See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258406776

Shake Table Testing of a Full-Scale Five-Story Building: Pre-test Simulation of

the Test Building and Development of the Nonstructural Components and
Systems Design Criteria

Conference Paper · May 2013

DOI: 10.1061/9780784412848.129

CITATIONS READS

4 364

6 authors, including:

Xiang Wang Hamed Ebrahimian

University of California, San Diego SC Solutions, Inc.
25 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rodrigo Astroza Joel P. Conte

University of the Andes (Chile) University of California, San Diego
84 PUBLICATIONS   274 CITATIONS    212 PUBLICATIONS   3,160 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PUENTES DE CONCRETO REFORZADO Y PRESFORZADO EN ZONAS SÍSMICAS View project

Modeling and response of civil structures under earthquake excitation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xiang Wang on 10 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Shake Table Testing of a Full-Scale Five-Story Building: Pre-test Simulation
of the Test Building and Development of an NCS Design Criteria

Xiang Wang1, Hamed Ebrahimian1, Rodrigo Astroza1, Joel P. Conte2, Jose I.

Restrepo2, and Tara C. Hutchinson2
1
PhD student, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085; email: {xiw002,hebrahim,rastroza}@ucsd.edu
2
Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San
Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0085; email: {jpconte,jrestrepo,tara}@ucsd.edu
ABSTRACT
This paper is one of five within a session discussing the findings from a full-scale
five-story building test program conducted at the NEES-UCSD Large High
Performance Outdoor Shake. This paper focuses on the pre-test simulation of the test
building with the objective of predicting its seismic response and thereby (i) guiding
the selection of earthquake motions for the test program and (ii) providing guidance
for the design of various nonstructural components and systems (NCSs) to be
installed in the test building. Two nonlinear finite element models were developed
independently in this effort: 1) a macro-element based model was implemented in the
OpenSees platform, and 2) a detailed finite element model was prepared using the
general finite element software package DIANA. In this paper, the description and
assumptions adopted for each of these two models are first provided, and then the
simulation results for selected test motions are presented and compared. Utilizing
these models, a procedure is developed to define project-specific NCSs design criteria.
The developed design criteria are compared with the current code provisions and their
implications discussed.
INTRODUCTION
A full-scale five-story reinforced concrete (RC) building was tested on the NEES-
UCSD Large Performance Outdoor Shake Table in April and May 2012 (Figure 1).
The building was fully outfitted with nonstructural components and systems (NCSs)
including a functioning passenger elevator, prefabricated metal stairs, complete
façade, interior furnishing, mechanical and electrical subsystems, and various medical
equipment. Details of the test building and its NCSs, test protocol and seismic
motions, and preliminary observations are presented in an overview paper in this
session (Hutchinson et al., 2013) and therefore not discussed herein. As part of this
research project, pre-test prediction of the seismic response of the test building was
essential for the development of the test protocol and the design of the nonstructural
components in the building. In this regard, two nonlinear finite element models, a
macro-element based model implemented in the OpenSees (Mazzoni et al., 2005)
platform and a detailed finite element (FE) model prepared using the general finite
element software package DIANA (TNO DIANA, 2010a and 2010b), are developed
independently for the test building fixed at its base. The simulation results of the two
models with selected test motions are presented and compared. Furthermore, the
simulation results are utilized to develop the design criteria of the nonstructural
components specific to the test building.

