Professional Documents
Culture Documents
82-Full Scale Shake Table Tests PDF
82-Full Scale Shake Table Tests PDF
Kazuhiko Kasai 1), Hiroshi Ito 2), Yoji Ooki 3), Tsuyoshi Hikino4), Koichi Kajiwara4),
Shojiro Motoyui5), Hitoshi Ozaki 6), and Masato Ishii6)
Abstract: Realistic simulations of earthquake responses were conducted in March 2009 for the full-scale 5-story
building specimens with dampers using the E-Defense, the world’s largest three-dimensional shake table. The building
was tested repeatedly, inserting and replacing each of 4 damper types, i.e., steel damper, oil damper, viscous damper, and
viscoelastic damper. This paper discusses test concept, method and test results as well as details of the 5-story building
specimen. Performance improvement by the dampers will be addressed for moderately tall buildings that constitute a
major portion of the building stock.
- 11 -
The full-scale shake table test made possible by the code does not yet adequately address such applications.
E-Defense would be the best option for such validation. Moderately tall building, therefore, was selected as the
specimen, because of its significant potential to impact the
2.2 Moderately Tall Steel Buildings above circumstances.
A 5-story steel building is considered as the specimen,
since it represents many office buildings seen in Japan; it is H=16 m
Sa (cm/s2)
about the tallest of the majority of steel building stock, and; 2500
it tends to deform, if not damped, much more than taller T=0.03H T=0.05H T=0.07H
=0.48 s =0.80 s =1.02 s
steel buildings under the major quake. The last point is 2000
discussed below:
1500
Figure 2 shows spectral displacement Sd vs.
Takatori EW
acceleration Sa for the design basis earthquake (DBE) and
1000 Takatori NS
maximum considered earthquake (MCE). The spectra for Maximum
the ground motion recorded at JR Takatori Station during the Considered
500
1995 Kobe Earthquake are also shown. Damping ratio 5% Design
Basis
is considered. The plots are for elastic responses, but they 0 Sd (cm)
will be used here as crude estimates for inelastic responses. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
It is customary in Japan to estimate the building avg (rad)
0 0.019 0.038 0.056 0.075 0.094 0.112
vibration period T by the building height H. Possible range
Figure 2. Displacement vs. Acceleration Spectra (Design
of T for a building with H=16m, similar to the specimen
Basis Earthquake, Maximum Considered Earthquake, and
height (Sec. 3) is shown in Figure 2. Story drift angle
JR Takatori Ground Motions, 5% Damping Ratio)
averaged over the building height avg is also shown, by
approximating it as Sd/(2H/3). The 2H/3 is the effective
height, corresponding to a case of straight mode shape. 2.3 Test Method
It was statistically found that the Japanese code formula The objective of the present test is to validate reliability
T=0.03H is reasonably accurate for taller Japanese MRFs. of the passive control technology by conducting realistic
In contrast, for moderately tall MRFs considered here, the experiments. Four major types of dampers are selected,
range of T=0.05H to even 0.07H is found to be more and for the economical reason the building will be tested
appropriate. From Figure 2, this would lead to avg=0.017 repeatedly, inserting and replacing each of the damper types.
to 0.027 under the DBE, suggesting significant structural In this regard, the frame members must be kept almost
and no-structural damage, as vibration period is longer. elastic without much residual deformation. Such
Such an MRF would be vulnerable against stronger requirement is considered to be important for design of
quakes such as the Takatori motion whose spectra are much actual damped building, thus, a practical beam column
larger (Fig. 2). Moreover, consequently large ductility connection detail to enhance the elastic limit of the frame is
demand will produce avg larger than estimated by this elastic developed and used for the specimen.
approach. Further, inelastic drift may be highly The aforementioned JR Takatori ground motion that
non-uniform and concentrate in a particular story, largely caused collapse of the 4-story specimen is used in order to
exceeding avg. These were demonstrated by the Building demonstrate contrasting performance and appeal to the
Collapse Simulation WG (Fig. 1), testing a full-scale 4-story community for promoting safer seismic environments. In
steel building (H=14.4m) with T=0.063H (Suita 2009, this regard, the building without dampers will be tested at
Yamada 2009). The building collapsed under the Takatori the end of the test series, which is expected to demonstrate
ground motion, due to the large drift and non-ductile column that even the MRF with improved design will suffer
behavior at the 1st story. significant deformation and damage in contrast to the
Accordingly, moderately tall steel MRF tends to be damped case. The JR Takatori motion will be scaled 0.05,
vulnerable due to its larger deformation caused by the 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.0 times, in order to compare the
relatively long vibration period. The Japanese code limits performance among the four damped frames as well as
the story drift angle to 1/200 under the static force estimated un-damped frame at various seismic levels. White noise
from the acceleration spectrum similar to that of DBE (Fig. excitation as well as free vibration test will be pursued.
