JOURNAL OF

winde~neednt
Journal of Wind Engineering &(~]~i~
ELSEVIER and Industrial Aerodynamics 59 (1996) 115-130

Evaluation of amplitude-dependent damping

and natural frequency of buildings during strong winds
Y u k i o T a m u r a * ' t, Shin-ya S u g a n u m a 2
Department o[ Architeetural Engineering, Facuhy ~?["Engineering, Tokyo Institute o["Polytechnics,
1583 liyama, Atsugi, Kanagawa, Japan

Abstract

This paper proposes an RDT ranked by peak amplitude for directly and effectively evaluat-
ing the amplitude dependences of dynamic phenomena. It first theoretically explains the
principle of RDT based on a conditional expectation. Then, it shows that a modified condi-
tional expectation enables the RDT to estimate amplitude dependences, and derives the RDT
ranked by the peak amplitude. Analytical and numerical examples are examined for a simple
SDOF model. The proposed technique is then applied to wind-induced response data of three
towers and the results are compared with those of the traditional technique.

Keywords': Air-traffic control tower; Damping ratio; Full-scale measurement; Natural

frequency; Nonlinear structure; Random decrement technique; Wind-induced response

1. Introduction

It is known that the dynamic characteristics of building structures, such as natural

frequency and damping ratio, depend on the vibration amplitude. The traditional
technique for evaluating this dependence is to arrange the characteristics estimated
using response records with various input levels in the order of the average amplitude.
Jeary (1986) proposed applying the random decrement technique (RDT) to ground
structures to evaluate their structural damping under random inputs, and Jeary (1992)
emphasized some advantages of the RDT in its application to non-stationary re-
sponses of nonlinear structures. Tamura et al. (1993, 1994a, b) have investigated the
amplitude dependence of natural frequency and damping ratio by using the RDT. The
traditional technique, however, disregards amplitude variations in each response

*Corresponding author.
1Professor.
ZResearch Associate.

0167-6105/96/$15.00 t': 1996 Elsevier Science BN. All rights reserved

PII S0 I 6 7 - 6 1 05 ( 9 6 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 7
116 E Tamura, X Suga,,mo/.L ~lTncl Eng. hid. Aerodvn. 59 ¢1996) 115 130

record and requires e n o r m o u s response records to evaluate the dependence over

a wide range of amplitudes.
This paper proposes an R D T ranked by peak amplitude for directly and effectively
evaluating the amplitude dependences of dynamic characteristics, First, it reintro-
duces the principle of the R D T presented by Vandiver et al. (1982) based on a condi-
tional expectation. Them it shows that a modified conditional expectation enables the
R D T to estimate amplitude dependences, and derives the R D T ranked by the peak
amplitude. Analytical and numerical examples are examined for a single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) model. After some practical notations, the proposed technique is
applied to wind-induced response records of three towers and the results are com-
pared with those obtained by the traditional technique,

2. Principle of RDT

The R D T is a technique lot estimating the dynamic characteristics of structures by

observing only the response .v(t). Consider the R a n d o m d e c signature a(r) defined by

a(r) = E l s g n [ x ( / ) ].v(t + v)l.'~(t)= 01,

where E {xlC} is the conditional expectation of.v tinder the condition C and sgn [x] is
the sign of.v. 2{t) denotes the derivative ofx(t} with respect to time t, and thus 2(¢) = 0
means that .v(/) has a peak value, say .¢:. at time t. Suppose the response x(t) is
a stationary Gaussian process with mean 0. Then

.\{t + r} sm ~ " -" (2t

+ Rx.d01) '

where .v - N(it, a-') means that the random wtriable .x" is Gaussian with mean p and
variance a-'. R,.,.{r) is the auto-correhition function of x(¢). R,..,tr) and Rx.,.{v) denote
the first and second derivative of R,.,(Tt with respect to the time lag T, respectively.
Therefore, we can write the R a n d o m d e c signature a{r) defined by Eq. (1) as

R,.d'c)
a(r) = - - " El sgn [2] 21 . (3)
R,.,(0!

