1

Vibrations in Neighborhood Buildings due

2
to Rock Concerts in Stadiums 1
3
Raul D. Bertero, M.ASCE
1
; Alejandro Lehmann
2
; Juan Mussat
3
; and Sebastin Vaquero
4
4
Abstract: Rock-concert events in stadiums have raised complaints among dwellers of neighborhood buildings about annoying vibrations in
5
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Wellington, NewZealand, Medelln, Colombia, and other cities around the world. Controversy about the causes and
6
effects of vibrations has produced demands, alarms among inhabitants, and cancellations of spectacles with large economic consequences.
7
Although the analysis and effects of vibrations on the stadium grandstands are well known, no comprehensive published paper could be found
8
that addressed the effects of vibrations on neighborhood buildings when thousands of spectators jump on a stadiumeld. This paper covers this
9
gap in civil engineering knowledge, introducing a systematic study (analytical and experimental) to explain the causes, predict building
10
responses, and determine the size of the expected human, structural, and cosmetic effects on neighborhood buildings. First, the equations
11
for modeling are presented: (1) the coordinated jump of the public on the eld and the load generated, (2) the acceleration-wave propagation over
12
the surface of an elastic solid, and (3) the responses of buildings at different distances from the stadium. The resulting equations are used to
13
estimate the accelerations at building tops at distances within a radius of 3 km of the stadium. Second, the measurements planned and
14
obtained during concerts are shown and evaluated. The results indicate that for buildings in resonance with the spectators jumps (natural
15
frequency of 2.1 Hz for 10- to 12-story buildings in Buenos Aires), the acceleration level in the upper stories is severe to people at distances of
16
more than 3 km from the stadium, but it is not high enough to cause structural or nonstructural damage. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
17
541X.0000756. 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
18
CE Database subject headings: Vibration; Ground motion; Stadiums; Recreation; Urban areas; Buildings.
19
Author keywords: Ground vibrations; Rock-concert vibrations; Building vibrations; Crowd-induced rhythmic vibrations.
20
Introduction
21
Rock-concert events in stadiums have raised complaints among
22
dwellers of neighborhood buildings about annoying vibrations in
23
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Wellington, New Zealand, Medelln,
24
Colombia, and other cities around the word. Controversy about the
25
causes and effects of vibrations has produced demands, alarms among
26
inhabitants, and cancellations of spectacles with large economic
27
consequences. Although the analysis and effects of vibrations on the
28
stadium grandstands are well known, no comprehensive published
29
paper could be found that addresses the effects of vibrations on
30
neighborhood buildings when thousands of spectators jump on the
31
stadium eld. This paper covers this gap in civil engineering
32
knowledge, introducing a systematic study (analytical and experi-
33
mental) to explain the causes, predict the building responses, and
34
determine the size of the expected human, structural, and cosmetic
35
effects on neighborhood buildings.
36
In particular, the studies summarized in this paper were carried
37
out at the University of Buenos Aires (UBA) to determine the causes
38
and effects on buildings of vibrations generated by rock concerts
39
held at River Plate Stadium in Buenos Aires.
40
The research activities were developed within the framework
41
of a cooperative agreement between the College of Engineering of
42
the University of Buenos Aires and the Environmental Protection
43
Agency (APRA) of Buenos Aires City to address vibration claims
44
from dwellers of nearby multistory buildings during rock-concert
45
events at River Plate Stadium. The buildings involved, which are,
46
on average, 10 to 12 stories tall, were located from 600 to 2,000 m
47
awayfromthe stadium(Fig. 1). Fig. 2 shows the River Plate Stadium
48
and neighboring buildings. Note the large inventory of 10- to 15-
49
story buildings around 800 m from the Stadium.
50
Because of the lack of a widely accepted analytical model and a
51
systematic and planned set of acceleration records, there is broad
52
controversy regarding the intensity of stadium-eld crowd-induced
53
vibrations and their causes and effects on neighborhood buildings
54
during rock concerts. To reach a correct diagnosis of the level of
55
annoyance and potential solutions to the problem, it is necessary to
56
apply a physical model capable of predicting building vibrations
57
resulting from the motion generated during a concert. Therefore, it
