Experiments To Study Seismic D

INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo

graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI films the text directly from the original or
copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies
are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type
of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the
quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print,
colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs,
print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these
will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material
had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re

produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also
photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book. These are also available as
one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and white photographic print for an additional
charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have
been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher
quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are
available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.
University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information Com pany
3 0 0 North Z ee b Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/7 6 1 -4 70 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O rd er N u m b er 8916215
Experiments to study seismic drift o f reinforced concrete

structures
Bonacci, John Francis, Ph.D.

University of Illinois at U.-bana-Champaign, 1989
UMI
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
EXPERIMENTS TO STUDY SEISMIC DRIFT
OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
BY
JOHN FRANCIS BONACCI
B.S., University of Illinois, 1981

M.S., University of Illinois, 1982
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1989
Urbana, Illinois
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
TH E GRADUATE COLLEGE
JANUARY 1989
W E H E R E B Y R E C O M M E N D T H A T T H E T H E S IS B Y
____________________________JOHN- FRANCIS BONACCI_________________________________
E N T IT L E D EXPERIMENTS TO STUDY SEISMIC DRIFT OF REINFORCED______________
CONCRETE STRUCTURES______________________________
BE A C C E P T E D IN P A R T IA L F U L F IL L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U IR E M E N T S FO R
T H E D E G R E E O F__________________ DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY_______________________
--
Director of Thesis Research
Head of D«y«rtment
C om m itte e on F in a l E x a m in a tio n !
Chairperson
tfdU
t Required for doctor’s degree but not for master’s.
o-r.i7
iii
ABSTRACT
EXPERIMENTS TO STUDY SEISMIC DRIFT

OF REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
John Francis Bonacci, Ph.D.

Department of Civil Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1989
Mete A. Sozen, Advisor
Earthquake-simulation tests of fifteen reinforced concrete single-degree-of-
freedom systems were made to provide benchmark data for studying nonlinear
drift response. Test variables included strength and initial period of the
specimen, and frequency content and intensity of simulated earthquake motions.
Analysis of measured response identified three tools for estimating seismic
drift of structures. An idealized linear response spectrum for a damping ratio
of 0.02 can be used to provide a quick check of overall drift or to compare
structural alternatives. The substitute-structure method provides member
design forces that are based on prescribed drift limits and control of damage.
For nonlinear response history analysis using Takeda's hysteresis rules, values
of five analytical parameters that gave the best results were identified.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study relied on financial support from the National Science Foundation
under grant ECE-8418691. Data storage and analysis made extensive use of a DEC
VAX 11/750 computer, which was acquired under grantCEE-8402176.
The author is infinitely grateful to his advisor, Professor M. A. Sozen,
whose masterful giving and taking of intellectual rope was crucial to the
completion of this thesis.
Professors D. P. Abrams, W. J. Hall, K. D. Hjelmstad, and S. L. Wood are
thanked for their insightful criticism and valuable suggestions.
The success of the experiments relied in part on the suggestions and labor
of many, including A. E. Schultz, S. L. Wood, R. R. Lopez, M. 0. Eberhard, A.
Johnson, K. Kleemeyer, and C. Bartholomew.
D. Bever is thanked for preparing the manuscript, and H. P. Waltherforhis
timely contributions to automated production of graphics.
My wife Jill, to whom this work is dedicated, provided continuous
encouragement, support, patience, and an oasis of relaxation when it was most
needed.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ...................................... 3
2.1 Experimental Objectives ............................... 3

2.2 Test S e t u p .......................................... 4
2.3 Experimental P l a n .................................... 6
2.4 Overview of Experimental W o r k ........................... 12
3. MEASURED RESPONSE OF TEST SPECIMENS.......................... 15
3.1 Conventions............................................15
3.2 Base M o t i o n s .......................................... 17
3.3 Specimen Response .................................... 18
3.4 Summary of Response.................................... 35
4. ANALYSIS OF MEASURED DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE .................. 38
4.1 Naming of Variables.................................... 39

4.2 Dimensionless Products .............................. 46
4.3 Relationship of Drift Response to Test Variables ....... 48
4.4 Summary............................................... 51
5. GENERALIZING THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS INRELATION TO .......... 53

LINEAR RESPONSE SPECTRA
5.1 Idealized Linear Response ............................ 53

5.2 Dimensionless Classification ......................... 56
5.3 Summary............................................... 58
6. CALIBRATION OF TWO NUMERICAL TECHNIQUES...................... 60

FOR NONLINEAR RESPONSE
6.1 Response History Calculations ......................... 60

6.2 Substitute-Structure Method .......................... 72
6.3 Summary . ■............................................. 77
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
CHAPTER Page
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................... 79
7.1 Summary............................................... 79
7.2 Conclusions............................................ 82
7.3 Closing Discussion .................................. 87
TABLES............................................................ 91
F I G U R E S ......................................................... 120
APPENDIX
A. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL W O R K ............................224
B. SYNCHRONIZATION OF RECORDED SIGNALS ........................ 279
C. MEASURED RESPONSE OF TEST SPECIMENS......................... 290
LIST OF REFERENCES................................................. 377
V I T A ............................................................. 380
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Assumed Properties of Test Specimens .......................... 91
2.2 Parametric Make-up of Test Specimens .......................... 93
2.3 Experimental P l a n ........................................... 94
3.1 Comparison of Measured Spectral Quantities with Experimental

Plan V a l u e s ............................................... 95
3.2 Summary of Response Maxima - Earthquake Simulation Tests ........ 96
3.3 Parametric Key to Figures of Specimen Response ................. 100
3.4 Summary of Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes ................... 101
3.5 Summary of Free-Vibration Tests .............................. 105
4.1 Numerical Values of Variables for Analysis of Drift Response . . . 106
5.1 Ground Motion Parameters for Idealized Spectra ................. 107
5.2 Normalization of Test Results for Comparison with Idealized

Spectrum..................................................... 108
5.3 Dimensionless Ratios for Response Classification ............... Ill
6.1 Assumed Transformed Section Properties ........................ 112
6.2 Tally of Parametric Values for Ten Best Calculations..............113
6.3 Organization of Bond Stress Parameter with Respect to

Experimental Variables ...................................... 114
6.4 Organization of Post-Yield Slope Parameter with Respect to

Experimental Variables ...................................... 115
6.5 Organization of Unloading Slope Exponent Parameter with

Respect to Experimental Variables ........................... 116
6.6 Organization of Softened Unloading Parameter with Respect

to Experimental Variables ................................... 117
6.7 Organization of Damping Parameter with Respect to Experimental

Variables....................................................118
6.8 Summary of Substitute Structure Calculations ................... 119
A.l Measured Beam Cross-Section Dimensions ........................ 242
viii
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)
Table Page
A.2 Measured Concrete Cover for Beam Longitudinal Steel ........... 243
A. 3 Measured Weight of Test Specimens.............................. 244
A.4 Measured Properties of Concrete .............................. 245
A.5 Polynomial Fit to Measured Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain

Relationship ................................................ 246
A.6 Measured Properties of Flexural Reinforcement ................. 247
A.7 Measured Properties of Auxiliary Reinforcement ................. 247
A.8 Chronology of Experiments ................................... 248
A.9 Manufacturer's Ratings - Accelerometers ...................... 249
A.10 Manufacturer's Ratings - LVDTs ................................ 249
A.11 Data Acquisition Configurations .............................. 250
B.l Filter Delay Test R e s u l t s ..................................... 285
B.2 Corrections for Moment-Rotation Relationships ................. 285
B.3 Corrections for Substitute Damping Computation ................. 286
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Photograph of Test Setup....................................... 120
2.2 Specimen Response Idealization ................................ 121
2.3 Beam Element Idealization......................................122
2.4 Specimen Configuration Variables .............................. 123
2.5 Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra for Original

Earthquake Records Scaled to 1 G ............................... 124
2.6 Summary of Hypothesis from Analytical Study by Shimazaki

and Sozen [22]................................................127
2.7 Development of Specimen Capacity .............................. 128
2.8 Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra for Test Base

Motions Scaled to 1 G ........................................ 129
2.9 Energy Demand Response Spectra for Test Base Motions Scaled
to 1 G ....................................................... 132
2.10 Layout of Experimental Plan by Period and Strength Ratios .... 135
2.11 Beam Section.................................................. 136
3.1 Comparison of Measured Castaic Platform Motion to Reference

Signal....................................................... 137
3.2 Comparison of Measured El Centro Platform Motion to Reference

Signal....................................................... 139
3.3 Comparison of Measured Santa Barbara Platform Motion to

Reference Signal ............................................ 143
3.4 History of Response of Specimen B-01 During Run1 ............... 147
X
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)
Figure Page
3.11 History of Response of Specimen B-09 During Run 1 ............... 154
3.12 History of Response of Specimen B-10 During Run 1 ............... 155
3.13 Effect of Time Skew on Moment-Rotation Relationship............. 156
3.14 Effect of Time Skew on Apparent Stiffness...................... 160
3.15 Effect of Time Skew on Calculated Energy Dissipation............. 161
3.16 Moment-Rotation Relationship for Test B-01 During Run1 ........... 162
3.17 Moment-Rotation Relationship for Test B-02 During Run1 ........... 163
3.18 Moment-Rotation Relationship for Test B-05 During Run 1 164
3.25 Variation of Apparent Stiffness with Peak Rotation........... 171
3.26 Energy Retention for Softened Cycles, Test B-02 During Run 1 . . . 172
3.27 Energy Retention for Softened Cycles, Test B-05 During Run 1 . . . 173
3.28 Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes ............................ 174
3.29 Comparison of Apparent Yield Moments with Static Estimates . . . . 188
3.30 Comparison of Peak Moments with Static Bound................. 189
3.31 Effect of Varied Span Length on Observed D a m a g e ............. 190
3.32 Effect of Varied Strength on Observed Damage ................... 191
3.33 Comparison of Measured to Calculated Initial Frequencies ........ 192
3.34 Evaluation of Damping Coefficient from Free-Vibration Tests . . . 193
xi
Figure Page
4.1 Properties of Linear Energy Response Spectra ................... 194
4.2 Determination of Characteristic Period ........................ 196
4.3 Variation of Drift Expressions with Strength-Related

Independent Variables ...................................... 197
4.4 Variation of Drift Expressions with Period-Related Independent

Variables................................................... 198
4.5 Variation of Drift Expressions with Dimensionless Independent

Variables................................................... 199
4.6 Variation of the Ratio of Measured to Computed Linear

Displacement Response with Rotation Ductility ................ 200
4.7 Variation of Displacement Ductility with Strength Ratio ........ 201
5.1 Relative Frequency Content of Base Motions ..................... 202
5.2 Idealization of Linear Response Spectrum ...................... 203
5.3 Evaluation of Idealized Spectral Shape ........................ 204
5.4 Comparison of Normalized Test Results with Idealized Linear

Spectrum..................................................... 205
5.5 Variation of Displacement Ratio with Sum of Period and

Strength Ratio ............................................. 206
5.6 Division of Period Ratio-Strength Ratio Plane by

Displacement Ratio Criterion ................................. 207
5.7 Comparison of Suggested Dividing Lines for Period Ratio-

Strength Ratio Plane ........................................ 208
6.1 Takeda Hysteresis Model ..................................... 209
6.2 Assumed Moment-Curvature Relationship ........................ 210
6.3 Uncracked Transformed Section ............................... 211
6.4 Fully-Cracked Transformed Section ............................ 211
6.5 Concrete Tensile Strength ................................... 212
6.6 Concrete Secant Modulus ..................................... 212
xii
Figure Page
6.7 Curvature Distributions ..................................... 213
6.8 Member Model for Support Deformation Analysis ................. 214
6.9 Member Model for Panel Deformation Analysis ................... 215
6.10 Panel Indentation Mechanism .................................. 216
6.11 Bar Slip Mechanism............................................. 216
6.12 Frequency-Domain Error Index .................................. 217
6.13 Comparison of Calculated to Measured Response ................. 218
6.14 Relative Velocity Baseline Correction by Digital Filtering . . . . 220
6.15 Stiffness of Substitute Linear System ........................ 221
6.16 Evaluation of Estimated Displacements from Substitute-

Structure Method ............................................ 222
6.17 Correlation of Substitute Damping with Rotation Ductility .... 223
A.l Test S p e c i m e n ................................................ 251
A.2 Beam Cross-Section Dimension S u r v e y ............................ 252
A.3 Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain Relationship................. 253
A.4 Steel Tensile Stress-Strain Relationship for Flexural

