Miranda Damping Ratios v5 For Seaonc

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
January Mini -Seminar
SEAONCS con8nuing educa8on commi;ee

Lukki Lam, ARUP
Damping Ra*os in Buildings Obtained

from Instrumented Buildings in California
Masume Dana, Forell-Elsesser

Tim Hart, LBL
Tony Shakal and Moh Huang, CSMIP, CGS
Eduardo Miranda
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Stanford University
SEAONC, Structural Engineers Associa5ons of Northern California
January 29th, 2014
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
I encourage you to do a search on the word damping on, for example, ASCE 7-10.
I found it men8oned on 81 pages. Yet, I do not think there is a lot of guidance
Unlike the sta8c response on structures, the response to dynamic loads

(earthquake, wind, blast, etc) depends on the damping in the structure.
Sec*on 12.7 MODELING CRITERIA has sec8ons on

12.7.1 Founda8on modeling
12.7.2 Eec8ve seismic weight
12.7.3 Structural modeling
Therefore, knowledge of the level of damping in a structure is essen8al for

the ra8onal analysis and design of structures subjected to dynamic loads.
But none of these sec8ons say anything about damping and in par8cular
what damping value to use.
Sec*on 12.9 MODAL RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS interes8ngly it
doesnt say anything about damping and just says to use the 5% damped
spectrum as input, essen8ally recommending to use 5% damping ra8o for all
modes for all structures.
Our knowledge of damping mechanisms in structures is rather limited and

design provisions do not provide a lot of guidance in this respect.
Damping Ratios in Buildings
Chapter 16 SEISMIC RESPONSE HISTORY PROCEDURES includes the following:

16.1.2 Modeling
Mathema8cal models shall conform to the requirements of Sec8on 12.7

But as men8oned above sec8on 12.7 provides no guidance on damping.
Ratios in Buildings
4
Damping
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
Perhaps the chapter where you nd a li;le bit more informa8on is
Chapter 17
SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES
doesnt help a lot either. For example:
Chapter 18
SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES WITH DAMPING SYSTEMS

Where there is a sec8on that says
17.6.3.3 Response-Spectrum Procedure

Response-spectrum analysis shall be performed using a modal damping value
for the fundamental mode in the direc8on of interest not greater than the
eec8ve damping of the isola8on system or 30 percent of cri8cal, whichever is
less. Modal damping values for higher modes shall be selected consistent with
those that would be appropriate for response- spectrum analysis of the
structure above the isola8on system assuming a xed base.
18.6.2.1 Inherent Damping

Inherent damping, , shall be based on the material type, congura8on,
and behavior of the I structure and nonstructural components responding
dynamically at or just below yield of the seismic force-resis8ng system.
Unless analysis or test data supports other values, inherent damping shall
be taken as not greater than 5 percent of cri8cal for all modes of vibra8on.
But again that is not a lot of guidance !

But what is an appropriate damping ra5o for a xed-base structure?
(Interes8ngly enough wind design provisions (4 chapters and 117 pages)

dont provide any guidance either.)
5
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
Bo\om line

Design provisions do not provide much
guidance as to what damping we should
use when analyzing/designing buildings

Fortunately there are some excep5ons
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
Whereas five percent of critical

damping has been traditionally
assumed for conventional buildings
designed by code procedures,
there is indisputable evidence that
this is higher than the actual
damping of modern tall buildings.
(Ager Newmark and Hall, 1973)
Mo5va5on
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council
AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF
TALL BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE
LOS ANGELES REGION
A CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
2011 Edition including 2013 Supplement
A damping ratio of between 1%

and 2% appears reasonable for
buildings more than 50 m and less
than 250 m in height.
10
Mo5va5on
3.5.2.2. Damping
Signicant hystere8c energy dissipa8on shall be
captured directly by inelas8c elements of the
model. A small amount of equivalent viscous or
combined mass and s8ness propor8onal
damping may also be included. The eec*ve
addi*onal modal or viscous damping should not
exceed 2.5% of cri5cal for the primary modes
of response.
C.3.5.2.2 Damping eects of structural members that are
not incorporated in the analysis model (e.g., gravity

framing), founda8on-soil interac8on, and nonstructural
components that are not otherwise modeled in the
analysis can be incorporated through equivalent viscous
damping. The amount of viscous damping should be
adjusted based on specic features of the building
design and may be represented by either modal damping,
explicit viscous damping elements, or a combina8on of
s8ness and mass propor8onal damping (e.g., Rayleigh
damping).
TBI
Guidelines for
PerformanceBased Seismic
Design of
Tall Buildings
!"#$%&'()*+(
,&-"./"#(0+)+(
PEER
A number of studies have a;empted to

characterize the eec8ve damping in real buildings.
These studies range from evalua8on of the recorded
response to low- amplitude forced vibra8ons to
review and analysis of strong mo8on recordings.
Using data obtained from eight strong mo8on
California earthquakes, Goel and Chopra (1997)
found that eec8ve damping for buildings in excess
of 35 stories ranged from about 2% to 4% of cri8cal
damping. Using data obtained from Japanese
earthquakes, Satake et al. (2003) found eec8ve
damping in such structures to be in the range of 1%
to 2%. Given this informa8on and the impossibility
of precisely dening damping for a building that has
not yet been constructed, these Guidelines
recommend a default value of 2.5% damping for all
modes for use in Service Level evalua5ons.

11
12
damping should be adjusted based on specific features of the building design,

and may be represented by either modal damping, explicit viscous damping
elements, or a combination of stiffness- and mass-proportional damping (e.g.,
Rayleigh damping). Among the various alternatives, it is generally
recommended to model viscous damping using modal damping, Rayleigh
damping,For
or afiber-type
combination
of the
Care should
beobtained
taken when
specifying
models.
models,
thetwo.
best agreement
was
using
zero
stiffness-proportional
damping
components
of Rayleigh
damping
tousing
avoid
damping.
For plastic hinge
models,
the best agreement
was
obtained
overdamping
in higher modes,
ordamping,
force imbalances
gap-typewas
elements
and
5%
stiffness-proportional
viscous
where theindamping
based on
rigid-plastic
materials
and components.
the
tangent stiffness
matrix
(i.e., the damping terms were reduced in
Mo5va5on
PEER/ATC 72-1
Modeling and acceptance criteria

for seismic design and analysis of
tall buildings
tower core wall
main backstay diaphragm
foundation
M
Applied Technology Council

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
proportion to the changes in the tangent stiffness during the analysis). Thus,
Generally, the amount of damping is quantified in terms of a percentage of
when compared to models with constant damping, effective damping in the
critical damping in one or more elastic vibration modes, although it is also
plastic hinge models was probably much less than 5%.
recognized that distinct vibration modes and frequencies do not exist for
nonlinear responsefrom
as they
do with
Existing
guidelines
Recommendations
Gulkan
andelastic
Sozen analysis.
(1971) equate
dissipated
energy
suggest
the use
of viscous
damping
values
ranging
from 2%for
to elastic
5% of critical
to
equivalent
viscous
damping.
While
originally
envisioned
analyses,
theirresponse
recommendations
help relate
damping
effects to
displacement
for nonlinear
history analyses
of typical
buildings
subjected
to
amplitudes.
They
recommended
a threshold
value that
for damping
an of
strong ground
motions.
Laboratory
tests suggest
dampinginvalues
undamaged
reinforced
concrete
structure
at 2%
of critical
damping,concrete
and
about 1% for
steel frame
structures
and 2%
to 3%
for reinforced
demonstrated
how equivalent
damping
quickly increased
to in
5%bare
at an
structures be used
to model energy
dissipation
that occurs
structural
imposed
ductility of 1.4,
andis10%
at an imposed
ductility
systems, displacement
under small deformations,
that
not accounted
for in
typicalof
2.8.
In themodels.
context of
nonlineardata
analysis,
these findings
suggest
a minimum
hysteretic
Measured
from earthquake
induced
motions
of actual
value
of 2%
criticaldamping
damping,
whereinany
viscous
beyond
buildings
suggest
values
the increase
range ofin1%
to 5%damping
for quasi-elastic
this
valueof
would
depend
on 30
how
well the
analysisincaptured
response
buildings
over
stories
tall.nonlinear
Measurements
actual buildings
hysteretic
energy
dissipation
structural
indicate that
the damping
in in
tallthe
buildings
is components.
lower than damping in low- to
Mo5va5on
But how good or how bad are these
guidelines ?
mid-rise buildings.
2.4.4
Modeling Techniques for Damping
The quantification
following values
equivalent
viscous damping
are suggested
as how
The
andof
definition
of damping
are integrally
linked with
appropriate
for use in For
nonlinear
analysis
of typical
damping
is modeled.
elastic response
analyses, history
damping
is defined
in terms of
buildings, in
whichdamping
most of through
the hysteretic
energydependent
dissipation
is accounted
equivalent
viscous
the velocity
term,
[C], in thefor
in the nonlinear
component
models of the structural members of the seismicequation
of motion,
as follows:
force-resisting system:
(2-3)
<M =>!x!?@ <C =>x!?@ <K =>x? 3 2<M = !x!g @ <P =
D = ;/30 (for N < 30)
(2-9)
> ?
This is done for mathematical convenience, since the velocity is out of phase
(foracceleration,
N > 30) and thus provides an easy way to
(2-10)
D = ;/N and
with displacement
incorporate a counteracting force to damp out motions in a linear analysis.
where D is the maximum percent critical damping, N is the number of
To facilitate modal analyses, the damping matrix is often defined using either
stories,
and ;Rayleigh
)is a coefficient
a recommended
range
of ; = 60astoa120. In
the
classical
dampingwith
assumption,
where [C]
is calculated
general,
structural steel
would
tend toward
the lowerorrange
of
linear
combination
of thesystems
mass [M]
and stiffness
[K] matrices,
modal
damping (where
; = 60),
concrete
systems
of would
tend toward
the
damping,
[C]and
is areinforced
combination
of specified
damping
amounts
for
upper
range
(
;
)=
120).
Figure
2-28
shows
damping
ranges
between
2% to
specific vibration modes (usually elastic vibration modes). These damping
4% for 30-story
1% to 2% for 70-story buildings. Damping
formulations
are buildings
explained and
below.
Rayleigh Damping. The damping matrix and resulting critical damping
ratios are calculated as follows:
PEER/ATC-72-1
[C ] 3 aM [ M ] @ aK [ K ]
2: General Nonlinear Modeling
2-55
(2-4)
13

PEER/ATC-72-1
14

2-47
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
Damping modica8on factors used in U.S. prac8ce

There is not adequate guidance either as to what change in level
For sWITH
tructures
with SYSTEMS
damping systems
For 18seismically
isolated
structures FOR STRUCTURES
CHAPTER
SEISMIC DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS
DAMPING
of response one may expect from changes in the level of
CHAPTER 17 SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMICALLY ISOLATED STRUCTURES
damping.
Table 18.6-1 Damping Coefficient, B , B , B ,

= 2
(18.5-25)
1. The structure is located on a Site Class A, B, C, or
Table 17.5-1 DampingTCoefficient, B or B
B , B , B (Where Period of the Structure T )

D.
where
e.g.,
Effective Damping, or
2. The isolation system meets the criteria of Item 7 of
Effective Damping,
B ,B ,B,B ,B ,B
of critical)
B or B Factor
(percentage of critical) (where period of the structure T )
Section 17.4.1.
=(percentage
design story
velocity due to the fundamental

mode of 2
vibration of the structure in the 0.8
2
0.8
direction of
5
1.0
5 interest
1.0
How much larger my response will be if my structure h17.4.2.2
as 1%
Response-History Procedure
10
1.2
10 velocity due to the residual mode
1.2
= design story
The response-history procedure is permitted for
damping instead of 5%?
20
1.5
20 of the structure in the direction1.5
of vibration
of
design of any seismically isolated structure and shall
30
1.8
30
1.7
interest
be used for design of all seismically isolated struc
40
2.1
40
1.9
tures not meeting the criteria of Section 17.4.2.1.
50
2.4
50
2.0
How much smaller my response will be if my structure has 10%
18.5.3.5 Maximum Considered Earthquake Response
60
2.7
The
damping
coefficient
shall be based
the ections
effective damping
Total
and modal
maximum
floorondefl
at
70
3.0
of the isolation system determined in accordance with the
V+I
RD
RD
1M
mD
v+I
1D
mM
a,b
1D
1D
1M
mD
mM
RD
17.5 EQUIVALENT LATERAL

FORCE PROCEDURE
17.5.1 General
Where the equivalent lateral force procedure is
used to design seismically isolated structures, the
requirements of this15 section shall apply.
17.5.2 Deformation Characteristics of
the Isolation System
Minimum lateral earthquake design displacements
and forces on seismically isolated structures shall
be based on the deformation characteristics of the
isolation system. The deformation characteristics of
the isolation system shall explicitly include the effects
of the wind-restraint system if such a system is used
to meet the design requirements of this standard. The
deformation characteristics of the isolation system
shall be based on properly substantiated tests performed in accordance with Section 17.8.
Level i, design story drifts, and design story velocities

requirements of Section 17.8.5.2.
shall
bedamping
based on
the
equations
in Sections
18.5.3.1, for
b
The
coeffi
cient
shall be based
on linear interpolation
18.5.3.3,
18.5.3.4,
effectiveand
damping
valuesrespectively,
other than thoseexcept
given. that design
roof displacements shall be replaced by maximum
roof displacements. Maximum roof displacements
shall be calculated in accordance with Eqs. 18.5-26
andT18.5-27:
Damping
in Buildings
= Ratios
effective
period of the seismically isolated
D
structure
g SinMSseconds,
T12M gat the
SMS T12 displacement
design
D1M = in the
consideration,
, Tas
< TS
1 M pre 1
1
B1M under
B1E
4 2 direction
4 2
scribed by Eq. 17.5-2
(18.5-26a)
BD = numerical coefficient related to the effective
g SofM 1the
T1M isolation
g
S T1 the
D1M = damping
2 system
1 M 1 at
, T1M TS
1
4 2 displacement,
B1M
design
4
D,as setB1forth
in
E
(18.5-26b)
Table 17.5-1
g SM 1TR g SMS TR2
DRM17.5.3.2
= 2Effective
(18.5-27)
at2 Design
Period
Displacement
R
R