(a) (b)
Figure 1. (a) Building structural skeleton, and (b) complete test building.
MODEL DESCRIPTION: OPENSEES
Finite Elements and Material Models Used
A three-dimensional model of the fixed-base test building is constructed in the
OpenSees platform using force-based fiber beam column (line type) elements to
represent the columns and walls of the test building. Rigid-link constraints are
implemented at the wall-slab connections to ensure compatible deformations between
the floor slabs and walls. The selected material model for the reinforcing steel in the
columns and walls is a uni-axial modified Menegotto-Pinto constitutive model
introduced by Filippou et al. (1983), which has been shown to be computationally
capable of capturing both kinematic and isotropic hardening as well as the
Bauschinger effect. The model utilized for the concrete material is a Kent-Park
constitutive model (Kent and Park, 1971) with multi-linear unloading/reloading rules,
which takes into account the effects of stiffness degradation and energy dissipation
under cyclic loading. To address the issue of localization in force-based beam
elements for strain-softening behavior, the material stress-strain relation is modified
based on the constant fracture energy assumption as proposed by Coleman and
Spacone (2001).
For modeling the nonlinear behavior of the different types of frame beams of the
test building, zero-length fiber section elements are introduced at the interfaces that
connect the frame beams and the joints. It is assumed that the overall nonlinear
response of the beam-column joint is lumped at the connecting interface, and the
remaining portion of the joint is modeled as rigid body elements for simplicity. This
method, originally proposed by Zhao and Sritharan (2007), aimed at modeling the
strain penetration effect of reinforced concrete columns, with the plane section
assumption that associates rigid-body rotation at the zero-length section with the fiber
deformation. In the current model, the zero-length section element has the same
geometry as the adjacent beam fiber section; however, different material constitutive
models are adopted within the fibers. In the zero-length section, deformation of the
reinforcement fiber represents the total bond-slip integrated along the anchored length
in the beam-column joint. Similarly, deformation of the concrete fiber is taken as the
sum of the concrete strain over the half width of the beam-column joint.
Due to the lumped nature of the fiber section at the beam-column joint, the
accuracy of the numerical results depends significantly on the ability of the fiber
section to capture the interface behavior characteristics (e.g. stiffness degradation,
bond deterioration pinching effect, and contact/detachment between the joint and the
beam) of the different types of frame beams. A generic hysteretic material is adopted
since it facilitates both simplicity and versatility, supports implementation of multi-
linear segments, and allows an analyst to take into account a wide range of
component hysteretic behaviors. Within this model, the slip-bar stress relation of the
rod at the interface is required to define the envelope of the hysteretic material model.
The model also includes parameters that control the nonlinear hysteretic response
under cyclic loading. The beam-column joint model demonstrates reliable predictions
when compared with full-scale frame-beam crucifix shaped component tests
conducted under quasi-static reversed cyclic loading. Details of these tests were
similar to those adopted in the test building (Chang et al., 2013).
The slab-beams at the gravity (west) bays and in the transverse direction of the
test building are also modeled by force-based fiber beam-column elements. The
effective width of the slab-beams corresponds to that of the adjacent column joints, as
additional hoops were provided at the edge of the slab at each floor. The selected
concrete and reinforcing steel material models for the slab-beams are identical with
those used for the columns and walls.
Diagonal steel rods at the east side of the test building are modeled using
corotational truss elements that are capable of considering the large deformation of
the members. Since the rods in the test building were only designed to be effective
when they are subjected to tensile forces, the selected material constitutive model is
nonlinear elastic with zero strength in compression.
Mass Distribution
The masses of the structure excluding the foundation and all the nonstructural
components on the test building are considered in the model. The masses of columns,
beams, and walls of the test building are distributed to their corresponding element
end nodes. The masses of the exterior façade, namely the balloon framing with stucco
overlay at levels 1-3 and precast concrete cladding panels at levels 4-5, are distributed
to the perimeter nodes based on individual tributary lengths, and the masses of the
remaining nonstructural components and the structural slabs were uniformly
distributed to the tributary nodes at each floor.
Damping Properties
Rayleigh damping is implemented in the model to reflect the effects of energy
dissipation contributions from various structural and nonstructural components. For
the pre-test simulations, the mass damping coefficient and stiffness coefficient are
defined to achieve 2% damping ratio at the periods of the first and second
longitudinal modes. These periods are determined by conducting modal analysis by
the numerical model with its initial stiffness.
MODEL DESCRIPTION: DIANA
While the OpenSees model, with simplified elements and slab modeling may
execute a nonlinear history analysis rapidly, relative to a model constructed using 3D
elements, the later approach facilitates more rigorous account of mechanisms
anticipated to be important in the behavior of the test structure. Importantly,
considering the specific configuration of the test specimen and its plan dimensions,
the slabs are expected to have a dominant influence on the earthquake resistance of
the structure. As seen in Figure 1, the test building was provided with large stairwell
and elevator shaft openings, complicating the slab-frame interaction and load transfer
mechanism in the diaphragm. Therefore, detailed modeling of the RC floor slabs is an
important aspect that needs special consideration in the FE modeling of the test
specimen. To satisfy these requirements, the DIANA finite element analysis software
is selected as a FE-simulation platform. This software has dedicated nonlinear
constitutive material models for modeling of RC structures. Moreover, it supports the
structural type finite elements needed such as 3D beam-column elements and shell
elements with embedded steel reinforcement.
Finite Elements and Material Models Used
The beam and column members of the test specimen are modeled using 3-node
Mindlin–Reissner displacement-based 3D beam-column elements with 18 DOFs per
element (TNO DIANA, 2010a). In usual displacement-based FE structural models
using beam-column elements, the softening-type nonlinearity is localized in one
element. Therefore, the plastic hinge regions of beam and column members are
discretized using a single element, which is referred to as a “plastic hinge” (PH-)
element. The length of the PH-element is assumed as half the height of the associated
member. To maintain computational economy, different integration schemes for the
finite elements (along their length and over their cross-section) are defined based on
their expected level of nonlinearity. The beam and column longitudinal steel
reinforcement are defined using embedded steel bars with a full bond assumption.
Considering the large stiffness of the foundation, the columns were restrained with
fixed boundary conditions at the base during the fixed base test phase.
The slabs and shear walls are modeled using 8-node Mindlin–Reissner
quadrilateral serendipity shell elements available in DIANA. This element has 6
DOFs per node including mechanics-based drilling degrees of freedom. The
reinforcing mesh in each direction of the slab is modeled using uni-axial membrane
elements with an equivalent thickness embedded in the concrete shell elements.
Figure 2 shows the FE mesh of the test specimen as developed in DIANA.
 (b)