Reinforcement .............................................. 268
A. 5 Beam and Panel Reinforcement Details............................ 269
A.6 Formwork Details ............................................ 270
A.7 Panel Base Hinge Connection Detail ............................ 271
A. 8 Beam End Supr rt D e t a i l ....................................... 272
A.9 Attached Steel Weight Details ............................... 273
A. 10 Panel Lateral Bracing Detail....................................274
A. 11 Beam End Lateral Bracing D e t a i l ................................ 275
A. 12 Free-Vibration Test S e t u p ..................................... 276
xiii
Figure Page
A.13 Layout of Instrumentation ................................... 277
A. 14 Test Data Signal P a t h .........................................278
B.l Filter Delay Test S e t u p ....................................... 287
B.2 Filter Delay Test Oscilloscope Display ........................ 288
B.3 Filter Amplitude Response Function ............................ 289
B.4 Time Skew Correction by Linear Interpolation.....................289
C.l Measured Response of Specimen B-01 During Run1 ................. 291
C.2 Measured Response of Specimen B-01 During Run2 ................. 293
C.ll Measured Response of Specimen B-05 During Run2 ................. 309
xiv
Figure Page
C.21 Measured Response of Specimen B-08 During Run/ ................. 329
C.29 Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run1 ................. 345
C.40 Measured Response of Specimen E-14 During Run2 ................. 367
XV
Figure Page
C.43 Measured Response of Specimen B-15 During Run 2 373
.
C.44 Measured Response of Specimen B-15 During Run 3 375
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Research in the last three decades has established guidelines that increase
the likelihood of survival for buildings shaken by strong earthquakes.
Knowledge of topics such as captive columns, soft stories, strong column-weak
beam design, and detailing for enhanced deformability has reached designers
through building code regulations and publications. Though it is not quite
possible to guarantee the absolute survival of a building, the center of
question in earthquake-resistant design is shifting from prevention of collapse
to serviceability issues (limitation of motion and damage to tolerable levels).
Building codes focus on provision of minimum strength as a basis for
earthquake-resistant design, though inelastic action is permitted in order to
dissipate energy. The tie between structural resistance and deformation in the
dynamic domain assumes knowledge of energy response characteristics. While
code regulations may result in serviceable designs, evaluation of peak response
is unrealistic.
The survival and serviceability of a structure can be addressed by
considering ductility and drift response in design. Such an alternative
approach requires a simple, reliable method for estimating drift response of
structures for which inelastic action is permitted. The accuracy of the method
for estimating drift should not rely on any more accuracy in earthquake
prediction than is necessary for the traditional strength-based design
approach.
This study explores methods of estimating drift response of reinforced
concrete structures to strong earthquakes, with the goal of expanding design
capabilities to include the control of damage in buildings. Dynamic tests of
fifteen statically determinate, single-degree-of-freedom, reinforced concrete
systems provide benchmark data for evaluating analytical methods. Basic
properties of structures (strength and period) and earthquakes (frequency
content and intensity) were varied in the experimental program.
A summary of the philosophy, design, and execution of the experimental
program is given in Chapter 2, with supporting detail provided in Appendix A.
Test measurements are presented in Chapter 3, which contains tabular summaries
of all test runs and graphic presentation of nine selected runs. Appendix B
describes synchronization of separate channels for moment-rotation
relationships, and Appendix C contains response plots for all test runs.
Measured peak drift response is studied for correlations with independent
variables in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, drift data are compared with an
idealized linear displacement spectrum. In the first part of Chapter 6, a
series of response history calculations is made with Takeda's hysteresis rules
[24] to identify the most consistent values for five analytical parameters. In
the second part of Chapter 6, calculations of equivalent viscous damping and
apparent period are used to evaluate the foundations of the substitute-
structure method [21].
Chapter 7 provides a brief summary of all phases of the study, statement of
experimental observations and conclusions, and closing discussion.
3
CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Fifteen reinforced concrete oscillators were constructed and subjected to
simulated earthquake base motion in the experimental phase of this study. The
test program was designed as a fundamental study of inelastic displacement
response of reinforced concrete systems to earthquakes. Four experimental
parameters were considered: specimen strength and initial period, and base
motion frequency content and intensity. This chapter describes the
objectives, design and execution of the test program. Details of the test
setup are discussed at length in Appendix A.
2.1 Experimental Objectives
Much of what is known about the response of structures to earthquake loading
has been expressed within the frame of a response spectrum. The spectrum
reflects a specific aspect of the response (displacement, velocity,
acceleration, or energy, for example) of a primitive oscillator (one having
only a single concentrated mass, a spring and an energy dissipator) for which
the period is varied. Response spectra are most often computed to represent
the response of linear systems to a specific base motion. Spectra for
inelastic response have also been derived by employing various models of
inelastic behavior of materials.
The response spectrum is the basis for many of the analytical postulates
about inelastic displacement response. Most notable among these analytical
studies are those of Newmark and his colleagues [17,26,27]. His calculations
indicated that, for many types of base motions, linear displacements are
preserved for elastoplastic systems with initial periods falling in the regions
of nearly-constant displacement and nearly-constant velocity response. In the
region of nearly-constant acceleration response, however, it was demonstrated
that the displacement response of the inelastic system is likely to be
significantly more than that of an equivalent linear system.
In this study, the physical analog to the primitive oscillator that forms
the basis of response spectra is constructed. The objectives of the
experiments are in many ways parallel to the action of deriving a response
spectrum. The problem at hand is to determine, through experiment rather than
computation, the inelastic displacement response of the fundamental oscillator
when its properties are varied. The obvious benefit of this experimental
approach to defining the "spectrum" is that the inelastic behavior is
controlled by natural rules rather than numerical models of such. So here,
both the response and the governing rules may be observed.
Fifteen reinforced concrete single degree-of-freedom oscillators were
constructed and tested. The specific objectives of the test series were: (a)
to conduct a parametric study of inelastic drift (or displacement) response,
and (b) to develop fundamental experimental information on the hysteretic
response of reinforced concrete under simple but dynamic loadings. The test
setup was designed to fulfill these experimental objectives and provide a
physical expression of the fundamental oscillator upon which response spectra
are based.
2.2 Test Setup
2.2.1 Test Specimen
The selected test specimen configuration is shown in Fig. 2.1. The motion
of response for the test specimen may be idealized as that of an inverted
pendulum (Fig. 2.2). The pendulum comprised the stocky concrete panel, which
was pinned at its base, and steel weights attached near the top of the panel.
Pendulum rotation was controlled by the inelastic flexural response of the
attached reinforced concrete beam, which is analogous to a nonlinear spring.
The action of the beam is idealized (Fig. 2.3) as a nonprismatic, simply-
supported member that is subjected to a fluctuating end moment at the end
corresponding to the panel centerline. Pendulum (or system) rotation is equal
to the rotation at the panel-end of the beam.
This specimen configuration satisfied the first experimental objective
because it allowed for convenient variation of specimen strength and initial
period. Configuration variables that controlled these two parameters are shown
in Fig. 2.4. Strength was varied by changing the amount of reinforcement (As)
in the constant 4x8-in. beam cross-section. Initial period was varied by
changing the amount of attached weight (Wa), the height of the panel (r), and
the span of the beam (Ln). Two different values of strength and three
different initial periods were attained by various combinations of these
properties. Properties of the fifteen test specimens are summarized in Table
2 .1.
Three characteristics of the chosen specimen configuration provided the
simple nature of response to dynamic loading that was needed to meet the second
experimental objective. Because the specimen was statically determinate and
responded with a single degree-of-freedom, values of resistance and deformation
could be inferred directly from test measurements. Horizontal orientation of
the resisting element eliminated the need to consider the effect of axial force
on hysteretic behavior.
2.2.2 Base Motions
Variation of base motion frequency content and intensity provided two more
parameters in the study of inelastic drift response. Three different base
motions (modelled after Castaic N21E 1971 [5], El Centro NS 1940 [4], and Santa
Barbara S48E 1952 [4]) were selected for the tests because of their markedly
different frequency content. Linear acceleration and displacement response
spectra for these three records normalized to 1 G peak acceleration are shown
in Fig. 2.5. The intensity of base motion was varied by arithmetic scaling of
the ordinates of the records to control the effective peak acceleration.
2.3 Experimental Plan
2.3.1 Frame of Reference
The experimental plan adopted an organization similar to that used by
Shimazaki [22] in an analytical study of inelastic drift response of
reinforced concrete systems. Three dimensionless quantities (displacement
ratio, period ratio, and strength ratio) were defined to establish a reference
frame in which the level of peak inelastic drift could be classified. These
quantities were defined as:
Displacement ratio, DR - Dra / (2.1(a))
Period ratio, TR - T0 / Tg (2.1(b))
Strength ratio, SR - Cy / (Sa / g) (2.1(c))
where,
Dm - maximum inelastic displacement response
S(j - displacement response for a linear system with period T0 and
2% of critical damping
T0 - effective initial period of oscillator
Tg - characteristic period of base motion-- defined as period at
which spectral energy demand (Section 4.1.1(c)) for a linear
system reaches a constant value or begins to decrease with
increasing period (Fig. 2.9)
Cy - lateral strength coefficient
- lateral load (base shear) capacity / weight
Sa - acceleration response of a linear system with period T0 and
2% of critical damping
g - acceleration of gravity.
The displacement ratio (DR) compares the peak inelastic displacement of the
oscillator to that of an elastic system with 2% damping subjected to the same
earthquake. A displacement ratio in excess of unity means that the elastic
estimate is unconservative.
The period ratio (TR) expresses the relationship between the fundamental
period of the oscillator and the characteristic frequency content of the base
motion. The characteristic period (Tg) roughly corresponds to the transition
between regions of nearly-constant acceleration and nearly-constant velocity
for an idealized elastic response spectrum.
The strength ratio (SR) relates the actual strength of the oscillator to the
strength it would need to remain elastic in a given earthquake. A strength
ratio of less than unity indicates that inelastic action is probable.
In the analytical study [22], a number of hysteresis models were employed to
compute inelastic displacement response for systems with different combinations
of period ratio and strength ratio. The results of the response calculations
indicated that, if the relation
8
TR + SR > 1.0
was satisfied, then
DR < 1.0,
or elastic spectral displacement approximated the peak inelastic value. The
study further suggested that, if
TR + SR < 1.0
was true, then
DR > 1.0,
or peak inelastic drift exceeded that of the similar elastic system. This
postulate is illustrated graphically in Fig. 2.6.
Because one of the objectives of the current experimental study of inelastic
drift was to test the hypothesis of the analytical study by Shimazaki, the same
three dimensionless quantities (DR, TR and SR) were chosen to organize the
experimental plan. These quantities are sufficient to account for the four
parameters of the test series: strength and initial period of the oscillator,
and base motion intensity and frequency content.
2.3.2 Design Considerations
Specimen geometry and section properties were largely controlled by the size
of the beam cross-section. The 4x8-in. section was selected to satisfy two
fundamental considerations: (a) to allow for use of conventional deformed bars
as flexural reinforcement in quantities ranging from 0.75 to 1.5%, and (b) to
allow for use of gravel (rather than coarse sand) aggregate concrete. The
selection of bar sizes, minimum beam span, and panel width followed as logical
consequences to fixing the size of the beam section. A minimum bar pattern of
two bars top and bottom was selected to allow for confinement of the core of
9
the section. The sizes and spacing of closed stirrups were selected to satisfy
three requirements: (a) to preclude shear failure before development of
flexural failure, (b) to provide appreciable confinement to the zone of
flexural compression within the core of the section, and (c) to provide
sufficient lateral restraint to develop the capacity of the longitudinal bars
in compression. A twofold variation in section strength was then attained by
selection of #3 (nominal p - 0.79%) and #4 bars (nominal p - 1.4%) for flexural
reinforcement. Minimum beam clear span was set at 30 in. to limit shear
stresses anticipated at development of ultimate flexural capacity to a
manageable level. The panel cross-section was set at 4x30 in. to satisfy four
requirements: (a) sufficient strength to remain uncracked at development of
ultimate flexural capacity of the beam element, (b) sufficient width so that
panel contribution to overall flexibility was negligible, (c) sufficient width
to anchor beam reinforcement, and (d) side faces flush with beam for ease of
construction.
Values for initial period were estimated with the expression:
T
o
- 2* 7 ? [ (2 .2 )
where,
J - rotational inertia about the center of rotation at the panel base
1^ - beam clear span
Ec - concrete modulus of elasticity
- 4000 ksi (f'c - 5 ksi assumed)
Ig - gross moment of inertia for beam section
(4/12) * 83 - 171 in4
10
Lt - total span length of beam (from center of panel to center of
column)
- Ljj + 15 in.
The expression includes a constant factor of Jl, which anticipates slight
initial softening (from uncracked state) that has been perceived for many
laboratory specimens in previous studies. Three initial period values were
established by varying the amount of weight attached to the top of the panel,
the height of the panel, and the span of the beam. Computed initial periods
are summarized in Table 2.1.
Specimen strength was expressed in terms of a lateral strength coefficient
(Fig. 2.7):
Cy - Vy / Wt (2.3)
where,
Vy - lateral load capacity
- My / r
My - system moment at yield
- Myb Lfc / L jj
Myb - beam yield moment
r - distance from center of rotation to effective center of mass
- J J / Wt
Wt - total specimen weight.
Computed lateral strength coefficients are summarized in Table 2.1.
The experimental plan called for values of strength ratio (SR) ranging
between 0.1 and 0.9, and period ratios (TR) of up to 1.2 in order to test the
hypothesis from the analytical study by Shimazaki [22]. The time scale for the
earthquake records used for the tests was compressed by a factor of two to
11
provide an appropriate match between specimen initial periods and the
characteristic periods (Tg) of the base motions. Maximum attainable base
accelerations were limited by the ± 2-in. actuator stroke limit of the
earthquake simulator (Appendix A.2.1). In order to reduce base displacements
so that the desired range of spectral accelerations could be attained, extreme
low-frequency components of the El Centro and Santa Barbara motions were
eliminated by digital filtering. Linear response spectra for the test base
motions at the compressed time scale are presented in Fig. 2.8. Design
spectral acceleration (Sa) was taken as the maximum value over the period range
defined by T0 ± 10%.
Fifteen tests with unique combinations of specimen strength, initial period
and base motion were produced. The combination of parameters for each of these
tests is summarized in Table 2.2.
Layout of the experimental plan is presented in terms of period and
strength-ratio combinations in Fig. 2.10, and summarized in Table 2.3. The
set of points shown includes two separate test runs for each of the fifteen
specimens. For each set of tests at a given period ratio, target strength
ratios were established to satisfy two requirements (where possible): (a)
provide points above, below, and near the line defined by the equation
TR + SR - 1,
and (b) at intermediate strength ratios, provide points from different test
specimens with identical period and strength ratios. The first requirement
relates directly to the test of the hypothesis by Shimazaki [22]. The second
supplied data that would provide the opportunity to consider two further
questions: (a) whether there is a unique relationship between displacement
ratio and the combination of period and strength ratios, and (b) what influence
12
the initial damage state has on the applicability of the hypothesis (because
one of the matching points was for an initial test run and the other for a
second).
2.4 Overview of Experimental Work
2.4.1 Test Specimen Construction
Test specimens were made of pea gravel-aggregate concrete and reinforced
with deformed steel bars and plain steel wire. Concrete compressive strength
ranged from 4000 to 6100 psi for the fifteen specimens. Two different groups
of beam reinforcement were used, both of which fit in the pattern shown in Fig.
2.11. Longitudinal bars extended from the beam across the entire width of the
panel, terminating in 90-degree hooks at each end. Closed stirrups were
provided along the entire length of longitudinal bars. Seven of the specimens
had #4 deformed (0.20 sq. in. area) longitudinal bars and No. 5 gage wire
(0.207 in. diameter) stirrups. Mean yield strengths for the #4 bars and No. 5
gage wire were 65.7 and 61.9 ksi, respectively. Beam reinforcement for the
other eight specimens consisted of #3 deformed (0.11 sq. in. area) longitudinal
bars and No. 10 gage wire (0.135 in. diameter) stirrups. Mean yield strengths
for the #3 bars and No. 10 gage wire were 59.5 and 97.1 ksi, respectively.
Panel reinforcement was provided, in the pattern shown in Fig. A.5, by #3
deformed bars with a mean yield strength of 90.3 ksi.
Specimens were cast in adjustable steel forms on a horizontal platform and
moist-cured for 10 days. Age at testing varied, as shown in the experimental
chronology (Table A.8). The base of the panel was fastened to the platform
with pillow block roller bearings, as shown in Fig. A.7. The free end of the
beam was linked to the platform by a steel pipe column with roller bearing
13
connections at each end (Fig. A.8). Steel plates were fastened to the top of
the panel to increase specimen rotational inertia. Diagonal braces were
installed at the panel centerline and beam end connection to restrain out-of-
plane motion.
2.4.2 Testing Procedure
Each test specimen was subjected to two earthquake simulation tests in
accordance with the experimental plan (Table 2.3). The control system was
driven by a digitized record of base displacement that was converted to analog
form at run time. Three-variable (acceleration, velocity and displacement)
servo control was used to maintain fidelity of the actuator motion to the
specified input record. Specimen dynamic response was monitored with three
types of transducers at various locations. Instrument location and orientation
is shown in Fig. A.13. Absolute acceleration and displacement relative to the
base were monitored at three elevations along the centerline of the panel.
Beam shear was monitored by a calibrated four-arm strain bridge on the steel
pipe column that supported the far end of the beam. Displacement transducers
were used to make external measurements of beam elongation at the levels of
longitudinal reinforcement within the zone of greatest anticipated inelastic
action. A number of other acceleration and displacement transducers were used
to monitor vertical and transverse response. Amplified analog output from the
transducers was digitized at a rate of 200 points per second per channel and
stored in the memory of an acquisition computer. Following a test run, the
data were transferred to a permanent storage disk and scaled to engineering
units using recorded instrument calibrations.
14
Free-vibration response of the specimen to low-amplitude excitation was
recorded to determine natural frequency before each earthquake simulation and
prior to the end of the test. Photographs and sketches of crack patterns were
made to record the progress of damage from the completion of erection through
the end of the test.
15
CHAPTER 3
MEASURED RESPONSE OF TEST SPECIMENS
Results of earthquake-simulation and free-vibration tests are presented and
discussed in this chapter. A limited number of all the test runs was selected
for presentation in this chapter. Complete documentation of measured response
is given in Appendix C, which is available upon written request to the
Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Illinois-Urbana.
3.1 Conventions
3.1.1 Terminology
In the discussion of base motions for dynamic tests, reference signal refers
to the input signal used for control of the earthquake simulator platform
motion. These records are derived from original recordings of earthquake
ground motions [4,5] with adjustments made to the time scale and frequency
content as appropriate to this series of tests (see Section 2.3.2).
Specimen deformation was measured as displacement at various locations along
the height of the panel relative to the platform but converted to rotation in
order to correspond to idealization of the specimen as an inverted pendulum.
System rotation (or just rotation) refers to the angle turned by the panel
about its base with respect to its initial position. This quantity is also
equal to the beam rotation at the centerline of the panel. When values of
displacement response are given, they refer to relative displacement at the
effective center of mass, which was computed as the product of system rotation
and the computed centroidal radius.
16
Specimen resistance was measured as axial load in the steel pipe column
(Fig. A.13), which gave a direct indication of shear in the beam. In keeping
with the inverted pendulum idealization, these shear data were converted to
moments. Because the beam was simply supported and subjected to constant shear
over the span, moment varied linearly from a maximum value at the panel
centerline to zero at the center of the column support. System moment refers
to the maximum moment at the panel centerline, which is equivalent to the
overall resistance of the system. System moment can also be calculated as the
product of lateral inertial force (which is deduced from absolute acceleration
response measured along the panel height) and centroidal radius. Beam moment,
as used here, refers to the moment in the beam where it intersects the panel.
This value is of interest because it relates the overall resistance of the
system to the resistance of the beam cross-section. When the term moment is
used without reference to specific location, it refers to the system (or
overall resisting) moment.
3.1.2 Sign Convention
Sign conventions were established by the layout of instrumentation (Fig.
A. 13). For measurements of horizontal motion, the positive sense pointed east
(corresponding to tension in the bottom of the beam). Thus, the natural 180-
degree phase difference between absolute acceleration and relative displacement
response was preserved. For the load-indicating dynamometer on the steel
support column, the positive sense was defined as compression (again,
corresponding to tension in the bottom of the beam). Therefore, moment
computed from beam reaction data was naturally in phase with rotation, which
was computed from relative displacement data.
17
3.2 Base Motions
Linear spectral values central to the development of the experimental plan
(Section 2.3.2) are compared with their respective "target" values for each
test run in Table 3.1. Design spectral accelerations (Sa) corresponding to
specimen initial periods (as outlined in Section 2.3.2) were within 20% of the
target values, with a few exceptions. Values of characteristic period (Tg)
were nearly equal to their nominal values for Castaic and Santa Barbara
simulations. For El Centro tests, Tg was slightly larger than the nominal
value.
Distortion was noticeable in a number of recorded platform motions. The
comparisons in Fig. 3.1-3.3 exemplify the various types of distortion for the
three different earthquakes. Two types of comparisons are made between
examples of measured records and their respective reference signals: (a) base
acceleration histories, and (b) spectra of linear acceleration and displacement
response at a damping factor of 2%. Records were normalized to 1 g effective
peak acceleration so that direct comparison of ordinates would be valid (for
both base acceleration histories and response spectra). Normalization was
based on the ratio of spectrum intensity (defined here as the area under the
velocity spectrum for a 2% damping ratio for the period range 0.20 < T <0.60
s) of the recorded motion to spectrum intensity of the reference signal scaled
to 1 g peak acceleration. In each of the comparisons, two recorded motions are
selected that represent the low and high end of the range of intensities used
for a given earthquake that was subject to a certain class of distortion.
Base acceleration histories for Castaic simulations (Fig. 3.1(a)) lacked
obvious distortion, but, from the comparison of linear acceleration response
18
(Fig. 3.1(b)), it is evident that the test motions were distorted at the low-
period end of the spectrum-- most notably at periods near 0.1 s. The character
of the distortion was fairly consistent over the range of intensities for
Castaic simulations.
Two distinct classes of distortion were identified for El Centro and Santa
Barbara simulations: (a) isolated spikes in base acceleration history that
coincided with local peaks in the reference signal, and (b) consistent high-
frequency noise for the duration of base acceleration history (always occurring
in combination with the first type). Distortion to the low-period end (less
than about 0.12 s) of linear acceleration response spectra was quite evident
for each of the two forms of distortion observed in base acceleration
histories of El Centro and Santa Barbara (Fig. 3.2, 3.3). The degree of
distortion to acceleration spectra was sensitive to the intensity of the base
motion-- generally increasing with increased intensity of motion.
Appreciable distortion, when it occurred, was limited to a period range that
was bounded approximately by the low end of the range of specimen initial
periods. Further, because distortion was limited to extreme low periods,
spectral displacements were not subject to appreciable absolute deviation from
reference values-- even if deviations in spectral acceleration were very large
(Fig. 3.3(d)). In light of these considerations, it is plausible to assume
that the observed distortions in base acceleration did not significantly
influence specimen response.
3.3 Specimen Response
A typical cycle in the test sequence comprised a low-amplitude free-
vibration test followed by an earthquake simulation. In accordance with the
19
experimental plan (Section 2.3), each specimen was subjected to at least two
typical test cycles. Response of test specimens to simulated earthquake
motions is discussed in Section 3.3.1. Free-vibration response is discussed in
Section 3.3.2.
3.3.1 Earthquake-Simulation Tests
A summary of response maxima in the first two earthquake simulations of each
test is given in Table 3.2. Response histories (Fig. 3.4-3.12) and moment-
rotation relationships (Fig. 3.16-3.24) are presented for nine selected test
runs. Response for the remainder of the test runs is documented in Appendix C.
Envelopes of moment-rotation relationships for all runs of each test are
presented in Fig. 3.28. Prominent features of the envelopes are summarized in
Table 3.4. Photographs of the beam in the vicinity of maximum moment for two
tests are presented (Fig. 3.31-3.32) to illustrate the nature and progress of
damage that was observed.
The nine tests for which response histories and moment-rotation
relationships are presented were selected on the basis of their varied
parametric composition in order to demonstrate the effect that the individual
test parameters had on the characteristics of response. The placement of the
tests in the array of experimental parameters is shown in Table 3.3.
3.3.1.1 Response Histories
Histories of platform acceleration, system moment/beam reaction response,
rotation/displacement response, and apparent response frequency for the first
24 seconds of the nine selected test runs are shown in Fig. 3.4-3.12.
Apparent frequency was defined for each half-cycle as:
20
f - 1 / (2 * At) (3.1)
where,
f - apparent frequency
At - time between adjacent (half-cycle) rotation peaks.
Features common to all response waveforms express the characteristics of the
basic specimen configuration, while the differences in response are an
indication of the effects of the varied parametric composition of individual
specimens.
Moment and rotation waveforms were generally quite smooth, as they were
dominated by single-mode free-vibration response. Occasional intervals of
steady-state response, during which the specimen was driven at frequencies
contained in the base motion, may be observed during lapses of transient free
vibration for each of the response histories. Waveforms of moment and rotation
bear a strong resemblance, demonstrating the proportionality that is
anticipated in a system with one degree of freedom. Occasional flattening of
moment response at peaks of large-amplitude cycles, with no corresponding
disruption to the rotation waveform, indicates the attainment of yield
resistance. Where these plateaus were pronounced, significant inelastic
deformation occurred. Unlike moment response, rotation waveforms are subject
to baseline shift, signalling that permanent inelastic deformation occurred.
Histories of apparent frequency confirm many of the observations made
directly from response waveforms. The smooth, single-frequency nature of
response is supported by the coherence of the frequency response. Jumps in the
apparent frequency histories reflect intervals of steady-state response, when
the specimen was driven to respond at frequencies considerably higher than the
natural frequency. Because it is related to stiffness, apparent frequency
21
provides a useful gauge of the proportionality between moment and rotation
response. When apparent frequency was high (usually at the beginning of a
record, before rotation exceeded 1/2 % for the first time), the ratio of
moment to rotation was correspondingly high. Later in the record, when
apparent frequency was lower, a corresponding decrease in the ratio of moment
to rotation was observed.
The response histories also reflect the influence that the experimental
parameters had on the nature of response. The effect of variation in specimen
initial period can be observed by comparison of response histories for the
first run of Tests B-01, B-05 and B-10 (Fig. 3.4, 3.6 and 3.12). It is
evident, both by inspection of moment and rotation response waveforms and from
comparing dominant ordinates of apparent frequency histories, that specimen
initial period had a major influence on the nature of response. Apart from the
obvious differences in the rate of zero-crossings (which is directly related to
apparent frequency), the variation of specimen period also affected the
distribution of intervals of excitation. Comparison of moment response for
the first run of Tests B-02 and B-05 (Fig. 3.5, 3.6) shows the influence of
variation of specimen strength. Noting the different scales employed for the
moment axes of the two plots, it is apparent that the capacity of specimen B-05
was approximately double that of specimen B-02. Specimens with nominally
identical structural characteristics (period and strength) responded in a
unique manner to the three different base motions, as illustrated by comparison
of response during the first run of Tests B-02, B-06 and B-09 (Fig. 3.5, 3.7
and 3.11). It is evident that the Castaic record was not very effective in
exciting specimens with this combination of strength and initial period
(Cy - 0.39, T0 - 0.21 s). At the other extreme, El Centro drove a similar
22
system to a peak rotation of nearly 2%. All four runs of Test B-06 are shown
(Fig. 3.7-3.10) to illustrate the changing nature of response with the
progress of testing. As was the case with most other tests, residual rotation
for this specimen increased steadily with progressive testing. Apparent
frequency settled at approximately the same value for the first three runs,
changing noticeably only near the end of the fourth run.
3.3.1.2 Moment-Rotation Relationships
In theory, by plotting system (or total restoring) moment against rotation
response, stiffness and energy absorption/dissipation properties of the
specimens are represented. The reality is that accurate calculation of
stiffness and energy is threatened by the sensitivity these moment-rotation
relationships exhibit to minute flaws in synchronization between the two
signals they comprise. Before moment-rotation relationships for the nine
selected test runs are discussed, a specific case is studied to illustrate this
sensitivity and to determine the effect it is likely to have on calculated
stiffness and energy.
Time skew (or lack of synchronization) between moment and rotation signals
introduces a spurious phase shift. For each rotation point, the corresponding
restoring moment is incorrect when time skew exists. This altering of the
proper ratio between moment and rotation will cause stiffness calculations to
be inaccurate. Physically, phase shift would correspond to the presence of a
component of velocity-dependent restoring force. This means that observations
that pertain to energy absorption/dissipation will also be subject to
inaccuracies because of time skew.
23
Digital recording of dynamic response data is accomplished by discrete
sampling (in this case, 200 per second) of analog transducer output. For
perfect synchronization to exist, all channels must be sampled simultaneously
and recorded with no differential delay. For this series of tests, three
desynchronizing mechanisms were identified: (a) differential time delay due
to filtering of selected channels (namely, only accelerations and beam
reaction), (b) serial (nonsimultaneous) sampling format of analog-to-digital
conversion boards, and (c) sampling with two separate (only approximately
synchronized) analog-to-digital conversion boards. The first two apply to all
15 tests while the last is relevant only to Tests B-02, B-03 and B-04, for
which all data were recorded with two 16-channel conversion boards installed on
separate microcomputers (see Table A.11). Evaluation of these time skew
effects is discussed in detail in Appendix B.
The effects of time skew are evident from the change in nature of the
moment-rotation relationship for an example test run (Test B-02, Run 1) as the
relative position of the time scales of the two signals is shifted
(Fig. 3.13(a)-3.13(d)). In all of the relationships presented, both moment
and rotation waveforms were digitally filtered to eliminate noise at
frequencies higher than 30 Hz. The algorithm did not affect the phase for
frequencies passing the filter.
The uncorrected moment-rotation relationship is shown in Fig. 3.13(b).
Following the procedures outlined in Appendix B, it was estimated that the
moment response signal was delayed by 6.6 msec as a result of all three
potential causes. After correcting for this delay, the relationship shown in
Fig. 3.13(c) results. Finally, in order to bracket the effects that time skew
can have on the nature of the relationship, two "caricature" examples are
24
presented. The relationship in Fig. 3.13(a) shows the result of delaying the
moment signal by 16.6 msec with respect to the "correct" position. In
Fig. 3.13(d), rotation has been delayed by 8.4 msec.
Even before attempting to assign values to stiffness and energy, there are
a number of clues from the physical appearance of these relationships that
indicate their sensitivity to time skew. At one extreme, with moment delayed
by nearly 17 msec from the assumed correct relationship, the appearance of the
plots in Fig. 3.13(a) suggests that energy is not preserved, as the amount
dissipated exceeds the total available for some cycles. The "buttonhook"
appearance seen at a number of unloading points is further indication of
erroneous phase shift. At the other extreme, if rotation is delayed by 8.4
msec (Fig. 3.13(d)) with respect to the data in Fig. 3.13(c), the relationship
takes on a billowy nature suggesting extremes of damping. The differences
between Fig. 3.13(b) and Fig. 3.13(c) are more subtle. The corrected data
(Fig. 3.13(c)) suggest slightly greater energy absorption and dissipation than
uncorrected data. Another important difference between the two can be observed
in the first 2 seconds of response when moment is less than 100 k-in. In the
corrected relationship, the response is seen to "return" to points of previous
unloading, which corresponds to the notion of primary behavior. In the
uncorrected relationship, as rotation passes through the values at previous
unloading, the moment is inexplicably less than it was at unloading (when the
velocity passed through zero).
It is obvious in all four cases shown for the example test run, that a
permanent decrease in overall stiffness follows the attainment of new peak
deformation. Apparent stiffness can be defined as the slope of a line joining
the peak unloading points in the negative and positive quadrants. It has been
25
established that time skew affects the ratio of moment to rotation thus
jeopardizing the accuracy of stiffness computations. The sensitivity of
calculated apparent stiffness to time skew for the four cases considered is
illustrated in Fig. 3.14. The comparison indicates that, while calculated
stiffness is different for all cases, the sensitivity is only significant while
peak deformations are very small-- perhaps beneath the level of cracking. The
apparent stiffness of the yielded system is quite insensitive to the postulated
range of time skew.
Energy dissipation can be calculated directly from the moment-rotation
relationships as the area under the curve for each half-cycle (for which
increments in area are negative as the system unloads). Histories of energy
dissipation by cycle for the four cases of the selected example are shown in
Fig. 3.15. This comparison indicates that calculated energy dissipation can be
extremely sensitive to time skew. For the 25 msec range considered, a factor
of 2 to 5 difference in dissipated energy is not uncommon. In many instances,
for the case where moment is delayed by 16.5 msec, negative energy dissipation
is calculated.
The preceding example illustrates the sensitivities of apparent stiffness
and energy dissipation computed from moment-rotation relationships to minute
changes in synchronization of the two signals. It was seen that stiffness
displayed only limited sensitivity while, on the other hand, energy
dissipation demands much finer synchronization in order to be valid. For this
reason, though the corrections derived in Appendix B are not arbitrary, energy
calculations from moment-rotation relationships were considered to be of
limited value. With confidence that estimates of stiffness are much more
reliable, the development and analysis of moment-rotation relationships was of
26
some utility to Chapter 6, where the basic correlations of the substitute-
structure method [21] are examined in light of the results of the current set
of tests. Further, the value of these moment-rotation relationships as a
general indicator of the nature and extent of hysteretic response and the
effects of experimental parameters is rather insensitive to the issue of
synchronization just discussed.
Having thus established the limits of their usefulness, moment-rotation
relationships for the nine selected test runs are shown in Fig. 3.16-3.24 (note
that the corrected version of Test B-02, Run 1 is repeated from Fig. 3.13(c) of
the preceding sensitivity study). With this sampling of nine runs from among a
total of 44, moment-rotation relationships will be examined with two
objectives. The first is to discern similarities and check their
correspondence with what is already understood about hysteretic behavior. The
second is to take advantage of the collection data for similar, rudimentary,
dynamic systems to check the influence that the experimental parameters
(initial period, strength and base motion) had on the nature of hysteretic
response.
Close examination of the shape of moment-rotation relationships for first
runs suggests trilinear primary response with breakpoints at first cracking
and first yield. The moment-rotation plots make it possible to observe the
extent of inelastic action that a specimen sustained. It is apparent that
yielding occurred in all of the examples presented here except for the first
run of Test B-06. A small inelastic excursion in the first run of Test B-09 is
evident from the rounded shape of the relationship at unloading points
(suggesting that a "break" occurred before velocity reached zero) in the
positive quadrant from 4-6 sec. The nature of dynamic primary response as
27
represented by envelopes to the full moment-rotation response is discussed
further in Section 3.3.1.3.
Rotation baseline shifts observed in most of the response histories are
explained by the shape of moment-rotation relationships. Where cycles cf large
primary inelastic deformation occurred, it can be observed that rotation
response was unsymmetric (with the exception of the fourth run of Test B-06
(Fig. 3.22), which was nearly steady-state response) with the larger value
occurring in the first half of the cycle. By the end of the first half of the
cycle, the system had dissipated a large portion of the energy imparted to it
from the base, so it was not able to return to the same peak potential in the
opposite quadrant without further excitation.
The relationships reflect the permanent decrease in stiffness that is
anticipated with the establishment of each new peak rotation amplitude. The
slope of a line joining the peak rotation points in each quadrant serves as an
indicator of the stiffness of the softened system. Examples of the change in
apparent stiffness with mean of peak rotations in each quadrant for five of the
test runs are shown in Fig. 3.25.
The moment-rotation relationship for softened response exhibits "pinching"
(temporary stiffness drop between unloading and reloading followed by
stiffening/softening reloading). As the pinching system cycles ata given
amplitude, it absorbs (and thus dissipates) much less energy than it did during
the primary excursion to that same amplitude. Because the change in energy
absorption is large, it is not immediately clear whether the corresponding
decrease in energy dissipation impacts the ability of the system to attenuate
response. In this regard, the most noteworthy consequence of pinching is the
effect it has on recovered energy (that which is converted to kinetic during
28
unloading). Examples of this effect for the first runs of Tests B-02 and B-05
are shown in Fig. 3.26, 3.27, which are plots of the fraction of total energy
(internal + complementary) recovered during the peak and subsequent cycles
versus the fraction of peak double-amplitude attained. The plots indicate that
the energy recovery ratio (which would equal 1/2 for a linear elastic system)
is a minimum for the peak cycle and that it trends consistently higher for
smaller-amplitude cycles. This suggests that pinching causes a system to
convert relatively more of the available energy to kinetic, thus decreasing the
ability to attenuate response.
An example of the influence of variation of initial period on hysteretic
response is provided by comparison of the first runs of Tests B-01, B-05 and B-
10 (Fig. 3.16, 3.18 and 3.24). Moment-rotation response for Tests B-05 and B-
10 was quite similar. That the relationship for B-01 differs from these two,
reflects the effect that varied initial period (or its relation to the
characteristic frequency content of the base motion) had on the level of
response rather than on the nature of hysteretic behavior. Examination of the
change in apparent stiffness with peak rotation amplitude for these three runs
gives a direct indication of the influence of initial period variation. The
initial values of apparent stiffness corresponded to the ordering that would be
anticipated on the basis of initial period. At larger rotations (beyond 3/4 %)
the stiffness of B-01 approached that of B-05 and B-10.
The influence of strength variation on hysteretic response can be observed
by comparing the first runs of Tests B-02 and B-05. But, because the moment-
rotation relationships (Fig. 3.17, 3.18) are plotted to different moment
scales, direct comparison is difficult. The initial apparent stiffness for B-
02 is considerably higher than for B-05 (Fig. 3.25), though the nominal initial
29
stiffness was the same. After yield, the stronger section (B-05) retains a
higher stiffness for a given deformation, as would be expected. That the
twofold difference in strength between these specimens is not reflected in
apparent stiffness until rotations of about 1%, is an indication of the
difference in yield deformation for the two specimens. It is tempting to
compare the effect that pinching has on energy recovery for the two tests as
well (Fig. 3.26-3.27), because such a comparison suggests markedly different
behavior. Further, the difference correlates well to the notion that bar slip
participates in the pinching mechanism. But in light of the demonstrated
sensitivity of energy calculations to time skew, such a comparison cannot be
taken at face value. This is especially true for these two tests because the
strategies for time-skew correction were significantly different (Appendix B).
The work done on a single-degree-of-freedom system by shaking at the base is
given by
Be ■ ■ i J y x dt (3.2)
where,
m - mass of the system
y(t) - base acceleration history
x(t) - relative velocity response history.
The base motion is assumed to be independent of the system it excites. The
velocity response reflects the dissipative nature of the system. While the
base motion certainly influences the level of response (by its direct
involvement in work done on the system), it is uncoupled from the relative
velocity response (and thus the mechanical behavior) of the system. By
comparing moment-rotation relationships for the first run of Test B-02, B-06
and B-09 (Fig. 3.17, 3.19 and 3.23), it is apparent that the level of response
30
was influenced by the properties of the base motion, but this is just as
obvious from a comparison of peak amplitudes in the rotation response
histories.
3.3.1.3 Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes
Envelopes to moment-rotation relationships (Fig. 3.28) for all runs of each
test were derived by filtering the full response to retain only points that
defined a new peak rotation in each quadrant. The envelope for Test B-03 was
omitted because attempts at correction for time skew (Appendix B) were
unsatisfactory. The envelopes reflect trilinear primary behavior with well-
defined (in most cases) breakpoints at cracking and yield, and a small positive
post-yield slope. Approximate values of cracking moment, yield moment, yield
rotation and maximum moment inferred from the envelopes are listed in Table 3.4
along with peak rotation and apparent rotation ductility for each run. Because
it is expected that the total restoring moment included a velocity-dependent
component, the envelopes will generally indicate higher capacity than for an
identical system subjected to static reversed loading. Points in the envelopes
recorded at near-zero velocity (those nearest the point of reversal for a well-
defined cycle) are an exception to this dynamic effect and offer an approximate
reference by which to gauge the magnitude of capacity elevation.
Static estimates of system yield and maximum moments for each specimen are
compared with values inferred from the dynamic envelopes (Table 3.4) in Fig.
3.29, 3.30. Calculated capacities were based on measured section and material
properties (Table A.l, A.2, A.4, and A.6). In addition, the following
assumptions were made:
a. Strain distribution was linear with depth,
31
b. Concrete carried no tension,
c. Steel stress-strain relationship (determined from tensile tests) was
symmetric through the origin,
d. For the yield condition, concrete stress distribution was parabolic,
with maximum stress occurring at a strain of 0.002 [9],
e. A reasonable bound to maximum capacity of a symmetrically-reinforced
section is given by
«max “ As * fs' * (d - d') (3.3)
where,
Mmax “ maximum section capacity
As - area of steel at top or bottom
fs' - maximum tensile strength of steel
d-d' - distance between centers of steel layers.
Apparent moment at yield exceeded the static estimate in all cases (Fig.
3.29). The ratio of apparent to calculated yield moment ranged from 1.09
(specimen B-06(+)) to 1.23 (specimen B-04(-)), with a mean of 1.17 for both
reinforcement ratios. This elevation of yield capacity with respect to the
static estimate is evidence of the presence of velocity-dependent restoring
moment. Velocity at yield can be sensed from the envelopes by the spacing
between readings (which were acquired at constant time intervals) when first
yield is followed by significant inelastic deformation in the same cycle. Four
such examples suggest high velocity at yield- B-02(-) (Fig. 3.28(b)), B-04(-)
(Fig. 3.28(c)), B-05(+) (Fig. 3.28(d)), and B-10(+) (Fig. 3.28(i)). The
average ratio for these cases was 1.20.
The suggested upper-bound moment estimate (Eq. 3.3) exceeded peak response
moment in all cases (Fig. 3.30). Because of the erratic nature of earthquake
32
loading, it cannot be presumed that a specimen will reach its ultimate capacity
during the course of dynamic response. Because of this uncertain definition of
capacity, greater dispersion in measured values (relative to those at yield)
can be observed. Nonetheless, peak response moments for specimens with heavier
reinforcement are clustered around a ratio to the calculated bound (0.80) that
is noticeably smaller than for specimens with lighter reinforcement (0.90).
The formulation of static upper bound moment depended only on the strength of
the steel and section geometry. That the estimate becomes more conservative
for higher reinforcement ratios, is an indication that the formulation is
insensitive to the corresponding increase in demand on the concrete in the
section.
For specimens with lighter reinforcement (p - 0.0079), the peak response
moment exceeded calculated static yield capacity by an average of 31%, with a
maximum of 42%. The increase for specimens with heavier reinforcement (p -
0.014) had an average value of 23% and an extreme of 33%. For both strength
types, the average increase would be reasonably approximated by the 25%
allowance for strain-hardening that is prescribed in building codes [2,3,11],
An upper bound to capacity enhancement from strain-hardening could be estimated
by the ratio of tensile strength to yield stress of the reinforcement. For
this series of tests, this ratio was 1.50 for #3 bars and 1.55 for #4.
Consideration of the probable flexural capacity is most critical in the design
for shear resistance of lightly reinforced flexural elements with high span to
depth ratio.
3.3.1.4 Recorded Damage
Patterns of observed damage were sensitive to variations of span length and
33
strength for the constant 4 x 8-in. beam section. Similarities in the damage
patterns of all specimens indicated that the detailing was sufficient to
provide tough flexural and shear response.
The influence of varied span length is illustrated by the difference in the
spread of cracking away from the panel face for specimens B-01 (Fig. 3.31 (a))
and B-10 (Fig. 3.31 (b)), which had equal reinforcement but different spans (30
and 42 in., respectively). The maximum beam moment during the first run of
these two tests was approximately equal (Table 3.2). But because the gradient
in the longer span was lower, cracking for B-10 extended farther into the span.
The influence of strength variation can be observed by comparing the damage
patterns for equal-sized specimens that had different amounts of reinforcing.
The stronger specimen (Fig. 3.32 (a)), which had parametric composition similar
to specimen B-01, exhibits more pronounced diagonal cracking than was observed
in the weaker specimen, B-ll (Fig. 3.32 (b)). Estimated shear stress for the
stronger section was 4ff'c , while for the weaker specimen it was only 2J f c ,
which is correlated to the threshold of diagonal cracking [2]. Distributed
cracking within the anchorage zone was more prevalent in the stronger section,
indicating an increase in bond stress demand that is anticipated for larger-
diameter bars.
Damage to both of the specimens shown in Fig. 3.32 represents the extreme of
what was observed in this test series. The base motions used for the final
runs of these tests were designed to encourage resonant response so that
behavior at very large drifts could be observed. Both sections exhibited
considerable spalling of shell concrete in the beam near the intersection with
the panel. Spalling resulted from a combination of large flexural compressive
strains and longitudinal splitting that was caused by dowel action of flexural
34
reinforcement (suggested by the residual transverse offset exhibited for bars
of both sections). The capacity of the specimens for tough flexural and shear
response under repeated cycling to large drift was confirmed by the fact that
no appreciable strength reductions were observed in either the primary
envelopes (Fig. 3.28) or the full moment-rotation relationships (Appendix C).
The large blocks of core concrete that remain intact after extensive large-
amplitude cycling (Fig. 3.32) attest to the benefits of proper detailing
considerations for shear [28] (stirrup spacing used for all specimens was equal
to 1/4 of the estimated effective depth).
3.3.2 Free-Vibration Tests
Free-vibration tests preceded each earthquake simulation to record the
natural frequency and damping (from logarithmic decrements) of specimens for
small-amplitude motion. The test procedure is described in Section A.2.2.
Frequency and damping ratios (Table 3.5) were determined graphically from
relative displacement waveforms that were recorded on a calibrated strip chart
recorder.
The shift in natural frequency as a result of the initial earthquake
simulation ranged from 33 to 64% with an average decrease of 53%. The
frequency shift after two runs (with respect to initial) ranged from 38 to 75%
with an average value of 63%. Measured initial (before run 1) frequencies are
compared with calculated values for uncracked sections in Fig. 3.33. In
addition, the dotted line represents effective initial frequencies (f0) that
were assumed for the experimental plan (Section 2.3.2):
f0 " fi / 72 (3.4)
where,
35
f0 - effective initial frequency - 1/T0
T0 - effective initial period (Section 2.3.2)
fi - initial frequency for uncracked section.
All but one measured value fell between the calculated uncracked and effective
initial frequency estimates. The average ratio of measured initial to
uncracked frequency decreased with increasing frequency. The average ratio
was 0.95, 0.91 and 0.85 for specimens with T0 of 0.14, 0.21 and 0.25 s,
respectively.
Damping ratios ranged from 1 to 4% with an average of about 2.5% before the
first earthquake simulation. As in the case of frequency, the largest change
in damping ratio occurred as a result of the first earthquake simulation.
Damping ratios from free-vibration response generally increased with decreasing
frequency. If it is assumed that damping is constant for small amplitudes of
response, the damping constant can be computed as
c-4jr*f*/9*m (3.5)
where,
c - damping constant
f - measured frequency
0 - measured damping ratio
m - specimen mass.
The variation of measured damping ratio with the product of mass and measured
frequency for all free-vibration tests is shown in Fig. 3.34. The damping
constant that gives the best reciprocal fit to the data is c - 0.031 kip-s/in.
3.4 Summary of Response
Fifteen statically determinate, single-degree-of-freedom test specimens with
36
varied parametric composition (initial period, strength and base motion) were
subjected to from two to four dynamic test cycles (small-amplitude free
vibration followed by earthquake simulation) for the purpose of recording
dynamic inelastic response of reinforced concrete systems to earthquake
loadings.
The inverted pendulum specimen configuration was successful in isolating
inelastic action in the simply-supported beam. Tabulation of peak resistance,
coupled with analysis of observed damage, showed the beams to be capable of
tough flexural response for drifts ranging from 0.5 to 4.7%, with no indication
of capacity loss due to either shear or bond failures.
Flexural yield occurred during the first earthquake simulation for all but
five of the tests, for which yield occurred in the second run. For tests in
which yield occurred in the first run, the average peak rotation ductility was
1.8. In later runs, maximum rotation ductility ranged from 1.3 to 6.4.
The three different earthquake records, selected for their varied frequency
content, were effective in producing unique responses for similar systems. Of
the three, El Centro proved to be the most persistent in exciting specimens to
respond inelastically, while Castaic had a tendency to be selective. That all
five of the cases for which anticipated yield did not occur involved the
Castaic and Santa Barbara records, is a reflection of the relative experimental
inexperience with these records in contrast to El Centro, which has been used
extensively.
Relationships between restoring moment and rotation response reflected the
nature of primary and hysteretic response and indicated the presence of
velocity-dependent forces. The scope of observations made from moment-rotation
relationships was tempered by the recognition that they were sensitive to small
37
errors in synchronization of recorded signals. Dynamic primary envelopes
exhibited well-defined breakpoints of cracking and yield for most cases. The
presence of velocity-dependent forces caused apparent yield capacity to exceed
static estimates by an average of 17%. Softened response was marked by a
"pinching" behavior that caused a larger fraction of available energy to be
converted into kinetic energy, thus inhibiting the damping capacity of the
specimens. Maximum moment response exceeded static yield estimates by 31% for
sections with #3 flexural reinforcement, and by 23% for those with #4 bars.
Peak moments were effectively bounded by a static upper bound based on the
tensile strength of the reinforcement.
38
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF MEASURED DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE
One objective of the experimental parametric study of drift was to evaluate
a specific dimensionless approach to classification of drift response that was
adopted in an analytical study by Shimazaki [22]. By the experimental plan
(Section 2.3.1), test variables were arranged within this presupposed
organizational frame. But because an analytical truth cannot be presumed
relevant to experimental findings, an unbiased study of measured displacement
response is first undertaken. Without such a general analysis, organization of
response data would gravitate to the underlying scheme-- masking any
relationship that might exist to alternative expressions of the basic
variables.
Though not always rigorously so, the attempts here to organize response data
are guided by the principles of formal dimensional analysis or, more
specifically, by Buckingham's theorem [14]. Two considerations necessitate
departures from straightforward application. First, it is important to realize
beforehand the inherent futility of applying dimensional analysis to the
problem of nonlinear response to earthquake loadings if a universal solution
is sought. Because of the random nature of earthquake waveforms and the
complex form of hysteretic action, the named variables will be weak
representatives of their associated phenomena. Dimensional analysis will
organize by combination, but not improve, the declared variables. Second, not
all of the dimensionless products that would result from a formal approach are
of familiar physical meaning. In addition to the objective of organizing drift
response, it is further hoped that the effective parameters would be of some
39
use for design.
4.1 Naming of Variables
Adopting the mass system of measurement (where M denotes mass, L denotes
length, and T denotes time), a total of seven variables are assumed to enter
the problem. These are listed below with their corresponding units.
1 . Measured maximum displacement
response, Dm (dependent variable) [L]
2. Specimen strength, V [MLT'2]

