Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols 29-32 (2010) pp 1588-1593 Online: 2010-08-13

© (2010) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.29-32.1588

Improved Large Mass Method for Structural Base Excitation Analysis

ZHOU GUOLIANG1, a, Li XIAOJUN2, b

1
Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, China ，150080
2
Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China ，100080
a
zgl_iem@163.com, bbeerli@vip.sina.com

Key words: Base excitation; Large Mass Method; Rayleigh damping; Error analysis; Improvements

Abstract: To verify the precision and possible applicability of the large mass method (LMM)
widely used in multiple-supported structures subjected to non-uniform base excitations, numerical
simulations of a two-degrees-of-freedom (2-DOF) finite element model using the Rayleigh damping
assumption are performed respectively according to the LMM and the relative motion method
(RMM). Through comparisons with the RMM, the error origins and the applicability of the LMM
are discussed. Then the improved LMM is presented herein based on the modification of ground
motions considering the influences of Rayleigh damping coefficient α. It indicates that the LMM is
not applicable to multi-support excitation analysis in the case of Rayleigh damping, which can
cause significant errors. And the errors depend on the damping coefficient α. It’s also proved that
the improved LMM is able to yield results that are identical to those of the RMM.

1. Introduction
Large mass method (LMM) is an indirect technique commonly used in structural dynamic
analysis when excitation forces can hardly be measured, for instance, the structures subjected to
seismic ground motions during earthquake (Leger P, Ide I M and Paultre P, 1990). In early studies,
it was assumed that all supports of structures experience the synchronous ground motion. Thus, the
structural pseudo-static displacements are the same as the ground motion displacement and make no
contribution to the structural inner forces. The dynamic response completely depends on the relative
response of the structure to the ground surface. Now, it has been known that seismic ground
motions vary temporally and spatially (Harichandran and Vanmarke, 1986; Abrahamson, 1991;
Kiureghian, 1996; Zerva and Zervas, 2002) . Therefore, the pseudo-static response of structures
caused by non-uniformity of ground motions cannot be neglected.
To deal with such vibrations, the LMM as a simplified method has come into use popularly for
its conveniences in finite element soft wares (Wenhua LIU, Qingshan YANG and Yuji TIAN,2006).
However, the LMM is a simplified method approximate to the RMM. Its applicability and accuracy
need to be further investigated. This paper aims at evaluating the applicability and precision of the
LMM with the assumption of Rayleigh damping, which is adopted in engineering commonly. For
simplicity, the simple two-degree-freedom finite element model supported essentially by surface
foundation only is considered without the effects of soil-structure interaction.

2. Analytical methodology
2.1 Relative motion method
According to the RMM, the structural response is decomposed into two parts: pseudo-static
response induced by pseudo-static ground displacement and dynamic response induced by the
inertial force (Clough .Rw, Penzien.J, 1975).
For a three-dimensional spatial structural system subjected to seismic excitation at base supports,
the degrees of freedom (DOFs) in an inertia coordinate system may be classified into DOFs referred
to as the superstructure and the structure base, and the governing equation of motion is:

All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.ttp.net. (ID: 132.174.255.116, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA-04/06/15,03:46:37)
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 29-32 1589

  

  
   (1)
 M aa M ab  U a  + Caa Cab  U a  +  K aa K ab  U a  =  0 
 T  U

 T  U
 T  U   F 
 M ab M bb   b  Cab Cbb   b   K ab K bb   b   b 
Where a dot over a quantity denotes differentiation with respect to time and the superscript T
denotes transpose of a matrix. Ua is a N1×1 vector of unknown absolute translational displacements
at the N1 number of nonsupport degrees of freedom. Ub is a N2×1 vector of absolute translational
displacements at the N2 number of support degrees of freedom. M, C and K denote mass matrix,
damping matrix and stiffness matrix, respectively. The submatrix with subscript “aa” is associated
with U

a , U
a and U a , and “bb” with U

b , U
b and U b . The subscript “ab” denotes the coupling term. Fb is
the reaction forces of the supports. The displacement vector Ua and Ub can be decomposed into
static and dynamic parts using the following definition:
U  U  U  ; U
 U
 U
 ; U

a  U

as  U

ad 
a as a as (2)


