dINAMICA DE SUELOS

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

dINAMICA DE SUELOS

© All Rights Reserved

- Volume 4 Issue 1
- Dynamics of Structures Volume 2 - Applications Chowdhury
- Resonance Revealed - Vibrations Magazine
- Beta New API Standard 618
- Shell Finite Element Modeling of CANDU Feeders
- 2007_1
- Ni Accelerometer Principles
- IOBP Training Manual - Vibrating Screen
- Cb m Decision Making With
- Ji - Prediction of floor vibrations.pdf
- Mid Term Evaluation
- Twisted Timeshenko Beams
- 3- Liste Des Publications - KPEKY
- art_10.1007_s12205-013-0261-9.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S0926580511000690-main
- Stochastic Approach to Modelling of Near-periodic Jumping Loads
- fatigue ppt 1
- Lesson 1
- Advanced FEMA of Dry Docks and Waterfront Structures
- 6th Sem Course Diary

You are on page 1of 17

Effect Based on Microtremor Measurement of

Building and Surrounding Ground Surface

Masanori Iiba a), Morimasa Watakabe b), Atsushi Fujiic), Shin Koyama a),

Shigeki Sakai d) and Koichi Morita e)

performance based one. For the performance based design, behaviors of buildings

are clarified more precisely based on data of earthquake motion observation. But

in general buildings, the earthquake motion observation is not popular, especially,

for purpose of soil structure interaction (SSI). Under a few points of

accelerometers, a detailed analysis for SSI phenomena is not easy and many

assumptions are needed. Here, the SSI effects of building are investigated based

on a microtremor measurement. The instruments were set in the building and on

the ground to evaluate the sway, rocking and torsional vibrations. The building is

7-storied residential one with flamed structure in longitudinal direction and pre-

cast walled structure in transverse direction. Through transfer functions of

buildings, predominant frequencies under sway, rocking mode and those of based-

fixed condition are calculated. The SSI effect is remarkable in transverse direction

due to predominant rocking mode. Also based on the random decrement

technique, the damping factor of buildings is obtained. It is founded that the

damping factors are around 5 to 6% under the microtremor level.

INTRODUCTION

Inertial forces of superstructure, that is, base shear, inertial forces of embedment and

overturning moments will be transferred to supported grounds (through piles when pile

foundations). When the supported grounds are soft, the base fixed condition is not satisfied.

a) National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, 1, Tatehara, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0802, Japan

b) Toda Corporation, 8-5-34, Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 107-0052, Japan

c) Konoike Construction, 1-20-1, Sakura, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0035, Japan

d) Hazama Corporation, 515-1, Karima, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0822. Japan

e) Building Research Institute, 1, Tatehara, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-0802, Japan

1

The phenomena of the displacement and rocking angle of foundations by the base shear

and overturning moment, so-called soil structure interaction (SSI) occur. The phenomena

are the inertial soil structure interaction. On the other hand, the effect of SSI related to

seismic input motions to the buildings is called the kinematic soil structure interaction. As

a result of the horizontal and rocking motions due to the SSI, characteristics of superstructure

are changed as follows;

The Building Standard Law and its related enforcement and notices were revised for the

direction to the performance-based design from 1998 in Japan. The calculation method of

response and limit strength was provided for checking serviceability and safety of buildings.

The calculation procedure is based on the response spectrum method. The acceleration

response spectrum, and equivalent period and damping factor of 1st mode have to be

evaluated [Midorikawa, et al., 2000]. The amplified characteristics of surface ground and SSI

effects should be considered. A simplified method for incorporating SSI effects is proposed

in the calculation [Iiba, 2001].

characteristics and seismic behaviors of buildings but characteristics of earthquake motions

to buildings have to be made clear. Especially, the SSI and earthquake motions are influenced

by characteristics of surface ground. The evaluation including ground characteristics is

necessary.