*>
u. Specimen stiffness, k [MT'2]
4. Specimen mass, m [M]
5. Earthquake characteristic amplitude, ag [LT-2]
6. Earthquake characteristic period, Tg [T]
7. Acceleration of gravity, g [LT'2]
While g is constant, it is included in the variable list, in lieu of specifying
its numerical value, so that all dimensionless products formed from the named
variables will be dimensionally homogeneous.
4.1.1 Evaluation of Fundamental Variables
The relatively small number of variables selected to represent such complex
phenomena as inelastic material response and earthquake waveform suggests that
a certain degree of idealization is required. In the following paragraphs,
plausible definitions of these "negotiable" variables are formed. Numerical
values of each variable (Table 4.1), while of no interest in formal dimensional
40
analysis, are given to support the study of dependence of drift on dimensional
quantities (Section 4.3). It is to be emphasized that, because of
idealizations made in their formulation, these numerical values are only useful
as a gauge of the relative effects of variables in the comparisons of Fig. 4.3-
4.5.
(a) Specimen Strength
From the results of Section 3.3.1.3, it is apparent that specification of a
single value to express the strength of a specimen is not possible. The
resistance at yield was dependent on response velocity, and the post-yield
resistance varied with deformation amplitude. Recognizing that these
variations cannot be expressed with a single value, the strength is taken as
the computed static yield resistance of the specimen:
V - Vy - My/r (4.1)
where,
Vy - lateral resistance at yield
My - system moment at yield (Table 2.1)
r - centroidal radius (Table 2.1).
(b) Specimen Stiffness
Because the response of a similar linear system to an identical earthquake
provides a useful reference for the evaluation of nonlinear response, the value
of stiffness is selected to represent the effective initial condition of the
specimen:
k - k0 - ki/2 (4.2)
41
where,
kQ - effective initial stiffness (reduced by a factor of 2 from the
initial to account approximately for anticipated softening due to
shrinkage and handling cracks)
kj - stiffness corresponding to gross uncracked section
3EI L 1
_ __ g_£ * _
T2 2
L r
n
E - secant modulus of concrete deduced from cylinder compressive tests
- 47 Jl'c [ksi]
fc - concrete cylinder compressive strength [psi] (Table A.4)
Ig — nominal gross-section moment of inertia
- (4 * 83)/12 - 171 in4
Lt - total span length of beam
Lji - clear span length of beam
r - centroidal radius.
(c) Earthquake Characteristics
By making an analogy to the much simpler problem of response of a system to
harmonic loading, a model is provided to guide the selection of appropriate
variables to describe the characteristics of the earthquake motion. In the
analogous problem, the amplitude and period are sufficient for a complete
description of the forcing wave (if its shape is known). Because no physical
law exists that can express the earthquake motion as a unique function of time,
it is assumed that consideration of a few more than these two variables would
not make characterization of the virtually random waveform any more complete.
It is thus concluded that description of the earthquake motion by
42
characteristic amplitude and period represents the maximum justifiable effort.
The inaccuracy inherent to idealizing such an erratic function as harmonic is
compounded by the realization that definitions of these characteristics are not
fixed.
The characteristic amplitude of the earthquake was taken as:
ag - a(max)
where,
a(max) - effective peak base acceleration deduced from measured
platform motion (Section 3.2).
Because effective peak acceleration provides a reference for amplification at
any natural period, it is arguably the least arbitrary amplitude.
A characteristic period (Tg) can be defined from the spectrum of linear
energy response. Spectral energy response is expressed asan equivalent
relative velocity for an oscillator with unit mass:
Se “ J2iT (4.3)
where,
Se — linear spectral energy response
Em - maximum value of Et.ot(t) over the duration of response
Etot(c) ” total mechanical energy at time t
- (kinetic at time t) + (potential at time t)
- (accumulated loss to damping up to time t).
Generalizations about the shape of the energy spectrum follow from the
realization that spectral energy must be related to the product of spectral
values of absolute acceleration and relative displacement response (Fig. 4.1),
especially if maxima are set early (before significant accumulation of losses
to damping). In this light, it is plausible to assume that the general shape
43
of the energy spectrum for any earthquake motion would be characterized by an
initial region of steadily increasing energy response followed by a nearly
constant or decreasing trend with increasing period.
Shimazaki noted that the linear energy response spectrum can be used as an
indicator of the displacement demand of a yielding system [22]. Where linear
energy response increases with lengthening period, a corresponding increase in
displacement (or ductility) demand of the yielding system is suggested. On the
other hand, if spectral energy is constant or decreases with lengthening
period, the anticipated inelastic displacement demand is not so high. The role
of the characteristic period then is to provide a datum that will indicate the
approximate period where this fundamental change in energy response occurs.
Characteristic period (Tg) is defined from the point of intersection of two
line segments that bound the linear energy spectrum for a damping ratio of
0.10 (Fig. 4.2) [22]. The first line (OA) extends from the origin to bound the
initial portion of the spectrum, where energy increases with period. The
second line (BB) has constant value equal to the peak ordinate of the energy
spectrum.
4.1.2 Combination of Fundamental Variables
Additional familiar quantities relevant to the present study can be
formulated from the original seven variables named in Section 4.1. Unless the
functional combination involves products of powers, dimensional analysis will
not construct it from among the set of supplied variables. Spectral quantities
are an example of an important function that would be ignored in an exclusively
formal analysis. In addition, some simpler functions that are part of the
vocabulary of seismic design (such as period and lateral strength coefficient)
44
deserve more emphasis than they are likely to get from their indirect
formulation as part of dimensionless products. The following paragraphs then
circumvent the formal process by providing explicit formulations of these
special quantities. Subject to the same disclaimers as for the fundamental
variables in Section 4.1.1, the numerical values of each of the derived
variables are catalogued in Table 4.1.
(a) Natural Period
As in the case of stiffness, the manner in which the natural period will
change with inelastic response cannot be predetermined. An effective initial
period (T0) then is defined directly from the mass and assumed effective
stiffness (Eq. 4.2) as:
Tq - 2jt J ^ / T 0 (4.4)
(b) Lateral Strength Coefficient
In design, it is conventional to express lateral resistance as a fraction of
the weight of the system:
C - Vy/W (4.5)
where,
C - lateral strength coefficient
W - weight
- mg
It is probable that C would be formed as one of the dimensionless products in a
formal dimensional analysis. But in this discussion, because of its prominent
role as a design parameter and its anticipated use as an individual quantity in
45
the formation of other dimensionless products, C will be grouped with the other
dimensional quantities.
(c) Specimen Yield Deformation
A value of yield displacement that corresponds to the assumed values of
yield resistance and effective stiffness is given by
Dy - Vy / kQ (4.5)
Because the expression has units of length, it will be used in conjunction with
measured displacement response to form a dimensionless product that is
equivalent to the displacement ductility ratio.
(d) Spectrum Intensity
Because spectrum intensity is defined as the area under the spectrum of
linear relative velocity response between certain period limits [10], its value
will be sensitive to both the characteristic amplitude (a(max)) and
characteristic period (Tg) of the earthquake. The period limits have been
changed from the original definition to account for the compressed time scale
and to exclude uncharacteristic distortion. By basing spectrum intensity on
the area under the velocity spectrum for recorded platform motions at a
damping ratio of 0.02 for periods in the range 0.1 < T <0.8 s, the unique
nature of each of the three records is captured and the effects of short-period
distortion (Section 3.2) and long-period filtering are omitted.
Spectrum intensity, being the product of velocity and period, has units of
length. Its utility in forming a dimensionless product with measured
displacement is discussed in Section 4.2.
46
(e) Linear Response
The response of a linear system to a given earthquake furnishes a reference
by which to gauge the response of an initially similar yielding system. Linear
response for a specified oscillator combines all of the variables except
specimen strength (Vy). Absolute acceleration response of the linear system
(Sa) has the units [LT-2] and is thus an alternative expression of the
earthquake amplitude that is specific to an oscillator with period T0. Linear
relative displacement response (S<j) has units of length and is therefore a
useful quantity for normalization of measured displacement response.
In light of the fluctuating nature of linear response spectra, a smoothing
process [20] was used to reduce the sensitivity of spectral acceleration
response to the assumed initial period. Linear relative displacement response
was computed as a function of the ordinate from the smoothed acceleration
spectrum and the assumed period:
SJ ^ * S T2 (4.6)
d . 2. a o
4jt
where,
S(j - relative displacement response for a linear oscillator with period
T0 and damping at 2% of critical
Sa - absolute acceleration response from smoothed linear spectrum
T0 - effective initial period.
4.2 Dimensionless Products
Recall from the opening discussion of Section 4.1 that seven variables were
assumed to participate in the problem of drift response of yielding reinforced
concrete systems to earthquake loading. These seven quantities are expressed
47
in three fundamental dimensions (mass, length and time). Buckingham's "Pi"
theorem for dimensional analysis states that the number of dimensionless
products that will form a complete set is equal to the number of variables
minus the number of fundamental dimensions required to express the variables
[14]. For the current problem then, there are four dimensionless products that
will account for all of the variables without duplication.
There is no unique formulation of the dimensionless products in a complete
set. Consequently, it is possible that some dimensionless products may be
derived that are either trivial (such as ag/g) or lacking obvious physical
significance (such as V/gkTg^). The dimensionless products that make up the
complete set having maximal physical significance are listed in general form
below. In addition, specific formulations that are considered in Section 4.3
are described.
1. Displacement ratio-- expresses the dependent variable (Dm) as normalized
by one of the following quantities, which have units of length:
(a) Yield deformation, Dy" the ratio (Dm/Dy) is an expression of
displacement ductility
(b) Linear relative displacement response, S^-- the ratio (D^S^)
compares measured response with that of a linear system with the same
initial period and a damping ratio of 0.02
(c) Spectrum intensity, S.I.-- the ratio (Dm/S.I.) is an expression of
displacement response normalized by a general measure of the intensity and
bandwidth of the earthquake.
2. Strength ratio-- the quotient of the lateral strength coefficient (C)
and one of the following measures of earthquake amplitude:
48
(a) Effective peak acceleration, a(max)-- the ratio Cg/a(max)
expresses the effective amplification of the yielding system
(b) Linear absolute acceleration response, Sa-- the ratio Cg/Sa
compares available strength with that demanded of a linear system with the
same initial period and a damping ratio of 0.02.
3. Period ratio-- the relationship (T0/Tg) of specimen natural period to
the characteristic period of the earthquake motion, which is an indirect
reflection of the energy demanded of a linear system with the same initial
period.
4. Lateral strength coefficient-- grouped with dimensional variables
(Section 4.1.2 (b)).
The dependence of various expressions for drift response on selected
independent variables and associated dimensionless products is investigated in
Section 4.3.
4.3 Relationship of Drift Response to Test Variables
In this section the dependence of drift response on salient forms of the
independent variables is investigated. Four expressions of displacement
response (Dm , Dm/Dy, Dm/Sd and Dm/S.I.) are plotted against each independent
quantity (Fig. 4.3-4.5). Independent variable expressions are separated into
three groups. Specimen strength (represented by the dimensionless coefficient
C) and dimensional measures of earthquake intensity (a(max) and Sa) are
included in Fig. 4.3. Specimen effective initial period (T0) and the
characteristic period of earthquake motion (Tg) are evaluated in Fig. 4.4.
Dimensionless products that correspond to strength ratio (Cg/a(max) and Cg/Sa)
49
and period ratio (T0/Tg) are included in Fig. 4.5.
Nearly all of the plots for the first two groups of independent variables
(Fig. 4.4, 4.5) exhibit too much scatter to imply a basis for organization.
There was an apparent trend for measured displacement response (Dm) to increase
with earthquake intensity (both a(max) and Sa), but the large scatter reflects
the participation of other variables (Fig. 4.3(b), 4.3(c)).
The ratio of measured drift to linear response (Dm/S,j) was fairly
insensitive to all of the variables considered. In the first two groups of
plots, scatter for this displacement ratio was noticeably less than for the
other dependent variable expressions. This consistent insensitivity suggests a
constant relationship between measured nonlinear and linear spectral
displacement response in the domain of the test variables. The plot of the
displacement ratio Dm/S(j against actual rotation ductility ratios from Table
3.4 at once tests the generality of the suggested relationship and categorizes
the scatter (Fig. 4.6). The range of scatter is set by runs for which little
or no inelastic action occurred. The amount of scatter appears to be much less
for higher ductility ratios, but there are not enough cases to justify such a
generalization. Nonetheless, the plot of Fig. 4.6 does not suggest sensitivity
of Dja/S^ to measured displacement ductility. Displacement ratio expressed as
Dm/Sd is discussed further in Chapter 5.
The remaining three displacement quantities (Dm , Dm/Dy and Dm/S.I.) are seen
to decrease with increasing strength ratio (Fig. 4.5(a), (b), (d), (e), (j),
(k)). Of these relationships, the plot of Dm/Dy against Cg/Sa (Fig. 4.5(e))
has the least scatter. This relationship is presented in alternative fashion
by inverting the strength ratio in Fig. 4.7. The data for the first plot
(Fig. 4.7(a)) are direct transformations of those for Fig. 4.5(e). The second
50
plot (Fig. 4.7(b)) replaces computed ductility ratios with values deduced from
primary envelopes (Table 3.4). Though the reliability of both plots would be
much improved had there been more data for intermediate strength ratios, the
suggested relationship can be adequately described with a linear fit. From the
relationship in Fig. 4.7(a), it is apparent that a slope of 1.0 would nearly
bound the ductility ratio, while an average fit is given by a slope of 0.83.
But it is important to note that the relationship is quite sensitive to
assumptions concerning effective stiffness and smoothing of response spectra.
Without changing the smoothing algorithm, if stiffness was based on uncracked
sections, the bounding slope would increase to 2.0. In this light, while it is
plausible to assume a linear relationship between displacement ductility and
understrength ratio for design, the proportionality constant must be qualified
by prescribed section efficiencies.
In Section 4.1.1(c), the use of energy response spectra for linear systems
as an indicator of ductility demand was discussed. Shimazaki recognized the
need to consider strength with this rationale [22]. The need to consider
strength is confirmed by the inability of period ratio (T0/Tg) to organize
displacement ductility (Fig. 4.5(f)), which follows directly from the strong
dependence on strength observed in Fig. 4.5(e) that was discussed in the
preceding paragraph.
The organization of drift response normalized by spectrum intensity
(Dm/S.I.) is improved when the dimensionless period ratio (T0/Tg) replaces
initial period (T0) as the independent variable (Fig. 4.5 ( 2 ) ,4.4(g)). That the
ratio Dm/S.I. increases steadily with increasing period ratio, is an expression
of the nearly constant value that was observed for many of the relationships
involving the ratio Dfj/S^. Because spectrum intensity normalizes the drift
51
data by the size of the earthquake without bias toward a particular period, the
shape of the plot in Fig. 4.5(i) represents a dimensionless mean of
displacement spectra for the base motions used in the tests.
4.4 Summary
An informal dimensional analysis was undertaken to study the dependence of
measured displacement response on test variables. Independent variables were
named to describe the strength and stiffness of a specimen as well as the
intensity and characteristic period of the earthquake. It was noted that a
universally applicable equation for drift response with the number of variables
considered should not be anticipated. Dimensional analysis is a tool of
organization, not of solution. It cannot be expected to solve a problem unless
the selected variables are adequate to produce a unique functional
relationship. The complex mechanical properties of a hysteretic system and the
practically random nature of earthquake motion preclude full problem definition
when the number of variables named is kept small.
Dimensional analysis principles provided an organized medium within which
the influence of the test variables could be evaluated without bias toward
preconceived approaches. An array of comparisons between four alternative
expressions of the dependent variable (measured displacement response) and
three groups of independent variables (8 total) was presented (Fig. 4.3-4.5).
Dimensional forms of independent variables (including lateral strength
coefficient) were found to be ineffective organizers of measured response
because they exclude the interaction of all other variables.
From the relative insensitivity of the ratio D^S^ to all of the
independent variables, a nearly constant relationship between measured
52
displacement response and that of a related linear system was suggested. This
relationship will be studied further in Chapter 5.
Displacement ductility (Dm/Dy) was inversely proportional to strength ratio
expressed in terms of linear acceleration response (Cg/Sa). It was further
noted that the constant of proportionality is sensitive to assumptions
regarding stiffness and design spectral acceleration.
53
CHAPTER 5
GENERALIZING THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS IN RELATION TO LINEAR RESPONSE SPECTRA
Linear response calculations furnish a tangible reference from which the
response of a yielding system can be appreciated [17,22,27], In the
development of guidelines for estimating drift, the linear reference provides a
medium that violates neither the mechanical composition of the phenomenon nor
the proportionality of result to labor.
The analysis of Chapter 4 suggested a nearly constant relationship between
measured displacement response and the calculated response of a similar linear
system. The objectives of this chapter are to establish the relationship
between computed linear and measured displacement response for the first two
runs of each test, and to evaluate a dimensionless approach [22] to the
classification of nonlinear drift response that relies on linear spectral
quantities for a basis.
5.1 Idealized Linear Response
The earthquake motions used in this test series were selected to provide a
reasonably wide range of frequency contents. By comparing linear acceleration
response for the three records scaled to the same spectral peak (Fig. 5.1), it
is apparent that frequency content varies both locally (for a given record) and
in a gross sense (from record to record). It is the gross variation that was
of interest as a parameter in the study because the accuracy of period
estimates seldom justifies exclusive consideration of specific spectral peaks
or valleys. In this light and because the scope of observations should not be
limited to earthquake motions with spectral shapes matching one of the test
54
records, response spectra for the three base motions were represented in
idealized form.
Idealized linear displacement spectra for damping at 2% of critical were
derived using a procedure described by Shimazaki [22] as augmented by Schultz
[20]. Because distortion observed in recorded platform motions was limited to
the extreme low-period end of the spectra (Section 3.2), idealizations were
based on the reference signals for each of the three base motions. In
addition, it was assumed that the effective peak base acceleration (Table 3.2)
was appropriate to scale spectral ordinates. Idealized spectra are defined by
the following set of equations:
Sd - 6Dg (T/Tg)3 ; 0 < T < Tg/3 (5.1(a))
Sd - 2Dg (T/Tg)2 ; Tg/3 < T < Tg (5.1(b))
Sd - 2 Dg (T/Tg);Tg < T < 2Tg (5.1(c))
where,
Sd - idealized spectral ordinate of linear displacement response for an
oscillator with period T and damping of 2% of critical
Tg - earthquake characteristic period, determined as outlined in
Section 4.1.1(c) (Table 5.1)
Dg — displacement response at period Tg corresponding to a linear fit
to the displacement spectrum at 10% of critical damping for the
period range Tg < T < 2Tg (Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.2).
The idealized spectrum is anchored to a linear fit of the displacement spectrum
for 10% of critical damping in the region of nearly constant velocity. The
transition between the two damping ratios assumes that ordinates at 2% of
critical damping are double those at 10% [21]. Idealized spectral acceleration
ordinates are computed as:
55
d
S - (5.2)
a ,2
g T'
where,
Sa - idealized spectral acceleration for a linear oscillator with T and
damping constant of 0.02
- idealized spectral displacement of linear oscillator (Eq. 5.1)
g acceleration of gravity.
Because the Santa Barbara record was filtered for periods exceeding 1.75 Tg,
the initial linear fit to the displacement spectrum for 10% damping was
restricted to the period range Tg < T < 1.75 Tg.
Normalized spectra of linear displacement response at 2% of critical damping
for the reference version of the three base motions are compared with the
idealized shape (Eq. 5.1) in Fig. 5.3. The spectra are normalized by dividing
periods by Tg and ordinates by Dg (Table 5.1). The comparison indicates that
the idealized spectrum provides a reasonable fit to the three records
considered.
Normalizing test results by the same linear response parameters (Table 5.2)
permits measured displacement response for all of the test runs to be compared
with the idealized spectrum (Fig. 5.4). The nearly constant relationship of
calculated linear to measured displacement response that was noted in Section
4.3 is reflected in this direct comparison. It may be observed that tha
idealized linear spectrum bounds and provides a reasonable estimate of the
normalized results for all but five of the runs for which T0 was less than Tg.
A reasonable bound to the five exceptions is obtained by extending the linear
segment of the idealized spectrum (1 < To/Tg < 2) to the origin. For cases
56
with T0 exceeding Tg, the idealized spectrum represents a consistent
overestimate of the normalized response data.
It is apparent from Fig. 5.4 that the period ratio (T0/Tg) alone cannot
account for the relationship of normalized displacement measurements to the
idealized spectrum. In the next section, a set of dimensionless parameters is
formed to organize this relationship with respect to both period and strength.
5.2 Dimensionless Classification
Shimazaki [22] formed three dimensionless quantities (period ratio, strength
ratio and displacement ratio) to organize computed nonlinear displacement
response. The same procedure can be applied to classify the properties and
responses of the test specimens using the specified values that accompany the
following definitions:
Period ratio, TR - T0/Tg (5.3)
Strength ratio, SR - C/Sa (5.4)
Displacement ratio, DR - Dm/S<i (5.5)
where,
T0 - specimen effective initial period (Table 5.1)
Tg - earthquake characteristic period (Table 5.1)
Sa - acceleration response of a linear system with period T0 and
2% of critical damping (Eq. 5.2)
Dm - maximum displacement response (Table 3.2)
S(j - displacement response of a linear system with period T0 and
2% critical damping.
Calculation of the dimensionless ratios for the first two runs of each test is
summarized in Table 5.3.
57
The plot in Fig. 5.4 showed the variation of DR (by the relationship of
normalized response data to the idealized spectrum) with respect to TR. Where
measured response ordinates lie above the idealized spectrum, DR exceeded 1.0,
which means that measured response exceeded the linear estimate. By
considering both TR and SR, the cases for which DR exceeded 1.0 are separated
from the rest of the runs (Fig. 5.5). The relationship indicates that DR
exceeded 1.0 if the sum of TR and SR was less than 0.85. For all other cases
(TR + SR > 0.85), measured displacement response was bounded by the idealized
spectrum.
The same organization is expressed in alternative form in Fig. 5.6. The
plane (TR-SR) is separated into two regions by the line
TR + SR - 0.85 (5.6)
In region I (TR + SR < 0.85), DR exceeded 1.0. In region II (TR + SR > 0.85),
DR was less than or equal to 1.0.
These results are compared with the conclusions based on calculated
displacements [22] in Fig. 5.7. As a general conclusion, Shimazaki stated that
the dividing line for the region where DR was likely to exceed unity was given
by
TR + SR - 1.0 (5.7)
Of five hysteresis models considered in the analytical study, the four that
were most representative of reinforced concrete gave comparable displacement
results. A dividing curve for classification of DR from these four models was
given by
SR - 0.9 e(-TR/0.3) + 0 x (5 g)
The test results support much of the framework of the classification that
was used in the analytical study, but not all of the specific formulations.
58
The proposed dividing lines (Eq. 5.7, 5.8) are not adequate to organize DR
computed for measured response. However, from Fig. 5.5 it appears that
subdivision of the plane (TR-SR) is best described by a transition region:
0.85 < TR + SR < 1.0,
where DR is consistently clustered near unity. Beyond the transition region
(TR + SR > 1.0), the values of DR are noticeably more scattered. The test
results, as displayed in Fig. 5.6, do not reflect the asymptotic nature of Eq.
5.8 for TR exceeding 1.0.
5.3 Summary
The relationship of measured displacement response to the computed response
of a related linear system was investigated. For all but five of the thirty
test runs considered, measured response was bounded by an idealized linear
displacement spectrum, which was shown to provide a reasonable approximation to
the spectra of the individual base motions for a damping ratio of 0.02. For
the 25 bounded cases, the idealized spectrum also provided a reasonable
approximation to measured response-- especially if T0 was less than Tg. An
approximate bound to the displacement for the five cases for which the linear
estimate was exceeded is given by replacing Eq. 5.1(a) and 5.1(b) with Eq.
5.1(c), but there are not enough occurrences to extend this observation to a
general recommendation.
The relationship of measured nonlinear to calculated linear displacement
response for the 30 test runs was organized by a set of three dimensionless
quantities (Eq. 5.3-5.5). The resulting classification amounts to a check of
whether nonlinear response will be bounded by the idealized linear spectrum.
The region for which nonlinear response exceeded the linear estimate was
confined to relatively weak systems with short periods (relative to the
dominant period of the earthquake motion). The test results showed this region
to be smaller than what was defined in the computational study by Shimazaki [22].
60
CHAPTER 6
CALIBRATION OF TWO NUMERICAL TECHNIQUES FOR NONLINEAR RESPONSE
One of the main objectives of the experimental program was to furnish a
broad and well-defined basis for calibration of numerical techniques used to
estimate nonlinear dynamic response of reinforced concrete structures. The
number and range of test variables as well as a response mechanism that avoided
familiar barriers to interpretation (multiple modes, statical indeterminacy,
and axial forces) were chosen to provide a test specimen that would be an ideal
physical target for such methods.
In this chapter, response data are used as a reference for evaluation of two
methods of estimating the response of reinforced concrete structures to
earthquakes. In Section 6.1, five basic modeling decisions required for
nonlinear dynamic response history analysis using Takeda's [24] hysteresis
rules are considered. In Section 6.2, the basic hypothesis and one of the
fundamental equations of the substitute-structure method for design [21] are
checked in light of measured response.
6.1 Response History Calculations
The Takeda hysteresis model [24] (Fig. 6.1) was used in conjunction with a
single degree-of-freedom dynamic response history program to simulate the
response measured during the first earthquake simulation test for fourteen of
the fifteen specimens (Specimen B-ll was omitted because data for the initial
0.25 s of response were not recorded). Key decisions in the modeling process
involve definition of a trilinear primary envelope, hysteresis rules and the
type and amount of viscous damping. Five modeling parameters were considered
61
in the analyses: (a) the contribution of bar slip to yield deformation, (b)
the slope of the primary envelope after yield, (c) the exponent for the slope
of unloading from the primary envelope, (d) the ratio of the unloading slope
for softened response to that of primary unloading, and (e) combined
consideration of the type and fraction of viscous damping. Values for each of
these parameters, along with constants of the analyses, are discussed in
Sections 6.1.1.1 and 6.1.1.2.
The principal aim of the analysis was to identify the value for each
parameter that resulted in the most consistent correlation with measured
response. The quality of calculations was judged by the correlation of
rotation and moment response waveforms with those measured in the corresponding
tests. A frequency-domain error index [15] was used to establish the relative
order of correlation for the many calculations. The index, which has been
shown to be a reliable gauge for the matching of both amplitudes and
periodicity [29], is described in Section 6.1.2. The validity of the automated
ordering scheme was checked by studying response history comparisons for a
number of calculations for each test.
6.1.1.1 Constants of Analysis
In addition to the five selected parameters, further definition of
mechanical properties is required to model reinforced concrete systems for
nonlinear dynamic analysis. Only one of the five parameters (deformation due
to slip) relates to definition of the first two segments of the primary
envelope. In this section, moments and rotation components excluding slip for
break points in the primary envelope at cracking and yield are considered.
62
The total deformation was assumed to consist of three components: (a)
flexure, (b) secondary flexibilities (assumed to remain linear throughout the
response), and (c) bar slip within the anchorage zone. Consideration of slip
as a parameter is addressed in Section 6.1.1.2.
(a) Flexural Components
The moment-curvature relationship up to yield was computed on the basis of
two transformed sections (Fig. 6.2), which corresponded to uncrackedandfully-
cracked states (Fig. 6.3, 6.4). Transformed section properties for each
specimen are listed in Table 6.1. Rotation due to bending at the cracking and
yield points was computed by integrating curvature over the total span of the
beam.
The cracking moment is given by:
Mc - ft Si (6.1)
where,
f^ - tensile strength of concrete determined from cylinder splitting
tests (Fig. 6.5, Table A.4)
- 6 Jf'c
fc - concrete cylinder compressive strength (Table A.4)
Si - section modulus for uncracked transformed section
- 2Ii/h
II - moment of inertia of uncracked transformed section
- g 3 + 2 <n - 1) As <| - d')2
n - modular ratio
“ Es/Ec
Es - steel modulus of elasticity
63
29,000 ksi (assumed)
Ec - secant modulus for concrete determined from cylinder
compression tests as average slope of stress-strain
relationship for 400 psi < fc <0.4 f^
- 46,900 ,/fc [psi] (Fig. 6.6)
b, h, d, d', As are defined in Fig. 6.3.
The jump in curvature at cracking (Fig. 6.2) reflects the shift in neutral axis
position as the concrete tensile force is transferred to the reinforcement.
The curvature at first cracking (^c]_) corresponds to the uncracked transformed
section while the larger value (<j>c 2 ) is determined by the properties of the
fully-cracked transformed section (Fig. 6.4). Curvature at first cracking is
given by:
(6 .2 )
The fully-cracked curvature at cracking is given by:
(6.3)
where,
12 “ moment of inertia of fully-cracked transformed section
- j (k2d)3 + As d2[(n - l)(k2 - j )2 + n (1 - k2)2]
k2 - constant defining depth to neutral axis for fully-cracked
transformed section as a fraction of effective depth (d)