 

  
ad ad
U = +
    =
 + =

   +
 b U b   0  U b  U b   0  U b  U b  0 
Where Uad is the dynamic component and Uas the pseudo-static component resulting from the
relative displacements between supports. The first set of equation in Eq. (1) may be rewritten as:
M aaU

a + M abU

b + CaaU
a + CabU
b + K aaU a + K abU b = 0 (3)
The pseudo static response item Uas can be obtained as
U as = − K aa−1 K abU b = RU b (4)
R can be called the influence matrix. When lumped mass matrix is adopted, M ab equals to zero.
According Eq.(4) , the Eq.(3) can be simplified as follows:
M aaU

ad + CaaU
ad + K aaU ad = − M aa RU

b − (Caa RU
b + CabU
b ) (5)
The above Eq.(4) and Eq.(5) are the fundamentals of the RMM.
With the assumption of Rayleigh damping widely used in engineering, the damping matrixes
can be defined as:
Caa = α M aa + β K aa ; Cab = β K ab (6)
The Eq.(5) can be rewritten as:
MaaU

ad + CaaU
ad + KaaUad = −Maa R(U

b + αU
b ) (7)
2.2 The large mass method (LMM)
If a large mass Mbb, which is 103~108 times larger than the mass of the entire structure, is
connected to a degree-of-freedom and a dynamic load F, which equals to M bbU

g , is applied to the
same degree-of-freedom. The second set of Eq.(1) is written as:
M abT U

a + M bbU

b + CabT U
a + CbbU
b + KabT U a + K bbU b = M bbU

g (8)
When lumped mass matrix is adopted, the M abT equals to zero, and both sides of the Eq.(8) are
multiplied on the left by matrix M bb −1 , in which the of values of diagonal elements are infinitesimals
close to zero . So, the above Eq.(8) can be simplified as:
U

≈ U

b g (9)
Then the acceleration of the degree-of-freedom, to a close approximation, is as follows:
Uas = RUb ≈ RUg (10)












MaaU ad + CaaU ad + KaaUad = −Maa RUb − (Caa RU b + CabUb ) ≈ −Maa RUg − (Caa RU g + CabUg )
When Rayleigh damping is used, the Eq.(10) can be rewritten as:
Uas ≈ RUg (11)

MaaU

ad + CaaU
ad + KaaUad = −Maa R(U

b + αU
b )
It means the LMM is just an approximate method. Its accuracy should be further investigated.
In the case of uniform base excitation, the matrix R is proved to be an identity matrix .The Eq.(11)
can be written as:
1590 Applied Mechanics And Mechanical Engineering

Uas ≈ Ug
 (12)
MaaU

ad + CaaU
ad + KaaUad = −Maa (U

b + αU
b )
2.3 Improved LMM
According to the LMM mentioned above, the error origins arise from the simplification of
Eq.(8), which can be rewritten as
U

b + Mbb−1CsbT U
s + Mbb−1CbbU
b + Mbb−1KsbT Us + Mbb−1KbbUb = U

g (13)
The items of M bb−1CsbT U
s , M bb−1 K sbT U s and M bb−1 K bbU b can be neglected, and the following equation can
be obtained
U

b + M bb−1CbbU
b ≈ U

g (14)
If the Rayleigh damping or mass-proportional damping is adopted, damping matrix Cbb equals to
the sum of α M bb and β K bb , then Eq.(13) can be rewritten as
U

b + αU
b ≈ U

g (15)
Because the coefficient α is not an infinitesimal , the item U

b does not equals to U

g in theory.
That’s the Eq.(9) isn’t tenable adequately.
In order to satisfy U

b = U

g ，an improved LMM (I-LMM) is presented in this study that the
real seismic excitation can be modified as
U

b ,new = U

g + αU
g (16)
Where, U

b ,new is the real excitation input on large mass element, and U

g is the acceleration of
seismic excitation, U
g the velocity ,and α the damping coefficient respectively.
Then the Eq.(16) can be written as
U

b + αU
b = U

b,new = U

g + αU
g (17)
where, the item αU
g is used to counteract the additional damping force cause by large mass element.
It can be concluded that U

equals to U

with higher reliability, compared with Eq.(9). According
b g

to this modification, the results of I-LMM will be in better agreement with those of LMM.
In the case of uniform base excitations analysis, according to Eq.(15), Eq.(12) can be rewritten as
Uas ≈ Ug
 (18)









MaaU ad + CaaU ad + KaaUad = −Maa (Ub + αU b ) ≈ −MaaUg
which means the item Uad is almost identical to the displacement relative to ground surface. As is
known, the inner forces completely depend on the dynamic displacement response instead of the
pseudo static displacement in uniform base excitation analysis. So, the LMM can be still applicable
to uniform base excitation analysis. The improved LMM cannot be used herein.

3. Examples analysis
To test the accuracy of the LMM and I-LMM, based on the example shown in Fig.1, the analysis
is performed. The computation process of RMM is actualized with Fortran software; the LMM and
I-LMM is actualized in ANSYS. The Newmark method is adopted for numerical integration. A is
for the excitation of LM1 and B for LM2.
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 29-32 1591

Accel/(cm/s )

Accel/(cm/s )
2
300

2
A 300 B
m1 m2
k2 200 200

100 100

k1 k3 0 0

-100 -100

-200 -200
F1=M bb Ug1 F2=M bb Ug2 t/s t/s
LM1 LM2 -300
0 10 20 30 40
-300
0 10 20 30 40

Fig1. Model of LMM Fig2. The acceleration excitations.