The paper focuses fundamental predominant frequency and damping factor of residential

buildings through microtremor measurements to estimate the fundamental characteristics of

the SSI phenomena. The effect of SSI on a transverse (span) direction of the residential

buildings is remarkable due to many continuous walls in the direction. However, earthquake

motion observations of residential buildings are not popularly conducted. The microtremor

measurement is effective to evaluate the SSI effect on these buildings [Yagi, et al., 2002].

Using data measured in buildings and surrounding ground surface, transfer functions of

the systems are calculated which including characteristics of sway, rocking and building

modes. Based on the transfer functions, predominant frequencies of sway, rocking modes and

2

those of base fixed condition are compared. And the damping factors of the buildings are

evaluated through the random decrement method (RDM) [Tamura, et al., 1993].

A plan at ordinary floor and a section in the transverse direction of the buildings are

drawn in Fig. 1. A bird-eye view of the building is presented in Photo 1. The buildings,

which have 7-storied residential ones with central corridor at longitudinal direction, are

constructed in a central area of

Tsukuba, Japan. There are three and 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,750 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600

5 400

nine spans in transverse and

longitudinal directions, respectively.

2 100

A ratio of transverse to

5 400

Plan

RF

ratios of width to height in both

2 775

7F

directions are 0.46 and 1.47.

2 70

6F

Section

The buildings are composed of

2 700

5F

2 70

4F

Horizontal

2 70

Vertical

2 700 2 700

are supported by the individual Fig. 1 Plan and section of building measured in

microtremor, including the positions of velocity-type

foundation with pre-stressed sensors in building and surrounding ground surface

concrete piles. The site map is

illustrated in Fig. 2. The same

buildings called A- and B-buildings

are constructed with distance of about

70 m between them. There is a main

load on the north side and a load on

the west.

drawn in Fig. 3. There is a loam layer

whose N values are about 5 within

Photo 1 Bird eye view of building

3

Value

Depth Soil

Mark 0 10 20 30 40 50

(m) type

Main Road

Loam

Clay

5

6.6

Sand 10

11.9

11- St or y Bui l di ng 13.0 Clay

15

A- Bui l di ng

20

Sand

25

27.6

N 29.1 Clay 30

Sand

with

34.0 Clay

35.4 Clay 35

36.1 Sand

B- Bui l di ng

Clay

with 40

Sand

41.5

45

0 10 20 30 40 50m Gravel

50.4 50

Fig. 2 Site situation of two building, which are the same Fig. 3 Ground condition with soil

geometrical and structural conditions types and standard penetration

values (N-values)

6.6 m in depth from ground surface. The N values of following layers increase to about 20 to

40. The sandy layers between 17 to 27 m in depth have N value more than 30. The sandy and

clayey layers are laminated in 28 to 41 m and in deeper depth gravel layers with more than 50

of N value can be found.

OUTLINES OF MEASUREMENT

a) Microtremor

The microtremors in the buildings and on the ground surface are measured. Periods of

measurement are 600 or 500 s and 7 or 8 sets of these periods are recorded. The interval

of records is 0.005 s.

The forced vibration test is carried out. 6 to 7 persons exert their forces to columns in the

center at 7th floor. The forced vibration with near 1st predominant frequency and in 10 s

of period is repeated at several times.

4

Measuring points and their marks in transverse and longitudinal directions are shown in

Fig. 4. Three horizontal and two vertical sensors on the roof and 1st floor, one horizontal one

on the 4th floor are set in the buildings. Three horizontal sensors are installed on the ground

surface with 13m at both sides and 26m at one side far from the building. The sensor

arrangements are the same in both buildings.

Types of sensors are different between buildings. Velocity transducers with servo type

(VSE-15D, Tokyo Sokusin Co. Ltd.) and those with moving-coil type (Sindo Giken Co. Ltd.)

are used in the A- and B-buildings, respectively. The unit of measured data is velocity.