B
BR
4
The
4of
effectiveRperiod
the isolated
structure at
design displacement, TD, shall be determined using the
where
deformational characteristics of the isolation system
SM1 = the MCER, 5 percent damped, spectral response
and Eq. 17.5-2:
acceleration parameter at a period of 1 s
Was defined in
adjusted for site class effects
80
90
100
3.3
3.6
4.0
18.6.1 Damping Coefficient

16
Where the period of the structure is greater than
or equal to T0, the damping coefficient shall be as
prescribed in Table 18.6-1. Where the period of the
structure is less than T0, the damping coefficient shall
be linearly interpolated between a value of 1.0 at a
0-second period for all values of effective damping
and the value at period T0 as indicated in Table 18.6-1.
18.6.2 Effective Damping
The effective damping at the design displacement, mD, and at the maximum displacement, mM, of
the mth mode of vibration of the structure in the
direction under consideration shall be calculated using
Eqs. 18.6-1 and 18.6-2:
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on

1/B
Damping Modification Factor B

4.5
1.4
4.0
1.2
3.5
1.0
3.0
Chapter 17
0.8
2.5
Chapter 18
0.6
2.0
1.5
0.4
1.0
Chapter 18
0.5
Chapter 17
0.2
0.0
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
17
40
60
80
100
120
Damping Ratio, %
Damping Ratio, %
Mo5va5on
18
Mo5va5on
2. They either neglect or do not correctly account for the eect
of period/frequency dependency on these factors.
There are various deciencies with these factors:
1/B
1. Even if based on sta8s8cal studies one must take into

account that:
1.6
1.4
1.2
!1$
1
E# &
" B % E [ B]
T = 0.2 s
1.0
T=1s
0.8
T=5s
0.6
With the dierence increasing with the level of

dispersion/variability
0.4
0.2
0.0
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Damping Ratio, %
(Ager Lin, Miranda and Chang 2005)
19
20
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
Despite these two problems if one compares the damping

modica8on factors with expected values obtained from
sta8s8cal results, things dont look too bad
How much larger my response will be if my structure has 1%


1/B
1/B
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.1
T = 0.2 s
T=1s
T=5s
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
1.4
T = 0.2 s
T=1s
T=5s
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
1.4
1.3
25% larger 1.2

1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0%
5%
10%
15%
0%
20%
5%
(Ager Lin, Miranda and Chang 2005)
21
15%
20%
22
Mo5va5on
OK, but
Mo5va5on

3. They
neglect the large eect of period from record-to-record
How much smaller my response will be if my structure has 10%

Sa#[cm/s2]#
1999 Chi-Chi TCU136N
1200"
1/B
= 0.01"
1.5
1000"
T = 0.2 s
T=1s
T=5s
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
= 0.02"
= 0.05"
= 0.1"
800"
= 0.15"
= 0.2"
600"
1.0
= 0.25"
= 0.3"
0.9
20% smaller 0.8

10%
Damping Ratio, %
Damping Ratio, %
400"
0.7
200"
0.6
0.5
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0"
0"
Damping Ratio, %
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
Period#[s]#
23
24
Mo5va5on
OK, but
Mo5va5on
OK, but
Sd#[cm]#
Sd#[]/Sd[5%]#
80"
2.4$
= 0.01"
70"
60"
= 0.01"
= 0.02"
= 0.05"
= 0.1"
= 0.15"
= 0.2"
= 0.25"
= 0.3"
2.2$
= 0.02"
= 0.05"
2.0$
= 0.1"
1.8$
50"
= 0.15"
= 0.2"
1.6$
40"
= 0.25"
1.4$
= 0.3"
1.2$
30"
1.0$
20"
0.8$
10"
0.6$
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
0.4$
5"
0$
1$
2$
Period#[s]#
Mo5va5on
OK, but

5$
26
= 0.05"
2.0$
= 0.1"
1.8$
= 0.15"
1.6$
= 0.2"
1.4$
= 0.25"
= 0.3"
1000"
= 0.01"
= 0.02"
= 0.05"
= 0.1"
= 0.15"
= 0.2"
= 0.25"
= 0.3"
2.2$
= 0.02"
1500"
1999 Chi-Chi CHY034N
2.4$
= 0.01"
2000"
Response of 1% damped is 75% larger than 5% damped

(3 8mes larger than assumed by the code)
Sd#[]/Sd[5%]#
2500"
4$
Mo5va5on
OK, but
Sa#[cm/s2]#
3$
Period#[s]#
25
1.2$
1.0$
500"
0.8$
0.6$
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
0.4$
5"
0$
Period#[s]#
1$
2$
3$
4$
5$
Period#[s]#
27
28
Mo5va5on
OK, but
Mo5va5on
Response of 1% damped is SMALLER
than 5% damped !
(code assumes 25% larger)
Sd#[]/Sd[5%]#
2.4$
Bo\om line

The eects of damping can be much
larger than we typically assume
= 0.01"
= 0.02"
= 0.05"
= 0.1"
= 0.15"
= 0.2"
= 0.25"
= 0.3"
2.2$
2.0$
1.8$
1.6$
1.4$
1.2$
1.0$
But when can we expect larger eects and when

smaller eects of damping?
0.8$
0.6$
0.4$
0$
1$
2$
3$
4$
5$
Period#[s]#
29
Mo5va5on Suppose T1 = 1.0s

RECORDS WHERE Ti IS IN A PEAK
Sa#[cm/s2]#
1200"

= 0.01"
1000"
Mo5va5on
Sa#[cm/s2]#
1800"
1999 Chi-Chi TCU055E

= 0.01"
1600"
= 0.02"
1400"
= 0.05"
= 0.1"
Bo\om line

The eects of damping will be larger for
periods of vibra5on located on spectral
peaks while they will be much smaller
when they are located in spectral valleys
= 0.1"
= 0.15"
1000"
= 0.2"
600"
= 0.05"
1200"
= 0.15"
= 0.2"
= 0.25"
= 0.25"
800"
= 0.3"
= 0.3"
600"
400"
400"
200"
200"
0"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
0"
5"
1"
2500"
2"
3"
4"
5"
Period#[s]#
Period#[s]#
Sa#[cm/s2]#
Sa#[cm/s2]#
1400"
1999 Chi-Chi CHY073E

= 0.01"
= 0.01"
1200"
= 0.02"
2000"
= 0.02"
= 0.05"
= 0.05"
1000"
= 0.1"
= 0.15"
800"
= 0.2"
= 0.2"
= 0.25"
= 0.25"
600"
= 0.3"
1000"
= 0.1"
= 0.15"
1500"
30
RECORDS WHERE Ti IS IN A VALLEY
= 0.02"
800"
= 0.3"
400"
500"
200"
0"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
Period#[s]#
4"
5"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
Period#[s]#
31
32
Mo5va5on
Mo5va5on
Sa [cm/s2]
300
April 26th, 1989
Sa [cm/s2]
300
April 26th, 1989
Station 09
250
Station 01
Station 09
250
Station 53
200
150
200
100
150
50
100
Station 01
Station 53
Mean
50
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0
PERIOD [s]
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
PERIOD [s]
Damping eects will be par5cularly large for example for sof

soil sites (that produce quasi-harmonic mo5ons) and for
periods near the predominant period of the site.
However, youll miss not only the shape of the spectra but
also damping eects if you work with mean spectra from
dierent sof soil sites
33
Mo5va5on
34
Early work on viscous damping
Sa [cm/s2]
300
April 26th, 1989
John William Stru;,

Baron of Rayleigh
(Lord Rayleigh)
Station 09
250
Station 01
Station 53
200
Mean
150
100
50
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
T / Tg
Nobel prize in physics 1904
But if you normalized the spectra by the predominant period

of the site not only you will the an excellent characteriza5on
of the spectral shape but also of spectral regions where
damping eects will be much larger
First published in 1877
(I strongly recommend at least browsing through these extraordinary books now freely
available on Google books)
35
36
as .c iucrcascs.
14.8.
Assuming
284
tliat
EFFECTS
as .c iucrcascs.
Assuming
M varies
OF
tliat
M e'
we
find
FRICTION.
as ia
[346.
M varies
M e'
we
find
as ia
14.8.
lu
tho
to air at ordinary
application
pressures
ma.y bc contho aapplication smaM
to air at ordinary and
contolu bo
pressures
ma.y bc
its square
vury
qu:mtity
may Le
Hidcred
to bo a vury smaM qu:mtity
and its square
may Le
Thus
ue~lected.
284
Hidcred

ue~lected.
From volume 1
.c iucrcascs.
From asvolume
2
It
14.8.
ThusEFFECTS
Assuming
OF
tliat
FRICTION.
M varies
[346.
M e'
we
find
as ia
tilis ordcr
of a.pproxima.tion
tlie vclocity
of of
th~t
to th~t
tilis to ordcr
of a.pproxima.tion
tlie
appca-rs
appca-rs
vclocity
sound
is unnH'cctcd
Huid friction.
M by 27ra\
rcptuce M
sound
is unnH'cctcd
If Ifwe wercptuce
Ly HuidLy friction.
27ra\
by
thc
fur the cocfHcicnt
of d(jc:t.y bccomcs
thc expression expression
fur the cocfHcicnt
of d(jc:t.y
bccomcs
lu
It
that
thos)icwM)g
application
tueto inimcncc
of viscosity
is
on the
wavcs
air at ordinary
pressures greatest ma.y bc con-
of
shortto wavc-)L'j)gth.
Tlie
ditnhus!tud on iu
thuLe
ratio of
:unplitudc and
Hidcred
a vury smaM
that
tuebo inimcncc
of
is isgreatest
its
the
wavcs
qu:mtity
square
s)icwM)g
may
viscosity
=f"
In c. O.S. mca.surc
C
wu
1, wlicu
take
may
Thus x Tlie
short ue~lected.
is ditnhus!tud
iu thu ratio
wavc-)L'j)gth.
:unplitudc
In c. O.S. mca.surc
C
wu
1, wlicu x =f"
take
may
37
mountainousThus
that
the
at a, distance of ofwavcs
200 nictrcs
of one a centimtre
countrics,
38
is pcrhaps
is
to bc
powcrfui
amplitude
attribntedwavc-Icngth
to friction,
charactcr,
by
Early
wevenork
vratio
iscous
amping
whcn
Uicrc
is no
diminishod
inon
the
e refiection.
1d
after
enect aiso
a, Uns
distance
of 88is duc
Proba.b!y
travc)IIng
of
which
the
and
Iuu's))cr

Also from volume 1
It appca-rs
th~t
to tilis ordcr
of a.pproxima.tion
tlie vclocity
of
sound Thus
the amplitude
is unnH'cctcd
wavcs
ofIf one
we centimtre
is
Ly Huidof friction.
27ra\
rcptuce M bywavc-Icngth
diminishod fur inthe thecocfHcicnt
ratio
thc expression
e of 1d(jc:t.y
after bccomcs
a, distance
of 88
travc)IIng
jnctres.
A wave-lcngth
of 10 centimtres
would correspond
ncarly
Thus the toamplitude
one centimtre
for this of
case wavcs
a; = 8800of mtres.
It a.ppe:u's therefore
wavc-Icngth
thu.t at is
diminishod atmospheric
in the ratio
1 after
of fricLion a,
distance
influence travc)IIng
is not
toof bu88
pressures e t))e
Hkdy
that tue inimcncc
of viscosity
is greatest
on the
wavcs
of
s)icwM)g
Damping
Ratios
in A
Buildings
to ordiuary of observation,
sensible
nc:).r
jnctres.
10 centimtres
would
cxcept
upper II)nit of the
wave-lcngth
short
Tlie
is ditnhus!tud tite correspond
iu thu ratio ncarly
wavc-)L'j)gth.
:unplitudc
sca)e. a; =
'Die mellowing
as obscrved
of soonds
to
for musical
this case
by distance,therefore
mtres.
It
thu.t Iti at
In8800
C
c. O.S.
mca.surc
wu
a.ppe:u's
1, wlicu x =f"
take
mountainous
is pcrhaps
to bcmay attribnted
to friction,
countrics,
t))e
of
influence
fricLion
is
not
toby bu
atmospheric th pressures
Hkdy
of which
the higher
and Iuu's))cr componcnts
opration
arc
to ordiuary climinated.
sensible
nc:).r
observation,
II)nit
of
It
must
oftcn
cxcept
have
bccn
noticecl
tite
upper
that
gradually
thethe
is scareciy,
musical sca)e.
suund s'Die
if at al],
soonds
I hve
obscrved
fuund~ Iti
mellowing
of rctnrncd
distance,and as
by echos,
hiss loses its
th
opration
arc
higher
componcnts
jnctres.to viscosity.
A wave-lcngth
of 10 centimtres
would correspond
climinated.
It must oftcn
have bccn
noticeclncarly that the
gradually
to
for this case a; = 8800 mtres.
It a.ppe:u's therefore
thu.t at
Rayleighs
quo5ent
Also sfrom
volume 1 ifAcofitictU
is scareciy,
suund
1877.
at t))e
~/<t.'7.,
rctnrncd ofP/t~.
and
I hve
al], Observations,
influence
fricLion
by
echos,Junc,
is not
to bu fuund~
atmospheric
pressures
Hkdy
to ordiuary
that atsensible
a, distance
of 200
nictrcs cxcept
a powcrfui
loses
nc:).r tite hiss
observation,
II)nit itsof charactcr,
the
upper
sca)e.
'Dienomellowing
obscrvedaiso Iti is duc
even musical
whcn Uicrc
is
refiection.of soonds
Uns asenect
by distance,
Proba.b!y
mountainous
is pcrhaps
to bc attribnted
to friction,
countrics,
by
to viscosity.
Rayleighs damping
of which
th opration
the higher
and Iuu's))cr componcnts
arc
climinated.
It must oftcn
have bccn noticecl that the
gradually
AcofitictU
Observations,
1877.
~/<t.'7.,
Junc,
suund s is scareciy,
if at al], rctnrncdP/t~. by
echos, and I hve fuund~
that at a, distance
of 200 nictrcs
a powcrfui
hiss loses its charactcr,
even whcn Uicrc is no refiection.
Uns enect aiso is duc
Proba.b!y
to viscosity.
AcofitictU
39
Observations,
P/t~.
~/<t.'7.,
Junc,
1877.
40
10
Methods to obtain damping ra5os
Damping mechanisms in buildings
Logarithmic decrement
Although it is possible (and has been done in a few buildings) to obtain
damping ra8o in buildings from pull back tests and using logarithmic
decrement technique, in most cases this method is not used.
Our knowledge of damping mechanisms in buildings is rather limited.