58
was necessary to develop the following:
59
1. An analytical model capable of representing building
60
responses
61
2. A planned set of acceleration records during rock concerts at
62
ground level and the upper oors at different distances from
63
the stadium
64
3. Adjustments to the model based on experimental results
1
Professor, College of Engineering, Univ. of Buenos Aires, 1117 Buenos
Aires, Argentina (corresponding author). E-mail: rbertero@freyreyasoc
.com.ar 2
2
College of Engineering, Univ. of Buenos Aires, 1117 Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
3
College of Engineering, Univ. of Buenos Aires, 1117 Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
4
College of Engineering, Univ. of Buenos Aires, 1117 Buenos Aires,
3 Argentina.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 23, 2011; approved on
October 11, 2012; published online on October 13, 2012. Discussion
period open until April 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 11, November 1, 2013. ASCE, ISSN
0733-9445/2013/11-00010011/$25.00.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 1
65
In this paper, we rst summarize the limits of human sensitivity
66
to vibrations. Later, we present the dynamic loads generated by
67
the public during a rock concert and, in particular, the effects on the
68
environment generated by the crowd simultaneously jumping on the
69
eld to the rhythm of the music.
70
After that, we develop an acceleration-wave propagation
71
model on the basis of the periodic type of loading generated by
72
the coordinate jump of the crowd. The ground level is represented
73
by a semi-innite isotropic elastic solid, where the energy is prop-
74
agated through volumetric waves (compression waves P and shear
75
waves S) and surface Rayleigh waves R, as shown in Fig. 3 (Woods
76
1968).
77
In turn, the acceleration waves reach the building foundations
78
so that accelerations at different levels of the buildings can increase
79
or decrease based on dynamical structural properties. In particular, if
80
the natural frequency of the building coincides with the excitation
81
frequency, the resonance effect causes a large amplication of the
82
accelerations on the upper oors.
83
Finally, from the equations describing this behavior and the re-
84
sults obtained in the planned measurements, conclusions regarding
85
the effects on structural and nonstructural components and the in-
86
habitants of the buildings are presented.
87
Note that because the excitation frequency corresponding to the
88
rhythm of the music in a rock concert is low (about 2.1 Hz), even
89
though the soil vertical acceleration is larger than the horizontal
90
acceleration according to Lambs Rayleigh-wave solution (Lamb
91
1904), resonance is only possible with the horizontal natural fre-
92
quency of the buildings. For usual buildings, the vertical natural
93
frequencies are much larger than 2.1 Hz. Therefore, only the hor-
94
izontal component is considered in this paper.
95
Human Sensitivity to Vibrations
96
In Argentina, human exposure to vibrations in buildings (i.e., fre-
97
quency between 1 and 80 Hz) is regulated by the norm Instituto
98
Argentino de Normalizacin y Certicacin (IRAM) 4078, Part II
99
(IRAM 1990), based on International Organization for Standardi-
100
zation (ISO) Standard 2631-1985 (ISO 1985).
101
According to that norm, experience in several countries has
102
shown that vibration claims in dwelling buildings usually start as
103
soon as those vibrations reach the perception threshold. Therefore,
104
the allowable levels of vibrations are established in the norm to
105
minimize mainly inhabitant complaints rather than other factors,
106
such as health risks or work difculties.
107
The norm denes basic curves representing constant levels of
108
human response to vibrations considering human perception and/or
Fig. 1. Vibration claims during rock-concert events at River Plate Stadium north of Buenos Aires City, Argentina, close to the River Plate border
(image courtesy of Google Earth/Image 2013 Geoeye)
Fig. 2. River Plate Stadiumand neighboring buildings (photo courtesy
of Jos Porras)
2 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
109
complaints. These curves are acceleration levels as a function of
110
the excitation frequency. The allowable acceleration levels for dif-
111
ferent building uses and event hours are established as a multiple of
112
these basic curves. For acceleration levels below these basic curves,
113
no comments or complaints resulting from vibrations are expected.
114
The primary magnitude used in the normto describe the vibration
115
intensity is the RMS of the accelerations. Given an acceleration
116
history at, the acceleration RMS s
a
for a period of time T is
117
computed as
s
a

