Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Time history response analysis of a slender tower under translational- T

rocking seismic excitations
⁎
Bońkowski Piotr Adama, , Zembaty Zbigniewa, Minch Maciej Yanb
a
Opole University of Technology, Poland
b
Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Two records from 6-dof ground motion monitoring of induced seismic events are applied to study seismic re-
Rotational component sponse of a slender tower under horizontal-rotational excitations. The response of 160 m reinforced concrete,
Time history analysis industrial chimney is investigated under moderately intensive, simultaneously acting translational-horizontal
Seismic analysis and rocking components of the ground motion (rotation about horizontal axis). Time history response analysis
Structural response
shows substantial contribution of rotational excitations in the flexural vibrations of the chimney: 18% in the
Slender towers
upper part and 65% at the base. The paper demonstrates that overall response of slender towers can effectively
Chimneys
be studied only by using credible, 6-dof seismic records because of the important role of interaction of horizontal
and rotational excitations, in which frequency contents and proper phases of excitation records play important
role in the structural response. Results of such analyses with more and more intensive records are important for
future calibrations of seismic design codes using response spectrum approach, as in the case of Eurocode 8, part
6: Towers, masts and chimneys.

1. Introduction
In conventional design of slender towers or tall buildings it is the
horizontal component of seismic ground motion that is treated as the
primary seismic load. For a long time, however, researchers (e.g.
Rosenblueth [1], Newmark and Rosenblueth [2], Trifunac [3]) have
predicted the presence of additional rotational excitations. Since any
point on the ground surface may be subjected to three translations u(t),
v(t) and w(t) along x, y and z-axes, respective three rotations can be
measured about these axes (Fig. 1). One of the horizontal axes can be
directed towards epicenter. Such system of axes was called principal by
Penzien and Watabe [4]. This is because respective cross-correlations of
the seismic signals were demonstrated by Penzien and Watabe, to hold
tensor properties with the transformation of the coordinate system. In
Fig. 1 these six components of ground motion are shown on the ground
surface. The ground rotations ψ(t) and θ(t) about horizontal axes x and y
are named rocking, while the rotation about vertical axis z is called
torsion. An alternative nomenclature is taken from ship engineering and
aeronautics that leads to names pitch, roll and yaw respectively.
Better knowledge of these additional rotational excitations may
substantially improve our predictions of seismic vibrations of tall
buildings or slender towers and add substantial non-conservative
seismic load to design codes (Fig. 2), [5]. Indeed, even small
contribution of the rocking excitations about any horizontal axis may
dominate the vibrations of a high slender building, additionally mag-
nified by P-Δ effects.
For many years there was no agreement among seismologists with
respect to the importance of the rotational seismic effects and their
eventual contribution in the overall seismic ground vibrations (see e.g.
the footnote in Richter's Elementary Seismology [6], where he under-
mined the importance of rotational ground motions). Initially the ro-
tational seismic effects were analyzed from theoretical perspective [7]
and sporadically indirectly observed [8,9], or retrieved from transla-
tional records of pendulum seismographs [5,10–12] using sophisticated
techniques based on detailed analyses of the response of pendulum
systems to seismic excitations [13,14]. Using this method, Graizer re-
trieved credible rotational seismic record with tilt reaching 3.1° [12].
Recently, measuring techniques matured enough to propose numerous
sophisticated sensors for vehicle and aerospace industry (e.g. [15,16])
or in civil engineering to better monitor inter-story drift [17] and
bending of beams [18]. Appropriate devices to acquire rotational
seismic ground motions were finally developed (e.g. [19]). With sub-
stantial successes in collecting small, teleseismic rotations (e.g. [20])
and the publication of special issues of the Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America [21] and Journal of Seismology [22] the subject of
investigating rotational seismic effects was announced as an emerging

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: p.bonkowski@po.opole.pl (P.A. Bońkowski).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.042
Received 19 April 2017; Received in revised form 16 November 2017; Accepted 20 November 2017
Available online 25 November 2017
0141-0296/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.A. Bońkowski et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393

IMI_20151212_043336 (T N-S)vs(R E-W)

0.05
Epicenter Site u(t) 0.7
0.03
x 0.2 0.01

rad/s2
ɽ(t)

m/s2
Rocking (pitch) ʗ(t) -0.01
-0.3
Rocking (roll) TRANS
-0.03
ROT
-0.8 -0.05
v(t) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t[s]
y
IMI_20151212_043336 (T N-S)vs(R E-W)
1
੮(t)
Torsion (yaw)
w(t) 0.5
TRANS
z ROT
0
Fig. 1. Configuration of 6 components of surface ground motion. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
[Hz]

Fig. 4. Ground motion of translational N-S and rotational E-W directions, recorded on
December 12th 2015.