Some of the main mechanisms are:
Intrinsic material damping (thermoelas8c damping)
LARGEST SOURCE OF DAMPING
Soil-structure interac8on, mainly radia8on damping but

also intrinsic damping in the soil
Fric8onal damping in structural elements (e.g., fric8on in
bolted connec8ons, fric8on in nailed connec8ons, fric8on
in micro and macro cracking of concrete, etc.)
SECOND LARGEST SOURCE OF DAMPING
Fric8onal damping in nonstructural components and their

connec8ons to the structure
Aerodynamic damping
(Ager Chopra, 1994)

41
42
T. Kijewski, A. Kareem / Structural Safety 24 (2002) 261280
265
for this lightly damped system. As long as the white noise assumption remains valid (implications
of this are discussed in [1,7]), the analogs between Eqs. (5) and (6) may be exploited for system
identification, via least squares minimization to obtain best-fit estimates of damping ! and natural
frequency fn, letting C=xo/Rx(0). Though this approach was used in this study, logarithmic
decrement or other identification techniques may also be used to determine the damping of the
system. Though this simplified approach is designated only for SDOF systems, the RDT can be
used to analyze multi-degree of freedom (MDOF) systems by the approach described herein with
the incorporation of bandpass filtering [8,9] or by introducing the recently developed vector random decrement technique [10]. However, as this study is concerned with establishing the reliability of RDT estimates of system parameters, it is sufficient for demonstrative purposes to
consider only the SDOF formulation.
The resulting RDS will be unbiased with variance that can be expressed by [5]:
Random Decrement Technique
Half-Power Band Width Method
This is a 8me-domain method which has recently become popular for

obtaining damping ra8os in wind-excited buildings. It is based on the
decomposi8on of
band-ltered
signals
into
the superposi8on
of the forced
h
i
!
"
!
"
!
"
7
var D " E D " $ E D " R 0=N 1 $ R " =R 0
vibra8on response with the homogeneous component or free vibra8on decay
where N =the number of segments averaged in the estimate. The presence of noise was ignored in
from given ini8al condi8ons obtaining a Random Decrement Signature which
this idealized derivation, as was the potential correlation between the captured segments. To
is propor8onal to the autocorrela8on func8on of the system.
This is a frequency-domain method in which a power density spectrum is

computed from a measured response. The damping ra8o is obtained as half
the width of the resonance peak measured at 2^0.5 of the peak amplitude
normalized by the resonance frequency.
xo
2
xo
xo
2
x
2
x
(Ager Chopra, 1994)

(Ager Kijweski-Correa,
2002)
43
Fig. 2. Conceptualization of the random decrement technique.
44
11
Commonly used methods such as the Half Power Band Width method or the
Random Decrement Technique which are commonly used techniques for
extrac8ng damping informa8on from buildings subjected to wind loading, they
may lead to unreliable results for earthquake loading given their much shorter
dura5on or because it required the excita5on frequency to be assumed to be a
white noise at least in the vicinity of the spectral peak (HPBW method) which
may not be valid for earthquake excita8ons.
Furthermore, Stagner and Hart (1971) found that damping ra8os obtained using
the Half Power Band Width method were aected by the record dura5on,
insucient frequency resolu5on, spectral smoothing and zero padding can
lead or the Random Decrement Technique which are commonly used
techniques for extrac8ng damping informa8on from buildings subjected to
wind loading, they may lead to unreliable results for earthquake loading given
their much shorter dura8on.
45
Previous studies
System Iden5ca5on Technique

Although recently there have been some developments on output-only system
iden8ca8on techniques, most methods infer dynamic proper8es from the
rela8onship between input and output of the system.
EXCITATION
STRUCTURE
RESPONSE
46
Previous studies
Despite its importance, very limited informa8on exists on damping ra8os

in building as we cannot obtain this type of informa8on in the lab or from
sta8c tes8ng. We primarily need to obtain them by measuring them in
actual buildings subjected to dynamic loading.
However, there are some limita8ons on previous studies:
1. There are typically based on very small number on buildings (e.g.,
Chopra and Goel (1997) only studied 22 buildings and only in one earthquake, the
1994 Northridge earthquake).
2. Most of the data is based on ambient vibra8on, small forced vibra8on

or wind loading (e.g., the study by Satake (2003) gathered informa8on on 205
Japanese buildings but only 18 building measurements were based on earthquake
loading).
3. Most studies have gathered data from dierent sources using

dierent methods ogen leading to inconsistent results (mixing apples
with oranges)
(Ager Goel and Chopra, 1997)

47
48
12
16
22
15
61
27
18Direction
50
Test
Building 1
Building 2
Building 3
and1Kareem,
2003).
This
4
7
21 implementation
38
2
73 of the Random
1
10
5
16
1
3
2
2
Decrement Technique (RDT) 2begins with
pre-processing
by
fn (Hz) z (%)
fn (Hz) z (%)
fn (Hz) z (%)
Butterworth bandpass filters to isolate each mode of interest
Selection of Reliable Damping Data
Full-Scale Data on Dynamic Properties of Buildings
x-Sway
HPBW
0.204
1.37
0.178
1.66
0.117
1.59
in Japan and a positive point trigger value is enforced to select the
RDT
0.204
0.89
0.178
1.52
0.117
1.01
Onlygenerate
reliable datathe
were RDS
selected
from the collected full-scale
segments of the response averaged to
(Bashor
(CoV, %) (0.13)
(12.61) (0.31)
(11.33) (0.15)
(10.18)
damping data. It was intended to confirm or supplement the colCollection ofetFull-Scale
Data As RDT is inherently sensitive
al., 2005).
to data
thetwice
trigger
lected full-scale
throughcondiquestionnaires to the institutes
HPBW
0.141
0.88
0.176
2.53
0.117
2.01
that had performed
the vibration
tests or observations.y-Sway
However,
Recent full-scale
data which
on the dynamic
properties
of buildings
tions,
directly
influence
the number
of segments
captured
RDT
0.141
1.00
0.176
2.95
0.116
1.44
some full-scale data with unknown data items remained. Some
were provided by over 40 institutes !universities, general contracand
thereby
the Other
quality
of data
the RDS,
repeated
triggering
that contained
no information
on vibration is
amplitude for vibration
tors, and offices
of structural
designers".
full-scale
(CoV, %) (0.13)
(6.43)
(0.96)
(5.54)
(0.34)
(24.20)
tests and observations
or damping
were collectedimplemented,
through a survey of journals
and proceedings
as proposed
by onKijewski-Correa
(2003)
and evaluation
pre- method were neglected. In a few cases, it was determined that damping ratios
building engineering issued in Japan since 1970.
viously implemented in the context of
the
Bashor
et the
al. damping evaluation
were
notCFSMP
accuratelyby
evaluated
when
Damping ratios and natural periods were picked up for transmethod (2007).
was appliedThis
with an
measurement
lational vibration
modes and
in two Kijewski-Correa
orthogonal directions andand
tor- Pirnia
5.1.condition
Performance of system identification techniques
(2005)
isimproper
accom!Davenport and Hill-Carroll 1986; AIJ 2000". In these cases, data
sional vibration modes, together with amplitudes obtained from
plished by generating a suite of RDSs
associated with a range of
were also omitted. Data on buildings with odd or complicated
vibration tests and observations. The database includes informawere
also discarded.
For both wind events the natural frequency estimates are
positivemethods
pointand
triggers
that aremethwithinshapes
a few
percent
of the desired
tion on vibration-testing
damping evaluation
Lastly, data on 137 steel-framed buildings, 25 reinforced conods. Data were also compiled on building features that may incompletely consistent between the time and frequency domain
trigger X . The resulting RDSs are thencrete
processed
using the Hilbert
!RC" buildings, 43 steel-framed reinforced concrete !SRC"
fluence dynamic properties,pincluding building height, number of
with RDT CoVs less than 1%. When comparing values
Transform
the natural
frequency
and and
the
criticalstructures
damping
buildings,
79 towerlike
were compiledtechniques,
in the Japastories, building
plan, buildingand
use, structural
type, foundation
nese damping
database.of
Data
were
categorized by structural
type. the wind events, the natural frequencies diminish
type, depth of ratio
foundations,
and length of piles.from the phase and
between
are determined
amplitude
the
analytic
slightly in the y-sway response of Building 2 inTable
the second
event. of Buildings Classified by Each Damping
signal, respectively. The resulting vector of frequency and damp3. Number
Table 2. Number of Buildings Tested by Each Vibration Method
Note that for this event, the y-axis experiences Evaluation
acrosswindMethod
action in Microtremor Observation Data
ing estimates are then averaged to yield mean estimate and
Structure Type
Steel-Framed Buildings
RC/SRC Buildings
and comparatively larger responses; therefore, the reduction in
corresponding coefficient of variation (CoV). The reliability of
Building height
250
200
150
100
50
150
100
50
Steel-framed
RC/SRC
frequency
these frequency
and time
approaches
for system
identi-100
H(m)
300
250
200 domain
150
100
050
Total
200
150
050
Total is consistent with the amplitude dependence noted in
Structure type
buildings
buildings
previous
from wind-induced vibration
data
has
Forced vibrationfication
test
11
27
8
46 been previously
1
14
12
27 studies (Kijewski-Correa and Pirnia 2007). On the other
by mechanical shaker
Logarithmic
damping
1
0
hand, critical damping ratios estimated by RDT have
CoVs that
are factor method
evaluated by Kijewski and Kareem (2002).
Forced vibration test
2
1
3
one to two orders of magnitude higher than those
associated with
Both of the aforementioned approaches assume stationarity of
Autocorrelation
decay method
14
4
by vibration control devices
natural1 frequency estimates. In fact, the CoVs Random
are larger
for thetechnique
the data, to varying
extents.
Although
in2 practice
wind is often 1
decrement
26
10
Free vibration test
1
1
2
4
10
by mechanical shaker
steel buildings, particularly Building 3, which isHalf-power
the building
with
viewed as a stationary random process, transient or nonstationary
bandwidth method
15
4
Free vibration test
2
1
the strongest degree of coupling between modes.
features are1 generally present
in
most field data.4 Therefore, before
CurveInterestingly,
fitting !power spectra"
8
14
by vibration control devices
the
time
and
frequency
domain
system
identification
approaches
data
is
processed
by
any
of
the
aforementioned
techniques,
its
Free vibration test
1
4
9
19
4
37
2
10
5
17
Curve fitting !transfer function"
1
5
by man power stationarity is established using the Run and Reverse Arrangeare most consistent in their damping estimateSystem
for the
concrete
identification
0
1
Free vibration test
2
2
4
structure
(within
14%)
and
show
the
most
significant
deviation
ments
Tests
(Bendat
and
Piersol,
2000).
In
addition
to
these
two
by pull and release
ELIABLE METHOD
for the steel structures whose power spectra are MOST
more Rnarrowtests,
additional verifications
are
made using a 9method proposed
Free vibration test
by swing
1
3
5
(Ager Satake, 2003)
Microtremor observation
1
2
8
21
17
5
54
1
3
16
8
28
band
and
generated with fewer spectral averages for a fixed
by Montpellier
(1996).
Profile of Full-Scale Data
Wind response observation
1
2
2
2
2
9
duration
Earthquake observation
1
2
3
3
2
11
1
2
3
1
7 wind event. Furthermore, given the low bias requireof isbuilding
features are exemplified in Table 1 as to
ment placed on the estimation of the power Statistics
spectra, it
not
PRIMARY INTEREST IN CALIFORNIA
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASCE / APRIL 2003 / 471
building height,
building use, and foundation type. Most of the
surprising that the damping estimates in the frequency
domain
5. In-depth study of two wind events
(Ager Satake, 2003)
steel-framed
buildings in the database are 50150 m high and are
are not consistently larger than the unbiased
time domain
J. Struct. Eng. 2003.129:470-477.
estimates, affirming that the residual error used
source
is indeed
as offices
or hotels. As the building height increases, spread
Before exploring the trends in dynamic properties over multi49
Damping Ratiosple
in Buildings
Damping
Ratios in
Buildings thebecome
random. When comparing damping
values
between
two preferable. However, most RC/SRC buildfoundations
wind events, two wind events are selected for in-depth
events, Building 2 yields the most consistentings
damping
in the values,
database are 50100 m high and are used as apartdiscussion to evaluate the performance of the system identificaregardless of the method employed, with HPBW
results
being
ments.
Pile foundations
are preferred for RC/SRC buildings.
tion techniques being employed. It should be noted that conwithin 22% and RDT results being within 18%. For
Building
1,
As shown
in Table
2, various vibration-testing methods were
firmation of stationarity by at least two of the three tests
while RDT results are quite consistent (within
between
discussed in the previous section was executed to qualify the
used.12%
These
methods can be divided into two types according to
events), HPBW results deviate by as the
much
as 50%.
two wind events featured here as stationary; the same criteria
excitation
method. One uses artificial excitation by mechaniThe
case
is
similar
for
Building
3,
where
RDT
damping
results
will be used for all data presented in later sections of the paper.
cal shakers, vibration control devices, man power, etc. The other
OF FLOOR ACCELERATION DEMANDS
115
are
within
19%
of
one
another,
while
HPBW
results
deviate
by
asESTIMATIONsuch
The identified natural frequencies and critical damping ratios are
uses natural excitation,
as microtremors, earthquakes,
or
EM30
much as 48%. This again can be credited to thewind
fact forces.
that theThe
two
respectively presented in Tables 2 and 3 for Wind Events 1 and
former can also SF42
be classified as SF47
forced vibration
steel buildings are characterized by considerably
more
narrow2 with respective mean hourly gradient winds and average wind
tests and free vibration tests. As shown in Table 2, microtremor
band spectra and are thereby more susceptible observations,
to variance errors
directions
of 20 m/s
and 2251
(SW) and
24 Davenport
m/s and 2881
(WNW).
forced vibration tests by mechanical shakers, and
Several
studies (e.g.,
Stagner
and Hart,
1971;
and
Carroll, 1986;
in the presence of limited amounts of data. Interestingly,
while
The
dynamic
properties
estimated
by
the
RDT
with
local
triggerman-power free
vibration tests were applied to many buildings.
Lagosmarino 1993; Kijewski and Kareem, 2002) have shown that dierent
RDT proves to be the more consistent dampingTherefore,
estimator,most
partiing
are
accompanied
by
their
CoV
to
provide
an
indicator
of
of the data in the database were evaluated in the
methods to extract damping ra8os in buildings from measured response can
cularly for the two steel buildings, when comparing
results
relative reliability of the estimate.
small amplitude region.
lead to dierent values and introduce bias in the es8mated damping ra8os.
between the two events, the consistency is generally
an order
of
Damping
evaluation
methods are closely related to the
magnitude better in the x-axis than the y-axis, which again
Table 2
vibration-testing methods !Davenport and Hill-Carroll 1986; KaEstimated dynamic properties for wind event 1.
experiences higher amplitude acrosswind response in Event 2.
reem and Gurley 1996; Tamura and Suganuma 1996". For each
As a result the lack of consistency may not be the result SF48
of
LA52
LA54
vibration-testing method using artificial
excitation,
the damping
Direction Test
Building 1
Building 2
Building 3
errors inherent to the method but potentially due to the ampliratios were evaluated restrictively by corresponding damping
tude-dependence previously observed in damping values in these
fn (Hz) z (%)
fn (Hz) z (%)
fn (Hz) z (%)
evaluation methods. A half-power method and curve fitting for a
buildings (Kijewski-Correa and Pirnia, 2007). In particular, in nonresponse curve were applied most frequently to the forced vibrax-Sway
HPBW
0.204
0.65
0.178
1.62
0.116
1.46
symmetric systems, the axes of the buildings typified by greater
tion tests. For most of the free vibration tests, a logarithmic decay
RDT
0.204
0.87
0.178
1.42
0.116
1.04
frame action tend to manifest more amplitude dependence in
(CoV, %) (0.10)
(23.88) (0.22)
(7.43) (0.25)
(20.63)
factor method was used. However, various damping evaluation
their dynamic properties: Building 1s x-axis as a result of
methods were employed for vibration tests using natural excitay-Sway
HPBW
0.141
1.14
0.177
2.07
0.116
1.06
potential shear lag along the elongated floor plate and Building
RDT
0.141
0.88
0.177
2.41
0.116
1.21
tion. The statistics for applied damping evaluation methods are
2s y-axis where primary lateral resistance is derived from
(CoV, %) (0.19)
(8.89)
(0.68)
(8.01) (0.14)
(22.96)
exemplified
in Table 3 as to microtremor observation. A random
slab and frame elements. The potential effects
of amplitude
decrement technique, curve fitting for power spectra, half-power
HPBW: Half Power Band Width method
(Ager Bashor et al, 2012)
RDT: Random Decrement Technique
Previous studies
Previous studies
Fig. 1. Building height H versus translational fi