1
T
_
_
T
0
at
2
dt
_

_ (1)
118
Thus, in the particular case of a harmonic excitation at
119
5Asin2pt=T, the amplitude A satises the equation
s
a

A

2
p (2)
120
Fig. 4 shows the basic curves dened by the norm for RMS
121
accelerations a
x
f and a
z
f (m/s
2
) as a function of frequency f in
122
the directions of the x (horizontal accelerations) and z (vertical
123
accelerations) axes.
124
For dwellings, the norm establishes the following multiplication
125
factors for the permissible levels of vibration: daytime: 2.04.0;
126
nighttime: 1.40. To obtain the acceleration limits, because most
127
musical events occur at night, the latter factor has been used in this
128
study as a multiplication factor of the basic curves in Fig. 4.
129
Considering an excitation frequency of 130 beats/minute,
130
f
b
51301/min 52:1671/s (corresponding to the rhythm of the
131
music at a rock concert), the allowable continuous-acceleration
132
RMS values in the vertical and horizontal 4 directions are, re-
133
spectively, a
z
f 50:097%3g 0:0095 m=s
2
and a
x
f 50:056%
134
3g 0:0055 m=s
2
, where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Note
135
that for the frequency of the music beat at a rock concert, the human
136
body is more sensitive to horizontal than to vertical vibrations.
137
It is important to take into account the fact that in residential areas
138
the tolerable vibrations can vary within a wide range. The specic
139
values depend on cultural and social factors as well as on psycho-
140
logical predispositions among building occupants.
141
Considering the international recommendations and the obser-
142
vations obtained in this study, it is assumed in this paper that
143
a
x
50:1%3g 0:01 m/s
2
is the level of RMS horizontal acceler-
144
ation above which intermittent vibrations are clearly noticed by most
145
of the people in buildings near a stadium in which vibrations are
146
generated by the crowd simultaneously jumping on the eld to the
147
rhythm of the music of the rock concert. On the other hand, for 10
148
times larger values, about 1%3g 0:10 m=s
2
, accelerations are
149
annoying to humans, and hanging objects (e.g., lamps, owerpots,
150
pictures, etc.) may oscillate a few millimeters, causing alarm among
151
people because of the movement.
152
Dynamic Loads Generated by the Crowd during
153
a Rock Concert
154
Experimental Studies and Analytical Representation
155
of Loads
156
During a rock concert, the music has the effect of synchronizing
157
the movement of spectators. Thousands of people jump on the eld
158
at exactly the same time as a result of auditory and, especially, visual
Fig. 3. Wave propagation in a semi-innite isotropic elastic solid
Fig. 4. Basic curves of constant human response to vibrations in the
directions of the x and y axes (for allowable accelerations for dwellings
at night, these values must be multiplied by 1.40)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 3
159
impact. Such synchronization appears to be more difcult for people
160
in the grandstand.
161
In this paper, the motion of the crowd has been modeled fol-
162
lowing experimental studies carried out at the University of Surrey
163
in the United Kingdom (Parkhouse and Ewins 2006). These studies
164
conducted a thorough examination of the statistical nature of crowd
165
loading by measuring the individual performance of 100 people
166
jumping and bobbing (oscillating vertically with feet in permanent
167
contact with the ground) to four different tempos (frequencies of 1.5,
168
2.0, 2.67, and 3.5 Hz). The loading of a large crowd was estimated
169
by summing the individual force histories of the participants, who
170
were encouraged to move as if they were enjoying a lively rock
171
concert.
172
The studies at the University of Surrey recommended a syn-
173
chronized load representing the crowd action given by Eq. (3):
Pt W
_
1

n1
DLF
n
cos2pnft 2w
n

_
(3)
174
where W 5weight of the crowd; f 5frequency of the beat; DLF
n
175
5 dynamic load factor for each harmonic n; and w
n
5 phase lag
176
of each harmonic. Because the loads in the study at the University
177
of Surrey were measured on a rigid plate, and considering that
178
a crowd jumping on grass maintains the feet in permanent con-
179
tact with the ground, these bobbing values have been used in this
180
paper.
181
Therefore, based on the values recommended in the previous
182
study and considering a frequency of 120 beats/minute (2 Hz) co-
183
incident with the experimental values obtained around River Plate
184
Stadium, the following dynamic loads factors were used in this paper
185
for the rst three harmonics:
DLF
_
_
0:321
0:080
0:010
_
_
(4)
186
5 with a beat frequency f
b
51201/min 521/s.
187
Crowd-Induced Rhythmic Loading on the StadiumField
188
Assuming the synchronized jumping of N
esp
535,000 spectators
189
on the eld and an average weight of W
0
562:4 kgf for each per-
190
son attending the rock concert, a total weight of W
t
5W
0
3N
esp
191
52:204 310
4
kN is obtained. Considering Eq. (3), it is possible to
192
compute the power spectral density for the rst three harmonics of
193
the crowd-induced rhythmic loading as
S
esp
i

