![Essay On Earthquake
The data from nine earthquakes happened in winter and summer time, with magnitudes ranging from M 3.0 to M5.7, was collected at a sampling
rate 200 Hz and preprocessed for the further analysis [4]. Then, dynamic properties of the structure were obtained using modal property
identification toolbox (MPIT 2.0) developed at the University of Auckland [13]. The modes were determined from the following system
identification algorithms: –Frequency domain methods: the peak picking (PP), the frequency domain decomposition (FDD), the enhanced
frequency domain decomposition (EFDD) –Time domain method: stochastic subspace identification (SSI) method [14] identifying the stable
poles by generating singular values around them from the singular value...show more content...
Then, the most plausible modes was chosen by comparison of MAC values of each date for each SI algorithm. Since fundamental mode of
the bridges always excited by the translational ground motions during earthquakes, transverse components of mode shapes only were
described in this research to estimate the input of different bridge components on the bridge dynamic response. The frequency values obtained
by each method, except of SSI for summer dataset, at each season and their mean and coefficient of correlation are shown in Table 3.1 and
Table 3.2. From this figure, the values of fundamental transverse frequency identified by each method are highly correlated for all methods, the
mean coefficient of variation was no more than 0.02. In addition, no relationship between the transverse frequency and the depth of frozen soil
at specific dates was observed. A high correlation between mode shapes, with MAC value 0.95 or higher, was observed for two frequency
domain methods only, FDD and EFDD. Therefore, the average values of natural transverse frequency calculated from the values identified by
each method, 7.69 Hz and 2.85 Hz, and mode shapes obtained by FDD technique (Figure 3.1) were chosen as a baseline experimental values for
the further calibration of the numerical models developed for winter and summer respectively. The bridge transverse response is mainly
symmetrical; the possible
Get more content on HelpWriting.net](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/essayonearthquake-230625204506-52fadda6/85/Essay-On-Earthquake-1-320.jpg)
Essay On Earthquake
- 1. Essay On Earthquake The data from nine earthquakes happened in winter and summer time, with magnitudes ranging from M 3.0 to M5.7, was collected at a sampling rate 200 Hz and preprocessed for the further analysis [4]. Then, dynamic properties of the structure were obtained using modal property identification toolbox (MPIT 2.0) developed at the University of Auckland [13]. The modes were determined from the following system identification algorithms: –Frequency domain methods: the peak picking (PP), the frequency domain decomposition (FDD), the enhanced frequency domain decomposition (EFDD) –Time domain method: stochastic subspace identification (SSI) method [14] identifying the stable poles by generating singular values around them from the singular value...show more content... Then, the most plausible modes was chosen by comparison of MAC values of each date for each SI algorithm. Since fundamental mode of the bridges always excited by the translational ground motions during earthquakes, transverse components of mode shapes only were described in this research to estimate the input of different bridge components on the bridge dynamic response. The frequency values obtained by each method, except of SSI for summer dataset, at each season and their mean and coefficient of correlation are shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. From this figure, the values of fundamental transverse frequency identified by each method are highly correlated for all methods, the mean coefficient of variation was no more than 0.02. In addition, no relationship between the transverse frequency and the depth of frozen soil at specific dates was observed. A high correlation between mode shapes, with MAC value 0.95 or higher, was observed for two frequency domain methods only, FDD and EFDD. Therefore, the average values of natural transverse frequency calculated from the values identified by each method, 7.69 Hz and 2.85 Hz, and mode shapes obtained by FDD technique (Figure 3.1) were chosen as a baseline experimental values for the further calibration of the numerical models developed for winter and summer respectively. The bridge transverse response is mainly symmetrical; the possible Get more content on HelpWriting.net