period T 1
50
Fig. 2. First-mode natural period in translational mo

in torsional mode T t1
Previous studies
Previous studies
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by STANFORD UNIV on 06/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by STANFORD UNIV on 06/26/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights r
Pile
Foundation type(Kijewski
Spread
Unknown
51
Fig. 3. Natural period of first-mode T 1 versus that

T 2 , T 3 in translational mode
United States and some Asian countries !Davenp

Maebayashi et al. 1989". Not only low-rise bui
most supertall building are compiled in the databa
the relation between T 1 and natural periods in tors
T t1 . Fig. 3 shows the relation between T 1 and na
translational second and third modes, T 2 and T 3 .
indicate a regression line and its correlation factor
that r values for both steel-framed buildings and
ings in Figs. 13 are very high. These results i
natural periods of buildings in Japan can be predic
ing height.
bandwidth
method, and autocorrelation decay method are often
Figure 4. Tall buildings with accelerometric recorded data used in this study. They are located in Emeryville
San Francisco (SF) and Los Angeles (LA)
used for microtremor(EM),observation.
(Ager Reinoso and Miranda, 2005)
The building is instrumented by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). There are a total of
21 uniaxial accelerometers installed in the first, 13th, 21st and 30th floor levels (Anderson et al., 1991;
elebi and Safak, 1992). It was shaken by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, whose epicenter was 96
2
for the NS and the EW components, respectively.
km away, yielding
peak ground accelerations
of 173 and 208 cm/s
Damping
Properties
of Buildings
42-story categorizes
building in San Francisco
This3.1.2
section
data(SF42)
for 137 steel-framed buildings and
This is a moment-resisting steel-frame building, 183 m high (Figure 4), designed in 1972, slender and
68 RC/SRC
buildings,
and
of damping
ratios for
rectangular in plan,
and founded over
10 mcharacteristics
long piles (elebi, 1998; Anderson
and Bertero, 1998).
each structural type are analyzed.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 14, 107130 (2005)
Natural Periods
Before presenting damping properties, natural period properties
are discussed. Fig. 1 shows the relation between natural periods in
translational first-mode T and building height H. The tallest
52
First-Mode
Damping Ratios
First, translational first-mode damping ratios wer

4 shows the relation between first-mode dampin
building heights H. In Fig. 5, the natural periods
instead of H. Figs. 4 and 5 show that the larger t
the smaller the h 1 except at one point at 250
particular piece of data was for a building built
whose plan has a large dimension ratio. In ord
tendency, a curve fit for the plot has been attempte
5. It seems that the main reason for the depen
damping ratio and building height may be the
structure interaction and radiational damping.
13
Objec5ves of this study
Main Source of Informa5on
To obtain informa8on about damping ra8os in buildings to be used when

conduc8ng seismic analysis in combina8on with modal analysis (either
response spectrum analysis or response history modal analysis).
To use a signicantly larger number of buildings with dierent
characteris8cs (number of stories, materials, lateral resis8ng systems).
To use exclusively data from earthquake loading and with a wide range of
levels of intensity.
To use a single and reliable method for inferring the damping ra8os.
53
Summary of data used in this study
54
74 Buildings located in California
(more than three 8mes of those analyzed by Chopra and Goel, 2003)
(more than four 8mes of those analyzed by Satake with EQ loading)
Heights ranging from 1 to 54 stories

Wide range of materials and lateral resis8ng
systems
12 Earthquakes
6 in the San Francisco Bay Area and 6 from LA Metropolitan area

Magnitudes ranging from 4.1 to 7.1
29 Buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area

55
56
14
Basics of System Iden5ca5on
Time-invariant Parametric System Iden5ca5on

Obtain ground and
structural response
accelera*on records
Select structural parameters

Obtain computed accelera*on *me
histories by conduc*ng a modal
response history analysis
Computed
response
NO
Recorded
response ?
YES
45 Buildings in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
Store inferred
damping ra*os
57
58
T = ?, = ?
EXCITATION
T = 0.8, = 0.05
EXCITATION
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
Accel%%[in/s2]%
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
Accel%%[in/s2]%
200$
200$
$MEASURED$
100$
$MEASURED$
$COMPUTED$
100$
0$
0$
!100$
!100$
!200$
0$
5$
10$
15$
20$
25$
!200$
30$
0$
5$
10$
Time%[s]%
Acc [in/s2]
Acc [in/s2]
Ground Acceleration Time History (Accelerogram)
200
200
100
100
-100
-100
-200
-200
0
10
15
20
25
30
TIME [s]
15$
20$
25$
30$
25
30
Time%[s]%
10
15
20
TIME [s]
59
60
15
T = 1.0, = 0.05
EXCITATION
T = 1.2, = 0.05
EXCITATION
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
Accel%%[in/s2]%
Accel%%[in/s2]%
200$
200$
$MEASURED$
$COMPUTED$
100$
0$
0$
!100$
!200$
5$
10$
15$
20$
25$
$MEASURED$
$COMPUTED$
100$
!100$
0$
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
!200$
30$
0$
5$
10$
Time%[s]%
Acc [in/s2]
15$
20$
25$
30$
25
30
Time%[s]%
Acc [in/s2]
200
200
100
100
-100
-100
-200
-200
0
10
15
20
25
30
10
TIME [s]
20
62
T = 1.37, = 0.05
EXCITATION
15
TIME [s]
61
T = 1.37, = 0.03
EXCITATION
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
Accel%%[in/s2]%
Accel%%[in/s2]%
200$
200$
$MEASURED$
$COMPUTED$
100$
$MEASURED$
$COMPUTED$
100$
0$
0$
!100$
!100$
!200$
!200$
0$
5$
10$
15$
20$
25$
0$
30$
5$
10$
Acc [in/s2]
Acc [in/s2]
200
200
100
100
-100
-100
-200
-200
0
10
15
20
25
30
TIME [s]
15$
20$
25$
30$
25
30
Time%[s]%
Time%[s]%
10
15
20
TIME [s]
63
64
16
When comparing how close the recorded (measured) response is to the

computed response we use an objec5ve func5on dened as :
"10,000""
"9,000""
"8,000""
"7,000""
"6,000""
"5,000""
"4,000""
"3,000""
"2,000""
"1,000""
")""""
m 2j,i
where
mj,i is the measured response in the jth sensor during the ith time step
cj,i is the measured response in the jth sensor during the ith time step
System iden5ca5on is essen5ally an op5miza5on problem in which we
want to nd the parameters of the model which minimize the objec5ve
func5on (that minimize the dierence between computed and measured
response in all sensors)
0"
0.02"
0.04"
0.06"
PERIO
D
65
0.08"
0.1"

66
OBJECTIVE
FUNCTION J
(ERROR)
4800,5400%
4200,4800%
3600,4200%
3000,3600%
0.013%
2400,3000%
0.016%
1200,1800%
0.019%
600,1200%
0,600%
1.39%
1.37%
1.40%
1.38%
1.35%
PERIO
D
67
0.028%
1.36%
M
DA
1.33%
0.025%
1.34%
0.022%
450-500%
400-450%
350-400%
300-350%
250-300%
200-250%
DAMP
ING R
ATIO
1800,2400%
1.32%
IO
AT
G R
PIN
5400,6000%
1.30%
0.010%
0.013%
0.016%
0.019%
0.022%
6000%
5400%
4800%
4200%
3600%
3000%
2400%
1800%
1200%
600%
0%
500%
450%
400%
350%
300%
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
0.010%
1.31%
0.025%
1.20%
1.22%
1.24%
1.26%
1.28%
1.30%
1.32%
1.34%
1.36%
1.38%
1.40%
0.028%
OBJECTIVE
FUNCTION J
(ERROR)
PER
IO
"9,000")"10,000""
"8,000")"9,000""
"7,000")"8,000""
"6,000")"7,000""
"5,000")"6,000""
"4,000")"5,000""
"3,000")"4,000""
"2,000")"3,000""
"1,000")"2,000""
")""")"1,000""
i=1
"m j,i c j,i $%
#
j=1
DA
MP
ING
RA
TIO
J=
0.05"
0.30"
0.55"
0.80"
1.05"
1.30"
1.55"
1.80"
OBJECTIVE
FUNCTION J
(ERROR)
150-200%
100-150%
50-100%
0-50%
T = 1.37, = 0.021
68
17

Obje%ve'
Func%on,'J,'
(error)'
25000"