(c)

(a) (d)
Figure 2. FE mesh of test specimen: (a) 3D view, floor view of (b) level 2, (c) level
4, and (d) roof. (units in m)
The concrete constitutive material model employed in this FE model is a total strain
rotating smeared crack model. The uniaxial compressive behavior of the concrete
material consists of an initial linear and two subsequent parabolic parts. The
unloading and reloading in compression and tension occur along a secant linear
stress-strain path passing through the origin (TNO DIANA, 2010b). The “Model B”
as proposed by Vecchio and Collins (1993) is used as a built-in procedure in DIANA
to incorporate the modified compression field theory (MCFT) in the material model
of the concrete.
To alleviate the spurious numerical localization effects associated with
compression and tension failure of the concrete material, and to eliminate the
resulting mesh sensitivity, the fracture energy concept is used for the softening
branch of the stress-strain curve of the concrete material in both tension and
compression. The fracture energy (both in tension and compression) is usually
considered a constant material parameter for plain concrete. In this study, the tensile
fracture energy is selected as a constant material property, and the tension softening
behavior is defined using Reinhardt tension softening model (Reinhardt, 1984). The
value of the compressive fracture energy for the RC beam and column elements,
however, are selected to reflect the effects of mechanical confinement provided by
the transverse reinforcement in the plastic hinge regions of the beam and column
members. These confinement effects are incorporated by modifying the compressive
uni-axial stress-strain behavior of the unconfined concrete material. To achieve this, a
reverse two-step approach is used in this study. In the first step, the peak compressive
strength and corresponding strain of the concrete material in the plastic hinge regions
of each beam and column members are calculated using Mander’s model (Mander et
al., 1988). The ultimate strain of the concrete material in compression is determined
following the procedure suggested by Scott et al. (1982). As a result, a uni-axial
stress-strain curve can be defined to represent the uniaxial compressive behavior of
the confined concrete in the plastic hinge regions of the beam and column members.
In the second step, the fracture energy in compression for each member is computed
using the stress-strain curve for confined concrete derived in the previous step. For
this purpose, the effective length is defined as the length of the plastic hinge region of
the beam or column of interest. To guarantee mesh objectivity, DIANA internally
imposes a constant tensile and compressive fracture energy per element (i.e., by
scaling the uni-axial stress-strain curve of concrete based on the length of the beam-
column element).
The modified Giuffré-Menegotto-Pinto model as proposed by Filippou et al.
(1983), which is implemented in the DIANA material library, is used to describe the
hysteresis stress-strain behavior of the reinforcing steel. The parameters of the
reinforcing steel constitutive model (e.g., modulus of elasticity, yield strength, strain
hardening ratio) are obtained from the results of the tensile tests performed on
samples of reinforcement obtained from those used in the test building.
Modeling of Inertia and Damping Properties
The self-mass of the beams, columns and shear walls is modeled by assigning the
proper material mass density to the corresponding elements. Since the individual
mass contributions of the interior partition walls, ceilings, balloon frame facade at
levels 1 to 3, and the installed contents on each floor are not significant; their inertial
effects are modeled as an added uniform distributed mass over each floor slab. On the
other hand, the masses of the precast concrete claddings, stairs, elevator, roof
penthouse and cooling tower (at the roof level) are significant; therefore, they are
each are modeled with lumped masses.
The damping characteristics of the building specimen are modeled using the
Rayleigh proportional damping model by defining 2% damping at the first mode and
at 20Hz. The Rayleigh damping parameters are derived based on the initial/uncracked
linear elastic stiffness matrix of the FE building model and are held constant during
the time history analyses but with the stiffness coefficient applied to the tangent
stiffness matrix.
COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL RESULTS
The modal characteristics of the two numerical models are evaluated using the
initial stiffness and the total mass of the test building including the nonstructural
masses. The modal characteristics of the two models are nearly identical in terms of
their first four modal periods and the deformation mechanism of the mode shapes
