FRIBAS database for better characterization of RC and URM buildings: Towards specific T-H relationships

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1835796/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

FRIBAS database for better characterization of RC and URM buildings: Towards specific T-H relationships

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1835796/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 03 Jan, 2023

Read the published version in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering →

You are reading this latest preprint version

FRIBAS database is an open access database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6505442) made up of the characteristics of 313 buildings (71 masonry, 238 reinforced concrete and 4 mixed types). It collects and harmonizes data from different surveys performed on buildings in the Basilicata and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions (Southern and North-eastern Italy, respectively). Each building is defined by 37 parameters related to the building and foundation soil characteristics. Building and soil fundamental periods were estimated experimentally based on ambient noise measurements. FRIBAS gave us the opportunity to study the influence of the main characteristics of buildings to their structural response and soil-building interaction effect. In this study, we have used FRIBAS dataset to investigate how the building period varies as a function of building typologies and soil conditions. Our results motivate the need of going beyond a ‘one-fits-all’ numerical period-height (T-H) relationship for generic building typologies provided by seismic code, towards a specific characterization of T-H relationships that account for both soil and building typologies.

soil-building interaction

period-height relationship

ambient vibration

building behaviour

The building’s fundamental vibrational period is a key parameter needed both in the design of new buildings and in the assessment of the dynamic behavior of existing ones. In engineering, fundamental periods are involved either explicitly (linear methods of analysis) or implicitly (non-linear methods). There is extensive literature concerning the crucial role of the vibrational periods on the seismic behavior of structures, and thus on their seismic response and design. For this reason, in recent decades, a significant number of studies have been carried out (e.g Gallipoli et al. 2009; Jiang et al. 2020) and different forms and procedures have been proposed to evaluate the fundamental period (i.e. Hatzigeorgiou and Kanapitsas 2013; Al-Nimry et al., 2014; Asteris et al. 2017). Furthermore, while some studies have focused only on the fundamental period, others have also estimated the damping and modal shape in order to assess the expected damage and validate the results with documented ones (Ditommaso et al., 2013). Building periods can be affected by many factors. For Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings the main ones are: 1) building height; 2) structural type (i.e. Moment Resisting Frame - MRF or Structural Walls); 3) regularity in plan and in elevation; 4) infill walls; 5) RC member cracking due to permanent actions (e.g. gravity loads); 6) earthquake resistant design level (mainly gravity-load design or anti-seismic design); 7) soil-structure interaction. For unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, the fundamental period can be affected by parameters such as masonry type, regularity in plan and in elevation, geometric and mechanical parameters, which are rarely accounted for (Bayraktar et al. 2015; Zini et al. 2018; Spina et al. 2019).

For URM buildings, the analysis of expected seismic response, in particular the fundamental period, has historically been based on simplified methods (Block et al. 2006; Snoj et al. 2020), and is still a common approach (i.e. Portioli et al. 2021; Calò et al., 2021; de Felice et al. 2021). At the European scale, URM buildings represent a high share of the residential building stock (Crowley et al. 2020). In addition, they encompass a wide range of typologies depending on the local characteristics. However, no specific studies have highlighted the influence of their specific characteristics (e.g. floor types, shape factor, presence of basement) on their fundamental period.

The fundamental building periods can be determined using simplified empirical relationships (e.g. period-height expressions, Crowley and Pinho, 2006), numerical simulations for different structural types (refer to Kwon and Kim 2010 for an extensive review) and through experimental measurements (e.g. Gallipoli et al., 2010; Michel et al. 2010a). The existing codes generally provide empirical formulas or various approximations for the fundamental periods, either excluding or including the effects of infill walls (Eurocode 8 2003; CEN 2004). The Eurocode 8 (EC8) provides simplified expressions for estimating the fundamental period T as a function of the building height and a specific coefficient for each typology. The use of empirical formulas allows an easy estimation of the building period in order to verify the applicability of simple methods (e.g. as prescribed in EC8) for lateral force analysis. An overview of the different numerical approaches for the estimation of period-height (T-H) relationships applied to RC buildings, and widely represented in the European built environment, is reported in Masi and Vona (2010) and Hatzigeorgiou and Kanapitsas (2013), where the role of some structural characteristics (cracking, masonry infills, elevation irregularities, etc.) was carefully examined. According to Kose (2009) and Michel et al. (2010), the building height and the distribution of structural walls are the most important factors controlling the fundamental period of RC buildings, reflecting the limited influence of the plan dimension of a building.

In the design and evaluation of existing structures, structural models are usually based on simplified assumptions and commonly disregard the phenomena of interaction between soil, foundation and structure (SFS). This hypothesis is to be considered realistic only for structures built on very rigid soil, while neglecting this effect on soft ground could cause an incorrect evaluation of the dynamic response of the structure (Paolucci 1993; Mylonakis and Gazetas 2000; Piro et al. 2020). Veletsos and Meek (1974) and Luco (1988) already pointed out that the interaction between structures and the foundation soil may have significant effects on the response due to three principal factors: 1) a flexibly supported structure has more degrees of freedom and, consequently, different dynamic characteristics than a rigidly mounted structure; 2) a significant part of the vibrational energy of a flexibly 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 significant portion of the total response (Veletsos and Meek 1974).

Currently, the increase of a large number of Ambient Vibration (AV) measurements performed on buildings has made it possible to determine experimental T-H relationships. After the development of a standard procedure for AV measurements in the free-field (Bonnefoy-Claudet et al. 2008), some international projects were devoted to comparing different AV techniques for the fundamental period estimation of RC buildings (Gallipoli et al. 2010). Hans et al. (2005) and Gallipoli et al. (2009) showed that forced vibration and ambient vibration yield the same values for the fundamental periods of buildings as long as they remain in their elastic field, i.e. excited at low strain. Therefore, the dynamic behavior of buildings can currently be assessed using earthquake recordings (e.g. Snieder and Safak 2006; Celebi et al. 2016; Petrovic et al., 2018b), forced vibration (e.g. Hans et al. 2005) or ambient noise measurements (e.g. Michel et al. 2008; Bindi et al. 2015; Petrovic et al. 2015).

In contrast to building periods estimated through empirical formulas, which only take into account the structural system, those experimentally determined at the top of a building are representative of the linear elastic behavior of the entire dynamic system (structure-foundation-soil). Thus, they account for the presence, position and characteristics of infill panels, structural member stiffness (dimensions, extent of concrete cracking) and soil-structure interaction. AV recordings can easily be carried out in a large number of buildings to characterize their dynamics, since these surveys are cost-effective, non-invasive and non-destructive. Nowadays, AV monitoring is a worthwhile alternative to permanent building monitoring in order: to determine modal frequencies and mode shapes, and damping ratio (e.g. Mikael et al. 2013; Ivanović et al. 2000 and references therein); to estimate variations of modal parameters before and after major earthquakes (Snieder and Safak 2006) or before and after retrofitting (Çelebi and Liu 1998); to update linear numerical models (Skolnik et al. 2006) and non-linear models of structures (Michel and Guéguen 2010b).