1
2
_
DLF
i
W
t

2
_

_
_
_
2:502 10
7
1:554 10
6
2:428 10
4
_
_
_kN
2
(5)
194
with the following frequencies for each harmonic:
F
b
i
f
b
i
_
_
2
4
6
_
_
Hz (6)
v
b
2p F
b

_
_
12:566
25:133
37:699
_
_
1/s (7)
195
Wave Propagation from the Stadium to
196
the Neighborhood
197
Because the actual soil is not a semi-innite homogeneous isotropic
198
elastic solid, the vibration-wave propagation is not a circle, and the
199
real values should be measured by a network of sensors. However, it
200
is shown in this paper that a reasonable approximation to the actual
201
acceleration records on soil can be reached using the preceding
202
hypotheses and the Lamb solution for harmonic loads (Lamb 1904)
203
as follows.
204
Dynamic Soil Properties in the Stadium Neighborhood
205
Considering the average soil properties at a certain depth based on the
206
length of the Rayleigh waves corresponding to the 2-Hz frequency of
207
crowd motion, the following values were obtained from soil studies
208
around the stadium: shear modulus G590:3 MPa; soil density
209
r 51,900 kg /m
3
; Poissons modulus v 50:35; soil damping factor
210
z 50:01; elasticity modulus E 521 1vG5162:8 MPa; Lam
211
constant l 5vE=1 1v1 22v 5140:7 MPa; P-wave propaga-
212
tion velocity C
P
5

l 12G=r
_
5370:828 m/s; S-wave propagation
213
velocity C
S
5

G/r
p
5178:14 m/s; and R-wave propagation velocity
214
(for v 50:35) C
R
5

c
R
1
p
3C
S
5166:563 m/s, with a wave-
215
propagation velocity ratio

c
R1
p
5C
R
=C
S
50:935.
216
Wave Propagation on the Surface of a Semi-Innite
217
Isotropic Elastic Solid
218
Assuming that most of the vibration energy is transported by Ray-
219
leigh waves, Lamb (1904) obtained analytically the displacements
220
ut at any point on a semi-innite isotropic elastic solid located at
221
a distance r from a harmonic load Pe
ivt
of frequency v. The Lamb
222
solution (Lamb 1904) can be written as (Hunt 1991)
ut Uv, , re
ivt
2
vH
2rC
3
R
e
zr/2C
R
H1
2
_
vr
C
R
_
Pe
ivt
H
u
v, , rPe
ivt
(8)
223
whereH1
2
5Hankel function of second kind and rst order; and
224
H 5a constant that depends on Poissons modulus only (H 50:095
225
for v 50:35). Therefore, H
u
v, , r is the transfer function repre-
226
senting the displacement soil response. Note that because of the low
227
frequency of the crowd-induced rhythmic loading, the wave at-
228
tenuation resulting from soil damping e
2zvr=2CR
is very low com-
229
pared with soil vibrations generated by train, transit, or construction
230
activities.
231
By double differentiation of Eq. (8) with respect to time, the
232
acceleration response ut at any point of the semi-innite space can
233
be computed as
ut

Uv, , re
ivt
2v
2
H
u
v, , rPe
ivt
H
u
v, , rPe
ivt
(9)
234
Soil Accelerations away fromthe Stadiumas a Result of
235
Crowd-Induced Rhythmic Loading on the Field
236
Taking into consideration the random vibrations theory (Clough
237
and Penzien 1995), the transfer function of Eq. (9) H
u
v, , r, and
238
the power spectral density of the crowd-induced rhythmic loading
239
S
esp
i
[Eq. (5)], it is possible to obtain the power spectral density of
240
the horizontal acceleration at different distances from the stadium r
241
for each harmonic i as
4 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
S
u
i, z, r S
esp
i
_