9 9 d' V 2
- {(2n - l)2 p2 + 2p [n + (n - 1) | ]} - (2n - 1)p
64
Yield moment was computed on the basis of the fully-cracked transformed
section for strains compatible with the yield strain of the reinforcement:
My - S2t Ec £C (6.4)
where,
S£t “ section modulus referring to the compression face of the
fully-cracked transformed section
- l2/k2^
ec — concrete compressive strain at the extreme fiber
eSy - steel strain at yield
- fy/Eg
fy - steel stress at yield (Table A.6).
The corresponding curvature at yield is given by:
A _ sy (6.5)
y d(i - k2)
The flexural component of rotation at cracking and yield was computed by
integrating the distribution of curvature over the span of the beam (Fig. 6.7).
(6 .6)
(6.7)
where,
(9c)flex “ rotation due to flexure at cracking
65
(0y)flex - rotation due to flexure at yield
Ljj - beam clear span
Lfc - beam total span
- Ln + j (panel width) - Ljj + 15 in.
(b) Secondary Linear Components
Because one of the objectives of the response calculations was to match the
measured deformation amplitudes, an effort was made to consider all sources of
flexibility in the specimen and test setup that were likely to be sensed in the
displacement readings. Four such secondary flexibilities were identified:
(a) deformation of specimen supports (including the steel pipe column that
carried the beam reaction, and the simulator platform and vertical supports),
(b) flexural and shear deformation of the panel, (c) beam shear deformation,
and (d) local deformation of panel under normal stresses from flexure in the
beam. All of these deformations were assumed to vary linearly with moment.
Deformation of the specimen supports was estimated from the results of an
independent linear analysis using the nominal section properties of the various
elements, as shown in Fig. 6.8. The resulting flexibility constants depended
on the span of the beam:
Beam Span (in) 0/M (rad/k-in)
30 1.3 x 10'6
36 0.74 x 10’6
42 0.60 x 10‘6
66
Panel deformations were determined from independent analysis with the model
depicted in Fig. 6.9. Flexibility constants for the two panel heights,
expressed in terms of rotation, were approximately equal. A value of 9/M -
0.44 x 10"^ rad/k-in was used for the primary envelope.
Flexibility constants to account for beam shear deformation were computed
as:
ft 1 -2 Ln
|M 2
G b h L 2t
(6-9)
where,
G - shear modulus of concrete

E
2(1+1/)
v - Poisson's ratio for concrete
- 1/6 (assumed).
Panel deformation due to normal stresses from bending in the beam were
estimated from the solution for normal forces on the edge of an infinitely
large plate [25] (Fig. 6.10). Computed flexibilities were based on average
properties of the fully-cracked transformed section:
Bar Size Mean k£d (in) Mean S2t (in^) 9/M (rad/k-in)
#3 2.06 32.2 0.0080/EC
#4 2.53 45.1 0.0073/Ec
6.1.1.2 Parameters of Analysis
Five parameters were considered in the analysis program. Bar slip
deformation and post-yield slope ratio relate to the definition of the primary
envelope, which was not measured directly. Two of the parameters set the
67
unloading slopes in the Takeda hysteresis model as a function of peak
deformation. Finally, the amount and type of viscous damping was considered.
A description of the variables and the set of values considered for each is
given in the following paragraphs.
(a) Bond Stress
Bar slip can be estimated by integrating strains over an assumed anchorage
length, which depends on the assumed bond stress and its distribution as
follows (Fig. 6.11):
f 2 dL
A-gVS
s (6-9(a))
where,
fs - peak stress in reinforcement
db - diameter of bar
u - bond stress.
Rotation due to bar slip was assumed to vary linearly with moment using the
following expression for an equivalent flexibility constant:
2
f <± M
8 y d * (6.9(b))
M 8 E u d (1 • k.) M
s 2 y
Because other sources of deformation were considered explicitly (Section
6.1.1.1), the contribution of slip to the total was controlled by specifying
realistic values of bond stress over a range that would be anticipated for a
well-detailed anchorage. Two values of bond stress (400 and 1000 psi) were
considered in the analyses.
68
(b) Post-Yield Slope Ratio
Calculation of the slope of the primary envelope after yield requires that
quite a few assumptions be made about material laws and section mechanics. By
treating the post-yield slope as a parameter, the risk of constraining the
quality of response estimates because of an inaccurate assumption was reduced.
The post-yield slope was expressed as a ratio of the secant stiffness at
yield. Four values of post-yield slope ratio were considered: 2, 5, 10, and
15%.
(c) Unloading Slope Exponent
The Takeda hysteresis rules [24] express the slope of unloading from the
primary envelope as a function of the initial slope and peak deformation
(Fig. 6.1):
K *'*' 7 1 (6.10)
m
where,
Ku - slope of unloading branch
- effective initial slope
M + M
- _c y
ec + ©y
9m - maximum primary rotation
a - unloading slope exponent.
Four values of the unloading slope exponent were considered: 0, 0.2, 0.4 and
0. 6.
69
(d) Constant for Softened Unloading
The unloading slope for cycles that did not establish a new peak deformation
was expressed as a ratio of the slope for primary unloading (Eq. 6.10). This
parameter provided a mechanism to approximate the change in energy
absorption/dissipation capacity that is common to softened reinforced concrete
elements. Three values of this ratio were considered for the response
calculations: 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0.
(e) Viscous Damping
Three cases for the amount and type of viscous damping were considered; (a)
no damping, (b) damping proportional to secant stiffness (with respect to the
origin) at a nominal ratio of 2%, and (c) constant damping at 2% of
critical.
6.1.2 Evaluation of Calculated Response
Response calculations were made using the first 20 seconds of measured
platform accelerations as input. With the parameter sets described in Section
6.1.1.2, a total of 288 pairs of rotation and moment response histories were
generated for each of the 14 test runs analyzed. Because so many results could
not be judged by graphic comparison, initial ranking of the relative quality
was established by a quantitative index based on a weighted summation of
deviations in Fourier amplitudes [15], The error index is given by:
where,
e(f) - normalized error in Fourier amplitudes (Fig. 6.12)
70
X (f) - X (f)
c______ m
max (X }
m
Xm(f) - amplitude of Fourier transform of measured response
at frequency f
Xc(f) - amplitude of Fourier transform of calculated response at
frequency f
fl - lowest frequency with no apparent DC component (Fig. 6.12)
f2 - 3 * frequency corresponding to max (Xm) (Fig. 6.12).
The individual calculations for a given test run were ranked according to the
value of the error index for rotation response, with secondary consideration
given to the index for moment response. Having thus established a plausible
initial ranking, final judgement based on graphic comparison of a limited
number of response histories was made. No discrepancies were found in the
general ordering established with the index. The sensitivity of the index
could not be judged, as the differences between waveforms of closely ranked
calculations were usually too subtle to discern by inspection.
Because the differences between closely ranked calculations were not always
significant, conclusions were based on consideration of the ten best results
for each test. A tally for values of each the five parameters corresponding
to the ten best calculations is given in Table 6.2. In a few cases (Tests B-13
and B-14) the tally for certain parameters does not represent ten results.
This indicates that the calculation was insensitive to the parameter because
yield did not occur in the simulated response.
The predominant values of each of the five analytical parameters (Table 6.2)
are organized with respect to the experimental parameters (strength, period and
earthquake motion) of the test specimens in Table 6.3-6.7. The effects of
71
varying the type and amount of reinforcement are reflected in the primary curve
variables (bond stress and post-yield slope ratio). Bond stress of 400 psi was
most appropriate for 11 of the 14 specimens (Table 6.3) while, for the others,
the ten best results were split between bond stress values of 400 and 1000 psi.
That the results do not show a stronger relationship to bar size is not a clear
indication of overall low bond stresses, because the accuracy of estimates for
other sources of deformations (Section 6.1.1.1) cannot be established. The
post-yield slope ratio took on marginally higher values for stronger sections
(Table 6.4). No patterned dependence on the test variables was observed for
either of the hysteresis parameters (Table 6.5, 6.6) or for damping (Table
6.7).
With the lack of any clear relationship between analytical and experimental
parameters, categorization of the analytical results on a specimen-by-specimen
basis was not necessary. Instead, an overall tally of the ten best results for
each specimen was formed to select an "optimum" set of values for the five
parameters (Table 6.2). This so-called optimum set was not absolute, as many
exceptions to it could be found among the thousands of calculations made.
Because no one set of values yielded superior results for all 14 specimens, the
overall tally was used to identify the statistically most consistent set:
Bond stress - 400 psi
Post-yield slope ratio - 5%
Unloading slope exponent - 0.4
Constant for softened unloading - 0.7
Damping Ratio/Type - 2 % Constant
72
From the overall tally in Table 6.2, the choice of values for bond stress,
softened unloading constant, and damping were clear. For both post-yield slope
ratio and unloading slope exponent, the tally peaked at the values listed
above, but the overall deviation among the four values was rather small.
Computed rotation response histories using the recommended parametric values
are compared with measured waveforms for the first 10 seconds of each test in
Fig. 6.13. Given the variability reflected in the tallies of Table 6.2, the
correlation is quite good for most of the tests. The exceptions are those
tests for which little or no yielding occurred (B-06, B-12, B-13, B-14, and B-
15).
6.2 Substitute-Structure Method
A method for representing yielding structures as equivalent linear systems
with substitute stiffness (or frequency) and damping was established by Gulkan
[6] (for single-degree-of-freedom systems) and Shibata [21] (for multi-degree-
of-freedom systems). The so-called substitute-structure method then relies on
a correlation of effective damping to the amount of inelastic deformation.
Gulkan [7] proposed the equation:
P s - 0.02 + 0.2 (1 - 1/Jii) (6.12)
where,
0 S - substitute (equivalent viscous) damping ratio
fi - deformation ductility ratio
to provide a reasonable fit to results from dynamic tests of one-story
reinforced concrete bents. An average effective damping was computed from
measured response as:
73
- J<5 y X dt
0* “ 7T~o— <6 -13)
2ws J0 X dt
where,
T
-J y x dt - work done by exciting force over entire response duration
0
T
2ws P s / x2 dt - work done by equivalent viscous damping force over entire
^ response duration
y(t) - base acceleration history
x(t) - relative velocity response history
«s - substitute circular frequency
” 11 (x + y)maxl/lxmaxl
(x + y)max - maximum absolute acceleration response
xmax ” maximum relative displacement response
Equation 6.13 expresses the requirement that work done by baseshakingmust be
balanced by the work of the equivalent viscous damping forcein orderfor the
system to come to rest. This equation is applied to the results of the current
set of tests in order to check the correlation for equivalent viscous damping
(Eq. 6.12) that is used in the substitute-structure method.
6.2.1 Relative Velocity Response
No direct measurement of relative velocity response was made, and reliable
production of this signal presents a considerable computational challenge. One
possibility is to compute the time-derivative of relative displacement
response, but numerical differentiation of discrete digital signals is an
inherently unstable and inaccurate process. Numerical integration of relative
74
acceleration response, while inherently less error-prone, was complicated by
three considerations: (1) no direct measurement of relative acceleration
history was possible, making it necessary to compute this signal as the
difference of absolute acceleration response (x + y) and base acceleration (y),
(2) integration of the derived relative acceleration signal was sensitive to
minute baseline errors, and (3) the two "parent" signals, (x + y) and (y),
had to be synchronized before they could be combined.
Relative acceleration response at the effective center of mass was computed
as:
x(t) - {[x + y]z(t) - y(t)} * (r/z) (6.14)
where,
x(t) - computed relative acceleration response history at effective
mass center
[* + yJzCt) “ measured absolute acceleration response history at height z
above center of rotation at panel base after correction for
time-scale offset with response to y(t)
y(t) - measured platform acceleration history
r - height to effective center of mass from center of rotation
z - gauge height above center of rotation.
Because both of the parent signals were recorded on the same analog-to-digital
conversion board and passed through nominally identical (filtering) amplifiers,
the only source of time skew was due to relative channel position, which was
the least uncertain of the three sources identified (Appendix B).
Gulkan [6] was successful in producing a balanced relative velocity response
signal by making a least-squares second-order correction to the acceleration
baseline. Random "bit-switching" (single-bit steps originating from the
75
analog-to-digital conversion board) in this series of tests produced noise
components that the parabolic correction could not effectively compensate.
Recognizing that baseline errors are, by definition, of low frequency, high-
pass digital filtering was employed to produce a balanced velocity signal.
Relative acceleration response was integrated using the trapezoid rule to
produce an uncorrected velocity signal, which was then filtered to eliminate
baseline error. After verifying (from histories of apparent frequency (Fig.
C.1-C.44)) that none of the test specimens responded at a frequency less than
about 1.3 Hz, the cutoff frequency for filtering was set at 1.25 Hz. An
example of the results of this approach to baseline correction is shown in Fig.
6.14.
6.2.2 Substitute Frequency
Stiffness corresponding to the expression for substitute circular frequency
(ws) given in Eq. 6.13 is approximately equal to the slope of line OA in Fig.
6.15. In cases for which unsymmetrical inelastic response precedes the peak
half-cycle, the average stiffness of the softened system can be taken as the
slope of a line joining the unloading points at peak deformation in each
quadrant, line BB* in Fig. 6.15. Values of this second definition of apparent
stiffness were used to compute substitute frequency (Table 6.8):
ws - (1/r) (6.15)
where,
Ka - apparent stiffness computed from moment-rotation relationship
(Fig. C.1-C.44) for half-cycle of peak rotation response
m - specimen mass
r - specimen centroidal radius.
76
6.2.3 Substitute Damping
By applying Eq. 6.13 in the manner described in the previous sections,
substitute damping ratios were computed for nearly all of the simulated
earthquake runs (Table 6.8). Three test runs (B-03.1, B-03.2, and B-ll.l) were
not considered because of problems encountered with one or more of the four
data channels involved in the computation. Computed substitute damping ratios
varied from 3 to 20%.
The substitute-structure method is a set of rules for representing yielding
reinforced concrete structures as contrived linear systems with reduced
stiffness and equivalent viscous damping to account for all sources of energy
dissipation. Having thus defined the substitute linear system, design forces
for a prescribed level of displacement response are estimated from linear
response spectra. The viability of the method depends on two requirements:
(a) response of the substitute linear system must approximate that of the
actual structure, and (b) test results must provide a basis for correlation
of substitute damping ratio to displacement response. By checking these
requirements with the results of the current test series, the calibration of
the method as originally proposed will be much stronger.
Linear displacement response was computed for each simulated earthquake run
using the values of substitute frequency (ws) and damping (fis ) given in Table
6.8. Computed displacements (S^) are compared with measured peak displacements
(Dm) in Table 6.8 and Fig. 6.16. The mean ratio of computed to measured
displacement was 1.09, with extremes of 0.79 and 1.45. Given the amount of
judgment involved with selection of appropriate stiffness and signal
processing, the comparison of Fig. 6.16 is quite satisfactory.
77
Maximum rotation ductilities from Table 3.4 for each of the runs considered
are repeated in Table 6.8. In Fig. 6.17, computed substitute damping ratios
are plotted against ductility ratio and the relationship is compared with Eq.
6.12. Substitute damping values computed from results of the current set of
tests were generally larger than given by Eq. 6.12 at all values of ductility
ratio. It follows then that a revised best-fit equation would be obtained by
increasing either or both of the constant (0.02) or linear multiplier (0.20) in
the equation, but not by changing the order of the radical {1/JJi). However, no
modification to Eq. 6.12 is proposed for two reasons: (1) if only the current
data were available to construct a design equation, a slight underestimate of
damping (as shown in Fig. 6.17) would be judiciously conservative, and (b)
many of the pairs from which the correlation was originally established [7]
fell below the line given by Eq. 6.12.
6.3 Summary
Response data were used to evaluate two existing methods for estimating
nonlinear response of reinforced concrete structures to earthquakes. Five
parameters were considered for response history calculations using the Takeda
hysteresis model. The values of these parameters that led to the most
consistent results were:
Bond stress - 400 psi
Post-yield slope ratio - 5%
Unloading slope exponent - 0.4
Constant for softened unloading -0.7
Viscous damping - constant at 2% of critical.
78
Though there were notable exceptions to these values for some of the 14
specimens considered, the variations could not be correlated to experimental
parameters. No clear mandate resulted for post-yield slope ratio or unloading
slope exponent, and it was argued that the 400 psi value of bond stress not be
taken as absolute for slip calculations because of the interaction of other
deformation components that were specified as constants in the analyses.
The test results supported the notion that the response of a yielding system
could be approximated by that of a related linear system with reduced stiffness
and prescribed amount of viscous damping to account for the total energy
dissipation. A correlation of this equivalent viscous damping to displacement
ductility that is used in the substitute-structure method was checked. No
clear advantage could be found in modifying the originally proposed equation.
79
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Summary
This study considered nonlinear response of reinforced concrete structures
to earthquakes. The goal of the investigation was to improve methods of
estimating drift for design. The specific objectives of the study were:(a)
to investigate the influence of relevant parameters (strength, initial period,
earthquake frequency content, and earthquake intensity) on the nature and
magnitude of nonlinear response, and (b) to study the characteristics of
hysteretic response of simple reinforced concrete systems under dynamic
loadings. Earthquake-simulation tests of fifteen reinforced concrete single
degree -of-freedom systems were made to provide benchmark data for studying
nonlinear response.
7.1.1 Overview of Experiments
The type of specimen tested in this investigation represents a distinct
departure from the norm for dynamic tests. Rather than modeling a specific
structural form or framework component, it was conceived as a physical
generalization of a building structure. By manipulating specimen variables to
control strength and period, a range of buildings was represented.
The motion of the responding specimen was similar to that of an inverted
pendulum restrained by a flexural spring (Fig. 2.1 and 2.2). The "pendulum"
was formed by a stocky concrete panel that was pinned at its base with steel
weights attached near the top. The "spring" was provided by a coplanar beam
80
that extended from the panel at mid-height perpendicular to the pendulum axis.
The beam spanned from the panel to a translating vertical support.
The salient characteristics of this test specimen were: (a) it was
statically determinate, (b) its response had a single degree of freedom, (c)
its resistance was provided by flexural action of the beam without axial force,
and (d) strength and period were conveniently varied. Strength was
controlled by varying the amount of reinforcement in the constant 4 x 8-in.
beam section (2 #3 or 2 #4 bars in equal amounts top and bottom). Variables
influencing the initial period were the amount of attached weight (2600, 3600,
or 4200 lbs), the height of the panel from the center of rotation to the center
of attached weight (51.5 or 63.5 in.), and the clear span of the beam (30, 36,
or 42 in.).
Measured compressive strengths of the 3/8-in. pea gravel and sand aggregate
concrete varied from 3970 to 6150 psi for the 15 specimens. Yield strengths
for flexural reinforcement were 59 ksi for #3 deformed bars and 66 ksi for #4
deformed bars. Actual specimen properties are documented further in Appendix
A.
Three different earthquake records were used as input motions: Castaic N21E
1971, El Centro NS 1940, and Santa Barhara S48E 1952. These records were
selected to provide a variation in frequency content. The time scale of the
base motions was compressed by a factor of two to shift the region of nearly-
constant linear acceleration response closer to the frequencies of the test
specimens and to reduce platform displacement for a given intensity earthquake
simulation. Uniform scaling of drive signal ordinates controlled the
earthquake intensity.
81
Fifteen specimens with unique combinations of strength, initial period and
earthquake record were tested. Each specimen was subjected to from two to four
test sequences consisting of a low-amplitude free vibration test followed by an
earthquake simulation. The intensities of the simulated earthquakes generally
increased in successive runs.
7.1.2 Outline of Analysis
Test results were used to investigate methods for estimating nonlinear
response, with particular emphasis on displacement. Four different approaches
were considered. In Chapter 4, the framework of dimensional analysis was
adopted to study the organization of measured drift with respect to independent
test variables. The relationship of measured response to linear response
estimates was considered in Chapter 5. In this case, response data supplied
the means for experimental calibration of a method based on analytical
observations [22]. In Chapter 6, response data were used to extend the
calibration of two existing methods for estimating nonlinear response.
Recommended values for five parameters required for nonlinear response history
analysis using the Takeda hysteresis rules (yield deformation, post-yield
stiffness, unloading stiffness for primary cycles, unloading stiffness for
softened cycles, and viscous damping) were considered by evaluating the quality
of correlations with measured response waveforms. In the second part of
Chapter 6, the foundations of the substitute-structure method were re-evaluated
in light of the current test results.
82
7.2 Conclusions
7.2.1 Experimental Observations
Test specimens responded as single-degree-of-freedom oscillators. Measured
response histories were characterized by occasional short intervals of steady-
state excitation followed by transient free v5.bration at a single frequency.
Changes in natural frequency were most noticeable during the cycle for which
the cracking moment was first exceeded.
Moment-rotation relationships indicated stable hysteretic response with
permanent softening after each excursion to a new peak deformation. Resonance
is unlikely for softening single-degree-of-freedom systems. As a result,
rotation baseline shift was common for cycles that established new peak
deformation because a large portion of the energy imparted to the specimen was
dissipated in the first half of the cycle. Hysteretic response after softening
was characterized by reduced stiffness in the transition between unloading and
reloading, which caused a reduction in damping capacity.
Moment-rotation hysteresis relationships were sensitive to small offsets in
the time scales of the two recorded signals, for which three causative
mechanisms were identified (Appendix B). Because synchronization error
introduces artificial phase shift, calculation of dissipated energy was
particularly vulnerable to inaccuracy. Corrections for time skew, as described
in Appendix B, were applied to all moment-rotation relationships.
Envelopes extracted from full moment-rotation relationships for each test
specimen exhibited a trilinear shape, with breakpoints at cracking and yield
and a slight positive post-yield slope. Primary envelopes indicated an average
increase of 17% in yield capacity (with respect to static estimates). This
effect was attributed to velocity-dependent forces that were evident from the
83
rounded, gradually descending nature of primary envelopes near points of
unloading (Section 3.3.1.3). Peak response moments exceeded estimated yield by
as much as 42% at a drift ratio of about 2%, suggesting that the 25% allowance
for strain hardening capacity prescribed in design codes is not always
conservative.
Of all the experimental parameters, the varied frequency content of the
three base motions had the most visible effect on response. El Centro elicited
the most persistent inelastic response because its frequency content is broad
and was "centered" on the range of specimen periods. For low intensities, the
response to Santa Barbara was timid. But after specimens softened into the
higher-energy period range, the motion demanded much stronger response. For
Castaic, inelastic response was usually short-lived, as softening shifted
specimen periods out of the strength of the motion.
Observed damage confirmed that inelastic action was restricted to the beam-
most notably near its intersection with the panel, where maximum moment
occurred. Cracking and spalling patterns were indicative of ductile flexural
response. No anchorage or shear failures were observed, though signs of higher
demand were apparent for sections with higher moment capacity. Flexural cracks
within the beam span were more inclined for sections with #4 bars than for
those with #3. The increased bond stress demand for the larger bars was
apparent from cracking near the "attack" end of the anchorage zone in the
panel, which was not observed for the lighter-reinforced sections.
Initial periods determined from low-amplitude free-vibration response were
longer than calculated values based on uncracked sections. Results of free-
vibration tests indicated that natural period and damping changed most
significantly in the first earthquake simulation.
84
7.2.2 Analysis of Drift Response
In Chapter 4, the influence of test variables on measured peak displacement
response was studied. Dimensional forms of the independent variables (initial
period, strength, earthquake characteristic period, and earthquake intensity)
were ineffective organizers of measured drift. Further study of the dependence
of drift on test variables was structured as a formal dimensional analysis,
though no crisp solution was possible given the amount of idealization required
to describe earthquake motion and the mechanical behavior of a yielding system
with a small set of variables. Rather, dimensional analysis proved an
effective tool for organizing the study of relationships of dimensionless
expressions for dependent and independent variables. Two conclusions resulted
from the study:
(1) Displacement ductility (Section 4.2) is proportional to a dimensionless
product that is comparable to the force reduction factor (design
spectral acceleration/lateral strength coefficient), which is used in
equivalent lateral force procedures of many seismic codes. However,
the constant of proportionality was such that if stiffness was based on
uncracked sections the corresponding drift estimate would be
unconservative.
(2) Measured peak displacement displayed a nearly constant relationship to
linear spectral estimates for a damping ratio of 0.02 (Section 4.1.2).
This relationship was relatively insensitive to all test variables.
85
An extended study of the relationship of measured peak drift response to
linear spectral values in Chapter 5 led to the following conclusions:
(1) Linear displacement spectra at a damping ratio of 2% for all three
earthquake test records could be normalized by an idealized spectrum
(Eq. 5.1) described by Shimazaki [22] and Schultz [20] (Fig. 5.3).
(2) Vith test results normalized in similar fashion, the idealized linear
spectrum bounded and provided a reasonable approximation of measured
displacement response for 25 of 30 test runs (Fig. 5.4).
(3) A dimensionless classification scheme, which was used by Shimazaki [22]
to organize computed nonlinear displacement response, provided a check
for whether the idealized spectrum would bound measured response (Fig.
5.5 and 5.6). Displacement ratio (measured nonlinear
displacement/spectral displacement) exceeded 1.0 only if the sum of
period ratio (specimen initial period/earthquake characteristic period)
and strength ratio (specimen lateral strength coefficient/spectral
acceleration) was less than 0.85. Displacement ratio was very nearly
equal to one when the sum of period and strength ratios was between
0.85 and 1.0. If the sum of period ratio and strength ratio exceeded
1.0, displacement ratio was between 0.6 and 1.0.
(4) A reasonable bound to measured response for the five cases in which
displacement ratio exceeded 1.0 was obtained by extending the segment
of the idealized spectrum for the region of nearly constant velocity
response to the origin.
86
In the first part of Chapter 6, parameters for nonlinear response history
computation using the Takeda hysteresis model [24] were evaluated by judging
the quality of correlations with measured response. Five parameters were
considered: effective bond capacity, ratio of post-yield to yield stiffness,
exponent for unloading slope in Takeda model, ratio of unloading slope for
softened response to slope of primary unloading in Takeda model, and viscous
damping. Displacement and moment response histories were computed for 4032
individual cases. The following conclusions resulted:
(1) The values of the five parameters that gave the best correlation with
measured response varied from specimen to specimen. But the best
values did not have a strong correlation with physical properties of
the specimens or with frequency contents of the base motions.
(2) A bond stress of 400 psi gave consistently better results than 1000
psi. But this should not be interpreted as a measurement of bond
capacity. It is a value that provided the best fit in the company of
various simplifying assumptions made for initial stiffness.
(3) A post-yield slope ratio of 5% was marginally more consistent than 2,
10, and 15%.
(4) A value of 0.4 for the unloading slope exponent in the Takeda
hysteresis model gave the most consistent results. But values of 0,
0.2, and 0.6 did almost as well.
(5) A value of 0.7 for the softened unloading constant gave more consistent
results than values of 0.5 or 1.0.
(6) Constant (mass-proportional) damping at a ratio of 2% was preferable to
variable (stiffness-proportional) damping at 2% or no damping.
87
(7) Computed response using the recommended parametric values compared
favorably with measured waveforms except for runs with little or no
yielding.
(8) The frequency-domain error index developed by Lopez [15] proved a
reliable tool for assessing the quality of response waveform
correlations.
In the second part of Chapter 6, response data were used to evaluate
equivalent viscous damping of test specimens that responded to earthquake
motions. With this information, the basic premise of the substitute-structure
method [21] was examined. The following conclusions are made:
(1) The maximum displacement response of a yielding reinforced concrete
system can be satisfactorily approximated by calculating the response
of a related linear system with a prescribed amount of viscous damping
and reduced stiffness.
(2) The original expression for substitute damping in terms of permitted
ductility ratio (Eq. 6.12) was judged suitable in light of the current
test results.
7.3 Closing Discussion
The results of this study identify three tools that are effective for
estimating seismic drift response of reinforced concrete structures. Though
all of the methods share a common objective, their applications satisfy
different needs in consideration of the response of a building. It was shown
in Chapter 5 that linear response spectra can be used to provide a reasonable
88
estimate of peak nonlinear displacement response. While this information by
itself is not sufficient as a basis for design, it is useful as a check of the
overall stiffness of a particular structure or for evaluating competing framing
schemes in the initial phases of design. The substitute-structure method [21]
(Chapter 6, second part) provides design forces that correspond to the
designer's prescription of tolerable drift response and damage. Nonlinear
response history analysis with the Takeda hysteresis model [24] (Chapter 6,
first part) will provide a detailed simulation of the dynamic response of a
structure. Such an extensive analysis is most useful as a tool of
investigation rather than design. A common research application is the study
of an existing building for which a proximate recording of base motion was
made.
Any method for estimating seismic response of structures must satisfy two
requirements in order to give realistic results: (1) advance judgment of
likely base motions, and (2) reliable representation of structural response
to known excitations. This study considered only the second requirement. The
three methods studied were shown to give accurate results with the luxury of
exact knowledge of the base motion. But because such information is not likely
to be available for design, the full accuracy of the methods will not be
realized in practice. Prudent analysis then requires consideration of a set of
earthquake records with frequency contents that are consistent with known
properties of the site. Judgment of probable intensity should be based on
regional seismicity and the design life of the structure. None of the methods
studied imposes special constraints on selection of design base motions.
As suggested from the first conclusion for Chapter 4, well-intentioned
methods for estimating drift can be derailed as a result of loose specification
89
of operating parameters. In an effort to minimize misapplication of one of the
methods discussed in this study for which little documentation exists, the
procedures for applying it are summarized in the following paragraph.
In many cases, the mean drift response (lateral displacement at top level)
for a building can be estimated from a linear response spectrum at a nominal
damping ratio of 0.02. The design spectrum is an idealization of the actual
shape as given by Eq. 5.1. A check of whether the spectrum will provide a
bound to nonlinear response is given by the equation
TR + SR > 0.85 (7.1)
where,
TR - period ratio
- To/Tg
T0 - effective initial period of structure
- J2. times the calculated fundamental period based on uncracked
sections
Tg - characteristic period of ground motion determined from an
envelope to the linear energy response spectrum for a damping
ratio of 0.10 (Section 4.1.1(c), Fig. 4.2). This value is
comparable to the period separating regions of nearly-constant
acceleration and velocity response.
SR - strength ratio
- C/Sa
C - lateral strength coefficient
- V/W
V - base shear capacity
W - weight of structure
90
Sa - acceleration response from the idealized spectrum for a period
of T0. The conversion between displacement and acceleration
response for a linear system is given by Eq. 4.6.
If Eq. 7.1 is not satisfied, then nonlinear displacements are likely to exceed
the spectral value. In this case, test results suggested that nonlinear
response could be bounded by modifying the idealized spectrum so that Eq.
5.1(c) replaced Eq. 5.1(a) and (b). But it is stressed that this observation
is based on a very small number of test results.
Table 2.1 Assumed Properties of Test Specimens
Specimen B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 B-05 B-06 B-07 B-08
Attached Weight, W a (kips) 2.6 3.6 2.6 4.2 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.2
Total Weight, Wt, (kips) 3.8 5.0 3.8 5.6 5.0 5.0 5.6 5.6
Beam Span, Ln (in) 30 36 30 42 36 36 42 42
Rotational Inertia, J (kip-in-s2 ) 24.1 46.9 24.1 53.8 46.9 46.9 53.8 53.8
Centroidal Radius, r (in) 49.3 60.3 49.3 60.9 60.3 60.3 60.9 60.9
Longitudinal Bars 2-#4 2-#3 2-#3 2-#3 2-#4 2-#3 2-#4 2-#3
Reinforcement Ratio, p (%) 1.4 0.79 0.79 0.79 1.4 0.79 1.4 0.79
Beam Yield Moment, Myba,l) (kip-in) 167 84 84 84 167 84 167 84
System Yield Moment, Myc (kip-in) 251 119 126 114 237 119 227 114
Initial Period, T0^ (s) 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25
Lateral Strength, Cy 1.34 0.39 0.67 0.33 0.79 0.39 0.67 0.33
Table 2.1 (cont.) Assumed Properties of Test Specimens
Specimen B-09 B-10 B-U B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15
Attached Weight, W a (kips) 3.6 4.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.6
Total Weight, Wt, (kips) 5.0 5.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 5.0
Beam Span, Ln (in) 36 42 30 30 30 30 36
Rotational Inertia, J (kip-in-s^) 46.9 53.8 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 46.9
Centroidal Radius, r (in) 60.3 60.9 49.3 49.3 49.3 49.3 60.3
Longitudinal Bars 2-#3 2-#4 2-#3 2-#4 2-#4 2-#3 2-#4
Reinforcement Ratio, p (%) 0.79 1.4 0.79 1.4 1.4 0.79 1.4
Beam Yield Moment, Myba »b (kip-in) 84 167 84 167 167 84 167
System Yield Moment, Myc (kip-in) 119 227 126 251 251 126 237
Initial Period, T0^ (s) 0.21 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.21
Lateral Strength, Cy 0.39 0.67 0.67 1.34 1.34 0.67 0.79
Notes
a - Yield strength of reinforcement taken from preliminary coupon tests,
b - Assumed concrete strength f'c = 5000 psi, modulus Ec = 4000 ksi.
c - System Moment = Beam Moment * (Lt/Ln ). See Fig. 2.3.
i
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i
Table 2.2 Parametric Make-up of Test Specimens
Castaic (1971) El Centro (1940) S. Barbara (1952)
S t r .a weak strong weak strong weak strong

Tob^ \
0.14 s B — 11 B —1 2 B —0 3 B — 01 B —1 4 B —1 3
c
0.21 s B —0 6 B —0 2 B —0 5 B —0 9 B —1 5
c c
0.25 s B —0 4 B —1 0 B —0 8 B —0 7
a - "weak" denotes specimens with //3 flexural reinforcement,

"strong" denotes specimens with //4 flexural reinforcement.
b - Calculated initial period, Tq = /2 * (period for gross sections).
c - Combination not selected for testing because TR + SR >> 1.0.