IMI_20151212_043336 (T E-W)vs(R N-S)

0.04
0.7
0.03
0.02
0.2 0.01

rad/s2
m/s2
0
-0.01
-0.3
TRANS -0.02
ROT -0.03
-0.8 -0.04
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t[s]

IMI_20151212_043336 (T E-W)vs(R N-S)

1

0.5
TRANS
ROT
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
[Hz]
Fig. 2. Sketch of horizontal and rotational ground motion components acting on a high,
slender structure. Fig. 5. Ground motion of translational E-W and rotational N-S directions, recorded on
December 12th 2015.
1.20E-03
PGVrot about horizontal "NS" axis
Peak rotaƟonal velocity [rad/s]

y = 0.0512x IMI_20151214_071053 (T N-S)vs(R E-W)

1.00E-03 0.6 0.03
0.4 0.02
8.00E-04
0.2 0.01

rad/s2
m/s2

6.00E-04 0 0
-0.2 -0.01
4.00E-04 TRANS
-0.4 ROT -0.02
2.00E-04 -0.6 -0.03
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t[s]
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 5.00E-03 1.00E-02 1.50E-02 2.00E-02 2.50E-02 IMI_20151214_071053 (T N-S)vs(R E-W)
1
Horizontal peak velocity PGVhor [m/s]

Fig. 3. Peak rotational velocity (PGVrot) versus horizontal spatial peak ground velocity 0.5
(PGVhor) from measuring program reported by Zembaty et al. [32]. Solid dots stand for
TRANS
records further analyzed in this paper (Table 1). ROT
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
branch of seismology. [Hz]

For the purpose of earthquake engineering, one needs however to
collect strong rotational records, preferably measured in epicentral
areas of major earthquakes. This would require to upgrade numerous
existing strong motion stations with properly designed rotational strong
motion sensors and wait for major earthquakes with epicenters in close
proximity to the stations. Currently, primary activity of seismologists is
concentrated on collecting weak, tele-seismic rotational records. For
these reasons acquiring good, credible strong rotational signals may
still take many years. In the meantime engineers are investigating
methods to assess rotational ground motion from studies of the seismic
Fig. 6. Ground motion of translational N-S and rotational E-W directions, recorded on
December 14th 2015.
wave field ([3]). Such the approach was later continued in numerous,
detailed investigations ([23–29]). In order to properly model seismic
excitations of tall buildings and slender towers one needs however si-
multaneous modelling of strong horizontal and rotational seismic ef-
fects and the key question arises about the actual proportion of the
horizontal to rotational ground motions. Proper verification of any

388
P.A. Bońkowski et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393

IMI_20151214_071053 (T
( E-W)vs(R
) ( N-S)) IMI_20151212_043336 (R N-S) & (T E-W)
0.5 0.05 TIP Displacement
0.003
0.3 0.03
0.002
m/s2

0.1 0.01

rad/s 2
0.001
-0.1 -0.01
0

m
TRANS
-0.3 ROT -0.03
-0.001
-0.5 -0.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 -0.002 TRANS
t[s] ROT
-0.003
IMI_20151214_071053 (T E-W)vs(R N-S)
1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t [s]

0.5 Fig. 9. Time-history responses to separate translational and rotational excitations - tip
displacements.
TRANS
ROT
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 IMI_20151212_043336 (R N-S) & (T E-W)
[Hz] Base Bending Moment
15000
Fig. 7. Ground motion of translational E-W and rotational N-S directions, recorded on
December 14th 2015. 10000
5000

Table 1 0

kNm
Detailed data of records used in the article. -5000

Number Description PGA [m/ PGArot [rad/ -10000 TRANS

ROT
s2 ] s2] -15000
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1 Event with mL = 2.6: E-W 0.800 0.040733 t[s]
IMI_20151212_043336; N-S 0.490 0.032348
2 Event with mL = 2.2: E-W 0.438 0.022619 Fig. 10. Time-history responses to separate translational and rotational excitations -
IMI_20151214_071053; N-S 0.462 0.037887 bending moment at the base.

Table 2
6.64 m (d=0.30 m) Comparison of tip displacements and base bending momenta obtained using simultaneous
rotational and translational ground motion components with actual sign (“Normal ac-
tion”) and opposite sign of rotational component (“Counter action”), together with the
SRSS rule used to combine rotational and horizontal excitations.