#01

#04 #01

R8HS RF R8VS #04

#02 RF

#05 R8VW #02

R8HC #05 R8HW

R8VE

#03 R8HC

19.25m

#03

R8HN R8HE

19.25m

4F

R8VS

#06 4F

#06

4FHC 4CX

#07

1FHS #12

#07 #12

#10

#10

1F G1HE 1FVS 1F G1X

#08 #08

#11 1FVW #11 1FHW

1FHC #09

1FHN

*1 1FHC #09

37.4m *1

1FVE 1FHE 1FVN

(21.0+16.4m)

#13 13.0m

#13

G2HE G2HE

#14 #14

G3HE G3X

Fig. 4 Locations and marks of sensors in building and ground surfaces in longitudinal and transverse

directions

relationships between input and response are clarified using the simplest vibration model

with one mass, sway and rocking stiffness. Based on the microtremor measurement data,

predominant frequencies are evaluated in transfer functions of response to input motion. The

comparison of predominant frequencies between longitudinal and transverse directions and

between two buildings is conducted.

The vibration system with surrounding ground is assumed to be the sway and rocking

model [Stewart, et al., 1998] shown in Fig. 5. Following systems are considered.

5

c) Building model with base fixed (B-system)

In each system, the relationship between input and response is presented in Table 1.

H u

H

ug ug + uf'

Surface Ground Rigid Foundation

without Mass uf' uf''

ug

Fig. 5 Definition among displacement at ground surface, sway and rocking displacements and

building displacement

Table 1 Relationship between input and response based on displacements shown in Fig. 5

1) SRB ug

2) RB ug + uf ug + uf + H + u

3) B ug + uf + H

ug : Free Surface Ground Motion

uf' : Foundation Input Motion

uf '' : Sway

uf : 1st Floor Motion Relative to Free Surface

( herein assumption to uf = uf' + uf'' )

u : Top Response Relative to 1st Floor

H : Height of Building

: Rocking A ngle at 1st Floor

The measurement points and arranged data in buildings and on ground surface according to

relationships between input and response in Table 1 are expressed in Table 2. The

measurement points and marks are referred to information in Fig. 4. The arranged data are

calculated in time domain. In case that there are the plural data at the same levels, for

6

example, at the roof, averaged ones on the floor are used. The rocking angle at the 1st floor is

obtained by vertical data on the both ends of buildings. In the longitudinal direction, though it

is not clear that a rigid (uniform) rotation occurs, the displacement due to rocking is

considered.

Table 2 Measurement points and arranged data in buildings and on ground surface

Input and Output for Analized System

(A and B-building) (A-building) (B-building)

Input for RB ug+uf (1FHC+(1FHN+1FHS)/2)/2 (1FHC+(1FHW+1FHE)/2)/2

(1FHC+(1FHN+1FHS)/2)/2 (1FHC+(1FHW+1FHE)/2)/2 (1FHC+(1FHW+1FHE)/2)/2

Input for B ug+uf+H

+H(1FVW-1FVE)/W +H1FVN/W1-H1FVS/W2 +H(1FVN-1FVS)/W

Height : H 19.25m

Related Height and

Width Rocking Span : 37.4m 42.0m

13.0m

W (W1+W2) (21.0m+16.4m) (21.0m+21.0m)

Based on the relationships between input and response, transfer functions are calculated by

following equation.

where Sio and Sii are the cross spectrum of response and input and power spectrum of input

data, respectively. The real part of the transfer functions provides the amplitude of them. The

phase between response and input gives the phase difference of them.

The cross and power spectra are obtained through the Fourier spectrum converted from

8192 data of time history with interval of 0.005 s. The Fourier spectrum is calculated by

moving the first data with interval of 40 s. The overlapped duration is about 50 % of analyzed

one of the Fourier transform. All of the amplitudes of transfer functions obtained are

averaged. The average amplitude spectra of transfer functions are smoothed by Hanning

windows with eight times.

The example of time histories (10 s) of input and responses is drawn in Fig. 6. The data at

upper 4 axes are measured and another three ones are arranged.