Table 2.3 Experimental Plan
Ground Spectral Period Strength

Test® Specimen Specimen Base^ Period Acceleration Ratio Ratio
Run To Cy Hot ton
T9 sa TR SR TR + SR
(s) (s) (g)
B-01.1 0.14 1.34 ELC 0.28 3.4 0.50 0.40 0.90

B-01.2 5.4 0.50 3.25 0.75
B-02.1 0.21 0.39 ELC 0.28 2.0 0.75 0.20 0.95
B-02.2 3.9 0.75 0.10 0.85
B-03.1 0.14 0.67 ELC 0.28 2.7 0.50 0.25 0.75
B-03.2 5.2 0.50 0.13 0.63
B-04.1 0.25 0.33 ELC 0.28 2.1 0.89 0.16 1.05
B-04.Z 5.8 0.89 0.06 0.95
B-05.1 0.21 0.79 ELC 0.28 2.3 0.75 0.35 1.10
B-05.2 4.0 0.75 0.20 0.95
B-06.1 0.21 0.39 CAS 0.18 1.4 1.17 0.28 1.45
B-06.2 2.9 1.17 0.13 1.30
B-07.1 0.25 0.67 SAB 0.48 1.2 0.52 0.58 1.10
B-07.2 1.8 0.52 0.38 0.90
B-08.1 0.25 0.33 SAB 0.48 0.9 0.52 0.38 0.90
8-08.2 1.4 0.52 0.23 0.75
B-09.1 0.21 0.39 SAB 0.48 0.8 0.44 0.46 0.90
B-09.2 2.4 0.44 0.16 0.60
B-10.1 0.25 0.67 ELC 0.28 1.9 0.89 0.36 1.25
B-10.2 4.3 0.89 0.16 1.05
B-ll.l 0.14 0.67 CAS 0.18 1.3 0.78 0.52 1.30
B-11.2 2.1 0.78 0.32 1.10
B-12.1 0.14 1.34 CAS 0.18 1.9 0.78 0.72 1.50
B-12.2 2.6 0.78 0.52 1.30
B-13.1 0.14 1.34 SAB 0.48 1.5 0.29 0.91 1.20
B-13.2 2.4 0.29 0.56 0.85
B-14.1 0.14 0.67 SAB 0.48 1.2 0.29 0.56 0.85
B-14.Z 3.1 0.29 0.22 0.51
B-15.1 0.21 0.79 SAB 0.48 1.0 0.44 0.76 1.20
B-15.2 1.7 0.44 0.46 0.90
a D e s i g n a t e d by (s p e c i m c n ) .(run I).
b CAS = Castaic test motion; ELC = El Centro test motion; SAB = Santa Barbara test motion
95
Table 3.1 Comparison of Measured Spectral Quantities with

Experimental Flan Values
**a* 8 Tg> s
Test Base Run
Motion
Target Measured Target Measured
B-01 E1C 1 3.4 3.4 0.28 0.27

2 5.4 4.9 0.28 0.28
B-02 E1C 1 2.0 2.6 0.28 0.29
2 3.9 4.3 0.28 0.32
B-03 E1C 1 2.7 2.3 0.28 0.30
2 5.2 4.9 0.28 0.32
B-04 E1C 1 2.1 2.5 0.28 0.30
2 5.8 4.3 0.28 0.32
B-05 E1C 1 2.3 2.6 0.28 0.30
2 4.0 4.1 0.28 0.32
B-06 Cas 1 1.4 1.3 0.18 0.18
2 2.9 2.4 0.18 0.18
B-07 SaB 1 1.2 1.5 0.48 0.48
2 1.8 2.0 0.48 0.48
B-08 SaB 1 0.9 0.9 0.48 0.49
2 1.4 1.4 0.48 0.49
B-09 SaB 1 0.8 0.9 0.48 0.48
2 2.4 1.7 0.48 0.48
B-10 E1C 1 1.9 1.9 0.28 0.29
2 4.3 3.2 0.28 0.30
B-ll Cas 1 1.3 1.3 0.18 0.18
2 2.1 2.2 0.18 0.18
B-12 Cas 1 1.9 1.6 0.18 0.18
2 2.6 2.6 0.18 0.18
B-13 SaB 1 1.5 1.8 0.48 0.48
2 2.4 3.4 0.48 0.48
B-14 SaB 1 1.2 1.3 0.48 0.48
2 3.1 2.9 0.48 0.48
B-15 SaB 1 1.0 1.0 0.48 0.48
2 1.7 2.1 0.48 0.48
Table 3.2 Summary of Response Maxima - Earthquake Simulation Tests
Spec imen B-01 B-02 B-03 B-04 B-05
V (*) 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.25 0.21
c
Lya 1.34 0.39 0.67 0.33 0.79
Base Motion'1 E1C E 1C E 1C E 1C E1C
Run 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Acceleration (g)
Base, measured 1.35 2.40 0.94 3.35 0.91 3.28 0.92 3.36 0.96 3.50
VO
Base, effective® 0.97 1.35 0.78 1.37 0.76 1.33 0.77 1.33 0.79 1.34 CJN
Center of Mass 1.54 1.63 0.52 0.54 0.84 0.93 0.46 0.49 0.98 1.04
Displacement at Center of Mass (in)
Single-Amplitude 0.58 1.08 1.08 2.12 0.62 1.59 1.40 2.08 1.10 1.88
Mean Double-Amplitude 0.53 0.85 1.03 1.63 0.52 1.35 1.03 1.62 0.88 1.69
Rotation (%)
S ingle-Amp1itude 1.18 2.19 1.80 3.53 1.24 3.24 2.30 3.43 1.83 3.13
Residual -0.09 -0.51 0.03 1.46 -0.20 0.16 -0.07 0.49 0.25 0.20
Beam Reaction (kips) 6.83 6.99 2.90 3.05 - - 2.56 2.63 5.76 6.11
Moment*' (kip-in)
System 307 314 148 156 162 184 146 150 294 312
Beam 205 210 104 110 108 123 107 111 207 220
Table 3.2 (cont.) Summary of Response Maxima - Earthquake Simulation Tests
SpecImen B- 06 8-■07 8-08 B- 09 B-•10
V (8) 0. 21 0.,25 0.25 0. 21 0.,25
c ya 0. 39 0.,67 0.33 0. 39 0. 67
Base Motion** Cas SaB SaB SaB E1C
Run 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Acceleration (g)
Base, measured Q.43 0.90 0.66 1.33 0.34 0.60 0.42 1.17 0.56 1.42
Base, effective0 0.49 0.93 0.51 0.70 0.30 0.47 0.37 0.66 0.56 0.95
Center of Mass 0.45 0.52 0.78 0.82 0.41 0.47 0.48 0.54 0.85 0.82
Displacement at Center iof Mass (in)
in
o
Single-Amplitude 0.39 0.90 0.72 0.59 1.73 0.49 2.14 1.10 1.68
Rotation (X)
S ingle-Amplitude 0.65 1.50 1.19 2.47 0.97 2.85 0.82 3.55 1.82 2.76
Residual -0.01 0.50 0.01 0.27 0.11 1.00 0.09 1.36 0.27 0.46
Beam Reaction (kips) 2.69 2.88 4.63 4.75 2.63 2.90 2.84 3.16 4.98 4.92
Moment'* (kip-in)
System 137 147 264 271 150 165 145 161 284 281
Beam 97 104 195 200 110 122 102 114 209 207
Spec imen B-ll B-12 B-13 B-14 B-15
V (•) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 21
cLya 0.67 1.34 1.34 0.67 0.79
Base Motion*5 Cas Cas SaB SaB SaB
Run 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Acceleration (g)
Base, measured 0.46 0.87 0.58 1.03 0.75 1.61 0.55 1.28 0.50 1.30
Base, effective0 0.36 0.88 0.66 1.05 0.55 0.88 0.40 0.77 0.35 0.78
Center of Mass 0.77 0.83 1.49 1.53 1.27 1.52 0.63 0.84 0.80 1.03
Displacement at Center of Mass (in)
Single-Amplitude 0.28 0.71 0.49 0.63 0.42 0.70 0.25 0.85 0.51 1.14
Mean Double-AmplItude 0.28 0.57 0.49 0.61 0.39 0.54 0.24 0.58 0.48 0.90
Rotation (X)
S1ngle-Amplitude 0.57 1.45 1.00 1.29 0.86 1.41 0.50 1.73 0.86 1.89
Mean Double-AmplItude 0.57 1.16 0.99 1.25 0.80 1.10 0.49 1.17 0.80 1.49
Res idua 1 0.01 -0.30 0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.19 0.01 -0.09 0.03 -0.30
Beam Reaction (kips) 3.18 3.55 6.49 6.74 5.44 6.86 2.68 3.75 4.58 5.62
Moment^ (kip-1n)
System 143 160 292 303 245 309 120 169 233 286
Beam 95 107 195 202 163 206 80 112 165 202
Notes;
a - Assumed properties, taken from Table 2.1.
b - Cas - Castaic (1971), E1C = El Centro (1940), SaB - Santa Barbara (1954)
c - Computed as [S.I. (meas.)]/[S.I. (reference 0 lg)], where
S.I. = spectrum intensity
* area under linear velocity spectrum @ 2% damping
for 0.20 < T < 0.60 S.
d - System Moment = Maximum Moment in Beam Span * (Lt/Ln ).
See Fig. 2.3.
VO
VO
Table 3.3 Parametric Key to Figures of Specimen Response
Castaic (1971) El Centro (1940) S. Barbara (1952)
r + '
/
/
r*
/G O weak strong weak strong weak strong
—1
o
/
/
0 .1 4 s B —11 B —12 B —0 3 B — 01 B —1 4 B —13
Fig. 3.4
Fig. 3.16
100
0 .2 1 s B —0 6 B —0 2 B —0 5 B —0 9 B -15
Figs. 3.7 - 3.10 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.11
Fig. 3.19 - 3.22 Fig. 3.17 Fig. 3.18 Fig. 3.23
0.25 s B —0 4 B —10 B —0 8 B —0 7
Fig.3.12
Fig. 3.24
Note: Response of specimens listed in bold letters is discussed in Chapter 3. Top figure
number is response history, bottom is moment-rotation relationship. Response histories
and moment-rotation relationships for all test runs are presented in Appendix C.
Table 3.4 Summary of Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes
Specimen B--01 B-•02 B-03a B-04

Quadrant (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
Break Points
Cracking M (kip-in) 39 48 33 39 - .
36 40
Yield M (kip-in) 291 295 136 139 - - 127 141
Yield 0 (%) 0.84 0.87 0.61 0.61 - - 0.63 0.64
Maximum M (kip-in) 300 323 149 156 176 184 142 150
101
Run 1: Peak 0 (%) 0.97 1.19 1.72 1.80 0.86 1.24 1.53 2.30
Peak 0/Yield 0 1.2 1.4 2.8 3.0 - - 2.4 3.6
Run 2: Peak 0 (%) 1.28 2.19 3.53 2.88 3.03 3.24 2.85 3.43
Peak 0/Yield 0 1.5 2.5 5.8 4.7 - - 4.5 5.4
Run 3: Peak 0 (%) 1.72 2.74 2.69 1.17 • _ _
Peak 0/Yield 0 2.0 3.1 4.4 1.9 - - - -
Run 4: Peak 0 (%) - - - - _ - - -
Peak 0/Yield 0 " “ “ - “ • “
a - Moment signal too noisy to sense break points.

Table 3.4 (cont.) Summary of Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes
Specimen B-■05 B-•06 B-■07 B-08

Quadrant (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (')
Break Points
Cracking M (kip-in) 32 40 33 30 37 38 41 54
Yield M (kip-in) 280 286 131 - 263 250 150 137
Yield 0 (%) 0.91 1.01 0.59 - 1.09 0.98 0.73 0.67
Maximum M (kip-in) 317 296 156 137 302 259 165 151
Run 1: Peak 0 (%) 1.83 1.08 0.60 0.65 1.19 1.15 0.97 0.73
Peak 0/Yield 0 2.0 1.1 1.0 - 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1
102
Run 2: Peak 0 (%) 3.13 2.56 1.50 0.54 2.47 1.75 2.85 1.01
Peak 0/Yield 0 3.4 2.5 2.5 - 2.3 1.8 3.9 1.5
Run 3: Peak 0 (%) 3.65 2.67 2.91 0.58 3.85 1.76 4.65 1.86
Peak 0/Yield 0 4.0 2.6 4.9 - 3.5 1.8 6.4 2.8
Run 4: Peak 0 (%) _
3.50 0.63 3.27 1.19 -
Peak 0/Yield 0 * • 5.9 “ 3.0 1.2 • “

Table 3 .4 (cont.) Summary of Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes
Specimen B-09 B- 10 B- 11 B- 12
Quadrant (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
Break Points
Cracking M (kip-in) 41 41 36 40 -
43 30 .
Yield M (kip-in) 143 137 280 256 150 156 287 292
Yield 0 (%) 0.64 0.63 1.16 1.04 0.68 0.64 0.96 0.94
Maximum M (kip-in) 161 150 284 259 170 174 303 303
Run 1: Peak 0 (%) 0.82 0.66 1.82 1.10 0.56 0.57 1.00 0.97
Peak 0/Yield 0 1.3 1.0 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0
103
Run 2: Peak 0 {%) 3.55 1.36 2.76 1.59 0.87 1.45 1.20 1.29
Peak 0/Yield 0 5.5 2.2 2.4 1.5 1.3 2.3 1.3 1.4
Run 3: Peak 0 (%) - 2.67 1.85 1.98 1.04 1.64 1.72
Peak 0/Yield 0 - - 2.3 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.7 1.8
Run 4: Peak 0 (%) _ _ 2.87 1.48 4.13 2.59 .
Peak 0/Yield 0 “ “ 2.5 1.4 6.1 4.0 “ “

Table 3.4 (cont.) Summary of Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes
Specimen B-•13 B- 14 B- 15
Quadrant (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
Break Points
Cracking M (kip-in) 39 32 33 43 53 40
Yield M (kip-in) 295 - 153 140 276 286
Yield 0 (%) 1.06 - 0.70 0.55 1.16 1.14
Maximum M (kip-in) 309 259 169 159 279 286
Run 1: Peak 6 (%) 0.86 0.76 0.50 0.47 0.76 0.86

Peak 0/Yield 0 0.8 - 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8
104
Run 2: Peak 0 (%) 1.41 0.84 1.73 1.30 1.25 1.89
Peak 0/Yield 0 1.3 - 2.5 2.4 1.1 1.7
Run 3: Peak 0 (%) 0.39 0.72 1.58 1.94 1.60 2.43
Peak 0/Yield 0 0.8 - 2.3 3.5 1.4 2.1
Run 4: Peak 0 (%) _ _ _ _ _
Peak 0/Yield 0 “ - - “ - -
105
Table 3.5 Summary of Free-Vibration Tests
Before Run 1 Before Run 2 Before Run 3
Test f e f 6 f 6
<hz) <%) <hz) (%) (hz) (%)
B-01 9.4 2 4.8 7 3.4 10

B-02 6.5 2 2.4 10 1.6 12
B-03 8.7 3 3.3 6 - -
B-04 5.3 2 1.9 7 1.4 9

B-05 5.5 3 3.0 8 1.8 9
B-06 5.8 2 3.1 11 2.6 9
B-07 5.6 2 2.9 8 2.3 8
B-08 5.8 1 2.4 7 1.8 -
B-09 6.6 2 2.8 7 - -
B-10 4.8 3 2.6 5 2.1 7

B-ll 8.9 3 4.1 8 3.4 7
B-12 7.3 4 4.9 6 4.5 8
B-13 8.8 3 4.7 5 4.2 7
B-14 8.6 1 4.5 9 3.1 8
B-15 6.4 3 3.5 6 2.8 7
106
107
Table 5.1 Ground Motion Parameters for Idealized Spectra3
Record TS Dg
(s) (in)
Castaic 0.17 0.47
El Centro 0.24 1.11
Santa Barbara 0.48 3.29
a- Values are for reference versions scaled to 1 g peak acceleration.
108
109
no
(cont.) Normalization of Test Results for Comparison with Idealized Spectrum

Table 5.2
Ill
Table 5.3 Dimensionless Ratios for Response Classification
Test Run To C sa Sd TR SR DR
TS
(s) (s) (g) (in) (in)
B-01 1 0.16 1.34 0.24 3.70 0.88 0.58 0.64 0.36 0.66
2 0.16 1.34 0.24 5.15 1.22 1.08 0.64 0.26 0.89
B-02 1 0.23 0.39 0.24 2.97 1.49 1.08 0.93 0.13 0.73
2 0.23 0.39 0.24 5.22 2.62 2.12 0.93 0.07 0.81
B-03 1 0.14 0.67 0.24 2.90 0.57 0.62 0.58 0.23 1.09
2 0.14 0.67 0.24 5.07 0.99 1.59 0.58 0.13 1.60
B-04 1 0.27 0.33 0.24 2.67 1.88 1.40 1.10 0.12 0.74
2 0.27 0.33 0.24 4.60 3.25 2.08 1.10 0.07 0.64
B-05 1 0.23 0.79 0.24 3.01 1.51 1.10 0.93 0.26 0.73
2 0.23 0.79 0.24 5.11 2.56 1.88 0.93 0.15 0.73
B-06 1 0.23 0.39 0.17 1.23 0.61 0.39 1.33 0.32 0.63
2 0.23 0.39 0.17 2.33 1.17 0.90 1.33 0.17 0.77
B-07 1 0.28 0.67 0.48 1.46 1.15 0.72 0.58 0.46 0.63
2 0.28 0.67 0.48 2.01 1.57 1.50 0.58 0.33 0.95
B-08 1 0.27 0.33 0.48 0.86 0.61 0.59 0.56 0.38 0.97
2 0.27 0.33 0.48 1.35 0.95 1.73 0.56 0.24 1.81
B-09 1 0.23 0.39 0.48 1.05 0.53 0.49 0.47 0.38 0.93
2 0.23 0.39 0.48 1.90 0.95 2.14 0.47 0.21 2.25
B-10 1 0.28 0.67 0.24 1.84 1.44 1.10 1.16 0.36 0.76
2 0.28 0.67 0.24 3.12 2.44 1.68 1.16 0.21 0.69
B-ll 1 0.16 0.67 0.17 1.20 0.28 0.28 0.92 0.56 0.99
2 0.16 0.67 0.17 2.93 0.69 0.71 0.92 0.23 1.02
B-12 1 0.16 1.34 0.17 2.20 0.52 0.49 0.92 0.61 0.94
2 0.16 1.34 0.17 3.50 0.83 0.63 0.92 0.38 0.76
B-13 1 0.17 1.34 0.48 1.58 0.44 0.42 0.35 0.85 0.94
2 0.17 1.34 0.48 2.53 0.71 0.70 0.35 0.53 0.98
B-14 1 0.16 0.67 0.48 1.11 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.60 0.95
2 0.16 0.67 0.48 2.13 0.50 0.85 0.32 0.31 1.68
B-15 1 0.24 0.79 0.48 1.01 0.57 0.51 0.50 0.79 0.90
2 0.24 0.79 0.48 2.24 1.27 1.14 0.50 0.35 0.90
112
Table 6.1 Assumed Transformed Section Properties
Test b h As d' d n II k2d 12
(in) (in) (in2) (in) (in) (in4) (in) (in4)
B-01 4.02 8.02 0.40 0.84 7.17 9.2 238 2.51 111
B-02 4.02 8.01 0.22 0.86 7.15 8.4 204 2.01 61.8
B-03 4.02 8.02 0.22 0.85 7.17 9.0 207 2.05 65.7
B-04 4.02 8.01 0.22 0.88 7.13 9.1 207 2.06 65.8
B-05 4.04 8.01 0.40 0.84 7.16 9.1 237 2.50 109
B-06 4.01 8.00 0.22 0.85 7.15 9.1 207 2.06 66.5
B-07 4.02 8.00 0.40 0.85 7.15 9.2 237 2.51 110
B-08 4.02 8.01 0.22 0.86 7.14 8.8 206 2.03 64.1
B-09 4.02 8.01 0.22 0.88 7.13 9.2 207 2.06 66.1
B-10 4.03 8.01 0.40 0.81 7.19 9.6 243 2.54 116
B-12 4.02 8.02 0.40 0.84 7.17 9.8 243 2.55 116
B-13 4.02 8.01 0.40 0.81 7.20 10.5 249 2.60 124
B-14 4.02 8.01 0.22 0.87 7.14 10.0 211 2.12 71.3
B-15 4.01 8.01 0.40 0.84 7.16 9.6 240 2.54 114
113
O i-H
55 oooooococoooooooi©
CsJ i-HrH rH ^H iH »-H o
o ^H
•c
r-o oq . >
0.+J >> OOh O O h O I A i-lOOCOOf-t*—•
B <01— CSJ CSJ
<0 c c
O ©3
55 CSJo O O O O CSIM O O ^ O CO IT)
o h
M
Tally of Parametric Values for Ten Best Calculations
o CSJ
000000*4*00000000
CD iH l-H iH iH *4*
"O C«P
O C
C hq aj r-%
• CSJ
O (O O€SJU)tn(0^^0iO9iOOON
4-> O o i-H CO
M- f— C
O C O
(/>DO in• CO
ooDin^îocsirto«HOOcsi(o
o CO
CO• ^4
ÔOOOOOiOHNrtlOOHO
O o CO
Q.
O
•— • lOiHtOOfHCSJr-tCSI^^Ôr-tCSJ
<✓)4-3 CO
C o
o> o
c c
f- o CSJ
*TD Ol • o^rûiinoocvjfocoooo^ O
<0 X o CO
o ui
c—
c « oinoioôr'iifi'-ioooo^ hH
O CSJ
o
55 rocvji—ifOTtN^CMCvjrOrHOOO
in
CSJ
O
-o -f-
i— 4-> 55 CSJ
O (0 o po^comcocvicsjcocoror-iooo
f- o: fH CO
>-
io
4-> CL in
CO O in c\jc\j^rcsjcjfncsj>-icocvj»s-oooo
O »— CO
Table 6.2
O. €/>
55 CMCMCSJO.—<COC\)^-C\JCVJ^-OCMCVI
CSJ 00
CSI
o r-.
CO o omo«t*-oooiooooo«vjo r-H
TD V)-p o
C O CO ^H
O S_ Q-
03 4-»^ o oir>oioooo«*-oooocoo CO
00 o rH r-i ^H f-Hf-H iH iH ^H CSJ
4-> rHCjro^tmcONOOaiocNjfoîn
CO Q O O O O O O O O »“H i-HI-Hi-Hi-H z
0) I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • o
h - COGOCOOQGOCOCOCQCOGOCOCOCQCO 00
Table 6.3 Organization of Bond Stress Parameter with Respect to

Experimental Variables
BOND STRESS (PSI)
Motion Costaic El Centro Santa Barbara
y Strength
weak strong weak strong weak strong
Period \
0 .1 4 s N.A. 400 400 400 400 400

(B—11) (B—12) (B -0 3 ) (B—01) (B -14) (B—13)
0.21 s 400 400,1000 400 400 400

(B—06) (B—02) (B—05) (B—09) (B—15)
0 .2 5 s 400,1000 400 400,1000 400

(B—04) (B—10) (B—08) (B—07)
Table 6.4 Organization of Post-Yield Slope Parameter with Respect to

POST-YIELD SLOPE RATIO
Motion Castaic El Centro Santa Barbara
y Strength
Period \
0.1 4 s N.A. 2,5% 5% 10,15% 2% ??
115
(B—11) (B—12) (B—03) (B—01) (B -14) (B—13)
0.21 s 2,5% 10% 15% 5,10% 5%

(B—06) (B -0 2 ) (B—05) (B -09) (B -15)
0.25 s 10% 10,15% 2% 15%

(B—04) (B—10) (B—08) (B—07)
Table 6.5 Organization of Unloading Slope Exponent Parameter

with Respect to Experimental Variables
UNLOADING SLOPE EXPONENT

y Strength
Period \
0.1 4 s NA 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4,0.6 ??
116
(B—11) (B -1 2 ) (B -03) (B -0 1 ) (B -14) (B—13)
0.21 s 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0,0.2

(B—06) (B—02) (B—05) (B -09) (B—15)
0 .2 5 s 0.0,0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6

(B -04) (B—10) (B—08) (B—07)
Table 6.6 Organization of Softened Unloading Parameter with

Respect to Experimental Variables
SOFTENED UNLOADING CONSTANT

^ Strength
Period \
0.1 4 s N.A. 1.0 0.5,0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0

(B—11) (B -1 2 ) (B—03) (B -01) (B -14) (B—13)
0.21 s 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7

(B -0 6 ) (B -02) (B—05) (B -09) (B -15)
0.25 s 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7,1.0

(B -04) (B—10) (B—08) (B—07)
Table 6.7 Organization of Damping Parameter with Respect to

DAMPING RATIO & TYPE

\ Strength
Period \
0 .1 4 s N.A. 2% V 2% C 2% V 2% C 2% C
118
(8 —11) (B -12) (B—03) (B—01) (B -14) (B—13)
0.21 s 2% C 2% C 2% C 2% C 2% C
(B—06) (B—02) (B—05) (B—09) (B—15)
0.2 5 s 2% C 2% C 2% C 2% V
(B—04) (B—10) (B-OB) (B—07)
119
Table 6.8 Summary of Substitute Structure Calculations
Tast Run -J y*dt S *2<1fc A »m sd Sd'Dm
(in2/a2 > (in2/a) (rad/s) (In) (in)
B-01 1 1404 400 33.5 0.052 1.4 0.56 0.69 1.19

2 3782 809 27.3 0.086 2.5 1.08 1.26 1.17
3 4610 893 24.3 0.106 3.1 1.35 1.42 1.05
B-02 1 1570 399 15.5 0.127 3.0 1.08 1.33 1.23
2 3013 877 9.9 0.174 5.8 2.12 2.09 0.99
B-04 1 1263 40S 12.9 0.121 3.6 1.40 1.69 1.20
2 2505 847 9.8 0.151 5.4 2.08 2. 30 1.10
B-05 1 1387 513 19.9 0.068 2.0 1.10 1. 59 1.45
2 5135 1296 14.9 0.133 3.4 1.88 2.34 1.24
B-06 1 115 44 21.2 0.062 1.0 0.39 0.35 0.89
2 489 198 16.0 0.077 2.5 0.90 0.90 1.00
3 1167 351 12.8 0.130 4.9 1.75 1.38 0.79
B-07 1 961 603 20.7 0.039 1.2 0.72 0.90 1.25
2 3054 907 16.0 0.105 2.3 1.50 1. 79 1.19
B-08 1 465 252 17.7 0.052 1.3 0.59 0. 75 1.27
2 1894 551 11.9 0.144 3.9 1.73 1.64 0.95
B-09 1 559 236 19.3 0.061 1.3 0.49 0.68 1.39
2 3462 802 11.4 0.189 5.5 2.14 2.12 0.99
B-10 1 1055 484 18.4 0.059 1.6 1.10 1.18 1.07
2 2303 742 14.9 0.104 2.4 1.68 1.84 1.09
3 7844 2539 14 .4 0.107 2.3 1.62 1.34 0.83
B-ll 2 568 128 22.7 0.098 2.3 0.71 0.68 0.96
3 1023 223 19.4 0.118 2.9 0.98 0.99 1.01
4 4362 781 14.0 0.199 6.1 2.03 1.82 0.90
B-12 1 576 225 34 .4 0.037 1.0 0.49 0.58 1.19
2 682 222 30.8 0.050 1.4 0.63 0.66 1.04
3 1269 288 27.7 0.080 1.8 0.85 1.08 1.27
B-13 1 500 222 34.8 0.032 0.8 0.42 0.37 0.89
2 1175 429 31.5 0.044 1.3 0.70 0.64 0.91
B-14 1 219 77 32.5 0.044 0.9 0.25 0.24 0.97
2 1656 381 22.7 0.096 2.5 0.85 0.82 0.96
3 2614 562 18.5 0.125 3.5 0.96 1.30 1.35
B-15 1 298 162 23.9 0.038 0.8 0. 51 0.60 1.17
2 2302 895 19.2 0.067 1.7 1.14 1.13 0.99
3 4224 1225 16.7 0.103 2.1 1.46 1.87 1.28
Ct>s ■ substitute circular frequency

/?s ■ substitute damping ratio (Eq. 6.13)
• rotation ductility ratio from measured response
Dm “ measured peak displacement response
■ computed displacement response for substitute linear system
120
Fig. 2.1 Photograph of Test Setup
121
Idealization
Response
Specimen
Fig. 2.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
122
Beam Element Idealization

CO
TJ CM
(3 0
£
o
123
O
I—
o
UJ
in
Variables
Configuration
Specimen
Fig. 2.4
124
Elastic Response/ C astaic N21E 1971

5.0
2% d am p in g
4 .0 5% dam pin g
10% dam ping
3.0 20% dam ping
■= 2.0
0.0
1 2.0
0.0
0.00 0 .5 0 1 .00 1 .5 0 2.00
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.5 Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra for

Original Earthquake Records Scaled to 1 G
(a) Castaic N21E 1971
125
E lastic Response/ El C entro NS 19 4 0

5.0
2%
4 .0 5%
0
1 0% dam ping
0 ^ .0 20% damping
£
0
- 2.0
(1)
a
u
<
0.0
2 4 .0 T
in.
1 8 .0
Displacement,
12.0
6.0
0.0 — -
0.00 0 .5 0 1 .00 1 .50 2.00
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.5 (cont.) Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra

for Original Earthquake Records Scaled to 1 G
(b) El Centro NS 1940
126
Elastic Response/ Santa B arbara S48E 1952