In recent decades, several authors have performed AV measurements on a large number of buildings and proposed experimental T-H relationships for RC-MRF buildings. For instance, the following authors performed studies in specific countries: Hong and Hwang (2000) in Taiwan; Navarro et al. (2007) in Spain; Güler et al. (2008) in Turkey; Oliveira and Navarro (2010) in Portugal, Chiauzzi et al. (2012) in Canada; Pan et al. (2014) in Singapore; Al-Nimry et al. (2014) in Jordan; Salameh et al. (2016) in Lebanon; Kaplan et al. (2021) in Turkey. Studies have also been deployed at European level e.g. by Gallipoli et al. (2010) for RC buildings. Other studies combined the experimental data collected on both RC and masonry buildings, such as Gallipoli et al. (2009) in Italy and Michel et al. (2010a) in France.

While several experimental T-H relationships were developed for RC buildings, there are very few studies on URM buildings, the most relevant being Bal et al. (2008) for Turkey, Gosar (2012) for Slovenia and Scaini et al. (2021) for Italy. Furthermore, most of the studies proposing T-H relationships for RC-MRF buildings did not take into account the foundation soil conditions of the buildings, neglecting the effect of soil-structure interaction. Only a very few studies proposed T-H relationships for RC-MRF buildings on different soil conditions (e.g. Pan et al. 2014; Salameh et al. 2016).

In this paper, we have collected the main characteristics of 313 buildings (238 RC-MRF, 71 masonry buildings and 4 mixed-typology) and their relative foundation soils located in the Basilicata (southern Italy) and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions (northern Italy). All data have been organized in the FRIBAS open access database (available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6505442) constituted by 37 fields including the key characteristics associated with each building and the corresponding soil conditions (e.g. location, main typological, geometrical, structural and foundational characteristics, and geological and seismic context). FRIBAS sets the stage to study the influence of each parameter on the building behavior. In this study, we show how interaction effects between different building typologies and foundation soils influence the building behavior. In detail, we propose experimental T-H relationships for the two main building typologies, RC-MRF and URM located on two soil categories: rigid and soft soil.

Currently, building classification is mostly focused on structural elements and assessed, based on external and internal building inspections with the use of forms. There are global building databases (e.g. WorldHousingEncyclopedia - WHE, https://www.world-housing.net/) and global-scale taxonomies defined for the classification of buildings (e.g. Global Earthquake Model- GEM taxonomy, https://storage.globalquakemodel.org/). Specific forms have been developed at national scale, for example the Aedes form (Baggio et al. 2007) and the Cartis form (Zuccaro et al. 2015) in Italy. However, none of these is intended to be used in combination with experimental measurements or geological information of the site where the building is located. To our knowledge, the combination of forms and AV measurements has not yet been used for building classification.

The FRIBAS database was compiled to study how the main characteristics of a building and its foundation soil can influence the structural behavior. To this end, we collected data from different surveys on buildings and the soil in the Basilicata and Friuli Venezia Giulia regions (southern and northeastern Italy, respectively). The main characteristics of the buildings have been collected by 1) visual inspection with the help of local residents and practitioners (e.g. engineers, architects), using information available in national and regional databases (regional spatial data infrastructure of the Basilicata Region, 2015; open-data Matera; General Population and Housing Census), 2) performing AV measurements on buildings and relative foundation soil or using existing measurements, and 3) using geological details from microzonation studies. In the Friuli Venezia Giulia region, it was also possible to inspect the plans of a number of surveyed buildings. FRIBAS contains not only the main building characteristics but also the fundamental structural parameters (main vibrational periods of buildings and its foundation soils estimated by experimental measurements).

All data were harmonized in order to achieve an optimal trade-off between level of detail and generalization. In addition, we included simplified classes in order to support the statistical analyses of different types of buildings and soils. Table 1 reports the 37 parameters (columns) specifying their main characteristics.

Table 1

List of the parameters, including a description and the list of available options (if applicable) and the data type. The count refers to the number of buildings for which the parameter was collected or available.
Parameter	Description and options	Count	Data type
ID_GIS	Unique identifier	313	Integer
ID	Unique identifier	313	String
Municipality	Municipality name	313	String
COD_COM	Municipality code	313	Integer
LONG	Longitude (WGS84/UTM33N)	313	Float
LAT	Latitude (WGS84/UTM33N)	313	Float
Building Typology	Unreinforced masonry (URM) Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame (RC-MRF)	313	String
Soft story	Yes/No	313	String
Building use	Residential Public Industrial Hotel	310	String
Age of Construction	< 1919 < 1988* 1919-1945 1946-1961 1962–1971 1972-1981 1982-1991 1992–1996 1992–2001 1997–2001 2002–2008 > 2008	313	String
# Floors	Value	312	Integer
Presence of basement	Yes/No	313	String
Building height from the ground to the top of the roof	Value in m	312	Float
Building height from the basement to the top of the roof	Value in m	312	Float
Building Width (B)	Value in m	309	Float
Building Length (L)	Value in m	309	Float
B/L	Shape factor	309	Dimensionless
B/H	Shape factor	309	Dimensionless
Floor area	Value in m²	309	Float
Polygon area	Value in m²	307	Float
Area ratio	Floor area/polygon area	307	Dimensionless
Building shape	R (rectangle), S (square), T (T-shape), L (L-shape), C (C-shape), H (H-shape), Tr (trapezoid)	308	String
Anti-seismic adjustments on masonry	Free text with description of adjustments, if any	12	String
Masonry openings (%)	Percentage of openings with respect to the building lateral surface	288	Integer
Masonry type	Stone/Regular masonry	21	String
Slab	flexible/rigid	27	String
Roof type	Wooden/Other	33	String
Additional floors	Yes/No	313	String
Foundation type	Shallow/deep	32	String
Position of the building	single block/inside block/far end block	312	String
F1_building	Value in Hz	312	Float
F2_building	Value in Hz	239	Float
F0_foundation Soil	Value in Hz	306	Float
Outcropping Geology	Gravina Calcarenite (coarse-grained carbonate sandstone) Calcari M.te Viggiano (Limestones and carbonate sandstones) Marsicovetere Breccia (massive calcareous breccias) Subappennine clay Conglomeratic deposits Sands and sandstones Clean Gravels Silts and Clays Sand Silty Gravels Gravels and Sands, with silt and clay Alluvial deposits Colluvial deposits Eluvial and colluvial deposits Anthropic deposits	313	String
Soft soil/Rigid soil	Mechanical characteristic of foundation soil	313	String
Seismic soil class	Seismic design code (A, B, C, D, E)	311	String
Topographic class	Seismic design code (T1-T2-T3…)	312	String
*: a more accurate class attribution has not been possible