H
u
2pf
b
i,z,r

_
2
(10)
242
Thus the RMS horizontal accelerations can be computed as
s
u
z, r
_

3
i1
S
u
i,z,r
_
1=2
(11)
243
Fig. 5 shows the RMS horizontal accelerations (0:092%3g,
244
0:048%3g, and 0:03%3g, respectively) obtained on the soil sur-
245
face at 500, 1,000, and 1,500 m away from the River Plate Stadium
246
by using Eq. (11).
247
These small values explain the reason why the vibrations are
248
hardly felt in 1- or 2-story buildings, even in those located closest to
249
River Plate Stadium. In an earlier section it was shown that the limit
250
above which intermittent vibrations are clearly noticed by most
251
people is around 0:1%3g.
252
Building Accelerations away from the Stadium
253
as a Result of Crowd-Induced Rhythmic Loading
254
on the Field
255
As shown in Fig. 5, the accelerations on the soil surface or in
256
rigid buildings (no amplication) are hardly perceptible, even for
257
those in the area closest to the River Plate Stadium. However, when
258
the low-frequency horizontal accelerations reach the foundations of
259
multistory buildings, they may be amplied or reduced on different
260
oors, which depends on the dynamic building properties. In par-
261
ticular, when the excitation frequency coincides with the natural
262
frequency of the building, a large amplication is obtained on the
263
upper stories because of the resonance condition.
264
Fig. 6 shows the response of a multistory building to base
265
accelerations using a generalized single-degree-of-freedom system
266
(Chopra 1995). The equation of motion is
w
n
t 2j
n
v
n
_ w
n
t v
2
n
w
n
t 2L
n
ut (12)
267
where w
n
5 displacement at the top of the building; j
n
5 building
268
damping factor; v
n
5 building natural vibration frequency; ut
269
5 soil acceleration (as described in the preceding section); and
L
n

_
H
0
mxwx dx
_
H
0
mxwx
2
dx
1:50 for wx
x
H
(13)
270
is the generalized participation factor, where mx 5 mass along
271
the building height (which is assumed to be constant in this paper);
272
H 5 building height; and wx 5 shape function that denes the
273
form of deections (considered linear in this paper).
274
By applying the Fourier transform to Eq. (12), the response in
275
the frequency domain is obtained as
W
n
v, v
n
, j 2
L
n
v
2
n
2v
2
2j
n
v
n
vi

Uv
H
n
v, v
n
, j
n

Uv (14)
276
where H
n
v, v
n
, j
n
5transfer function representing the building top
277
displacement response for a building of frequency v
n
and damping
278
factor j
n
;

Uv 5 Fourier transform of ut; and W
n
v, v
n
, j
279
5 Fourier transform of the top building displacement w
n
t.
280
Using Eq. (14), the Fourier transform of the top building
281
acceleration wt can be computed as
Fig. 5. RMS horizontal soil acceleration computed at 500, 1,000, and 1,500 maway fromRiver Plate Stadium(image courtesy of Google Earth/Image
2013 Geoeye)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 5

W
n
v, v
n
, j
v
2
L
n
v
2
n
2v
2
2j
n
v
n
vi

Uv
2v
2
H
n
v, v
n
, j
n

Uv H
w
v, v
n
, j
n

Uv
(15)
282
Therefore, the power spectral density of top building accelerations
283
for each excitation frequency v
i
can be computed as
S
w
n
v
n
, j
n
, v
i
, z, r
_

H
w
v
i
, v
n
, j
n

_
2
S
u
v
i
, z, r (16)
284
Thus the RMS top building acceleration can be computed for the
285
rst three harmonics as
s
w
n
v
n
, j
n
, z, r
_