Objec&ve(
Func&on(J(
(error)(
400"
= 0.021
20000"
T = 1.37s
300"
15000"
J
T
5000"
200"
T = 1.37s
10000"
= 0.021
100"
0"
0"
0.5"
1"
Period'[s]'
1.5"
2"
0"
0.000"
69
0.005"
0.010"
0.015"
0.020"
Damping(Ra&o(
0.025"
0.030"
70
Objec*ve func*on:
10
9
Obje%ve'
Func%on,'J,'
(error)'
25000"
= 50
i > 1 = 5%
15-Mass
T = 1.37s
= 0.021
7
6
5
4
20000"
15000"
T = 1.37s
10000"
0.04
1
7.5
= 0.021
0.03
Objective Function J
8
0.05
0.06
0
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.07
1.1
1.2
6.5
5000"
Objec&ve(
Func&on(J(
(error)(
400"
1.4
1.5
0.08
[%]
T [s]
300"
1.3
100"
0"
0.000"
0"
0.5"
1"
Period'[s]'
1.5"
0.005"
0.010"
0.015"
0.020"
Damping(Ra&o(
0.025"
0.030"
2"
5.5
5
4.5
These slope (formally par5al deriva5ves of an N-dimensional objec5ve func5on) will

control how fast you converge to the minimum (inferred parameters) but more
importantly the accuracy on your parameters.
[%]
200"
0"
71
(Ager C. Cruz and E. Miranda, 2014)
4
3.5
3
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
T [s]
1.05
1.1
72
18
Examples of System Iden5ca5on

T = 1.37, = 0.021
EXCITATION
RESPONSE
STRUCTURE
CSMIP Station:
58354
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
Hayward
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Lateral Resisting System:
Use/Type:
CSUH Admin Building
Building parameters:
T1 = 1.34
= 0.025
= 15
Steel & RConcrete MRF
Accel%%[in/s2]%
200$
$MEASURED$
$COMPUTED$
100$
0$
!100$
!200$
0$
5$
10$
15$
20$
25$
30$
Time%[s]%
Acc [in/s2]
200
100
0
-100
-200
0
5
CSMIP Station:
10
58354

Number of stories: 13
Location:
Hayward
Use/Type:
CSUH Admin Building
15
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Component:
NSref
TIME [s]
20
25
30
1.9
T1 = 1.25
= 0.03
= 29.5
Manual
73
x=z/H
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
ROOF
CHAN3
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2
PFA / PGA
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
ROOF
From computed resp.
750
500
250
0
5
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
0.0
30
5TH FLOOR
CHAN5
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
5TH
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
750
500
250
0
5
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
30
2ND FLOOR
CHAN8
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
From recorded resp.

From computed resp.
500
0
15
Time [s]
20
25
30
1ST FLOOR
CHAN11
Computed
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
1ST
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
750
250
15
Time [s]
20
25
0.0
30
BASE
CHAN16
Computed
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
BASE
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
750
500
250
0
5
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
30
= 29.5
Manual
x=z/H
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
10
0.6
15
20
Time [s]
0.5
0.4
25
30
35
40
Recorded
Computed
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
ROOF
CHAN3
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2
PFA / PGA
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
CHAN6 - CHAN14
From recorded resp.

From computed resp.
Computed
750
Computed
500
250
0
5
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
0.0
30
5TH FLOOR
CHAN5
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
5TH
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
750
500
250
0
5
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
30
2ND FLOOR
CHAN8
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
2ND
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
750
10
15
20
Time [s]
500
250
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
30
1ST FLOOR
CHAN11
Computed
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
1ST
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
750
500
250
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
0.0
30
BASE
CHAN16
Computed
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
BASE
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
750
500
250
10
15
Time [s]
20
25
30
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
What is the modal damping ra5o I should use if I am interested in reproducing the
1ST FLOOR
measured response when:
CHAN12 - CHAN14
a) I am compu5ng the response with a modal response history analysis;
Computed
b) I am using a linear elas5c model xed at the base;
0
10
= 0.03
Main ques*on I was interested in answering
500
1.9
T1 = 1.25
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
250
10
0.0
Accel. [cm/s2]
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0
750
Loma Prieta
NSref
CSUH Admin Building
Disp. [cm]
2ND FLOOR
5
CHAN9 - CHAN14
4
Computed
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
: (and its what dis*guishes this research from
-5
using a m10
uch larger number
of buildings
arthquake loading)
0 other apart from
5
15
20 excited by e25
30
35
40
Time [s]
2ND
FLOOR
Computed
Earthquake:
Component:
13
Use/Type:
0.1
From recorded resp.
Computed
58354
Hayward
Number of stories:
74
0.2
Computed
CSMIP Station:
Location:
0.3
Recorded
0.0
ROOF
CHAN4 - CHAN14
Computed
0.2
0.1
Displ. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
75
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
Damping
Ratios in Buildings
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
5
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
76
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
BASE
CHAN14 - CHAN14
Computed
19
CSMIP Station:
58354
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
Hayward
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Use/Type:
CSUH Admin Building
T1 = 1.34
= 0.025
= 15

Displ. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
Computed
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
58261
Location:
San Francisco
Use/Type:
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
5TH FLOOR
CHAN6 - CHAN14
= 0.025
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
CSMIP Station:
58261
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
San Francisco
Component:
NSref
Number of stories:
Use/Type:
Office Building
1.9
T1 = 0.66
= 0.035
40
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
0.6
40
0.5
1ST FLOOR
CHAN12 - CHAN14
0.4
Computed
0.3
0.2
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
CHAN14 - CHAN14
Computed
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Component:
NSref
1.9
T1 = 0.66
Lateral
Resisting
5
10 System: 15 Steel MRF
20
25
Time [s]
30
= 0.035
35
Computed
0.0
BASE
= 5.9
Manual
77
40
CSMIP Station:
58261
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
San Francisco
Component:
NSref
Accel. [cm/s2]
Number of stories:
600
Use/Type:
450
T1 = 0.66
= 0.035
ROOF
Steel MRF
Office Building
CHAN10
Computed
Damping300
Ratios in Buildings
= 5.9 Accel.
[cm/s2]
3200
78
2
3
PFA / PGA
ROOF
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
2400
150
x=z/H
-150
1.0
-300
1600
0.6
0.3
0.0
ROOF
Accel.
[cm/s2]
3200
Recorded
2
3
PFA / PGA
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
CHAN7
450
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
Accel. [cm/s ]
600
6.0
450
2ND
FLOOR
From computed resp.
300
2400
150
0
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
Accel. [cm/s2]
600
40
BASE
CHAN3
450
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
3200
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
BASE
40
CHAN3
2ND FLOOR
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
3200
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
CHAN7 - CHAN3
2400
1600
800
-4
-6
-8
0
From computed resp.
10
10
15
15
20
20
Time [s]
25
Time [s]
25
30
30
35
40
35
0
40
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
BASE
CHAN3 - CHAN3
Computed
2
0
1600
-2
-150
-300
-4
800
-450
-6
-600
0
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
-8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
79
6.0
BASE
-2
From recorded resp.
2400
35
Computed
Disp. [cm]
8
150
0
BASE
Computed
300
-600
0
15
-450
800
10
150
-300
-450
-600
0
5
-150
1600
-150
-300
800
Disp. [cm]
8
300
From recorded resp.
Computed
From recorded resp.
1600
CHAN10 - CHAN3
-8
Accel.
[cm/s2]
3200
6.0
2ND
FLOOR
From computed resp.
ROOF
-6
0.0
40
2ND FLOOR
5.0
Computed
-4
10
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
3200
2400
-2
800
-450
Accel. [cm/s2]
600
CHAN7
-600
-150
0.0
40
= 0.03
-450
1600
35
2ND FLOOR
-300
2400
-600
30
Displ. [cm]
8
-150
ROOF
150
-300
25
Computed
150
From computed resp.
20
Time [s]
300
Computed
From recorded resp.
Computed
300
15
450
= 0.03
CHAN10
10
Accel. [cm/s2]
600
0.4
0.1
450
0.5
0.2
Accel. [cm/s2]
600
-600
0.7
800
-450
0.8
Recorded
0.1
5
0.9
Manual
x=z/H
2ND FLOOR
Office Building
= 5.9
CHAN9 - CHAN14
Steel MRF
Computed
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
CSMIP Station:
10
Computed
Disp. [cm]
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0
Number of stories: 4
Damping
Ratios in Buildings

ROOF
CHAN4 - CHAN14
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
80
20
6.0
CSMIP Station:
58264
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
Palo Alto
Component:
NSref
Number of stories:
Lateral Resisting System: Masonry SW
Use/Type:
Office Building
1.8
T1 = 0.28
= 0.2
= 10
Manual
x=z/H
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
= 0.20
0.2
Recorded
0.1
Computed
0.0
CSMIP Station:
58264
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
T1 = 0.28
Location:
Palo Alto
Component:
NSref
Number of stories:
Lateral Resisting System: Masonry SW
Use/Type:
Office Building
2
PFA / PGA
1.8
= 0.2
= 10
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
Manual
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
ROOF
CHAN7
300
Computed
100
ROOF
From computed resp.
800
200
From recorded resp.
600
0
400
-100
-200
x=z/H
0.8
30
35
0.0
40
CHAN1
Computed
5.0
6.0
BASE
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
600
400
200
-300
-400
0.1
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
800
-200
0
0
Recorded
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
BASE
-100
0.2
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
Computed
0.0
0
2
PFA / PGA
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
81
25
0.3
Computed
20
Time [s]
100
0.4
CHAN7
15
200
0.5
200 Ratios in Buildings

Damping
100
10
300
0.6
300
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
0.7
ROOF
-400
0.9
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
200
-300
1.0
ROOF
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
800
CSMIP Station:
58364
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
Walnut Creek
Component:
EWref
of stories: 10
Damping RatiosNumber
in Buildings
Use/Type:
600
1.9
T1 = 0.78
= 0.032
= 7.5
Manual
Shear Walls
82
Commercial Building
0
400
-100
x=z/H
1.0
-200
0.9
200
-300
0.8
0.7
-400
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35

Accel. [cm/s2]
400
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
BASE
CHAN1
300
0.0
40
Computed
100
0.6
6.0
BASE
From recorded resp.
0.5
Accel. [cm/s2]
300
58364
Location:
-300
Walnut Creek
Number of stories:
-400
0
Use/Type:
10
Earthquake:
Component:
Loma Prieta
15
20
Time [s]
T1 = 0.78
25
200
= 0.032
= 7.5
Manual
35
40
CHAN3
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
From computed resp.
300
-200
0
5
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
8TH FLOOR
200
Computed
CHAN7
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
8TH
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
900
600
300
-200
-300
0
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
Accel. [cm/s2]
300
40
3RD FLOOR
CHAN10
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
3RD
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
900
100
0.5
0.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
Computed
200
0.6
600
-100
0.4
300
-200
0.3
-300
0
0
10
15
0.2
Computed
0.0
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
Accel. [cm/s2]
300
Recorded
0.1
40
BASE
CHAN16
Computed
200
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
2
3
PFA / PGA
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
BASE
From recorded resp.
From computed resp.
900
100
600
0
-100
300
-200
ROOF
-300
0
From recorded resp.
Computed
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
From computed resp.
83
100
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
0.7
0.0
40
Accel. [cm/s2]
300
0.8
200
ROOF
-100
0.9
ROOF
From recorded resp.
600
100
1.0
CHAN3
2
3
PFA / PGA
900
0.0
x=z/H
Accel. [cm/s2]
300
Computed
Computed
-100
-300
0
30
Recorded
0.0
0
1.9
Shear Walls
= 0.032
0.1
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
100
EWref
5
10
Commercial
Building
0.2
ROOF
200
400
CSMIP Station:
-200
0.3
600
-100
0.4
From computed resp.
800
200
5.0
900
84
600
0
-100
300
-200
0
-300
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
Accel. [cm/s2]
300
8TH FLOOR
200
Computed
100
0
0.0
40
CHAN7
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
From recorded resp.

From computed resp.
900
600
-100
300
6.0
8TH
FLOOR
21
CSMIP Station:
58364
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
Walnut Creek
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
10
Use/Type:
Commercial Building
T1 = 0.78
= 0.032
= 7.5
Shear Walls
= 0.032
Displ. [cm]
4
ROOF
CHAN3 - CHAN16
Computed
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
CSMIP Station:
58532
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
San Francisco
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
47
Use/Type:
Office Building
1.9
T1 = 6.70
= 0.011
= 30
Manual
Steel MRF
8TH FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
4
CHAN7 - CHAN16
Computed
2
1
x=z/H
1.0
-1
-2
0.9
-3
-4
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
Disp. [cm]
4
0.8
40
0.7
3RD FLOOR
CHAN10 - CHAN16
0.6
Computed
2
1
0.5
0
-1
0.4
-2
-3
0.3
-4
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
0.2
BASE
Disp. [cm]
4
Computed
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0
58532
Location:
San Francisco
10
Earthquake:
15
Component:
DampingNumber
Ratios
in Buildings
of stories:
47
Use/Type:
Computed
0.0
2
1
CSMIP Station:
Recorded
0.1
CHAN16 - CHAN16
20
Loma PrietaTime [s]
25
30
35
40
1.9
T1 = 6.70
EWref
= 0.011
= 30
Manual
Steel MRF
85
Office Building
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
CSMIP Station:
58532
Earthquake:
Loma Prieta
Location:
San Francisco
Component:
EWref
300
Number of stories:
47
200
Use/Type:
Office Building
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
0 = 30
2
PFA / PGA
ROOF
T1 = 6.26
= 0.012
CHAN16
Steel MRF
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
86
100
ROOF
900
600
0
-100
x=z/H
300
-200
1.0
0.9
-300
0.8
-400
0
0
0.7
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
0.6
0.3
= 0.011
0.0
ROOF
CHAN16
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
200
Computed
100
2
PFA / PGA
ROOF
From computed resp.
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
55
CHAN11
300
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
200
900
100
0
600
-100
-200
300
-300
-400
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
55
60
BASE
CHAN7
300
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
BASE
300
0
-15
10
-30
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
50
55
30
15
60
BASE
60
CHAN7
-15
-200
-30
-300
-45
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
From recorded resp.
600
300
0
10
10
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
Time [s]
30
Time [s]
Disp. [cm]
60
35
40
35
45
40
50
45
55
60
50
55
60
BASE
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
CHAN7 - CHAN7
Computed
30
From computed resp.
900
15
100
600
-15
-100
-200
-30
300
-45
-300
-400
-60
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
87
6.0
BASE
From computed resp.
-60
1.0
900
Computed
-100
0.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
Computed
CHAN11 - CHAN7
45
100
55
16th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
60
200
45
From recorded resp.
Computed
200
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
-400
600
ROOF
-60
300
16th
FLOOR
From recorded resp.