7

Roof floor, Horizontal Data, 3-points

Ground surface

H+u and H

ug+uf+H

a) Longitudinal direction

H+u and H

ug+uf+H

b) Transverse direction

8

The time histories of horizontal data in the longitudinal direction at the same levels, that

is, roof and 1st floors are similar to each other, because of very nearly measured points. On

the other hand, in the transverse direction, a little difference of amplitude and phase are found

out. Based on the transfer functions of rotational vibrations, the horizontal data seem to

include torsional vibration of the buildings or phase difference of input motions. When the

horizontal amplitude in the transverse direction becomes large, the phases of vertical

vibrations at 1st floor are opposite and the rocking vibrations are observed. The amplitude

and phase have a good correspondence of time histories between at 1st (ug+uf) and roof floors

(ug+uf+H +u). The data at 1st and roof floors have the relation between input and response

in the RB system. The phase difference becomes small with large amplitude of roof floor.

Compared between the data of relative response of roof to 1st floor (H +u) and the data

rocking response (H ), the effect of rocking vibration is remarkable and the amplitude of

rocking vibration is 50-90 %of that of relative response of roof to 1st floor in the transverse

direction.

The amplitude and phase difference spectra of the transfer functions with buildings and

their directions are shown in Fig. 7. The predominant frequencies obtained from amplitude

spectra are presented in Table 3. The amplitude spectra have simple one simple peak like a

transfer function of one-degree-of-freedom system. With comparison of amplitude at

the transverse direction. On the other hand, the tendency is not so clear in the longitudinal

direction.

System

Direction Building

SRB RB B S R

2.87 3.23 4.13 6.21 5.21

A-building

(0.70) (0.78) (1.00) (1.50) (1.26)

Transverse

2.80 3.19 4.11 5.83 5.04

B-building

(0.68) (0.77) (1.00) (1.42) (1.22)

2.62 3.32 3.37 4.28 19.57

A-building

(0.78) (0.99) (1.00) (1.27) (5.81)

Longitudinal

2.76 3.21 3.70 5.39 6.47

B-building

(0.75) (0.87) (1.00) (1.46) (1.75)

9

12 10

11 2.87Hz A-building 9 A-building

10 Transverse Longitudinal

8

9 3.37Hz

Amplitude

7

Amplitude

8 3.24Hz 2.62Hz

6

7

6 5 3.32Hz

5 4.13Hz 4

4 3

3

2

2

1

1

0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Frequency(Hz) Frequency(Hz)

180 180

A-building A-building

135 135

Transverse Longitudinal

90 90

Phase Delay (deg.)

45 45

0 0

-45 -45

-90 -90

-135 -135

-180 -180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Frequency(Hz) Frequency(Hz)

A-building

10 10

9 2.80Hz B-building 9 B-building

8 Transverse 8 Longitudinal

Amplitude

7

Amplitude

7 2.76Hz

6 3.19Hz 6 3.21 3.70Hz

Hz

5 5

4 4.11Hz 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Frequency(Hz) Frequency(Hz)

180 180

B-building B-building

135 135

Transverse Longitudinal

90 90

Phase Delay (deg.)

45 45

0 0

-45 -45

-90 -90

-135 -135

-180 -180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Frequency(Hz) Frequency(Hz)

B-building

10

The predominant frequencies of the 1st mode in different systems have the relation of

frequencies for the sway (S) and rocking (R) systems shown in Table 3 are calculated by a

system with one mass and springs in series of sway, rocking and building itself. Based on

Table 3, the ratios of predominant frequencies of RB- and SRB-systems to those of B-system,

which is according to base fixed condition, are 0.77 0.78 and 0.68 0.70 in the transverse

direction. Compared with predominant frequencies of the S-, R-, B-systems, the frequencies

of B -system are smallest. However, since the predominant frequencies of the S-, R, B -

systems are similar, the effect of sway, rocking motion on the response of buildings are

remarkably large.

On the other hand, the ratios of predominant frequencies of RB- and SRB-systems to those

of B -system in the longitudinal direction are 0.87 0.99 and 0.75 0.78, respectively.

Compared with predominant frequencies of the S-, R- and B-systems, the frequencies of B -

system are smallest. In case of A-building, the predominant frequencies of the R- system are

quite large and this means there is very small rocking effect, that is, the rocking motion is

negligible. In the longitudinal direction, the effect of sway motion is remarkable.

