Received: 23 March 2020 Revised: 14 September 2020 Accepted: 15 September 2020

DOI: 10.1002/eqe.3356

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Insights into damping ratios in buildings

Cristian Cruz1 Eduardo Miranda2

1Departmento de Obras Civiles,

Universidad Técnica Federico Santa
María, Santiago, Chile
2Department Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, California
Correspondence:
Cristian Cruz, Departamento de Obras
Civiles, Universidad Técnica Federico
Santa María, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 3939,
Santiago, Cod. Postal 8940000, Chile.
Email: cristian.cruzd@usm.cl
Abstract
This paper analyzes how soil–structure interaction affects the overall damping
ratio of multistory buildings and compares theoretical results with empirical data
inferred from seismic responses of buildings in California. A method is presented
for obtaining effective periods and damping ratios of a replacement fixed-base
multiple-degree-of-freedom structure capable of reproducing the response of a
structure with a rigid, circular foundation, sitting on an elastic half-space. Sensi-
tivity analyses are then conducted to assess the parameters influencing the soil–
structure interaction. It is shown that for a given shear wave velocity of the soil,
the aspect ratio is the parameter that primarily affects the effective damping ratio.
For the fundamental mode, the effective damping ratio decreases approximately
hyperbolically with increasing building height, causing an increment of effective
damping in squatty structures, while for slender structures the effective damping
ratio is reduced. These analytical results are compared with damping ratios
inferred from seismic responses of buildings in California. It is shown that the
variation of effective damping ratio with building height, computed analytically,
closely follows the median trend of the empirical data, indicating that the reduc-
tion in damping ratios with increasing building height that has been reported in
various studies is primarily due to soil–structure interaction. Finally, it is shown
that effective damping ratios of higher modes increase with increasing effective
modal frequency, matching the trend in empirical data. The results of this
investigation are of paramount importance, as they suggest that soil–structure
interaction primarily controls the overall damping ratio of buildings subjected to
earthquakes.

KEYWORDS
damping database, damping of higher modes, damping ratios, soil–structure interaction

1 INTRODUCTION

Estimating the seismic response of a building requires knowledge of its modal periods, mode shapes, modal participation
factors, and viscous damping ratios. The first three can be calculated from the distribution of mass and stiffness in the
building. The modal viscous damping ratios are, however, a simplified mathematical representation of the various energy
dissipation mechanisms in a building that are not explicitly included in the structural model. Consequently, they cannot be
computed directly from the geometry or the mechanical properties of the structure. The only reliable way to estimate the
modal damping ratios of a building is through the analysis of its measured dynamic response using system identification
techniques.

Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 2020;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/eqe © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1
2 CRUZ and MIRANDA

There are several studies that have collected and analyzed damping data of the fundamental mode, inferred from the
recorded response of buildings. One of the first investigations on this subject is the work of Tanaka et al.1 who studied the
records obtained on 17 instrumented buildings in Japan subjected to the 1968 Saitama earthquake. Although the building
sample size employed in that study was relatively small, and 14 of the 17 buildings had fundamental periods of vibration
lower than 1 s, their results showed a clear decreasing trend in damping ratios with increasing fundamental periods.
This approximately inverse relationship has been observed in most of the subsequent studies on the damping ratio of
the fundamental mode, however, it has been shown that other factors such as the aspect ratio, or the building height
are better statistical regressors than the fundamental period (e.g., Satake et al.2 ; Fritz et al.3 ; Smith et al.4 ; Bernal et al.5 ;
Cruz and Miranda6 ). It has been suggested that this descending trend may be due to lower participation of nonstructural
components in the overall damping of tall buildings (e.g., Spence and Kareem7 ); to the reduced contribution of shear-
type deformation mechanisms in taller structures8 ; or due to soil–structure interaction effects (e.g., Tamura et al.9 ; Satake
et al.2 ; Bernal et al.5 ; Cruz and Miranda6 ). However, to the best of our knowledge, no conclusive evidence has been yet
presented to favor one of these hypotheses over the other.
There are a very limited number of studies on damping of higher modes inferred from the measured response of build-
ings. Yokoo and Akiyama10 conducted one of the first studies on damping ratios of higher modes in which they analyzed
data from vibration tests of 17 buildings. They found that higher modes had, on average, a higher damping ratio than
that of the fundamental mode, but the high dispersion in their data did not allow to conclude if this was a general trend.
O’Rourke11 collected and analyzed the damping data reported by nine previous investigations, finding that modal damping
ratios increased with the mode number, and hence, with modal frequency. His results showed that the damping ratio of the
second and third modes were, on average, 39% and 61% higher than the damping ratio of the fundamental mode, respec-
tively. Based on the results of Yokoo and Akiyama,10 Kareem53 proposed a linear increment of damping with increasing
frequency for higher modes. Kareem and Gurley12 examined this linear variation using data collected from other inves-
tigations, concluding that it portrayed a satisfactory representation of the general trend. Recently, Cruz and Miranda51
conducted a comprehensive study of damping ratios inferred from the analysis of 119 recorded seismic responses in 24
buildings in California. Their results showed that modal damping ratios are best represented by a linear function that
increases with increasing frequency, and proposed a damping model consisting of the sum of frequency-independent and
frequency-dependent terms. None of these studies, however, explored the possible sources of energy dissipation in the
buildings that would explain these observed linear trends with increasing modal frequency.
In all the aforementioned investigations, the system identification methods used considered a linear-elastic structural
model assuming a fixed condition at the base. Therefore, the inferred values combine the damping ratio of the super-
structure with that that arises from the energy dissipated through the soil – in the form of waves travelling away from the
building – known as radiation damping. The specific contribution of radiation damping to the inferred values will depend
on the signal employed as input to the system identification problem.14–17 When the damping values include the effects of
soil–structure interaction, they are often referred to as “effective damping ratios” (e.g., Veletsos and Meek18 ), that is, the
damping ratios that a replacement fixed-based model of the building would need to have in order to best reproduce the
measured seismic responses when subjected to the recorded input. For earthquake applications, it is common to consider
the horizontal acceleration at the foundation level as input, excluding the rocking motion of the foundation. Damping
ratios inferred in such schemes are also referred to as “apparent” or “pseudo-flexible.”14,17
Incorporating soil–structure interaction effects requires explicit modeling of the stiffness and energy dissipation charac-
teristics of the soil. Veletsos and Wei19 showed that, for a circular foundation on an elastic half-space, the dynamic stiffness
of the unbounded soil could be modeled using springs and dashpots. The stiffness and damping coefficients of these ele-
ments, however, vary with the frequency of excitation. Veletsos and Wei19 also gave numerical solutions for the coefficients
of these spring and dashpots, commonly referred to as impedance functions. Using these results, Jennings and Bielak20
provided closed-form solutions to the equations of motion of multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structures sitting on an
elastic half-space, employing Laplace transforms. A similar approach was taken by Chopra and Gutierrez21 who provided
solutions for the equations of motions using Fourier transforms. More recently, a perturbation approach was employed by
Luco and Lanzi22 and Lanzi and Luco23 to provide approximate expressions to compute the modal frequencies, damping
ratios, and participation factors of the system. These solutions, however, are seldom used in engineering practice. Given
the complexity of the problem, the effects of soil–structure interaction are typically modeled using the aforementioned
effective periods and damping ratios on a structural model assuming a fixed condition at the base (e.g., NEHRP24,25 ).
Veletsos and Meek18 provided closed-form equations to compute these properties for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
systems with circular rigid foundations, sitting on an elastic half-space, based on matching the acceleration transfer func-
tions of the SDOF sitting on flexible soil with a replacement fixed-base SDOF. Other investigations calculated effective
CRUZ and MIRANDA 3