Additional information on the definition of some of the parameters (Table 1) are the following:

ID_GIS: Unique identifier for each building.
ID: Unique identifier for each building (string with reference to the location, MT = Matera, PZ = Potenza, VdA = Villa d’Agri, FVG = Friuli Venezia Giulia).
COD_COM: Municipality code according to the national institute of statistics (ISTAT).
LAT, LONG: Coordinates of the building in the WGS84 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) - zone 33N (EPSG:32633).
Building Typology: Information about the material of vertical load-bearing structure (obtained from building inspections).
Soft story: Presence of a soft story, i.e. a floor that can activate a weak-floor failure mechanism. Intermediate soft stories were also considered, as well as ground floors containing garages or commercial activities.
Age of Construction: Age intervals were defined according to the AEDES form (Zuccaro et al. 2015). One additional class is introduced to account for the strong modifications of the building stock characteristics in Friuli Venezia-Giulia after the 1976 Friuli earthquake. Two classes were added after 1996 to account for the adoption of new building codes in 2001 and 2009.
# Floors: The top floor was included when its estimated volume was comparable with those of other floors in the building (e.g. habitable attic).
Presence of basement: This information was obtained from inspection and/or residents. All floors that are partially or totally below ground are considered.
Building height from the ground to the top of the roof (m): If the building is located on a slope and is not separated by the uphill side through a retaining wall, the ground floor is considered to be the one at the higher side of the slope.
Building height from the basement to the top of the roof (m): Total height, including both the basement and the structures present at the top of the building (e.g. lift shafts).
Building width B: The shorter dimension of a circumscribing polygon.
Building length L: The longer dimension of a circumscribing polygon.
B/L: Ratio between building width and building length, which is a proxy of the plan regularity (Bertero 1996).
B/H: Ratio between building width and building height.
Floor area: Building area calculated based on building footprints (e.g. from openstreetmaps or available national/regional digital maps).
Polygon area: Area of the circumscribing polygon.
Area ratio: Ratio between floor and circumscribing polygon areas (Bertero 1996).
Building shape: Geometric shape of the building: R (rectangle), S (square), T (T-shape), L (L-shape), C (C-shape), H (H-shape), Tr (trapezoid).
Anti-seismic adjustments on masonry: Description of any anti-seismic adjustments (e.g. additional pillars, ring beam, walls reinforcement). Most of these were observed in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region, and were performed as a consequence of the Friuli 1976 earthquake.
Masonry openings (%): Percentage of openings with respect to the building lateral surface.
Masonry type: Type of load-bearing masonry, e.g. stone, regular (bricks, blocks), identified by inspection and/or asking the residents.
Slab: Slab type (rigid or flexible). The floor type was inferred from inspection and/or information collected from residents. Rigid floors often consist of reinforced concrete and hollow tiles.
Roof type: The floor type was assessed from inspection and/or information collected from residents. The most common types are: wood (with or without hollow tiles), reinforced concrete (with or without hollow tiles). In some cases, it was not possible to survey the roof.
Additional floors: Presence of floors added to the building after its construction, but not included in the original project.
Foundation type: Type of foundation (shallow or deep) based on the information collected from residents and/or from the building plans inspected during the data gathering process.
Position of the building: We distinguish between buildings that consist of a single unit (single block) or are composed of multiple blocks. In particular, when constituted by multiple blocks (e.g. in the case of attached buildings), we distinguish between internal buildings (attached to two or more buildings) and buildings located at the edge (far end blocks attached only to one building). The presence of seismic joints or staircases is specified in the text field.
F ₁ _and F ₂ building (Hz): The fundamental frequencies in two directions of the buildings (longitudinal and transversal) are defined here as F1_building (lower value) and as F2_buildings (higher value). The fundamental vibrational frequencies for all buildings have been estimated from single station AV measurements using the Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio approach (e.g., Castro et al. 1998; Gallipoli et al. 2004; Di Giulio e t al. 2005). The AV recording of a single sensor installed at the top of each building, aligning the horizontal axes of the sensor parallel to the two main building axes, is used. Measurements were carried out using two different instruments (Tromino, Lunitek Sentinel GEO, Lennartz 3D-Lite 1s connected to Reftek or Titan dataloggers). The recording time varies between 10 and 30 minutes. The HVSRs have been estimated by the following procedure: each component was divided into non-overlapping windows of 20 s; each window was detrended, tapered, padded, Fast Fourier Transformed and smoothed with triangular windows with a width equal to 5% of the central frequency. For each of the 20 s long windows, the arithmetic mean of the two horizontal component’s spectra was used to combine E-W and N-S components in the single horizontal (H) spectrum; then the HVSR is computed. Finally, the average HVSR spectrum is obtained, providing also the relative ± 2 confidence interval. For the validation of HVSRs the SESAME (SESAME 2004; Bonnefoy-Claudet et al. 2006) criterions and suggestions by Parolai and Galiana-Merino (2006) and Albarello et al. (2011) have been applied.
F ₀ _ Foundation Soil (Hz): The main fundamental resonance frequency obtained from HVSR analysis of single station AV measurements. Measurements were carried out using two different instruments, Tromino or Reftek datalogger equipped with Lennartz 3D-Lite 1s sensors. The recording time varied between 10 and 30 minutes. For data analysis, see “F₁ and F₂ building (Hz)” field. For some cases, the HVSR from microzonation studies were used.
Geology: The geological classification was inferred from field surveys or the detailed geological maps of microzonation studies at the scale of 1:5000 or 1:10.000, if available. Otherwise the geological map at the scale 1:50.000 was considered.
Soft soil/rigid soil: This classification was introduced to simplify the geological classification. Soils with Vs > 360 m/s have been considered as rigid soil. This class is composed mainly by outcropping concrete bedrock (limestones, sandstones and breccias of the South-Appennine Units) and by clean coarse gravels of the Upper Friulian Plain. Soils with Vs < 360 m/s have been considered as soft soils. These are loose sediments (silts, clays, sands, gravels and their mixture) of different origin (alluvial, colluvial, eluvial or anthropic).
Seismic soil class: This classification refers to the national building code (NTC 2018 § 3.2.2) based on Vs30. Vs profiles have been measured nearby the studied buildings. If deduced by microzonation studies, they are marked by a star (*).
Topographic class: The topographic class refers to the national building code classification (NTC 2018 § 3.2.2).