From computed resp.
Computed
-45
0.0
60
16th FLOOR
6.0
900
-400
5.0
15
300
-300
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
16th
FLOOR
Computed
30
-400
-100
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1200
CHAN16 - CHAN7
45
-200
0.0
60
CHAN11
Displ. [cm]
60
-100
600
-200
55
= 0.011
-300
900
100
0
50
16th FLOOR
300
Recorded
From recorded resp.
Computed
200
45
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
0.4
0.1
300
40
0.5
0.2
Accel. [cm/s2]
400
35
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
88
22
6.0
CSMIP Station:
24602
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
52
Use/Type:
Office Building
T1 = 6.04
= 0.009
= 6.6
Steel MRF

Displ. [cm]
80
ROOF
CHAN19 - CHAN05
60
Computed
40
20
0
-20
-40
CSMIP Station:
24602
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
52
Use/Type:
Office Building
-60
-80
T1 = 6.04
= 0.009
= 6.6
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
Disp. [cm]
80
Steel MRF
70
75
80
= 0.009
49th FLOOR
CHAN16 - CHAN05
60
Computed
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
Disp. [cm]
80
70
75
80
35th FLOOR
CHAN13 - CHAN05
60
Computed
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
Disp. [cm]
80
70
75
80
22nd FLOOR
CHAN10 - CHAN05
60
Computed
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
Disp. [cm]
80
70
75
80
14th FLOOR
CHAN08 - CHAN05
60
Computed
40
Displ. [cm]
80
20
ROOF
0
-20
CHAN19 - CHAN05
60
-40
-60
Computed
40
-80
0
20
89
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
Disp. [cm]
80
70
75
80
BASE
CHAN05 - CHAN05
60
90
Computed
40
-20
20
0
-40
-20
-40
-60
-60
-80
-80
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
Disp. [cm]
80
70
75
49th FLOOR
Results from all buildings/earthquakes
CHAN16 - CHAN05
60
10
15
20
25
30
35
80
Computed
40
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
20
Variability and probability distribu8on
"
-20
-40
0.40#
0.35#
0
5
10
0.30#
Disp. [cm]
80
0.25#
60
40
0.20#
20
0
0.15#
-20
0.10#
-40
-60
0.05#
-80
0
5
10
0.00#
0#
Disp. [cm]
P(<x)#
-60
1.0#
-80
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
0.8#
CHAN13 - CHAN05
Computed
0.6#
0.4#
20
25
30
50#
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
100#
150#
Data#Number#
60
55
60
200#
65
70
250#
75
80
22nd FLOOR
CHAN10 - CHAN05
-80
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
70
0.15#
0.20#
0.25#
0.30#
This level of variability is much larger than for example the one in a GMPE
(spectral ordinate for a given magnitude and distance) which is typically
between 0.45 and 0.60.
Disp. [cm]
80
0.10#
Damping#Ra8o,#"
-20
Characterized
by very large variability and values ranging from much lower
-40
(e.g.,
<1%) to much larger (e.g., >20%) than the 5% commonly used
-60
20
Median = 5.0%
0.05#
Computed
20
15
0.0#
0.00#
244 Damping ra8os
40
GeoMean = 5.0%
Ln = 0.73

#Data#
#Lognormal#
0.2#
15
80
0
5
10
Damping Ratios
in Buildings
Mean = 6.7%
= 6.1%
COV = 0.92
80
35th FLOOR
75 91
80
92
14th FLOOR
CHAN08 - CHAN05
60
Computed
40
20
0
23
-20
-40
-60
-80
0
Disp. [cm]
80
60
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time [s]
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
BASE
CHAN05 - CHAN05
Computed
Results from N>3 (elimina8ng data from 1 and 2 story buildings)
Many ques8ons under this head. For example:
How dierent are the damping ra5os in steel buildings compared to RC buildings?
""
0.40#
0.40#
0.35#
0.35#
0.30#
0.30#
0.25#
0.25#
0.20#
0.20#
0.15#
0.15#
0.10#
0.10#
0.05#
0.05#
0.00#
0.00#
"
0.20#
0.15#
0.10#
0#
50#
100#
150#
100#
150#
Data#Number#
Data#Number#
200#
200#
0.05#
250#
250#
0.00#
0#
Then the average damping ra5o from all buildings drops from 6.7% to 5.4%
which is a reduc5on of 20% (afer elimina5ng about one fh of the data
from one and two-story buildings)
93

Are the dierences sta5s5cally signicant ?
0.20#
YES, THEY ARE
#RC#Bldgs.#
Average
Values
0.10#
= 0.066
= 0.041
0.05#
0.00#
0#
50#
100#
150#
Data#Number#
200#
100#
150#
Data#Number#
200#
250#
94
"
#Steel#Bldgs.#
0.15#
50#
Changes in damping ra5o with building height
"
250#
= -0.36
0.40#
0.35#
0.30#
0.25#
0.20#
0.15#
0.10#
0.05#
0.00#
#All#Bldgs.#
0#
100# 200# 300# 400# 500# 600# 700# 800#

Height#[3]#
There is indisputable evidence both from wind and seismic loading that
damping ra5o tends to decrease as building height increases. Therefore it
doesnt make sense to use a damping ra5o of 5% for all buildings regardless
of their height.
This suggest that a more ra5onal approach would be to use a lower level of
damping for steel structures than for reinforced concrete buildings. Some of this is
already acknowledged by ASCE 41 but not by ASCE 7, so is dierent whether you are
designing a new building or evalua5ng an exis5ng one when in reality an
earthquake will not ask you which document you are using.
#RC#Bldgs.#
#Steel#Bldgs.#
95
96
24

Two possible models:
"
"
!RC!Bldgs.!
0.20#
#RC#Bldgs.#
"RC"Bldgs."
0.15"
0.15#
"
0.20"
0.10"
0.10#
0.05"
0.05"
0.05#
0.00"
0.00"
0"
50"
100"
150"
Height"[8]"
0.00#
50#
100#
150#
Height#[.]#
200#
250#

"
250"
0"
50"
100"
150"
Height"[8]"
200"
250"
98

"
!Steel!Bldgs.!
0.20#
200"
Cau8on should be exercised when using this type of models as their associated coecient
of determina8on is rather low due to the large variability in the data. A beFer approach is
to bracket your analysis and use two values
97
"RC"Bldgs."
y"="0.2506x*0.341"
R"="0.14925"
0.15"
y"="0.0862e*0.005x"
R"="0.15679"
0.10"
0#
!RC!Bldgs.!
0.20"
0.20#
#Steel#Bldgs.#
#RC#Bldgs.#
#Steel#Bldgs.#
0.15#
0.15#
0.10#
0.10#
0.05#
0.05#
0.00#
0#
0.00#
0#
100# 200# 300# 400# 500# 600# 700# 800#

Height#[3]#
100# 200# 300# 400# 500# 600# 700# 800#

Height#[3]#
No8ce that we do not have data on very tall reinforced concrete buildings. One
excep8on in Northern California is the PPP, but fortunately this has been iden8ed and
both CSMIP and USGS have recently instrumented several tall RC buildings (we now just
need EQs to learn more about their damping ra8os J )
99
100
25
Damping mechanisms and varia5on of damping

ra5os with height
Two possible models:

"
"Steel"Bldgs."
0.15"
y"="0.0534e*0.003x"
R"="0.60853"
0.10"
0.20"
"Steel"Bldgs."
0.15"
0.05"
0.05"
0.00"
100" 200" 300" 400" 500" 600" 700" 800"
Height"[9]"
Intrinsic material damping (thermoelas8c damping)
y"="0.5066x)0.576"
R"="0.58953"
0.10"
0.00"
0"
Which of these mechanisms would explain a decrease in damping ra8o

with increasing height ?
"
0.20"
0"
Soil-structure interac8on, mainly radia8on damping but

also intrinsic damping in the soil
Fric8onal damping in structural elements (e.g., fric8on in
bolted connec8ons, fric8on in nailed connec8ons, fric8on
in micro and macro cracking of concrete, etc.)
100" 200" 300" 400" 500" 600" 700" 800"

Height"[:]"
Even though the number of data points is smaller, the coecients of determina8on are
are much larger than for RC buildings, so one can use these models with more condence.

No8ce that for H>500 N the damping ra8os are 1% or less which agrees with the level of
damping measured in strong wind storms.
Fric8onal damping in nonstructural components and their

connec8ons to the structure
Aerodynamic damping
101
24322
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Use/Type:
Commercial Building
24322
Earthquake:
Whittier
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Use/Type:
Commercial Building
T1 = 2.57
= 0.04
= 29.5
RConcrete MRF
102
Evalua5on Changes with Amplitude

CSMIP Station:
CSMIP Station:

= 0.04
T1 = 2.54
= 0.045
RConcrete MRF
= 29.5
CSMIP Station:
24322
Earthquake:
Whittier
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Displ. [cm]
Use/Type:
15
Commercial Building
T1 = 2.57
= 0.04
= 29.5
RConcrete MRF
ROOF
CHAN01 - CHAN10
10
Computed
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
8th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
15
CHAN04 - CHAN10
Computed
10
5
0
-5
Displ. [cm]
-1015
-1510
0
5
Displ. [cm]
15
ROOF
CHAN01 - CHAN10
10
Computed
0 [cm]
Disp.
15
-5
10
-10
5
-15
0 0
20
Time [s]
25
30
103
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
CHAN07 - CHAN10
Computed
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
8TH FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
15
40
8th FLOOR
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
BASE
CHAN10 - CHAN10
10
15
20
Time [s]
10
15
20
Time [s]
10
15
25
30
-5
Disp. [cm]
15
-10
35
40
2nd FLOOR
CHAN07 - CHAN10
Computed
25
30
35
40
26
-5
-10
-5
-15
0
-10
Disp. [cm]
15
-15
0
Disp. [cm]
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
104
Computed
5
-15
10
-15
50
CHAN04 - CHAN10
Computed
10
35
CHAN04 - CHAN10
Damping Ratios in10Buildings

40
40
2nd FLOOR
-10
10
35
0
Disp. [cm]
15
-5
-15
5
15
Computed
-1510
50
0
-5
10
-5
Disp. [cm]
-1015
-10 Ratios in Buildings

Damping
ROOF
CHAN01 - CHAN10
Computed
10
5
0
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
BASE
CHAN10 - CHAN10
Computed
CSMIP Station:
24322
Earthquake:
Northridge
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Use/Type:
Commercial Building
T1 = 2.92
= 0.05
= 29.5
24322
Earthquake:
Northridge
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Use/Type:
Commercial Building
24322
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
13
Use/Type:
Commercial Building
T1 = 2.92
= 0.05
= 29.5
CSMIP Station:
24322
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Sherman Oaks
Component:
EWref
13
Number of stories:
Displ. [cm]
Commercial
15
Use/Type:
ROOF
-5
-10
0
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
-5
-10
-40
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
Displ. [cm]
60
Disp. [cm]
60
2nd FLOOR
CHAN01
- CHAN10
CHAN07
- CHAN10
40
40
Computed
Computed
20
20
0
10
-5
-15
-10
10
Disp. [cm]10
15

60
15
20
Time [s]
20
Time [s]
25
25
30
35
30
40
35
BASE
40
105
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
-5
-10
-10

5
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
Mw
Epic.1Dist1[km]
Roof1displ.1[in]
RDR1Long.1Ewref
Computed
1-Oct-87
6.1
38
4.92
0.00250
0.040
Northridge
17-Jan-94
187
6.7
4.88
12.87
0.00248
2.54
0.045
10
15
"
0.08#
Disp. [cm]
60
20
Time [s]
0.00640
25
2.52
0.050
2.92
30
35
T/T WT
/ WT
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.13
1.15
1.25
-15
0
10
10
15
15
20 20
Time
Time
[s] [s]
2525
30
30
3535
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number-5 of stories:
17
Use/Type:
-10
Residential Building
40 40
2ND FLOOR
CHAN07 - CHAN10
Computed
T1 = 0.94
= 0.031
= 1.4
Shear Walls
-15
5
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
Disp. [cm]
15
40
BASE
CHAN10 - CHAN10
10
Computed
40
-5
-10
Computed
-15
0
10
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
NR
WT
0.03#
-40
106
CHAN10
- CHAN10
Computed
0.04#
-20
40
8TH FLOOR
Location:
0
LD
0.05#
40
35
BASE
CHAN04
- CHAN10
Landers
CHAN10 - CHAN10
0.06#
20
35
30
Earthquake:
BASE
0.07#
40
30
25
24601
-60
0
25
20
Time [s]
Computed
7.3
20
Time [s]
CSMIP 5Station:
28-Jun-92
15
10
40
CHAN07
T - CHAN10
15
10

