2010
DOI: 10.1002/stc.277
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variability of the fixed-base and soil-structure system frequencies of a building-The case of Borik-2 building

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
34
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The empirical relationship by Goel and Chopra [42], then introduced in several codes including EC8, is based on measurements during earthquakes on buildings that were strongly shaken but not driven into inelastic behaviour. Trifunac et al [44] show for a building in Banja Luka (Bosnia) that for strong shaking without damage, building period increased of 30%. A review paper by Calvi et al reports that substantial damage is obtained both for empirical and numerical estimates when period increases more than 50%.…”
Section: Relationship Between Height and Main Frequency Of Rc Buildingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The empirical relationship by Goel and Chopra [42], then introduced in several codes including EC8, is based on measurements during earthquakes on buildings that were strongly shaken but not driven into inelastic behaviour. Trifunac et al [44] show for a building in Banja Luka (Bosnia) that for strong shaking without damage, building period increased of 30%. A review paper by Calvi et al reports that substantial damage is obtained both for empirical and numerical estimates when period increases more than 50%.…”
Section: Relationship Between Height and Main Frequency Of Rc Buildingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The interest for AV based method has been recently supported by recent papers (e.g., Mucciarelli et al 2004;Dunand et al 2006;Clinton et al 2006) that showed moderate decrease (<30%) of fundamental frequencies between strong (0.5 g) and weak (10 −5 g) motion. Trifunac et al (2008) recently confirmed that the building frequency decreases for strong shaking without significant and resulting damage are below 30%. Boutin et al (2005) also showed how the ratio between the fundamental frequency and harmonics in tall buildings getting from single AV recording at the building top let to fix the dynamic model (e.g., shear, cantilever or Timoshenko beam models).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…A possible explanation for this disagreement could be found in the use of a low energy input source such as the ambient noise. However, different authors (Hong and Hwang 2000;Trifunac et al 2010) observe that the fundamental period of buildings, designed according to the seismic code, also showed a period even much lower than expected during earthquakes. Indeed, we believe that the level of shaking cannot be considered as the only responsible factor for the observed discrepancy between experimental and Eurocode8 (2003) height-period relationships.…”
Section: Built-up Features and Experimental Evaluation Of The Dynamicmentioning
confidence: 93%