Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 705–722 | Cite as

Monitoring the response and the back-radiated energy of a building subjected to ambient vibration and impulsive action: the Falkenhof Tower (Potsdam, Germany)

  • R. Ditommaso
  • S. Parolai
  • M. Mucciarelli
  • S. Eggert
  • M. Sobiesiak
  • J. Zschau
Original Research Paper


The response of the soil-structure system near the Falkenhof Tower, Potsdam, Germany, has been monitored during the controlled explosion of a bomb dating to World War II. We installed eight 3-component velocimetric stations within the building and three in the surrounding area. We recorded several hours of seismic noise before and after the explosion, allowing the dynamic characterization of the structure both with ambient noise and forced vibration. We then compared the frequencies values and modal shapes of the structural modes evaluated both by analysing in the frequency domain the transfer functions and in the time-domain the different signals. Moreover, we carried out an interferometric analysis of the recorded signals in order to study the structural behaviour and to characterize the soil-structure interaction. Furthermore, we used normalized Short Time Fourier Transform (STFT) for the continuous monitoring of the structural response, in order to highlight possible frequency variations of the structural mode of vibration, and therefore of the structure’s behaviour. To assess structural frequencies and to compare them with those evaluated by transfer functions, we used azimuth-dependent Fourier spectra. We also verified the suitability of the Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio (HVSR) for estimating the dynamic characteristics of buildings when only single station seismic noise measurements are available. Regarding the structure-soil interaction, we identified the presence of a wave field back-radiated from the structure within the low amplitude seismic noise signal. In fact, in the free-field seismic noise recording spectra, peaks at frequencies consistent with those of the first two modes of the structure were recognized.