The characteristics of two buildings except rocking motion in the longitudinal direction

are quite similar. When the rocking angles of the 1st floor are calculated, vertical data are

used. In the longitudinal direction, the distance between two vertical sensors is large and it is

necessary to evaluate whether the rocking motions will be estimated by two vertical sensors

and whether 1st floor is rigidly vibrating or not.

To obtain the damping factors of the buildings, the RDM is applied to the observed

microtremor data. Focused on the predominant frequency of fundamental vibration mode of

interaction system, the damping factors are calculated with two buildings and their directions.

To estimate the damping ratios of the buildings, there are methods of the 1/square root of 2,

the half power, curve fitting and phase gradient, as procedures based on data in frequency

domain. Here, using the data of time history, the damping factors under free vibration are

obtained based on the RDM.

11

Calculation Procedure by RDM

The observed data at the roof floor X(t) is assumed to be expressed to be sum of free

vibration D(t) and response due to forced vibration

R(t). Through superposing time histories which are

set to the maximum at time of zero, the response R(t)

gradually vanishes and the response D(t) remains

with superposition as shown in Fig. 8 [Tamura, 1993].

The superposed time histories Di(t ) will be the

as expressed in the following;

The process to get the free vibration time histories Fig. 8 Superposition of time histories

by RDM is shown in Fig. 9. The horizontal data based on the RDM

(refer to Tamura et al.)

Time

center at roof floor

Band-Pass Filter To evaluate Natural Frequency f0

Fourier

from Fourier spectra

Spectrum

Treatment with Band-Pass Filter

0 Frequency

Band Width of Band-Pass Filter

Each Peak for 5

seconds

2.0~4.0Hz

Time Decrement Method

t=0 Overlapping each interval

from the peak for 5 Overlapping Each Section from Each

seconds

Peak for 5 Seconds over the all data

h

Free Vibration Damping ratio was obtained

Damped Vibration by means of Least Squares

Time Method

Fig. 9 Process to get the free vibration time histories by RDM

12

observed at the center of roof floor are used. The ensemble averages of the Fourier amplitude

spectra of the time histories with buildings and their directions are drawn in Fig. 10. When

the RDM is applied, the filtering with narrow frequency band called Butterworse type is

conducted.

2.75Hz

8.0E- 04 8.0E- 04

3.00Hz

301M01

A-bu ildin g B-bu ildin g

303M01

6.0E- 04

Tra n sver se 6.0E- 04 Tra nsver se

Amp. (kine* sec)

4.0E- 04 4.0E- 04

2.0E- 04 2.0E- 04

0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

1.0E- 03 8.0E- 04

2.80Hz 3.00Hz

301M01

A-bu ildin g 303M01

B-bu ildin g

8.0E- 04

Lon git u din a l 6.0E- 04

Lon git u din a l

Amp. (kine* sec)

6.0E- 04

4.0E- 04

4.0E- 04

2.0E- 04

2.0E- 04

0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

2.0 2.0

A- building B- building

1.0 Transverse 1.0 Transverse

Normalized amplitude

Normalized amplitude

M01 M01

0.0 0.0

- 1.0 - 1.0

- 2.0 - 2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Time (sec) Time (sec)

2.0 2.0

A- building B- building

Longitudinal

1.0 1.0 Longitudinal

M01

Normalized amplitude

Normalized amplitude

M01

0.0 0.0

- 1.0 - 1.0

- 2.0 - 2.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Time(sec) (sec)

Fig. 11 Free vibration responses by RDM and envelop curves by LSM

13

The predominant frequency of the velocity time histories is 2.75 to 3.0 Hz. The frequency

range of 2 to 4 Hz which includes the predominant frequency of buildings is kept. The

filtered spectra are converted to the time histories. After the times when maximum velocities

occur are set to be zero in time and the data of 5 seconds in period from that times are

superposed. The total measured records are used in the RDM, the number of superposition is

around 10,000 (refer to Table 4). The resulting time histories are normalized by the

amplitudes at time of zero and the damping factors are obtained, applied the least square

method (LSM) using 8 maximum data in time histories.