Note that the R a n d o m d e c signature air) is proportional to the auto-correlation

function Rx.,(r).
The auto-correlation function R,.,(r) is considered as an a p p r o x i m a t e flee-vibration
response for r > 0, while it strictly becomes a free-vibration response on the assump-
tion that tile input acting on the structure is a white noise. N o w consider the S D O F
structure with natural frequency ~,)~,and d a m p i n g ratio ~. Eq. (3} can be rewritten as

alr~ -- E I s g n [ 2 ] ' 2 1 e (
......- c o s \ I --~'-'u;.r +
\ l ~_~2 sinx, 1 - ~ - r % r ) . (4)
 Y. Tamura, X Suganuma/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 115-130 117

Therefore, we can estimate the natural frequency C0oand the damping ratio ~ by fitting
the Randomdec signature a(r) in the form of Eq. (4) in the least-squares sense. The
popular and convenient alternative to evaluating the damping ratio ~ is to solve

fii 1)i_ ~ (_i___

-j)rc~ L" (5)
log a~ ~ ( - l x / T ~ _( 2'

where fi~ is the ith peak value of the Randomdec signature a(~) for ~ >~ 0.
As it is impossible to evaluate the conditional expectation using only a sample of
response x(t), Eq. (1) is of no practical use in itself. Assuming that the response x(t) is
ergodic, we replace the expectation with the time average
1 N
a(~) = ~ sgn[x(ti)] x(ti + ¢) , (6)
i=l .4¢(t i ) = 0

where the summation on the right-hand side denotes the conditional summation with
respect to t~ which satisfies :~(t~) = 0.

3. Application to evaluation of the amplitude dependences

3.1. RDT ranked by the peak amplitude

It is a good idea to modify the condition on which the conditional expectation is

evaluated in Eq. (1). Consider another version of the Randomdec signature a(2;r)
defined by
a(2; r) - E{sgn[x(t)] x(t + r)[ 2(t) = 0, x(t) = _'~}. (7)
This version attempts to estimate the dynamic characteristics of a structure related to
a particular amplitude 2~taking account of the response x(t) only near the peak value
.,L As mentioned above, the condition 2(t) = 0 in Eq. (7) requires x(t) to be the peak
value. Therefore, the beginning part of the Randomdec signature a(2; r) is expected to
be related to the characteristics of the hysteresis loop with amplitude 2. The reason
why we adopt this condition is that the amplitude dependence of the damping ratio,
corresponding to the energy dissipated in a cycle, is understandable when expressed
by the amplitude of the cycle. However, the formulation of the amplitude dependen-
ces must be closely connected with the damping mechanism, and the necessity of this
condition leaves room for discussion. If the response x(t) is a stationary Gaussian
process with mean 0, it immediately follows from Eq. (2) that
R~x(z)
a(?e; r) - x. (8)
Rxx(0)

The following simple model is considered to show the significance of Eq. (7). The
model represents the time-varying SDOF system in which the natural frequency
~Oo and the damping ratio ~ depend on the amplitude of the previous peak Xp. Thus,
the dynamic characteristics are constant between two neighboring peaks, i.e., the
118 Y. Tamura. ,5. Su,gammm../. Uind EnV. lnd .4ero~tvn. 59 (1996) 115 130

model is piecewise linear time-invariant. The amplitude dependence of the d a m p i n g

ratio is defined by

= ~,, + ¢ l X p . (9)

Strict calculation of Eq. (7) is very difficult, so the interval between two neighboring
peaks is assumed Io be half lhe current natural period. Therefore, the amplitude
dependence of the natural frequency ires no effect on the discussion. Using the
characteristics of the Gaussian randorn variable and the first-order approximation of
the exponential function, we obtain

t',+, = e ..... (2rc-~; P~ + d / P i ) + R~, 0)[1 e 2~C'(d,- nClci)].

where di(2) is the ith peak amplitude of the R a n d o m d e c signature a(2: r) for r ~> 0.
Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (5) for several peak values 2, the analytically estimated
damping ratios are calculated as shown in Fig. 1. In this figure, each marker denotes
the relation between the ith peak wflue of the R a n d o m d e c signature a(.',; r) and the
d a m p i n g ratio estimated using the ith half period. The estimated d a m p i n g ratios tend
to be overestimated as i increases and this trend is remarkable at small peak values.
Note that the R a n d o m d e c signature a(2; T) is neither a free-vibration response of the
time-varying model nor one of the time-invariant system with damping ratio ~(.~).

