Transactions, SMiRT-23

Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015

Division V, Paper ID 286

CHALLENGES FACED DURING THE MODELLING, DYNAMIC

ANALYSIS, AND VULNERABILITY STUDY WITH SOFISTIK IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE SMART 2013 BENCHMARK PROJECT
Rainer Zinn1, Michael Borgerhoff 1, Claudia van Exel1, Urs Bumann2, and Tadeusz Szczesiak2
1
Stangenberg und Partner Consulting Engineers, Germany (zinn@stangenberg.de)
2
Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate ENSI, Switzerland

ABSTRACT

The international benchmark project SMART 2013 that has been supported by CEA and EDF under the
hospice of the IAEA aims at understanding the nonlinear response of a typical nuclear reinforced
concrete (RC) structure subjected to high intensity seismic loading. An experimental campaign on a new
mock-up, which has been launched in 2013 and has been carried out at Centre de Saclay/EMSI, provided
reference data for the project. This paper describes the work conducted by the “ENSI Team 2”, consisting
of the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI) and the Stangenberg & Partner Consulting
Engineers (SPI), in the context of the benchmark project. The paper focuses on the challenges faced
during the modelling procedure, on the findings gained from the comparison between the accelerations
and displacements predicted by the numerical model and the measured experimental results, and the
vulnerability study with establishing of different fragility curves.

INTRODUCTION

As part of “SMART 2008 project”, a reduced scale model (1/4th scale) representative of a typical,
simplified half part of an electrical nuclear building was designed, built and tested in 2008 on the
AZALEE shaking table from TAMARIS experimental platform from EMSI laboratory in SEMT service
in order to access the capability of buildings to withstand earthquake loading as well as seismic loads
induced to their equipment, see Lermitte et al. (2009). To improve the knowledge of the seismic
behaviour of such RC structures, a new research program was started in 2011, namely “SMART 2013
project”, see Richard et al. (2014).

The test mock-up of SMART 2013 project is shown in Figure 1. The dimensions of the mock-up are 3.6m
height and 3.1m x 2.55m in plan. The overall mass is 45.8t including the additional loads on the floors,
and 70.8t including the AZALEE shaking table.

The numerical analyses of ENSI team 2 have been performed with a Finite Element (FE) model of the
mock-up and the AZALEE shaking table by use of the commercial software SOFiSTiK. The reinforced
concrete (RC) floor slabs, the walls, and the column of the mock-up were modelled by nonlinear, layered
shell elements. Damping is introduced by means of Rayleigh damping parameters according to the French
seismic guide ASN (2006). The seismic excitation was applied in terms of absolute displacements of the
shaking table accelerators. The results of linear computations (stage #2) and nonlinear blind predictive
computations (stage #3) are compared to measured values. Stage #4 of the benchmark project comprises a
vulnerability analysis of the mock-up based on 50 mandatory sets of horizontal accelerogram pairs.
Random variables for concrete tensile strength, concrete structural damping ratio, spring stiffness and
dampers were applied during the vulnerability analysis. As result of this stage, fragility curves for the
ground motion parameters peak ground acceleration (PGA), average spectral acceleration (ASA40),
cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) and response parameters (drift and frequency drop) are presented and
discussed.
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V

Figure1. SMART 2013 project: test mock-up

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL

The verification analyses have been performed with a Finite Element (FE) model of the mock-up by use
of the computer program SOFiSTiK, see SOFiSTiK AG (2010). The concrete floor slabs, the walls, and
the column are modelled by shell elements. The analysis of nonlinear effects in SOFiSTiK is done by
iterations using a modified Newton method; i.e. an implicit integration scheme is used. The calculation
code SOFiSTiK is well-suited for linear and nonlinear analysis of RC targets subjected to seismic or
impact loads, see Borgerhoff et al. (2013), Moore et al. (2013). In the SOFiSTiK code, the RC structure is
modelled with nonlinear, layered shell elements; nonlinear shear deformations of shell/plate elements are
approximately included. A partition into 12 layers is sufficient according to our experience and is used in
the performed analyses. The nonlinear material behaviour of reinforced concrete in the shell elements is
regarded by use of a layer model with correct positioning of the crosswise arranged layers of bending
reinforcement in the represented section. The nonlinear behaviour of the components of reinforced
concrete is defined by
• nonlinear uniaxial stress-strain relationship for concrete including hysteretic behaviour as shown for
concrete in compression in Figure 2 (including increase in strength due to biaxial compressive
behaviour),
• consideration of tension softening of concrete after cracking dependent on fracture energy with
hysteretic behaviour as shown in Figure 2,
• consideration of tension stiffening of reinforcement in the cracked condition,
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V