3.1 Parameters of the target models
Table1: The model parameters
LM1[ kg] LM2[kg] M1[ kg] M2 [kg] K1[kN/m] K2[kN/m] K3[kN/m]
106 1 1 106 0.54 0.96 1.5
In table1, the parameters of model shown in Fig.2 are provided. And the model is excited at the
base by the ground motion accelerations shown in Fig.3. The damping coefficients α and β are
assumed to be 1.95 and 0.0017 respectively.
3.2 Results comparisons between LMM and improved LMM

To compare the errors of LMM and I-LMM, the parameter Er is defined as

Er = ( RLMM − RRMM ) / R peak , RMM
Where, RLMM , RRMM , R peak , LMM denote the results of LMM , I-LMM and peak value of RMM
respectively.
0.8 0.3
Er

0.8

Er
Er

0.8
Er

I-LMM
0.6 I-LMM
LMM 0.6 I-LMM 0.6 I-LMM
0.2 LMM
LMM LMM
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.1
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2
-0.2 -0.1
-0.4 -0.4
-0.4 t/s
t/s -0.2 -0.6 t/s -0.6 t/s
-0.6
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(a) (b) (c) (d)
0.8 0.3 0.8
Er
Er

0.8
Er

Er

0.6 I-LMM
0.2 I-LMM 0.6 I-LMM 0.6 I-LMM
LMM LMM LMM
0.4 0.4 LMM
0.4
0.1
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4 -0.4
-0.2
-0.6 t/s t/s -0.6 t/s -0.6 t/s
-0.3
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
(e) (f) (g) (h)
0.4 0.6
Er

Er
Er

I-LMM I-LMM 0.6 I-LMM

LMM LMM LMM
0.2 0.4 0.4
0.0 0.2 0.2
-0.2 0.0 0.0
-0.4 -0.2 -0.2
-0.6 -0.4 -0.4
t/s t/s t/s
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

(i) (j) (k)

Fig3. Error comparisons of LMM and I-LMM. (a)~(d) denote the Er for absolute displacement of
node LM1, M1, M2 and LM2 respectively ; (e) ~(f) denote Er for pseudo static displacement and
the dynamic displacement of node M1 respectively; (g) ~(h) denote pseudo Er for static
displacement and the dynamic displacement of node M2 respectively; (i)~(k) denote the inner
forces of spring k1 ~ k3 respectively.
1592 Applied Mechanics And Mechanical Engineering

Through comparison analysis, it can be seen that distinct errors exist between the LMM and
RMM. And the errors vary from 25% to 80%! However; the results of I-LMM are in good
agreement with those of RMM with the errors beneath 2% in general.

4. Influences of damping coefficient

Based on non-uniform seismic excitation analysis, numerical simulations are performed to study
the influence of damping coefficient α on the computation precision of LMM and improved LMM
(I-LMM).Three cases are set with the assumption of different damping coefficients.
Case1: α=1.95, β=1.17E-3; Case2: α=0.25, β=9.11E-3; Case3: α=0.08, β=2.87E-2.
And the error comparisons are list in table 2 and Fig.4 ~Fig.6.
Table 1 Error comparisons (Er) in three cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LMM 0.783 0.781 0.802 0.801 0.726 0.26 0.721 0.285 0.6 0.602 0.684
Case1
I-LMM 0.001 0.014 0.013 0.001 0.023 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.029 0.029 0.03
LMM 0.195 0.121 0.106 0.216 0.155 0.101 0.131 0.084 0.112 0.085 0.064
Case2
I-LMM 0.001 0.015 0.021 0.001 0.022 0.001 0.024 0.002 0.021 0.021 0.022
LMM 0.069 0.082 0.078 0.061 0.054 0.051 0.044 0.046 0.055 0.042 0.048
Case3
I-LMM 0.001 0.016 0.02 0.001 0.021 0.001 0.023 0.001 0.007 0.003 0.012
Note: 1~4 denote the absolute displacement of node LM1, M1, M2 and LM2; 5 ~6 denote pseudo
static displacement and the dynamic displacement of node M1 respectively; 7 ~8 denote pseudo
static displacement and the dynamic displacement of node M2 respectively; 9~11 denote the inner
forces of spring k1 ~ k3 respectively.

0.8 0.25 0.10

Er

Er

Er

0.7 LMM LMM

0.20 I-LMM I-LMM
0.6
0.5
0.15
0.4 0.05
0.3 0.10
0.2 LMM
0.1 I-LMM 0.05

0.0 0.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Item NO. Item NO. Item NO.