damping ratios based on the concept of equivalent viscous damping, that is, by equating the ratio of energy dissipated to
total work by the structure during one cycle to that obtained by and SDOF with linear viscous damping subjected to the
same load.26–28,55 Tsai29 proposed calculating the effective damping ratios of MDOF structures by matching the magnitude
between the acceleration transfer function of flexible base with a fixed-base structure evaluated at their resonant frequen-
cies, at one location. Novak and El Hifnawy30 calculated damping ratios by solving the complex eigenvalue problem using
nonclassical damping matrices, and compared their results to the approximate solutions obtained in Novak.27,28 Their
results show that, when considering soil–structure interaction, damping in higher modes can be significantly higher than
in the first mode, and that the effective damping ratios computed by the two methods evaluated give similar results for the
first mode but can differ for higher modes. Ghahari and Taciroglu31 identified the approximate values for the fundamental
period and damping ratio of the superstructure, as well as soil-foundation parameters, employing an approximate model
that considers the building as a continuous cantilever beam. Recently, Cruz and Miranda13 computed the effective damp-
ing ratios of MDOF buildings based on the matching of transfer functions proposed by Tsai,29 but performing the fit over
a vast range of frequencies and at multiple structural locations. They conducted a parametric study to evaluate the effects
of soil–structure interaction, showing that the effective damping ratio of the fundamental mode decreases with increas-
ing building height, and that soil–structure interaction effects cause the effective modal damping ratios to increase with
increasing effective modal frequency in an approximately linear trend. They also explored the influence of soil damping
and building embedment on these trends, showing that while both of them affect the results by diminishing the rate at
which effective damping of the first translational mode decays with increasing building height, and also reducing the rate
at which effective modal damping increases with increasing effective modal frequency, the main trends remain.
The objective of this investigation is to show that soil–structure interaction effects explain the reduction of first-mode
damping ratios with increasing building height, and also explain the linear increment of damping in higher modes with
increasing frequency, observed in the empirical data. First, the method of Veletsos and Meek18 for computing the effective
periods and damping ratios of an SDOF system is extended to MDOF structures. Using the statistical relationships between
the buildings’ height, aspect ratios, and periods as input to an analytical model, a series of numerical simulations are
executed to examine the analytical variation of the effective damping ratio with the building height and with the effective
modal frequency. Then, the statistical results of the analysis of a database of modal damping ratios and periods, constructed
after the analysis of 1335 seismic responses coming from 154 instrumented buildings in California, are presented. Finally,
modal damping ratios computed analytically are compared to the empirical data.

2 SOIL–STRUCTURE INTERACTION MODEL

2.1 Soil-foundation model

The soil–structure model used in this investigation considers the soil as a homogeneous elastic half-space with mass den-
sity 𝜌, Poisson ratio 𝜈, shear modulus 𝐺, shear wave velocity 𝑉𝑠 , and no inherent damping ratio. In a previous investiga-
tion, the authors considered the effect of foundation embedment and two models of soil damping in addition to radiation
damping.13 Those more complex models as well as layered inhomogeneous soil deposits could be considered, but our goal
here is to explore if simple soil–structure interaction models are able to reproduce the main trends observed in instru-
mented buildings. The foundation is considered to be a rigid, massless, circular disk of radius 𝑅, sitting on the surface of
the half-space, and it is assumed that it never loses contact with the soil (Figure 1A). Under these assumptions, Veletsos
and Wei19 showed that the disk-foundation system can be modeled by a massless rigid foundation supported by frequency-
dependent springs and dashpots (Figure 1B). The stiffness of the springs, 𝑘𝑥 and 𝑘𝑦 , and the damping coefficient of the
dashpots, 𝑐𝑥 and 𝑐𝑦 , can be calculated as

𝑘 𝑥 = 𝑘1 𝐾 𝑥 (1a)

𝑘2
𝑘𝑦 = 𝐾𝜃 (1b)
𝑅2
𝑎 𝑐
𝑐𝑥 = 0 1 𝐾𝑥 (1c)
𝜔
𝑎 𝑐
𝑐𝑦 = 02 2 𝐾𝜃 , (1d)
𝑅 𝜔
4 CRUZ and MIRANDA

FIGURE 1 (A) Soil-foundation interface, and (B) simplified model using frequency-dependent springs and dashpots

FIGURE 2 (A) Model of an SDOF with a flexible base, and (B) its replacement fixed-base structure

where 𝑘1 , 𝑐1 , and 𝑘2 , 𝑐2 correspond to the nondimensional dynamic stiffness (or impedance function) coefficients of the
soil-foundation interface associated with the swaying and rocking degrees of freedom, respectively. These coefficients are a
function of the nondimensional frequency parameter 𝑎0 = 𝜔𝑅∕𝑉𝑠 , where 𝜔 is the circular frequency of excitation, and the
soil’s Poisson ratio 𝜈. Exact values for 𝑘1 , 𝑐1 , and 𝑘2 , 𝑐2 can be found in Veletsos and Wei.19 Finally, 𝐾𝑥 and 𝐾𝜃 correspond
to the static stiffness coefficients of the foundation, which can be calculated with Equations (2a) and (2b).

8𝐺𝑅
𝐾𝑥 = (2a)
2−𝜈
8𝐺𝑅3
𝐾𝜃 = . (2b)
3(1 − 𝑣)

2.2 Structural model

Consider the SDOF of Figure 2A, resting on the soil-foundation interface described in the previous section. The√super-
structure of the SDOF system has damping ratio 𝜉, mass 𝑀, and lateral stiffness 𝑘, which lead to a period 𝑇 = 2𝜋 𝑀∕𝑘.
The system is subjected to a ground motion 𝑢𝑔 (𝑡). Due to the flexibility of the base, there will be a relative horizontal
motion 𝑢0 (𝑡) between the foundation and the free field motion, and a rotation 𝜃 in the rigid foundation. The total lateral
CRUZ and MIRANDA 5

displacement of the mass 𝑢𝑡 (𝑡) will then be given by

𝑢𝑡 (𝑡) = 𝑢𝑔 (𝑡) + 𝑢0 (𝑡) + ℎ𝜃 (𝑡) + 𝑢 (𝑡) , (3)

where 𝑢(𝑡) corresponds to the lateral displacement of the structure with respect to its base and ℎ is the height of the SDOF
as shown in Figure 2A.
Instead of explicitly modeling the structure-foundation–soil system, for engineering purposes it is often of interest to
obtain the properties of a replacement fixed-base structure capable of approximating the response of the flexible-base
structure (Figure 2B). That is, to find the fundamental period 𝑇̃ and damping ratio 𝜉̃ of the replacement fixed structure,
such that its relative displacement 𝑢̃ is approximately equal to that of the flexible-base structure:

