DETERMINATION OF SEIMIC

VULNERABILITY USING AMBIENT

AND FORCED VIBRATION TESTS

Ziya Dalkilic
Asst. Prof. Serdar Soyoz
Civil Engineering Department
Bogazici University

Outline
Motivation
Seismic Retrofitting of the Building
Ambient Vibration Test
Forced
Forced Vibration Test
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment
Conclusions

Seismic Vulnerability
How confidently do we predict the actual
performance/reliability by the current practice?
Modal period and damping ratios are critical to
determine especially for non-ductile buildings.

acceleration (g)

Vibration-Based Health Monitoring

5.E-04
4.E-04
3.E-04
2.E-04
1.E-04
3.E-18
-1.E-04
-2.E-04
-3.E-04
-4.E-04
-5.E-04

acceleration (g)

10

time (sec)

5.E-04
4.E-04
3.E-04
2.E-04
1.E-04
8.E-19
-1.E-04
-2.E-04
-3.E-04
-4.E-04
-5.E-04

System ID

time (sec)

10

Health
Diagnostics

Decision

Modal
Parameters

Motivation
Determination of modal parameters
Determination of change in the modal parameters due
to increase in the applied force to the structure
FEM updating using identified modal parameters
Determination of seismic vulnerability of the structure

ET-B Building Bogazici University

Seismic Retrofitting
Columns
Before Retrofit
Dimension
Number
(cm cm)
40 60

13

60
60 50
50 60
30 30
30 50

2
1
1
2
2

After Retrofit
Dimension
Adet
(cm cm)
70 75
9
55 75
2
70 90
1
65 90
1
90 90
2
90 80
1
80 90
1
30 30
2
30 50
2
70 90
1

Shear Walls
Before Retrofit
Dimension
(cm cm)

After Retrofit

Direction

Dimension
(cm cm)

Direction

650 45

E-W

635 40

E-W

40 345

N-S

40 620

N-S

325 30

E-W

325 30

E-W

30 470

N-S

30 470

N-S

Instrumentation

Ambient Vibration Test

2.5

x 10

-8

5
Building Elavation (Floor Number)

First
Mode

|CPSD|

1.5

Second
Mode

0.5

0
0

10

Third
Mode
15
Frequency (Hz)

20

25

30

1st Mode
2nd Mode
3rd Mode

3
2
1
0
-1
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Normalized Modal Displacement

0.6

0.8

Modal Frequencies and Shapes in E-W Direction

2

x 10

-8

5
Building Elavation (Floor Number)

First
Mode

|CPSD|

1.5

0.5
Second
Mode
0
0

10

Third
Mode

15
Frequency (Hz)

20

25

30

4
3

1st Mode
2nd Mode
3rd Mode

2
1
0
-1
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Normalized Modal Displacement

Modal Frequencies and Shapes in N-S Direction

0.6

0.8

Change in Modal Frequencies by Time

5

Frequency (Hz)

4.5

4
Demolition of
Partition Walls

First mode in E-W

Seismic
Retrofitting

3.5

2.5
07/20

11/04

Days (in 2010)

5.5

Frequency (Hz)

4.5
Demolition of
Partition Walls

First mode in N-S

Seismic
Retrofitting

3.5

3
07/20

11/04

Days (in 2010)

Forced Vibration Test-1

Eccentricity
(%)
25
50
75
25
50
75

Frequency
(Hz)
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.5
6.5
6.5

Force
(kN)
3.70
7.39
11.1
7.71
15.4
23.1

Forced Vibration Test-2

3.5

x 10

-4

Change in Modal Frequencies and

Damping Ratios by Force
ecc: 7.5 %
ecc: 25 %
ecc: 50 %
ecc: 75 %

2.5

Acc/Freq (g/Hz )

Ecc. (%)
7.5
25
50
75

2
1.5
1

Frequency
(Hz)
4.65
4.60
4.53
4.49

Damping
Ratio (%)
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.3

Frequency
(Hz)
4.88
4.81

Damping
Ratio (%)
1.1
2.3

0.5
0
4
2

x 10

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4
4.5
4.6
Frequency (Hz)

4.7

4.9

-4

ecc: 25%
ecc: 75%

1.5

Acc/Freq (g/Hz )

4.8

Ecc. (%)
1

25
75

0.5

0
4

4.2

4.4

4.6
4.8
Frequency (Hz)

5.2

5.4

Finite Element Model

Struts for
infill walls

FEM

Experimental

1. Modal Frequency

2.35 Hz

2.94 Hz

2. Modal Frequency

3.11 Hz

3.22 Hz

3. Modal Frequency

4.96 Hz

3.76 Hz

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment-1

Methodology:
Obtain the distribution of max. story drifts obtained from the time-history
analysis using 10 input motions such as
PGA (g) MAGNITUTE

NAME

0.55
0.81
0.27
0.48
0.47
0.18

BINGOL (03)
Marmara - BOLU (November.99)
CEYHAN (98)
Marmara - DUZCE (Agust.99)
ERZINCAN (92)
VAN (11)

6.1
7.2
6.2
7.4
6.1
6.7

Obtain the exceedance probability using a limit state for the story drifts

Cases Considered:
W/O Infill Walls / %5 Damping
W Infill Walls / %5 Damping
W Infill Walls / %2 Damping

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment-2

1.4
No Wall %5
Wall %2
Wall %5

1.2

Probability

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5
% Story Drift

2.5

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment-3

Story DriftThreshold %1
Case
Damping Ratio (%)
Prob. Failure (%)
Without Wall
5
43
With Wall
5
25
With Wall
Case
No Wall
With Wall
With Wall

2
48
Story DriftThreshold %1.5
Damping Ratio (%)
Prob. Failure (%)
5
4
5
4
2

18

Conclusions
Due to infill walls the first structural frequency decreased by 10 %.
Modal damping ratio increases almost linearly with the applied force
to structure.
Seismic vulnerability may change significantly if updated (identified)
parameters rather than non-updated (code suggested) parameters
are used.
Vibration-based identification of actual modal parameters may be
critical for the seismic vulnerability assessment of non-ductile
buildings.

Acknowledgements
Assoc. Prof. Ertugrul Taciroglu
Asst. Prof. Kutay Orakcal
Assoc. Prof. Hilmi Lus
MS Students
Ekin Ozer
Tevfik Terzioglu
Fatih Kavarnali

Thank You
SERIES Committee