of the original
(A + B) system. As an example, the relative acceler-
ation at the second floor of the equivalent
model ( A A + B A ) compared with the measured
values is shown in Fig. 9, where dotted lines refer to
calculated responses and solid lines to the measured
ones. The accuracy of the model is confirmed by the
values of c evaluated at each level (el = 0.0334,
c2 = 0.0285 and e3 = 0.0181).
Finally, Table 8 reports the results of a static test in
terms of total base shear and roof displacements.
5.2 Wall system (W2)
1920-0
1 108"0 Figure 10(a) shows the masonry system to which
240"0 the procedure has been applied. The subsystems
A and B are also shown in the figure with geo-

16.0
...... LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3

12.0

m 8.0
"1-
,!
'/!
I
4.0
I

0.0 I I I I I I I | I I I
0.00 2.50 5.00 '7.g o ' ' ' i 0.00
'. . . . 12 .50
frequency (Hz)
Fig. 7. Frame system FI: amplitude of HA(f) at second and third storey level.
122 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

14.0
...... LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
12.0

10.0

8.0

m
"I- 6.0

4.0

"x
2.0 I I

%
I

0.0
0.00 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50
frequency (Hz)
Fig. 8. Frame system FI: amplitude of HBA(f) at second and third storey level.

metrical sizes. A rigid slab is simulated at each The equivalent scheme used in this case is shown in
floor level of A. The assumed weight per unit volume is Fig. 10(b), where the model of AA has the same
16-00kN/m 3, while the elastic properties used in the geometrical sizes and masses as the original configura-
finite element model are E = 360-00MPa and tion while its elastic properties are different
G - - 4 0 . 0 0 MPa. The damping factors assumed for the ( E = 300-00MPa, G = 33.33MPa). The natural fre-
dynamic analysis are evaluated by means of rule (8) and quencies of the first three natural modes of AA are
a = 4.00. respectively 1.95, 5-51 and 7.17Hz.
The original system was submitted to the base
Table 6. Frame system FI: identified structural excitation recorded in Central Italy, Gubbio: as an
properties of BA example, Fig. 11 shows [HBA,k(f)I at all storeys. The
Storey no. mBA,i kBA,i frequencies of the selected modes are fl = 2.34Hz,
i (N s2/cm) (kN/cm) f2 = 6-00Hz and f3 = 10-35 Hz.
1 2 119-0 5 034-0 The identified properties of BA are summarized in
2 1 330"0 2 747"0 Table 9, while the modal frequencies of the systems BA,
3 938'0 828-0 (A + B) and (AA + BA) are shown in Table 10. It is to
be noted that the latter values are, as expected, very
similar.

Table 7. Frame system F 1: comparison of modal parameters of

the systems (A + B), BA and (AA + BA) Table 8. Frame system FI: static responses of the original system
and of the identified NST-model
Mode no. .~ fill ~2i ~3i
i (Hz) 1st storey 2nd storey 3rd storey x] (cm) X 2 (~'l'l) X3 (cm) V (kN)
1 (A + B) 3-43 0.304 3 0.693 8 1-476 5 F1 real 3-261 1 5"6166 7.7667 1 023.41
(BA) 3.49 0.278 2 0.684 9 1.504 8 F1 model 3.2506 5-318 8 7.1009 1 020.43
(AA + BA) 3.43 0.3280 0.775 6 1.499 1
2 (A+B) 6-76 0-3814 0.551 6 -0.5245
(BA) 6.80 0.434 6 0.605 4 -0.568 0 Table 9. Masonry wall W2: identified structural properties of BA
(AA + BA) 6-76 0.3969 0.501 4 -0-573 1
i 1 2 3
3 (A+B) 11.66 0.314 3 -0.2453 0.0480
(BA) 11-18 0.2972 -0.2902 0.0632 mBA,i(Ns2/cm) 1 410"0 1 526'0 1 635"0
(AA + BA) 10.76 0.275 1 -0.2770 0.0740 kaA,i (kN/cm) 1 738"0 1 962-0 1 199'0
 Equivalent structural models from earthquake response 123

200.0
Measured
....... Calculated

N t
o 100.0
<
"~ 0.0
o

~- 100.0

121

-200.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
time (seconds)
Fig. 9. Frame system FI: relative acceleration (2nd storey level) of the original system and of the identified NST-model.

Figure 12 shows the calculated and the measured

a) A B
relative accelerations at the second storey (dotted and
solid line, respectively). The match between the two data

---'----'----:---:---t .......
nun i
22.90
Hi m m
9.50
.... -'-
.... _,_.....

..... :-
. ....