𝑢̃ (𝑡) ≈ 𝑢0 (𝑡) + ℎ𝜃 (𝑡) + 𝑢 (𝑡) . (4)

This period of vibration 𝑇̃ and damping ratio 𝜉̃ are often referred as the “effective” period and damping ratio of the
structure.
Veletsos and Meek18 showed that the effective period and damping ratio of the replacement SDOF system are approxi-
mately given by
√ ( )
𝑘 𝑘 ℎ2
𝑇̃ = 𝑇 1+ 1+ 𝑥 ⋅ 2 (5)
𝑘𝑥 𝑘𝑦 𝑅
|( )3 [ ( )]|
| 𝑇 (2 − 𝜈) 𝜋4 𝛿 𝛽𝑥 𝑅2 𝛽𝜃 |
𝜉̃ = || 𝜉+ ⋅ + |, (6)
̃
| 𝑇 2𝜎 3 𝛼𝑥 (𝛼𝑥 + 𝑖𝑎0 𝛽𝑥 ) ℎ 2 𝛼𝜃 (𝛼𝜃 + 𝑖𝑎0 𝛽𝜃 ) ||
| |
√
where 𝑖 = −1 is the imaginary number, and

𝛼 𝑥 = 𝑘1 (7a)

2−𝜈
𝛼𝜃 = 𝑘 (7b)
3 (1 − 𝜈) 2

𝛽𝑥 = 𝑐1 (7c)

2−𝜈
𝛽𝜃 = 𝑐 (7d)
3 (1 − 𝜈) 2
𝑀
𝛿= (7e)
𝜌𝜋𝑅2 ℎ
𝑉𝑠 𝑇
𝜎= . (7f)
ℎ

Note that computing the effective period 𝑇̃ with Equation (5) involves calculating 𝑘𝑥 and 𝑘𝑦 , which are functions of
the dimensionless frequency parameter 𝑎0 evaluated at the effective circular frequency 𝜔̃ = 2𝜋∕𝑇.̃ Since 𝑇̃ is in both sides
of the equation, the solution must be obtained by iteration. This simplified approach of using a replacement fixed-based
SDOF has provided the basis for soil–structure analysis in design guidelines and codes (e.g., ATC32 , NEHRP24,25 , ASCE33 ).

2.3 Extension to MDOF buildings

The concept of effective period and damping ratios of the replacement SDOF system can be extended for MDOF systems,
such as the one shown in Figure 3A. If the superstructure is assumed to have classical modes, then its elastic response
can be computed via modal superposition. Each mode of the superstructure can be modeled as an SDOF with period 𝑇𝑛
and damping ratio 𝜉𝑛 . The soil-foundation interface of these SDOF systems can be modeled using frequency-dependent
springs and dashpots at the base. Each modal SDOF has a mass equal to the equivalent modal mass 𝑀𝑛∗ , stiffness equal
to the equivalent modal stiffness 𝐾𝑛∗ , and height equal to the absolute value of the effective modal height ℎ𝑛∗ , which if
6 CRUZ and MIRANDA

F I G U R E 3 Replacement fixed-base SDOFs used to compute the effective modal periods and damping ratios of MDOF structures sitting
on an elastic half-space

the superstructure is modeled using lumped masses at floor levels can be computed with Equations (8a)–(8c), where the
subindex n denotes the mode number, Γ𝑛 corresponds to the modal participation factor, 𝜙𝑛𝑗 is the mode shape of the
fixed-base structure evaluated at the jth floor, 𝑚𝑗 is the mass of the jth floor, and N is the number of stories in the building.

𝑁
∑
𝑀𝑛∗ = Γ𝑛 𝜙𝑛𝑗 𝑚𝑗 (8a)
𝑗=1

4𝜋2 ∗
𝐾𝑛∗ = 𝑀𝑛 (8b)
𝑇𝑛2
∑𝑁
𝑗=1 ℎ𝑗 𝑚𝑗 𝜙𝑛𝑗
ℎ𝑛∗ = ∑𝑁 . (8c)
𝑗=1 𝑚𝑗 𝜙𝑛𝑗
CRUZ and MIRANDA 7

F I G U R E 4 Variation of the effective properties with the wave parameter for an SDOF system: (A) normalized effective damping ratio; (B)
normalized effective period

For any given mode n, the equivalent modal mass 𝑀𝑛∗ is defined as the mass that an SDOF system with period 𝑇𝑛
and damping ratio 𝜉𝑛 should have in order to produce the same contribution to the base shear as the 𝑛th mode, and the
equivalent modal stiffness 𝐾𝑛∗ is defined as the stiffness that this system must have in order to have a period equal to 𝑇𝑛 .
Similarly, the equivalent modal height ℎ𝑛∗ represents the height that an SDOF with mass 𝑀𝑛∗ , period 𝑇𝑛 , and damping ratio
𝜉𝑛 should have in order to produce the same overturning moment at the base as the nth modal contribution. Note that
ℎ𝑛∗ will be negative if the base shear and overturning moments have opposite signs. Figure 3B shows the process of modal
decomposition of the structure-foundation–soil system shown in Figure 3A.
Once the equivalent modal mass 𝑀𝑛∗ and equivalent modal height ℎ𝑛∗ of the superstructure have been computed, the
response of the different modes of the structure-foundation–soil system can be approximated using a series of replace-
ment fixed-base SDOF systems following the procedure described in Section 2.1 (Figure 3C). Each replacement SDOF will
have an effective modal period 𝑇̃ 𝑛 and effective damping ratio 𝜉̃𝑛 , which can be computed using Equations (5) and (6),
respectively. The interested reader can refer to Cruz and Miranda13 for a validation example, where it is shown that the
effective modal frequencies and effective damping ratios calculated using this technique are in close agreement with those
obtained by matching the acceleration frequency response function of a flexible-base building with that of a replacement
fixed-base multistory building at different locations. It should be noted that the effective periods and modal damping ratios
computed with this method allow to approximate the absolute acceleration of the system. If the relative displacement of
the superstructure needs to be computed, then it is necessary to also modify the excitation or, equivalently, the modal
participation factors.54