2). However, since acceleration is constant and thus Ambient vibration frequencies and modes are also
limited in the shorter period range (Fig. 2), the drift limit is constantly monitored after erection of steel skelton, until end
easily satisfied by the short and moderately tall buildings. of the tests. Dynamic properties at moderate shaking will
This results in larger flexibility and thus longer vibration of be also measured by operating two vibrating machines set on
such buildings. the building roof, during the break between the shake table
Based on these, and since simply increasing the MRF tests.
member sizes to control drift would be very uneconomical, The number of data channels will be about 1,350 which
the use of dampers is believed to be an alternative and is the largest among all the tests performed previously at
attractive option. In spite, passive control is hardly utilized E-Defense. The quantities to be measured are as follows:
for short and moderately tall buildings in Japan, since the (1) Strains: columns strains, beam strains, damper
- 12 -
strains, anchor bolt strains, slab reinforcement strains, slab types shown in Figure 3, and four types such as shown in
surface strains, panel zone strains, and cladding support Figure 4 are considered: they are steel, oil, viscous, and
member strains, etc. viscoelastic dampers. The building will have 12 dampers
(2) Deformations and Displacements: story drift and of the same type with three to four different sizes. For each
twisting deformation, damper deformation, foundation type, full-scale dampers of three different sizes were
rocking, column rotation, beam rotation, ceiling dynamically tested at Tokyo Institute of Technology (Kasai
displacement, stairway displacement, exterior panel in- and et al. 2008). Detailed descriptions for the test results and
out-of-plane displacement, partition in-plane displacement, analytical models are described elsewhere (Ooki et al. 2009).
door shear deformation, and ceiling edge and partition As shown in Fig. 5, the building is 5-story with two
relative displacement, etc. bays in each direction. Due to the reduction in budget, the
(3) 3D-Accelerations: shake table accelerations, each building is made smaller than originally planned and
floor accelerations, story drift support accelerations, ceiling described elsewhere (Kasai et al. 2007, 2008). The plan
accelerations, and cladding accelerations, etc. dimension is 10m × 12m, and total height from the upper
(4) Others: pressure between ceiling edge and partitions, surface of a stiff foundation beam is 15.8 m (Fig. 5).
ceiling hanger reaction force, motion records outside and Seismically active weight of the superstructure is 4,730 kN,
inside the building (including axial and transverse damper including all structural/non-structural components and a
deformation) etc. portion of live load (Table 1).
The frame members of the superstructure consist of
either rolled or built-up wide-flange beam sections of 400
3. BUILDING FRAMES WITH DAMPERS
mm deep (Table 2), and cold-formed square box column
sections of 350 mm × 350 mm (Table 3). Note that each
Japanese dampers can be categorized into five major
Restraining Tube
(a)
(a)
Steel Core
(b)
(b)
Gusset Plate Gusset Plate
Universal Joint Steel Brace Cylinder Universal Joint
(c)
(c)
(d)
(d)
Figure 4. Sizes and configurations of 4 types of dampers to be used (between 2nd and 3rd floors)
: (a) steel, (b) oil, (c) viscous, and (d) viscoelastic dampers
- 13 -
span consists of three beam portions, a center beam portion precast light-weight curtain walls and glass curtain walls are
and two end beam portions that are bolt-connected through provided to the 1st and 2nd story levels only. The walls are
the splice plates on flanges and webs. For the beams of not attached to the damper bays for ease of
MRF bays (G2, G3, G12, and G13 in Fig. 5), the the center dismantling/mantling the dampers. Figure 7 shows four
portion uses smaller cross section, as indicated by Table 2. types of damper inserted in the building specimen.
And for the beams of damper bays (G1 and G11), the same The steel deck with normal concrete on top will be
sections are used for all the three portions in order to resist considered and fully composite beams will be created (Fig.
large axial forces transmitted from the damper. The coupon 8). The concrete thickness is 80 mm above the corrugated
tests for all members indicate actual yield stresses of the metal deck of 75 mm high. The stairway (Fig. 5) is
columns and beams were in average about 1.2 times the detailed to slide during shaking, thus, it does not produce
nominal values (Table 4). significant twisting against building. At every story level
All the beam and column connections will be a above the 1st, partitions with doors are constructed. Two
fully-restrained type. For the beams of MRF bays, the types of ceilings with sprinkler systems, as well as
flange is haunched to increase yield rotation and to delay mechanical equipment are placed at some story levels.
onset of yielding. And for the beams of damper bays, Figure 9 shows measurement system of damper stroke
haunch was considered unnecessary due to large sections and displacement of damper brace.
created by the gusset plate (Kasai et al. 2009).
Figure 6 shows exterior views of the building. The
y
Table 1. Breakdown of seismically active weight for
Damper
Damper the full-scale 5-story building specimen (Unit: kN)
x C2 G2 G2 B
C1 C2 Steel Exterior Interior Live Total
Floor Floor Others
frame wall wall load weight
(D2) RF 963.4 111.6 127.8 20.3 81.7 150.0 1454.8
G11
5,000
G13
G13
G12
G12
C1 G2 C1 G2 C1
A
7Roof
000 5 000
Roof
150
150
G3 G1
2,985
G12 G11
2,985
C2 C3 C3 C1 C3 C2
5th fl. 5th fl.
165
165
G3 G1
3,000
G12 G11
3,000
C2 C3 C3 C1 C3 C2
(D3) (D2)
4th fl. Damper 4th fl. Damper
165
165
15,835
G3 G1
3,000
15,835
G12 G11
3,000
C2 C3 C3 C1 C3 C2
3rd fl. 3rd fl.
165
G3 G1
165
3,000
G12 G11
3,000
C2 C3 C3 C1 C3 C2
2nd fl. 2nd fl.
165
165
G3 G1
3,850
G12 G11
3,850
C2 C3 C3 C1 C3 C2
1st fl. 1st fl.
900
900
G3 G1 G12 G11
7,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
12 000
Figure 5. Plan and elevations for full-scale 5-story building specimen
- 14 -
Table 2. List of cross section sizes for all girders
Floor G1(Full portion) G2(End portion) G2(Center portion) G3(End portion) G3(Center portion)
RF H-400x200x9x12 BH-400x200x9x12 H-400x200x9x12 BH-400x200x12x16 H-400x200x9x12
5F BH-400x200x12x16 BH-400x200x12x16 H-400x200x9x12 BH-400x200x12x16 H-400x200x9x12
4F BH-400x200x12x19 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16
4F H-400x200x12x22 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16
2F H-400x200x12x22 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16
1F BH-900x500x16x28 BH-900x500x16x28 BH-900x500x16x28
Floor G11(Full portion) G12(End portion) G12(Center portion) G13(End portion) G13(Center portion)
RF H-400x200x9x12 BH-400x200x9x12 H-400x200x9x12 BH-400x200x9x12 H-400x200x9x12
5F BH-400x200x12x16 BH-400x200x12x16 H-400x200x9x12 BH-400x200x12x16 H-400x200x9x12
4F BH-400x200x12x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16
4F BH-400x200x12x19 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16
2F H-400x200x12x22 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16 BH-400x200x12x19 H-400x200x9x16
1F BH-900x500x16x28 BH-900x500x16x28 BH-900x500x16x28
- 15 -
Figure 7. Four types of damper inserted in the building specimen (Feb. and Mar. 2009)
Figure 8. Interior views of the building specimen under construction (Dec. 2008 and Jan. 2009)
- 16 -
Figure 9. Measurement system of damper stroke and displacement of whole damper brace (Feb. and Mar. 2009)
- 17 -
Calculated from inertia forces
2000 (kN)
Calculated from member forces
1000
5th 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
story -1000 (s)
-2000
3000 (kN)
1500
3rd 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-1500
story (s)
-3000
4000 (kN)
2000
1st 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
story -2000 (s)
-4000
Figure 10. Comparison between story shear based on inertia forces and story shear member forces
(with Steel dampers, Takatori 100%, X-Dir.)
Takatori 15% Takatori 50% Takatori 100% Takatori 15% Takatori 50% Takatori 100%
800 (kN) Yield 800 (kN) 800 (kN) 800 (kN) 800 (kN) 800 (kN)
strength
400 400 400 400 400 400
X-Dir. 0 0 0
X-Dir. 0 0 0
(D1) -20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
(D1) -20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-400 -400 -400 -400 -400 -400
1600 (kN) Yield 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN)
strength
800 800 800 800 800 800
Y-Dir. Y-Dir.
0 0 0 0 0 0
(D3) -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 (D3) -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
-800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm)
Takatori 15% Takatori 50% Takatori 100% Takatori 15% Takatori 50% Takatori 100%
1000 (kN) 1000 (kN) 1000 (kN) 800 (kN) 800 (kN) 800 (kN)
X-Dir. 0 0 0
X-Dir. 0 0 0
(D1) -20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
(D1) -20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-20 -10 0 10 20
(mm)
-500 -500 -500 -400 -400 -400
1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN) 1600 (kN)
800 800 800 800 800 800
Y-Dir. Y-Dir.
0 0 0 0 0 0
(D3) -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 (D3) -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20
-800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm) -800 (mm)
- 18 -
Takatori 50%(X) Takatori 100%(X) Takatori 50%(Y) Takatori 100%(Y)
4000 (kN) 4000 (kN) 4000 (kN) 4000 (kN)
5th 0
-30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
story -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000
3rd 0
-30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
story -2000 (mm) -2000 (mm) -2000 (mm) -2000 (mm)
1st 0
-30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0
0
10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
story -2000
(mm) -2000
(mm) -2000
(mm) -2000
(mm)
Figure 12. Relationship between story shear based on inertia force and story drift (with steel dampers)
Story Shear Story Drift Angle Floor Acceleration Story Shear Story Drift Angle Floor Acceleration
5 5 6 5 5 6
4 4 5 4 4 5
3 3 4 3 3 4
Story
Story
2 2 3 2 2 3
1 1 2 1 1 2
(kN) (rad) (m/s 2) (kN) (rad) (m/s 2)
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20 0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20
with damper without damper with damper without damper
5 5 6 5 5 6
X-Dir. X-Dir.
4 4 5 4 4 5 Y-Dir.
Y-Dir.
3 3 4 3 3 4
Story
Story
2 2 Design 3 2 2 Design 3
target X-Dir. target X-Dir.
1 1 0.01rad 2 Y-Dir. 1 1 0.01rad 2 Y-Dir.
(kN) (rad) (m/s 2) (kN) (rad) (m/s 2)
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20 0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20
Story Shear Story Drift Angle Floor Acceleration Story Shear Story Drift Angle Floor Acceleration
5 5 6 5 5 6
4 4 5 4 4 5
3 3 4 3 3 4
Story
Story
2 2 3 2 2 3
1 1 2 1 1 2
(kN) (rad) (m/s 2) (kN) (rad) (m/s 2)
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20 0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20
with damper without damper with damper without damper
5 5 6 5 5 6
X-Dir. X-Dir.
4 4 5 Y-Dir. 4 4 5 Y-Dir.
3 3 4 3 3 4
Story
Story
2 2 Design 3 2 2 Design 3
target X-Dir. target X-Dir.
1 1 0.01rad 2 Y-Dir. 1 1 0.01rad 2 Y-Dir.
(kN) (rad) (m/s 2) (kN) (rad) (m/s 2)
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20 0 3000 6000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0 10 20
- 19 -
Steel Viscous Oil Viscoelastic
Figure 14. Validation study for analysis model of four types of dampers (Takatori 100%)
5. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES At each story level, story shear force is obtained from
member forces (Fig. 10) excluding those of dampers, and it
As described above, the building was subjected many is compared with the story drift to obtain the story stiffness.
table motions, and changes in dynamic properties of the Figure 16 shows change of thus-estimated story stiffness at
building were successfully monitored through the extensive each story level. The frame had the largest stiffness before
measurement explained earlier. the test, and about 10 to 15% loss in stiffness occurred at the
Figure. 15 shows the cracks observed from the second end of all the tests. The cracks in the floor slabs noted
floor concrete slab, prior to the tests, after the tests with steel above could be major source of such change.
dampers, viscous dampers, oil dampers, and viscoelastic Non-structural components are partially attached to the
dampers, and the tests without dampers, respectively. building. As Figures 6 to 8 show, curtain walls and ALC
Cracks formed when the story drift reached approximately (autoclaved light-weight concrete) panels are attached to the
0.5% rad. and significant increase in cracks was observed exterior surface of the buildings at the 1st and 2nd story level
after the test with steel damper using 100% Takatori motion, except where the dampers are installed. The interior
as well as the test without dampers using 70% Takatori partitions with doors (e.g., Fig. 8) are also provided except
motion. for the 1st story level. The stiffness contribution of these
non-structural components were estimated by using the
difference between the story shear forces obtained from
inertia force and those from member forces (Fig. 10).
Figure 17 shows change of thus-estimated stiffness of
the non-structural components at each story level. The
peak average story drift, the value obtained by averaging the
drifts of all stories is also shown for every test conducted
(Fig. 17 above), in order to indicate intensity of shaking.
It should be noted that the stiffness of nonstructural
components is as much as 0.3 times that of the steel frame, at
earlier tests. Thereafter, the former deteriorates much more
rapidly than the latter, and as much as 70% loss of the
non-structural component is observed from Figure 17. The
loss is significant when large shaking took place.
Although not shown, energy dissipated by the
non-structural components are also estimated. As the
smallest energy contribution, it was only 0.1 times the
overall energy dissipation for the building with oil dampers
that showed about 20% damping ratio. However, the
contribution increases for the building that indicated smaller
damping ratio, using different dampers. As the largest
energy contribution, it was as much as 0.3 times the overall
energy dissipation for the building without dampers.
- 20 -
(kN/mm)
200
180 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st1
5 4 3 2
160 Level Level Level Level Level ug H un
0
140
120
100
80
60 STEP = 3 SineWaves
40 % = Scale of Takatori Motion
20
0
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
15
40
50
15
50
15
50
15
50
20
50
70
100
100
100
100
0
With Steel Dampers Viscous Dampers Oil Dampers VE Dampers No Dampers
0.01
Story Drift Averaged Thru Height
(rad.)
0.005
0
50
45 5th
5 4th
4 3rd
3 2nd
2 1st
1
40 Leve Level Level Level Level
35 l
30 STEP = 3 SineWaves
STEP=
(kN/mm)
25 %15%=15%
= Scale of Takatori Motion
20
15 Figure 18 Rocking of E-Defense shake table
10
5
0 the damper and the building, the linear identification method
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
STEP
40%
50
15
50
15
50
15
50
20
50
70
100
100
100
100
Note however that the method showed less accuracy for the
frame without dampers at the 70% Takatori motion,
With Steel Dampers Viscous Dampers Oil Dampers VE Dampers No Dampers
probably due to yielding of the members and connections of
Figure 17 Change in non-structural components’ the building.
lateral stiffness (x-direction)
30 With Steel Damper, Observed
20 15% Takatori Estimation
Disp. (mm)
10
Vibration periods and damping ratios are also estimated 0
-10
from the responses recorded. Several different tests and/or -20
evaluation methods were employed. In this paper, only the 80
0 With Steel Damper, 5 10 Time (s) 15
shake table tests will be referred to, and a basic system 40 100% Takatori
Disp. (mm)
0
identification technique using real modes is used. The -40
control of the shake table considers interaction between the -80
-120
specimen and table, and it is used to calibrate shaking of the 0 With Viscous Damper, 5 10 15
Time (s)
subsequent test. The target translational acceleration 80 100% Takatori
Disp. (mm)
histories along x-, y-, and z-axes are given, and target 0
rotational acceleration with respect to the three axes are set -80
zero. However, due the shake table occasionally rocks with 0 5 10 Time (s) 15
120
respect to the x- and y-axes (Fig. 18), especially at the earlier With Oil Damper,
80
Disp. (mm)
40
100% Takatori
shaking where little calibration is done. 0
Significant error will develop when one considers the -40
-80
transfer function between only the shake table horizontal
0 With VE Damper, 5 10 Time (s) 15
acceleration and building response acceleration. It is 80
100% Takatori
Disp. (mm)
- 21 -
0.7 With Steel Dampers With Viscous Dampers With Oil Dampers With Viscoelastic Dampers Without Dampers 0.30
Damping Ratio
0.5
0.20
Period (s)
0.4
0.15
0.3
0.10
0.2
Damping Ratio
0.1 0.05
0 0.00
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
WNX
5%
15%
40%
50%
70%
15%
25%
40%
50%
50%
70%
83%
15%
25%
40%
50%
50%
70%
83%
15%
25%
40%
50%
50%
70%
83%
20%
30%
40%
50%
50%
70%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 20 Vibration periods and damping ratios in x-direction
Figure 20 shows the vibration periods and damping Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Motoyui S., Takeuchi T., and Sato, E. (2007).