(Table 1). Importantly, the fundamental mode is similarly identified by both models
as the longitudinal mode with a period of 0.71 seconds. Modes two through four are
also quite similar or exactly comparable (as in mode four, the second longitudinal
mode with a period estimate of 0.20 seconds. These estimates are reasonably
consistent with modal periods estimated by Astroza et al. (2013) using white noise
and ambient motion based system identification.
Table 1. Modal characteristics estimated by the DIANA and OpenSees models.
Model Characteristic 1st mode 2nd mode 3rd mode 4th mode
Period (sec) 0.71 0.68 0.47 0.20
OpenSees Transverse Torsional and
Shape Longitudinal Longitudinal
and torsional transverse
Period (sec) 0.71 0.58 0.45 0.20
DIANA Transverse Torsional and
Shape Longitudinal Longitudinal
and torsional transverse
The peak floor acceleration responses from the nonlinear time history analysis of
the two models are provided in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 3 compares the predicted
results for peak floor accelerations (PFAs) and peak inter-story drift ratios (PIDRs),
respectively, in the direction of motion input (east-west direction) for motion FB-
1:CNP100, which is scaled to target a service level event for the test building
(Hutchinson et al., 2013). Figure 4 compares the same results for motion FB-
5:DEN67, which is scaled to target the design level event for the test building. The
PFAs and PIDRs are the average of peak responses of the six column nodes at each
floor. In both cases, the predicted PIDRs are comparable between the two models,
while the deviations between the predicted PFAs of the two models are more evident,
and the results from OpenSees are constantly larger when compared with that of
DIANA at almost all the floors. It is noted that both models predict the largest PIDRs
concentrated at the lower levels of the building (levels 2-3 and 3-4) and furthermore
the shapes of the PFAs are consistent amongst the models.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Comparison of the predicted (a) peak floor accelerations and (b) peak
inter-story drift ratios between DIANA and OpenSees (FB-1:CNP100).
 (a) (b)
Figure 4. Comparison of the predicted (a) peak floor acceleration and (b) peak
inter-story drift ratio between DIANA and OpenSees (FB-5:DEN67).
DEVELOPMENT OF NCS DESIGN CRITERIA
NCS product suppliers installing their components within the test building require
criteria to estimate design forces and deformations imposed during the target motions.
Using the numerical models previously described, a recommendation is developed for
product suppliers specific to the design event earthquake (FB-5:DEN67). The input
motion used for these simulations is the original (target) motion prior to shake table
iterations.
Recommended Design Inter-story Drift Ratios
As opposed to the ASCE 7 (2010) code provisions that adopted a constant value,
which is normally 2~2.5% and depends on the type of the structure, as the maximum
drift level for all floors, the recommended design inter-story drift ratios for drift-
sensitive components considers the variation of the inter-story drift responses at
different levels. In this project, the recommended design values are determined by
taking the arithmetic average of the peak inter-story drift results as estimated with the
two numerical models (Table 2).
Table 2. Recommended design inter-story drift ratios (%).
Floor Level 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5 – Roof
OpenSees 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.0 1.0
DIANA 1.2 2.2 2.4 2.0 1.1
Recommended 1.8 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.1
Recommended Design Floor Spectral Accelerations
The recommended design floor spectral accelerations, one the other hand, are
calculated based on the floor acceleration spectra of the two models. Figure 5 briefly
illustrates the proposed procedures for determination of the design floor spectral
acceleration. The floor acceleration spectra are evaluated first using the floor
acceleration time histories from each model. Figure 5(a) shows the calculated 5%
damping elastic floor acceleration spectra at level 2 of the test building. These
spectral values from the two models within the period range from 0.06 to 0.6 seconds
are subsequently averaged at an increment of 0.02 second, which is shown in Figure
5(b). It is noted that 0.06 seconds is suggested as the period defining a rigid
nonstructural component in design codes (e.g. ASCE 7, 2010). The mean and
standard deviation of the averaged spectral values within the specified period range
are then statistically determined. Finally, the design floor spectral accelerations are
determined as the mean plus one standard deviation over the selected period range.
Figure 5(c) provides the mean, the mean plus one standard deviation, and the mean
minus one standard deviation from the given period range.

Figure 5. Strategy for determining the proposed design floor spectral

acceleration: (a) the average floor acceleration spectra from the numerical
results of both models, (b) the spectral values of the averaged spectral within the
period range from 0.06 to 0.6 seconds, and (c) the mean and standard deviation
of the averaged spectra within the period range. (Level 2 of the test building)
These values are utilized to replace the term SDS(1+z/h) in Eq. 13.3-1 of ASCE 7
(2010) and facilitate estimation of the design forces demands of the nonstructural
components. Table 3 provides the recommended design floor spectral accelerations.
Table 3. Recommended design floor spectral accelerations (g).
Floor Level 1 2 3 4 5 Roof
Mean 1.16 1.52 1.89 1.69 1.37 2.25
Standard Deviation 0.13 0.31 0.60 0.65 0.23 0.59
SDS(1+z/h) 1.29 1.82 2.49 2.33 1.60 2.84
Figure 6 provides a comparison between the recommended values and those
conforming to ASCE 7 (2010) Standard code provisions. It is assumed that the
prescribed inter-story drift is 2.5% for all floors and the spectral acceleration is 1.29g
at the base and three times this at the roof. Rather than employing a constant inter-
story drift demand at each floor, the recommended drift ratios consider the variation
of the inter-story drift responses at different levels that reasonably reduces the seismic
drift demands at the higher levels. Likewise, the shape of the recommended spectral
accelerations deviates from the linear distribution at the higher levels and thus lowers
the force demands to the components at the higher levels.