35
40
-40
10
5
Disp. [cm]
15
2nd FLOOR
Date
Landers
2ND FLOOR
Computed
CHAN07 - CHAN10
40
40
ROOF
35
-5
-15
-60
15
30
-40
10
25
10
CHAN04 - CHAN10
20
Time [s]
15
Computed
15
Computed
-15
8th FLOOR
20
10
Damping
10 Ratios in Buildings
Computed
-20
Disp. [cm]
15
Disp. [cm]
CHAN10 - CHAN10
40
Whittier
40
CHAN04 - CHAN10
0
5
-20
20
35
-10
0
0
Earthquake
30
CHAN01 - CHAN10
-60
Disp. [cm]
60
25
8TH FLOOR
-5
-40
20
Time [s]
Disp. [cm]
15
10
ROOF
-20
-60
15
-15
0
-40
10
Computed
Displ. [cm]
15
-60
0
-20
-20
= 29.5
20
20
CHAN01 - CHAN10
10
CHAN04 - CHAN10
Computed
40
40
= 0.045
ROOF
Disp. [cm]
15
8th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
60
T1 = 2.54
Building
Computed
-60
-15
-40
Disp. [cm]
60
= 29.5
0
-20
-60
20
-40
= 0.045
RConcrete MRF
10
CHAN01 - CHAN10
Computed
40
T1 = 2.54

= 0.045
RConcrete MRF
Displ. [cm]
60
-20
RConcrete MRF
RConcrete MRF

= 0.05
CSMIP Station:
CSMIP Station:
0.02#
-60
0
10
0.01#
15
20
Time [s]
25
30
35
40
Displ. [cm]
6.0
0.00#
0.000# 0.001# 0.002# 0.003# 0.004# 0.005# 0.006# 0.007#
Roof#Dri2#Ra4o#
Computed
3.0
About three 5mes the amplitude of response and somewhat similar level of damping
ROOF
CHAN12 - CHAN04
4.5
107
1.5
0.0
-1.5
108
Damping
Ratios in Buildings
-3.0
-4.5
-6.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
13th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
6.0
CHAN09 - CHAN04
4.5
Computed
27
3.0
1.5
0.0
-1.5
-3.0
-4.5
-6.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
CSMIP Station:
24601
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
17
Use/Type:
T1 = 0.94
= 0.031
= 1.4
Shear Walls

= 0.031
Displ. [cm]
6.0
CSMIP Station:
24601
Earthquake:
Landers
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
17
Use/Type:
= 0.031
24601
Earthquake:
Northridge
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
17
Use/Type:
= 1.4
Shear Walls
CHAN12 - CHAN04
Computed
24601
Earthquake:
Northridge
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
17
= 0.033
= 1.8
T1 = 1.08
= 0.033
= 1.8
Shear Walls
ROOF
CHAN12 - CHAN04
3.0
Computed
1.5
0.0
-1.5
-3
-3.0
-6
-4.5
-9
-6.0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
-12
60
13th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
6.0
Computed
Displ. [cm]
6.0
3.0
1.5
4.5
0.0
3.0
-1.5
-3
-3.0
10
15
10
15
20
2025
30 30
Time Time
[s] [s]
3535
25
40
40
45
45
50
5055
60
55
Computed
3.0
4.5
CHAN07 - CHAN04
-3.0
-6.0
0
Location:
0
10
15
4.5 Angeles
Los
10
15
17
Use/Type:
Disp. [cm]
Residential
Building
0.0
Damping Ratios 6.0

in Buildings
20
3.0
Number of stories:
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
Earthquake:
Sierra Madre
Component:
25
30
EWref35
Time [s]
1.5
40
45
50
55
60
7th FLOOR
Building
parameters:
40
CHAN07 - CHAN04
50T
45
1
Computed
= 0.95
55
60=
0.035
4.5
-3.0
Computed
3.0
-4.5
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
Damping Ratios in
55
0.0
-1.5
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
CSMIP Station:
24601
Earthquake:
Sierra Madre
Location:
Los Angeles
Component:
EWref
Number of stories:
17
Use/Type:
Displ. [cm]
4
40
45
50
55
35
40
45
50
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
40
45
55
50
60
Computed
-6 5
10
15
10
20
15
25
20
30
Time [s]
25
30
Time [s]
35
35
40
40
45
50
45
55
50
60
BASE
55
60
110
CHAN04 - CHAN04
Computed
7th FLOOR
CHAN07 - CHAN04
Computed
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12 5
0
10
15
10
20
15
25
20
25
30
Time [s]
30
Time [s]
35
35
40
40
45
50
45
55
50
55
60
60
BASE
CHAN04 - CHAN04
1.9
60
13th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
12
= 0.035
55
Computed
CHAN09 - CHAN04
60
T1 = 0.95
35
Disp. [cm]
12
Computed
= 0.3
Manual
Shear Walls
Earthquake
Date
0
Sierra Madre
28-Jun-91
-9
Landers
28-Jun-92
Northridge
17-Jan-94
Mw
Epic.1Dist1[km]
Roof1displ.1[in]
RDR1Long.1Ewref
5.8
32
1.06
0.0006
0.035
0.95
-3
ROOF
CHAN12 - CHAN04
Computed
x=z/H
1.0
-6
-12
0
7.3
10
15
168
20
25
30
Time [s]
1.18
35
40
0.0007
45
50
0.031
55
60
0.94
0.9
-1
0.8
-2
6.7
32
3.94
0.0022
0.033
1.08
0.7
-3
-4
0.6
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
13th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
4
0.5
Computed
0.1
0.0
-2
-3 [cm/s2]
Accel.
160 -4
0
120
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
CHAN12
55
-3
Accel. [cm/s2]
160 -4
0
120
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
Disp. [cm]
Damping Ratios
40 in4 Buildings
0.02#
CHAN09
55
60
Computed
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
5.0
6.0
13th
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
BASE
CHAN04 - CHAN04
0.0010#
0.0015#
Roof#Dri2#Ra4o#
0.0020#
0.0025#
750
111
Almost four 5mes the amplitude of response and yet similar level of damping
112
500
250
0
10
15
20
25
-3
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
7th FLOOR
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
CHAN07
60
0.0
1.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
7th
FLOOR
From recorded resp.
Computed
From computed resp.
80
750
40
0
500
-40
-80
250
-120
-160
Accel. [cm/s2]
0.0005#
From computed resp.
Computed
2
Accel.
-4 [cm/s ]
160
0
120
NR
LD
0.01#
0.00#
0.0000#
0.0
60
13th FLOOR
5
80
From computed resp.
0
5
SM
0.03#
From recorded resp.
250
-80
0.04#
ROOF
500
-160 -1
0-2
0.05#
Computed
-120
7th FLOOR
CHAN07 - CHAN04
2
PFA / PGA
750
Disp. [cm]
4
60
Computed
0.06#
Computed
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1000
ROOF
80
Recorded
-1
-40
0.07#
0.2
-1
0
-2
"
0.08#
0.4
0.3
CHAN09 - CHAN04
-120
30
Time [s]
-3
-12
60
-6.0
25
-12
-6
55

= 0.035
0
Disp. [cm]
Buildings
0
12
-9
15
-4.5
-80
-3
Computed
10
-3.0
60
1.5
40
CHAN04 - CHAN04
4.5
-6.0
-40
-9
0
109
3.0
-4.5
20
7th FLOOR
0
-12
= 0.3
BASE
Disp. [cm]
6.0
-3.0
15
CHAN07 - CHAN04
-6
-6.0
0
10
Disp. [cm]
12
0.0
-9
BASE
CHAN04 - CHAN04
1.5
0
-3
-3
Shear Walls
-1.5
-1.5
ROOF
CHAN12 - CHAN04
Computed
-4.5
Disp. [cm]
24601
6.0
CSMIP Station:
-6.0
60
13th FLOOR
-12
0.0
-1.5
-4.5
55
CHAN09 - CHAN04
-6
0.0
-3.0
50
1.5
-1.5
45
Disp. [cm] -9
12
Computed
1.5
3.0
40
-12
60
7th FLOOR
CHAN09 - CHAN04
4.5
35
13th FLOOR
Disp. [cm]
6.0
30
Time [s]
Displ. [cm]
12
-9
-6.0
25
Computed
-6
-4.5
Disp. [cm]
6.0
20
0.0
-1.5
-6.0
15
6
0
-4.5
10
ROOF
CHAN12 - CHAN04
Computed
1.5
-3.0
Disp. [cm]
12
CHAN09 - CHAN04
4.5
-160
T1 = 1.08
CSMIP Station:
Number of stories:
Displ. [cm] Use/Type:
12
ROOF
4.5
Shear Walls

= 0.033
T1 = 0.94
CSMIP Station:
10
15
20
25
30
Time [s]
35
40
45
50
55
60
BASE
0.0
Accel.
[cm/s2]
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PERIOD [s]
5.0
6.0
BASE
28
undergone modest levels of shaking (less than 1% drift) and sustained slight
damage (i.e., hairline cracking, minor spalling), damping values increase to
about 4%. Following significant damage, damping increases beyond 5% up
to a maximum measured value of 11% of critical. In steel braced frames,
damping in the undamaged state is about 0.7% to 1.3% of critical, or about
half of that measured in the reinforced concrete structures.
Changes in damping ra8o in structures tested in shake tables

Table 2-2
Measured Damping versus Level of Damage from Shaking Table Tests

Measured Damping (% critical)
versus Level of Damage
Reference
Undamaged: 1.4% to 1.9%
Elwood and
Yielded:
2.1% to 3.7%
Moehle (2003)
Significant:
3.9% to 5.4%
Test Description
RC Frames (2)
1-story, 3-bay
(1/2 scale)
RC Wall-Frame
7-story
(1/5 scale)

Slight:
3.5% to 3.7%
Significant:
6.9% to 7.5%
Aktan et al. (1983);

Bertero et al.
(1984)
RC Flat Plate-Frame
2-story, 3-bay
(1/3 scale)
Undamaged:
Slight:
Moderate:
Significant:
Undamaged:
Damaged:
1.2% to 1.7% (negligible drift)

2.4% to 2.6% (0.002 to 0.011 drift)
5.0% (0.017 to 0.034 drift)
7.2% (0.053 drift)
1.9 to 2.2%
3.9 to 5.3%
Diebold and
Moehle (1984)
RC Frame
3- to 6-story, 2-bay
(1/3 scale)
Undamaged: 2.7% to 3.7% (0.001 to 0.003 drift)

Moderate:
4.9% to 6.4% (0.012 drift)
Significant:
9.6% to 11.1% (0.015 to 0.02 drift)
Shahrooz and
Moehle, (1987)
RC Frames (12)
1-story, 3-bay
(1/3 scale)

(2.1% avg., 0.31 COV)
Shin and Moehle

(2007)
RC Frame
3-story, 3-bay,
(1/3 scale)
Undamaged: 1.9%
Moehle et al.
(2006)
Steel EBF
1 bay, 6-story
(1/3 scale)
Undamaged: 0.7%
Whittaker et al.
(1987)
Steel CBF
1 bay, 6-story
(1/3 scale)
Whittaker et al.
(1988)
RC Frame
2-story, 1-bay
(1/3 scale)
2-46
Oliva (1980)
Damping effects measured in shaking table tests can also be inferred from
comparisons with nonlinear analyses of the tests. For example, nonlinear
analyses with 2% viscous damping resulted in accurate comparisons to the
shake table tests by Shin and Moehle (2007). For shaking table tests of a
reinforced concrete bridge pier, Petrini et al. (2008) compared various
viscous damping assumptions made using fiber-type and plastic hinge
(Ager ATC 72-2)

113
PEER/ATC-72-1

1985
114
1991
(Ager Miranda, 1991)
Fundamental period more than 50% longer. Small ambient vibra5on more
than two 5mes larger than the EQ inferred lateral s5ness (about 55% of the
lateral s5ness vanished)
115
116
29