The results of free vibration response by the RDM and envelop curves by LSM with

buildings and their directions are shown in Fig. 11. The envelop curves show good

agreements with the free vibration response by the RDM. Table 4 summarizes whole results

of damping factors. The damping ratios are not so scattered. The average damping factors are

5.5 to 6.0 % and 6.5 to 6.9 %, in the transverse and longitudinal directions, respectively.

The damping factors of the buildings are evaluated based on the data of free vibration due

to force vibration of building generated by human oscillator. The time history data are

arranged by band pass filter (2 to 4 Hz). Appropriate data according to the duration of free

vibration in all of the filtered data are picked up as presented in Fig. 12. The data in period of

55 to 60 s are selected in this case. The damping ratios are identified through the LSM based

on the data, using following equation.

A- building B- building

*1 *2 *1 *2

data set

0 (Hz) %) N data set

0 (Hz) %) N

A- TM01 2.75 6.51 1801 B- TM01 3.00 5.81 1472

A- TM02 2.95 5.97 1796 B- TM02 2.75 5.04 1478

A- TM03 2.85 5.82 1779 B- TM03 2.90 6.17 1485

Transverse A- TM04 2.85 5.73 1771 B- TM04 2.75 5.04 1460

A- TM05 2.85 5.10 1777 B- TM05 2.80 5.96 1469

A- TM06 2.90 6.67 1796 B- TM06 2.80 5.32 1468

average 2.86 5.97 1787 average 2.83 5.56 1472

A- LM01 2.80 5.57 1785 B- LM01 3.00 7.48 1524

A- LM02 2.90 5.07 1772 B- LM02 2.80 7.75 1519

A- LM03 2.80 7.40 1792 B- LM03 2.80 7.45 1520

Longitudinal A- LM04 2.95 7.27 1833 B- LM04 2.80 5.99 1505

A- LM05 2.85 7.51 1833 B- LM05 2.90 6.16 1495

A- LM06 3.10 6.46 1823 B- LM06 2.90 6.31 1515

average 2.90 6.55 1806 average 2.87 6.86 1806

* 1natural frequency obtained by peak of Fourier spectrum

* 2Number of overlapping for each data set

14

D = D0 exp( h 0t ) cos( (1 h 2 ) 0t ) (3)

Examples of time histories of observed free vibration and identified envelop curves are

drawn in Fig. 13. Since the time histories of free vibration have some dependency on

0.01

Velocity(mkine)

0.005

0

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

0 20 40 60 80 Time(s) 100

0.01

Velocity(mkine)

0.005

0

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

55 57 59 61 63 Time(s) 65

f1=2.91Hz, h1=4.95%) y=exp(-h1*2*f1*t)

1

0.5

Normalized

Amplitude

0

-0.5

-1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Times1.0

A-building (Transverse)

A-building, Longitudinal Velocity (normalized)

(f1=2.75, h1=5.88%) y=exp(-h1*2*f1*t)

1

0.5

Normalized

Amplitude

0

-0.5

-1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Times 1

A-building (Longitudinal)

Fig. 13 Identified envelop curves of free vibration response

15

Table 5 Damping factors of buildings by forced vibration

A-building B-building

f1 (Hz) h1 (%) f1 (Hz) h1 (%)

Transverse direction 2.91 4.95 2.75 5.66

Longitudinal direction 2.75 5.88 2.72 4.90

Table 5 shows representatives of damping factors with buildings and directions. In the

transverse direction, the damping factors by forced vibration are a little less than those by

microtremors. In the longitudinal direction, the damping factors by forced vibration are

smaller by 1 to 2 % than those by microtremors. Since the number of obtained damping

factors by forced vibration is very small, the quantitative evaluation is difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

microtremor measurements are conducted. Through several methods, fundamental

predominant frequencies and damping factors of residential buildings are calculated. The

fundamental predominant frequencies are obtained from the transfer functions of the systems

including vibration modes of sway, rocking and buildings. The damping factors are evaluated

from microtremor and forced vibration data. The damping factors based on microtremor data

are got using the random decrement method (RDM).