2.1 Exploratory data analysis

The analyses presented here are performed using the main characteristics of 238 RC-MRF and 71 URM buildings from FRIBAS. 4 RC-URM mixed type buildings were excluded from the analysis. The vast majority of the buildings are built on soft soils (244) with 65 built on rigid soils (Fig. 1a). This proportion is roughly maintained also looking at the two building typologies, with 43 URM buildings located on soft and 28 on rigid soils; 198 RC-MRF buildings were built on soft and 40 on rigid soils (Fig. 1a). In Italy, sites characterized by real rigid soils, i.e. class A soils with Vs30 greater than 800 m/s, are quite rare. The rigid sites are generally affected by topographic amplification and their site response is often affected by the presence of weathered/fractured bedrock (Rovelli et al. 2002; Martino et al. 2006; Pileggi et al. 2011) which causes unexpected amplification (Gallipoli and Mucciarelli 2009). In FRIBAS, the sites classified as rigid soil are those located on outcropped Gravina Calcarenite (coarse-grained carbonate sandstone) and Mount Viggiano’s limestone (limestones and carbonate sandstones) with flat HVSR functions. The soft soils are loose sediments (silts, clays, sands, gravels and their mixture) of different origin (alluvial, colluvial, eluvial or anthropic) with Vs < 360 m/s. The buildings included in FRIBAS range from a minimum of two floors up to fourteen floors (Fig. 1b). As expected, URM buildings are mostly low-rise: most buildings have less than 5 floors, with a prevalence of 2 and 3-story buildings (about 66% of all URM buildings) and only two 6-story buildings. As regards to RC-MRF class, 4 and 5-story buildings are the most frequent, constituting about 32% and 18% of the total RC buildings.

The analysis of the distribution of the building typology classes as a function of the age of construction (Fig. 2) shows that i) the oldest (< 1919) and the most recent construction-age classes (> 2008) are the least represented (5% in total); ii) the most numerous class (about 30%) is that of the 1972–1981 decade; iii) each of the remaining construction age classes contains about 10% of buildings. The URM buildings in FRIBAS were built approximately from the early 1900s up to the 70s, while after 1982 almost all buildings were constructed in RC. For 8 buildings it was not possible to assign the construction period more accurately than 'before 1998’. The fundamental vibrational periods show an asymmetric (right-tailed) distribution, with most buildings (95%) having vibrational periods below 0.4 s and a few with higher periods of up to 0.83 s. The lower mean value (median) of the period for URM (0.17 s) compared to RC buildings (0.26 s) reflects the fact that the former are, on average, lower than the latter. Furthermore, the comparison between the coefficients of variation (ratio between standard deviation and mean) of the fundamental vibrational period (0.38 RC vs 0.35 URM) confirms the fact that the sample of RC buildings present in the FRIPE-DB is characterized by a greater typological variability than the URM buildings.

As expected, for both building typologies, the average fundamental vibrational period increases according to the number of floors (Fig. 3). The fundamental period of URM buildings shows an increasing trend up to 4 story buildings, while the RC-MRF buildings show a stronger increasing trend reaching values greater than 0.4 s for buildings with more than 9 stories.

To evaluate how much the foundation soil characteristics, affect the building response, we analysed the relationship of the fundamental vibrational periods and number of floors as a function of the foundation soil characteristics. Figure 4 shows that the fundamental periods of buildings constructed on soft soil are slightly greater than those of buildings constructed on rigid ones for almost all classes. These observations suggest a slightly higher increasing trend of the main vibrational period on soft soils compared to rigid soils. Despite the small number of buildings constructed on rigid soil for some height classes, this analysis highlights the necessity to introduce distinguished T-H relationships taking into account building typologies and soil mechanical characteristics.

Experimental relationships between fundamental periods T, and building heights H have been obtained through a regression analysis by comparing two different models (linear with zero intercept and power) defined as follows:

To choose the most suitable model, we first analyzed residuals to check for the presence of any trend not captured by the model, and to estimate the accuracy of the fitted model by using two indicators, the root-mean-squared error (RMSE), and the mean absolute error (MAE):

where \({T}_{m}\) and \({T}_{f}\) are the measured and fitted fundamental periods, respectively, \(n\) is the sample size and \(m\) represents the number of estimated parameters (one for the linear model and two for the power model).

We show here the T-H relationships for four different cases: case A) the entire dataset is analyzed without any distinction of building or soil typologies; case B) the dataset is split according to building typologies, i.e. URM and RC-MRF buildings; case C) the dataset is split according to soil rigidity classes, i.e. soft and rigid soils; case D) the dataset is split according to both building typology and soil rigidity, i.e. URM buildings on soft soils, URM buildings on rigid soils, RC-MRF buildings on soft soils, RC-MRF buildings on rigid soils.

Case A: the T-H relationship has been estimated for all FRIBAS buildings (307 buildings: height or period are missing for two buildings). The residual analysis (Fig. 5) and the performance indices of the models, evaluated through RMSE and MAE (Table 2), suggests that the more complex non-linear model does not improve the description of the T-H relationship. Since this is valid for all four cases (see Table 2), we assume hereinafter that the simpler linear model is a sufficiently accurate approximation of the T-H relationship for the FRIBAS buildings.

Figure 6 shows the comparison between the linear T-H relationship obtained for the FRIBAS database (red line), with those from other authors (coloured lines) and EC8 (CEN 2004) for RC-MRF and URM buildings (black solid/dashed line) obtained from AV recordings. Experimental data from the considered articles are associated with buildings constructed after different seismic codes depending on the time of construction, age of construction, presence and position of infilled panels, and site conditions. Different instruments for AV recordings and different processing techniques have been used. Nevertheless, the comparison shows that there is a high similarity between all experimental T-H relationships, whereas the EC8 relationships return much longer theoretical periods for both RC-MRF and URM buildings. Despite taking into account buildings designed in accordance with recent earthquake engineering, the EC8 relationship differs even more than 120% from the experimental ones for RC-MRF and about 50% for URM buildings.

Case B: Assessing URM and RC-MRF buildings separately does not have a significant influence on the T-H (linear and power) relationships as can be seen by comparing the estimated parameters and their confidence intervals (Table 2). The slope of the linear model is 0.0161 s/m for all buildings (case A), 0.0158 for URM and 0.0161 for RC-MRF buildings (case B). However, when considering confidence intervals at 95% of probability, the slopes are not statistically different. Compared to the T-H relationship estimated for all buildings (case A), there is a significant decrease of the average error in the estimation of URM periods, RMSE: 0.039 vs 0.057 s and MAE: 0.028 vs 0.039 s. This error decrease is linked to the fact that URM points are closer to the modelled relationship compared to RC buildings (Fig. 5a and Fig. 7). The fact that the T-H data for RC-MRF buildings are, in general, much more scattered than the URM ones, reflects the greater variability of the construction characteristics of RC-MRF buildings compared to URM ones represented in FRIBAS. There are in particular three points very distant from the model, which have residuals > 0.2 s. These RC-MRF buildings differ significantly in their construction type from the others. By comparing our experimental relationships for each building typology with the ones suggested by the EC8 code, we see again that the latter returns much higher periods for given building heights.