'z'~ ' ' ' ! ~ L t L~ .i ' _2 ~ 2 _ _ I J ' ' F

...................................
i.. I I I I I I A A A A A A A ..-

i I/VVVVVVV,,, ,.
~- 5 ..........~ .........................i.~ 7 ...... ~. . . . . . : ..-
* I ....... ~ = l+Xp[%l ]
O

c~ i ,\', * 1.00
........~].~alD.......... . . . . (~.25 • 1.2.s ,-
"E
r-,
3

, i i i J ~ J L L [ J l ~

c).5 ] !5 2
,\mpliludc

Fig. 1. Analytical csfimalc~ of tile dan]ping ratio.

 Y. Tamura, X Suganuma/J. Wind Eng. Ind Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 115-130 t 19

As the damping ratios estimated using the first half period coincide with the definition,
it is possible to evaluate the amplitude dependence by using the beginning of the
Randomdec signature a(2; r). We note that the estimated damping ratios must be
overestimated in any case.
As Eq. (1), Eq. (7) is of no practical use in itself. Assuming that the response x(t)
is ergodic, we replace the expectation with the time average. It is almost impossible,
however, to pick up many samples which satisfy the condition in Eq. (7), i.e., peak
values equal to 2. Consider the moderate condition which requires the magnitude of
peak value 2 to be within a particular range, rank R.
Then the RDT ranked by the peak amplitude is derived as

a(R; ~) = ~1 ~ sgn[x(ti)]x(ti + z) .~(t~) (11)

i= 1 =O,x(t,)~R

The amplitude dependences of the dynamic characteristics can be evaluated using the
Randomdec signatures calculated by Eq. (11) for many ranges R. In the following, lhis
procedure is called procedure A.

3.2. Numerical examples

The proposed procedure, procedure A, is examined by numerical simulation based

on a realistic condition including the amplitude dependence of the natural frequency.
The model represents the piecewise linear time-invariant SDOF system in which the
natural period To and the damping ratio ~ are defined by

To = 1 + 0.208X Is], (12)

= 1 + 3.57X [%], (13)

where X [10- 2 m] denotes the mean amplitude of the previous and subsequent peaks.
The above equations refer to the measurements by Tamura et al. (1993). The simula-
tion consists of the following steps:
(i) simulate a stationary random process which represents the fluctuating wind
force,
(ii) calculate the along-wind displacement of the model x(t),
(iii) remove the components not concerned with the fundamental mode using
a band-pass filter,
(iv) pick up all peak values and divide them into sever~il ranks based on order of
magnitude so that each rank consists of 5000 peak values,
(v) calculate the Randomdec signature a(R; ~) for each rank R using Eq. (11), and
(vi) estimate the natural periods and the damping ratios using the least-squares
approximation.
The results are shown in Figs. 2a and 2b with respect to the natural period and the
damping ratio, respectively. In this figure, each marker denotes the relation between
120 ). T a m u r a , S. S t g a n u m a ',1, l l T n d E n g . I n d . . 4 e r o e t v n . 59 (1996/ 115-130

1.25 F- . . . . . -

: ! :~ 5 /.2r,,
1.20 ........ ;; .......................... i
[]
iA AAA
Uvvvvvv
~i+4

v'
[] i - Randomdec signature
1.15
i i=1

................................:..................................i . , . . , m . . . , . . m . . . . . . , . ~ ............................. :
g:a.

Z 1.05

1.00
, - ...... h, - i + (1._08 X sec
Estimated using the first two periods [

0.95
0 0. I () 2 11.3 0.4 ()y
Amplitude l lO 2 nil
(a)

10 ] - - -

• ! ....... ¢ = 1 * 3.57X [%]

[ Estimated using the first two peri(xts
......................................... ] Rank (10 2 m[ * 0.162 - 0,209
• ,~k.. ] [, 0.044-(I.074 • 0.209-0.270
• c, 1").074 - 0.100 • 0.270 0,346
© ............~ ............. ~...............I • 0. I00 (I. 127 • 0.346 - 0.453
,,~ i I v 0 27 ().I62 • 0.5a,3 ..
U '* irD) ml ± . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.... ......... ..........

E
, 2 . .

o %~ i~'~ " . ",,~ - ~ i ...........

...........:~.~..~....-~....."
i.q~-., ~ , . o . . T. . i=.:::~.........................
__..~.=,.::.:.::.:.::.::.7...................

, , , , I , ~ t , I , i i i i i i L i i i L

0 (1. l 0.2 0.3 (1.4 0.5

Amplitude I10 2 mt
(I,)

Fig. 2. S i m u l a t e d e s t i m a t e s of d y n a m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : (a) n a t u r a l p e r i o d : (b) damping ratio.

the ith peak value of the Randomdec signature a(R; r) and the dynamic characteristics
estimated using the two periods beginning at the ith peak. Because of the time average
in Eq. (11), the variation of the Randomdec signature a(R; T) requires more than a half
period to estimate the dynamic characteristics. Note that the estimated damping
ratios shown in Fig. 2b have the same tendency as the analytical results shown in Fig.
1. The solid lines in Fig. 2 represent the dynamic characteristics estimated using the
first two periods of the Randomdec signature a(R; r), which reproduce the amplitude
 Y. Tamura, S. Suganuma/~ Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 115-130 121

dependences defined by Eqs. (12) and (13). It is recognized that the damping ratios are
overestimated, as expected, and that the natural periods are also overestimated.

3.3. RDT ranked by mean amplitude

Consider another version of the Randomdec signature a(Y; 3) defined by

a(,Y;r)=E{sgn[x(t)]x(t + ~)12(t)=O, ½[x(t)-x(t + Tm)]=2l, (14)
where Tm denotes the half period on average and

Rxx(Tm) = 0. (15)
Then £ means approximately the mean amplitude of the half period beginning at time
t. Based on the same assumption as for Eq. (2), we obtain
Rxx(z) - Rxx{~ - Tin) _
a(£; r) = x. (16)
Rxx(0) -- Rxx(Tm)
In particular,
a(.~; Tm) = - - 2~. (17)

It follows that the first half period of the Randomdec signature a(2; r) shows no
damping at all. Similarly, it is easy to see that the extended Randomdec signature
which includes the condition about x(t+ T) differs from a free-vibration response
before time T. Therefore, the RDT ranked by the mean amplitude makes no sense.

3.4. Estimation by the least-squares approximation

As stated above, we can estimate the natural frequency coo and the damping ratio
by fitting the Randomdec signature a(z) in the form of Eq. (4) in the least-squares
sense. Assuming that
E {sgn[2] ~} = a(0) (18)
in Eq. (4), the minimizing variables become only COo and (. However, the auto-
correlation function just approximates a free-vibration response for z > 0 and the
Randomdec signature a(z) obtained by using the time average changes. In addition,
fi(0) does not always equal 0 because of the sampling for practical calculation.
Therefore, the minimization with reduced variables sometimes leads to a curious
result, e.g., the evaluated amplitude dependence has an imaginary jump, as shown in
Fig. 3. Using the generalized form with four variables,

a ( r ) ~ Ae-;~'°* (cos x / 1 - (2CO0T -~- B sin x f l - ~ScooZ), (19)

where A and B denote dummy variables, we can obtain precise estimates at the cost of
processing time.
122 }. Tamura, S, Sugam#na,,]. ll)'nd E/lg Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 115 130

0.77
iI ! ~e Estimatedusing2 parameters~
i.~ -~ Estimatedusing 4 p a r a n ~
= 0.76
g
¢3"
: ~ ~ i * •~•e
"• "v'hD'G~ • i
0.75
........ ~ _ ~ : ; ~ 5 ~ % 7 , ............ " ........... g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ....
Z

0.74
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Arnplitude 110-2 m/s21

l'ig. 3. Example of faihlre m the least-squares approximalion.