Description Tip displacements [m]

Normal Counter SRSS

action action
100.00 m
1.5%

IMI_20151212_043336 (R E-W)&(T 0.001947 0.002958 0.002898

N-S)
(R N-S)&(T 0.003642 0.002329 0.002893
E-W)
IMI_20151214_071053 (R E-W)&(T 0.001144 0.001658 0.001528
N-S)
(R N-S)&(T 0.001473 0.001092 0.001458
160.00 m

E-W)

Description Bending moments at base [kNm]

Normal Counter SRSS

9.64 m (d=0.50 m) action action

IMI_20151212_043336 (R E-W)&(T 5466 12293 9775

N-S)
(R N-S)&(T 15330 10347 11435
60.00 m
2.0%

E-W)
IMI_20151214_071053 (R E-W)&(T 4602 7317 7176
N-S)
(R N-S)&(T 7483 6070 5985
E-W)

12.04 m (d=0.80 m)
Fig. 8. Sketch of the analyzed structure.
answer to the above question requires simultaneous recording of hor-
izontal and rotational effects during intensive ground shakings. While
still waiting for records from major earthquakes one can try to apply
less intensive, yet easier to acquire triggered and induced seismic ef-
fects. These effects, occurring in the areas of deep mining, may reach
magnitude 4 [30] or even exceed 5 (e.g. [31]).
Recently, a measuring program was initiated in the Silesian Coal
Basin with a goal to acquire 6-dof signals (Fig. 1) of induced ground
tremors. First results have been already published [32]. Although these
are still not very strong ground motions, as expected in a longer per-
spective of the measuring program, they are intensive enough to excite

389
P.A. Bońkowski et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393

Fig. 11. Charts showing envelopes of bending mo-

IMI_20151212_043336 IMI_20151212_043336
ments and normalized capacity along structure
(R E-W) & (T N-S) (R E-W) & (T N-S) height for ground motion recorded on December
160 160 12th 2015. ROT – effects of ground rotations only;
TRANS – effects of ground translations only; ROT
“+” TRANS - effects of horizontal ground transla-
140 140
tions and rotations acting simultaneously.

120 120

100 100

Height [m]
Height [m]

80 80

60 60
ROT ROT
TRANS TRANS
40 40 ROT "+" TRANS
ROT "+" TRANS

20 20

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00%
Bending moment [kNm] Demand/Capacity RaƟo

IMI_20151212_043336 IMI_20151212_043336
(R N-S) & (T E-W) (R N-S) & (T E-W)
160 160

140 140

120 120

100 100
Height [m]

Height [m]

80 80

60 60
ROT ROT
TRANS TRANS
40 ROT "+" TRANS 40
ROT "+" TRANS

20 20

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%
Bending moment [kNm] Demand/Capacity RaƟo

moderate structural vibrations with approximately Modified Mercalli
(MM) intensity IV.
The purpose of this paper is to present results of calculations of the
seismic response of a 160 m high, reinforced concrete, industrial
chimney subjected to combined horizontal and rocking excitations
measured during moderately intensive ground tremors. The application
of two simultaneously acquired records of horizontal and rotational
ground motions in time history response integration makes it possible
to study the actual interaction of translational and rotational excitations
in structural response. This is important because the superposition of
these two effects depends on frequency contents and actual signs and
directions of these two records. Such interaction effects are not possible
to be reliably investigated using the theoretical wave decompositions at
the site.
2. Rotational records from induced seismic events
The ground motion monitoring of Upper Silesian Coal Basin
includes a free-field ground motion station located in the “Ziemowit”
mine area of deep mining. In Fig. 3 peak ground rotations about hor-
izontal axis vs. peak horizontal excitations are plotted for 50 events
recorded during the early stage of 6-dof signals recording program. An
approximate, linear trend between low level, translational and rota-
tional ground motions is observed. However, as could be expected, with
increasing ground motion intensity, roughly measured by translational
PGV, a departure from this trend can be seen. For more intensive
ground motions of PGV exceeding 20 cm/s, the proportion of horizontal
to rotational intensity is still unknown. This proportion is crucial to
properly asses the contribution of rotational effects in overall seismic
structural vibrations. So far, records of up to PGV = 2 cm/s are ac-
quired, which roughly corresponds to MM = IV intensity [33].
In Figs. 4–7 selected two, the most intensive horizontal ground
motion records along translational axis and respective rocking acting in
the same plane, taken from the measuring program reported by Zem-
baty et al. [32], are presented together with their respective Fourier
spectra. Rotational accelerations were obtained by differentiating

