Damping Ratio of RC Squat Wall with Limited Damage

under High-Frequency Earthquake

Hyeon-Keun Yang 1 and Hong-Gun Park 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: In regions experiencing high-frequency earthquakes, it is necessary to reevaluate the seismic performance of nuclear power plant
buildings. In the evaluation of equipment, as well as the structure, the damping ratio of a structure is important. In the present study, to
evaluate the damping ratio of walls with limited damage, a shaking table test was conducted for reinforced concrete squat walls with a low
aspect ratio. The test variables were the natural frequency of the walls and the type of earthquake (i.e., earthquakes with and without high-
frequency contents). The result showed that for a peak ground acceleration of 0.1g, the damping ratio of the walls was 3.5% for the mean and
0.27 for the standard deviation, while for high-frequency earthquakes, the damping ratio was 14.3% lower (3.0% for the mean). In particular,
as the dynamic response amplification increased, the damping ratio decreased; when the dynamic amplification was greater than 1.5, the
average damping ratio of the walls was 2.4%. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002872. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: High-frequency earthquake; Shaking table test; RC squat wall; Damping ratio.

Introduction Commission (USNRC) Regulatory Guide 1.61 (USNRC 2007),

During the Gyeong-Ju 912 earthquake, which had a magnitude of
5.8 (2016), the Wol-song nuclear power plant (NPP) was shut
down, which was the first incident in the history of Korean NPPs.
Subsequently, in 2017, the Po-Hang earthquake with a magnitude
of 5.4 occurred near the NPP sites. As the 912 and Po-Hang earth-
quakes occurred on the southeastern coast of Korea, where the
NPPs are concentrated, concerns about the safety of NPP have
increased.
In the seismic performance evaluation of an operational NPP,
the most probable cause of the core damage frequency (CDF),
i.e., the likelihood that an accident could cause the fuel in the re-
actor to be damaged, is the malfunction of equipment rather than
the failure of structures having a higher safety margin. In Korea, in
particular, like the eastern US region, which is subjected to high-
frequency earthquakes, the safety of equipment with high natural
frequency is of more concern (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, the behavior of
structures under a high-frequency earthquake is important because
the floor response acceleration and floor response spectrum, which
are used to evaluate equipment, are affected by the behavior of the
structure. Thus, in order to evaluate the safety of equipment, the
elastic dynamic behavior of the building structure should be accu-
rately predicted.
Current design evaluation guidelines for NPPs recommend
damping ratios for an NPP structure. TR-103959 (Kennedy and
Reed 1994) recommends a damping ratio of 4% for structural walls
under extreme conditions. In the United States Nuclear Regulatory
1 model. The prediction was similar to the test result. Based on
Graduate Student, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Seoul National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 08826, Korea. Email:
yanghk77@snu.ac.kr
2
Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Seoul
National Univ., 1 Gwanak-ro, Seoul 08826, Korea (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1383-7403. Email: parkhg@snu
.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 15, 2019; approved on
August 3, 2020; published online on October 21, 2020. Discussion period
open until March 21, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
damping ratios of 4% and 7% are recommended for operating at
basic earthquake (OBE) levels and at safe-shutdown earthquake
(SSE) levels, respectively. In NP-6041 (Reed et al. 1991), damping
ratios of 3% and 10% are recommended for the seismic margin
assessment (SMA) of reinforced concrete structures without and
with yielding, respectively.
On the other hand, existing studies of damping ratios mainly
focused on ordinary building structures. Jeary (1986) proposed a
nonlinear damping formula for tall buildings to assess the natural
frequency and wind force amplitude. Satake et al. (2003) modified
the equation for reinforced concrete buildings and steel-frame
buildings, based on the damping ratio data, collected by the Damp-
ing Evaluation Committee of the Architectural Institute of Japan.
Suda et al. (1996) analyzed the dynamic properties of buildings in
Japan using various methods (the autocorrelation decay method,
random decrement technique, half-power bandwidth method, curve
fitting, and transfer function method). The natural frequency of
buildings was clearly dependent on the building height, while the
damping ratios were scattered due to the influence of various fac-
tors (height and natural frequencies). The damping ratios of RC
concrete buildings ranged from 2% to 4%. Ibrahim (1977) pro-
posed a modal identification method using the random decrement
technique, which was developed to obtain the free response of a
structure from its random responses. Martinelli and Filippou (2009)
participated in the blind prediction contest of the shaking table test
organized by the University of California at San Diego (UCSD),
NEES, and the Portland Cement Association (PCA). They analyzed
a seven-story shear wall building using a damping ratio of a 1%
existing field tests of structures, Wilson (2000) reported that for
most structures, damping is not proportional to velocity, and the
damping ratio is less than 2% in the elastic range. Hashimoto et al.
(1993) estimated the damping ratio of low-rise reinforced concrete
buildings, not NPP buildings, based on recorded earthquake re-
sponses. The damping values ranged from ∼3% to 8%.
As such, existing studies of the damping ratio have focused on
ordinary high-rise building structures because dynamic properties,
including damping ratios, are important for the design of high-rise
buildings. On the other hand, the primary structure of NPPs is a