2.4 Parameters governing the interaction effects

Veletsos and Meek18 showed that the parameters of the soil-foundation–structure system, which primarily govern the
effects of soil–structure interaction, are the wave parameter 𝜎 = 𝑉𝑠 𝑇∕ℎ and the aspect ratio ℎ∕𝑅 of the system. The wave
number 𝜎 is a nondimensional parameter that provides a measure of the lateral stiffness of the soil relative to that of
the superstructure, with increasing values corresponding to soil lateral stiffness increasing with respect to that of the
superstructure. The aspect ratio ℎ∕𝑅 is a nondimensional measure of the height-to-width at the base (slenderness) of the
structure and provides a measure of the importance of overturning moment at the base relative to base shear with respect
to the size of the foundation. Figure 4A shows the relationship between the effective damping ratio, normalized by the
damping ratio of the superstructure, and the wave parameter for an SDOF with parameters 𝛿 = 0.15, 𝑅 = 15 m, 𝑉𝑠 = 250
m/s, 𝜉 = 2%, and 𝜌 = 2 kN⋅s2 /m4 . These values were selected to match those employed by Veletsos and Meek.18 It can be
seen that, in general, the effect of soil–structure interaction decreases with increasing 𝜎, with the effective damping ratio
and effective period converging to that of the superstructure for values of 𝜎 approximately larger than 20. On the other
hand, there is a significant difference in the effective damping ratio and that of the superstructure for low 𝜎 values, and
8 CRUZ and MIRANDA

F I G U R E 5 Comparison of the absolute acceleration transfer function of an SDOF sitting on a fixed base and one sitting on a flexible elastic
half-space: (A) squatty structure (h/R = 1); (B) slender structure (h/R = 5)

the specific effect will depend on the aspect ratio of the building. It can be seen that, for squatty structures with aspect
ratios of 1 or 2, the effect of soil–structure interaction on the overall damping ratio of the system is to increase the effective
damping of the system, which can reach values of more than twice the damping ratio of the superstructure. On the other
hand, for aspect ratios approximately higher than four soil–structure interaction leads to a reduction of effective damping
ratio for wave numbers smaller than about 15. It should be noted however that ASCE 7–10 in section 19.2.1 does not allow
the use of damping ratios smaller than those of the superstructure and by doing so, may underestimate the response of
the fundamental period of vibration of slender tall structures on soft soil. Figure 4B shows the relationship between the
effective period, normalized by the period of the superstructure, and the wave parameter 𝜎 for the same SDOF system. It
can be seen that the effective period elongates with decreasing 𝜎, regardless of the aspect ratio of the building.
Figure 5 compares the magnitude of the absolute acceleration transfer function |𝐻𝐴 (𝜔)| of a fixed-base SDOF with
that of a similar SDOF but now with a flexible base. The comparison is made for a squatty structure (h/R = 1) and for a
slender structure (h/R = 5). In both cases 𝜎 was set to 10 and the soil properties were set to be similar to those considered
in Figure 4. The abscissas show the ground motion frequency 𝜔 normalized by the fundamental frequency of the fixed-
base SDOF 𝜔1 . It can be seen that in both cases the peak of the flexible-base structure occurs at the left of that of the
fixed-base structure, which is produced by the period elongation due to the increased flexibility of the system. For the
squatty structure (Figure 5A), the amplitude of the peak is lower than that of the fixed-base structure, which is the result
of an increase in the effective damping of the system. For the slender structure (Figure 5B), the amplitude of the peak is
higher than that of the fixed-base structure as a result of the effective damping of the system being lower than that of the
rigid-base structure.
The fact that structures with low aspect ratios have higher effective damping ratios, and that slender structures have
lower effective damping ratios, than the superstructure can be explained by the type of motion at the base that primarily
governs the soil–structure interaction. If swaying controls the interaction, then the additional energy dissipated into the
soil as radiation damping will cause the effective damping ratio of the structure to increase, resulting in values of the
effective damping ratio higher than the damping ratio of the superstructure. On the contrary, if the interaction is pri-
marily controlled by rocking at the base, then the effect of the additional energy dissipated into the soil competes with
the additional displacements in the SDOF induced by rocking. If the aspect ratio is large enough, then the effect of the
increased displacements will surpass the effects of radiation damping, causing the effective damping of the superstructure
to decrease with increasing aspect ratio, and resulting in values lower than the superstructure.18

3 BUILDINGS ANALYZED

Cruz and Miranda6,51,52 identified modal damping ratios of the fundamental mode of vibration and of higher modes
contributing significantly to the seismic response of 154 instrumented buildings in California. The vast majority of the
CRUZ and MIRANDA 9

TA B L E 1 Number of building components per25 site class

NEHRP No. of buildings
Site class Components
A 0
B 4
C 89
D 131
E 14
a
N/A 21
a
Information on site class or 𝑉𝑠30 not available.

buildings analyzed (at least 85%) are located on soil deposits classified as site class C or D according to the site classifi-
cation of 2015 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions.25 The value of the shear wave velocity 𝑉𝑠30 is not known for
all buildings they analyzed. All the recorded data were obtained from the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data.34
The data were grouped by “building components,” corresponding to each of the principal components of the building.
Each building has two perpendicular building components, each of which has a fundamental period and damping ratio.
Table 1 shows the number of building components per25 site class with at least one inferred effective damping ratio deemed
reliable. The effective modal periods and effective damping ratios were inferred using a parametric system identification
technique in the time domain, and correspond to those required in a fixed-base model of the building in order to best
reproduce the recorded response. Consequently, the inferred properties correspond to those of the full structure–soil sys-
tem and not to those of the superstructure alone, that is, they correspond to the effective periods and damping ratios of the
soil-foundation–structure system. Special attention was put to the quality of the damping data. All the inferred damping
ratios were subjected to a series of reliability tests, and only damping ratios that had passed these tests were included in
the database, which was finally composed of 1037 damping ratios for the fundamental mode, coming from 144 different
buildings. Note that the total number of building components listed in Table 1 (259) does not add up to the total number
of building components of all buildings (288) because in some buildings it was only possible to reliably identify damp-
ing ratios in one direction. For further details of the system identification technique the reader is referred to Cruz and
Miranda,52 for details of the reliability tests applied the reader is referred to Cruz and Miranda.35

4 REGRESSIONS FOR DAMPING, PERIOD, AND ASPECT RATIO

To properly assess the effects of soil–structure interaction in the overall (effective) damping ratios of buildings, the sta-
tistical correlation between building height, aspect ratios, and the number of stories were investigated such that when
using analytical models they have realistic relationships among them, corresponding to those of the buildings analyzed.
Data coming from the different building components of the same building were treated independent. However, since
one building can have several recorded earthquakes, multiple observations of damping ratios and fundamental periods
can be made for the same building component. These data points are clustered and cannot be regarded as independent
observations, therefore, a conventional regression analysis that treats all points as independent cannot be used. This issue
was solved by employing a linear mixed effects (LME) statistical model to perform the regressions, where the “building
component” classification factor was considered a random effect and the building height was considered a fixed effect.
Briefly, an LME model separates the variability of the fixed effects from that of the random effects. Therefore, the model
corrects the data-clustering issue by including the variability between buildings (fixed effects) and the variability within
buildings (random effects) as two different parameters of the statistical model. The parameters of the different LME mod-
els were computed using the nlme package for the statistical software R.36,37 The interested reader is referred to Pinheiro
and Bates38 for additional details on LME models.
The relationship between the first-mode damping ratios and the building height was examined first. As shown in Fig-
ure 6, effective damping ratios of the fundamental mode decrease rapidly in a nonlinear trend as the building height
increases. In Figure 7, the aspect ratio is employed instead of the building height, observing a similar relationship. For
calculating the aspect ratio 𝐻∕𝑅, the radius R was defined as the radius of a circular foundation having the same moment
of inertia as the base of the building.
10 CRUZ and MIRANDA