3
i1
S
w
n
v
n
, j
n
, v
i
, z, r
_
1=2
(17)
286
Fig. 7 shows the RMS building top accelerations (building
287
damping factor j
n
50:02) as a function of the period of the rst
288
vibration mode T
n
52p/v
n
obtained by using Eq. (17) at distances
289
of 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 m away from the River Plate Stadium.
290
Fig. 7 clearly shows the resonance with the rst and second harmonics
291
of the crowd-induced rhythmic loading [Eq. (6)] at frequencies of
292
2 and 4 Hz (periods of 0.5 and 0.25 s, respectively).
293
Although in most cases the RMS building top accelerations are
294
below the perception threshold of 0:1%3g, they reach values of
295
1%3g for buildings whose natural frequencies coincide with the
296
crowd jumping frequencieseven for distances of about 1,500 m
297
from the stadium.
298
Fig. 8 shows the RMS building top accelerations for build-
299
ings with 2 Hz of natural frequency obtained at 500, 1,000, 1,500,
300
and 2,000 m away from the River Plate Stadium (2:21% 3g,
301
1:29%3g, 0:87%3g, and 0:63%3g, respectively) using
302
Eq. (17).
303
The period of the building rst mode of vibration is strongly
304
correlated with the building height. From experimental data of RC
305
shear-wall buildings (the usual structural construction of multistory
306
buildings in Buenos Aires), Satake et al. (2003) proposed the fol-
307
lowing relationship:
T
n
0:015H (18)
308
where H 5 height of the building in meters; and T
n
5 rst-mode
309
period in seconds.
310
Considering an average interstory height of 3 m and using
311
Eq. (18), the resonance frequencies of 2 and 4 Hz would correspond
312
to the range of buildings between 1112 stories and 6 stories, re-
313
spectively, depending on the specic values of the dynamic building
314
parameters (i.e., stiffness, mass, and damping).
Fig. 6. Building vibrations as a result of base accelerations and a generalized single-degree-of-freedom system model
Fig. 7. RMS building top accelerations (m=s
2
) for natural periods between 0 and 1 s
6 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
315
The analytical results clearly explain why the vibrations were
316
mostly felt in buildings of such height, even at distances far away
317
from the stadium (3,000 m). On the other hand, the inhabitants of
318
lower and taller buildings did not feel vibrations even if they were
319
located closer to the River Plate Stadium.
320
Structural and Nonstructural Damage Risk
321
For accelerations smaller than 2%3g at the building top, the in-
322
uence of the acceleration on damage is negligible. The structural
323
and nonstructural building damage is related to the level of dis-
324
placement, especially the interstory relative displacements, such as
325
the ones considered for wind and earthquake building codes.
326
Considering that the maximum building horizontal accelera-
327
tion A happens at resonance with the rst harmonic of the crowd
328
jumping ( f
b
52Hz), it is possible to compute the maximum dis-
329
placement at the building top X as
XA
A
2pf
b

2
(19)
330
The buildings closest to River Plate Stadium with a height that
331
is susceptible to reaching the resonance condition are located about
332
800 m away from the stadium. Using the RMS building top accel-
333
eration s
w
n
[Eq. (17)] and Eq. (2), the acceleration amplitude can be
334
computed as
A

2
p
s
w
n
2pf
b
, z
n
, 0:005800 m 1:927% g (20)
335
Although this acceleration level may be very annoying to
336
building dwellers, the corresponding maximum displacement is
337
only
XA 1:2 mm (21)
338
Considering that the approximate height of a building in reso-
339
nance with the crowd jumping is H 5T
b
=0:015 m50:5/
340
0:015 m533:33 m [Eq. (18)], the displacement-height ratio can be
341
computed as
XA
H

