2007
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2007)133:10(1479)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating Fundamental Frequencies of Tall Buildings

Abstract: Empirical estimates of the fundamental frequency of tall buildings vary inversely with their height, a dependency not exhibited by the various familiar models of beam behavior. This paper examines and explains this apparent discrepancy by analyzing the consequences of using two models to estimate such natural frequencies: A two-beam model that couples the bending of a classical cantilever to that of a shear beam by imposing a displacement constraint; and a Timoshenko beam in which the Euler-Bernoulli beam mode… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
30
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results show that the frequency ratio of the Timoshenko beam matches that of a pure bending beam only when it has a large aspect ratio (L∕d ¼ 10), which confirms that a building performs similarly to a pure bending beam only when it is relatively tall and narrow. A point to note is that Miranda and Taghavi (2005) define a similar stiffness ratio r in their coupled shear wall frame structure, but their model behaves like a shear beam for large r and a bending beam for small r. Dym and Williams (2007) explain such a difference as being due to the fact that the Timoshenko beam couples the shear and flexural stiffnesses in series but Miranda's model couples them in parallel.…”
Section: H Cheng and T H Heatonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results show that the frequency ratio of the Timoshenko beam matches that of a pure bending beam only when it has a large aspect ratio (L∕d ¼ 10), which confirms that a building performs similarly to a pure bending beam only when it is relatively tall and narrow. A point to note is that Miranda and Taghavi (2005) define a similar stiffness ratio r in their coupled shear wall frame structure, but their model behaves like a shear beam for large r and a bending beam for small r. Dym and Williams (2007) explain such a difference as being due to the fact that the Timoshenko beam couples the shear and flexural stiffnesses in series but Miranda's model couples them in parallel.…”
Section: H Cheng and T H Heatonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of continuous systems to model fixed‐base buildings has precedents in the literature, which include the use of Bernoulli–Euler beams, shear beams, coupled beams, and Timoshenko beams . In particular, Taciroglu et al employed a flexible‐base Timoshenko beam model to represent the soil‐structure system in a model‐updating scheme and identified the soil‐foundation dynamic stiffness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, in the field of dynamic analyses of tall buildings, plentiful papers can be found. Suitable models have been proposed for estimating fundamental frequencies of tall buildings . Computing the mode shape and natural frequency of tabular systems and combined system of framed tube, shear core, and multioutrigger–belt truss systems is proposed by Malekinejad and Rahgozar through analytic equations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%