Case C: As regards the influence of soil characteristics on T-H relationships, the analysis shows that significant differences exist between buildings built on soft compared to those built on rigid soils (Fig. 8, Table 2). In fact, while the slope of the T-H relationship for rigid soils is 0.0146 s/m, that for soft soils is equal to 0.0165 s/m. The comparison between the respective confidence intervals, 0.014–0.015 vs 0.016–0.017, highlights the statistically significant difference of the T-H relationships for the two soil types. The higher slope of the T-H relationship for soft compared to rigid soils implies longer periods for a given building height. Moreover, buildings on rigid soils exhibit T-H points closer to the average estimated trend, which is reflected in the lower average estimation errors (RMSE: ~0.6 s vs 0.4 s, MAE: 0.4 s vs 0.3 s).

Case D

The analysis of different building typologies on different soils shows that

1. For a given soil rigidity class, there are no significant differences in the T-H relationship between the two building types, e.g. on soft soils, the T-H slope for URM is 0.0170 s/m (95% confidence interval. 0.016–0.018 s/m) while for RC-MRF the slope value is 0.0164 s/m (0.016–0.017 s/m).

2. For a given building typology, there are significant differences in the T-H relationships for different soil rigidity classes, e.g. for the URM buildings, the T-H slope for rigid soils is comprised in the interval 0.013–0.015 s/m, completely disjointed from the one on rigid soils (0.016–0.018 s/m).

3. The T-H relationships lead to significantly longer periods for soft soils compared to rigid soils for both building typologies (Fig. 9, Table 2).

Moreover, for both building typologies, the precision of the estimated periods is higher on rigid soils, e.g. RMSE: 0.029 vs 0.038 for URM, and 0.047 vs 0.062 for RC buildings. On average, we observe a difference of about 20% of the vibrational period T for URM buildings on rigid with respect to those on soft soils and about 11% for RC-MRF buildings with different soil conditions. In both cases, the differences are greater than 100% with respect to the EC8 formulas. These results highlight the importance of improving the code formulas by taking into account the main factors that can influence the building seismic response, including the effect of soil-structure interaction.

Table 2

Comparison of experimental T-H relationships (linear and power models). From top to bottom: all FRIBAS buildings, buildings split by building type, buildings split by building type and soil rigidity (all regression parameters are significant with p-value < 0.001; Conf.Int (95%) is the confidence interval of the estimated parameters with 95% of probability; RMSE: root-mean-squared error; MAE: mean absolute error, both having units of seconds being estimated on the residuals = measured - fitted, #: sample size)
Split by	Data	Model	Parameters	Conf.Int.(95%)	RMSE (s)	MAE (s)	#
	All	Linear	a = 0.0161	0.0157–0.0164	0.057	0.039	307
	All	Power	a = 0.0224 b = 0.888	0.0188–0.0267 0.828–0.947	0.056	0.039	307
Building Typology	URM	Linear	a = 0.0158	0.0150–0.0165	0.039	0.028	70
	URM	Power	a = 0.0212 b = 0.887	0.0144–0.0310 0.741–1.03	0.038	0.029	70
	RC	Linear	a = 0.0161	0.0157–0.0165	0.061	0.043	237
	RC	Power	a = 0.0243 b = 0.864	0.0196–0.0301 0.792–0.935	0.060	0.042	237
Soil rigidity	soft	Linear	0.0165	0.0160–0.0169	0.059	0.04	242
	soft	Power	0.0252 0.855	0.0202–0.0314 0.779–0.931	0.057	0.04	242
	rigid	Linear	0.0146	0.0141–0.0152	0.04	0.028	65
	rigid	Power	0.0146 1	0.0113–0.0187 0.922–1.08	0.04	0.028	65
Building Typology and Soil rigidity	URM - soft	Linear	a = 0.0170	0.016–0.018	0.038	0.028	42
	URM - soft	Power	a = 0.0181 b = 0.976	0.0117–0.0278 0.811 1.14	0.038	0.03	42
	URM - rigid	Linear	a = 0.0141	0.013–0.015	0.029	0.019	28
	URM - rigid	Power	a = 0.0284 b = 0.734	0.0172–0.0454 0.553–0.925	0.025	0.021	28
	RC - soft	Linear	a = 0.0164	0.016–0.017	0.062	0.043	200
	RC - soft	Power	a = 0.0269 b = 0.834	0.0206–0.0350 0.744–0.924	0.061	0.042	200
	RC - rigid	Linear	a = 0.0148	0.014–0.016	0.047	0.035	37
	RC - rigid	Power	a = 0.0149 b = 0.998	0.0103–0.0214 0.886–1.11	0.047	0.034	37

We compared our results for RC-MRF buildings with the ones of the few available studies of RC-MRF buildings on soft (Fig. 10a) or rigid soils (Fig. 10b). As already observed for the entire database (Fig. 5a), the experimental T-H relationships give significantly lower period T values than the ones of the EC8 (the differences are over 100% for soft and reach 150% for rigid soils). Our T-H relationships for RC-MRF buildings on both soft and rigid soils are in good agreement with the results of Ghrib and Mamedov (2004), Pan et al. (2014) and Salameh et al. (2016). Nevertheless, our T values are lower than the ones of Pan et al. (2014) (around 35%) and Salameh et al. (2016) (around 25%) for soft soils and lower than the ones of Pan et al. (2014) for rigid soils (around 20%), but almost identical to the ones of Salameh et al. (2016) for rigid soils. The differences may on the one hand be due to different construction types in the different countries (our study: Italy, Pan et al. (2014): Singapore, Salameh et al. (2016): Lebanon), and on the other due to differences in soil conditions and the definition of soft and rigid soils.

In this study, we present FRIBAS, an open access database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6505442) made up of 309 buildings (71 URM, 238 RC-MRF), each characterized by 37 parameters (if applicable). To our knowledge, it is the first database collecting a great number of building and soil characteristics, including fundamental periods of buildings and relative foundation soils, for a large number of buildings. Up to now, only a few databases provided results of experimental measurements performed both on buildings and soils to estimate the fundamental vibrational periods. Notable examples are those by Gallipoli et al. (2010) on 244 European RC buildings and by the “Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data of the USGS”. However, the first database is not public and the USGS's database only provides the recordings but not the estimated fundamental periods. In addition, data on URM buildings were scarce, despite being a large fraction of the building stock in Europe (Crowley et al. 2020).