Fig4. Er in case 1 Fig5. Er in case 2 Fig6. Er in case 3

It can be seen the errors of the LMM increase with increasing value of α, and the peak error is
close to 80%. And the errors of improved LMM keep steady beneath 2%, which validates the
applicability of the improved LMM.

5．
． Further discussions
As mentioned above, the LMM can not be applicable to dynamic analysis of structures
subjected to non-uniform base excitations when Rayleigh damping is adopted. And the errors
depend on the damping coefficient α. To withstanding the limitation of LMM, the improved LMM
presented in this study is recommended. However, if the structure suffers uniform base excitations
with the assumption of Rayleigh damping, the LMM instead of the I-LMM is applicable .And the
LMM can yield inner force results that are identical to theoretical method.
The different applicability of LMM in uniform and non-uniform base excitation analysis derives
from the difference between traditional theoretical methods for uniform and non-uniform base
excitation analysis. In uniform base excitation analysis, the structural inner forces completely
depend on the relative displacement (or dynamical displacement item in LMM), however in
non-uniform base excitation analysis, both pseudo static response item and dynamic response item
contribute to inner forces of structures. According to LMM, the accurate relative displacement
 Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 29-32 1593

response item can be well obtained in uniform base analysis; however, in non-uniform base
excitation analysis, neither the pseudo static response item nor the dynamic response item can be
obtained accurately because of the influences of additional damping force on the base with large
mass when Rayleigh damping is adopted.
As far as Rayleigh damping is concerned, it can be validated that the sum of the ith row of
damping matrix C equals to α mii , which is not zero. This implies the existence of external
supported dampers that are physically impossible for a base supported structure. Therefore, the use
of Rayleigh-type damping is difficult to justify for most structures. However, it continues to be used
within many computer programs to obtain numerical results using large time integration steps
(Wilson EL, 2000).

6. Summary
Through the theory deduction and numerical simulations of RMM and LMM, error analysis of
the LMM is performed and the applicability of the LMM is discussed. Then the improved LMM is
presented and validated.
The results indicate that the LMM can be applicable to uniform base excitation analysis in theory.
However, it can not be used in non-uniform base excitation analysis with the assumption of
Rayleigh damping. The LMM can cause distinct errors, which depend on the mass proportional
coefficient α and the seismic ground motion velocity. And the errors increase with increasing value
of α. The improved LMM based on the modification of ground acceleration excitation presented in
this study is effectively applicable to non-uniform base excitation analysis in the case of Rayleigh
damping adopted. It has been validated that the improved LMM can yield results nearly identical to
those of RMM with neglectable errors beneath 2%.

7. Acknowledgements
The study is jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No.50708100 and No.50908135) and Basic Research Project of Institute of Mechanics Engineering
China Earthquake Administration (No.2007B02).

References：
：
[1] Leger P, Ide I M, Paultre P. Multiple Support Seismic Analysis of Large Structures. Computers
& Structures, Vol.36 (6):1153-1158(1990).
[2] Harichandran RS and Vanmarke EH. Stochastic Variation of Earthquake Ground Motion in
Space and Time. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol.112 (2): 154–174(1986).
[3] Abrahamson NA. Empirical Spatial Coherency Functions for Application to Soil-structure
Interaction Analyses. Earthquake Spectra, Vol.7 (1): 1–28 (1991).
[4] Kiureghian AD. A Coherency Model for Spatially Varying Ground Motions. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.25 (1): 99–111(1996).
[5] Zerva A and Zervas V. Spatial Variation of Seismic Ground Motions: An Overview. Applied
Mechanics Reviews, Vol.55(3): 271–296(2002).
[6] Wenhua LIU，Qingshan YANG and Yuji TIAN. Response Analysis of National Stadium under
Spatially Varying Earthquake Ground Motions. Journal of the International Association for Shell
and Spatial Structures, Vol.47 (3):261-270(2006)
[7] Clough .Rw, Penzien.J: Dynamics of Structures (Mc Graw-Hill Inc.,New York ,1975)
[8] Wilson EL: Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures: A Physical
Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering(Computers and Structures Inc.,
Berkley ,2000)
Applied Mechanics And Mechanical Engineering
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.29-32

Improved Large Mass Method for Structural Base Excitation Analysis

10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.29-32.1588

DOI References
[3] Abrahamson NA. Empirical Spatial Coherency Functions for Application to Soil-structure nteraction
Analyses. Earthquake Spectra, Vol.7 (1): 1–28 (1991).
doi:10.1193/1.1585610
[3] Abrahamson NA. Empirical Spatial Coherency Functions for Application to Soil-structure Interaction
Analyses. Earthquake Spectra, Vol.7 (1): 1–28 (1991).
doi:10.1193/1.1585610