5.0
2% d a m p in g
4 .0 5% d a m pin g
0
1 0% d a m p in g
0 3.0 20% d a m p in g
-Iu 2 0
0
<
0.0
7 2 .0 T
; 4 8 .0
24 .0
0.0 --
0.00 0 .5 0 1 .00 1 .50 2.00
P erio d , sec.
Fig. 2.5 (cont.) Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra

for Original Earthquake Records Scaled to 1 G
(c) Santa Barbara S48E 1952
127
CM
Study by
/
Summary of Hypothesis from Analytical

/
o
T^- /
o / CO
A\ o oc
/
CC V/
CO
Shimazaki and Sozen [22]

+ QC "/
Q CD o
QC o a:
t-
V •a
o
/ o 0)
/ - M" CL
o o
/ V
/ QC A
CO
/
+ QC
Q - CM
/ o
a:
Fig. 2.6
/ i- -
/
oo CD CM
o o o o
(ys) O U D H M^6 U8 J^S
128
M oment
Fig. 2.7 Development of Specimen Capacity
129
E la s tic Response/ C a s ta ic Test M o tio n

5 .0
2% dam p in g
4.0 5% dam p in g
1 0% dam p in g
3 .0 20% d am pin g
r 2.0
0 . 0
3 .0 T
0.0 L— i
0.00 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 0 .7 5 1 .00
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.8 Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra for Test

Base Motions Scaled to 1 G
(a) Castaic
130
E la s tic Response/ El C e n tro Test M o tio n

5 .0
2% d a m p in g
4 .0 5% d a m p in g
0
10% d am p in g
0 3 .0 20% d a m p in g
4-»
0
i 2 0
0
0
<
0.0
6.0
5 .0
c
^ 4.0
c
0
£ 3 .0
(!)
0
0
a 2 -0
to
0
0 . 0 --
0.00 0 .2 5 0 .5 0 0 .7 5 1 .00
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.8 (cont.) Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra for

Test Base Motions Scaled to 1 G
(b) El Centro
131
E la s tic Response/ S a n ta B arb ara Test M o tio n

5 .0
2% dam pin g
4.0
10% dam ping
20% dam pin g
2.0
0.0
12.0 T T
In.
8 . 0
D is p la c e m e n t ,
4.0
0 . 0 --
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 .00
Perio d, sec.
Fig. 2.8 (cont.) Acceleration and Displacement Response Spectra for

Test Base Motions Scaled to 1 G
(c) Santa Barbara
Linear Response/ Castaic

50.0
40.0
mCl
~o
c
o
E
a
Q
20.0
132
So
c
IU
10.0 Tn = 0.18 sec.
10% damping
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.9 Energy Demand Response Spectra for Test Base Motions Scaled to 1 G
(a) Castaic
Linear Response/ El Centro

100.0
80.0
m
a.
x
>" 60.0
e
a
E
q
>, 40.0
133
ai
<5
20.0 Tn = 0.28 sec.
10% damping
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.9 (cont.) Energy Demand Response Spectra for Test Base Motions Scaled to 1 G
(b) El Centro
Linear Response/ Santa Barbara

200.0 _
150.0
100.0
134
50.0 T„ = 0.48 sec.
10% damping
0.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
Period, sec.
Fig. 2.9 (cont.) Energy Demand Response Spectra for Test Base Motions Scaled to 1 G
(c) Santa Barbara
E X P E R IM E N T A L P L A N
b—13.1 a
X \
a b—12.1
0.6
B—13.2 B—12.2
B—14.1 B—11.1
B-15.2
B—09.1
0 .4 B-01.1
B-0B.1 B—05.1 a b—10.1
a b—11.2
B—01.2_
B—14.2a B—03.1 "a 8-08.2
0.2
B—10.2
B—04.1
14.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0 .4 0.6
P e rio d R a tio (T R )
Fig. 2.10 Layout of Experimental Plan by Period and Strength Ratios

136
h- Z
O
CD in
i^.
a.
o @
t—
cn
CO CL
•; cz ZD
U. < O'
z CD 9r
Ld 1—
O' CM CO
\/
00
C A S T A IC
2 . 0 r-
Reference
0.0
o
o
<
«
n -2 . 0 I-
o
ffl 2 . 0
x B—06.1
0
I)
Q.
0.0 l
Id
u>
--j
\
0 -2.0 L
0
2.0
<
B—1 2 .2
0
I)
0
m
0.0 -1* ■ ■
- 2.0
_L _L _L J
0.0 4 .0 8.0 12.0 1 6.0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time. sec.
Fig. 3.1 Comparison of Measured Castaic Platform Motion to Reference Signal

(a) Normalized Base Acceleration Histories
138
L in e a r Response/ C a s ta ic / 2% D a m p in g
6.0
Reference
5.0 B—06.1
0 B—12.2
4.0
A c c e le r a t io n ,
3.0
2 . 0
0 . 0
3.0
2 .5
in.
2 . 0
D i s p la c e m e n t ,
0 .5
0 . 0
0 . 0 0 . 2 0.4 0 . 6 0 .S 1 .0
Period, sec.
Fig. 3.1 (cont.) Comparison of Measured Castaic Platform Motion

to Reference Signal
(b) Normalized Linear Response Spectra
EL CENTRO
2.0
R eference
0.0 nvv W ^
(j
u
4
9
n - 2.0
0
£
D 2.0
B—03.1
0
V
Q.
. 0.0
4-
*- w
UJ VO
\
6 - 2.0
3 2.0
B — 03.2
0
n
o
ffl
0.0
-2 . 0 L
I_ X X X J
0.0 4 .0 8.0 12.0 1 6.0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of Measured El Centro Platform Motion to Reference Signal

(a) Normalized Base Acceleration Histories (Spike Distortion)
140
L in e a r Response/ El C e n tro / 2% D a m p in g
6.0
Reference
5 .0 B—03.1
0 B—0 3 .2
4 .0
A c c e le ra tio n ,
3 .0
2.0
0 . 0
6. 0
5 .0
in.
4 .0
D is p la c e m e n t,
3 .0
2. 0
0 . 0 *-
0 . 0 0 . 2 0 .4 0 . 6 0.8 1 .0
Period, sec.
Fig. 3.2 (cont.) Comparison of Measured El Centro Platform

Motion to Reference Signal
(Spike Distortion)
EL CENTRO
T
2.0 r
Reference
0.0
0
0
<
n - 2.0 L
o
ffl 2.0 r
x
o
V
n
-. o.o
*-
»
UJ
\
0 -2.0 L
ir 2.0 r
B— 0 1 . 2
e
n
o
m
_L _L X J
0.0 4 .0 8.0 12.0 1 6 .0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.
Fig. 3.2 (cont.) Comparison of Measured El Centro Platform Motion to Reference Signal
(c) Normalized Base Acceleration Histories (Spike + Noise Distortion)
142
L in e a r Response/ El C e n tro / 2% D a m p in g
6.0
Reference
5 .0 B—01.1
0 B—01.2
4 .0
A c c e le ra tio n .
3 .0
2 . 0
0 . 0
6 . 0
5 .0
in.
4 .0
D is p la c e m e n t ,
3 .0
2 . 0
0.0 L.
0 . 0 0 . 2 0 .4 0 . 6 0. 8 1 .0
Period, sec.
Fig. 3.2 (cont.) Comparison of Measured El Centro Platform

(d) Normalized Linear Response Spectra
(Spike + Noise Distortion)
SANTA BARBARA
I-------------- 1-------------- 1-------------- 1-------------- 1-------------- 1-------------- 1
2.0 r
Reference
0.0
u
o
<
V
n -2 .0
0
oa 2 .0
B—09.1
x
a
i)
1
0.0
(j - 2 . 0 L
< 2-° T
B—0 7 .2
0
fl
0
m
0.0
- 2.0
0 .0 4 .0 8 .0 1 2 .0 1 6 .0 2 0 .0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.
Fig. 3.3 Comparison of Measured Santa Barbara Platform Motion to Reference Signal
(a) Normalized Base Acceleration Histories (Spike Distortion)
144
L in e a r Response/ S a n ta B a rb a ra / 2% D a m p in g
6.0
Reference
5 .0 B—09.1
B—0 7 .2
• 4 .0
0 3 .0
0 2.0
/ v J.
0.0
1 2.0 T T T T T
10.0
in.
8.0
D is p la c e m e n t,
6.0
2 . 0
0.0
0 . 0 0 . 2 0 .4 0 . 6 0 . 8 1 .0
Period, sec.
Fig. 3.3 (cont.) Comparison of Measured Santa Barbara Platform

(Spike Distortion)
SANTA BARBARA
T
2.0
Reference
0.0
0
0
<
145
0.0 4.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0
Tim e. sec.
Fig. 3.3 (cont.) Comparison of Measured Santa Barbara Platform Motion to Reference
Signal
(c) Normalized Base Acceleration Histories (Spike + Noise Distortion)
146
L in e a r Response/ S a n ta B arb ara/ 2% D a m p in g

6.0
Reference
5 .0 B—15.1
B—13.2
- 4 .0
0 3.0
0 2.0
/^
0 . 0
1 2.0 T T
10.0
in.
8 . 0
D i s p la c e m e n t,
6 . 0
4 .0
2 . 0
0.0
0.0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0 . 8 1 .0
Period, sec.
Fig. 3.3 (cont.) Comparison of Measured Santa Barbara Platform

(d) Normalized Linear Response Spectra (spike
+ Noise Distortion)
147
u i - dsia
c ®
"j ? o
•i
CM
oo
o
o'
CM
B-01 During Run

So
o
ID
of Response of Specimen
D
sx.
u
\ «
n
o
CM «
0 - E
1 i-
m
u)
Ld
i-
o
History
to
Fig. 3.4
o
o O o o o o o o'
O CM O CM CM
I
zh "baJJ 0/'33V 0600
148
U| *-doia '■pD»y
o o o o o o
•o o o
d T
•*
CM
O
o
CM
B-02 During Run

o
CO
Z
D
£
o
0
\ n
o
N cm i
O - E
I P
00
I—
0)
hi
H
History
o
to
Fig. 3.5
o
M-
'
00
O
O o o o o cm o cm o o o d
z H “ baJJ SS “ioM Ul— »1 O O O t O/'^^V B e D B
149
uj "dsia "PDsa
o o o o o o
o <6 o ®
I o
CM
o
o
N
B-05 During Run

o
(0
Z
D
a:
a
\ c
•>
o
in N C
0 - £
1 F
m
h-
V)
UJ
H
History
o
00
Fig. 3.6
o
N-
J J
o o o 0 < n- o o
01 d
zh “bojj % -»oa uj— >i O O O t 'IN 3/'Oov asog
150
ui ’-deia
O O O o o o
in
d T ° ? o
■t
N
O
oo o
N
B-06 During Run

00
o
to
Z
D
K
00
\
o
<0 d 9
0 - E
1 F
m
i—
<n
Ui
H
History
o
d
„°0
Fig. 3.7
J o
o o o o (M o N o O O o
o d n o 0 «-
1
zh 54 “ v ’H ui— >1 O O O L 0 / ‘=>=V « » 0
151
ui ••deia ••pooy
O O O O O o
n d 7
^ d T O
♦
PI
00
O
N
oo
of Response of Specimen B-06 During Run

o«
O
cd
tM
Z
D
K
o
\ (I
o
CD pi •
O - £
I F
CD
H
V)
Ui
\—
History
o
o'
Fig. 3.8
o
•*
J J
O O o o □ N o O O
0 «“ o
1
■bojj •pa “ I— ooot •n / -= = v ocog
ZH >1 s
152
u{ ••dcja >) ‘'>3o»a

o o 9 o o o
w o n ri o n
(M
o
d
ot
B-06 During Run

o
d
n
of Specimen
z
D
g:
a
«
\ n
O
« 9
of Response
(0
0 E
1 F
m
i—
CO
UJ
History
H
o
to
Fig. 3.9
o
o o o o o N o o
IH •bojj s£ “?oy ui— >1 OOOL ‘w o/*=»=>v « » a
153
UJ ••dcja "pDoy
9 9 ° o O O
n o n 10 d «
o
N
o
N
Run
During
B-06
o
CO
of Specimen
Z
D
a:
o
\ an
0
of Response
ID 01 o*
O E
I
m
i-
CD
UJ
History
I-
o
00
3.10
Fig.
o
o o o o o o o o o o
o •+ o o o - o
I I I
zh "baJJ s: "loy U I — >1 O O O L 'IN 0 /'3 3 V « “0
154
uj '•doia "J30»y
o o 9 o o q
10 d ?
^ 6 T o
V
N
O
N
Run
During
B-09
o
(d
of Specimen
Z
D
E
o
e
\ n
a
of Response
0) pi o
O - E
I F
m
|—
(I)
LJ
History
H
o
00
3.11
Fig.
Qd
00
o
o o O O O N o O O o’
o *-
I
2 H t£ '-;oy U[— >1 OOOl ’n 0/'^=>V OSOQ
155
uj ••dsja >1 “ p o o y
O O O o o q
ui o
' d 7 o
N
B-10 During Run

N
o
u>
Z
D
C£
u
e
\ I)
o
O pi £
r— " E
I F
CD
H
m
History
u
o
ai
Fig. 3.12
j
o o o o o o
o n
I
zh ••*oy <JJ—Ji OOO L o/'=>o\/ osog
TEST B —0 2 / RUN 1 (M o m e n t D e la y = 1 6 .6 m sec)

200
4 —6 sec.
-200
156
8 —1 0 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
2 O 2 O 2
R otation, percent R otation, percent R otation, percent
Fig. 3.13 Effect of Time Skew on Moment-Rotation Relationship

(a) Moment Signal Delayed by 16.6 msec
200 TEST B — 02 / RUN 1 (Moment Delay 6.6 msec)

0 —2 soc. 2 —4 sec,
-200
200 1-- "1....... ........ . "

6 —8 sec. 8 —10 sec, 1 0 —12 aec.
/
/
-200 * *
-2 O 2 -2 O 2
R otation, percen t Rotation, percen t Rotation, percent
Fig. 3.13 (cont.) Effect of Time Skew on Moment-Rotation Relationship

(b) Moment Signal Delayed 6.6 msec (Uncorrected Data)
200
TEST B — 02 / RUN 1 (Corrected)
-------------------1------------------ ------- ' ■-T
£ —4 aec.
/ #
I------------------
-2 0 0 ___________l__________
158
200 ------------------1------------------ -----------1---------------
----------- 1----------
OD
o
mA
1
6 —8 see. 1 0 -1 2 sao.
•
p
•
c
T
a.
3
/ ?
c w .....
a
Eo
2
. /
-200 - i - ........... — i -----------L _________1___________

-2 2 -2 2 -2
Rotation, parcan t Rotation, parcant Rotation, parcant

(c) Corrected Data
200
TEST B — 02 / RUN 1 (Rotation Delay = 8.4 msec)
2 —4 sec. 4 —6 sec.
c
T
a
x
c
c
E
o
2
-200
Ul
200 VO
8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
-200
-2 0 2 -2 2 - 0 2
R otation, percent Rotation, percent Rotation, percent

(d) Rotation Signal Delayed 8.4 sec
TEST B — 02 / RUN 1
80.0
T 70.0
O 60.0 Rot. Delay, 8.4- msec

Corrected
50.0 Mom. Delay, 6 .6 msec

Mom. Delay, 1 6 .6 msec
160
© 40.0
30.0
m 20.0
a 10.0
0.0
0.0 1.o 2.0
Mean of P e a k Rotations, %
Fig. 3.14 Effect of Time Skew on Apparent Stiffness

TEST B— 02/ RUN 1

3.0
c v Rot. Delay, 8 .4 msec

• *
'l b \ □ Corrected
X
o Mom. Delay, 6 .6 msec
2.0 b-
:5l •• a Mom. Delay, 16.6 msec
©
0
>*
O
V* \
■0 £j:
© 1.0 •i>. •.:t .V n.v-v. v
+> ▼ / 0\y
0 bi \ '<?■•. / •. \
a A \'Q'a' 0 Q°-d\ •o.
w 4« A ® -o" o ’-jn //o $
(0
j ’\£j'
A-.. 5V
* i i V >0-0
0.0 +4- -A
0>
u
©
c
Id
-1.0 L
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 1 2.0
Time, sec
Fig. 3.15 Effect of Time Skew on Calculated Energy Dissipation

400
TEST B-01 RUN
2 —4 aac.
-4 0 0
162
■ ..... »--------- i i-------- .. .... 1 i '1—
6 — 8 sac. 8 — 10 sac. 1 0 - 1 2 sac.
A / A/ A /
. /
/
/
i i______ _ • i » i
-2 O 2 —2 O 2 —2 O 2
Rotation, parcant Rotation, parcant Rotation, parcant
Fig. 3.16 Moment-Rotation Relationship for Test B-01 During Run 1

163
c
9
vu
.
9
a
c
o
o
for Test B-02 During Run

ft
r“
z
D
O' C
9
y
i.
9
Relationship
a
OJ
O
CD o
ft
h*
0)
Moment-Rotation
LU
H
N
Fig. 3.17
c
9
u
u
9
a
c
0
0
ft
-> N
o o O o o O|
•uj— dpi *}u»tjuon *ui— dpi 'ûeujow
TEST B —0 5 RUN
40 0 ■ ......“T “ 1 .. ""!--------
0 —2 sec. 2 —4 sec. 4 —6 sec.
c
Ta
5
"■1
-------- 1--------
c
•
.
E
’ --- 1....
o
2
-
-4 0 0
164
400
6 —B sec. 8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
-4 0 0
-2 O 2 -2 2 -2
Rotation, percent Rotation, percent Rotation, percent

165
C
9
0
u
9a
c
0
0
£

N
Z
D
K
Relationship
10
O
o
o:
H
CO
Ld
H
Moment-Rotation
Fig. 3.19
0
QL
o o o o o o|
•ui— dj>i *}u »uj©h
TEST B -0 6 / RUN 2
200
0— 2 sec. 4— 6 sec.
-200
166
200 “ f" . 1 — - ---- ------ -- ■ -- T
6— 8 sec. 8 — 10 sec. 10— 12 sec.
/ J
(t
/ f
- ^
-200 • ■
-2 O 2
R ot at io n, p e r c e n t R otation, p e r c e n t R ot at io n, p e r c e n t

167
c
9
U
u
0
a
o
a

c
9
U
k.
0
a
Relationship
o
a.
Moment-Rotation
c
Fig. 3.21
0
u
L.
0
a
c
0
0
K
-»*
o o o O O O|
o
N O
N
•u|— d|>i ‘^ u o u j o v n
! •u\— di>i ûvujo^
168
1— -------- r- —
d
0

’ n
(0
1
*
i i
I
RUN
/
Relationship
B -0 6
TEST
Moment Rotation
I
.22
o o o o o O|
*U1—dpi *}<j»ujow ‘ui— d[>i (}u » u j o w
TEST B —0 9 / RUN 1
200
0 —2 sec. 2— 4 9«C. 4 —6 sec.
c
7
a
3
c
t
E0
2
—200 O'*
V£>
200
8 —1 0 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
-200
-2 O 2 -2 2 -2

--------1
TEST B-10 RUN
1 -- 1----- i
0— 2 s«c. 4— 8 a«c.
v /
V
i t i .. . i
170
400 l 1
8 —1 0 sec. 10-12 aec.
r
/
- 400 I______ ______ i______

-2 O 2
Rotation, parcant Rotation, parcant Rotation, parcant

7 0 .0
c
'| 6 0 .0 B—01.1
X B—02.1
O B — 05.1
O 5 0 .0
O B—09.1
B -1 0 .1
n* 4 0 . 0
171
Cfl
Q)
C
t 3 0 .0
U)
£ 20.0
d)
0
g- 10.0
<
0.0
0.0 1 .0 2.0
M ean of Peak R o ta tio n s , %
Fig. 3.25 Variation of Apparent Stiffness with Peak Rotation

TEST B —0 2 / RUN 1 (1 .7 6 0 - 1 2 .0 0 0 sec)

0.50
*
pi
® 0.40 -
c
LlI
09
0
+»
0
h 0.30
\
TJ
fl)
L
0
> 0.20
0
0
q:
o. o o *-
o.o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Mean Cycle Rotation/ Mean Peak Rotation
Fig. 3.26 Energy Retention for Softened Cycles, Test B-02 During Run 1
TEST B —0 5 / RUN 1 (1 .6 5 5 - 1 2 .0 0 0 sec)

0 .5 0
oo
0 0 .4 0
c O O OC0
oo
LJ
'ocPo0o
0
+>
0
h 0 .3 0
\
TJ
©
i.
0
> 0.20
0
>»
0>
0.10
c
Id
0.00 L-
0.0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1.0
M ean C ycle R o t a t io n / M ean Peak R o ta tio n
Fig. 3.27 Energy Retention for Softened Cycles, Test B-05 During Run 1
174
o
M"
Envelopes
o
CM
0
Q
RUNS
Dynamic Moment-Rotation
c
a)
0
(a) Specimen B-01

/A L L
a)
a
o
o’Wo;
%
o
B -0 1
o
cl
TEST
J
Fig. 3.28
o
CM
CM 10
c c c
3 3 3
CL CL CL
O 0 o^
O o o d o 1
O o C) 0
M" <N CM T
1 1
ui— di>i 4}.u s u _i o |
aj
TEST B - 0 2 /ALL RUNS

200.0 I 1 1 l l 1' "
o Run 1
* Run 2 o o OO0 00003*^^
1 00.0 -
C o/
7 Of
0
a 1
I
■)
»
n n
175
v u -u
c I
C
Q)
E i
0 o
2 o
- 1 00.0 o -
o
o
l ^ * * * * * * * * ^ 300000000
-200.0 1 .... 1 --- -1 ■■■ 1________1

________
-4.0 - 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
R o ta tio n , percent
Fig. 3.28 (cont.) Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes

(b) Specimen B-02
176
Envelopes
o
Dynamic Moment-Rotation
cm
(c) Specimen B-04

V)
Z
D +j
K c
ai
o
_l a)
< a
\ -Ôaoa o
'i- o
0
1
CD
(cont.)
o
I- a:
cn
u
t-
Fig. 3.28
o
CM
t- CM
C C
3 3
a: a:
_ o
o o-t
o o o o o 1
o o o o
CM CM
ui— d i>( 'û sujo ^
TEST B —0 5 /A L L RUNS
4 0 0 .0
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
200.0
0. /
X
f
0.0
177
c
0) i
E
0
2
- 200.0
*%•©< XX X X * x *
-4 0 0 .0
-4 .0 — 2 .0 0 .0 2.0 4 .0

(d) Specimen B-05
TEST B -0 6 /A L L RUNS
200.0
o Run 1
X Run 2
□ Run 3 o
o
10 0 . 0 o
o
c + Run 4 u
Q. /
'x
4J 0.0
c (
C
a) 00
E /
o
2
10 0 .0 o
o
- 200.0
-4 .0 - 2.0 0.0 2.0 4 .0
R o tatio n , p ercent

(e) Specimen B-06
4 0 0 .0
Run 1
a a o oas%
Run 2
Run 3
200.0
o
o
o
o
a o
o
'x
0.0 /
c VO
0)
E 7
0
5
O
- 200.0 JO
o
Wxx
■ 4 0 0.0
-4 .0 - 2.0 0.0 2.0 4 .0

(f) Specimen B-07
200.0 I I T " "■ ....... "T“" --- r — ---- 1----------
o Run 1
x Run 2
o
o
o
o Run 3 o
o
1 0 0 .0 o
o
C o
0
o
7 o
0
a 8
x >
)
(
c £
Q)
E
0 J
- 2 o
o
o
- 1 00.0 o
o
gfnini%lim'TI. V
- 200.0 _.l 1 1 1 t 1
-4 .0 -2 .0 0 .0 2 .0 4 .0
R o ta tio n , p e r c e n t

(g) Specimen B-08
200.0 1 ... 1 " ------ 1
---------- 1 1 1" ■
o Run 1
x xxxxxxwowmw
A X „„
XX X Xy *XX
X XX
* Run 2
A
oo°
100.0 O
o
o
c o
o
o
o
7 o
Q. s
X >
>
181
C j
V 0
E
0 /
2
- 1 00.0
- 200.0 1 1 » ..... • 1 1
-4 .0 —2 . 0 0 .0 2 .0 4 .0
R o tatio n , p e r c e n t

(h) Specimen B-09
TEST B -1 0 /A L L RUNS
4 0 0 .0
Run
Run ° °°°ooa%x * ***■

Run
200.0
c Run
‘l
a
'x
o.o
c
a)
E
o
2
- 200.0
- 4 0 0 . 0 ■—
—4 .0 — 2.0 0.0 2.0 4 .0

(i) Specimen B-10
TEST B—11 /A L L RUNS

200.0
Run + + + ++++%
°oa“V *
Run
Run
00.0
c Run
a
x
o.o
183
c
V
E
0
2
00.0
- 200.0
-4 .0 —2 .0 0 .0 2 .0 4 .0
R o tatio n , percent

(j) Specimen B-ll

4 0 0 .0 I I I ' 1 1 .......1—......
o Run 1
« Run 2 o
o
o Run 3
200.0 /
o
o
o
/
o
o
)
0.0
c
0) O
i 00
■>
o
E o
0
2
/
o
- 200.0 o
fip
£
tooo
•4 0 0 .0 1 1 1. . . . . . . . __________ 1 . ___________I
.1 --------
-4 .0 - 2.0 0.0 2.0 4 .0
Rotation, percent

(k) Specimen B-12

400.0 1 ---- I------ 1— , f ...T—
o Run 1
x Run 2 A ’* *
200.0
o/
*
C /
op
7 o
Q. ooo
X o
J 0.0
f
185
c
V /
E O
0
2
/
- 200.0 o -
*
-400.0 1 1 I _______ I ______1________1___

-4.0 — 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
R o ta tio n , p ercen t

(1) Specimen B-13

200.0 1— ------1---------- 1---------- — r - ...t --- ---- 1----------
o Run 1
* Run 2 X
o Run 3 9
1 0 0 .0
c /
O
o
o
'l
Q.
X !
0.0
c L
a) £
C
E O
o o
2 /o
- 1 0 0 .0 o
- 200.0 1 1 1 i .-- i i
-4 .0 -2 .0 0 .0 2 .0 4 .0
R o ta tio n , p e r c e n t

(m) Specimen B-14
Envelopes
Dynamic Moraent-Rotation
U)
Specimen B-15
z
D
a:
<
\
(n)
t—
CD (cont.)
I—
I/)
U
I-
3.28
Fig.
o o o o
ui — di>i ‘^ u a u j o ^ i
ALL TESTS
4 0 0 .0
X
m
+>
C
0
E
0
188
2
200.0
+>
c
0)
L
0
a App 1.17 x Calc
a
< App, Calc.
0.0
0.0 200.0 4 0 0 .0
C a lc u la te d Yield M o m e n t, k —in
Fig. 3.29 Comparison of Apparent Yield Moments with Static Estimates

ALL TESTS
4 0 0 .0
M eas, Calc.
M eas. 0 .9 0 x Calc.
c Maas. 0 .8 0 x Calc.
T
X
*
+>
c Q'O
0 S o
E 00
0
2
V
189
® 200.0
3
«
0
0
2
E
3
E
X
0
2
0.0
0 .0 2 0 0 .0 4 0 0 .0
C a lc u la te d U p p e r B ound M o m e n t, k —in
Fig. 3.30 Comparison of Peak Moments with Static Bound

(b) Specimen B-10, After Run 1 (42-in. beam span)
Fig. 3.31 Effect of Varied Span Length on Observed Damage
191
(a) Pilot Specimen (analog to B-01), After

Testing (Strong)
(b) Specimen B-ll, After Testing (Weak)
Fig. 3.32 Effect of Varied Strength on Observed Damage
IN ITIA L F R E E —V IB R A T IO N TESTS/ ALL S P E C IM E N S

12.0
Uncr.
0 .7 0 7 x Uncr.
10.0
N
I
> 8.0
0
c
3
O’
192
2 6.0
li.
TJ
<U
1 4.0
0
Q)
2
2.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4 .0 6.0 S.O 10.0 12.0
C a lc u la te d U n cracked F re q u en cy , Hz
Fig. 3.33 Comparison of Measured to Calculated Initial Frequencies

F R E E —V IB R A T IO N TESTS/ ALL S P E C IM E N S
0.1 4
0.031 kip— aee/ln
0.12
ooo o
193
oo
0 .0 6
2 0.0 4
oo
0.02
0.00 ---
0.00 0.02 0 .0 4 0 .0 6 0 .0 8 0.1 O
M ass x M easu red F req u en cy, k i p —s / i n
Fig. 3.34 Evaluation of Damping Coefficient from Free-Vibration

Tests
Force
194
Disp.
sd
(a) Cyclic Energy Absorption

for Damped Linear System
(b) Relationship Between Spectral Shapes
Fig. 4.1 Properties of Linear Energy Response Spectra

El C e n tro / 2% D a m p in g
12 5 .0
10 0 .0
7 5 .0
195
□
in
*
-o
to
5 0 .0
Qa
2 5 .0
0.0
0.0 2 5 .0 5 0 .0 7 5 .0 100.0 12 5 .0
Energy Spectrum, Se
Fig. 4.1 (cont.) Properties of Linear Energy Response Spectra

(c) Check of Assumed Relationship
196
B'
Damping Ratio = 0.10
0
T
Period
Fig. 4.2 Determination of Characteristic Period
ALL TESTS/ FIRST RUN
197
0.5 1.0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
C a (max) / g S„ / g
Fig. 4.3 Variation of Drift Expressions with Strength-Related Independent Variables
198
Independent Variables
of Drift Expressions with Period—Related
FIRST RUN
ALL TESTS/
Variation
Fig. 4.4
ALL TESTS/ FIRST RUN
199
1.0 2.0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.0 0.5 1.0
C * g / a (max) C * g / S„ T0 / Tg
Fig. 4.5 Variations of Drift Expressions with Dimensionless Independent Variables
ALL TESTS/ F IR S T RUN

1 .5
200
X)
in
E
a
0 .5
0.0
1 2 3
Measured Rotation Ductility
Fig. 4.6 Variation of the Ratio of Measured to Computed Linear Displacement

Response with Rotation Ductility
201
ALL TESTS/ F IR S T RUN

6
4
Dm / D
slope
slope 0.83
0 V-
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 1 0.0
Sa / C * g
(a) Nominal Ductility Ratio
5
Ductility
4
Rotation
3
Measured
1
co
0 >-
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
sa / C * g
(b) Actual Ductility Ratio
Fig. 4.7 Variation of Displacement Ductility with Strength Ratio
N O R M A L IZ E D L IN E A R RESPONSE/ 2% D A M P IN G FA C T O R
C astalc
Centro
Barbara
202
0.0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1 .0
P e rio d , sec
Fig. 5.1 Relative Frequency Content of Base Motions

203
IDEALIZED LINEAR SPECTRUM
Equation 5.1
4Dg
c
CD
E
a>
o 10%
jo
co 2Dg
CL
Dg
T, 2T,
Period
Fig. 5.2 Idealization of Linear Response Spectrum
N O R M A L IZ E D L IN E A R RESPONSE/ 2% D A M P IN G FACTO R
4 .0 Caatalc
El Centro
S. Barbara
Idealized (Eq. 5 .1 )
3 .0
204
2.0
\/
0.0 •—
0.0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0
Period / Tg
Fig. S.3 Evaluation of Idealized Spectral Shape

ALL TESTS/ F IR S T TW O RUNS

3 .0 C astalc Tests
El Centro Tests
S. B arbara Tests
Idealized Linear (Eq. 5 .1 )
2.0
205
.0
0.0 L_
0.0 0 .5 1 .O 1 .5
Period / Tg
Fig. 5.A Comparison of Normalized Test Results with Idealized Linear Spectrum

3.0
Castatc Tests
Centro Tests
Barbara Tests
TR + SR 0 .8 5
2.0
206
a:
a
a'nfii
CD
0 . 0 L-
0.0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0
TR + SR
Fig. 5.5 Variation of Displacement Ratio with Sum of Period

and Strength Ratio
0.8 TR + SR 0 .8 5
0.6
207
0 .4
Q d\
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 0.8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4
TR
Fig. 5.6 Division of Period Ratio-Strength Ratio Plane

by Displacement Ratio Criterion
O
TR SR 0 .8 5 (Eq. 5 .6 )
TR SR 1.0 (Eq. 5 .7 )
O .S SR 0 .9 * E X P (—T R /0 .3 ) + 0.1 (Eq. 5 .8 )
0.6
208
0 .4
0.2
0 .0 L-
0.0 0.2 0 .4 0.6 O.S 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4
TR
Fig. 5.7 Comparison of Suggested Dividing Lines for Period Ratio-

Strength Ratio Plane
209
Moment
Rotation
Fig. 6.1 Takeda Hysteresis Model
210
My
C u rv a tu re , <p
Fig. 6.2 Assumed Moment-Curvature Relationship
211
N.A.
1777;
(n 1) A
Fig. 6.3 Uncracked Transformed Section
(n -1 ) A
n A
Fig. 6.4 Fully-Cracked Transformed Section
212
600.
O Cylinder Tests
" 500.
a
£ 40 0 .
o>
c
* 300.
4->
01
® 200.
'in
c
« 100.
0. 1000. 2000. 3000. 4000. 5000. 6000. 7000.