FRIBAS is a starting point for analyses aimed at a better characterization of the soil-building system to improve the building design, the assessment of existing buildings, and subsequently the estimation of expected damage caused by earthquakes. Having information on the structural characteristics for a large number of buildings, is crucial to investigate the influence of each parameter on the building dynamic response (i.e. the fundamental frequency of the building-soil system) and subsequent damage caused by earthquakes. This is particularly of interest for Italy, where historical URM buildings have suffered substantial damage in the last decades (e.g. Valensise et al. 2017; Sextos et al. 2018; Sorrentino et al. 2019; Penna et al. 2022). So far, most studies were devoted to assessing the dynamic behavior of individual buildings, without extending the results to assess the behavior of a given building typology. A few studies focused on evaluating the dynamic behavior of a selected building typology (historical URM) and the interaction with the soil foundation (Veletsos and Meek 1974). Recent works showed that the correct estimation of fundamental vibrational periods for different building typologies can support near real-time seismic damage assessment (e.g. Scaini et al. 2021). This can be done using simple oscillators defined by fundamental vibrational periods of different building typologies (Petrovic et al., 2022). Fundamental periods need to be assessed experimentally, and possibly account for the soil conditions, or extracted from T-H relationships such as the ones provided here.

Nowadays, the fundamental vibrational period is derived from general relationships (e.g. Eurocode 8 2003; CEN 2004) with well-known limits (e.g. Hatzigeorgiou and Kanapitsas 2013; Michel et al. 2010a). As already demonstrated by several authors (e.g. Gallipoli et al. 2010) and confirmed in this work (Fig. 7), the RC-MRF buildings’ fundamental periods derived by numerical relationships (used in most building codes, including EC8) overestimate those based on experimental measurements. This is due to several factors which are often not accounted for in numerical modelling, including cracking of the reinforced concrete components, the contribution of non-structural elements (e.g. infill walls, Masi and Vona 2010) and the soil-structure interaction effects (Kose 2009). For URM buildings, the mismatch is probably mainly related to the fact that they are often attached to other buildings, resulting in a change of the global stiffness. Further, there is a large variation in the material quality and connection of the elements which is not considered in the building codes. Moreover, the Eurocode 8 relationships are based on those from Goel and Chopra (1997), which were obtained after the San Francisco 1989 earthquake and account for nonlinear effects and damage accumulation, leading to higher periods (e.g. Trifunac et al. 2001; Mucciarelli et al. 2004).

Here, we present the first results obtained from the correlation between some parameters of the FRIBAS dataset. It is widely recognized that the structural response of a building on soft soil may differ from the response of an identical one on firm soil for the same excitation (Luco et al. 1988). Thus, we have estimated T-H relationships for different building typologies on different soil conditions. Our results highlight that, for a given building height, the building main vibrational period differs depending on the foundation soil type (simplified into two broad categories, soft and stiff). The interaction effects between buildings (both RC-MRS and URM) with their foundation soil change the vibrational periods of the system: the periods of URM buildings located on soft soil increase by about 20% with respect to those located on rigid soil; for the RC-MRF buildings the soil conditions influence the periods of about 11%. In this study, we evaluated the effect of soil-structure interaction in the linear elastic field; it is known that this effect can increase as the ground motion increases. In fact, Luco et al. (1988) estimated that the soil-structure interaction effect for a specific building can modify the ground motion by more than 30%.

Our results motivate the need of going beyond a ‘one-fits-all’ numerical T-H relationship for generic building typologies, towards a specific characterization of T-H relationships that account for both soil and building typologies. Considering the importance of soil-structure interaction effects on building dynamic response, it becomes crucial to update the seismic code which, as shown, returns much longer periods than those obtained experimentally.

In conclusion, we underline that:

The FRIBAS open access database (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6505442) supports the analysis of how different building and soil parameters influence the soil-building dynamic response;
FRIBAS is the first database of buildings comprising a substantial number of URM buildings (71), characterized by a great number of parameters, including their fundamental vibrational period;
Specific T-H relationships for different typologies on different soil conditions are presented:
1. T=0.0170H for URM buildings on soft soil;
2. T=0.0141H for URM buildings on rigid soil;
3. T=0.0164H for RC-MRF buildings on soft soil;
4. T=0.0148H for RC-MRF buildings on rigid soil;

FRIBAS is completely public and represents a good opportunity for the entire scientific community to explore some topics in depth related to building dynamic behaviour and consequently update the seismic codes.

Acknowledgements

Bojana Petrovic is supported by a research fellowship from the German Research Foundation (DFG, PE 2891/1-1).

A special thought goes to Marco Mucciarelli who has always passionately inspired the study of these scientific issues.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this manuscript.

Author contributions

Maria Rosaria Gallipoli: Conceptualization, Data curation, Data analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation; Bojana Petrovic: Data curation; Data analysis, Visualization, Writing- Original draft preparation; Giuseppe Calamita: Data curation; Data analysis, Visualization, Writing- Original draft preparation; Nicola Tragni: Data curation; Chiara Scaini: Data curation; Data analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation; Carla Barnaba: Data curation; Data analysis, Writing- Original draft preparation; Marco Vona: Data analysis, editing; Stefano Parolai: Supervision.

All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available at an open access database: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6505442

