Damping properties of buildings in Japan

Suda, Kenichi; Satake, Naoki; Ono, Junichiro; Sasaki, Atsushi

doi:10.1016/0167-6105(96)00018-9

Cited by 24 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mass and stiffness coefficients have been derived so as to have an equivalent viscous damping factor equal to 0.05 in correspondence to the first and third mode of vibration. This value is also suggested by other researchers and studies [27], although some lower values may seem to be more proper, particularly with reference to the fundamental mode of vibration of high-rise buildings [28][29][30][31]. In accordance with Ricles and Popov [32], no stiffness proportional damping has been considered for the shear elements of links.…”

Section: Modelling Of the Structuresupporting

confidence: 68%

Influence of the link overstrength factor on the seismic behaviour of eccentrically braced frames

Rossi

Lombardo

2007

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Modelling Of the Structuresupporting

confidence: 68%

Influence of the link overstrength factor on the seismic behaviour of eccentrically braced frames

Rossi

Lombardo

2007

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The damping ratio was assumed to be 5% of the critical damping in accordance with Iranian code [33] and proportional to the initial stiffness of the frames. Studies have found that the values of 772 damping ratio increase with increasing amplitude of vibration [35,36]. However, the adopted damping ratio of 5% is within the range of damping ratio values observed from field measurements [35,37] and experimental testing [36].…”

Section: Nonlinear Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Studies have found that the values of 772 damping ratio increase with increasing amplitude of vibration [35,36]. However, the adopted damping ratio of 5% is within the range of damping ratio values observed from field measurements [35,37] and experimental testing [36]. The damping ratio of 5% has been adopted by various studies involving nonlinear dynamic analyses of RC structures [38][39][40].…”

Section: Nonlinear Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonlinear response estimates of RC frames using linear analysis of SDOF systems

Yaghmaei‐Sabegh

Neekmanesh

Lumantarna

2013

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY An approximate‐simple method for nonlinear response estimates of reinforced concrete frames subjected to near‐field and far‐field records is presented in this paper. The approximate method is based on equivalent single‐degree‐of‐freedom and linear multi‐degree‐of‐freedom models. In this procedure, the nonlinear maximum roof displacement is estimated using an effective period factor and elastic response spectrum with an equivalent damping. The effective period factor was proposed for far‐field and near‐field ground motion records. For regions of high seismicity, the maximum roof displacement can be estimated by applying an effective period factor of 2.3 and 2.1 for near‐field and far‐field records, respectively, and 9% damped displacement response spectrum. For regions of moderate seismicity, a lower effective period factor of 1.9 and 1.8, for near‐field and far‐field records, respectively, can be applied to estimate the maximum roof displacement. A relationship between linear and nonlinear response of multi‐degree‐of‐freedom systems was also proposed to obtain estimates of the maximum inter‐story drift of nonlinear responding reinforced concrete frames. In addition, the effects of number of ground motion records used in the analyses on the scatters of results were investigated. The required number of ground motions to produce a reliable response was proposed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…The fundamental natural frequencies, n, for the sway modes of vibration of the building were estimated using a commonly used equation for tall buildings (Tamura et al, 2000;Suda et al, 1996) as shown below:…”

Section: Building Configurations and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%