1:2 10
23
m
33:33 m

1
1,000

1
28
(22)
342
This means that as a result of the crowd-induced rhythmic loading
343
on the stadium eld, the maximum displacement of the buildings
344
closest to the River Plate Stadium is about 30 times smaller than the
345
allowable serviceability displacement for wind action established
346
by most structural codes (H/1,000).
347
Therefore, this level of relative displacement is much smaller
348
than that considered to cause damage to structural and nonstructural
349
elements.
350
Acceleration Records Obtained during Concerts
351
To validate the analytical model, a measurement plan was devel-
352
oped. The ground accelerations and building responses were mea-
353
sured during concerts by AC/DC (December 2009), Metallica
354
(January 2010), and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (September 2011) at
355
River Plate Stadium. Fig. 9 shows the locations of the measurements
356
obtained during the concerts. The coordinated jumping of the
357
spectators was caught on video during the Metallica and AC/DC
358
concerts.
359
During the concerts, a total of 15 signicant acceleration records
360
at ground level were obtained using RION VM-54 accelerometers
361
(simultaneously, the acceleration at the roofs of some of the build-
362
ings where inhabitants had complaint of vibrations during previous
Fig. 8. RMS building top accelerations for buildings with a natural frequency of 2 Hz computed at 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 m away from River
Plate Stadium (image courtesy of Google Earth/Image 2013 Geoeye)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 7
363
concerts also were recorded). Although the records were obtained
364
for different songs and different musical groups and days, the var-
365
iation in acceleration frequency at ground level was very small. A
366
mean value of 2.1 Hz and a SD of 0.1 Hz for the rst harmonic were
367
obtained.
368
Fig. 10 shows a typical acceleration record at ground level
369
obtained 450 m away from the stadium during the coordinated
370
jumping of the crowd on the stadium eld during the Red Hot
371
Chili Peppers concert (complete wave of 20 s during one of the
372
songs). Fig. 11 shows with more detail a segment of a typical
373
acceleration record at ground level in the same location during
374
the Metallica concert (sample duration 7 s). Fig. 12 shows
375
a typical frequency content of the acceleration record at ground
376
level obtained 450 m away from the stadium during the Red
377
Hot Chili Peppers concert (sample duration 16 s). jTFuj is the
378
modulus of the discrete Fourier transform of 16 s of the signal in
379
Fig. 10.
380
The ground accelerations obtained 450 maway fromthe stadium
381
show that the frequency content matches the spectators movement
382
during the concerts. The maximum RMS acceleration levels mea-
383
sured at ground level were below but close to the human perception
384
threshold (0:06%3g).
Fig. 9. Locations where the ground accelerations and the building responses were obtained (image courtesy of Google Earth/Image 2013 Geoeye)
Fig. 10. Typical acceleration record at ground level obtained 450 maway fromthe stadiumduring the coordinated jumping of the crowd on the stadium
eld during a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert (complete wave recorded during one of the songs; sample duration 20 s)
Fig. 11. Segment of a typical acceleration record at ground level obtained 450 m away from the stadium during the coordinated jumping of the
crowd on the stadium eld during a Metallica concert (sample duration 7 s)
8 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
385
On the other hand, during the concerts, the recorded accel-
386
erations in buildings within a 1,000-m radius were well above the
387
comfort limits. The buildings that were most affected by Rayleigh
388
waves transmitted through their foundations were those having
389
natural frequencies around 22.5 Hz. The maximum accelera-
390
tions reached 1:5%3g RMS 1:0%3g at the top of an 11-story
391
building located 850 maway fromthe stadium(Fig. 12), very close
392
to the maximum theoretical value for a building in resonance with
393
the jumping frequency (Fig. 7). Fig. 13 shows the acceleration
394
recorded at the roof during the AC/DC concert (sample duration
395
8 min). Note the six signicant waves (duration about 20 s each)
396
that reached the building, usually at the beginning of the songs.
397
Fig. 14 shows the frequency content for the whole 8-min record.
398
jTFuj is the modulus of the discrete Fourier transform of 8 min of
399
the signal in Fig. 13. The resonance with the rst mode of the
400
building at about 2.1 Hz is clearly noted.
401
Conclusions
402
This paper studied the vibrations transmitted from the ground to
403
buildings and their inhabitants as a result of the synchronized jump-
404
ing of 35,000 spectators during rock concerts held at the River Plate
405
Stadium in Buenos Aires. The main conclusions are outlined in the
406
following subsections.
Fig. 12. Typical frequency content of acceleration record at ground level obtained 450 m away from the stadium during the coordinated jumping
of the crowd on the stadiumeld during a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert (sample duration 16 s; jTFuj is the modulus of the discrete Fourier transformof
16 s of the signal of Fig. 10)
Fig. 13. Accelerations recorded at the top of an 11-story building located 850 m away from the stadium during an AC/DC concert (sample duration
8 min)
Fig. 14. Frequency content of acceleration recorded at the top of an 11-story building located 850 m away from the stadium during an AC/DC
concert (sample duration 8 min; jTFuj is the modulus of the discrete Fourier transform of 8 min of the signal of Fig. 13)
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 9
407
Conclusions Derived from the Measurements
408
409
From the acceleration records and simultaneous jumping caught
410
on video, it was established that Rayleigh waves were the result
411
of the coordinated jumping of spectators during some segments
412
of the rock concerts. The accelerations obtained and the radius
413
where the vibrations were felt by building inhabitants were
414
related to the number of spectators coordinately jumping fol-
415
lowing the rhythm of the music.
416
The recorded ground and building accelerations matched rea-
417
sonably well the results of the analytical model of wave prop-
418
agation and building response.
419
The recorded accelerations and displacements were below the
420
levels required to cause structural and/or nonstructural damage
421
to buildings. However, the accelerations on 10- to 12-story
422
buildings located inside a radius of about 2,000 m from the
423
stadium caused alarm in the inhabitants of the upper oors.
424

Although the records were obtained for different songs and
425
different musical groups and days, the variation in acceleration
426
frequency contents at ground level was very small. A mean
427
value of 2.1 Hz and a SD of 0.1 Hz for the rst harmonic were
428
obtained.
429
Conclusions Derived from the Analytical Model
430
431