© ASCE 04020295-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Examples of response spectra for earthquakes with and without
high-frequency contents.
bearing wall structure of 4–5 stories. In particular, a seismic prob-
ability risk assessment (SPRA) is required for existing and new
NPP buildings. For the SPRA of the structure and equipment,
the standard deviation (SD), as well as the mean value of the damp-
ing ratio, are required. Currently, in TR-3002012994 (EPRI 2018),
which is an SPRA guideline, 4% and 2.8% are proposed for the
mean and minus-one logarithmic standard deviation, respectively,
for the damping ratio of reinforced concrete structures.
In the present study, shaking table tests were conducted for two
reinforced concrete squat walls with various natural frequencies,
changing the superimposed mass. On the basis of the results, the
damping ratio of the squat walls was evaluated. In particular, the
present study focused on the variation of the damping ratio under
Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement details of specimens (mm): (a) Specimen A1.0; (b) Specimen A0.6; (c) cross-section of A1.0 (A-A’); and
(d) cross-section of A0.6 (B-B’).
© ASCE 04020295-2
J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295
high-frequency earthquakes. In general, as the structural damage in-
creases, the damping ratio of a structure is known to increase. How-
ever, in high-frequency earthquakes, equipment with high natural
frequencies can be damaged due to dynamic amplification, even
in low-level damage to the structures. Thus, the present study fo-
cused on the damping ratio of walls with limited damage (i.e., with-
out severe cracking and yielding). Firstly, the initial damping ratio
was investigated. Then, the variation of the damping ratio was inves-
tigated for walls with limited damage.
Test Plan
Major Test Parameters and Specimen Details
In general, for NPP walls, the aspect ratio of the walls (¼ hw =lw ) is
low (Hashimoto et al. 1993), and because of the design requirements
of high structural capacity, the shear reinforcement ratio is high. Con-
sidering these conditions, two reinforced concrete walls with an as-
pect ratio of 1.0 (A1.0) or 0.6 (A0.6) were prepared for a shaking
table test. Fig. 2 shows the dimensions and details of the specimens.
The dimensions of A1.0 were 1,500 mm (length) × 1,500 mm
(height) × 200 mm (thickness). The dimensions of A0.6 were
2,500 mm (length) × 1,500 mm (height) × 200 mm (thickness).
The compressive strength of concrete was 40 MPa. For the
specimens, D13 reinforcing bars (bar diameter ¼ 12.7 mm and ac-
tual yield strength ¼ 471 MPa) were used. Both the horizontal
reinforcement ratio and vertical reinforcement ratio were 0.6%.
In A1.0, the shear force corresponding to the nominal flexural
strength calculated from the sectional analysis was V f ¼ 312 kN,
and the nominal shear strength was V s ¼ 983 kN. In A0.6, V f ¼
643 kN and V s ¼ 1,383 kN.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Test set-up: (a) N-S face; and (b) E-W face.

In order to simulate RC walls with various natural frequencies
using two specimens of A1.0 and A0.6, various steel masses of
4.27, 7.28, 10.88, 14.48, and 21.68 t were installed on the top slab
of the specimens (Fig. 3).
Input Earthquakes
Table 1 presents the input earthquakes used for the shaking table
test. EQ 1 is an artificial record based on a uniform hazard spectrum
(UHS) of the site-specific earthquake ground motion (USNRC
2006) of Ul-jin, where NPPs in Korea are located. EQ 2 is an ar-
tificial record based on the design spectrum (RG1.60) (USNRC
1973) of NPPs. The other six input earthquakes are those measured
from actual earthquakes. In Table 1, high-frequency contents in-
cluded means that the earthquake has high-frequency components
over 10 Hz, and a maximum dynamic amplification of structural
response (i.e., maximum response spectrum value) occurs in the
high-frequency range of the response spectrum. Four earthquakes
with high-frequency contents were used: EQ 1, EQ 3, EQ 7, and
EQ 8. In the case of EQ 1, the spectral accelerations have relatively
large magnitudes in the high-frequency range of the response spec-
trum, when compared to EQ 2. The magnitudes of the input earth-
quakes are in the range of M ¼ 5.6–6.2, and the maximum time
interval of the record is 0.01 s. Fig. 4 shows the elastic response
spectra of the input earthquakes that were scaled to the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) level of 0.1g (where g is the gravitational
acceleration).
Test Procedure and Instrumentation
Fig. 3 shows the locations of the accelerometers, LVDTs, and load
cells, which were used to measure the responses of the specimens.
The accelerometers ACC1 and ACC2 were installed at the center of
the top and bottom slabs of the specimen, respectively. The LVDTs
were installed at the top and bottom slabs to measure the relative
lateral displacements. Fig. 2 shows the strain gauges used to mea-
sure the strains of the vertical and horizontal reinforcing bars.
Dynamic data loggers with a 512 Hz measurement time interval
were used to record data of the accelerometers, LVDTs, load-cells,
and strain gauges.
Fig. 5 shows the test flow. Changing the external mass and input
earthquakes, shaking table tests were performed several times for a
specimen. In this case, concrete cracking can occur, and the natural
frequency of the specimen can be changed during testing. There-
fore, for each test set of a test specimen, resonance searches were
performed three times: before testing, after EQs 1–4, and after EQs
5–8. From the results of the resonance tests, the natural frequencies
of the specimen were estimated through the transmissibility func-
tion (i.e., the ratio of the response output of a system to the input).
Under the PGA of 0.1g, the maximum tensile stress of the wall
specimen was expected to be lower than 4 MPa, which corresponds
to the tensile strength of concrete (10% of the compressive strength
of concrete). For this reason, considering the elastic state of struc-
tures without concrete cracking, the input earthquakes were scaled
to a PGA of 0.1g. The total number of tests, except resonance tests,
was 88 times: 40 times for A1.0 (8 input earthquakes × 5 mass

Table 1. Earthquake inputs

Maximum recorded Epicentral High-frequency
Earthquake Name frequency (Hz) Year Station Magnitude distance (km) contents
EQ 1 UHS — (Artificial) — — — — Included
EQ 2 RG1.60 — (Artificial) — — — — —
EQ 3 Imperial Valley 200 1979 Westmorland 5.62 9.39 Included
EQ 4 ChiChi-1 250 1999 CHY016 6.2 107.33 —
EQ 5 ChiChi-2 250 1999 CHY116 6.2 120.25 —
EQ 6 ChiChi-3 250 1999 TTN010 6.2 110.57 —
EQ 7 ChiChi-4 200 1999 CHY059 6.3 102.14 Included
EQ 8 912 (Gyeong-Ju) 100 2016 DKJ 5.8 22 Included
Note: High-frequency contents indicate a frequency range higher than 10 Hz in Fast-Fourier-Transform.

© ASCE 04020295-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Elastic response spectra of input earthquakes (scaled to PGA 0.1g): (a) EQ 1 (UHS); (b) EQ 2 (RG1.60); (c) EQ 3 (Imperial Valley);
(d) EQ 4 (ChiChi-1); (e) EQ 5 (ChiChi-2); (f) EQ 6 (ChiChi-3); (g) EQ 7 (ChiChi-4); and (h) EQ 8 (912).

changes) and 48 times for A0.6 (8 input earthquakes × 6 mass
changes).
After performing shaking table tests under the elastic state,
additional tests were conducted, gradually increasing the PGA;
the test was performed under EQ 3, increasing the PGA to 0.4,
0.7, and 1.0g. In the inelastic test, the number of tests is limited
because the properties of the test specimen change due to crack-
ing and yielding. Therefore, the inelastic test was performed for
EQ 3, which was expected to cause maximum dynamic re-
sponse amplification.
Test Results
of A1.0 and A0.6 ranged from 9.13–29.58 Hz and 14.77–49.42 Hz,
respectively.
Strains of Reinforcing Bars (PGA of 0.1g)
The strains of the reinforcing bars were measured to check the dam-
age of the specimens. In the 0.1g PGA tests, reinforcing bar yield-
ing did not occur in both A1.0 and A0.6. The maximum strain was
1.61 × 10−4 and 0.78 × 10−4 mm=mm for A1.0, and A0.6, respec-
tively. These were 7.3% and 2.2% of the yielding strain of the
reinforcing bar (22 × 10−4 mm=mm). Strains of reinforcing bars
under the higher PGAs are reported in the section “Test Results
under PGA of 0.4−1.0g” and Fig. 14.

Resonance Test (PGA of 0.1g)

Figs. 6(b and c) show the bottom and top slab acceleration re-
sponses of A1.0 with a superimposed mass of 7.28 t under EQ
8 [Fig. 6(a)]. Fig. 6(d) shows the transmissibility resulting from
the recorded time history accelerations. The bottom slab accelera-
tion was different from the input earthquake used for the shaking
table test. Thus, the bottom slab acceleration was regarded as the
actual input earthquake for the wall. As shown in Fig. 6(d), the
natural frequencies of the specimens were estimated from the res-
onance searches that were conducted three times in each test set.
Table 2 shows the mean value of three resonance searches under
the PGA of 0.1g. As the external mass increased, the natural
frequencies of the specimens decreased. The natural frequencies
Acceleration Record and Damping Ratio (PGA of 0.1g)
Fig. 7 shows the time histories of the measured bottom slab ac-
celeration and top slab acceleration for Specimen A1.0 with a
superimposed mass of 21.68 t. In Fig. 7(a), the input motions with
high-frequency contents showed the 28–32 vibration cycles dur-
ing 2 s [(a-1) and (a-3) in Fig. 7(a)], which was significantly
greater than the 13–17 vibration cycles of the input motions with-
out high-frequency contents [(a-2) and (a-4) in Fig. 7(a)]. On the
other hand, in the measured top slab accelerations, regardless of
the input earthquake, all responses showed an identical dynamic
period of 0.11 s, corresponding to the natural frequency of the
specimen (9.13 Hz) [Fig. 7(b)].

© ASCE 04020295-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Resonance research under EQ 8 (912 Earthquake): (a) input

Fig. 5. Test flow chart. earthquake acceleration; (b) measured bottom acceleration; (c) top ac-
celeration; and (d) transmissibility of Specimen A1.0 with an external
mass of 7.28 t.

Fig. 8(a) shows the damping ratios of the specimen obtained

using the half-power bandwidth method (Chopra 1995). The half-
power bandwidth method is frequently used to evaluate system
Table 2. External mass and natural frequency of test specimens (PGA
damping by using the transmissibility function [Fig. 6(d)]. This
of 0.1g)
method is known to be valid when the damping ratio is small
(Wu 2015). In the present study, the damping ratio of specimens Natural
was expected to be small because of the limited damage of the spec- frequency (Hz)
Test Test Superimposed
imens. The damping ratio is estimated as follows: set no. PGA (g) mass (tonf) A1.0 A0.6

f1 − f2 1 0.1 0 29.58 49.42

ξ¼ ð1Þ 2 0.1 4.27 20.01 31.44
2f n 3 0.1 7.28 16.65 26.29
4 0.1 10.88 13.57 21.83
where fn = undamped natural frequency; ξ = damping ratio; and f 1 5 0.1 14.48 — 18.34
and f2 = half-power frequency points (f1 > f2 ) in which f1 and f 2 6 0.1 21.68 9.13 14.77
indicate thepfrequencies of the transmissibility values that corre-
spond to 1= 2 of the maximum value at fn . The estimated damp-
ing ratio varies according to the frequency-domain resolution.
Thus, the frequency-domain resolution was determined following high-frequency earthquakes, the damping ratio value was lower: the
the recommendation of Thompson (2015). The resolution is calcu-
damping ratio value was 3.1%, 2.3%, and 3.8% for all specimens,
lated as follows:
A1.0, and A0.6, respectively.
fr ¼ f1 − f2 ¼ 2ξf n ð2Þ Fig. 8(b) shows the damping ratios obtained by the prediction
error method by Astrom (1979). In the method, a structural model
where fr = resolution of frequency. The minimum of f r was is selected by minimizing errors between the predicted time his-
estimated at 0.1 Hz when ξ ¼ 0.5% and f n ¼ 9 Hz. Therefore, tory and actual measured time history. The majority of the damp-
the resolution of the transmissibility function was determined ing ratios ranged from 1% to 6%, which was similar to the result
as 0.1 Hz. of the half-power bandwidth method. However, the prediction
The calculated damping ratio significantly varies, ranging from error method showed smaller scatters. The average damping ratios
1% to 6%. The maximum damping ratio was 11.2%. The average were 2.5%, 3.9%, and 3.3% for A1.0, A0.6, and all specimens,
damping ratios were 2.5% and 4.2% for A1.0 and A0.6, respec- respectively. Under high-frequency earthquakes, the average
tively, and the average result of the two specimens was 3.5%. Under values were 2.5%, 4.1%, and 3.4% for A1.0, A0.6, and all

© ASCE 04020295-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Input accelerations and top acceleration responses of Specimen A1.0 with external mass 21.68 t (PGA of 0.1g): (a) input acceleration; and
(b) top slab acceleration.

Fig. 8. Damping ratio of RC wall obtained using (a) transmissibility function and half-power bandwidth method; and (b) prediction error method.

© ASCE 04020295-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

 specimens, respectively. As such, damping ratios can be obtained
using the half-power bandwidth method and the prediction error
method.
However, because the damping ratios are relatively low and the
responses of walls contain noise, it is difficult to estimate the damp-
ing ratio accurately. Therefore, in the present study, the responses
of the walls were investigated to estimate the damping ratio.
Response Spectrum (PGA of 0.1g)
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guideline for SPRA
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(EPRI 2018) recommends the damping ratio of structures for
Response level 1 as 4%, which is applicable to concrete structures
without major cracks. Using the damping ratio of 4%, the acceler-
ation response spectrum values [a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
analysis] based on the measured bottom slab acceleration were cal-
culated and compared with the measured top slab accelerations that
are the actual responses of the specimens.
Fig. 9 shows the maximum top slab acceleration measured at
each test case (round marks), the elastic response spectra based
on the input motions (broken lines), the elastic response spectra
based on the measured bottom slab accelerations (light lines),
and the average of the response spectra based on the measured bot-
tom slab acceleration (bold lines). The elastic response spectra
based on the input motions (broken lines) are the same as Fig. 4.
It is noted that the elastic response spectrum based on the input
earthquake is not the same as that based on the measured bottom
slab accelerations. In the high-frequency range (over 20 Hz), the
former is smaller than the latter; meanwhile, in the lower frequency
range, the former is greater than the latter.
When the maximum acceleration measured at the top slab
(round mark) is compared with the response spectra (light lines)
based on the measured bottom slab acceleration and 4% damping
ratio, the average ratio of the measured top slab acceleration to the
estimated response spectra was 1.10 for EQ 1 (UHS) with high-
frequency contents [Fig. 9(a)] and 1.07 for EQ 2 (RG1.60) without
high-frequency contents [Fig. 9(b)]. The average ratio for the eight
earthquakes was 1.11. This result indicates that, on average, the
elastic response spectra using the 4% damping ratio underestimated
the top slab acceleration by 10% and that the actual damping ratio is
less than 4%.
On the other hand, in the range of a natural frequency lower than
20 Hz (in general, the natural frequency of an NPP wall structure is
5–10 Hz), the measured accelerations tend to be lower than the
average of the predicted response spectrum values. In particular, in
the case of EQs 1 and 3 with high-frequency contents [Figs. 9(a
and c)], this tendency is pronounced. Further studies are required
to confirm this result.
Fig. 10 shows the results of RMS accelerations under earthquakes
with a PGA of 0.1g. The average ratio of the measured top slab ac-
celeration to the response spectra value predicted using a 4% damp-
ing ratio was 1.07. This result indicates that the actual damping ratio
is lower than 4%. For EQ 1 with high-frequency contents, the aver-
age ratio was 1.04 [Fig. 10(a)], while for EQ 2 without high-
frequency contents, the average ratio was 1.03 [Fig. 10(b)].
Further, the average ratio of the measured acceleration to the
predicted acceleration differed, according to the specimen. For
A1.0, the average ratios of the measurement to the prediction were
1.16 and 1.13 for the maximum acceleration and RMS acceleration,
respectively. On the other hand, for A0.6, these ratios were 1.06 and
1.02. This result indicates that the actual damping ratio of A1.0
with a greater aspect ratio was lower than that of A0.6. The reason
for the higher damping ratio of A1.0 is explained in the section
“Damping Ratio for Dynamic Amplification.”
© ASCE 04020295-7
J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295
Base Shear Force (PGA of 0.1g)
Theoretically, the top slab acceleration is not exactly the same as
the response spectrum acceleration related to the seismic force of
the wall. Thus, the damping ratio was estimated based on the base
shear that represents the seismic force of the wall. The base shear
force at the bottom of the wall was estimated by excluding the shear
force generated by the bottom slab mass (bottom slab mass ×
bottom slab acceleration) from the shear force measured by the load
cells. Fig. 11 shows the maximum shear force of each test. As the
superimposed external mass increased, the maximum base shear
force increased. The shear force of the SDOF model was obtained
by performing a time history analysis based on the bottom slab ac-
celerations and the damping ratio of 4%. Fig. 12 compares the pre-
dicted shear force with the measured shear force. The marks
indicate the ratio of the tested shear force to the predicted shear
force of each test. The solid line represents the mean value, while
the dashed line represents the þ1σ value.
For Specimen A1.0, the average ratio of the tested base shear
force was 1.06, and the logarithmic standard deviation was 0.158.
In the case of A0.6, the average ratio was 0.99, and the logarithmic
standard deviation was 0.119. The average ratio of the base shear is
slightly lower than the average ratio of top slab acceleration.
Test Results under a PGA of 0.4−1.0g
After performing the test for the PGA of the 0.1g level, additional
tests were performed under EQ 3, increasing the PGA to 0.4, 0.7,
and 1.0g. As the PGA increased, some damage occurred in the
specimens. Table 3 shows the changes in the natural frequency
of Specimens A1.0 and A0.6. The natural frequency of the test
specimens was estimated from the transmissibility function based
on the results of a resonance test that was conducted after each in-
elastic test. As the damage of the specimen increased, the natural
frequency decreased from 9.13 to 7.58 Hz for A1.0 and from 14.77
to 12.61 Hz for A0.6.
Fig. 13 shows the elastic response spectrum (with a damping
ratio 4%) based on the measured bottom slab acceleration and
the measured maximum acceleration of the top slab under EQ3
of PGA ¼ 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0g. The responses were normalized by
the PGA of each test case. In all test cases, the measured response
acceleration was less than the response spectrum estimated using
the damping ratio of 4%. The result indicates that, unlike the case of
the PGA of the 0.1g test, the damping ratio of the specimens was
greater than 4%.
Fig. 14 shows the strain distribution of the vertical reinforcement
at PGA ¼ 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0g. In all test results, the maximum
strain did not exceed the yielding strain (2.2 × 10−3 mm=mm).
The maximum strains were 1.41 × 10−3 mm=mm and 1.03 ×
10−3 mm=mm for specimens A1.0 and A0.6, respectively, which are
64.1% and 46.8% of the yield strain.
Evaluation of Damping Ratio
Estimation Based on Top Slab Acceleration
(PGA of 0.1g)
Figs. 9–12 show that the predictions using the 4% damping ratio
generally agree with the measured test results. However, Fig. 8
shows that the damping ratios estimated by the half-power band-
width method (Chopra 1995) and prediction error method (Astrom
1979) revealed significant variations, ranging 1%–6%. Thus, for
better prediction of wall responses, the damping ratio needs to be
accurately estimated.
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Maximum response spectrum based on bottom slab accelerations versus measured top slab accelerations (PGA of 0.1g): (a) EQ 1 (UHS); (b) EQ 2
(RG1.60); (c) EQ 3 (Imperial Valley); (d) EQ 4 (ChiChi-1); (e) EQ 5 (ChiChi-2); (f) EQ 6 (ChiChi-3); (g) EQ 7 (ChiChi-4); and (h) EQ 8 (912).

To seek the damping ratio for best predictions, a numerical analy-
sis was performed, changing the damping ratios from 0.0% to 5.0%
with 0.1 intervals. For an accurate numerical analysis, a finite-
element (FE) model was used, rather than the simplified SDOF
model. For the finite-element analysis of the test specimen, the
eight-node plane stress model shown in Fig. 15 was used. The load
cells in the specimen were modeled as horizontal and vertical elastic
spring supports using the stiffness of the load cells that satisfies the
natural frequencies of all the specimens. The superimposed mass on
the top slab was modeled as a rigid body. Using modal damping, the
damping ratios of each mode was assumed to be the same. For ex-
ample, in the case of a damping ratio ¼ 3.0%, the modal damping

© ASCE 04020295-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. RMS response spectrum based on bottom slab accelerations versus top slab accelerations (PGA of 0.1g): (a) EQ 1 (UHS); (b) EQ 2
(RG1.60); (c) EQ 3 (Imperial Valley); (d) EQ 4 (ChiChi-1); (e) EQ 5 (ChiChi-2); (f) EQ 6 (ChiChi-3); (g) EQ 7 (ChiChi-3); and (h) EQ 8 (912).

ratio of 3.0% was applied to all dynamic modes. To verify the val-
idity of the FE model, the natural frequencies of the FE models were
compared with those of the test specimens. The results are shown in
Table 4. A time history analysis was performed for the finite-element
model using the acceleration measured on the floor of the shaking
table. Fig. 16 compares the time history accelerations of the test re-
sults and the FE analysis results under EQ 1.
Fig. 17 shows the ratios of the test result to prediction, according
to the variation of the damping ratio. When the average ratio of the
test results to predictions was 1.00 (i.e., for best prediction), the
damping ratio was 3.5%, and the logarithmic standard deviation
was 0.267 (minus-one logarithmic standard deviation ¼ 2.7%);
however, the damping ratio varied significantly, according to the
specimen. In the case of Specimen A1.0, the damping ratio for

© ASCE 04020295-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Measured maximum base shear force at wall bottom (PGA of 0.1g): (a) base shear of A1.0; and (b) base shear of A0.6.

Fig. 12. Ratio of tested maximum base shear to predicted maximum base shear (4% damping ratio, PGA of 0.1g): (a) A1.0; and (b) A0.6.

Table 3. Natural frequency of test specimens (PGA of 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, For earthquakes with high-frequency contents, the damping ra-
and 1.0g) tio was relatively low: the damping ratios for the best prediction of
Natural the maximum acceleration were 2.0% and 4.0% for A1.0 and A0.6,
Test Test Superimposed
frequency (Hz) respectively, and the average result of the two specimens was 3.0%.
set no. PGA (g) mass (tonf) A1.0 A0.6 Thus, for high-frequency earthquakes, the damping ratio for the
best predictions was decreased by 14% (from 3.5% to 3.0%),
6 0.1 21.68 9.13 14.77
26% (from 2.7% to 2.0%), and 11% (from 4.5% to 4.0%) for all
7 0.4 21.68 8.63 14.49
8 0.7 21.68 8.15 13.91 the specimens, A1.0, and A0.6, respectively.
9 1.0 21.68 7.58 12.61 The variation of the RMS top acceleration ratio was similar to the
results of the maximum acceleration in Fig. 17. The damping ratio
for the best predictions was 3.4%, and the logarithmic standard
deviation was 0.218 (minus-one SD value ¼ 2.7%). In the case
the best prediction was 2.7% (logarithmic standard deviation ¼ of Specimen A1.0, the damping ratio was 3.0% (logarithmic stan-
0.270, minus-one SD value ¼ 2.1%). In the case of Specimen dard deviation ¼ 0.244, minus-one SD value ¼ 2.4%). In the case
A0.6, the damping ratio for the best predictions was 4.5% (loga- of Specimen A0.6, the best estimated damping ratio was 4.0% (log-
rithmic standard deviation ¼ 0.242, minus-one SD value ¼ 3.5%). arithmic standard deviation ¼ 0.180, minus-one SD value ¼ 3.3%).
(See the section “Damping Ratio for Dynamic Amplification” for a For earthquakes with high-frequency contents, the damping
reason for the higher damping ratio for A1.0). ratios for RMS accelerations were decreased by 20% (from 3.0%

© ASCE 04020295-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Normalized response spectra based on bottom slab accelerations versus normalized measured top slab accelerations under EQ 3 (PGA ¼ 0.4,
0.7, and 1.0g): (a) A1.0; and (b) A0.6.

Fig. 14. Measured maximum strains of vertical bars in specimens under EQ 3 (PGA ¼ 0.1, 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0g).

Fig. 15. Finite-element model for investigation of damping ratio: (a) test set-up; (b) FEM, two-dimensional view; and (c) FEM, three-dimensional
view.

to 2.4%), 11% (from 3.4% to 3.0%), and 0% for all the specimens,
A1.0, and A0.6, respectively.
Estimation Based on Base Shear Force (PGA of 0.1g)
The damping ratio for the best prediction of the base shear was
investigated. The same finite-element analysis model shown in
Fig. 15 was used. Tables 5–8 compare the results for various test
cases.
The result was similar to the acceleration result. The damping
ratio for the best prediction of the base shear was 3.6%, and the
logarithmic standard deviation was 0.180 (minus-one SD value ¼
3.0%). In the case of Specimen A1.0, the average damping ratio for
the best agreement was 2.8% (logarithmic standard deviation ¼
0.158, minus-one SD value ¼ 2.4%). In the case of Specimen
A0.6, the average damping ratio was 4.8% (logarithmic standard
deviation was 0.176, minus-one SD value ¼ 4.0%).
The result for the earthquakes with high-frequency contents
was similar to that of the maximum acceleration: the damping ra-
tio for the high-frequency earthquakes was lower. The damping
ratios for the best prediction of the base shear for A1.0, A0.6,
and the average results of the two specimens were 2.6%, 4.2%,

© ASCE 04020295-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

 Table 4. Comparison between the frequencies of the test result and FE and 3.2%, respectively. Thus, for high-frequency earthquakes, the
analysis model damping ratios for A1.0, A0.6, and both specimens were de-
Natural frequency (Hz) creased by 7% (from 2.8% to 2.6%), 13% (from 4.8% to 4.2%),
and 11% (from 3.6% to 3.2%), respectively.
A1.0 A0.6
Test Superimposed
set no. mass (tonf) Test result FE model Test result FE model
1 0 29.58 29.05 49.42 49.71
Estimation of Damping Ratio for PGAs of 0.4, 0.7,
2 4.27 20.01 19.26 31.44 30.58 and 1.0g
3 7.28 16.65 16.01 26.29 26.41 A finite-element analysis was performed for the test specimen
4 10.88 13.57 13.69 21.83 21.94 under EQ 3 with a PGA of 0.4, 0.7, and 1.0g. As the PGA in-
5 14.48 — — 18.34 18.73
creased, concrete cracking occurred in the test specimens, which
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 21.68 9.13 9.20 14.77 15.18

decreased the natural frequency. To simulate the lower natural fre-
Note: In the FE analysis, using modal damping, the damping ratios of all quency, the elastic modulus of concrete was decreased from 3.0 to
dynamic modes were assumed to be the same. 1.8 GPa for A1.0 and from 3.0 to 2.2 GPa for A0.6. For the best

Fig. 16. Time history accelerations of test results and FE analysis results for EQ 1: (a) A1.0 with 0 t mass; (b) A1.0 with 4.27 t mass; (c) A1.0 with
7.28 t mass; (d) A1.0 with 10.88 t mass; (e) A1.0 with 21.68 t mass; (f) A0.6 with 0 t mass; (g) A0.6 with 4.27 t mass; (h) A0.6 with 7.28 t mass;
(i) A0.6 with 10.88 t mass; (j) A0.6 with 14.48 t mass; and (k) A0.6 with 21.68 t mass.

© ASCE 04020295-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

 damping ratios were lower than those proposed by NP-6041
(Reed et al. 1991), EPRI (2018), and the Regulatory Guide 1.61
(USNRC 2007) by 10% for a concrete structure with yielding,
7% for Level 2 (concrete structures with severe cracking), and 7%
for an SSE level, respectively. In the test specimens, there were no
major cracks or reinforcing bar yielding. Thus, the damping ratios
were lower than the values proposed by current guidelines.

Damping Ratio for Dynamic Amplification

In Fig. 17, the average damping ratio for all structural responses
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and input earthquakes was investigated. However, for the safety

Fig. 17. Variation of predicted maximum top slab acceleration ratio
according to damping ratio (PGA of 0.1g): (a) all; (b) A1.0; and
(c) A0.6.
prediction of maximum acceleration under an EQ3 of PGA ¼ 0.1,
0.4, 0.7, and 1.0g, the damping ratio was increased to 4.0%, 4.6%,
5.4%, and 6.0% for A1.0, and 3.3%, 3.4%, 4.6%, and 4.8% for
A0.6. In the case of A1.0 with a higher aspect ratio, the damping
ratio was increased due to flexural cracking. Nevertheless, the
evaluation of structures and equipment, the damping ratio corre-
sponding to large dynamic amplification may be more important.
Fig. 18 shows the damping ratio for the best prediction of maxi-
mum acceleration, according to dynamic amplification. The dy-
namic amplification was defined as the ratio of the maximum
top slab acceleration to the maximum bottom slab acceleration
(i.e., maximum input acceleration). The marks in Fig. 18 indicate
the damping ratio values that were used to best predict the mea-
sured maximum acceleration of the top slab. The white circular
marks represent the result of A1.0 (PGA ¼ 0.1g), while the white
rectangular marks represent the result of A0.6 (PGA ¼ 0.1g). The
black marks represent the results of A1.0 and A0.6 under PGA ¼
0.4, 0.7, and 1.0g (A1.0_Final and A0.6_Final). The dynamic
amplification indicates the ratio of the measured maximum top slab
acceleration to bottom slab acceleration. Figs. 18(a and b) show the
variation of the damping ratio under earthquakes with and without
high-frequency contents.
In this test, the natural frequencies of the majority of the spec-
imens were greater than 10 Hz. Thus, under high-frequency earth-
quakes, the dynamic amplification reached 3.0, while under
earthquakes without high-frequency contents, the dynamic ampli-
fication was less [Fig. 18(b)]. More importantly, as the dynamic
amplification increased, the scatter of the damping ratio decreased,
and the average damping ratio was less than 3%. This result indi-
cates that, when structural damage is not significant, in the range of
high dynamic amplification, the average damping ratio should be
limited to 3%. In particular, this trend of the damping ratio was the
same for both A1.0 and A0.6 specimens. In Figs. 18(a and b), in the
range of the dynamic amplification exceeding 1.5, the mean value
of the damping ratio was 2.4%, and the logarithmic standard
deviation was 0.147 (minus-one SD value ¼ 2.1%). As shown
in Fig. 18, the dynamic amplification of A1.0 with a higher aspect

Table 5. Estimation of damping ratio based on maximum values of top slab acceleration (PGA of 0.1g)
Frequency Earthquakes with Earthquakes without
contents All earthquakes high-frequency contents high-frequency contents
Specimens All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%)
Mean 3.5 2.7 4.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.3 3.6 5.3
Standard deviation 2.7 (0.267) 2.1 (0.270) 3.5 (0.242) 2.2 (0.309) 1.5 (0.309) 3.0 (0.281) 3.5 (0.195) 2.9 (0.205) 4.5 (0.166)

Table 6. Estimation of damping ratio based on maximum values of base shear force (PGA of 0.1g)
Frequency Earthquakes with Earthquakes without
contents All earthquakes high-frequency contents high-frequency contents
Specimens All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%)
Mean 3.6 2.8 4.8 3.2 2.6 4.2 4.4 3.0 5.8
Standard deviation 3.0 (0.180) 2.4 (0.158) 4.0 (0.176) 2.6 (0.198) 2.2 (0.174) 3.5 (0.192) 3.8 (0.147) 2.6 (0.132) 5.1 (0.130)

© ASCE 04020295-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

 Table 7. Estimation of damping ratio based on RMS values of top slab acceleration (PGA of 0.1g)
Frequency Earthquakes with Earthquakes without
contents All earthquakes high-frequency contents high-frequency contents
Specimens All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%)
Mean 3.4 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.4 4.0 4.0 3.4 4.0
Standard deviation 2.7 (0.218) 2.4 (0.244) 3.3 (0.180) 2.4 (0.238) 1.8 (0.266) 3.4 (0.174) 3.3 (0.182) 2.9 (0.166) 3.3 (0.186)

Table 8. Estimation of damping ratio based on RMS values of base shear force (PGA of 0.1g)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Frequency Earthquakes with Earthquakes without

contents All earthquakes high-frequency contents high-frequency contents
Specimens All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%) All (%) A1.0 (%) A0.6 (%)
Mean 3.2 2.4 4.6 3.0 2.2 4.2 3.6 2.6 5.4
Standard deviation 2.7 (0.171) 2.1 (0.153) 4.1 (0.113) 2.7 (0.102) 1.8 (0.180) 3.7 (0.121) 3.2 (0.129) 2.3 (0.106) 4.9 (0.102)