Dynamic identification Soil-structure interaction Ambient vibrations Forced vibrations Rotational HVSR Monitored explosions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertero M, Boccacci P (1998) Introduction to inverse problems in imaging. IOP Publishing, BristolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boutin C, Hans S (2008) How far ambient noise may help to assess building vulnerability? Increasing seismic safety by combining engineering technologies and seismological data. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-1-4020-9196-4, 151–180Google Scholar
  3. Chavez-Garcia FJ, Cardenas-Soto M (2002) The contribution of the built environment to the free-field ground motion in Mexico city. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22: 773–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clinton F, Bradford SC, Heaton TH, Favela J (2006) The observed wander of the natural frequencies in a structure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1): 237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornou C, Guéguen P, Bard P-Y, Haghshenas E (2004) Ambient noise energy bursts observation and modeling: trapping of harmonic structure-soil induced–waves in a topmost sedimentary layer. J Seismol 8(4): 507–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curtis A, Gerstoft P, Sato H, Snieder R, Wapenaar K (2006) Seismic interferometry-turning noise into signal. Lead Edge 25: 1082–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davoodi M, Jafari MK, Amel Sakhi M (2007) Using TFD signal processing to evaluate dynamic characteristics of Masjed Soleiman embankment dam by blasting tests’ five international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering, IIEES, TehranGoogle Scholar
  8. Davoodi M, Jafari MK, Amel Sakhi M (2008) Using new signal processing techniques in analyzing Masjed Soleyman Embankment dam’s explosion records. The 6th international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhakal RP (2004) Explosion-induced structural response: an overview. Proceedings of 2004 NZSEE conference. Paper No. 40Google Scholar
  10. Ditommaso R, Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Ponzo FC (2007) Effect of vibrating building on “free field” ground motion: from the Bagnoli experiment to many- buildings simulation. Proceeding of 4th international conference earthquake geotechnical engineering, CD-Rom edition, Paper No. 1388. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-1-4020-5893-6Google Scholar
  11. Ditommaso R, Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Ponzo FC (2009) Effect of a single vibrating building on free-field ground motion: numerical and experimental evidences. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9134-5 Google Scholar
  12. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Castro RR, Monachesi G, Contri P (2004) Structure, soilstructure response and effects of damage based on observations of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios of microtremors. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24: 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Ponzo F, Dolce M, D’Alema E, Maistrello M (2006) Buildings as a seismic source: analysis of a release test at Bagnoli Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96: 2457–2464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guéguen P, Bard P-Y, Oliveira CS (2000) Experimental and numerical analysis of soil motions caused by free vibrations of a building model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6): 1464–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guéguen P, Bard P-Y, Chavez-Garcia FJ (2002) Site-city seismic interaction in Mexico Citylike environments: an analytic study. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(2): 794–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guéguen P, Bard P-Y (2005) Soil-structure and soil-structure-soil interaction: experimental evidence. J Earthq Eng 9(5): 657–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hans S, Boutin C, Ibraim E, Rousillon P (2005) In situ experiments and seismic analysis of existing buildings. Part I: experimental investigations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34: 1513–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanamori H, Mori J, Anderson DL, Heaton TH (1991) Seismic excitation by the space shuttle Columbia. Nature 349: 781–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kohler MD, Davis PM, Safak E (2005) Earthquake and ambient vibration monitoring of the steel-frame UCLA factor building. Eqrthq Spectra 21(3): 715–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohler MD, Heaton TH, Bradford SC (2007) Propagating waves in the steel, moment frame factor building recorded during earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97: 1334–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mucciarelli M, Gallipoli MR, Ponzo FC, Dolce M (2003) Seismic waves generated by oscillating building. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23: 255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mucciarelli M, Ditommaso R, Gallipoli MR, Ponzo F (2008) Effect of building-building interaction on “Free-Field” ground motion. In: Increasing seismic safety by combining engineering technologies and seismological data. Springer, Berlin, ISBN 978-1-4020-9196-4, 141–145Google Scholar
  23. Mucciarelli M, Gallipoli MR (2007) Non-parametric analysis of a single seismometric recording to obtain building dynamic parameters. Ann Geophys 50(2)Google Scholar
  24. Parolai S, Ansal A, Kurtulus A, Strollo A, Wang R, Zschau J (2009) The Ataköy vertical array (Turkey): insights into seismic wave propagation in the shallow-most crustal layers by waveform deconvolution. Geophys. J Int. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04257.x Google Scholar
  25. Potapov VA (1974) Investigation of the explosion-induced vibration of buildings. Soil Mech Found Eng 11(3): 170–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Safak E (1995) Detection and identification of soil-structure interaction in buildings from vibration recordings. J Struct Eng, pp 899–906Google Scholar
  27. Safak E (1999) Wave-propagation formulation of seismic response of multistory buildings. J Struct Eng, pp 426–437Google Scholar
  28. Semblat J-F, Kham M, Bard P-Y (2008) Seismic-wave propagation in alluvial basins and influence of site-city interaction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(6): 2665–2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snieder R, Safak E (2006) Extracting the building response using seismic interferometry: teory and application to the Millikan Library in Pasadena. Calif Bull Seismol Soc Am 96: 586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tikhonov AN, Arsenin VY (1977) Solution of ill-posed problems. Wiston/Wiley, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Trifunac MD, Ivanovic SS, Todorovska MI (2007) Apparent periods of a building. I: fourier analysis. J Struct Eng, pp 517–526Google Scholar
  32. Tifunac MD (1972) Comparison between ambient and forced vibration experiments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 1: 133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Todorovska MI, Ivanovic SS, Trifunac MD (2001) Wave propagation in a seven-story reinforced concrete building I. Theorethical models. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21: 211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wong HL, Trifunac MD (1975) Two dimensional antiplane building-soil-building interaction for two or more buildings and for incident plane SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65: 1863–1865Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Ditommaso
    • 1
  • S. Parolai
    • 2
  • M. Mucciarelli
    • 1
  • S. Eggert
    • 2
  • M. Sobiesiak
    • 2
  • J. Zschau
    • 2
  1. 1.DiSGGUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly
  2. 2.Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations