Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 1633–1656 | Cite as

Real data and numerical simulations-based approaches for estimating the dynamic characteristics of a tunnel formwork building

  • Bojana Petrovic
  • S. Umit Dikmen
  • Stefano Parolai
Original Research Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Due to their expected high seismic resistance, a significant number of tunnel formwork buildings have been built over the past few decades, especially in regions of high seismic hazard. However, only few real data analyses have been reported and are available so far. Different techniques, including real data analysis, numerical simulations, and their combination, are employed to investigate and compare their potentials for estimating different aspects of a tunnel formwork building. This study is based on data from a 16-story residential building in Istanbul, Turkey. The real data analysis of the building’s dynamic characteristics is based on both the vibrational (spectral analysis) and waveform (deconvolution interferometry) approaches, which yield information on the soil–structure system and the fixed-base building. For this purpose, dense ambient vibration/generated source measurements and earthquake recordings of both temporary and permanent networks are used. Furthermore, finite element analysis (FEA) of the building is carried out. The order of the first bending and torsional modes is reversed in the results of the numerical simulations compared to those from the real data. This can be attributed to the simplifications and assumptions made in the numerical simulations of tunnel formwork structures. It emphasizes the importance of analyzing real data for better constraining numerical simulations. Finally, the response of the building (synthetic seismograms) to a real data input is calculated using FEA. Deconvolved wavefields of synthetic and the real data are estimated. Despite the changed order of the modes, the deconvolved wavefields for both cases match very well.

Keywords

Tunnel formwork buildings Dynamic characteristics Seismic wave propagation Deconvolution interferometry Finite element analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Erdal Safak and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful suggestions to improve the manuscript. The authors would like to thank Tobias Boxberger and Stefan Mikulla for the installation of the Self-Organizing Seismic Early Warning Information Network (SOSEWIN) in the B22 in Istanbul. Furthermore, the authors thank Messrs. Ahmet Korkmaz and Nafiz Kafadar of KOERI for their efforts in keeping up the permanent installation at the B22 Building. The thumper truck was operated by Mr. Oktay Cirag of KOERI and the technical team of BIAS Mühendislik, producer of the thumper truck. The ambient vibration/generated source measurements in B22 were performed using the seismic instruments provided by the Geophysical Instrument Pool Potsdam (GIPP) and supported with POF expedition money of the GFZ. This research was moreover supported by the Plate Boundary Observatory Turkey of the GFZ, and the European MARsite project. Kevin Fleming kindly revised our English. Funding was provided by Cordis (Grant No. MARsite, Project ID: 308417).