Fig. 18. Variation of damping ratio for best predictions according to dynamic amplification: under earthquakes with (a) high-frequency contents; and
(b) without high-frequency contents.

ratio was greater than that of A0.6. This is why the average damp-
ing ratio of A1.0 was estimated to be greater than that of A0.6.
Conclusions
To evaluate the damping ratio of squat reinforced concrete walls
without severe concrete cracking, shaking table tests were per-
formed for wall specimens A1.0 and A0.6 with aspect ratios of 1.0
and 0.6. In the shaking table tests, the natural frequency of the spec-
imens was changed using superimposed masses on the top slab.
Eight earthquake input motions adjusted to a 0.1g PGA level were
used for each test set. The PGA measured at the bottom slab of the
specimens ranged from 0.08 to 0.16g, and the average was 0.12g.
The damping ratio of the specimens was estimated by comparing
the test results with numerical predictions of the top slab acceler-
ation and base shear force. The major findings of the present study
are summarized as follows:
• The average damping ratio, which was obtained using the half-
power bandwidth method, was 3.5%, 2.5%, and 4.2% for all
specimens, A1.0, and A0.6, respectively.
• In general, the response spectrum predicted by the SDOF model
analysis using a 4% damping ratio specified in the current
guidelines agreed with the measured top slab accelerations.
• In the natural frequency range of 10–20 Hz dynamic frequen-
cies, the measured accelerations tended to be lower than the pre-
dicted response spectra using a 4% damping ratio. Further
studies are required to confirm the results.
• For better predictions of test results, a finite-element analysis was
performed, changing the damping ratio. The result showed that
for the best prediction of the top slab acceleration, the average
damping ratio was 3.5%, and the corresponding logarithmic stan-
dard deviation was 0.267. In the cases of A1.0 and A0.6, the aver-
age damping ratio was 2.7% and 4.5%, respectively.
• When the dynamic amplification of the structure response was
greater than 1.5, the damping ratio was limited to lower values
with small scatters for both Specimens A1.0 and A0.6; the mean
of the damping ratios was 2.4%, and the logarithmic standard
deviation was 0.15 (minus-one SD value ¼ 2.1%). In the case of
a dynamic amplification of less than 1.5, the mean was 5.5%,
and the logarithmic standard deviation was 0.76 (minus-one
SD value ¼ 2.6%).
The results of the present study were obtained from the behavior
of isolated walls. Thus, to confirm the damping ratio of actual nu-
clear power plant buildings, wall structures with more complicated
configurations need to be investigated.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Tech-
nology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) and the Ministry of

© ASCE 04020295-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295

 Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea
(No. 20201510100010).
References
Astrom, K. J. 1979. “Maximum likelihood and prediction error methods.”
IFAC Proc. Volumes 12 (8): 551–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474
-6670(17)53976-2.
Chopra, A. K. 1995. Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to
earthquake engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2018. Seismic fragility and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY LIB on 11/02/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
seismic margin guidance for seismic probabilistic risk assessments.
Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
Hashimoto, P. S., L. W. Tiong, L. K. Steele, J. J. Johnson, and J. L. Beck.
1993. Stiffness and damping properties of a low aspect ratio shear wall
building based on recorded earthquake responses. No. NUREG/
CR-6012. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ibrahim, S. R. 1977. “Random decrement technique for modal identifica-
tion of structures.” J. Spacecraft Rockets 14 (11): 696–700. https://doi
.org/10.2514/3.57251.
Jeary, A. P. 1986. “Damping in tall buildings—A mechanism and a pre-
dictor.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 14 (5): 733–750. https://doi
.org/10.1002/eqe.4290140505.
Kennedy, R., and J. Reed. 1994. Methodology for developing seismic
fragilities EPRI TR-103959. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research
Institute.
Martinelli, P., and F. C. Filippou. 2009. “Simulation of the shaking table
test of a seven-story shear wall building.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.
38 (5): 587–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.897.
© ASCE 04020295-15
J. Struct. Eng., 2021, 147(1): 04020295
Reed, J. W., R. P. Kennedy, D. R. Butterner, I. M. Idriss, D. P. Moore, T.
Barr, and J. E. Smith. 1991. A methodology for assessment of nuclear
power plant seismic margin. No. EPRI-NP-6041-M-REV.1. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
Satake, N., K. I. Suda, T. Arakawa, A. Sasaki, and Y. Tamura. 2003.
“Damping evaluation using full-scale data of buildings in Japan.”
J. Struct. Eng. 129 (4): 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2003)129:4(470).
Suda, K., N. Satake, J. Ono, and A. Sasaki. 1996. “Damping properties of
buildings in Japan.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 59 (2–3): 383–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(96)00018-9.
Thompson, D. 2015. Railway noise and vibration: Mechanisms, modeling
and means of control. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
USNRC (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1973. Design response
spectra for seismic design of nuclear power plants. Regulatory Guide
1.60. Revision 1, 6. North Bethesda, MD: USNRC.
USNRC (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. A performance-
based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion.
Regulatory guide 1.208. Revision 1, 1–21. North Bethesda, MD:
USNRC.
USNRC (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007. Damping values
for seismic analysis for nuclear power plants, regulatory guide 1.61.
Revision 1, 4. North Bethesda, MD: USNRC.
Wilson, E. L. 2000. Static and dynamic analysis of structures, a physical
approach with emphasis on earthquake engineering. Berkeley, CA:
Computers and Structures.
Wu, B. 2015. “A correction of the half-power bandwidth method for esti-
mating damping.” Arch. Appl. Mech. 85 (2): 315–320. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00419-014-0908-0.
J. Struct. Eng.