4. Application to actual towers

The proposed procedure, procedurc A, was applied to the wind-induced response

data of three actual towers and the amplitude dependences were evaluated with
respect to the natural frequency and the damping ratio. The observed accelerations
were decomposed into x and y directions. Using only the observed responses with the
wind direction along x, we can regard the response in the x and y directions as the
along-wind and across-wind responses, respectively. The response records were an-
alyzed in the following steps:
{i) remove the components not concerned with the fundamental mode using
a band-pass filter with a bandwidth of 1 Hz,
(it) pick up all peak values and range them into several ranks based on order of
magnitude so that each rank consists of 2000 peak values,
(iii) calculate the Randomdec signature a(R: v) for each rank R using Eq. (11), and
(iv) estimate the natural fiequencies and the damping ratios using the least-squares
approximation from the first two periods.
In this study, the Randomdec signature is calculated from 2000 segments for each
rank R. However, several hundred segments can yield sufficiently accurate results,
since the segments which satisfy the condition in Eq. (11) seldom overlap each other
and are little correlated.
Tamura et al. (1993, 1994a, b) have investigated the amplitude dependence of
natural frequency and damping ratio for the same towers. In these papers, the
amplitude dependences were evaluated by arranging the dynamic characteristics,
estimated using responses with various input levels, in the order of the average
amplitude. Here, this procedure is named procedure B. Fig. 4 simply shows the
difference between procedures A and B. The results for procedure B are also plotted
in the same figures if available, although they were arranged by RMS acceleration,
based on the reasonable assumption that the mean amplitude of the peak accelera-
tions is nearly the RMS acceleration.
 E Tamura, S. Suganuma/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 115-130 123

I¢1 E
R2[

a (R2;r),~r

(a)

a(r) a(r)

•.'"" "" ".... :::.:il . . . . . . . .

Vvvv vv 'vvVUl
RMS : ~'~
t vv"vV
R M S : a2
Vv,,vvv~.,

• large-amplitude record • small-amplitude record

(b)
Fig. 4. Two procedures for evaluating the amplitude dependences: (a) procedure A; (b) procedure B.

4.1. Tower A

Tower A is a steel-framed air-traffic-control tower built on a reinforced concrete

building, as shown in Fig. 5. The tower has a 5.15 m square cross section and its overall
height is 42 m. The foundation consists of individual footings with steel-pipe piles. The
124 Y. Tamura, S. Suganuma,,.l. Wind Eng. Ind. ,4erodyn. 59 (1996) l l 5 130

I s.15 m A
Y

~"-~x - ~ N
(b)

] [5.15 m
24 m [ (a)

Fig. 5. To',*,er A: (a) ele,,ation: (b) plan.

1.05

:2

,~ 1.04 ",.~o /,:

• • 0o • • •

Z
! •
!
1.03 . . . . . i , , , ~ . . . . . . i , , ,
0 f).2 0.4 06 0,g I ._
,Alllpllttlde [ ]0 2 m/,,2
(ai

2,0
L
• Procedure A
,~ Procedurc B
&" 1.6

1.2
'K.

............. .~:
_ ~ ~: t . . , ., .........., ............., . ............................... ° ........
• ~e ••
.o,/~ ~,o o 0=
0.4
0.2 0.4 0.~ 0.8 .2
,,\mplimdc [1(}-2 m/~ j
(t,)

Fig. 6. Estimated dynamic characteristics (lox~cr A \ dircction): (a) natural frequency; Ib) damping ratio.

e x t e r i o r walls are m a d e of a s b e s t o s - c e m e n t boards. T h e r e s p o n s e s were m e a s u r e d on

the f l o o r of the a i r - t r a l t i c - c o n t r o l r o o m .
Figs. 6 and 7 show the e s t i m a t e d n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c i e s and d a m p i n g r a t i o s in the
x and y directions, respectively. In Figs. 6b and 7b, the circles represent the results for
 Y. Tamura, S. Suganuma/J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (1996) 115-130 125

1.05

ooo!
O~ go
i
e. D o ° i
i oO~ • i
1.04

1.03
0
, , ,

0.2
I ~ , , I

0.4
, , I .
,

0.6
i . . .
0.8
Amplitude [10-2 m/s2]
. .