FIGURE 6 Relationship between the inferred effective damping ratios and the building height

FIGURE 7 Relationship between the inferred effective damping ratios and the building aspect ratio

Figures 6 and 7 also show the results of a regression computed with the LME model in the log–log space, resulting
in a power function, which correspond to the expected median values, its logarithmic standard deviation 𝛽𝑙𝑛 (i.e., the
logarithmic standard deviation of the random effects intercept) and the marginal coefficient of determination 𝑅2 for the
LME model, which measure the variability in the ordinates (𝜉̃ in this case) explained by the independent variable.39 The
higher value of 𝑅2 suggests that a better estimate of the effective damping ratio can be obtained as a function of the
building √
height. Based on the results of this investigation, a simplified version of the equation shown in Figure 6 given by
̃𝜉 = 0.2∕ 𝐻 (with the building height given in meters) was incorporated in the recent versions of the performance-based
design guidelines of tall buildings in California.40,41
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the inferred fundamental period and the building height for all the buildings
analyzed. Consistent with previous investigations (e.g., Haviland42 , Goel and Chopra43,44 ), the fundamental period of
buildings is highly correlated with building height. Since periods are highly dependent on the lateral force resistant system
of the building, additional regressions were calculated in subsets of the data with different lateral systems. Figure 8 shows
the results for all the buildings in the data set, as well as for steel moment frame buildings and for buildings with either
reinforced concrete shear walls or steel braced frames (SWBF). The resulting regression coefficients, their logarithmic
standard deviation, and coefficient of determination are shown in Equations (9)–(11). It can be seen that, in all cases,
the resulting trend is almost linear, indicating that fundamental period has a high correlation (𝜌 = 0.87 considering all
CRUZ and MIRANDA 11

FIGURE 8 Relationship between the inferred fundamental period and the building height

FIGURE 9 Relationship between aspect ratio and building height for all the buildings in the data set

buildings) with building height:

( )
𝑇̃ all = 0.026𝐻 0.995 𝛽𝑙𝑛 = 0.45; 𝑅2 = 0.75 (9)
( )
𝑇̃ SMF = 0.043𝐻 0.958 𝛽𝑙𝑛 = 0.31; 𝑅2 = 0.86 (10)
( )
𝑇̃ SWBF = 0.024𝐻 0.930 𝛽𝑙𝑛 = 0.38; 𝑅2 = 0.76 . (11)

Figure 9 shows that aspect ratio 𝐻∕𝑅 is also highly correlated with building height, meaning that as buildings are taller
they also tend to be more slender. As before, for calculating the aspect ratio 𝐻∕𝑅, the radius R was defined as the radius
of a circular foundation having the same moment of inertia as the base of the building, in the direction of analysis. Also
shown in the figure is a simple power regression fitted to the data. It can be seen that the relationship is almost linear, and
changes in building height from one building to another explain 79% of the variability in aspect ratio. Finally, Figure 10
relates the building height to the number of stories above ground in the building. As expected, this relationship is almost
linear and has a coefficient of determination of 0.95.
12 CRUZ and MIRANDA

FIGURE 10 Relationship between building height and number of stories above ground for all the buildings in the data set

FIGURE 11 Simplified model of the superstructure

5 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS USING NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

5.1 Simplified structural model

A simplified model of the superstructure was used in order to perform a parametric analysis to investigate if trends of the
effective damping ratio identified from the seismic response of instrumented buildings, such as the strong reductions in
effective damping ratio shown in Figures 6 and 7, or the linear increase in the effective damping ratio of higher modes
reported by Cruz and Miranda,51 can be explained by soil–structure interaction. The model considers that the lateral load-
resistant system of the building is composed of a cantilever flexural beam laterally attached to a shear beam. This model
is governed by a small set of parameters, namely,√ the fundamental period of the superstructure 𝑇1 , the modal damping
ratios 𝜉𝑛 , and the lateral stiffness ratio 𝛼 = 𝐻 𝐺𝐴∕𝐸𝐼, where 𝐺𝐴 and 𝐸𝐼 are the rigidity of the shear and flexural beams,
respectively. The lateral stiffness ratio measures the relative contribution of the flexural and shear beams to the lateral
stiffness of the building. A low value of 𝛼 (<3) will cause the lateral deformations of the building to be controlled primarily
by the flexural beam, while a large value of 𝛼 (>15) means that the shear beam governs the deflected shape of the building.
Intermediate values of the lateral stiffness ratio will cause a deflected shape that is a combination of flexural- and shear-
type deformations. This model has been used to obtain approximate floor accelerations,45 interstory drift ratio demands,46
and to identify the dynamic properties of buildings.47 For this investigation a variation of this model was employed, where
the mass is assumed to be uniformly distributed along the height of the building and modeled as lumped at the floor
heights (Figure 11). The lateral stiffness was also assumed to be constant along the height of the building. Miranda and
Taghavi45 and, more recently, Alonso-Rodriguez and Miranda48,49 have investigated the effects of reductions in lateral
CRUZ and MIRANDA 13

F I G U R E 1 2 Variation of the damping ratio of the fundamental mode with the wave parameter
Note. The gray lines correspond to structures with aspect ratios of 0.25, 1, 2, 5, and 9 (from top to bottom).

stiffness and mass. These studies have concluded that, provided that these reductions are not abrupt or very large, their
effect on period ratios and products of modal participation factors and mode shapes are negligible for models deflecting
like flexural beams and relatively small for buildings deflecting like shear beams. Additional details of the model can be
found in Alonso-Rodríguez and Miranda,48 while the derivation of the stiffness matrix of the lumped mass building model
can be found in Appendix A of Cruz.50

5.2 Description of the numerical simulations

A parametric study was conducted to assess the influence of the different parameters that govern the effects of soil–
structure interaction on the effective damping ratios of MDOF buildings. To this end, 80 different structures were modeled,
and their effective modal periods and modal damping ratios were computed using the simplified analysis method for
MDOF structures. All the buildings were assumed to have a lateral resistant system consisting of reinforced concrete
SWBF, therefore a value of three was used for the lateral stiffness ratio 𝛼. The damping ratio of the superstructure was set
to 3% for all modes. The structures had different number of stories, with the first building having one story, the second
building two, and so on until the 80th structure, which had 80 stories. In order to use building heights that are realistic, in
these models for a given number of stories the height of the buildings was computed as a function of the number of stories
using the regression obtained from the building data set shown in Figure 10. All stories were assumed to have the same
height. Once the building height 𝐻 was computed, the aspect ratio 𝐴𝑅 = 𝐻∕𝑅 was calculated from the regression curve
shown in Figure 9. Consequently, the radius of the foundation was computed as 𝑅 = 𝐻∕𝐴𝑅. Each floor was assumed to
be circular with the same radius 𝑅 as the foundation. The seismic weight was assumed to be 9.6 kN/m2 (200 psf) for all
floors, while the foundation was assumed to be massless. The fundamental period of the superstructure was computed
using the results of the LME model of Figure 8 for buildings with reinforced concrete SWBF, given by Equation (11). All the
buildings were assumed to be built on a soil with mass density 𝜌 = 2 kN⋅s2 /m4 and Poisson ratio 𝜈 = 0.45. The analyses
were repeated for five different shear wave velocities: 1600, 1000, 500, 250, and 120 m/s, which are representatives of
NEHRP site classes A, B, C, D, and E, respectively. In all cases, it was considered that six modes contributed significantly
to the seismic response of the buildings. If the structure had less than six stories, then the response was calculated using
as many modes as the number of stories.