The ratios of predominant frequencies of SSI systems to those of building with base fixed

condition are 0.75 0.78 in longitudinal direction. Effects of sway mode on the predominant

frequencies are founded. In the transverse direction, the ratios of predominant frequencies of

SSI systems to those of building with base fixed condition are 0.68 0.70. In the transverse

direction, the effects of rocking mode are remarkable.

The damping ratios by the RDM are not so scattered. The average damping factors are 5.5

to 6.0 % and 6.5 to 6.9 %, in the transverse and longitudinal directions, respectively. The

damping factors by forced vibration are a little less than that by microtremors. In the

longitudinal direction, the damping factors by forced vibration are smaller by 1 to 2 % than

those by microtremors. Since the number of obtained damping factors by forced vibration is

very small, the quantitative evaluation is difficult. More data are necessary to discuss the

damping factors and the effect of radiation damping.

16

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

The research on soil structure interaction is conducted in the research group which treats

the theme of Seismic behaviors of building and its near ground. The research is conducted

under the Tsukuba Research Institute Council. The authors express their sincere thanks the

members of the research group for their help of microtremor measurements.

REFERENCES

Introduction of Soil Structure Interaction in Calculation of Response and Limit Strength-,

Proceeding of 2nd U.S. Japan Soil Structure Interaction Workshop

Midorikawa, M., Hiraishi, H., et al., 2000. Development of Seismic Performance Evaluation

Procedures in Building Code of Japan, Proceedings of 12th World Conference of Earthquake

Engineering, Auckland, Paper no. 2215

Stewart J. P. and G. L. Fenves, 1998. System Identification for Evaluating Soil-Structure Interaction

Effects in Buildings from Strong Motion Recordings, EESD, 27, 869 pp.

Tamura, Y. and J. Sasaki and H. Tsukagoshi, 1993. Evaluation of Damping Ratios of Randomly

Excited Buildings Using the Random Decrement Technique, Journal of Structural and

Construction Engineering, No. 545, 29 pp. (in Japanese)

Yagi, S., N. Fukuwa and J. Tobita, 2002. Influence of Rotational Foundation Input Motion Due to

Rayleigh Wave on Transfer Function Estimation, Journal of Structural and Construction

Engineering, No. 552, 77 pp. (in Japanese)

17

- Volume 4 Issue 1Uploaded byIJAET Journal
- Dynamics of Structures Volume 2 - Applications ChowdhuryUploaded byFernando Martinez Soto
- Resonance Revealed - Vibrations MagazineUploaded byJorge Gonzalez
- Beta New API Standard 618Uploaded byDae Ick Kim
- Shell Finite Element Modeling of CANDU FeedersUploaded byWaseem Hassan
- 2007_1Uploaded byPranav Swaroop
- Ni Accelerometer PrinciplesUploaded byDhananjay J Ganvir
- IOBP Training Manual - Vibrating ScreenUploaded byafifraiyan
- Cb m Decision Making WithUploaded byho-fa
- Ji - Prediction of floor vibrations.pdfUploaded byubacyt
- Mid Term EvaluationUploaded byMuhammad Farooq
- Twisted Timeshenko BeamsUploaded byPavan Kishore
- 3- Liste Des Publications - KPEKYUploaded byFessal Kpeky
- art_10.1007_s12205-013-0261-9.pdfUploaded byrolohe15207
- 1-s2.0-S0926580511000690-mainUploaded bySalman Haider
- Stochastic Approach to Modelling of Near-periodic Jumping LoadsUploaded byAhmed Salim
- fatigue ppt 1Uploaded byNripendra Mishra
- Lesson 1Uploaded byAndrei Alex
- Advanced FEMA of Dry Docks and Waterfront StructuresUploaded byrafaelberbert
- 6th Sem Course DiaryUploaded byRaj Manova
- VibracionesUploaded byManuel Silva Balocchi
- 01 Comparison Lattice With and Without TMDUploaded byArchip Lucian Alexandru
- LIS032 Sayed AhmedUploaded byJorge Gastelum Piña
- Noise and Vibration ServicesUploaded bystefano lovato
- 62 1470032872_01-08-2016.pdfUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- 31-35Uploaded bygiovtg
- 4-131Manual.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Fahmi Mahmud
- Vibrations.pdfUploaded bySnissa Karim
- 2nd Internal 2.pdfUploaded byKannan K
- Clockwork Verification Manual.pdfUploaded byGonzalo Guerrero Cáceres