2.0
o [ • Procedure A ]
o o o Procedure B
1.6
o
o oo

~o 1.2 ............
o oO
6 ............i............................
z ..................................................................................................................
"~, oo i i o
E o :

0.8 ............ .......... • ............ ........................

o! i
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(b) Amplitude [ 10 2 m/s2 ]

Fig. 7. Estimated dynamic characteristics (tower A y directiont: (a) natural frequency; (b) damping ratio.

procedure B, and each circle is evaluated using 2000 peaks. The natural frequencies
tend to decrease as the amplitude increases in both directions, although the natural
frequency in the y direction is about 0.005 Hz larger than that in the x direction. The
damping ratios tend to increase with the amplitude, with a few differences between the
two directions. The amplitude dependence of the damping ratio estimated by proce-
dure A nearly coincides with that evaluated by procedure B only in the x direction.
The latter is not clear in the y direction because of the scattered distribution. It is
recognized that procedure A produces better resolution than procedure B.

4.2. Tower B

Tower B is a steel-framed air-traffic-control tower built on artificial ground, as

shown in Fig. 8. The air-traffic-control room is mounted on the two huge shafts and
the overall height is 77.6 m. The tower is on the top of a basement which has a mat
foundation with steel-pipe reinforced-concrete piles. The exterior walls are made of
both precast-concrete and aluminum panels. The interior walls are autoclaved light-
weight-concrete panels. The responses were measured on the floor of the air-traffic-
control room.
126 E ]'amura, S. Suganlmm,,I. gqnd Eng. hM. Aerodvn. 59 (1996) 115 130

(a)

[]
~.'3m I 22.0m I
(b) (west view) south view)

Fig. ~. 1 ower B: (a~ plan: Ib)elevation.

0.77

0,76

0.75 ............................. . i .; ................................................... ..................................

Z

0.74
0 0,2 04 0.6 0.8
( ) Amplituclc> 11()2 m/s? I

1.6 i o

1.4

.~ 1.2 - .................
_ ~ * . . 5 . ' ; .................. .........................................................

........... 4 1 U ~ . . i ~ o . . ~ . ~ . . . ~ . a ~ . . . . .................... i...o....~ .................... ! . . . . . ......................

0.8 .~..,,,..,.~.....................!.................................. ~................................ ~................................

.g* ! :: . . . .
0.6 i :: | • Procedure A
-~7~? m
- i
' ~ ...............................................................
i
r o Procedure B • /
-: ~ ; ~ ; ~ , o~ i . . . . . . , ~ , - , ,- - , , , ~
0.4
0 0.2 (1.4 0.6 0.8
,,\mplitudc t 11) 2 mt~ I

Fig. 9. Estimated dynamic characteristics Itower B \ directionl: (al natural frequency; (b) damping ratio.

Figs. 9 a n d 10 s h o w t h e e s t i m a t e d d y n a m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in t h e x a n d y d i r e c t i o n s .
r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e d i m e n s i o n s c a u s e t h e w i n d - i n d u c e d r e s p o n s e in t h e x d i r e c t i o n
t o b e a l w a y s d o m i n a n t a n d t h e r e is ilo s i g n i f i c a n c e in c o m p a r i n g t h e r e s u l t s for t h e
t w o d i r e c t i o n s . T h e circles r e p r e s e n t t h e restllts for p r o c e d u r e B a n d e a c h circle is
 l( Tamura, S. S u g a n u m a / J . Wind Eng. Ind. A e r o d v n . 59 (1996) 1 1 5 - 1 3 0 127

0.98

0.97 ...~ ......................i............................................................................................................................................

0.95 . . . . . . , , . . . . . ' ' ' '

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 (1.5
A m p l i t u d e [ 10-2 m/s2 ]
(~)
2.0
ooi i
o ° o i i

1.6 ....~....~ ...............i.......F........................i.......................................................................................................

0 o o o i
.- o oOioo o° i
_ I~'oo°O/,I~ ~ ooOo0OOlo o
.=~ 1.2 ,"~'f~"~'~'~~~-oo
f~.~..oi .......................... *'i.................................. ~".................................

0.8 .o i........................................! • Prcxzedure A

. o~ ~o i %~ ] o Procedure B
0.4 . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . .
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
(b) A m p l i t u d e [10 .2 m/:,;2 J

Fig. 10. E s t i m a t e d d y n a m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( t o w e r B y d i r e c t i o n ) : (a) n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c y ; (b) d a m p i n g r a t i o .

evaluated from 1 hour of data, corresponding to about 3500 peaks. Note that the
results using procedure A are obtained from much fewer data than those using
procedure B. The natural frequencies tend to decrease as the amplitude increases in
both directions and, at the same time, the declination diminishes as the amplitude
increases. The damping ratio in the x direction increases with the amplitude and then
becomes almost constant for large amplitudes, while the damping ratio in the
y direction is nearly constant regardless of the amplitude. The amplitude dependence
of the damping ratio estimated by procedure A nearly coincides with that evaluated
by procedure B. Again, it is recognized that procedure A produces better resolution
than procedure B.

4.3. Tower C

Tower C is a steel-framed observatory tower 99.35 m high, as shown in Fig. 11. It has
a 16.5 m square cross section in its lower third, a 12.1 m square cross section in its
middle third and an octagonal section in its upper third. The reinforced-concrete
foundation is supported by caisson-type piles. The exterior walls are made of glassfiber-
reinforced concrete panels. Responses were measured on the top floor of the tower.
128 g. T a m u r a , S. S u g a n u m a / J . k H n d Eng. Ind. A e r o d v n . 5 9 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 1 1 5 - 1 3 0

@
Y t 12,100 I
Y N

~.~ 16,500 I
(a) x I (h)

F i g 11, To,,vcr (: la) e l e v a t i o n : (b) p l a n .

O. 68
• Procedure A
•..o.d~%..¢,.o.................................................................................. o Procedure B
0.66 • +
g i •
o :: •
0.64
i i i ~o

"~ 0 . 6 2
Z

0.60 i i n . . . . . a d d I 1 n i i J I , ' J ' ' ' i a i

0 4 8 l0 12 14 16
A m p l i t u d e I 1(t-2 m/s 21
(a)
4.0

3.5 .................................................. i .................. ...........................................................................

o 3.0
c i :+ .................................................
2.5 ................... ~.....................
c~ o
~.........IL......
•
z...,.g
i
r .................................................................................................
i } i i
E 2.0 ................... ~......• ............ i ............... o...~ ..................... i .................. + ...... ~, .. i
: ooo ~ ' o +
1.5 +
I.~.....Q.....~% ................................................. ....................... ++ [ •
o
Procedure A
Procedure B
]
1.0 , , , I L + , , , , , , , I . . . . . . I , , , ] , , ,

0 2 6 8 10 t2 14 16
(I,) A m p l i t u d e I l0 2 m / s 2 I

Fig. 12. Estimated dynamic characteristics <tower ( ' \ d i r e c t i o n ) : (a) n a t u r a l f r e q u e n c y ; (b) d a m p i n g r a t i o .

Figs. 12 and 13 show the estimated dynamic characteristics in the x and y direc-
tions, respectively. The circles represent the results for procedure B and each circle is
evaluated from 10 min of data, corresponding to about 400 peaks. The natural
frequencies tend to decrease as the amplitude increases in both directions, although
 Y. T a m u r a , S. S u g a n u m a / J . W i n d E n g . Ind. A e r o d y n . 59 (1996) 115-130 129

0.68
io • Procedure A
o Procedure B
~0.66 .......................................... ..., ......................... ..

$ 0.64 ................... ..........." ; ; ° U ;

i .......................
i
: o ~o '6 i c;i i
N 0.62
Z i ~ ! i i o

0.60
0 2 6 8 10 12 14 16
(a) Amplitude [ 10-2 m/s2 ]

4.0
i o

3.5 ...................i.......~.........i.....................~.....................i.....................i.....................~....................i ...................

cd
.o 3.0
...................~""'""o .............................. ~.....................~ ................... ~..................... i ....................~.....................
o o • o o}
.~ 2.5 ................................................... ,~.................... o',...,..+ .......... o........~ .................. i ...........................................
• o"

~ 2.0 ....... ................ ..................... , ..................... .......................................... .-.. .....................