The coordinated motion of the spectators jumping to the rhythm
432
of the music generated acceleration waves with a mean frequency
433
of 2.1 and 4.2 Hz for the rst and second harmonics. These waves
434
(mainly Rayleigh waves) were propagated over the ground and
435
reached building foundations in the area surrounding the
436
stadium.
437
At the ground level of dwellings within approximately 400 m
438
of the stadium, some occupants could perceive the vibrations
439
inside the buildings.
440
The horizontal vibrations are magnied by buildings whose
441
natural frequency matches the frequency of the spectators
442
motion.
443

The RMS accelerations could reach values between 0:6

444
and 1:1%3g at the top oors of buildings about 10 to 12 stories
445
tall (at resonance with the rst harmonic of the spectators
446
movement) and at the top levels of buildings about 6 stories tall
447
(at resonance with the second harmonic of the spectators
448
movement) within a 3,000-m radius from the stadium (Fig. 15).
449
The number of stories to get resonance can change slightly as
450
a function of the characteristics of the structural system, the
451
foundation type, the number of nonstructural walls, and the
452
spectators motion.
453
For RMS values larger than 0:6%3g, the accelerations are very
454
annoying to people. Hanging objects (e.g., lamps, owerpots, or
455
pictures) may oscillate a few millimeters, and the water in
456
shbowls may move sideways, thereby causing building inhab-
457
itants to become alarmed.
458

The calculated drifts and accelerations in buildings in the sur-

459
rounding areas of the stadium are not high enough to cause
460
structural and/or nonstructural damage.
461

The ground and building accelerations are directly proportional

462
to the number of spectators jumping simultaneously to the
463
rhythm of the music. Note that this study was conducted assum-
464
ingthe simultaneous jumping of 35,000 spectators on the stadium
465
eld.
466

Because of the low frequency of the crowd-induced rhythmic

467
loading, the wave attenuation fromsoil damping e
2zvr=2CR
is very
468
low compared with soil vibrations generated by train, transit, or
469
construction activities.
470

As a result of the low frequency of the vibrations and thus the

471
deep depth of Raleigh waves, it was not possible to use traditional
472
vibration-control methods, such as digging a shallow trench
473
around the source.
Fig. 15. Area where people on the upper oors could feel vibrations in buildings at resonance with the spectators movements (image courtesy of
Google Earth/Image 2013 Geoeye; data from SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA, GEBCO)
10 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013
474
References
475
Chopra, A. (1995). Dynamic of structures: Theory and applications to
476
earthquake engineering, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
477
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1995). Dynamics of structures, 3rd Ed.,
478
Computers & Structures, Inc., Berkerley, CA.
479
Hunt, H. E. M. (1991). Stochastic modelling of trafc-induced
480
ground vibration. J. Sound Vibrat., 144(l), 5370.
481
Instituto Argentino de Normalizacin y Certicacin (IRAM). (1990).
482
Acoustic, guide for the evaluation of human exposure to whole-body
483
vibrations: Estimation of human exposure to continuous vibrations and
484
induced by shocks in buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz). IRAM 4078-2, Buenos
485
Aires, Argentina.
486
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1985). Evaluation
487
of human exposure to whole-body vibration. ISO 2631-1985,
488
Geneva.
489
Lamb, H. (1904). On the propagation of tremors over the surface
490
of an elastic solid. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., 203(359371),
491
141.
492
Parkhouse, J. G., and Ewins, D. J. (2006). Crowd-induced rhythmic
493
loading. Structures and Buildings, 159(5), 247259.
494
Satake, N., et al. (2003). Damping evaluation using full-scale data of
495
buildings in Japan. J. Struct. Eng., 129(4), 470477.
496
Woods, R. D. (1968). Screening of surface waves in soils. J. Soil Mech.
497
And Found. Div., 94(SM4), 951979.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / NOVEMBER 2013 / 11
Q: 1_Please check that ASCE Membership Grades (Member ASCE, Fellow ASCE, etc.) are provided for all authors who are members.
Q: 2_For all four afliations, please verify that the postal code for Buenos Aires is correct.
Q: 3_For afliations 2 through 4, please provide the position the author holds at the university (e.g., Professor, Assistant Professor, Lecturer, Ph.D.
Student, etc.); Also, is College of Engineering correct, or should it be Department of Civil Engineering?
Q: 4_Please verify edit made to 0.097% 3 g is correct. See similar changes made throughout this article.
Q: 5_Equations had to be renumbered. Please check the new numbering scheme for accuracy.
AUTHOR QUERIES
AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES