Design, Scaling, Similitude, and

Modeling of Shake-
Shake-Table Test
Structures
Andreas Stavridis, Benson Shing, and Joel Conte
University of California, San Diego

NEES@UC San Diego NEES@UBuffalo NEES@UNevada‐Reno

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Topics Covered
• Overview of shake-table test considerations
• Dimensional analysis
• Similitude law
• Scaling and design of test structures
• Modeling of test structures
• Case Study:
y Shake Table tests of an infilled
frame

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Needs for Shake
Shake--Table Tests
• Study the seismic performance of (non-)
structural
t t l components t andd complex
l systems
t

• Provide data to validate/calibrate analytical

models

• Validate design/construction concepts and

details

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Specimens Tested on Shake Tables
• Non-Structural Components
– e.g. anchors,
h racks
k

• Structural Components
p
– e.g. columns, dampers

• Substructures
S
– e.g. frames, joints, walls

• Complete Structures
– e.g.
g buildings,
g , bridges,
g , wind turbines
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Advantages of Shake Table Tests Over
Other Testing Methods
• More realistic consideration of dynamic effects
– inertia forces
– damping forces
– no need d tto attach
tt h loading
l di devices
d i th
thatt may iinfluence
fl
the structural performance

• Best / more direct way to simulate earthquake

ground motion effects

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Dynamic Effects

• Quasi
Quasi-static
static test • Shake-table test

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Constraints of Shake-
Shake-Table Tests

• Cost
• Shake table availability
• qu p e t capac
Equipment capacityty
• Accuracy of certain measurements
• Boundary conditions
• Limited time to react if things go wrong

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Common Solutions

• Testinggp portions of structures

(i.e. substructures)

• Building scaled specimens

• Expanding the platen area

• Redundancy in the instrumentation scheme

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Testing Flow Chart
Step 1 Identify structural Design
• define need for system,
system concept Prototype
research etc. to be tested Structure

Step 2
• facility/cost Design Design Design
constraints Test Instrumentation Testing
Structure Plan Program
• similitude law

Step 3 Validate Evaluate

Analyze
• data Test Data Analytical Concept,
Models System
processing
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Extraction of Test Substructures

• Special
p considerations to be
paid on

– Boundary conditions
– Kinematic constraints existing
i prototype
in t t structure
t t
– Gravity loading conditions
– Seismic loading conditions

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

Mismatch Between Gravity and Inertia
Masses
Masses
Possible solutions
– Gravity columns
• may influence the structural performance

– Secondary structure for inertia loads (e.g. Buffalo)

• does not apply gravity loads

– Scaling up the accelerations

• strain-rate
strain rate effects may become important

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Background
• Scale models
– should satisfy similitude requirements so that
they can be used to study the response of full-
scale structures

• Similitude
Si ilit d requirements
i t
– based on dimensional analysis

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Background

• Dimensional analysis
y
– a mathematical technique to deduce the theoretical
relation of variables describing a physical
phenomenon

• Dimensionally homogeneous relations

– relations valid regardless of the units used for the
physical
p y variables

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Fundamental Dimensions in Physical
P bl
Problems
• Length (L) Most important for
• Force (F) or Mass (M) problems in structural
engineering
• Time ((T))
• Temperature (θ)
• Electrical charge
• …

Any equation describing a physical phenomenon

should be in dimensionally homogeneous form
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Example
w(x)
Deflection of a beam

Governing Differential Equation

d 4u
EI 4  w x 
dx
 L  L L L   F L
F 2
4
4

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Buckingham’s π Theorem

• Ag
general approach
pp for dimensional analysis
y

• Any dimensionally homogeneous equation

involving physical quantities can be expressed
as an equivalent equation involving a set of
dimensionless parameters

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Buckingham’s π Theorem
• Initial equation

f  X 1 , X 2 , X 3 ,..., X n 
• Equivalent
q equation
q of with
dimensional parameters m  nr
g  1 ,  2 ,,...,,  m 
in which:
Xi physical variable
 i  X X ... X
a
k l
b c
m dimensionless product of the physical variables
r number of fundamental dimensions
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Properties of πi’s
• All variables must be included

• The m terms must be independent

• There is no unique set of πi’s

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Example 1: Free Falling Object

initial assumption
S  kg a t b or F g , t   0
in dimensional terms
L  K MT  Tb 
2 a

from dimensional homogeneity

M :1  a  S 
S  kg t 2 or G 2   0
T : 0  2a  b  gt 
 
K can be determined experimentally
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Application of Similitude Theory

• The π terms are general, non-dimensional,

non dimensional,
and independent; hence they apply to any
system. In tthis
syste s case tthe
epprototype
ototype
structure (p) and the scaled model (m).

• If   
i
p
i
m
we have complete similarity
between the prototype and the model
– true model

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 If   
p m
i i

• In case πi‘ss are not important

– the model maintains ‘first-order’ similarity
– adequate model

• In case πi‘ss are important

– the model does not maintain ‘first-order’
similarity
– distorted model

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

Example of Adequate/Distorted (?) Model
Small-scale specimen Large-scale specimen

350

300

250
eral force, kips

200

150
1/5-scale specimen
p
Late

100
2/3-scale specimen
50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Drift, %

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

Example of Adequate/Distorted (?) Model
Small-scale specimen Large-scale specimen

δ=1%

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Application of Similitude Theory

• Rewriting g the equations

q for the p
prototype
yp and
model structures
p
 p p p

 i    k ,  l ,,...,,  n and i  m
   m
k ,  l
m

,...,  m
n 
• Scale factors:
i quantity
tit ini scaled
l d mod d ell
Si 
i quantity in prototype
• Obtained by equating the π-terms  
i
p
i
m
and
solving
g for the S ratio
i
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Example of Scale Factor Derivation

m
 m F  A  
     
 V aV aL 3
aL 
  S
S  p

 m F  A   S S l
     
 V aV aL 3
aL 
 

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Similitude Requirements
In structural problems we have in general
• 3 fundamental dimensions:
– F (or M), L, T

• 3 dimensionally independent variables

• n-3 π terms involving

– one off the remaining variables
– the dimensionally independent variables

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Calculating the Scale Factors

• Select scale factors for 3 dimensionallyy

independent quantities

• Express remaining variables in terms of the

selected scale factors

• Except for dimensionless variables (e.g. ν, ε)

which have a scale factor of 1

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Infill Example

• 2/3-scale,, three-
story, masonry-
infilled, non-ductile
RC fframe

• tested in Fall 2008

@ UCSD

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Prototype Structure
• Represents structures built in California 1920’s

• Earliest
E li t b building
ildi code
d we ffound:
d 1936

• Design
g considerations
– Currently available materials used
– Only gravity loads considered
– Allowable stress design procedure
– Contribution of infills ignored
– No shear reinforcement in beams

• Three-wythe
Th th masonry walls
ll on th
the perimeter
i t

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

29
 Design of Prototype Structure
.30*L = 5’ 5’’
90o
bend

0.20*L = 3’ 8’’
0.25*L = 4’ 6’’

Story Width Depth Bent Straigh Stirrups

Design of beams level bars t bars
Roof 16” 18” 2#8 2#6 no stirrups
2nd Story 16” 22” 3#8 3#7 no stirrups
1st Story 16” 22” 3#8 3#7 no stirrups

Story level Size ρ Vertical bars Stirrups

Design of columns Roof 16” sq 1.0% 8#5 #3@16”
2nd Story 16” sq 1.5% 8#6 #3@16”
1st Story 16” sq
16 2% 8#7 #3@16”
#3@16

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

30
 Considerations
– Amount of gravity
mass to be added

– Scaling issues

– Attachment of mass

– Out-of-plane stability

– M
Measurementt off floor
fl
displacements

– Loading protocol

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

31
Layout of Prototype Structure

5.50

5.50

Exterior
frame 6.70 6.70 6.70
A B C D

T ib t
Tributary area for
f seismic
i i mass
Tributary area for gravity mass
Masonry-infilled bays

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Gravity Loads

27.9 3#5 bars 3#5 bars

15.4
75.1 61.8 75.1 74.7
28.3

Transverse Beam Slab Transverse Beam

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
33
 Mismatch Between Gravity and Inertia
 Gravity Mass M
Masses
agravity

 Inertia Mass

aseismic
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
34
 Derivation of Scale Factors: Gravityy

• Length:
g SL  2
3
• Stress: S  1
cce e at o S a  1
• Acceleration:
S  1 •Force: S F  S A S  4
•Strain: 9

•Curvature:
S  1 3 •Moment: SM  SF SL  8
SL 2 27
•Area: S A  SL SL  4 Sm  S F 4
9 •Mass: Sa 9
•Volume: SV  S L S L S L  8 SL
27 •Time: St   2  0.816
S I  S L S L S L S L  16
Sa 3
•Moment of inertia: 81
•Frequency: S f  1  1.224
St
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Derivation of Scale Factors: Inertia
Mismatch of gravity seis
M prot seis
M spec
M  
and inertia masses M grav
prot
grav
M spec

Scaling of the inertia mass S mgrav

S seis
  0.20
m
M

The force scale factor

S seis  S grav
 Sf  4
needs to be preserved f f 9
•Seismic acceleration: S aseis   M S agrav  2 . 273
•Time S Lseis
S seis
  1 S tgrav  0.542
t
M S grav
a
M
•Frequency:
q y S seis
f  M 1 grav  1.846
S t
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Alternative Derivation
grav
M spec
•Seismic mass: S seis
m
i
 seis
M prot

S Fseisi SF
S seis
 
•Seismic acceleration: a
S mseis S Mseis

seis
i
S seis
 S  SL
•Time:
L
seis
t
S a S aseis

•Frequency:
F S seis  1
f
S tseis

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Instrumentation
• Instrumentation
– 135 strain-gauges
– 66 accelerometers
– 79 displacement
transducers

• Story displacements
– Mass-less poles
– Deformation of
triangles attached on
the RC frame

• 8 GB of raw data

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

38
 Seismic Loading
 Elastic range 2.5 Structural
 6 low-level earthquakes Period DBE
2 MCE
 10%-40% 67% of Gilroyy
1.5 100% of Gilroy

Sa, g
 Mild nonlinearity
 67% of Gilroy 1
 67% of Gilroy 0
0.5
 83% of Gilroy
0
 Significant nonlinearity 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
 91% of Gilroy Period, sec
 100% of Gilroy
 Before and after each
earthquake test
 “Collapse”
Collapse of structure  Ambient vibration was recorded
 120% of Gilroy  White noise tests were
 250% El Centro 1940 performed

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

39
 Failure Patterns

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

40
 Test Summary
recorded
S ai Frequency Damage Max Drift V1 / W V1 / W
S aMCE Hz % Specimen Prototype
– Initial Structure 18 - 0.01 0.97 0.43
– Gilroy 67% 0.64 16.7 minor 0.10 1.41 0.62
– Gilroy 67% 0.69 15.9 minor 0.17 1.75 0.77
– Gilroy 83% 0.77 14.8 some 0.28 1.77 0.78
– Gilroy 91% 0 96
0.96 13 5
13.5 some 0
0.40
40 1 76
1.76 0 78
0.78
– Gilroy 100% 1.43 8.5 significant 0.55 1.68 0.74
– Gilroy 120% 1.55 5.3 severe 1.06 1.68 9.74
– El Centro 250% 1.04 collapse

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

41
 Analytical Methods for Infilled Frames
• Limit analysis methods
– Predefined failure modes Smeared +
– Limited information on the behavior Smeared Crack
Only Discrete Crack

• Strut models
– Not all failure modes captured
– Empirical
E i i l fformulasl bbased
d on case-
specific experimental data
– A variety of proposed implementation
schemes

• Finite element analysis

– Frame elements
– Shear panel element
– Smeared crack elements
– Interface elements
– Bond slip elements Shi and
Shing d Spencer
S (1999)
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Simplified Modeling
700

 Consider single-bay w/ 600 OpenSEES model

Simplified curve 120
diagonal struts 500 Bare Frame

Lateral forrce, kips

orce, kN
400
80

Lateral fo
300

 Obtain response of frame 200

40

w/ solid infill 100

0 0
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 1 12
1.2

 Obtain response of bare Drift ratio, %

frame 10,33
11,34,35
12,36
14 15
25 26

 M
Modify
dif for
f panels
l with
ith
3 6 9
24 27

openings
8,26,27,31
7,25,29 9,28,32
12 13
21 22

2 5 8
20 23

 Calibrate struts to simulate 4,17,21,

5 18 19 23
5,18,19,23
6,20,24
failure of the RC columns 1
17
10

4
11
18
7

16 19
1,13 3,16

 Assemble multi-bay, multi- 2,14,15

story
t model
d l
k Strut Elements
Nodes (with bold letters the
i,j master nodes for the RC frame)
k RC elements

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

43
 Simplified Model

1800 400

1350 Shake-Table Tests 300

900 Strut
St ut model
ode 200

se shear, kips
s
ase shear, kN

450 100
0 0

-450
50 -100
00

Bas
Ba

-900 -200

-1350 -300
-1800 -400
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
st
1 Story drift, %

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

44
 Behavior of Physical Specimen
Concrete
Shear
Tensile failure
Crack
of head
jjoint

Brick Sliding of
Crushing bed joint

Concrete
Flexural Tensile Splitting
Crack of a Brick
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
45
 Modeling Scheme for Masonry
El
Elements
t
• Brick units
– Split into two smeared-crack
Half Brick
elements
½ Brick to ½ Brick
– Interface element allows tensile joints
splitting
Mortar Joint

• Mortar joints
– Interface elements

Interface element for brick interface

Interface elements for mortar joints

Smeared crack brick element

46
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Modeling Scheme for Concrete
• Concrete members
– Smeared crack elements
– Interface elements allow for
diagonal cracks

 Longitudinal reinforcement  Shear Reinforcement

 Distributed in 8 bars  Distributed in 2 bars p
per x-section
 Zig-zag pattern

Flexural steel
reinforcement

Shear steel
reinforcement

Nodal location

Smeared crack
concrete element

Interface
concrete element

47
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Potential Cracking Patterns
Flexural Shear

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

48
Finite Element Model

400
300 Shake-Table Tests
200

Base Shear, kips

FEAP-Prediction
100
0
-100
B

-200
-300
-400
-2 -1 0 1 2
1st Story Drift, %
49
Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA
 Finite Element Model
(by Koutromanos et al)
• Gilroy 67% (design level earthquake)

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Laws in Experimental Studies
• Murphy’s law
– If something can go wrong, it will!

• O’Toole’s law
– Murphy is wildly optimistic

• Dan’s law
– Things are never as bad as they turn out to be

• Conte’s law
– No model is as good as the prototype

• Seible’s law
– The most important aspect of a test are the pictures and videos

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA

 Thank you

Shake Table Training Workshop 2010 – San Diego, CA