C o m p re s s iv e S tre n g th , psi
Fig. 6.5 Concrete Tensile Strength
4000.
Cylinder Tests
"n
x
3000.
Ec = 46.9 fTc
01
2
3
0 2000.
2
c
0 1000.
(U
V)
0. 1000. 2000. 3000. 4000. 5000. 6000. 7000.

C o m p re s s iv e S tre n g th , psi
Fig. 6.6 Concrete Secant Modulus
213
r
igi
d
<Pc\ ■-
(a) Cracking
jU U rn ^
<Pc\ ~
% 2 -
% -
(b) Yield
Fig. 6.7 Curvature Distributions
214
varies
30 in
3 @ 36 in
2
E, ksi A, in 1, in R = M / Lt
Column © 29,000 0.8 0 0=|A a - Abl / L t
Platform © 29,000 oo 36.1 6/M =|A Q - Abl / R L f
Platform Supports © 29,000 5.4 0
Fig. 6.8 Member Model for Support Deformation Analysis
215
M /r
rigid
77777777}
E = 3500 ksi
Au = 100 in2
0 / M =
M z
Fig. 6.9 Member Model for Panel Deformation Analysis
216
Panel Edge
Deform ed Shape
Fig. 6.10 Panel Indentation Mechanism
Dona o i f ess
Distribution
Fig. 6.11 Bar Slip Mechanism
217
Index
Error
X
o
Frequency-Domain
c
(D
3
cr
a)
i_
Li_
ro
6.12
\
Fig.
Amplitude
218
i--------- 1----------1--------- 1 — i--------- 1----------1----------1----------1----------1----------1
Test B—01
-2
2 Test B—02
f\
-2 v
Test B—03
2
Test B—0 4
(0
o
V
2
-2
LJ
2r Test B—05
c
o
Test B—06
-2
Test B—07
-2
L I J
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Time, sec
Fig. 6.13 Comparison of Calculated to Measured Response
219
T • l I--------1-------- 1-------- 1-------- 1--------1--------1
2 Test B - 0 8
•2
2 Test B—09
0
Anfi-AAA/N-/vwvWV|
■2
2
2
2 Test B -1 2
2
2 Test B - 1 3
O •^ A a M / \ A A ^ v ^
2
2 Test B—1 4
2
2 Test B—1 5
2
i__________i__________ i__________i_________ i__________i---------- 1----------1--------- ■----------1
0. 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Time, sec
Fig. 6.13 (cont.) Comparison of Calculated to Measured Response
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

TEST B -01 / RUN 1
2.0
Acceleration, g
0.0
- 2.0
2 0 .0 r-
U ncorrected Velocity, in /s
220
2 0.0 •-
20.0
C orrected Velocity, in /s
vyv*
20.0
L _L X
0.0 4 .0 8.0 12.0 1 6.0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.
Fig. 6.14 Relative Velocity Baseline Correction by Digital Filtering

221
Moment
max
Rotation
max
Fig. 6.15 Stiffness of Substitute Linear System
3 .0
C
c
Q)
E
(U
0
5 2.0
Q.
in
5
v
L.
3
0
222
£ i.o
Q)
+»
D
-p
in
D
3
(/)
0.0
0 .0 1.0 2 .0 3 .0
M easured D is p la c e m e n t , in
Fig. 6.16 Evaluation of Estimated Displacements from Substitute-

Structure Method
0.20 TXT
E arth q u ake Runs

0.1 8
0.1 6
0.1 4
0.1 2
0.10
0 .0 8
223
0 .0 6
0 .0 4
0.02
0.00 1
O. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
R o ta tio n Ductility Ratio
Fig. 6.17 Correlation of Substitute Damping with Rotation Ductility

224
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL WORK
A.1 Test Specimen
A.1.1 Configuration
The test specimen (Fig. A.l) comprised a reinforced concrete beam element
supported on one end by a stiff reinforced concrete panel and on the other by a
steel pipe column with a bracket. Steel plates ("mass plates") were fixed to
the top of the panel to enhance inertial forces during dynamic tests.
The reinforced concrete beam element was rectangular in cross-section.
Nominal width and overall depth were 4 and 8 in. respectively. Flexural
reinforcing was provided in equal quantities top and bottom by continuous
deformed steel bars with 90-degree hooks at each end. Closed stirrups of plain
steel wire were used as transverse reinforcement.
The stiff panel was designed to carry shear and axial forces resulting
from inertial and gravity loading. Reinforcing was provided by a rectangular
grid of deformed steel bars (pv - 0.0064, - 0.0046) to preclude degradation
of the panel under cyclic loading. The nominal 30-in. width of the panel was
chosen to provide anchorage for the beam flexural reinforcement. A grid of
steel sleeves was cast into the panel for connection of a rotational hinge at
the base and attachment of the mass plates at the top.
The pipe column and bracket support assembly carried the end reaction for
the beam. Hinges at the top and bottom of the assembly permitted beam-end
rotation and horizontal translation. At the top, a steel shaft passed through
a sleeve in the beam and was fastened to flange roller bearings on the outside
of the steel bracket which straddled the beam from beneath. The bracket was
225
connected to a length of circular steel pipe having a pillow block bearing
assembly at its base.
Diagonal lateral bracing was provided at the center of the panel and
column assemblies to restrain out-of-plane movement. Panel braces made of
steel pipe were fastened with universal rod ends to the mass plates at the top
and to a base plate assembly that bolted into the platform at the base. The
pipe column and bracket assembly was braced with steel rope cables with
turnbuckles to allow for adjustment of cable tension.
A.1.2 Dimensions
A complete summary of nominal dimensions of the test specimen is given in
Chapter 2. Measurements of gross concrete cross-sectional dimensions were
made according to the plan shown in Fig. A.2 using a calibrated vernier caliper
with a least count of 0.001 inches. The measured dimensions are presented in
Table A.I.
Measurements of concrete cover for flexural reinforcing were made at the
top and bottom of the beams following the completion of dynamic tests. The
cover was chipped away with a chisel from an intact surface of the beam that
was nearest to the panel end. Cover thickness was measured using a 1-in.
outside micrometer with a least count of 0.001 inches. Cover measurements are
presented in Table A.2.
A.1.3 Weight
The weight of elements of the test specimen and connection hardware that
contributed to the overall inertia was determined by one of two methods.
Pieces too heavy to lift by hand were weighed by splicing a steel link with a
calibrated four-arm strain bridge between the lifting hock and extension cables
of the 20-ton overhead crane. Differences in microstrain output read from a
226
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton SR-4 (Type N) strain indicator with the crane loaded and
unloaded were recorded. The strain bridge was calibrated at 305.2 microstrain
per 1000 lb. Therefore, for the strain indicator least count of 1 microstrain,
weight measurements by this procedure are precise to within ± 3 lb. Mass plate
clusters were weighed in an assembled state to reduce the accumulation of error
in the total weight. Smaller pieces were weighed on a Toledo platform scale
with a maximum capacity of 800 lb and minimum gradation of 0.5 lb. A summary
of weight measurements is presented in Table A.3.
A.1.4 Materials
(a) Concrete
Test specimens were cast from a mix comprising Lonestar brand Type III
(high early strength) portland cement, pea gravel coarse aggregate with a
maximum size of 3/8 in., Wabash River torpedo sand fine aggregate and water.
All solids were thoroughly dried before batching. Preliminary proportions of
the mix were set based on findings of previous experimental studies carried out
at the Structural Research Laboratory of the University of Illinois [18,28],
which used the same materials. Trial batch tests were performed to refine mix
proportions so that a target compressive strength in the range of 4000 to 5000
psi at 28 days could be achieved along with serviceable slump values at time of
casting. The ratio of the mix used by dry weight was 1.0 : 3.2 : 3.5 (cement :
sand : pea gravel). The water/cement ratio was initially set at 0.83 and was
progressively increased to 0.88 until strength values measured on test days
approached the target range. Slumps measured at time of casting varied from 6-
1/4 to 9 inches.
Batch volume was set so that the test specimen, sixteen 4x8-in. cylinders,
and six 2x2x8-in. prisms could all be cast from a single batch. Three
227
cylinders were tested in concentric compression at 7 days to give an indication
of strength gain for the particular water/cement ratio used. The remaining
tests on control specimens were all performed on the same day as dynamic tests.
Six cylinders were tested in concentric compression at a load rate controlled
to increase estimated axial stress at a rate of 40 psi/second. Five cylinders
were subjected to compression in a horizontal position at a load rate
controlled to generate an average estimated tensile stress increment along a
vertical plane of 150 psi/minute to establish splitting tensile strength. Six
prisms were subjected to center point loading over a 6-in. span to determine
modulus of rupture. The load rate was controlled so that estimated extreme
fiber stress increased at a rate of 150 psi/minute. Test-day strength values
are presented in Table A.4.
Cylinder axial deformations were recorded at load increments of 5000 lb
and at ultimate during the concentric compression tests. A mechanical dial
gage with a least count of 0.001 in. was used to indicate movement of the gage
frame over a 5-in. length. The configuration of the gage frame was such that
indicated frame movement corresponded to twice the deformation at the cylinder
centerline. Deformations recorded at or near ultimate load are prone to
substantial error because of the high rate of change in the visually recorded
dial gage reading. Deformations corresponding to the descending portion of the
stress-strain curve beyond ultimate load could not be recorded because of test
equipment limitations. A least-squares procedure was used to a fit a parabola
through the computed stress-strain coordinates for all cylinders for each
specimen. The strain values were then shifted by the strain intercept
(corresponding to zero stress) so that the curve passed through the origin of
the plot. Shifted data points and fitted curves for the control cylinders of
228
each specimen are shown in Figure A.3. Table A.5 presents coefficients,
strain intercepts and initial slope (corresponding to initial tangent modulus)
for the least-squares curves for each specimen.
(b) Reinforcing Steel
Beam flexural reinforcement was provided by #3 or #4 deformed steel bars.
The #3 bars were purchased in straight 20-ft. lengths from the Thomas Steel
Corporation of Lemont, Illinois. The #4 bars were purchased in straight 30-ft.
lengths from Central Steel and Wire Company of Chicago. For each bar type, the
suppliers certified that all lengths came from the same heat. One sample from
each stock bar length was tested to failure in uniaxial tension at a nominal
strain rate of 0.001/sec. to determine stress-strain characteristics of the
steel. Analog recordings were made on an X-Y plotter of calibrated voltage
outputs from a 1-in. extensometer (X) and the test machine load cell (Y). Mean
and standard deviation of prominent stress-strain characteristics for each bar
type computed from test measurements are presented in Table A.6. Stress-strain
curves are shown in Figure A.4.
Beam transverse reinforcement was provided by #10 gage or #5 gage bright-
basic plain steel wire bent into closed rectangular stirrups. Beams with #3
deformed longitudinal bars used #10 gage stirrups. The beams with #4 bars used
the #5 gage stirrups. All steel wire for transverse reinforcing was purchased
from Central Steel and Wire Company. The wire was delivered in 10-ft. lengths
that were cut from straightened 24-in. inside diameter coils. Five samples of
each type of wire were tested to failure in the same manner as the flexural bar
samples.
Panel reinforcement was provided by #3 deformed steel bars that were
purchased in straight 30-ft. lengths from Central Steel and Wire Company. Five
229
samples were tested to failure in uniaxial tension to determine yield and
ultimate strength.
Material properties for transverse and panel reinforcement are presented
in Table A.7.
(c) Connection Steel
ASTM A53 Type E structural steel pipe, having a specified minimum yield
stress of 35 ksi and a minimum tensile strength of 60 ksi, was used for the
beam reaction support column. The pipe cross-section was 1-1/2 in. nominal
standard wall (1.90 in. actual o.d., 0.145 in. wall thickness). The specified
minimum yield stress was used for design of the reaction column.
Steel plate material used in connections was ASTM A36 structural steel
plate with a specified minimum yield stress of 36 ksi and a minimum tensile
strength of 58 ksi. Specified minimum strengths were assumed for design of
connections using plate material.
SAE grade 1018 cold-drawn steel round, having a specified minimum yield
stress of 60 ksi and a minimum tensile strength of 70 ksi, was used to
fabricate end-threaded shafts which penetrated the concrete panel to fasten the
mass plates at the top and the base hinge at the bottom. SAE grade 1144
"Stressproof" strain-relieved steel round, with a specified minimum yield
stress of 100 ksi and minimum tensile strength of 125 ksi, was used to
fabricate the shaft which passed through the beam end and support bracket. All
primary bolted connections were made using ASTM A325 high-strength steel bolts
and nuts. Secondary connections were made using fasteners of ASTM A307
material.
230
A.1.5 Fabrication
Original lengths of deformed bars to be used as longitudinal reinforcement
were cut into straight equal pieces slightly longer than the required overall
fabricated length and labelled as a group. The remaining length was labelled
in the same manner and preserved for use as a test sample. Ninety-degree bends
were made at each end of the cut pieces to provide hooks with an extension of
12 bar diameters. Excess length was then cut from the end of the last hook.
Closed stirrups with 1/2 in. of clear cover and 135-degree bends to
provide inward hooks of at least 2-1/2 in. were fabricated from bright-basic
steel wire. A test sample was preserved from each original length of wire.
Five samples of each wire type were selected at random for testing.
All reinforcement was washed with a petroleum-based solvent and then
cleaned with acetone.
Beam reinforcing cages were fabricated by tying deformed longitudinal bars
to the corners of the closed stirrups, which were spaced at 1-3/4 in. The
stirrups were placed so that the hooks extended into the core in an alternating
pattern. Tied cages were set on their sides so that the panel reinforcement
curtain could be threaded through one end and then tied. Hairpin bars made of
plain steel wire were then tied to the panel reinforcement curtain above and
below the beam cage to provide confinement. Reinforcing details are shown in
Fig. A.5.
Formwork consisted of rolled-steel angles screwed to a flat horizontal
platform with sliding bulkheads at the beam and panel ends to admit variations
in specimen size (Fig. A.6). Side forms were fabricated from 5x3-l/2x3/8-in.
angle. The 5-in. leg was cut to 4 in. and machined smooth. Holes were drilled
through the shorter leg at an average spacing of 3 inches. An identical
231
pattern of holes was drilled through the platform and tapped to receive screws
along the perimeter of the forms. Galvanized steel tubes with brass caps at
both ends were screwed into the platform to provide blockouts for connection
shafts. Richmond type EC-2F strut lifting inserts with 3/4-in. coarse thread
sleeves were screwed to the inside face of vertical forms at 3 locations to
allow for lifting of the finished specimen using the overhead crane.
After the formwork was assembled, all gaps and unused holes were stopped
up and a thin coating of oil was applied to prevent bonding to form steel. The
pre-assembled beam and panel reinforcement was set on 1/2-in. bar chairs inside
the form reservoir and tied to the tube inserts to prevent sliding. A helical
coil of #5 gage plain steel wire was tied around the blockout tube at the beam
end to provide additional confinement. The beam reinforcement was pressed
against the bar chairs using C-clamps on vertical legs of the formwork to
prevent floating during concrete placement.
Specimens were cast individually on the dates listed in the chronology of
experimental work (Table A.7). A 250-lb. primer mix was run through the mixer
and then discarded. All concrete for the test and control specimens was mixed
in a single batch. The fresh concrete was dumped into 3 wheelbarrows.
Concrete for the slump test and control specimens was taken from the second
wheelbarrow. Concrete was placed in the forms with shovels and by hand, and
consolidated with a stud vibrator. The C-clamps used to restrain reinforcement
movement were removed after vibration and the upright surface of the specimen
was screeded smooth. Once the surface had begun to set, a metal trowel was
used to achieve a smooth final finish. Side forms, brass caps and screws at
blockout tubes, and screws holding the lifting inserts were removed within four
to six hours after placement so that shrinkage would not be restrained. The
232
specimen was then covered with wet burlap and plastic and allowed to cure on
the casting platform. Curing was interrupted at 3 days for a period of
approximately 10 minutes to lift the specimen from the platform and set it in a
horizontal position on a grid of 2x4-in. timbers elsewhere in the laboratory.
The specimen was recovered immediately with wet burlap and plastic and allowed
to cure in this manner for 7 more days. At the end of 10 days, plastic and
burlap were removed exposing the specimen to ambient laboratory conditions.
Specimens were stored on the flat timber grid until erection. Control
specimens were cured in the same manner as the test specimen.
A .1.6 Erection Procedure
The test specimen was prepared for lifting by screwing a steel ring into a
threaded lifting insert that was located along the top edge of the panel at the
plan mass centroid. The overhead crane was then used to rotate the specimen
about the base of the panel until it was upright and ready for transport. The
specimen was set upright on the laboratory floor while steel brackets for the
panel base connection were fastened to the base of the panel. The specimen was
then positioned over the test platform and lowered until the bottom plates of
the base connection brackets were resting on the mounting face of the Fafnir
pillow blocks at the panel centerline. The brackets were loosely bolted to the
base pillow blocks to allow for final adjustments while making the beam end
connection. A detail of the pin connection at the panel base is shown in Fig.
A.7. The beam end support assembly was rotated into position, straddling the
beam so that the centers of the flange bearings on the bracket aligned with
the blockout penetration at the end of the beam. A taper-ended shaft was then
pressed through the bracket and beam openings and fastened to the flanged
233
bearings on the bracket. The beam end connection detail is illustrated in Fig.
A.8. Once the beam end connection had been made, the bolts at the panel base
connection were final-tightened.
With the specimen supported at the panel base and beam end, the overhead
crane was not needed for stability and could be used to lift the mass plates
into position. When the first mass plate had been positioned by the crane, the
connection shafts were slipped through the mass plate and panel until they were
flush with the opposite face of the specimen. Hydraulic platforms were
positioned beneath the plate to support the load and the diagonal pipe brace
was then installed temporarily to stabilize the plate on the platforms so that
the overhead crane could be cut loose. The crane was then used to lift the
second mass plate into position on the opposite face of the panel so that the
shafts could be slid the rest of the way through. Once the mass plates had
been tightened against the face of the panel, the hydraulic platforms and
temporary brace were removed and the crane was cut loose. The lengths of the
diagonal braces were adjusted so that they could be installed free of initial
load that would restrain the rotation of the universal joints at their ends.
Rows of screws on the inside face of the mass plates were tightened against the
panel to prevent longitudinal slip. Details of mass plate and diagonal brace
connections are presented in Fig. A.9-A.11.
Fillets of hydrocal were placed along connection interfaces at the mass
plates and panel base so that slip between panel concrete and steel plates
could be detected.
234
A.2 Experimental Apparatus
A.2.1 Earthquake Simulator
All tests were carried out on the University of Illinois Earthquake
Simulator. The simulator system comprises a servo-control center, a hydraulic
actuator system and the test platform. The simulator was designed to subject
test specimens weighing up to 10,000 lb to a single horizontal component of
recorded base motion. Base motions used for earthquake simulation tests are
discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
The control center featured the newly installed MTS Systems Corporation
(Minneapolis, MN) 469 single-axis control system which used three-variable
servo control. Three-variable servo control combines acceleration,
displacement and velocity feedback signals to form a single composite error
signal. Acceleration and displacement feedback signals originate from
dedicated transducers that sense actuator motions. The MTS 469 control system
uses a "velocity computer" to generate velocity feedback by combining low-
frequency velocity components from differentiated displacement feedback and
high-frequency velocity components from integrated acceleration feedback to
form a single signal. An independent computer converts a digital displacement
drive signal to an analog form that is sent to the reference generator of the
MTS 469 control system. The reference generator differentiates the drive
signal displacements to produce velocity and acceleration reference signals.
The servo controller produces the composite error signal by comparing
displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback signals with their respective
reference signals. In response to the composite error signal, a valve command
signal is issued that compensates for the difference between command reference
and feedback signals by generating the appropriate actuator motion. The time
235
scale of the base motion is adjusted by specifying the time step between
digital drive signal data points. The span setting on the MTS 469 control
system is used to scale the amplitude of the base motion within the limits of
system performance.
The hydraulic actuator system comprises five main parts: the actuator
itself, a servo valve, a pilot valve, hydraulic pumps and hydraulic
accumulators. The MTS Systems model 250.40 hydraulic actuator has an area of
25.66 sq. in. and is rated at 75 kips peak force. The ram has a stroke limit
of 4.0 in. dynamic and 4.5 in. static (double amplitude). Actuator motion is
controlled by the MTS Systems model 253.31 servo valve and model 252.21C-01
pilot valve. Two MTS Systems hydraulic pumps provide a combined peak flow
capacity of 90 gpm. Three 3000 psi Greer hydraulic accumulators with a
combined volume of 1-1/2 gallons prevent loss of oil supply in case of isolated
excessive demand.
The test platform, manufactured by Ormond Incorporated (Santa Fe Springs,
CA), is 12 ft. square in plan and consists of a 3/8 in. plate welded to 5 in.
deep I-beams that are spaced on 12 in. centers. The I-beams span continuously
over four lines of flexure plates that have reduced sections at their top and
bottom ends. The flexure plates produce a mechanism that allows virtually
unrestrained lateral motion of the test platform up to a single amplitude
displacement of 2-1/2 inches. A grid of 1/2-in. fine thread holes at 12-in.
spacing was provided in the platform surface for fastening experimental
payloads.
For this series of tests, a 3/4-in. thick plate partially covering the
surface was screwed into the grid of threaded holes. Stub plates to receive
shafts for panel base and beam end connections were welded to this cover plate.
236
Test specimen base connection details are presented in Fig. A. 7 and A.8 and
discussed in detail in section A.1.6 of this appendix. A reference column for
displacement measurement, formed from a W21x57 structural steel section with
1/4-in. thick side cover plates welded between flanges added for torsional
stiffness, was bolted to the cover plate. The reference column was further
stiffened by a pair of 4-in. square steel tubes which spanned diagonally
between the column (at approximately 2/3-height) and the platform surface.
The test platform was linked to the hydraulic actuator with a steel shaft
that had reduced sections at its ends. The link efficiently transmitted
horizontal actuator forces to the test platform but provided little restraint
to platform vertical movement.
A.2.2 Free-Vibration Test Setup
Free-vibration tests were conducted to measure specimen natural frequency
prior to the first, and following each, earthquake simulation. A schematic
drawing of the free-vibration test setup is presented in Figure A.12.
The specimen was given an initial displacement under a 200-lb horizontal
force applied by hanging a weight from a pulley system connected to the top of
the panel element. The specimen was set into free vibration by cutting a link
in the cable supporting the hung weight. Output for acceleration and
displacement transducers located near the top of the specimen were amplified to
improve ordinate resolution and recorded. Initial estimates of natural
frequency were made from amplified displacement transducer output recorded on a
calibrated strip chart recorder.
237
A.3 Instrumentat ion
Test platform motions and specimen response during earthquake simulation
and free-vibration tests were measured using a combination of acceleration,
displacement and force transducers. Readings from 31 individual instruments,
located as shown in Figure A.13, were recorded at a sampling rate of 200 points
per second. The data acquisition system used to record instrumental output is
described in detail in section A.4 of this appendix.
A.3.1 Accelerometers
Seventeen acceleration transducers, known as accelerometers, were used to
measure absolute accelerations of the test platform, the responding test
specimen and the W21x57 reference column described in section A.2. Base
acceleration was recorded at the level of the platform cover plate as well as
at the centerline of the panel base connection. Duplicate measurements of
response acceleration along the height of the panel element were provided by
four pairs of accelerometers. Specimen transverse accelerations were measured
at the beam centerline elevation at both the panel centerline and beam end.
Vertical response acceleration was measured in two locations at the edge of the
top surface of opposite mass plates. Reference column accelerations were
recorded at a point near the top of the column. All accelerometers were
Endevco model 2262C-25 piezoresistive type. Manufacturer's ratings are listed
in Table A.9.
A.3.2 LVDTs
Thirteen displacement transducers, known as LVDTs (Linear Variable
Differential Transformers), were used to measure relative displacement. Test
platform displacement relative to the actuator reaction frame was measured by
238
the displacement feedback LVDT that is part of the MTS 469 control system
described in section A.2.1. Duplicate measurements of longitudinal response
displacement relative to the reference column along the height of the panel
were provided by three pairs of ± 3-in. LVDTs. Vertical displacement of the
panel edges relative to the test platform surface was measured using a pair of
± 1-in. LVDTs. Four ± 1-in. LVDTs were placed at the level of top and bottom
longitudinal bars on each vertical face of the beam to measure displacement of
a point 8 in. into the beam span relative to the intact face of the panel for
the purpose of estimating beam rotation over the anticipated plastic hinging
zone. Collins model 711T42 LVDTs were used for ± 1-in. range applications.
Pennsauken model 3000 HR LVDTs were used for ± 3-in. range applications. The
MTS 469 control system uses a Collins model LMT13408, ± 2.5-in. range LVDT for
displacement feedback. Table A.10 summarizes manufacturer's ratings for the
LVDTs used in the instrumentation program.
A.3.3 Load Cell
The load carried by the steel pipe column which supported the beam end was
measured by a calibrated four-arm strain bridge that was installed on the
outside of the pipe section. Four 1/4-in. Micro-Measurements electronic strain
gages were arranged in a four-arm bridge so that strains due to flexure in the
pipe would cancel.
A.4 Data Acquisition and Reduction
A.4.1 Transducer Output
Analog output signals from accelerometers, LVDTs and the column load cell
were amplified prior to sampling and digitization. A schematic diagram of the
signal path is shown in Figure A.14.
239
For each test, a program of calibrations was undertaken to monitor
fluctuations in channel gain and baseline drift over the duration of the test.
A set of voltage differences correspondingto mechanical steps of known
magnitude was recorded. Immediately following the mechanical calibrations,
voltage differences corresponding to electronic voltage substitutions were
recorded. Before each test run where data were recorded, similar electrical
differences were recorded that provided ratios for scale factor adjustment to
compensate for fluctuation in channel gains with respect to those at the time
of the initial mechanical calibrations. Recording of channel output at nominal
zero prior to each test run provided a value of residual voltage that could be
used for test signal debiasing.
Three different combinations of data acquisition computers were used
(Table A. 11). A total of 32 data channels were recorded for each test
including 17 accelerometers, 13 LVDTs, the pipe column load cell and the
displacement drive signal that was input to the earthquake simulator control
system. A sampling rate of 200 points per second was used for all earthquake
simulation and free-vibration tests. Calibration steps were sampled at 100
points per second for a one second duration.
For all but 2 of the 15 tests, a DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) LSI
11/23 processor equipped with a 64-channel analog-to-digital converter board
(Data Translation DT2769) with a 200 microsecond aperture time and a real-time
clock was used to record all 32 channels. A FORTRAN program using subroutines
from a commercial software package (Data Translation "CPLIB") was used to
control the analog-to-digital conversion board and real-time clock. Digitized
data were scaled to engineering units and separated into files containing
individual channel output that were stored on the fixed disk (DEC RL02).
240
For all tests, one or two IBM (International Business Machines) Personal
Computers equipped with a 16-channel analog-to-digital conversion board (Data
Translation DT2821) and a programmable pacer clock were used to record 16 data
channels each. A real-time software package (Data Translation "ATLAB") that
runs under PC-DOS was used to control the function of the clock and conversion
board. Digitized data were transported to a VAX 11/750 in raw form where they
were then scaled into engineering units and separated into files containing
individual channel output.
Scaled data from the LSI 11/23 were transported to the VAX 11/750 to be
archived on magnetic tapes. Analysis of test data was performed on the VAX
11/750.
A Gultan TR-722 2-channel high-speed strip chart recorder was also used to
record various channel outputs for each test run. For earthquake simulation
runs, platform acceleration and specimen response displacement relative to the
reference column were usually recorded. For free-vibration tests, specimen
acceleration and relative displacement response were usually recorded.
A.4.2 Visible Damage
Qualitative recordings of visible damage were made before and after
earthquake simulation runs. A Panasonic 30x magnifying scope was used to
locate cracks in the concrete beam. Crack locations were marked on the test
specimen in a color code to signify the progress of damage with each test run.
A freehand sketch of the crack patterns was recorded on data sheets along with
measured crack widths and location of spalled concrete surfaces.
Hydrocal fillets placed along interface surfaces of connections were
checked for cracking that would indicate the occurrence of slip after each
earthquake simulation run.
241
Video cassette recordings of most test runs were made using a Panasonic
VHS system and camera. Close-up films of beam response were recorded using a
16 mm time-lapse camera for a few of the test runs.
242
Table A.l Measured Beam Cross-Section Dimensions
Depth (in) Width (in)
Specimen Sections3 North South Top Bottom
B-01 A-G 8.020 8.011 4.021 4.021