Albarello D, Cesi C, Eulilli V, Guerrini F, Lunedei E, Paolucci E, Pileggi D, Puzzilli LM 2011 The contribution of the ambient vibration prospecting in seismic microzoning: an example from the area damaged by the 26th April 2009 l'Aquila (Italy) earthquake. Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl. 52(3): 513-538.
Al-Nimry H, Resheidat M, Al-Jamal M 2014 Ambient vibration testing of low and medium rise infilled RC frame buildings in Jordan. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 59:21–29.
Asteris PG, Repapis C, Repapi EV, Cavaleri L 2017 Fundamental period of infilled reinforced concrete frame structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 13(7): 929-941, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2016.1227341
Baggio C, Bernardini A, Colozza R, Corazza L, Della Bella M, Di Pasquale G, Dolce M, Goretti A, Martinelli A, Orsini G, Papa F, Zuccaro G 2007 Field manual for post-earthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES), A.V. Pinto, F. Taucer (Eds.), EUR 22868 EN – Joint Research Centre – Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg; 100 pp.- ISSN 1018-5593.
Bal IE, Crowley H, Pinho R 2008 Displacement-Based Earthquake Loss Assessment for 533 an Earthquake Scenario in Istanbul. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12:12-22, DOI:534 10.1080/13632460802013388
Bayraktar A, Türker T, Altunis AC 2015 Experimental frequencies and damping ratios for historical masonry arch bridges. Construction and Building Materials 75: 234–241
Bertero VV 1996 State-of-the-art report: design criteria, Paper n. 2005, Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on earthquake engineering 1996, 23-28 June, Acapulco (Mexico), ISBN 0 08 042822 3, available at https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/11_2005.pdf
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: 2095–2120, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9713-y.
Block P, Ciblac T, Ochsendorf J 2006 Real-time limit analysis of vaulted masonry buildings. Comput Struct 84:1841–1852
Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Cotton F, Bard P 2006 The nature of noise wavefield and its applications for site effects studies: A literature review. Earth Science Reviews 79(3–4): 205–227
Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Köhler A, Cornou C, Wathelet M, Bard PY 2008 Effects of love waves on microtremor H/V ratio. Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. 98(1): 288–300.
Calò M, Malomo D, Gabbianelli G, Pinho R 2021 Shake-table response simulation of a URM building specimen using discrete micro-models with varying degrees of detail. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19:5953–5976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01202-0
Castro RR, Mucciarelli M, Pacor F, Federici P, Zaninetti A 1998 Determination of the characteristic frequency of two dams located in the region of Calabria, Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 88(2):503-511.
Çelebi M, Liu HP 1998 Before and after retrofit - response of a building during ambient and strong motions. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 77-78:259-268.
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 32:1821–1843
CEN. European standard EN 1998-1: 2004—Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic action and rules for buildings. 2004; European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium
Chiauzzi L, Masi A, Mucciarelli M, Cassidy JF, Kutyn K, Traber J, Ventura C, Yao F 2012 Estimate of fundamental period of reinforced concrete buildings: code provisions vs. experimental measures in Victoria and Vancouver (BC, Canada), 15 WCEE, Lisboa 2012, paper number 3033.
Crowley H, Pinho R 2006 Simplified equations for estimating the period of vibration of existing buildings, First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC), Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006, Paper Number: 1122.
Crowley H, Despotaki V, Rodrigues D, Silva V, Toma-Danila D, Riga, Karatzetzou A, Fotopoulou S, Zugic Z, Sousa L, Ozcebe S, Gamba P 2020 Exposure model for European seismic risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra 36(1): 252-273.
Di Giulio G, Azzara RM, Cultrera G, Giammarinaro MS, Vallone P, Rovelli A 2005 Effect of local geology on ground motion in the city of Palermo, Italy, as inferred from aftershocks of the 6 September 2002 MW 5.9 earthquake. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 95:2328–2341.
Ditommaso R, Vona M, Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M 2013 Evaluation and considerations about fundamental periods of damaged reinforced concrete buildings. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13:1903-1912.
Eurocode 8 2003 Design of Structures for Earthquakes Resistance Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. 2003; Pr-EN 1998-1 Final Draft. Comité Européen de Normalisation.
de Felice G, Fugger R, Gobbin F 2021 Overturning of the façade in single-nave churches under seismic loading. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01243-5
Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Castro RR, Monachesi G, Contri P 2004 Structure, soil-structure response and effects of damage based on observations of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of microtremors. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24(6):487-495.
Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M 2009 Comparison of Site Classification from VS30, VS10, and HVSR in Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(1): 340–351, doi: 10.1785/0120080083
Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Vona M 2009 Empirical estimate of fundamental frequencies and damping for Italian buildings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 38: 973–988, doi: 10.1002/ eqe.878
Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Šket-Motnikar B, Zupanćić P, Gosar A, Prevolnik S, Herak M, Stipecević J, Herak D, Milutinović Z, Olumćeva T 2010 Empirical estimates of dynamic parameters on a large set of European buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 8:593–607.
Ghrib F, Mamedov H 2004 Period formulas of shear wall buildings with flexible bases. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 33:295–314.
Goel RK, Chopra AK 1997 Period formulas for moment resisting frame buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering 123(11): 1454-1461.
Gosar A 2012 Determination of masonry building fundamental frequencies in five Slovenian towns by microtremor excitation and implications for seismic risk assessment. Natural Hazards 62(3): 1059–1079.
Guler K, Yuksel E, Kocak A 2008 Estimation of the Fundamental Vibration Period of Existing RC Buildings in Turkey Utilizing Ambient Vibration Records. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12(S2):140–150.
Hans S, Boutin C, Ibraim E, Roussillon P 2005 In situ experiments and seismic analysis of existing buildings. Part I: experimental investigations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34:1513–1529.
Hatzigeorgiou GD, Kanapitsas G 2013 Evaluation of fundamental period of low-rise and mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 42:1599–1616.
Hong LL, Hwang WL 2000 Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 29:327–337.
Ivanović SS, Trifunac MD, Novikova EI, Gladkov AA, Todorovska MI 2000 Ambient vibration tests of a seven-story reinforced concrete building in Van Nuys, California, damaged by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 19(6):391-411.
Jiang R, Jiang L, Hu Y, Ye J, Zhou L 2020 A simplified method for estimating the fundamental period of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 74(6): 821-832 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2020.74.6.821
Kaplan O, Guney Y, Dogangun A 2021 A period-height relationship for newly constructed mid-rise reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Engineering Structures 232, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111807.
Kose MM 2009 Parameters affecting the fundamental period of RC buildings with infill walls. Engineering Structures 31(1): 93-102.
Kwon OS, Kim ES 2010 Evaluation of building period formulas for seismic design. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39(14):1569-1583.
Luco JE, Trifunac MD, Wong HL 1988 Isolation of soil-structure interaction effects by full-scale forced vibration tests. Earthquake Engineering and Strucural Dynamics 16: 1-21.
Martino S, Minutolo A, Paciello A, Rovelli A, Scarascia Mugnozza G, Verrubbi V 2006 Evidence of amplification effects in fault zone related to rock mass jointing. Natural Hazard 39: 419-449.