From the deni8on of damping ra8o
Changes in period of vibra8on in structures tested in shake tables
c
2m
Suppose that my period changes 15% with higher amplitude of response
1.15
Small amplitude
Subs8tu8ng
c
2m
Small amplitude
1.15 =
1.15c
2m
Large amplitude
Assuming the mass is the same (a reasonable assump5on) then a period

elonga5on lead to an equal increase in damping ra5o, but your damping
coecient, c, (what you actually use in your analysis) has not increased !
(Ager Miranda, 1991)
117
Large amplitude
118
Period Elonga8on
(Ager Duran and Miranda, 1998)
Amplitude of Response
Most of the change (increase) in period occurs at very small levels of lateral
deforma5on
119
(Ager Mosquera and Miranda, 2006)
120
30
properties and the degree of cracking in concrete elements

damping values between the two axes of this concrete building.
(Kijewski-Correa et al., 2006; Bentz et al., 2010).
Reasons for this variation in damping along the two axes of this
building were explored in Kijewski-Correa and Pirnia (2007) for
building and for other buildings inR.Erwin
al./ J.(2007)
and
Bashor et
et al.
Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 104106 (2012) 8897
Bentz and Kijewski-Correa (2008). These studies have demon6. Analysis of overall trends in dynamic properties
strated that structural
systems with greater degrees of frame
0.19
0.185
HPBW
action tend to dissipate more energy than systems that are
RDTwere identified
0.188 In the following, several hundred wind events
0.184
dominated by cantilever action (member level axial deformaas stationary, i.e., having 80% of triggered dataFEM
in a given event
0.183 2, shear walls and outriggers engage the 0.186
tions). In Building
pass the aforementioned tests, and were analyzed using the same
0.184
exterior columns
system identification approaches discussed previously. The num0.182to achieve global cantilever action in the
0.182
x-direction, whereas
ber of records available for analysis varies for each building,
0.181 the y-direction is dominated by compara0.18
tively more frame action as the beams and slabs are the primary
depending on the number of times it triggers. In this study, 500
0.18
mechanisms to engage the lateral resistance of the building. 0.178
events will be analyzed for Building 1 and 200 for each of
0.179
Therefore the in-situ observations reported herein are consistent 0.176
Buildings 2 and 3events are defined as those having at least
with the hypothesis
0.178 that frame-dominated systems yield higher 0.174
five triggered 1 h time histories.
levels of damping.
0.177Even when comparing the RDT damping levels 0.172
in the two steel buildings, one may hypothesize that Building 1,
6.1. Overall trends in frequency estimates
0.176
0.17
which has been observed
to
be
dominated
by
cantilever
action
as
0.6
0.8
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
an essentially pure tube (Bentz and Kijewski-Correa, 2008) would
The natural
frequency
estimates for Buildings 1, 2, and 3 from
Normalized Acceleration
Normalized
Acceleration
have less damping than Building 3, whose panel zone shear
both HPBW and RDT are shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
Fig.
3. Natural frequency
for Building studied
2 in the in(Bentz
fundamental
mode (left) and y-sway mode (right). The FEM estimated natural frequency for x-sway
deformations
have estimates
been extensively
et al.,x-sway
2010).
For reference, the natural frequency assumed for the finite
(not
is 0.148observations
Hz.
Inshown)
total these
help to provide a more rational basis
element model is indicated in the figures by a thick horizontal
for the levels of damping to be assumed in design, as opposed to
line except in instances where discrepancies between in-situ data
0.122 assumptions of 1% or 2% critical for steel and0.124
the crude respective
and predictions are so great that they cannot
be reasonably
HPBW
concrete.
RDT
0.123 shown on the same figure. It should be noted that
FEM the amplitude
0.121
0.122 of responses for each of the buildings varies widely, as does the
5.2. Comparison0.12
of results with finite element models
number of triggered events displayed. While more pronounced
0.121
scattering may be evident with increasing amplitude, particularly
One of the 0.119
primary objectives of the CFSMP is to validate 0.12 with Building 2, this cannot be fully concluded given the limited
assumptions made in the development of finite element models0.119 amount of data. Still, clear evidence of amplitude dependence and
0.118
used in design by comparing their predictions and in-situ values.
softening with increased response is displayed for all three
0.118
Comparisons of0.117
the results in Tables 2 and 3 to the design
buildings, consistent with initial observations from a narrower
predictions in Table 1 affirms that Building 1s in-situ funda-0.117 subset of CFSMP data in Kijewski-Correa and Pirnia (2007).
0.116
mental sway frequencies show excellent agreement with the0.116 Interestingly, in some cases, though recognizing the limited
design predictions, which may be explained by the fact that, as
extent of the amplitude ranges available for analysis here, the
0.115
0.115
mentioned previously,
elements
are
engaged
frequency
1 x-axis and
0
1 softening
2 appears
3 to plateau
4 (see Building
5
0 the 1structures
2
3
4
5
primarily axially as a structural tube and may thereby be less
both axes of Building 2), whereas in the case of Building 3, there is
Frequency (Hz)
92this
Frequency (Hz)
Period Elonga8on
Period Elonga8on
focus of wind studies, there are more data available for tall buildings
worldwide.
Roof Drig Ra8o
R
oof Dvibrations
rig Ra8o than
to
earthquake shaking,
subjected to
wind
Information from these studies, however, is still limited by the number of
instrumented buildings and relatively small displacement amplitudes.
Moreover, there are some differences in the loading effects between wind
and earthquakes that can affect response. For example, wind introduces
aero-elastic damping associated with fluid dynamics of airflow, which is not
present under earthquake shaking. Also, nonlinearities in the soilfoundation-structure interface are expected to have a larger effect on
earthquake-induced motions than wind-induced motions.
Fig. 4.
0.21
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
121
0.205
0.182
0.142
0.181
0.18
0.204
0.18
0.178
0.141
0.203
0.179
0.176
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.14
0.174
0.172
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.17
0.176
10/2002Fig.
6/2003
3/2004frequency
11/2004 7/2005
3/2006
10/2002
6/2003
3/2004
11/2004
7/2005mode
3/2006
11/2006 8/2007
2. Natural
estimates
for11/2006
Building8/2007
1 in fundamental
x-sway
mode
(left)
and y-sway
(right).
(Ager Bashor et al, 2012)
Date of Event
Date of Event
Most Fig.
of 5.the
change (increase) in period occurs at very small levels of lateral deforma5on
Fundamental frequency estimates for Building 2 plotted against date of event for x-sway mode (left) and y-sway mode (right).
Damping
Ratios
clear evidence
of in
a Buildings
strongly linear and decreasing trend with no
122
definitive conclusion on the evolution of permanent softening
cannot be reached.
6.2. Overall trends in damping ratios

The resulting damping values for Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are
presented in Figs. 6, 7 and 8, respectively. As expected, the damping
estimates show significantly more scatter than the frequency
estimates for all three buildings and, consistent with the observations in Section 5, the scatter is more pronounced for HPBW. This of
course emphasizes the importance of evaluating damping over a
suite of events. To facilitate discussion, the average damping values
for each building are reported in Table 4. The average damping
estimate for Building 1 is within approximately 10% for the two
This study is dierent from previous studies in a number of ways:

o It exclusively uses data from earthquake loading that was large enough to
digi8ze the analog data.
o Much larger number of data points both in number of buildings and number of
damping ra8os
o All data was inferred using a common method for all data which avoids mixing
data from dierent methods.
o Uses a system ID which is directly relevant to how most structural engineers
will be using the data (modal response history analysis assuming a xed-base).
Fang et al, 1999)

Illustration of amplitude dependence of measured(Ager
damping
under wind loading (Fang et al., 1999).
0.186
Results from a comprehensive study on damping ra8os inferred from records

obtained in instrumented buildings subjected to earthquakes.
Several wind studies have also documented that increments in period and damping tend to
saturate once you reach a certain amplitude
HPBW
RDT
0.188
0.144
Summary and Conclusions
below the amplitudes associated with serviceability or safety limit states for
strong ground motions (i.e., drifts on the order of yield-level drifts of 0.5% to
1%). Unfortunately, there are no studies relating damping at the high
amplitude plateau for wind loading to damping at larger drifts expected under
earthquake shaking.
2-44
0.19
0.143
0.184
0.206
apparent plateau over the range of amplitudes considered.

As discussed in the previous section, the discrepancies between
predicted and in-situ natural frequencies for Building 2 could be
attributed to numerous modeling assumptions. For example, given
the age of the building, it is quite likely that the degree of cracking
included in finite element models intended to represent the
structure at key design limit states are not yet realized in the
structure at present. To observe if the structures frequencies have
reduced with time as the result of the natural process of cracking,
Building 2s frequency estimates are presented with time in Fig. 5.
While there is potentially a slight softening evident from this
figure, given the comparatively limited time span of these observations in comparison with the expected life cycle of the building, a
It should be noted, however, that even the largest recorded amplitudes in the
Evalua5on
Changes
A0.02%
mplitude
high amplitude
plateau are onw
theith
order of
roof drift. This is well
Figure 2-26
0.207
0.182
0.177
The amplitude dependence of damping for wind vibration in buildings has

Roof Drig Ra8o (Ager
M
osquera and Miranda, 2006)
R
oof Drig Ra8o
(1986)

been well
established
by Jeary
and others. Figure 2-26 shows a plot
that demonstrates the typical amplitude dependence considered in
wind engineering. In this example, damping was calculated from wind
vibration data collected over a two year period, which provided
measurements at various amplitudes. As shown, damping increases from
negligible amounts, to about 0.5% critical damping in the so-called high
amplitude plateau.
HPBW
RDT
0.183
0.202
0.178
HPBW
RDT
FEM
0.145
0.208
0.184
Most of the of
change
(increase)
in Fang
period
occurs
t vaery
small
levels
of lateral deforma5on
damping
measured by
et al.
(1999)ain
30-story
(120
meter)
building
Natural frequency estimates for Building 3 in the fundamental

0.146 x-sway mode (left) and y-sway mode (right).
0.209
0.185
PEER/ATC-72-1
123
Damping ra8os are characterized by very large variability, which means that
recommending or using a value could lead to signicant errors. A simple but
smarter approach is to contemplate a range of values (not necessarily max and min,
it could be plus or minus one standard devia8on).

Damping ra8os are highly skewed to larger values which together with the large
variability means than mean values can be quite a bit larger than median values.
124
31
Summary and Conclusions
Some references on previous work
Mean damping ra8os from RC building are sta8s8cally higher than concrete
buildings, indica8ng that the common prac8ce of assuming 5% damping for all
buildings is not very good.
Similar to previous studies, this study has shown there is an important decrease in
damping ra8os with height. This reduc8on is primarily due to reduc8on in radia8on
damping with decreasing frequency (increasing period) and increasing slenderness
ra8o.
Results from this study suggest that recent recommenda8ons of using 2 or 2.5% for
very tall buildings may lead to overes8ma8ons of the level of damping present in
very tall buildings.
Data does not support the common idea of important increments in level of
damping with increasing response amplitude. Although increments do occur, a
signicant por8on of this increment in damping ra5o occurs at very small levels of
deforma8on and is possibly due to period elonga8ons in these ranges of amplitudes
but are not necessarily increments in the actual level of damping in the structure.
125
Hart, G. C., & Vasudevan, R. (1975). Earthquake design of buildings: damping.Journal

of the Structural Division, 101(1), 11-30.

Haviland, R. (1976). A study of the uncertain8es in the fundamental transla8onal
periods and damping values for real buildings. Massachuse;s Ins8tute of Technology,
Department of Civil Engineering, Constructed Facili8es Division.

Lagomarsino, S. (1993). Forecast models for damping and vibra8on periods of
buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 48(2), 221-239.

Tamura, Y., & Suganuma, S. Y. (1996). Evalua8on of amplitude-dependent damping
and natural frequency of buildings during strong winds. Journal of wind engineering
and industrial aerodynamics, 59(2), 115-130.

Suda, K., Satake, N., Ono, J., & Sasaki, A. (1996). Damping proper8es of buildings in
Japan. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics,59(2), 383-392.
126
Some references on previous work

Goel, R. K., & Chopra, A. K. (1997). Vibra8on proper8es of buildings determined from
recorded earthquake mo8ons. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California.

Satake, N., Suda, K. I., Arakawa, T., Sasaki, A., & Tamura, Y. (2003). Damping
evalua8on using full-scale data of buildings in Japan. Journal of structural
engineering, 129(4), 470-477.

Fritz, W. P., Jones, N. P., & Igusa, T. (2009). Predic8ve models for the median and
variability of building period and damping. Journal of structural engineering,135(5),
576-586.

Smith, R., Merello, R., & Willford, M. (2010). Intrinsic and supplementary damping in
tall buildings. Proceedings of the ICE-Structures and Buildings,163(2), 111-118.
127
32

Miranda Damping Ratios v5 For Seaonc

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Miranda Damping Ratios v5 For Seaonc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

January Mini -Seminar

SEAONCS con8nuing educa8on commi;ee

Damping Ra*os in Buildings Obtained

Masume Dana, Forell-Elsesser

SEAONC, Structural Engineers Associa5ons of Northern California

January 29th, 2014

Unlike the sta8c response on structures, the response to dynamic loads

Sec*on 12.7 MODELING CRITERIA has sec8ons on

Therefore, knowledge of the level of damping in a structure is essen8al for

Our knowledge of damping mechanisms in structures is rather limited and

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Chapter 16 SEISMIC RESPONSE HISTORY PROCEDURES includes the following:

Where there is a sec8on that says

17.6.3.3 Response-Spectrum Procedure

18.6.2.1 Inherent Damping

But again that is not a lot of guidance !

(Interes8ngly enough wind design provisions (4 chapters and 117 pages)

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Fortunately there are some excep5ons

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Whereas five percent of critical

Damping Ratios in Buildings

AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR

A damping ratio of between 1%

not incorporated in the analysis model (e.g., gravity

A number of studies have a;empted to

Damping Ratios in Buildings

damping should be adjusted based on specific features of the building design,

Modeling and acceptance criteria

tower core wall

main backstay diaphragm

Applied Technology Council

Modeling Techniques for Damping

2: General Nonlinear Modeling

Damping Ratios in Buildings

2: General Nonlinear Modeling

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Damping modica8on factors used in U.S. prac8ce

Table 18.6-1 Damping Coefficient, B , B , B ,

17.5 EQUIVALENT LATERAL

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Level i, design story drifts, and design story velocities

18.6.1 Damping Coefficient

Damping modica8on factors used in U.S. prac8ce

Damping modica8on factors used in U.S. prac8ce

Damping Modification Factor B

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Damping Ratios in Buildings

There are various deciencies with these factors:

1. Even if based on sta8s8cal studies one must take into

With the dierence increasing with the level of

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Despite these two problems if one compares the damping

How much larger my response will be if my structure has 1%

25% larger 1.2

(Ager Lin, Miranda and Chang 2005)

Damping Ratios in Buildings

Damping Ratios in Buildings

How much smaller my response will be if my structure has 10%