• approximate inclusion of transverse shear deformations by an elastic/ideally plastic shear stress/shear

strain law after exceeding the specified ultimate shear strength, and
• trilinear stress-strain relationship for reinforcing steel with hysteretic behaviour.

Figure 2. Hysteretic envelopes of concrete in compression (left) and in tension (right) (SOFiSTiK
approach).

The different FE models are depicted in Figure 3. The model with shaking table, which was used for
stages #2 and #3, comprises 9,942 shell elements and 49,600 DOF, where the shaking table AZALEE was
adopted from the SAP2000 model as submitted by CEA. The model with support springs, which was used
for stage #4, comprises 4,085 shell elements and 26,900 DOF. The model masses are: mock-up 47.0t
(CEA 45.8t), mock-up linked to shaking table 70.6t (CEA 70.8t).

Figure 3. SOFiSTiK FE models including shaking table (left, stages #2, 3) and with support springs
(right, stage #4)

Damping is introduced by means of Rayleigh damping parameters Į and ȕ which are introduced in two
different ways (see Figure 4): first, the damping ratios as provided by CEA in Richard et al. (2014) were
approximately fitted, second, the procedure demanded in ASN (2006) for nonlinear seismic analysis was
used, i. e. 2% damping for the fundamental frequency and 5% damping for the frequency for which 90%
of modal masses are reached.
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V

0.1
CEA (2014)
ASN (2006)
0.08 Fitting of CEA

Damping [-]
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Frequency [Hz]

Figure 4. Damping values introduced by Rayleigh parameters vs values given by CEA Richard et al.
(2014)

ELASTIC CALIBRATION OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL

The elastic calibration (stage #2) comprises modal analysis with different boundary conditions (mock-up
fixed and linked to the shaking table model), and transient analyses Run 6 and Run 7. Table 1 summarizes
the first three frequencies for different boundary conditions in comparison with the data Richard et al.
(2014). “AZALEE” in Table 1 means that the AZALEE shaking table is treated alone (without mock-up).
“Fixed” means that the mock-up with fixed base is treated alone, and “Linked to shaking table” means
that the coupled system mock-up / AZALEE shaking table is treated.

Table 1. Comparison of frequencies for different boundary conditions

Frequency SOFiSTiK SOFiSTiK SOFiSTiK CEA CEA CEA

AZALEE Fixed, add. Linked to AZALEE Fixed, add. Linked to
with air masses shaking with air masses shaking
cushions table cushions table
1st 81.3Hz 8.2Hz 5.84Hz 80.5Hz 8.98Hz 6.28Hz
2ŶĚ 96.2Hz 15.1Hz 9.09Hz 95.7Hz 15.54Hz 7.86Hz
3ƌĚ 118.0Hz 28.4Hz 19.50Hz 116.2Hz 31.50Hz 16.50Hz

Run 6 and Run 7 were performed with the damping parameters fitted to the CEA damping values. The
seismic excitation was applied in terms of absolute displacements of the AZALEE accelerators. Since
there were problems with respect to the provided data for Run 6 (e.g., the second derivatives of the
absolute displacements substantially differ from the absolute accelerations due to filtering effects), in the
following only results from Run 7 are documented. Figures 5 and 6 show a comparison of measured and
computed values of selected absolute displacements and acceleration response spectra for Run 7. The
computed displacements and low frequency spectral accelerations are slightly higher than the measured
values, likely due to real modal damping values higher than the values introduced in the computation.
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V
0.002 0.002
Dp30xA computed Dp30xB computed
Dp30xA measured Dp30xB measured

0.001 0.001
Displacement [m]