Figure 6. Comparison between the recommended values adopted in this project

and those conforming to ASCE 7 (2010) Standard code provisions: (a) inter-
story drift ratio and (b) SDS(1+z/h).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper presents the pre-test simulation efforts of a shake table test project on a
full-scale five-story building. Details of the test building are presented elsewhere in
this session, while the focus herein is on the pre-test nonlinear modeling efforts,
which were essential to guide earthquake motion selection and nonstructural design
criteria needed during construction of the building. Two nonlinear finite element
models, a macro-element based model implemented in the OpenSees platform and a
detailed finite element model prepared using DIANA, are developed independently.
Comparison of the peak floor responses of the two models indicates that the predicted
PIDRs are comparable, while the predicted PFAs show some deviations. However,
the general shape of the PFA is quite consistent between the two models. These
models are then used to develop project specific NCSs design criteria for product
suppliers. Comparison of the resulting design criteria to current code provisions
indicate that the developed design criteria are capable of considering the variation of
the building floor responses with the height in a more reasonable manner.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is a collaboration between four academic institutions (University of
California, San Diego, San Diego State University, Howard University, and
Worcester Polytechnic Institute), four government or other granting agencies (the
National Science Foundation, the Englekirk Advisory Board, the Charles Pankow
Foundation, and the California Seismic Safety Commission), over 40 industry
partners, and two oversight committees. A listing of industry project sponsors may be
found on the project website: http://bncs.ucsd.edu/index.html. Through the NSF-
NEESR program, partial funding is provided by grant number CMMI-0936505,
where Dr. Joy Pauschke is the program manager. The above continuous support is
gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the technical support of NEES@UCSD staff,
Mr. Robert Bachman, Dr. Robert Englekirk, Mr. Mahmoud Faghihi, Dr. Matthew
Hoehler of Hilti Corp., and Prof. Ken Walsh of SDSU, are greatly appreciated. This
work would not be possible without the many hours of dedicated graduate students
contributions, many who also contributed figures for this paper, in particular,
Consuelo Aranda, Rodrigo Astroza, Michelle Chen, Hamed Ebrahimian, Elias
Espino, Jin-Kyung Kim, Steven Mintz, Hae-Jun Park, Elide Pantoli, and Xiang
Wang. Opinions and findings of this study are of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect those of the sponsors.
REFERENCES
ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI
7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Astroza, R., Conte, J., Restrepo, J.I., Ebrahimian, H., and Hutchinson, T.C. (2013).
“Shake table testing of a full-scale five-story building: system identification of the
five-story test structure,” Proceedings, ASCE Structures Congress, ASCE,
Pittsburgh, PA, May 2013.
Chang, B. and Hutchinson, T.C. and Wang, X. and Englekirk, R. (2013).
“Experimental seismic performance of beam-column subassemblies using ductile
embeds” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, in press.
Coleman, J. and Spacone, E. (2001). “Localization issues in force-based frame
elements.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 127(11), 1257–1265.
Filippou, F., Popov, E., and Bertero, V. (1983). Effects on bond deterioration on
hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. Report No. EERC 83-19,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Hutchinson, T., Restrepo J., Conte J. and Meacham, B.J. (2013). “Overview of the
Building Nonstructural Components and Systems (BNCS) project,” Proceedings,
ASCE Structures Congress, ASCE, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2013.
Kent, D. and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined concrete.” J. Struct.
Div., ASCE, 97(7), 1969–1990.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-strain
model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 114(8), 1804-1826.
Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., and Fenves, G. L. (2005). Opensees command language
manual. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research.
 Reinhardt, H. W. (1984). “Fracture mechanics of an elastic softening material like
concrete.” HERON, 29(2), 1-42.
Scott, B. D., R. Park, and M. J. N. Priestley (1982). “Stress-strain behavior of
concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates.” ACI Struct.,
79(1), 13-27.
TNO DIANA (2010a). DIANA User's Manual, Element Library. Delft, The
Netherlands.
TNO DIANA (2010b). DIANA User's Manual, Analysis Procedures. Delft, The
Netherlands.
Zhao, J. and Sritharan, S. (2007). “Modeling of strain penetration effects in fiber-
based analysis of reinforced concrete structures.” ACI Struct., 104(2), 133–141.

View publication stats