ratios obtained for all the tests, using the above-mentioned “E-Defense Tests on Full-Scale Steel Buildings: Part 1 –
Experiments Using Dampers and Isolators”, ASCE Str.
technique. The building with steel dampers shows shortest
Congress, Long Beach, CA, May 16-19
period and smallest damping ratio among those with Yamada, S., Suita, K., Tada, M., Kasai, K., Matsuoka, Y., and
dampers, and they become longer and larger, respectively, at Shimada, Y. (2009). Full Scale Shaking Table Collapse
larger shaking. The building with oil dampers shows the Ex-periment on 4-Story Steel Moment Frame: Part 1 Outline of
largest damping ratio of about 17%, and the smallest the Experiment, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia, USA.
Suita, K., Yamada, S., Kasai, K., Shimada Y., Tada, M., and
responses (Fig. 13). Note that the oil dampers were
Matsuoka, Y. (2009). Full Scale Shaking Table Collapse
somewhat over-sized compared with other types dampers, Experiment on 4-Story Steel Moment Frame: Part 2 Detail of
which is one of the reasons for the above trend. The Collapse Behavior, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia, USA.
building with either viscous dampers or viscoelastic dampers Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Motoyui S., Takeuchi T., Kajiwara, K., and Sato,
shows damping ratios of about 10%, and performed well. E. (2008). “Results of Recent E-Defense Tests on Full-Scale
Steel Buildings: Part 3 – Experiments on Dampers and Frame
Subassemblies”, ASCE Structures Congress, Vancouver, B.C.,
April 24-26.
6. SUMMARIES AND CONCLUSIONS Ohsaki M., Kasai, K., Hikino, T., and Matsuoka, Y. (2008a).
“Overview of 2007 E-Defense Blind Analysis Contest Re-sults”,
Realistic three-dimensional shaking table tests were 14WCEE , Beijing, Oct. 12-17
Ohsaki M., Kasai, K., Yamamoto, M., Kiriyama, S. (2008b). “2-D
conducted for full-scale 5-story building specimens with
Analysis Methods for 2007 Blind Analysis Contest”, 14WCEE ,
(March 2009) or without (April 2009) dampers. This paper Beijing, Oct. 12-17
has described the test concept, method and test results, as Ohsaki M., Kasai, K., Thiagarajan, G., Yang, Y., and Komiya, Y.
well as details of the 5-story building specimen. (2008c). “3-D Analysis Methods for 2007 Blind Analysis
Contest”, 14WCEE , Beijing, Oct. 12-17
Acknowledgements:
This study is a part of “NEES/E-Defense collaborative research
program on steel structures,” and was pursued by the Damper and
Isolation WG. The Japan team leader for the overall program and
the leader for the WG is Kazuhiko Kasai, Tokyo Institute of
Technology. The WG members not listed as the authors also
contributed to the present effort, and their contributions are greatly
appreciated. The authors also acknowledge the financial support
provided by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and
Disaster Prevention (NIED).
References:
Kasai, K., Motoyui, S., Ozaki, H., Ishii, M., Ito, H., Kajiwara, K.,
and Hikino, T. (2009). Full-Scale Tests of Passively-Controlled
5-Story Steel Building Using E-Defense Shake Table, Part 1:
Test concept, method, and building specimen, STESSA 2009,
Philadelphia.
Kasai, K., Ooki, Y., Ito, H., and Motoyui, S., Hikino, T. and Sato, E.
(2009). Full-Scale Tests of Passively-Controlled 5-Story Steel
Building Using E-Defense Shake Table, Part 2: Preliminary
Analysis Results, STESSA 2009, Philadelphia.
Ooki, Y., Kasai, K., Motoyui, S., Kaneko, K., Kajiwara, K., and
Hikino, T. (2009) Full-Scale Tests of Passively-Controlled
5-Story Steel Building Using E-Defense Shake Table, Part 3:
Full-Scale Tests for Dampers and Beam-Column Subassemblies,
STESSA 2009, Philadelphia.
- 22 -