Masi A, Vona M 2010 Experimental and numerical evaluation of the fundamental period of undamaged and damaged RC framed buildings. Bull Earthq Eng. 8:643–656.
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 28:593–604
Michel C, Guéguen P, El Arem S, Mazars J, Kotronis P 2010a Full-scale dynamic response of an RC building under weak seismic motions using earthquake recordings, ambient vibrations and modelling. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 39(4):419–441.
Michel C, Guéguen P 2010b Time–Frequency Analysis of Small Frequency Variations in Civil Engineering Structures Under Weak and Strong Motions Using a Reassignment Method. Structural Health Monitoring 9(2):159–171.
Mikael A, Gueguen, Bard PY, Roux P, Langlais M 2013 The analysis of long-term frequency and damping wandering in buildings using the Random Decrement Technique. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103(1):236-246.
Mucciarelli M, Masi A, Gallipoli MR, Harabaglia P, Vona M, Ponzo F, Dolce M 2004 Analysis of RC building dynamic response and soil-building resonance based on data recorded during a damaging earthquake (Molise, Italy, 2002). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94:1943–1953, https://doi.org/10.1785/012003186.
Mylonakis G, Gazetas G 2000 Seismic soil-structure interaction: Beneficial or detrimental?. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 4(3): 277–301.
Navarro M, Vidal F, Enomoto T, Alcalá FJ, Sánchez FJ, Abeki N 2007 Analysis of site effects weightiness on RC building seismic response. The Adra (SE Spain) example. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1363–1383.
NTC 2018 Aggiornamento delle norme tecniche per le costruzioni, decreto ministeriale 17 gennaio 2018, GU n.35 del 11-2-2019 – Suppl. Ordinario n. 5, available at https://www.gazzettaufficiale .it/eli/id/2018/2/20/18A00716/sg (in Italian).
Oliveira CS, Navarro M 2010 Fundamental periods of vibration of RC buildings in Portugal from in-situ experimental and numerical techniques. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 8(3), pp. 609–642
Pan TC, Goh KS, Megawati K 2014 Empirical Relationships between Natural Vibration Period and Height of Buildings in Singapore. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:449–465.
Paolucci R 1993 Soil-structure interaction effects on an instrumented building in Mexico City. European Earthquake Engineering 3, 33-44.
Parolai S, Galiana-Merino JJ 2006 Effect of Transient Seismic Noise on Estimates of H/V Spectral Ratios. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96(1): 228–236, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050084
Penna A, Rosti A., Rota M 2022 Seismic Response of Masonry Building Aggregates in Historic Centres: Observations, Analyses and Tests. In: Bento, R., De Stefano, M., Köber, D., Zembaty, Z. (eds) Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irregular and Complex Civil Structures IV. (2022). Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83221-6_2
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. Annals of Geophysics 58(1); https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-6679.
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: 1720–1732, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150326.
Petrovic B, Parolai S, Pianese G, Dikmen SU, Moldobekov B, Orunbaev S, Paolucci R 2018a Joint deconvolution of building and downhole seismic recordings: an application to three test cases. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16:613–641, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0215-6.
Petrovic B, Dikmen SU, Parolai S 2018b Real data and numerical simulations-based approaches for estimating the dynamic characteristics of a tunnel formwork building. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16: 1633–1656.
Petrovic B, Scaini C, Parolai S 2022 Damage Assessment for Rapid Response (DARR): validation for different ground motion levels and building types. Submitted to SRL 2022, under review.
Pileggi D, Rossi D, Lunedei E, Albarello D 2011 Seismic characterization of rigid sites in the ITACA database by ambient vibration monitoring and geological surveys. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 9(6): 1839-1854, doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9292-0
Piro A, de Silva F, Parisi F, Scotto di Santolo A, Silvestri F 2020 Effects of soil-foundation-structure interaction on fundamental frequency and radiation damping ratio of historical masonry building sub-structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 18:1187–1212, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00748-4
Portioli FPA, Godio M, Calderini C, Lourenço PB 2021 A variational rigid-block modeling approach to nonlinear elastic and kinematic analysis of failure mechanisms in historic masonry structures subjected to lateral loads. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn, eqe.3512, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ EQE. 3512
Rovelli A, Caserta A, Marra F, Ruggiero V 2002 Can seismic waves be trapped inside an inactive fault zone? The case study of Nocera Umbra, central Italy, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92: 2217 - 2232.
Salameh C, Guillier B, Harb J, Cornou C, Bard PY, Voisin C, Mariscal A 2016 Seismic response of Beirut (Lebanon) buildings: instrumental results from ambient vibrations. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14(10): 2705 – 2730.
Scaini C., Petrovic B, Tamaro A, Moratto L, Parolai S 2021 Near-Real-Time Damage Estimation for Buildings Based on Strong-Motion Recordings: An Application to Target Areas in Northeastern Italy. Seismol. Res. Lett. 92 (6): 3785–3800.
SESAME Project 2004 Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations. Measurements, processing and interpretation, WP12, deliverable no. D23.12, 2004. Available at http://sesame-fp5.obs.ujf-renoble.fr/Papers/HV_User_Guidelines.pdf
Sextos A, De Risi R, Pagliaroli A, et al. 2018 Local site effects and incremental damage of buildings during the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake sequence. Earthq Spectra, 34(4):1639-1669.
Skolnik D, Lei Y, Yu E, Wallace JW 2006 Identification, model updating, and response prediction of an instrumented 15-story steel-frame building. Earthquake Spectra 22(3):781-802.
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 96:586–598
Snoj J, Dolšek M 2020 Pushover-based seismic risk assessment and loss estimation of masonry buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 49:567–588.
Sorrentino L, Cattari S, da Porto F, Magenes G, Penna A 2019 Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 17:5583–5607
Spina D, Acunzo G, Fiorini N, Mori F, Dolce M 2019 A probabilistic simplified seismic model of masonry buildings based on ambient vibrations. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 17(2): 985–1007.
Trifunac MD, Ivanovic SS, Todorovska M.I 2001 Apparent periods of a building: II. Time-frequency analysis. Journal of Structural Engineering-ASCE 127:527–537.
Valensise G, Tarabusi G, Guidoboni E, Ferrari G 2017 The forgotten vulnerability: A geology- and history-based approach for ranking the seismic risk of earthquake-prone communities of the Italian Apennines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25: 289–300
Veletsos AS, Meek JW 1974 Dynamic behavior of building-foundation systems. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 3(2): 121–138.
Zini G, Betti M, Bartoli G, Chiostrini S 2018 Frequency vs time domain identification of heritage structures. XIV International Conference on Building Pathology and Constructions Repair – CINPAR 2018. Procedia Structural Integrity 11: 460 – 469
Zuccaro G, Dolce M, De Gregorio D, Speranza E, Moroni C 2015 La scheda CARTIS per la caratterizzazione tipologico- strutturale dei comparti urbani costituiti da edifici ordinari. Valutazione dell’esposizione in analisi di rischio sismico; 2015, In: Proceedings of GNGTS (in Italian).

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 03 Jan, 2023

Read the published version in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering →

Reviewers agreed at journal
11 Jul, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
11 Jul, 2022
Editor invited by journal
09 Jul, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
08 Jul, 2022
First submitted to journal
07 Jul, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

FRIBAS database for better characterization of RC and URM buildings: Towards specific T-H relationships

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. The Dataset: Fribas Database

2.1 Exploratory data analysis

3. Results: Experimental Period-height Relationships

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1