Method to estimate center of rigidity using vibration recordings

Erdal Safak; Mehmet Çelebi

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1990)116:1(85)

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70016526

Method to estimate center of rigidity using vibration recordings

Erdal Safak·Mehmet Çelebi

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A method to estimate the center of rigidity of buildings by using vibration recordings is presented. The method is based on the criterion that the coherence of translational motions with the rotational motion is minimum at the center of rigidity. Since the coherence is a function of frequency, a gross but frequency-independent measure of the coherency is defined as the integral of the coherence function over the frequency. The center of rigidity is determined by minimizing this integral. The formulation is given for two-dimensional motions. Two examples are presented for the method; a rectangular building with ambient-vibration recordings, and a triangular building with earthquake-vibration recordings. Although the examples given are for buildings, the method can be applied to any structure with two-dimensional motions.

Explore related subjects

Journal of Structural Engineering Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Erdal Safak, Mehmet Çelebi. 1990. Method to estimate center of rigidity using vibration recordings. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1990)116%3A1(85)

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2023

The new Self Anchored Suspension (SAS) Bridge of the San Francisco Bay Bridge System: A preliminary study of its response and behavior during a small earthquake

Seismic behavior and performance of the new Self- Anchored Suspension (SAS) Bridge of the San Francisco Bay Bridge System is studied using response data recorded during the October 14, 2019, 𝑀𝑤⁢4.6 Pleasant Hill earthquake. The new bridge went into service within the last decade as a replacement for the older truss bridge that spanned between Yerba Buena Island and East Bay. During the October 19, 1989, M6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake, which occurred ∼100 km away from the Bay Bridge, a section of the upper deck of the old truss bridge fell onto the lower deck—thus closing this important lifeline between San Francisco and East Bay. The new SAS Bridge (as well as the rest of the Bay Bridge) is instrumented by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP). The unique SAS Bridge is suspended by a single tower that is pivotal in trafficking the cable and hanger system to support the eastbound (E) and westbound (W) decks. At both the west and east ends of the SAS, there is a hinge system that connects the W and E decks to the skyways leading to highways. For the west side, the SAS is led to a tunnel at Yerba Buena Island. The response data analyses highlight the complex and yet identifiable coupled response of the deck, tower, and cable system. Using system identification methods including spectral analyses of both acceleration and displacement time history data, the fundamental frequencies (periods) and critical damping percentages are extracted for the main components (tower, deck, and cables) of the bridge where the sensors are deployed. Frequencies (periods) are then compared with the values computed during the design and analysis process of the bridge. The analyses in this paper showed that there is strong evidence of a beating effect attributed to low critical damping percentages and coupled modes. A possible correlation of fundamental periods of such suspension bridges with their span lengths is discussed. The beating effect and period versus span length can be significant topics for further research.

California↗

USGS2021

Seismic response of a typical shear-wall dominated high-rise condominium building during the January 7, 2020 Mw6.4 Indios, Puerto Rico earthquake

Seismic response records were retrieved from the monitored 21-story (53.26-m-tall) typical Puerto Rican reinforced-concrete shear-wall dominated El Castillo Building in Mayaguez, 50 km from the mainshock epicenter of the January 7, 2020, M w 6.4 offshore Indios, Puerto Rico earthquake. The shear-wall-to-floor areas of the building are 0.97 and 3.49 in the longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively, and have a slenderness ratio of 3.0 in the transverse direction. Basement and top-floor peak accelerations were 5% g and 12.8% g, respectively. Additionally, records from a nearby free-field station indicate a site period of 0.16 s. No visible damage was observed in the building after the earthquake. Spectral ratios and system identification allow identification of the transverse, longitudinal, and torsional fundamental periods as 0.97, 0.88, and 0.81 s, respectively, and are consistent with ASCE/SEI 7-16 (2017) formula. Damping percentages are 4.5%, 3.4%, and 2.2%, respectively. The maximum drift ratios are 0.20% and 0.12% in the longitudinal and transverse directions, well below the damage threshold for structural elements of ∼0.5%.

Mayaguez, San Juan↗

USGS2014

Pros and cons of rotating ground motion records to fault-normal/parallel directions for response history analysis of buildings

According to the regulatory building codes in the United States (e.g., 2010 California Building Code), at least two horizontal ground motion components are required for three-dimensional (3D) response history analysis (RHA) of building structures. For sites within 5 km of an active fault, these records should be rotated to fault-normal/fault-parallel (FN/FP) directions, and two RHAs should be performed separately (when FN and then FP are aligned with the transverse direction of the structural axes). It is assumed that this approach will lead to two sets of responses that envelope the range of possible responses over all nonredundant rotation angles. This assumption is examined here, for the first time, using a 3D computer model of a six-story reinforced-concrete instrumented building subjected to an ensemble of bidirectional near-fault ground motions. Peak values of engineering demand parameters (EDPs) were computed for rotation angles ranging from 0 through 180° to quantify the difference between peak values of EDPs over all rotation angles and those due to FN/FP direction rotated motions. It is demonstrated that rotating ground motions to FN/FP directions (1) does not always lead to the maximum responses over all angles, (2) does not always envelope the range of possible responses, and (3) does not provide maximum responses for all EDPs simultaneously even if it provides a maximum response for a specific EDP.

Journal of Structural Engineering↗