)0 0 - - u : q i ~ ! -- - " - - -

1.5 i i ] • Procedure A 1
......................................... !'"'"o!......................................................... ii'[ o Procedure g 1'
1.0 , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , , l , i , , , , ] , , ,

0 4 8 10 12 14 16
Amplitude [10 .2 m/s2 ]
(b)

Fig. 13. Estimated dynamic characteristics (tower C y direction): (a) natural frequency; (b) damping ratio.

the natural frequency in the y direction is about 0.005 Hz smaller than that
in the x direction. The damping ratios tend to increase with the amplitude,
with a few differences between the two directions. The amplitude dependence of the
dynamic characteristics estimated by procedure A coincides in general with that
evaluated by procedure B in both directions. It is recognized that there is a qualitative
resemblance between the results for towers A and C. Note that the estimated
damping ratio shows a slightly different tendency between the two directions for
small amplitudes for both tower A and tower C, Since the dimensions, the condition
of the foundation, and the structural and architectural finishes are almost the
same in the x and y directions, the difference may be attributed to aerodynamic
damping.

5. Concluding remarks

The RDT ranked by peak amplitude was introduced for directly and effectively
evaluating the amplitude dependences of dynamic characteristics. The principle of
RDT was explained theoretically based on a conditional expectation, then it was
130 E Tamura. S. 5;uganuma,'.L Wind Eng. hul. .4erodvn. 59 (1996) 115 130

shown that the modified c o n d i t i o n a l expectation enables the R D T to estimate ampli-

tude dependences. The analytical and numerical examples were examined for the
piecewise linear time-invariant S D O F model. By using the proposed technique,
procedure A, the amplitude dependences of the n a t u r a l period and the d a m p i n g ratio
were clearly evaluated, although they were overestimated. Finally, procedure A was
applied to w i n d - i n d u c e d response data of three lowers a n d the a m p l i t u d e dependences
were evaluated with respect to the n a t u r a l frequency a n d the d a m p i n g ratio. The
results were superior in resolution to those o b t a i n e d by the traditional technique of
procedure B.

Acknowledgements

The response records were provided by Mr. R. Kohsaka, Azusa Sekkei, Dr. K. Fujii
a n d Mr. K. Miyashita, W i n d Engineering Institute Co., Ltd., a n d Mr. K. Shimada,
Shimizu C o r p o r a t i o n . The efforts of Mr. A. Sasaki a n d Mr. Y. Shoji are acknowledged
with thanks.

References
,leary, A.P. (1986) Damping ill tall buildings a mechanisnland a predictor, Earlhquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
14, 733 75(/,
Jeary, A.P. 119921 Eslablishing non-linear damping chalaclerislics of structures from non-slationary
response time-histories, Struc(. Eng. 70, 61 66.
Tamura, Y., K. Shimada and K. Hibi (1993) Wind response of a lower Ityphoon obserwltion at Nagasaki
Huis Ten Bosch Domtorenl. J. Wind Eng. lnd Aerodyn. 50. 309 318.
Tamura, Y.. M. Yamada and H. Yokota (1994al Estimation of structural damping of buildings, m: ASCE
StructuralCongf. and lASS Int. Symp.,Atlanta. USA, Vol. 2, 1012 1017.
Tamura, Y.. R. Kohsaka, O. Nakamura, K. Miyashita and V.J. Modi (1994b) Wind-inducedresponses of an
airport tower efficiencyof tuned liquid damper, in: Preprinls. East European Conf. on Wind Engineer-
ing, Warsaw, Poland. Part 1, Vol. 3, 175 184.
Vandiver, J.K., A.B. Dunwoody, R.B. Campbell and M.I. ('ook 11982) A mathematical basis for the
random decrement vibration signature analysis technique. J. Mech. Des. 104, 307 313.