5.3 Results for effective damping ratios of the fundamental mode

Figure 12 shows the variation of the effective damping ratios of the fundamental mode, normalized by that of the super-
structure, as a function of the wave parameter 𝜎. The figure shows the results for the 80 different structures computed for
14 CRUZ and MIRANDA

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 2 4 6 8

FIGURE 13 Variation of the effective damping ratio of the fundamental mode with changes in the aspect ratio of buildings

the five different shear wave velocities. The figure also shows reference lines that show the variation of structures with
aspect ratios of 0.25, 1, 2, 5, and 9, for a broad range of 𝜎 values. These lines were computed by fixing the aspect ratio and
𝑉𝑠 values while varying the fundamental period, and can this figure be thought as analogous to the behavior of SDOF
structures previously shown in Figure 4, but now for MDOF models. The results shown in Figure 12 help to understand
and provide valuable insight into the parameters that govern the effective damping of MDOF structures. As expected, the
two cases with the largest shear wave velocities—corresponding the NEHRP site classes A and B—are not significantly
affected by the effects of soil–structure interaction. In the other three cases, it can be seen that 𝑉𝑠 is the parameter that
primarily controls the value of 𝜎. This occurs because both fundamental period 𝑇1 and equivalent modal height |ℎ1∗ | are
approximately linear functions of the building height 𝐻 (see Equations (11) and (8c), respectively). Therefore, their effect
in the wave parameter is reduced to an approximately constant value that multiplies 𝑉𝑠 . The consequence is that, for a
given 𝑉𝑠 value, the parameter that primarily controls the effective damping of a building is the aspect ratio 𝐻∕𝑅.
Figure 13 shows the variation of the effective damping ratio of the fundamental mode, normalized by that of the super-
structure, with the aspect ratio of the building for different values of 𝑉𝑠 . The figure shows the curves obtained after the
analyses of the 80 structures of different heights, for 5 different site classes. These curves can be thought as an out-of-plane
cut of Figure 12, connecting the data points obtained for a specific value of 𝑉𝑠 . It can be seen that the effective damping
ratio decreases with increasing aspect ratio, and that the rate of decrement is significantly affected by the shear wave veloc-
ity. Again, this plot shows that for practical purposes buildings located on rock sites, such as NEHRP site classes A or B (𝑉𝑆
= 1600 and 1000 m/s, respectively) are practically not affected by the effects of soil–structure interaction. For buildings on
soil, and particularly those on softer soils the effective damping ratio is higher than that of the superstructure for aspect
ratios smaller than 2.0, 2.5, and 3.5 for shear wave velocities of 500, 250, and 120 m/s, respectively. The increment in the
effective damping for squatty structures can reach values that double or even triple the damping ratio of the superstruc-
ture in some cases. The opposite occurs for slender structures, where it is observed that buildings with large aspect ratios
have an effective damping ratio lower than that of the superstructure. The reduction in damping can be significant for
very slender buildings, for example, tall buildings sitting on soils with 𝑉𝑆 = 250 m/s (site class D, the most common site
class in California) and aspect ratios greater than 7 can have effective damping ratios that are 50% lower than those of the
superstructure. Based on these results, it can be clearly seen that the seismic response of slender structures on soft soils
can increase considerably due to the effects of soil–structure interaction.
As shown in Figure 9, the aspect ratio 𝐻∕𝑅 in instrumented buildings is strongly correlated with the building height
𝐻. Therefore, for a given value of 𝑉𝑠 , the height of the building can be used to determine the effects of soil–structure
interaction in its effective damping ratio. Figure 14 shows in red line the theoretical variation of the effective damping
ratio of the fundamental mode with the building height, obtained for the 80 different structures using a 𝑉𝑠 value of 360
m/s, which defines the boundary of site classes C and D, where the vast majority of the buildings in the data set are
located. This analytical reduction in effective damping ratio with increasing height is entirely theoretical, except that for
a given building height the fundamental period and aspect ratio of the models is based on the empirical relationships
CRUZ and MIRANDA 15

F I G U R E 1 4 Variation of the effective damping ratio of the fundamental mode with the building height and comparison with empirical
data from Cruz and Miranda6

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

F I G U R E 1 5 Variation of the effective damping ratios of higher modes, normalized by that of the superstructure, with the effective modal
frequency, normalized by that of the fundamental mode, for structures sitting on soil with 𝑉𝑆 = 360 m/s

between these parameters shown in Figures 6–10. The figure also includes the empirical data obtained from the seismic
response of buildings in California, as well as the results of the LME statistical model. As shown in this figure, there is a
remarkable similarity between the analytical results and the median of inferred damping ratios in instrumented buildings,
suggesting that soil–structure interaction may be the most important factor explaining the reduction of damping ratios
with increasing building height that has been reported in several studies.2,3,5,6,13

5.4 Results for effective damping ratios of higher modes

To understand the effects of soil–structure interaction in the effective damping ratio of higher modes, the different MDOF
structures were analyzed as if they were built on elastic half-spaces with shear wave velocity 𝑉𝑠 = 360 m/s. This value of
𝑉𝑠 corresponds to the boundary between NEHRP site classes C and D, and therefore is representative of most buildings in
California. Figure 15 shows the variation of the effective modal damping ratios of the first five modes as a function of their
corresponding effective modal frequency, for all the simulated MDOF structures with five stories or more. In the figure,
the effective modal damping ratios were normalized by the modal damping ratio of the superstructure (which was set as
16 CRUZ and MIRANDA

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

F I G U R E 1 6 Variation of the effective damping ratios of higher modes, normalized by that of the fundamental mode, with the normalized
effective frequency for structures sitting on soil with 𝑉𝑆 = 360 m/s

