2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10518-017-0215-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Joint deconvolution of building and downhole seismic recordings: an application to three test cases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Veletsos and Meek (1974) and Luco (1988) already pointed out that the interaction between structures and the foundation soil may have signi cant effects on the response due to three principal factors: 1) a exibly supported structure has more degrees of freedom and, consequently, different dynamic characteristics than a rigidly mounted structure; 2) a signi cant part of the vibrational energy of a exibly supported structure may be dissipated by radiation of waves into the supporting medium (e.g. Petrovic and Parolai 2016; Petrovic et al 2018a) or by damping in the foundation material; 3) the deformation of buildings associated with ground compliance lead to a rigid-body motion of the superstructure that may account for a signi cant portion of the total response (Veletsos and Meek 1974).…”
Section: )mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Veletsos and Meek (1974) and Luco (1988) already pointed out that the interaction between structures and the foundation soil may have signi cant effects on the response due to three principal factors: 1) a exibly supported structure has more degrees of freedom and, consequently, different dynamic characteristics than a rigidly mounted structure; 2) a signi cant part of the vibrational energy of a exibly supported structure may be dissipated by radiation of waves into the supporting medium (e.g. Petrovic and Parolai 2016; Petrovic et al 2018a) or by damping in the foundation material; 3) the deformation of buildings associated with ground compliance lead to a rigid-body motion of the superstructure that may account for a signi cant portion of the total response (Veletsos and Meek 1974).…”
Section: )mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…); however, there is no information about city areas where the soil-building interaction effect could take place thus increasing the damage during earthquakes. Several studies (Ganev et al 1995;Mucciarelli and Monachesi 1998;Castro et al 1998Castro et al , 2000Gallipoli et al 2004;Mucciarelli et al 2004;Gallipoli et al 2006;Mucciarelli et al 2011;Castellaro et al 2012;Ditommaso et al 2013;Petrovic et al 2018;Varone et al 2019) support the hypothesis that the soil-building resonance phenomenon can produce a significant damage increase on buildings during earthquakes; whenever the main vibration frequency of a building is very close to that of the underlying soil, the soil-building resonance phenomenon is triggered. During seismic events, when the interaction involves the entire built environment and shallow urban soils, then it is called site-city interaction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Over the past few decades, the application of such techniques in structural engineering has considerably increased due to the awareness that the dynamic properties of a building can provide a reliable overview of the state of integrity of the monitored structure. Considerable progress has been made in the field of structural monitoring and dynamic identification, using approaches based on the analysis of the variations of wave propagation [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and on the techniques operating in the time-frequency domain [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. The latter are particularly effective when the structural dynamic characteristics rapidly change over time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%