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2013) ASCE standard ASCE/SEI 41-13: seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  2. Balkaya C, Kalkan E (2003) Estimation of fundamental periods of shear-wall dominant building structures. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 32:985–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balkaya C, Yuksel SB, Derinoz O (2012) Soil–structure interaction effects on the fundamental periods of the shear-wall dominant buildings. Struct Des Tall Build 21:416–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bendat JS, Piersol AG (2010) Random data: analysis and measurement procedures, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bindi D, Petrovic B, Karapetrou S, Manakou M, Boxberger T, Raptakis D, Pitilakis KD, Parolai S (2015) Seismic response of an 8-story RC-building from ambient vibration analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 13:2095–2120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Celebi M, Ulusoy HS, Nakata N (2016) Responses of a tall building in Los Angeles, California as inferred from local and distant earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 32:1821–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chopra AK (1996) Modal analysis of linear dynamic systems: physical interpretation. J Struct Eng 122:517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clinton JF, Bradford SC, Heaton TH, Favela J (2006) The observed wander of the natural frequencies in a structure. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of structures. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dikmen SU, Edincliler A, Pinar A (2015) Northern Aegean earthquake (Mw = 6.9): observations at three seismic downhole arrays in Istanbul. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ditommaso R, Ponzo FC, Auletta G (2015) Damage detection on framed structures: modal curvature evaluation using Stockwell Transform under seismic excitation. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleming K, Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Kühnlenz F, Lichtblau B, Fischer J, Zulfikar C, Özel O, SAFER and EDIM Working Groups (2009) The self-organizing seismic early warning information network (SOSEWIN). Seismol Res Lett 80:755–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Futterman WI (1962) Dispersive body waves. J Geophys Res 67(13):5279–5291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herak M, Herak D (2010) Continuous monitoring of dynamic parameters of the DGFSM building (Zagreb, Croatia). Bull Earthq Eng 8:657–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ivanovic SS, Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI (2000) Ambient vibration tests of structures—a review. ISET J Earthq Technol 37:165–197Google Scholar
  16. Kanai K (1965) Some new problems of seismic vibrations of a structure. In: Proceedings of the 3rd world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland and Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee L, Chang K, Chun Y (2000) Experimental formula for the fundamental period of RC buildings with shear-wall dominant systems. Struct Des Tall Build 9:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michel C, Hans S, Gueguen P, Boutin C (2006) In situ experiment and modelling of RC-structure using ambient vibration and Timoshenko beam. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3–8 Sept 2006, paper no. 1246Google Scholar
  19. Michel C, Gueguen P, Bard PY (2008) Dynamic parameters of structures extracted from ambient vibration measurements: an aid for the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in moderate seismic hazard regions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:593–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mikael A, Gueguen P, Bard PY, Roux P, Langlais M (2013) The analysis of long-term frequency and damping wandering in buildings using random decrement technique. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:236–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murià-Vila D, Rodriguez G, Zapata A, Toro AM (2001) Seismic response of a twice-retrofitted building. ISET J Earthq Technol 38:67–92Google Scholar
  22. Nakata N, Snieder R (2014) Monitoring a building using deconvolution interferometry, II: ambient vibration analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakata N, Snieder R, Kuroda S, Ito S, Aizawa T, Kunimi T (2013) Monitoring a building using deconvolution interferometry. I: earth-quake-data analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1662–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paolucci R (1993) Soil–structure interaction effects on an instrumented building in Mexico City. Eur Earthq Eng VII 3:895–908Google Scholar
  25. 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. Geophys J Int 178:1649–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parolai S, Bindi D, Ansal A, Kurtulus A, Strollo A, Zschau J (2010) Determination of shallow S-wave attenuation by down-hole waveform deconvolution: A case study in Istanbul (Turkey). Geophys J Int 181:1147–1158Google Scholar
  27. Parolai S, Wang R, Bindi D (2012) Inversion of borehole weak motion records observed in Istanbul (Turkey). Geophys J Int 188:535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petrovic B, Parolai S (2016) Joint deconvolution of building and downhole strong-motion recordings: evidence for the seismic wavefield being radiated back into the shallow geological layers. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1720–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petrovic B, Bindi D, Pilz M, Serio M, Orunbaev S, Niyazov J, Hakimov F, Yasunov P, Begaliev UT, Parolai S (2015) Building monitoring in Bishkek and Dushanbe by the use of ambient vibration analysis. Ann Geophys 58:1–13Google Scholar
  30. Petrovic B, Dikmen SU, Parolai S, Safak E (2016) Studying the soil–structure interaction by joint deconvolution: the Ataköy (Istanbul, Turkey) vertical array. In: ACE2016—12th international congress on advances in civil engineering, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  31. Petrovic B, Parolai S, Pianese G, Dikmen SU, Moldobekov B, Orunbaev S, Paolucci R (2017) Joint deconvolution of building and downhole seismic recordings: an application to three test cases. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-017-0215-6 Google Scholar
  32. Pianese G, Petrovic B, Parolai S, Paolucci R (2017) Non-linear seismic response estimation of buildings by a combined Stockwell Transform and deconvolution interferometry approach. Bull Earthq Eng (submitted) Google Scholar
  33. Picozzi M, Parolai S, Mucciarelli M, Milkereit C, Bindi D, Ditommaso R, Vona M, Gallipoli MR, Zschau J (2009a) Interferometric analysis of strong ground motion for structural health monitoring: the example of the L’Aquila, Italy, seismic sequence of 2009. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:635–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Picozzi M, Strollo A, Parolai S, Cakti E, Ozel O, Karabulut S, Zschau J, Erdik M (2009b) Site characterization by seismic noise in Istanbul, Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pitilakis K, Karapetrou S, Bindi D, Manakou M, Petrovic B, Roumelioti Z, Boxberger T, Parolai S (2016) Structural monitoring and earthquake early warning systems for the AHEPA hospital in Thessaloniki. Bull Earthq Eng 14:2543–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poudel UP, Fu G, Ye J (2007) Wavelet transformation of mode shape difference function for structural damage location identification. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1089–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prieto GA, Lawrence JF, Chung AI, Kohler MD (2010) Impulse response of civil structures from ambient noise analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:2322–2328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rahamani M, Todorovska MI (2013) 1D system identification of buildings from earthquake response by seismic interferometry with waveform inversion of impulse responses—method and application to Millikan Library. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 47:157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Safak E (1995) Detection and identification of soil–structure interaction in buildings from vibration recordings. J Struct Eng ASCE 121(5):899–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Safak E, Çelebi M (1990a) New techniques in record analyses: torsional vibrations. In: Proceedings of the fourth U. S. national conference on earthquake engineering, May 20–24, 1990, Palm Springs, California, vol 2, pp 411–420Google Scholar
  41. Safak E, Çelebi M (1990b) Method to estimate center of rigidity of a building using vibration recordings. J Struct Eng ASCE 116(1):85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SAP2000, Ver. 18 (2016) Computers and Structures Inc., Walnut CreekGoogle Scholar
  43. Snieder R, Safak E (2006) Extracting the building response using seismic interferometry: theory and application to the Millikan library in Pasadena, California. Bull Seism Soc Am 96:586–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stewart J, Fenves GL (1998) System identification for evaluating soil–structure interaction effects in buildings from strong motion recordings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 27:869–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stockwell RG, Mansinha L, Lowe RP (1996) Localization of the complex spectrum: the S transform. IEEE Trans Signal Process 44:998–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tikhonov AN, Arsenin VY (1977) Solution of ill-posed problems. Wiston/Wiley, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Todorovska MI (2009) Seismic interferometry of a soil–structure interaction model with coupled horizontal and rocking response. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:733–741Google Scholar
  48. Todorovska MI, Al RY (2006) Effects of rainfall on soil–structure system frequency: example based on poroelasticity and a comparison with full-scale measurements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:708–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2008a) Earthquake damage detection in the imperial country services building III: Analysis of wave travel times via impulse response functions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:387–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2008b) Earthquake damage detection in structures and early warning. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, October 12–17, 2008, Peking, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  51. Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2008c) Impulse response analysis of the Van Nuys 7-story hotel during 11 earthquakes and earthquake damage detection. Struct Control Health Monit 15:90–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trifunac MD, Todorovska MI, Manic MI, Bulajic BD (2008) Variability of the fixed-base and soil–structure system frequencies of a building—the case of Borik-2 building. Struct Control Health Monit 17:120–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turkish Standards Institute (TSI) (1997) TS498—design loads for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  54. Yakut A, Gulkan P (2003) Housing report Tunnel form building. World Housing Encyclopedia. www.world-housing.net/WHEReports/wh100104.pdf. Accessed Aug 2016

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helmholtz Centre PotsdamGFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Centre for Early Warning SystemsPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research InstituteBogazici UniversityCengelköyTurkey

Personalised recommendations