390
P.A. Bońkowski et al. Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393

Fig. 12. Charts showing envelopes of bending mo-

IMI_20151214_071053 IMI_20151214_071053
ments and normalized capacity along structure
(R E-W) & (T N-S) (R E-W) & (T N-S) height for ground motion recorded on December
160 160 14th 2015. ROT – effects of ground rotations only;
TRANS – effects of ground translations only; ROT
“+” TRANS - effects of ground translations and
140 140
rotations acting simultaneously.

120 120

100 100
Height [m]

Height [m]
80 80

60 60
ROT ROT
TRANS TRANS
40 ROT "+" TRANS 40 ROT "+" TRANS

20 20

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00%
Bending moment [kNm] Demand/Capacity RaƟo

IMI_20151214_071053 IMI_20151214_071053
(R N-S) & (T E-W) (R N-S) & (T E-W)
160 160

140 140

120 120

100 100
Height [m]
Height [m]

80 80

60 60
ROT ROT
40 TRANS 40 TRANS
ROT "+" TRANS ROT "+" TRANS
20 20

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00%
Bending moment [kNm] Demand/Capacity RaƟo

respective rotation rate records. A characteristic shift of the frequency
content predicted also by theoretical considerations (e.g. [3,29]) can be
observed. Effectively from the two recordings of Table 1, one can use
four independent excitation pairs ‘rotation-translation’ to study seismic,
plane structural vibrations. For all Figs. 4–7 translational records are
plotted together with those rotational ones that induce the same plane
vibrations of the structure under the translational-rocking excitations
(see Figs. 1 and 2). Respective ‘+’ signs of sensors are important to be
properly identified and are shown in the insets to Figs. 4–7. Should
these signs be mistaken, the translations and rotations will act in
counteraction that would lead to different results of structural response
computations.
3. Modelling of seismic response to horizontal-rocking excitations
Consider a slender structure under plane, horizontal-rocking ex-
citations (Fig. 6). Respective equation of motion of a discrete dynamic
system modelling the structure takes following form:
M q̈ + C q̇ + Kq = −[mu¨ (t ) + ({mh}) θ¨ (t )] (1)
where M, C and K are mass, damping and stiffness matrices respec-
tively.
q̈ = q̈ (t ),q̇ = q̇ (t ),q = q (t ) – are acceleration, velocity and dis-
placement vectors describing degrees of freedom of the structure.
m – vector comprising the translational masses in the horizontal
direction of the translational excitation. This vector coincides with the
main diagonal of the mass matrix M if u includes only the translational
displacements in horizontal direction of the excitations, while symbol
{mh} denotes vector consisting of mihi values, where mi and hi stand for
elements of vectors m and h.
u¨ (t ) – translational, horizontal ground accelerations.
θ¨ (t ) – rotational, rocking accelerations of the base (about horizontal
axis ‘y’ of Fig. 1).
h – vector consisting of elevations of the degrees of freedom above
ground surface.
Eq. (1) can be used in the classic implementation of time-history
integrations to obtain maxima of structural responses to seismic

391
P.A. Bońkowski et al.
excitations.
4. Comparative study
Seismic ground excitations described in the previous chapter are
now applied in time history analyses of seismic effects on a 160 m in-
dustrial, reinforced concrete chimney. The basic geometry of the
structure is shown in Fig. 8. More information can be found in the
monograph [34], paper by Zembaty [35] or in the paper [36]. The
chimney was designed for wind effects only. For the purposes of this
analysis the structure was divided into 17 finite elements.
Time history response analyses have been performed as planar, so
from each set of the recordings separate responses in two planes were
calculated:
(a) translations in the North-South (T N-S) direction interacting with
rotations about East-West axis (R E-W);
(b) translations in the East-West (T E-W) direction interacting with
rotations about North-South axis (R N-S).
In Figs. 9 and 10 time history responses of the chimney are pre-
sented as excited separately by translational (N-S) and rocking excita-
tions (about E-W axis). A shift in phase observed in these responses
suggests complicated interaction of the two components. This is de-
monstrated in Table 2, where maxima of responses in selected places
are given together with response maxima calculated with the assump-
tion of opposite sign of the rotational component and with the as-
sumption of adding the responses using the SRSS rule (Square Root of
the Sum of Squares). The latter corresponds with typical building code
assumptions used in connection with the applications of response
spectrum method. This is also the case of the only code which takes into
account rotational effects: Eurocode 8 part 6, ANNEX A, rule (10) –
[37,38].
SRSS = ROT 2 + TRANS 2 (2)
It can be seen from Table 2 that the actual sign of rotational com-
ponent matters in a very substantial amount. The interaction of the
horizontal and rocking excitations, even with low contribution of ro-
tational effects, is substantially changed with the change of sign of
rocking component. The same is true for the SRSS assumption of the
two load combinations. Respective response maxima differ up to 59%,
which means that one has to rethink how to combine horizontal and
rocking response spectra in the overall seismic response. The interac-
tion of these two loads is very important in seismic response calcula-
tions.
In Figs. 11 and 12(a–d) bending moments are presented along the
height of the chimney. It can be seen that seismic effects are particu-
larly pronounced not only at the base, but also at about 2/3 of the
chimney height. This phenomenon results from particular excitations of
the 2nd mode of vibrations and specific ratios of cross section capacity
to stresses along the chimney height for chimneys optimally designed
for the wind loads rather than for the seismic effects (see [35]). It can be
seen, that rotational effects contribute in bending moments up to 65%
at the base and 18% at about the 2/3 of height. These effects are also
substantially pronounced for relative stresses calculated with respect to
bending moment load capacity (Figs. 11 and 12). The rotational com-
ponent interacts with the translational one in a specific way, due to
their phase difference, sometimes increasing, sometimes decreasing the
structural response.
5. Summary and conclusions
Time history response analysis of the combined action of moder-
ately intensive (MM intensity about IV), horizontal and rotational
(rocking) excitations of the 160 m high r/c chimney is presented.
392
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393
Selected two records of recently acquired 6-dof ground motion records
from mine induced seismic events are applied [32]. Simultaneous
horizontal-rocking seismic action constitutes rather complicated inter-
action for which the frequency content and actual signs of rocking ex-
citations substantially matter. Such effects cannot be properly ac-
counted for when using indirect estimations of rotational ground
motions, even with sophisticated wave decomposition algorithms. This
analysis shows that the contribution of the rotational ground motion in
the overall response of a high slender tower (the 160 m r/c chimney) for
moderate excitations is very substantial, from about 18% in the upper
part to 65% at the chimney base. The measurements in search for more
and more intensive 6-dof ground motion signals should be continued
because one can expect that the proportion of ground rotations to
ground translations will strongly depend on the seismic ground motion
intensity at the site.
Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by statutory fund of Polish
Ministry of Science and Higher Education NBS15/17.
References
[1] Rosenblueth E. Tall buildings under five-component earthquakes. J Struct Div ASCE
1976;102(2):455–9.
[2] Newmark NM, Rosenblueth E. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1971.
[3] Trifunac MD. A note on rotational components of earthquake motions on ground
surface for incident body waves. Int J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 1982;1(1):11–9.
[4] Penzien J, Watabe M. Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1974;3(4):365–73.
[5] Kalkan E, Graizer V. Coupled tilt and translational ground motion response spectra.
J Struct Eng 2007;133(5):609–19.
[6] Richter CF. Elementary seismology. San Francisco (California): W. H. Freeman;
1958.
[7] Teisseyre R. Earthquake processes in a micromorphic continuum. Pure Appl
Geophys PAGEOPH 1973;102(1):15–28.
[8] Bouchon M, Aki K. Strain, tilt, and rotation associated with strong ground motion in
the vicinity of earthquake faults. Bull Seismol Soc Am Oct. 1982;72(5):1717–38.
[9] Droste Z, Teisseyre R. Rotational and displacemental components of ground motion
as deduced from data of the azimuth system of seismograph. Publ Inst Geophys Pol
Acad Sci 1976;97:157–67.
[10] Graizer VM. On inertial seismometry. Izvestya USSR Acad Sci. Phys. Solid Earth
English Ed. Publ. Amer Geophys Union Geol Soc Amer, vol. 25, no. 1; 1989. p.
26–29.
[11] Graizer VM. Inertial seismometry methods. Izvestya USSR Acad Sci. Phys. Solid
Earth Engl. Ed. Publ. Amer Geophys Union Geol Soc Amer, vol. 27, no. 1; 1991. p.
51–61.
[12] Graizer V. Tilts in strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am
2006;96(6):2090–102.
[13] Graizer V, Kalkan E. Response of pendulums to complex input ground motion. Soil
Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28(8):621–31.
[14] Graizer V. Tutorial on measuring rotations using multipendulum systems. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 2009;99(2B):1064–72.
[15] Giebeler C, Adelerhof DJ, Kuiper AET, van Zon JBA, Oelgeschläger D, Schulz G.
Robust GMR sensors for angle detection and rotation speed sensing. Sens Actuat
Phys Jun. 2001;91(1–2):16–20.
[16] Singh AK. Piezoelectric gyro sensor technology. Def Sci J 2007;57(1):95.
[17] Schreiber KU, Velikoseltsev A, Carr AJ, Franco-Anaya R. The application of fiber
optic gyroscopes for the measurement of rotations in structural engineering. Bull
Seismol Soc Am 2009;99(2B):1207–14.
[18] Zembaty Z, Kokot S, Bobra P. Application of rotation rate sensors in an experiment
of stiffness ‘reconstruction’. Smart Mater Struct 2013;22(7):077001.
[19] Wassermann J, Lehndorfer S, Igel H, Schreiber U. Performance test of a commercial
rotational motions sensor. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2009;99(2B):1449–56.
[20] Igel H, et al. Broad-band observations of earthquake-induced rotational ground
motions. Geophys J Int Jan. 2007;168(1):182–96.
[21] Lee WHK, Celebi M, Todorovska MI, Igel H. Introduction to the special issue on
rotational seismology and engineering applications. Bull Seismol Soc Am
2009;99(2B):945–57.
[22] Igel H, Brokesova J, Evans J, Zembaty Z. Preface to the special issue on advances in
rotational seismology: instrumentation, theory, observations and engineering. J
Seismol 2012;16(4):571–2.
[23] Basu D, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC. Extracting rotational components of
earthquake ground motion using data recorded at multiple stations. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn Mar. 2013;42(3):451–68.
[24] Basu D, Whittaker AS, Constantinou MC. Characterizing the rotational components
of earthquake ground motion. University at Buffalo, The State University of New
York, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical
P.A. Bońkowski et al.
Report MCEER-12-0005, Jun; 2012.
[25] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi MR. Simplified relations for the application of rotational
components to seismic design codes. Eng Struct 2014;59:141–52.
[26] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi MR, Zerva A, Ghafory-Ashtiany M. Revised seismic intensity
parameters for middle-field horizontal and rocking strong ground motions. J Struct
Eng Jan. 2017;143(1):04016155.
[27] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi MR, Ghafory-Ashtiany M. Rotational components in struc-
tural loading. Soil Dyn Earthq. Eng 2015;75:220–33.
[28] Falamarz-Sheikhabadi MR, Ghafory-Ashtiany M. Approximate formulas for rota-
tional effects in earthquake engineering. J Seismol Oct. 2012;16(4):815–27.
[29] Zembaty Z. Tutorial on surface rotations from wave passage effects: stochastic
spectral approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2009;99(2B):1040–9.
[30] Zembaty Z. Rockburst induced ground motion—a comparative study. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng Jan. 2004;24(1):11–23.
[31] McGarr A, Bicknell J, Sembera E, Green RWE. Analysis of exceptionally large tre-
mors in two gold mining districts of South Africa. Pure Appl Geophys
1989;129(3):295–307.
393
Engineering Structures 155 (2018) 387–393
[32] Zembaty Z, Mutke G, Nawrocki D, Bobra P. Rotational ground-motion records from
induced seismic events. Seismol Res Lett 2017;88(1):13–22.
[33] Trifunac MD, Brady AG. On the correlation of seismic intensity scales with the peaks
of recorded strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1975;65(1):139–62.
[34] Ciesielski R. Budownictwo betonowe. Tom XIII - Zbiorniki, zasobniki, silosy, ko-
miny i maszty. Warszawa: Arkady; 1966.
[35] Zembaty Z. On the reliability of tower-shaped structures under seismic excitations.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1987;15:761–75.
[36] Bońkowski P, Zembaty Z, Minch MY. Nonlinear interaction of initial leaning of r/c
slender tower with its seismic response. Presented at the insights and innovations in
structural engineering, mechanics and computation - proceedings of the 6th inter-
national conference on structural engineering, mechanics and computation, SEMC
2016; 2016. p. 303–8.
[37] EN 1998-6:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 6:
Towers, masts and chimneys; 2005.
[38] Zembaty Z. Rotational seismic load definition in Eurocode 8, Part 6, for slender
tower-shaped structures. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2009;99(2B):1483–5.