31.40
.... -'--t
m j__
iI sets is apparent and is confirmed by the values of
obtained at each level (el = 0.1077, c2 = 0.0988 and
~3 = 0.0827).
Table 11 reports the results of the equivalent static
analysis in terms of storey displacements and total base
b) shear; again, computed data match reasonably well the
set of real quantities.
I I l I
I I l I
unto nun 6 CONCLUSIONS

Fig. 10. Masonry wall W2: (a) original array; (b) equivalent Two methods for interpreting the earthquake
scheme. records of complex arrays have been described.
The aim is to identify structural schemes of a
single building or part of the array accounting
Table 10. Masonry wall W2: comparison of modal frequencies of
for the effects of the adjacent structures, in order to
the systems (A + B), BA and (AA + BA)
transform a complex system, with several parts inter-
(A + B) BA (AA + BA) acting together, into a simpler one, suitable for design
ft (Hz) 2-34 2.34 2.32 purposes.
f2 (Hz) 6-00 6.00 6-17 The procedures are approximate in nature and limited
f3 (Hz) 10.35 9.80 9.91 to linear behaviour and two-dimensional systems;
however, numerical results support the capability of
both the proposed models of representing the dynamic
and static behaviour of planar arrays.
Table 11. Masonry wall W2: static responses of the original Results are satisfactory in spite of the simplicity
system and of the identified NST-model of the proposed equivalent ST- and NST-models,
xt ( c m x 2 (cm) x 3 (cnl) g (kN) mainly because the identification procedures
needed to assess the values of structural parameters
W2 real 2.861 2 4"828 3 5-947 7 3 224-13
W2 model 2.8272 4"848 6 6"2970 2 982"85 are guided by a preliminary estimate of modal
parameters.
124 G. Benzoni, C. Gentile

8.0
....... LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3

6.0

--4.0
OO
"i-

ll I
f~
2.0 :v

~.~ \ ~11 \'.x ,, \ /

/._.\ -.,
I
:
0.0 .... i i I I i i i i i I I ] i I i I i i i I i i i i I I i

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00

frequency (Hz)
Fig. 11. Masonry wall W2: amplitude of H~A(f), k = 1, 2, 3.

6.0
Measured
Calculated

4.0
tN
o
2.0

E
o
0.0
c-
o
im
-e-

o -2.0
0)

o -4.0
o
o

-6.0 "t---1--'~"-~ 1 r----r---r r ~ T ~ 1

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
time (seconds)
Fig. 12. Masonry wall W2: relative acceleration (2nd storey level) of the original system and of the identified NST-model.

REFERENCES 4. Beck, J.L. Determining models of structures from earth-

quake records, Report No. EERL 78-01, California
1. Gentile, C. Parametric identification of equivalent models Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1978.
for masonry structures. In Structural Dynamics, ed. W.B. 5. McVerry, G.H. Structural identification in the frequency
Kratzig et al., Proc. EUROD YN90, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 457-64. domain from earthquake records, Earth. Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
2. Benedetti, D. & Benzoni, G. Identification of equivalent 1980, 8, 161-80.
structural schemes for coupled systems, Earth. Eng. Struct. 6. Bendat, J.S. & Piersol, A.G. Engineering Applications of
Dyn., 1991, 20, 317-33. Correlation and Spectral Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1980.
3. Peng, C.Y. & Iwan, W.D. An identification methodology 7. Benedetti, D., Benzoni, G. & Pezzoli, P. Seismic behaviour
for a class of hysteretic structures, Earth. Eng. Struct. of a non-symmetric masonry building, European Earth-
Dyn., 1992, 21, 695-712. quake Engineering, 1987, 1, 20-30.
 Equivalent structural models from earthquake response
8. Tomazevic, M. Dynamic modelling of masonry buildings:
storey mechanism model as a simple alternative, Earth.
Eng. Struct. Dyn., 1987, 15, 731-49.
APPENDIX
As previously pointed out in Section 2, the structural
unknowns governing the ST-model behaviour are the
stiffness distribution, the value of mass m* and the
modal dampings.
First, it is to be noted that m* is uniquely specified by
the knowledge of modal frequencies. In order to verify
this proposition, let us consider two different models,
both belonging to the analysed class and having the
same mass distribution in the chain-like part and equal
modal frequencies. In such a case, frequency equality
gives rise to equality of characteristic equation coeffi-
cients as well:
a2NA2N + a2N- 1A2N-l + . . . + a l A + a 0 = 0 (A 1)
In particular, the coefficient a2N turns out to be
a21v = det M = mira2.., m* (A2)
Then, the system dynamic behaviour is uniquely
specified if the N 2 mode shape components are
determined. In fact:
125
(1) the availability of NR records allows
modal frequencies and damping factors to be
evaluated;
(2) the mass matrix is considered to be completely
known, since m* may be uniquely evaluated, as
previously stated;
(3) the stiffness matrix satisfies the following equa-
tion:
K = Mf~2OTM (A3)
provided that the matrix of mode shapes
satisfies the orthogonality condition:
cbTM = I (A4)
Finally, consider the equations satisfied by the N 2
unknown parameters. The knowledge of NR output
measurements and the constraints (A4) supply
N R ( N - 1) + N ( N - 1) independent equations. Fur-
ther, after symmetry is taken into account, the
analytical form of K yields l ( N - 2 ) ( N - 3 ) homo-
geneous relationships obtained by imposing kij = 0
( i = 1 , . . . , N - 1; j = i + 2 , . . . , N - 1). Thus, in order
to have a number of equations:
NE(N 2 + 1) + (NR - 2 ) ( N - 1) (A5)
greater than or equal to the number of unknowns N 2, it
is required that NE _> 2.