Displacement [m]
0 0

-0.001 -0.001

-0.002 -0.002
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time [s] Time [s]
0.002 0.002
Dp30xC computed Dp30yD computed
Dp30xC measured Dp30yD measured

0.001 0.001
Displacement [m]

Displacement [m]
0 0

-0.001 -0.001

-0.002 -0.002
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 5. Comparison of measured and computed absolute displacements from Run7, level 30
2.5 2.5
Run 7 30xA measrd Run 7 30xB measrd
Run 7 30yA measrd Run 7 30yB measrd
2 Run 7 30zA measrd 2 Run 7 30zB measrd
Run 7 30xA comptd Run 7 30xB comptd
Acceleration [g]
Acceleration [g]

1.5 Run 7 30yA comptd 1.5 Run 7 30yB comptd

Run 7 30zA comptd Run 7 30zB comptd

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
2.5 2.5
Run 7 30xC measrd Run 7 30xD measrd
Run 7 30yC measrd Run 7 30yD measrd
2 Run 7 30zC measrd 2 Run 7 30zD measrd
Run 7 30xC comptd Run 7 30xD comptd
Acceleration [g]

Acceleration [g]

1.5 Run 7 30yC comptd 1.5 Run 7 30yD comptd

Run 7 30zC comptd Run 7 30zD comptd

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
Figure 6. Comparison of acceleration response spectra from Run 7, level 30, damping 5%
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V

NONLINEAR DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF THE NUMERICAL MODEL AND COMPARISON

WITH TEST RESULTS

The nonlinear dynamic analysis (stage #3) comprises nonlinear step-by-step integration computations of
the coupled system consisting of mock-up linked to the shaking table model. All runs – mandatory runs
as well as optional runs – were performed in a sequential series, i.e. considering the pre-damage of the
respective preceding run. The seismic excitation was applied in terms of absolute displacements of the
AZALEE accelerators with a time step of 0.003908s. The damping parameters were introduced
according to the French seismic guide ASN (2006). For Run19 – excitation Northridge earthquake
(1994) with the largest PGA values up to 1.1g (design value of mock-up: 0.2g) – the damping values
fitting the CEA data have been used alternatively. From the numerous results, only a small selection can
be presented in this paper. In Table 2 the maximum computed absolute displacements are tabulated in
comparison with the measured data. The displacements are corrected with respect to the initial
displacements due to residual displacements of the respective preceding run. Figures 7 and 8 show
selected displacements and acceleration response spectra.

Table 2. Comparison of maximum absolute displacements in mm, values in ( ) are measured

displacements (Run19A = Run19 with CEA damping values)

Dir. Run 09 Run 11 Run 13 Run 17 Run 19 Run Run 21 Run 23

19A
X 5.9 (4.0) 10.6 (9.0) 18.7 (21.5) 49.1 (39.3) 91.7 (85.4) 85.8 5.1 (1.8) 6.9 (7.9)
Y 4.9 (2.8) 9.3 (4.8) 15.4 (16.7) 29.6 (24.3) 42.8 (55.9) 39.9 3.1 (2.9) 10.1 (13.4)

0.08 Run 19 30yA comptd 0.08 Run 19 30xB comptd

Run 19 30yA measrd Run 19 30xB measrd

0.04 0.04
Displacement [m]

Displacement [m]

0 0

-0.04 -0.04

-0.08 -0.08

6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
Time [s] Time [s]

0.08 Run 19 30yC comptd 0.08 Run 19 30xD comptd

Run 19 30yC measrd Run 19 30xD measrd

0.04 0.04
Displacement [m]

Displacement [m]

0 0

-0.04 -0.04

-0.08 -0.08

6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
Time [s] Time [s]
Figure 7. Comparison of selected computed and measured absolute displacements
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V
120 120
Run17 30xA comptd Run17 30xA measrd
Run17 30xB comptd Run17 30xB measrd
Run17 30xC comptd Run17 30xC measrd
Acceleration [m/s²]

Acceleration [m/s²]
Run17 30xD comptd Run17 30xD measrd
80 80
Run17 30xE comptd Run17 30xE measrd

40 40

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
100 100
Run17 30yA comptd Run17 30yA measrd
Run17 30yB comptd Run17 30yB measrd
80 Run17 30yC comptd 80 Run17 30yC measrd
Acceleration [m/s²]

Acceleration [m/s²]
Run17 30yD comptd Run17 30yD measrd
60 Run17 30yE comptd 60 Run17 30yE measrd

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
160 160
Run19 30xA comptd Run19 30xA measrd
Run19 30xB comptd Run19 30xB measrd
Run19 30xC comptd Run19 30xC measrd
120 120
Acceleration [m/s²]

Acceleration [m/s²]

Run19 30xD comptd Run19 30xD measrd

Run19 30xE comptd Run19 30xE measrd

80 80

40 40

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
120 120
Run19 30yA comptd Run19 30yA measrd
Run19 30yB comptd Run19 30yB measrd
Run19 30yC comptd Run19 30yC measrd
Acceleration [m/s²]

Acceleration [m/s²]

Run19 30yD comptd Run19 30yD measrd

80 80
Run19 30yE comptd Run19 30yE measrd

40 40

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]
Figure 8. Comparison of acceleration response spectra, level 30, damping 5%
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V

VULNERABILITY STUDY AND REMARKS ON THE FRAGILITY CURVES

The vulnerability study (stage #4) is focused on the probabilistic evaluation of the mock-up vulnerability.
The determination of fragility curves with respect to prescribed criteria is the main objective of this stage.
For the vulnerability analysis, the FE model of the mock-up resting on support springs was used, see
Fig. 3. The random variables for concrete tensile strength, concrete structural damping ratio, spring
stiffness and dampers were adopted from ENSI team 1, see Sevdali et al. (2014). The mandatory 50 sets
of horizontal accelerogram pairs as provided by CEA were used (49 accelerogram pairs are included in
the fragility curve evaluation, because for Run 35 the structure failed). A simplified method for
determining the fragility curves based on a linear regression in order to evaluate the two parameters Am
and ȕ was used. The seismic demand model is described with
ln (Y) = a + b ln ( Θ ) + İ (1)
where İ is a centered normal (Gaussian) random variable with standard deviation ı, and a, b are constants
that are evaluated by means of linear regression. Ĭ is the treated ground motion parameter (PGA, ASA40,
CAV), and Y is the model output (drift, frequency drop). With these notations, the corresponding
lognormal fragility curve is
§ ln (aΘb /s) ·
Pf (Θ)=ĭ¨¨ ¸¸ (2)
© σ ¹
where s is the threshold of the ground motion parameter Y. The fragility curve, that is the failure
probability Pf conditioned on ground motion parameter Ĭ, is given by the cumulative distribution function
§ ln (Θ/Am ) ·
Pf (Θ)= ĭ¨¨ ¸¸ (3)
© ȕ ¹
where Am = exp((ln(s)-a)/b) is the median seismic capacity and ȕ = ı / b is the standard deviation of the
fragility curve. Figures 9 and 10 show examples of the performed regression analyses. There are good
correlations for the output parameter storey drift, expressed by coefficients of determination of 0.8 - 0.9,
but only poor correlations for the output parameter frequency drop, characterized by coefficients of
determination of 0.6 - 0.7. Examples of resulting fragility curves are shown in Figures 11 and 12 for the
case “extended damage”, i.e. thresholds storey drift h/100 and frequency drop 50%.

Drift D-x linear Drift D-x

Linear Regression Linear Regression
1 84th Percentile 1 84th Percentile
16th Percentile 16th Percentile
Drift [%]

Drift [%]

0.1 0.1

Drift D-x vs PGA linear Drift D-x vs PGA nonlinear

1 10 1 10
PGA [m/s²] PGA [m/s²]
Figure 9. Regression analysis for ground motion parameter PGA-X and storey drifts D-x from linear (left)
and nonlinear (right) computations
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V

Drift D-y Drift D-x

Linear Regression Linear Regression
1
84th Percentile 1 84th Percentile
16th Percentile 16th Percentile
Drift [%]

Drift [%]
0.1 0.1

Drift D-y vs PGA nonlinear Drift D-x vs CAV nonlinear

1 10 1 10
PGA [m/s²] CAV [m/s]
100
Drift D-x Frequ.Drop-x
Linear Regression Linear Regression
1 84th Percentile 84th Percentile

Frequency Drop [%]

16th Percentile 16th Percentile
Drift [%]

10

0.1

Drift D-x vs ASA40 nonlinear 1 Frequ.Drop-x vs PGA nonlinear

10 100 1 10
ASA40 [m/s³] PGA [m/s²]
Figure 10. Regression analysis from nonlinear computations for selected ground motion and output
parameters

100 100
Drift D-x vs PGA linear Drift D-x vs CAV linear
Drift D-x vs PGA nonlin. Drift D-x vs CAV nonlin.
80 Drift D-y vs PGA nonlin. 80 Drift D-y vs CAV nonlin.
Failure Probability [%]

Failure Probability [%]

Drop-x vs PGA nonlin. Drop-x vs CAV nonlin.

60 Drop-y vs PGA nonlin. 60 Drop-y vs CAV nonlin.

40 40

20 20

0 0
1 10 1 10 100
PGA [m/s²] CAV [m/s]

Figure 11. Fragility curves for extended damage level (storey drift h/100, frequency drop 50%) for ground
motion parameters PGA (left) and CAV (right)
 23rd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
Manchester, United Kingdom - August 10-14, 2015
Division V
100
Drift D-x vs ASA40 linear
Drift D-x vs ASA40 nonlin.
80 Drift D-y vs ASA40 nonlin.

Failure Probability [%]

Drop-x vs ASA40 nonlin.
60 Drop-y vs ASA40 nonlin.

40

20

0
10 100
ASA40 [m/s³]

Figure 12. Fragility curves for extended damage level (storey drift h/100, frequency drop 50%) for ground
motion parameter ASA40

There are clear correlations between the ground motion parameters PGA, CAV, ASA40 and the response
parameter storey drift. But, for the frequency drop as a response parameter, a clear correlation could not
be observed. It should be mentioned that the frequency drops were estimated from the decrease of peaks
of Fourier spectra of displacements, which likely is not a very stable procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The linear and nonlinear dynamic seismic response analyses in the frame of the SMART 2013 project
with the FE program SOFiStiK showed a good agreement between computed and measured values up to
extreme earthquake loads of 1.1g (design value of mock-up: 0.2g). The use of the damping values
according to the regulation in ASN (2006) for nonlinear seismic analysis yielded computed structural
responses comparable to measured results. The vulnerability analysis yielded plausible correlations
between the ground motion parameters PGA, CAV, ASA40 and the response parameter storey drift. But,
for the response parameter frequency drop, no clear correlations could be observed.

REFERENCES

Borgerhoff, M., Schneeberger, C., Stangenberg, F., and Zinn, R. (2013). „Conclusions from Combined
Bending and Punching Tests for Aircraft Impact Design”, Transactions SMiRT-22, San Francisco,
USA.
Lermitte, S., Chaudat, T., Courtois, A. (2009). “SMART 2008 Project Experimental Tests of a Reinforced
Concrete Building Subjected to Torsion, Part 2: Presentation of the Test Results”, Transactions
SMiRT-20, Espoo, Finland.
Moore, J., Zwicky, P., Zinn, R., and Schneeberger C. (2013). „Earthquake Response Analysis in the
Context of the KARISMA Benchmark Project”, Transactions SMiRT-22, San Francisco, USA.
ASN (2006), ”Prise en compte du risque sismique à la conception des ouvrages de genie civil
d’installations nucléaires de base à l’exception des stockages à long terme des déchets radioactifs”,
ASN/Guide/2/01.
Richard, B., Charbonell, P. E. (2014). “Presentation of the SMART 2013 International Benchmark”,
Report DEN/DANS/SET/EMSI/ST/12-017/H, 09/04/2014.
Sevdali, I., Billmaier, M, Mondet, Y., Szczesiak, T. Bumann, U., (2014). “SMART2013, ENSI Team 1:
Challenges faced during the modelling, dynamic analysis, and vulnerability study with SAP2000
using nonlinear layered shell elements”, Workshop SMART 2013, Paris, France.
SOFiSTiK AG (2010), „SOFiSTiK, Analysis Programs“, Version 25.0, Oberschleissheim.