3% for all modes) to compare how effective damping ratios change with respect to that of the superstructure, the modal
frequencies were normalized by the effective frequency of the fundamental mode in order to identify general trends as the
effective frequency of the first-mode changes from building to building. The red squares in Figure 15 indicate the average
values per mode, while the green dashed lines indicate the 25 and 75 percentiles. It can be seen that effective damping
ratios tend to increase with the modal frequency, and in all cases the effective damping of higher modes is larger than
that of the fundamental mode. The distribution of normalized damping ratios for the fundamental mode is similar to that
observed in Figure 12, with a 𝜎 value in between those obtained for 𝑉𝑠 values of 250 and 500 m/s. Most of the effective
damping ratios for the fundamental mode are lower than that of the superstructure, with the exact value being controlled
by the aspect ratio of the structure, as discussed in the previous section. For the second and subsequent modes, however,
the effective modal damping ratio is larger than that of the superstructure, in all cases. The modal decomposition shown in
Figure 3 allows to physically interpret the structural response as the sum of several SDOF systems. As shown in Figure 3C,
the effective modal height decreases with the mode number and hence with increasing modal frequency. Consequently,
as the modal frequency increases, the modal response corresponds to that of SDOF systems with smaller effective mass
and lower effective height and therefore lower aspect ratios. These squatty structures have much smaller and, in many
cases, almost negligible contribution to the moment at the base and therefore the soil–structure interaction has very small
rocking and is primarily governed by swaying, which causes the effective damping ratio to increase.
Figure 16 shows a subset of the data shown in Figure 15, but this time the effective damping has been normalized by that
of the first mode to investigate trends in higher modes, as the effective damping ratio of the fundamental mode changes
from building to building. Here, it was considered that the number of modes that significantly contributed to the seismic
response increased with the building height. Consequently, only 2 modes were included in buildings with 7 stories or less,
3 modes for buildings with 8–12 stories, 4 modes for buildings with 13–20 stories, and 5 modes for buildings with more
than 20 stories. It is observed that, in all cases, the effective damping ratio in higher modes is larger than in the first mode.
Moreover, the effective damping increases with increasing frequency with a trend that is approximately linear. A linear fit
was applied to the data, obtaining a coefficient of determination of 0.92, which suggest that the effective damping ratio can
be correctly approximated by a linear function of the modal frequency. It is observed, however, that the dispersion of the
fit also increases with increasing frequency. Nevertheless, it is well known that only a small number of modes contribute
significantly to the seismic response, therefore, the linear model is an acceptable approximation for the effective damping
ratio of the modes that are more likely to participate in the response.
Recently, Cruz and Miranda51 inferred the effective modal damping ratios from 119 seismic responses, coming from 24
instrumented buildings in California. They showed that the effective damping ratio of higher modes of vibration increased
with increasing effective modal frequency in 96% of the cases. Moreover, this increment was also observed to be approx-
imately linear. Figure 17 shows the effective damping ratios and modal frequencies obtained by Cruz and Miranda,51
normalized by the linear estimates of these parameters for the fundamental mode, 𝜉̂1 and 𝑓̂1 , respectively. A linear fit to
CRUZ and MIRANDA 17

FIGURE 17 Comparison of the results obtained from numerical simulations with the empirical data from Cruz and Miranda51

the empirical data results in a slope of 0.12 and an intercept of 0.92, which is shown with a black line in the figure. The
figure also compares the linear fit to empirical damping ratios by Cruz and Miranda51 with the linear fit to the simulations
previously shown in Figure 16. It can be seen that both regressions are almost identical, indicating that this increase in
effective damping ratios is due to soil–structure interaction effects.

6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study analyzed how soil–structure interaction affects the overall damping ratio of multistory buildings and compared
the theoretical results with empirical data inferred from the seismic response of instrumented buildings in California. A
method was presented for obtaining the effective periods and effective damping ratios of a replacement fixed-base MDOF
structure capable of reproducing the response of a structure with a rigid, circular foundation, sitting on an elastic half-
space. The method uses modal superposition to decompose the structural response into a series of SDOF structures, whose
effective properties are then computed using the well-known method for SDOF systems developed by Veletsos and Meek.18
A series of numerical simulations were conducted to assess the parameters governing the effective damping ratios of the
fundamental mode. In these analyses, the number of stories in the structure was varied while the building’s height, aspect
ratio, and fundamental period were calculated based on relationships inferred from empirical data. It was shown that for
a given value of the shear wave velocity of the soil, the parameter that primarily controls the effects of the interaction is
the aspect ratio. On soils, like NEHRP site classes C–E, the effective damping ratio decreases with increasing values of the
aspect ratio. Squatty buildings with low aspect ratios built on soil will have effective damping ratios of the fundamental
mode that are higher than that of the superstructure. On the other hand, on slender structures with aspect ratios greater
than or equal to 3, the effective damping ratio will be lower than that of the superstructure, which for very slender buildings
can reach values even smaller than one third of that in the superstructure. A similar descending trend was obtained when
examining the variation of effective damping ratio with increasing building height. The similar trend is explained by the
strong correlation that exists between building height and aspect ratio, meaning that as buildings become taller they also
typically become more slender.
The results were then compared with a database of 1037 damping ratios inferred from the seismic responses of 144
instrumented buildings in California from a previous study by the authors. It was shown that the theoretical variation
of the effective damping ratio with the building height, obtained for shear wave velocities representative of NEHRP site
classes C and D, where the vast majority of the buildings in the data set are located, follows closely the median trend of
the empirical data. The variation of the effective damping of higher modes with modal the effective modal frequency was
then examined. As before, a series of simulations using structures with different number of stories were conducted, this
time employing a single value of the shear wave velocity, 360 m/s, which corresponds to the boundary between NEHRP
site classes C and D. Results show that, in all cases, the effective damping of higher modes was larger than that of the
fundamental mode. It was shown that the effective damping increased with the effective modal frequency following an
18 CRUZ and MIRANDA

approximately linear trend. These results were then compared to empirical data from previous studies, finding that the
mean theoretical variation of the effective damping ratio with effective modal frequency matches the empirical data.
These results indicate that inertial soil–structure interaction, that is, the combination of radiation damping along with
the rotation and swaying of the base of the building, explains the observed empirical variations of the effective damping
ratio with building height, and with the effective modal frequency. This suggests that the effects of soil–structure interac-
tion are most likely the major contributor—and therefore what primarily controls—the overall trends in damping ratios
that have been inferred from the measured dynamic response of buildings subjected to wind and seismic loading.

AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The authors would like to acknowledge CONICYT – Becas Chile, the Blume Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford
University, and the Shaw Family Fund for the financial aid provided for this investigation. Ground and structural
motions used in this investigation were obtained from the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program of the
California Geological Survey and from the United States Geological Survey. Efforts to install, operate, and maintain
seismic instrumentation in buildings as well as to process and disseminate earthquake records by these organizations
are gratefully acknowledged. Additionally, we would also like to acknowledge Professor Pablo Heresi for helping us to
validate some of our system identification results. Comments and suggestions from two anonymous reviewers are greatly
appreciated.