- Non-Linear Static Push Over AnalysisUploaded bymrnicus
- FEMA303.pdfUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- FootingsUploaded byJosé Eduardo Silva Nunes
- AISC 13.0 Properties ViewerUploaded byJosé González
- Perform Components and ElementsUploaded bytgsergiu
- Prying Action Analysis Per AISC 9th Edition (ASD)Uploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- Rectangular Concrete Beam Analysis - Design per ACI 318-99.xlsUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- BASEPLT9Uploaded byHomero Silva
- EJEM_02Uploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- Curva 01Uploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- Compressor-Motor-Types-and-Start-RelaysUploaded byildiko1234
- sma_700UUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- SMA SI2012 2224 Technical DescriptionUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- e Book Chapter 1Uploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- TopconCatalogueIEV11Uploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- 14-partslistUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- acccompressorsUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs
- 258 Fridge FreezerUploaded byAnonymous w5SJiLs

- Push Over Analysis for Concrete Structures at Seismic Zone-3 Using ETABS SoftwareUploaded bymahmood
- Game Plan (1)Uploaded bykasramz15_938426033
- IEEE_1527 - Recommended Practice for the Design of Flexible Buswork Loca...Uploaded bydavidrhg
- Mud Diapirs and Mud Volcanoes in Depressions of Java to MaduraUploaded byMuhammad Rezza
- Storm Water Pump Station Design GuideUploaded byAbraham Jyothimon
- Disaster ManagementUploaded byKallyani Rawale
- Civil Engineering_ Etabs Element Type, Ductility, Sway.pdf Difference of Sway Special, Intermediate, Ordinary and Non-swayUploaded bykhaled
- Ukk Bahasa Inggris Kelas XUploaded byMikhael Candra
- GEOENGUploaded bySidharth Mahajan
- Engr. John Michael GargulloUploaded byHendrix Rivera Ortega
- 2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Horizontal PGA for Sweden Finland and Denmark Using Different Logic Tree Approaches 2000 Soil Dynamics and EarUploaded byEric Chien
- Bushido RPG Encounter TableUploaded byGiles Metcalfe
- CE518Uploaded byAkhilesh B.M
- Nuke the Quakes...Uploaded byRaul Gubert
- Pushover Analysis using ETABS and SAP2000Uploaded byapirakq
- M.E. Structural Engineering R15 SyllabusUploaded bykrpsatheesh
- Seismic Design EC8Uploaded byliviubajenaru
- Wave Motion and SoundUploaded byyididiyayib
- 113583345-Barangay-Disaster-Risk-Reduction-Management-Plan (1).pdfUploaded byMelanie Mijares Elias
- The Concept of Cumulative Ductility Strength SpecUploaded byVictor Vargas
- Structural & Stratigraphic Traps.docUploaded bycatarac19
- Summary 1Uploaded byAnirudh Saboo
- [Mathematical Modelling in Civil Engineering] Comparative Study of Codes for Seismic Design of StructuresUploaded byEnamullah
- UNITEN ICCBT 08 Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis in Earthquake EngineeringUploaded byvttrlc
- IS230bCourseUploaded bygnotul17
- Session 01 Introduction to Risk AssessmentUploaded byomar
- EN 1998-4-2006Uploaded byS Dutta
- NZ Ground Investigation Specification Vol 1Uploaded byKTMO
- dfdsfsdffdfdffffffffffffffff.docxUploaded byAvikshit Yeri
- 08 Chapter 3Uploaded byNilay Gandhi

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.