ORCID
Cristian Cruz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9127-9849

REFERENCES
1. Tanaka T, Yoshizawa S, Osawa Y. Period and damping of vibration in actual buildings during earthquakes. Bull Earthquake Res Inst.
1969;47:1073-1092.
2. Satake N, Suda K, Arakawa T, Sasaki A, Tamura Y. Damping evaluation using full-scale data of buildings in Japan. J Struct Eng.
2003;129(4):470-477.
3. Fritz WP, Jones NP, Igusa T. Predictive models for the median and variability of building period and damping. J Struct Eng. 2009;135(5):576-
586.
4. Smith R, Merello R, Willford M. Intrinsic and supplementary damping in tall buildings. Proc ICE Struct Build. 2010;163(2):111-118.
5. Bernal D, Dohler M, Kojidi SM, Kwan K, Liu Y. First mode damping ratios for buildings. Earthquake Spectra. 2015;31(1):367-381.
6. Cruz C, Miranda E. Damping ratios of the first mode for the seismic analysis of buildings. J Struct Eng. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0002873
7. Spence SMJ, Kareem A. Tall buildings and damping: a concept-based data-driven model. J Struct Eng. 2014;140(5):04014005.
8. Bentz A, Kijewski-Correa T. Predictive models for damping in buildings: the role of structural system characteristics. 18th Analysis and
Computation Specialty Conference; 2008; Vancouver, BC.
9. Tamura Y, Suda K, Sasaki A. Damping in buildings for wind resistant design. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wind and
Structures for the 21st Century; 2000; Cheju, Korea.
10. Yokoo Y, Akiyama H. Lateral vibration and damping due to wind and earthquake effects. International Conference on Planning and Design
of Tall Buildings; 1972; New York: ASCE.
11. O’Rourke. Discussion of response to stochastic wind of N-degree tall buildings. J Struct Div. 1976;102(12):2401-2403.
12. Kareem A, Gurley K. Damping in structures: its evaluation and treatment of uncertainty. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn. 1996;59(2–3):
131–157.
13. Cruz C, Miranda E. Evaluation of soil–structure interaction effects on the damping ratios of buildings subjected to earthquakes. Soil Dyn
Earthquake Eng. 2017;100:183-195.
14. Luco JE. Soil–structure interaction and identification of structural models. Proceedings of 2nd ASCE Conference on Civil Engineering and
Nuclear Power; 1980; Knoxville, TN.
15. Luco JE, Trifunac MD, Wong HL. Isolation of soil–structure interaction effects by full-scale forced vibration tests. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn. 1988;16(1):1-21.
16. Şafak E. Detection and identification of soil–structure interaction in buildings from vibration recordings. J Struct Eng. 1995;121(5):899-906.
17. Stewart JP, Fenves GL. System identification for evaluating soil–structure interaction effects in buildings from strong motion recordings.
Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1998;27(8):869-885.
18. Veletsos AS, Meek J. Dynamic behaviour of building-foundation systems. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1974;3:121-138.
19. Veletsos AS, Wei YT. Lateral and rocking vibration of footings. J Soil Mech Found Div. 1971;97:1227-1248.
20. Jennings PC, Bielak J. Dynamics of building-soil interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 1973;63(1):9-48.
21. Chopra AK, Gutierrez JA. Earthquake response analysis of multistorey buildings including foundation interaction. Earthquake Eng Struct
Dyn. 1974;3(1):65-77.
CRUZ and MIRANDA 19

22. Luco JE, Lanzi A. Approximate soil–structure interaction analysis by a perturbation approach: the case of stiff soils. Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng. 2013;51:97-110.
23. Lanzi A, Enrique Luco J. Approximate soil–structure interaction analysis by a perturbation approach: the case of soft soils. Soil Dyn Earth-
quake Eng. 2014;66:415-428.
24. NEHRP. Soil–Structure Interaction for Building Structures. Gaithersburg. MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2012. NIST
GCR 12-917-21.
25. NEHRP. Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. Vol. 1. Building Seismic Safety Council; 2015. FEMA
P-1050-1.
26. Roesset JM, Whitman RV, Dobry R. Modal analysis for structures with foundation interaction. J Struct Div. 1973;99(3):399-416.
27. Novak M. Effect of soil on structural response to wind and earthquake. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1974;3:79-96.
28. Novak M. Additional note on the effect of soil structural response. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1975;3:312-315.
29. Tsai NC. Modal damping for soil–structure interaction. J Eng Mech. 1974;100(2):323-341.
30. Novak M, El Hifnawy L. Effect of soil–structure interaction on damping of structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn. 1983;11(5):595-621.
31. Ghahari S, Taciroglu E. Identification of dynamic foundation stiffnesses and input motions from strong motion data recorded at CSMIP
instrumented buildings. SMIP 2016 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data; 2016; Irvine, CA: California Geological Survey.
32. ATC. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1978. ATC
3-06.
33. ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. New York: ASCE; 2016. ASCE/SEI 7–16.
34. USGS, CGS and ANSS. Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data. http://strongmotioncenter.org. Accessed August 1, 2019.
35. Cruz C, Miranda E. Reliability of damping ratios inferred from the seismic response of buildings. Eng Struct. 2019;184:355-368.
36. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team. lme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1–131;
2016. https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme.
37. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2016.
38. Pinheiro J, Bates D. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York, NY: Springer; 2000.
39. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Meth Ecol Evol.
2013;4:133-142.
40. LATBSDC. An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles, CA:
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council; 2017.
41. PEER. Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings. TBI 2017. Richmond, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center Richmond; 2017.
42. Haviland R. A Study of the Uncertainties in the Fundamental Translational Periods and Damping Values for Real Buildings. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1976. Report No. R76-12.
43. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Period formulas for moment-resisting frame buildings. J Struct Eng. 1997;123(11):1454-1461.
44. Goel RK, Chopra AK. Period formulas for concrete shear wall buildings. J Struct Eng. 1998;124(4):426-433.
45. Miranda E, Taghavi S. Approximate floor acceleration demands in multistory buildings. I: formulation. J Struct Eng. 2005;131(2):203-211.
46. Miranda E, Akkar S. Generalized interstory drift spectrum. J Struct Eng. 2006;132(6):840-852.
47. Reinoso E, Miranda E. Estimation of floor acceleration demands in high-rise buildings during earthquakes. Struct Des Tall Special Build.
2005;14(2):107-130.
48. Alonso-Rodríguez A, Miranda E. Dynamic behavior of buildings with non-uniform stiffness along their height assessed through coupled
flexural and shear beams. Bull Earthquake Eng. 2016;14(12):3463-3483.
49. Alonso-Rodríguez A, Miranda E. Assessment of effects of reductions of lateral stiffness along height on buildings modeled as elastic can-
tilever shear beams. J Earthquake Eng. 2018;22(4):553-568.
50. Cruz C. Evaluation of Damping Ratios from the Seismic Response of Buildings [PhD dissertation]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University; 2017.
51. Cruz C, Miranda E. Evaluation of the Rayleigh damping model for buildings. Eng Struct. 2017;138:324-336.
52. Cruz C, Miranda E. Evaluation of damping ratios for the seismic analysis of tall buildings. J Struct Eng. 2017;143(1):04016144.
53. Kareem A. Wind-excited response of buildings in higher modes. J Struct Div. 1981;107:701-706.
54. Luco JE. Linear Soil–Structure Interaction. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory; 1980. UCRL-15272, PDA. No. 7249808.
55. Rainer J. Damping in dynamic structure-foundation interaction. Can Geotech J. 1975;12(13):13-22.

How to cite this article: Cruz C, Miranda E. Insights into damping ratios in buildings. Earthquake Engng Struct
Dyn. 2020;1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.3356