B-02 A-H 8.014 8.008 4.008 4.023
B-03 A-G 8.021 8.009 4.019 4.021
B-04 A-I 8.016 8.003 4.019 4.025
B-05 A-H 8.009 8.003 4.040 4.034
B-06 A-H 8.008 8.000 4.006 4.017
B-07 A-I 8.008 7.998 4.010 4.025
B-08 A-I 8.011 8.010 4.015 4.027
B-09 A-H 8.015 8.004 4.017 4.027
B-10 A-I 8.001 8.014 4.013 4.045
B-11 A-G 8.019 8.008 4.023 4.028
B-12 A-G 8.009 8.001 4.011 4.030
B-13 A-G 8.018 8.004 4.016 4.022
B-14 A-G 8.018 8.007 4.016 4.024
B-15 A-H 8.008 8.002 4.007 4.008
a - See Fig. A.2.
243
Table A.2 Measured Concrete Cover for Beam

Longitudinal Steel
Bar Top Cover3 Bottom Cover3

Specimen Size (in.) (in.)
B-01 #4 0.600 0.586

B-02 #3 0.678 0.669
B-03 #3 0.682 0.638
B-04 #3 0.696 0.683
B-05 #4 0.601 0.595
B-06 #3 0.673 0.656
B-07 #4 0.631 0.572
B-08 #3 0.717 0.645
B-09 #3 0.670 0.711
B-10 #4 0.594 0.533
B-ll #3 0.628 0.697
B-12 #4 0.567 0.617
B-13 #4 0.567 0.548
B-14 #3 0.711 0.649
B-15 #4 0.652 0.531
3 Measured to outside edge of longitudinal bar.
244
m ^ H O O fH ^ in rH Q o c o c o c M c o m o io o
ro « -H f*-c o > o c o o > c o io r^ o c o c J c o o
4-» 9 ) O 9t U ) O O ) U ) l A O t l A 0 t O t O t O O O
o fo in ro m in ^ tio in ^ io n c o fo ro io
H-
03
40
<0
CO •
c N N J N N r s N N N N N N N r s N P ^
1— c S N h » N h » N N N N N N N N N h *
o o cococococococococococococococo
e o
(/) <9
c CL
0)
E
•r—
U
Q)
O. “O
C/> c •
LU C
4-> c (o io fo tn io in u iin io m fo ro fo ro io
<0 • £ O CO 40 40 WO 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 (O O VO
0) </> <0 o
H" .O o
r— CO
M- •km*
O
+->
JC
JC O)
•r» o>
•r* 0) r— C
0) O *r
£ O 00 r-H 00 iH rH r^H r-H M i H GO 00 CO 00 ^
*o <TS 03
“O 0> a . s.
0) s- CO
u 3
3 <✓>
00 <d
<u
0) r: •
2E 40 C
CO c cooococococococococococococooo
o C t 0 > ( T C ^ ( n ( n 0 t ( n 0 ) C A O 0 ) 010 ) 0 t
CO £ o
<
0)
.Q
(0
I— CO 0) o > i o o > r o 40 i o c o r o i o < o a » c n o > 0 ) i o
CO 4-> ^ c o ^ m o o c o io in c o c n ^ r^ ^ ^ a -c o
(0 <0 in ^ io o ^ ^ o o ^ t o in in t n io 'd -
3E r - c s jc o c v j^ -ro c o ^ ^ i-ro ^ -c jc v jc v jc v jro
a.
a)
0)
s.
a o ro o o ^ -c v jo ^ J -c ja tc o c o o o L O fO
c ( X ) ( ^ r s> o > ( j t ( ^ c n o t ( D c n N O O N r s o >
o
o
c
<D
£ •H C jfO ^ m c o N O O O o ^ o J c o ^ tifl
O Q 0 O CO O O O O i H M *“4M
u l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
03 r A i Y S f ^ i Y t r o m f f l P P i f f l r t t n f l g Q CQ gQ CQ
CL
C/>
245
>
(U
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
^•cocoowi/>»HcncvjKoofO<vjh*><Nj
4- • f—1 i-H »-H
O c/>
CD
(/> S_--
3 3 -r-
r— +J 00
3 Q. CL c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
"O 3 '— " CO
o oz a> NrHOCO-HOMOrHCOfOCOcONinpO
s s: Ni H H O t O O i O O O C O N N N O O O O
r»H ^4 pH rH ^
>
Properties of Concrete
d)
Q o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
cn evJoomCTiiDinoooovO'S-ro'S'fOioro
c .c •
•r- +J . 00
cn*«-
-P C i/l
•r ai a
r— S- **■—*'
0.4-> c
</) oo ro o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
03 i— Itnuioii-I «3- CvJ CM i—iN O o> Ol
z:
0) >
> 03
•1— .c a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Table A.4 Measured
00 4-> O CO CO <?■ O ^ »-1 CO CO CXI 1

— 1CM CD i— i
(/> • co •— co •— icMco'S'f—ico «3" in co ro cm cm
CD C -r- 00
L 01 (A
a. s- a.
E
O CO
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
c
ro r-itocviif>oocno>cMr~o>^Hes)r~.vo'a-
03 1-lrH^-CNJMr-lOlOrtlOOOinWrOS
z:
+->
03 4-> 00
00 >> in r~~ cm oo lo •—i o i O i o » r i n o M n i n f f l
a) Q) ro l O O N m C O O l O O ’-’M N W a ' f f l l O
O h - -3 «-H f-H «-H «-H »-H r-H r-H i—H I-H
<
C
o
E •
O—icvjcoû’ Jvor-'.oOOÔ'—
O O O O O O O O ^ r - H ' -‘cvjro^tf)
H — .r-lr-H
CJ l l l l l l l l l l l l l ||
a) cooooocacacocococQcocoencQcoeQ
a.
00
246
Table A.5 Polynomial Fit to Measured Concrete Compressive Stress-

Strain Relationship
Best-Fit Strain
Specimen Polynomial Coefficients3 Offset
C0 Cib C2 eo
B-01 -0.069 3887 -716,000 0.000018

B-02 -0.014 4075 -658,000 0.000003
B-03 0.055 3824 -670,000 -0.000014
B-04 -0.042 3578 -595,000 0.000012
B-05 -0.129 3346 -478,000 0.000039
B-06 -0.163 3653 -606,000 0.000045
B-07 -0.002 3715 -628,000 0.
B-08 -0.046 3934 -673,000 0.000012
B-09 -0.090 3889 -711,000 0.000023
B-10 -0.075 3554 -626,000 0.000022
B-ll 0.010 3611 -679,000 -0.000003
B-12 -0.020 3599 -697,000 0.000005
B-13 -0.101 3288 -620,000 0.000031
B-14 -0.061 3318 -605,000 0.000019
B-15 -0.149 3623 -652,000 0.000041
a Equation of polynomial: fc - CQ + C^ (cc - c0) + C2 (cc - c0)^, where

fc - concrete compressive stress (ksi), cc - concrete strain.
b Slope of best-fit at origin, indicating initial tangent modulus (ksi).
Table A.6 Measured Properties of Flexural Reinforcement
Bar No. of Tensile Tensile Meana

Size Coupons Yield Stress Strength £sh
(ksi) (ksi)
Mean 3. Dev. Mean S. Dev.
#3 13 59.3 1.4 88.8 1.6 .0145

#4 9 65.7 1.6 101.8 1.6 .0119
a Strain at onset of strain hardening.
247
Table A. 7 Measured Properties of Auxilliary Reinforcement
No. of Tensile Tensile

Location Size Coupons Yield Stress Strength
(ksi) (ksi)
Mean S. Dev. Mean S., Dev.
Beam/
Transverse #10 ga. wire 5 97.1 1.4 98.8 1.3
Beam/
Transverse #5 ga. wire 5 61.9 0.9 67.3 0.8
Panel #3 bars 5 90.3 0.9 110.2 1.0

248
Table A.8 Chronology of Experiments
Date Date Age at

Specimen Cast Tested Test
(days)
B-01 15 Dec 86 18 Feb 87 65

B-02 6 Mar 86 12, 13 May 86 67
B-03 17 Mar 86 28 May 86 72
B-04 2 May 86 9, 10 Jun 86 38
B-05 12 May 86 5, 6 Aug 86 85
B-06 27 May 86 26, 27 Aug 86 91
B-07 3 Jun 86 11 Sep 86 100
B-08 10 Jun 86 24 Sep 86 106
B-09 16 Jun 86 10 Oct 86 116
B-10 20 Jun 86 22 Oct 86 124
B-11 27 Jun 86 30 Oct 86 125
B-12 9 Jul 86 15 Nov 86 129
B-13 1 Aug 86 12 Feb 87 195
B-14 15 Aug 86 16 Feb 87 185
B-15 5 Sep 86 20 Feb 87 168
249
Table A.9 Manufacturer's Ratings - Accelerometers
Manufacturer Endevco
Type Piezoresistive
Model 2262C-25
Range + 25 G
Linearity 1.0%
Frequency Response (+ 5%) 0-750 Hz
Natural Frequency 2500 Hz
Fraction of Critical Damping 0.7
Table A.10 Manufacturer's Ratings - LVDT's
Manufacturer Model Stroke Linearity
Collins 711T42 + 1.0 in. 0.25%

Collins LMT13408 + 2.5 in. 1.0%
Pennsauken 3000HR +3.0 in. 0.25%
250
Table A.11 Data Acquisition Configurations
Number of Channels
IBM/PC w/ DEC LSI 11/23 w/

Test DT2801 Board DT2768 Board
B-01 16 32
B-02 2 * 16 -
B-03 2 * 16 -
B-04 2 * 16 32
B-05 16 32
B-06 16 32
3-07 16 32
B-08 16 32
B-09 16 32
B-10 16 32
B-ll 16 32
B-12 16 32
B-13 16 32
B-14 16 32
B-15 16 32
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS

IN INCHES
-ATTACHED STEEL WEIGHTS

(FIG. A.9)
-CONCRETE BEAM
■BEAM END CONNECTION

BRACING NOT SHOWN
(FIG. A.8)
(SEE FIGS. A.10,11) ho
Ln
CONCRETE PANEL
PANEL BASE W
CONNECTION
(FIG. A.7) © ©
© © © ©
© 9 q ©
TBP 4
Fig. A.l Test Specimen

SOUTH NORTH
® ® © ® ® © © ® ©
SP.
**— TOP
252
— BOTTOM
SECTION "A"
NOTE: SEE T A B L E A.1 F O R A V E R A G E

DIMENSIONS A L O N G L E N G T H
Fig. A.2 Eeam Cross-Section Dimension Survey

TEST B —0 1/ CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5.0
4.0
253
CE
3 .0
2.0
0.0 v-
0.0 1 .0 2.0 3.0 4.0

S T R A IN * 1 OOO
Fig. A.3 Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain Relationship

(a) Test B-01
TEST B —0 2 / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
254
4 .0
3 .0
2.0
0 . 0 L-
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1 0O O
Fig. A.3 (cont.) Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain Relationship

(b) Test B-02

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
DO
5 .0
4 .0
255
OD
3 .0
2.0
03
O
0.0
0.0 1 .0 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(c) Test B-03

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
oa oo
4.0
256
tin
3 .0
2.0
0.0
0.0 1 .O 2.0 4.0
S T R A IN * 1000

(d) Test B-04

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
□□
4 .0 OD:
257
3 .0
2.0
0.0 *-
0.0 1.o 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1 OOO

(e) Test B-05

7 .0
COMPUTED ME A N
6.0
aa
5 .0
o
4 .0
258
OB
K 3.0
faa
2.0 10□
0.0 *-
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(f) Test B-06
259
Relationship
DATA
Stress-Strain
C YLIN D ER
Concrete Compressive
C O N C R ETE
Test B-07
B —0 7 /
(g)
Fig. A.3 (cont.)
TEST
o o o o o o o oo
IS * 'S S 3 M 1 S
TEST B -O S / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
4 .0
260
K 3 -°
2.0
0.0 v-
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(h) Test B-08

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
to
5 ,0
ooo
mo
4 ..0
261
O DO CO
O0
om
3 .0
2.0
0.0 V-
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(i) Test B-09
TEST B —10 / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7.0
COMPUTED ME A N
6.0
5.0
4.0
262
(S
3.0
2.0
0.0 *L-
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3.0 4.0
S T R A IN * 1 0O O

(j) Test B-10
TEST B — 1 1/ CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
263
4 .0
K 3 -°
2.0
ICS
0.0 * -
0.0 1.o 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(k) Test B-ll
TEST B —12 / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7.0
COMPUTED ME A N
6.0
5 .0
4 .0
264
3 .0
2.0
PO
O
0.0 * -
0.0 1 .0 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000
Fig. A.3 (cone.) Concrete Compressive Stress-Strain Relationship

(1) Test B-12
TEST 8 —1 3 / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
4 .0
265
3 .0
2.0
0 . 0 L-
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(m) Test B-13
TEST B—14 / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
4 .0
266
Hd
3 .0
2.0
.0
0.0 * -
0.0 1 .O 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(n) Test B-14
TEST E3— 1 5 / CONCRETE C Y L IN D E R DATA

7 .0
COMPUTED MEAN
6.0
5 .0
DO1
4 .0
267
3 .0
2.0
.0
0.0 * -
0.0 1. o 2.0 3 .0 4 .0
S T R A IN * 1000

(o) Test B-15
268
120.
100.
Mean + One Standard Deviation
KSI
STRESS,
60.
(0.0145. 59.3)
|3 Flexural Bars
13 Samples
Strain Rate = 0.001 /sea
20.
f 3U - 88.8 + 1.6 ksi
0. 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
STRAIN
(a) #3 Deformed Bars
120.
Mean + One Standard Deviation

100.
KSI
STRESS,
60. (0.0119, 65.7)
ft4 Flexural Bars

40.
9 Samples
Strain Rate = 0.001 /sea
20.
fgu - 101.8 + 1.6 ksi
0. 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
STRAIN
(b) #4 Deformed Bars
Fig. A.4 Steel Tensile Stress-Strain Relationship

for Flexural Reinforcement
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
BEAM REINF.:
BEAM 2 BARS TOP & BOT. ( i---------
SECTION CLOSED STIRRUPS O 1.75
(NOTE: PATTERN CONTINUES
ACROSS PANEL WIDTH)
0 .5 COVER (TYP.)-^y
269
#3 © 6 (ALTERNATE SIDES)
r #3 (TYP.)
vK-
PANEL __
SECTION
1.5 4.5 15
7*-
PANEL
Fig. A.5 Beam and Panel Reinforcement Details

L 5 X 3.5 X 0.375
(DETAIL 'B ')
PL 0.25 = 4=
SLIDING BULKHEAD (TYP.)
0 .75 PLYWOOD
CHANNEL
to
/777Ti V////
270
P L A T F O R M SECTION
CUT AND GRIND TO

SMOOTH FINISH
30 + 7.5 « 37.5
36 + 7.5 = 43.5
42 + 7.5 « 49.5
SIDEFORM DETAIL
PLATFORM PLAN NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
Fig. A.6 Formwork Details

I I
CONCRETE PANEL
PL 0.75 X 24 X 18.5
1.375 DIA. THREADED
SHAFT (TYP.)
STIFFENERS
PL 0.75 x 5.25 x 10.5
271
0.75 DIA. BOLTS
IX A
PL 0.75 X 5.25 X 24
J 1.5 DIA. THREADED SHAFT
FRONT PL OMITTED
FOR CLARITY
PL 0.75 x 5.25 x 6 (TYP.) FAFNIR LSAO 1.5 DIA.
PILLOW BLOCK BEARING
PANEL
Fig. A.7 Panel Base Hinge Connection Detail

272
Detail
Support
End
Beam
Fig. A.8
<3 x
J l
1---------------- — ....1
, a fc NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
i----------------
g —
k 1.375 DIA.
SHAFT (TYP.)
CONCRETE PANEL ■
0.75 X 1.5 X 33 BAR W /

0.75 DIA. SCREWS O 6
*
273
TURNED AGAINST PANEL
ATTACHED WEIGHTS-
© ©
© ©
© ©
© ®-
6 (TV J.)
© ®-
ATTACHED WEIGHT
PL T X 36 X 54
T - 0.5
T - 0.875
T - 2.25
PANa SPECIMEN
Fig. A.9 Attached Steel Weight Details


SPECIMEN
CONCRETE PANEL
•ATTACHED STEEL WEIGHTS
j> ( typ.
PL 0 .5 (TYP.)
SZ. CENTER
OF MASS
(SYMM.)
274
DETAIL ’ A' 0 .6 2 5 DIA. BOLT
AURORA X M - 1 0 / Z - 2
MALE ROD END (TYP.)
PL 1.125 THREADED CAP

PIPE 1.0 X-STRONG
-------------- DETAIL "A* (SIM.)
.V._ CENTER OF
ROTATION
45 DETAIL ” A ’
Fig. A.10 Panel Lateral Bracing Detail

CONCRETE BEAM
0.4 375 DIA. BAR
0.3 75 DIA. 6 X 19 AIRCRAFT

QUALITY WIRE ROPE
0.5 0 DIA. 1URNBUCKLE
(SYMM.)
275
0 .4 3 7 5 DIA. ROD
PL 0.8 75
_ ^ Z _ CENTER OF ROTATION
54
SPECIMEN
Fig. A.11 Beam End Lateral Bracing Detail

276
llllliuu O in
*O m
1 m 3
z
3
o
z
yCO
Test Setup
<
o
d
Free-Vibration
o
z
F=
o
ill
o
<
ill
oz
Fig. A.12
•1.5 NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS

IN INCHES
*/y) x - INSTRUMENT TYPE

0 = RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT
A = ABSOLUTE ACCELERATION
P = LOAD
y- POSITIVE DIRECTION (SEE AXES)

(PAJ
277
A/E
[a/ e]
fo/Dl fo/DJ
[a/ eJ
COLUMN
Fig. A.13 Layout of Instrumentation

SIGNAL CONDITIONING/ ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL RECORDING/ SHORT-TERM SCALING/

INSTRUMENTS AMPLIFICATION CONVERSION STORAGE LONG-TERM STORAGE
Accelerometers
Vldar Vlslg II model 611-01
signal conditioners
Dana model 3500 Amplifier Data Translation

IBM PC DEC Vox 11/750
model DT2801—A
278
w / 100 hz low-pass filter
Lood Cell
Endevco model 4470

Data Translation
signal conditioners DEC LSI 11/23 DEC LSI 11/23
model 2769
Endevco model 4478.1A
Carrier Amplifiers
Fig. A.14 Test Data Signal Path

APPENDIX B
SYNCHRONIZATION OF RECORDED SIGNALS
With the test setup used in these experiments, individual data channel
recordings for a given test run were only approximately synchronized. In order
for operations involving two or more separate signals to be valid, corrections
were made to compensate for offset of time scales. Two specific operations
required such corrections: (a) direct comparison for moment-rotation
relationships (Section 3.3.1.2), and (b) algebraic combination for computation
of substitute damping ratios (Section 6.2).
Three desynchronizing mechanisms were identified in this series of tests:
(a) signal delay due to amplifier filters, (b) serial sampling format of
analog-to-digital conversion boards, and (c) independent time scales when two
separate analog-to-digital conversion boards were used. Time-scale corrections
were computed as
At J-J tf + (nj - nt) tn + tb (B.l)
where,
Atjj - offset in time scales between channels i and j
tf - signal delay due to filtering (Section B.1.1)
tn - time interval between sampling of adjacent channels on
analog-to-digital conversion board (Section B.l.2)
nf, nj - position numbers for channels i and j on analog-to-digital
board
tb “ offset between time scales of individual analog-to-digital
boards (Section B.l.3).
280
These sources of time skew and methods used to determine corrections for each
are discussed in Section B.l. Corrections for moment-rotation relationships
and for calculation of substitute damping ratios are discussed in Section B.2.
B.l Time Skew Mechanisms
B.1.1 Filter Delay
Output signals from all 17 accelerometers and the load-indicating
dynamometer (Fig. A.13) passed through amplifiers equipped with variable-cutoff
low-pass filters before sampling (Fig. A.14). Attenuation specifications given
in the amplifier product literature conform to the amplitude response function
of a second-order, low-pass Butterworth filter [8]

1
H (f ) - ------------------------~ ~ l/ 2 (B’ 2)
( i ♦ (f/fc)2 n )
where,
H(f) — amplitude response of filter at frequency f
- fraction of incident signal passing filter
fc — cutoff frequency for filter (quoted nominal cutoff was 100 Hz
for H(f) - 1/2; theoretical cutoff for Eq. B.2 is for
H(f) - 1//2 [8], which is fc - 100/(3)°-25 - 76 Hz)
n - order of filter response decay (2 for second order).
The circuitry of the low-pass Butterworth filter is similar to that of a Bessel
constant-time-delay filter [8].
A simple test (Fig. B.l) was devised to check the assumed amplitude response
function and constant (with frequency) time-delay characteristics of the
filters. The amplifier from the circuit for the load-indicating dynamometer
281
was used for the test so that corrections would be appropriate for construction
of moment-rotation relationships.
A sinusoidal signal of known amplitude and frequency was split into two
separate channels. Channel A was unfiltered. Channel B passed through the
filtering amplifier, Initially, the filter cutoff frequency was set at 20 kHz
so that traces of channels A and B could be made coincident on the oscilloscope
screen. Oscilloscope controls were adjusted so that the trace wavelength was
10 cm (full display width). The filter nominal cutoff frequency was then
switched to 100 Hz to match dynamic test conditions.
The frequency of the generated signal was varied from 2 to 200 Hz, and at
each step recordings were made of measured period (T), amplitude for channels A
and B (YA and Yg), and phase difference between channels A and B (AA). Test
results are summarized in Table B.l. Scope traces for frequencies of 10, 50,
and 100 Hz are shown in Fig. B.2.
The measured amplitude response fraction at each frequency step was computed
as
Hm “ Yg / YA (B.3)
where,
Hm(f) - measured amplitude response function.
Phase angle was computed as
6 - (AA / A) 360° (B.4)
where,
8(f) - phase angle between filtered (B) and unfiltered (A) signals
at frequency f
AA - phase difference read from oscilloscope screen as length
A - wavelength, set to 10 cm.
282
Time delay was computed at each frequency from
tf - (AA / A) T (B.5)
where,
T - measured period.
Measured amplitude response (Table B.l) is compared with Eq. B.2 in Fig.
B.3. While the appropriate order for the equation is not clear from the
comparison, the shape of the decay function appears to conform to that of the
assumed family of filters. The deviation of the measured result from the
equation for a second-order filter (n-2) at the nominal cutoff frequency of 100
Hz is less than the rated tolerance of ±1 db, which is quoted in the product
literature. Most importantly, the assumption of constant time delay is
justified by the test results (Table B.l)-- especially for the range of
frequencies relevant to dynamic test measurements. The correction for time
delay caused by the filters was thus taken as the average of values for
frequencies from 2 to 20 Hz (tf - 0.0036 s).
B.l.2 Serial Sampling Effect
Because the analog-to-digital conversion boards (Data Translation model
DT2801-A) sampled in serial format, a finite amount of time lapsed between
recordings of the 16 individual channels at each sampling step. Programs
written to drive the conversion boards set this offset as a function of the
overall sampling rate and the total number of channels to be sampled at each
step
tn - Ts / N (B.6)
where,
tn - time between sampling of adjacent channels
283
Ts — overall sampling period
- 0.005 s
N - number of channels
- 16
Therefore, tn - 0.0003125 s. According to Eq. B.l, an operation involving
channels 1 and 9 would require a correction for 0.0025 s of "delay" to channel
1.
B.l.3 Offset Between Separate Conversion Boards
For 3 of the 15 tests, two individual analog-to-digital conversion boards
were used (Table A.11). Attempts to coordinate the time scales of the boards
failed. Time-scale corrections (t^) were determined from comparison of two
similar signals (panel-base vertical displacement relative to the simulator
platform (Fig. A.13)), which occupied the same position number on each
conversion board and were not filtered. Values of tg for all relevant test
runs are given in Table B.2 and B.3.
B.2 Corrections for Time Skew
To synchronize a set of signals, one channel must be designated as the
reference and the corrected ordinates of the others are calculated from
uncorrected records by linear interpolation with respect to time. The
correction process is illustrated in Fig. B.4, which depicts two recordings (A
and B) of the same signal with signal B delayed by a time At^g. The corrected
signal B is computed from
Bi - Bi + (Bi+i - Bi)(AtAB / Ts) (B.7)
where,
284
Bj[ - corrected signal B at time t^
B^ - uncorrected signal B at time t^
At^g - time delay of signal B with respect to signal A (Eq. B.l).
Corrections for moment-rotation relationships are summarized in Table B.2.
The time axis of the rotation waveform was chosen as the reference. Moments
(computed from beam reaction data) were delayed by filtering. Moment and
rotation channels were on the same conversion board in all but 3 of the tests
(B-02, B-03, and B-04). No beam reaction data were recorded for Test B-03.
Computation of substitute damping ratios (Section 6.2) required
synchronization of three channels: platform acceleration (y), absolute
acceleration response (y + x), and relative displacement response (x). The
latter two were corrected with respect to the time axis of the first (Table
B .3).
285
Table B.l Filter Delay Test Results
f T ya yb Hm X AX e cf
(Hz) (msec) (V) 00 (cm) (cm) (deg) (msec)
2 498 3.00 3.00 1.000 10.0 0.07 2.5 3.5

3 335 3.00 3.00 1.000 10.0 0.09 3.2 3.0
5 200 3.00 3.00 1.000 10.0 0.20 7.2 4.0
10 100 3.00 2.98 0.993 10.0 0.38 13.7 3.8
20 50.2 3.00 2.90 0.967 10.0 0.70 25.2 3.5
50 20.0 3.00 2.40 0.800 10.0 1.50 54.0 3.0
76 13.2 3.00 1.95 0.650 10.0 2.00 72.0 2.6
100 10.0 3.00 1.55 0.517 10.0 2.60 93.6 2.6
200 5.01 3.00 0.63 0.208 10.0 3.60 129.6 1.8
f - nominal frequency; T
ya - channel A voltage; *B
fraction passed; X - wavelength
A X - phase difference; 0 - phase angle
tf - time delay
Table B.2 Corrections for Moment-Rotation Relationships
Corrections to Moment Signal, msec
Test(s) Run(s) tf (nj *ni)tn cb AtAB
B-01, 05, 06 All 3.6 2 * 0.31 0 4.2

B-08 thru 15
B-02 i o.o -JLU * U.Jl O .1 o.0

2 3.6 -10 * 0.31 6.9 7.4
B-04 1 3.6 -10 * 0.31 5.6 6.1

2 3.6 -10 * 0.31 6.2 6.7
B-07 All 3.6 6 * 0.31 0 5.5
286
Table B.3 Corrections for Substitute Damping Computation
Corrections to (y + x), msec
Test(s) Run(s) tf (nj-ni)tn tb a '-ab
B-01, 05, 06 All 0 -2 * 0.31 0 -0.63

B-08 thru 15
B-02, 04 All 0 -4 * 0.31 0 -1.25
B-07 All 0 -6 * 0.31 0 -1.88
Corrections to x, msec
B-01, 05, 06 All -3.6 -3 * 0.31 0 -4.54

B-08 thru 15
B-02 1 -3.6 -4 * 0.31 -6.1 -11.0

2 -3.6 -4 * 0.31 -6.9 -11.8
B-04 1 -3.6 -4 * 0.31 -5.6 -10.5

2 -3.6 -4 * 0.31 -6.2 -11.1
B-07 All -3.6 -7 * 0.31 0 -5.79
287
Exact Electronics, Inc.

Model 119
Function Generator
Anadex Instruments, Inc.

Model CF-600
Counter/Timer
LoW-P<J3S
Filter
Fluke Model 8020B Fluke Model 8020B

Digital Voltmeter Digital Voltmeter
Tektronix Type 453

Oscilloscope
Fig. B.l Filter Delay Test Setup
288
(a) f = 10 Hz
(c) f = 100 Hz
Fig. B.2 Filter Delay Test Oscilloscope Display
289
1.0
o Measured
- Eq. B.2 (n = 1 )
- E q . B.2 (n = 2 )
H.0)
0.5
0.0
0 100 200
Frequency, Hz
Fig. B.3 Filter Amplitude Response Function
AB
1+1
t| Time
Fig. B.4 Time Skew Correction by Linear Interpolation
290
APPENDIX C
MEASURED RESPONSE OF TEST SPECIMENS
This appendix contains response histories and corrected moment-rotation
relationships for each test run (Fig. C.1-C.44). Moment-rotation relationships
for both runs of Test B-03 are omitted because attempts to synchronize data
channels (Appendix B) were unsuccessful. Chapter 3 contains a discussion of
specimen response for nine selected test runs.
291
ui ‘ -d s ia >1 '•»oooy
go o o o o O
o o’ o aJ o
o
Mr
C
M
oo
O
C
M
Measured Response of Specimen B-01 During Run

o
cd
Z
D
o:
(a) Response Histories

\
o
C
M«
0 E
1 F
OD
if)
U
I-
o
00
Fig. C.l
o
M-
o
O O O O O o’
CM O C
M
2H ‘•bojj SS "loa <-*l—>

1 OOOl 'VM 0 / ‘ =OV ®aog
400
TEST B -0 1 / RUN 1
1 T'
0— 2 sec. 2 — 4 sec. 4— 6 sec.
-400 i i
292
1“ ----------------- ,------------------ -------- - -------- ,
—i------------------ i i ....
6 —8 sec. 8 —10 sec. 1 0 — 12 sec.
di / / /
. /
/ /
i « i . ... i i ..... i
“2 O 2 —2 0 2 —2 0 2
Rotation, p e r c e n t Rotation, p e r c e n t Rotation, p e r c e n t
Fig. C .1 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-01 During Run 1

(b) Moment-Rotation Relationship
TE ST B -0 1 / RUN 2
I-
10.0!-
o
o
O
° °° °°
o o °o
°o •*> ° Qi
<tft> ifo0 o o
o Oa
- 1 .6
0.0
dsta
- 1.6
8.0
>1 *-ôo»y
0.0
w tf~vvyv\A/~ >'
8.0
_L _U J
0 .0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 2 0 .0 2 4 .0
Time. sec.
Fig. C.2 Measured Response of Specimen B-01 During Run 2

f
TEST B -0 1 RUN 2
400
0 —2 aac, 2 —4 aac. 4 —6 aac.
400
294
400
1 0 —12 aac,
4 O 4 4 O 4 -4 0
Fig. C.2 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-01 During Run 2

295

Fig. C.3
U|—>1 OOOL 'W 0/*3=>V osoa
TEST B -0 1 / RUN 3
400
2 —4 aac. 4 —6 aac.
-4 0 0
296
400
6 —S aac. 8 —10 aac. 1 0 —12 aac.
-4 0 0
O 4 -4 O 4 O 4
R otation, percent R otation, percent R o ta tio n , p e r c e n t

297
ui *-doia >1 ••joDoy

o o o O O O
.• d ? d o
o
N

o
co
z
D
o:

o
\ e
n
o
OJ pi «
0 - E
1 F
m
i—
(/)
u
H
o
oo
oo
Fig. C.4
oo
o
O O O O O N O o o o
*H •bojj jg -ioy ui— >t OOOl. 0/*=>=>V o«oQ
TEST B -0 2 / RUN 1
200
0 —2 sec. 2 —4 sec.
-2 0 0
298
200 ------ -- T,
■■ i i
-----------------
CD
1
o
a
0
a
1 0 —12 sec.
------------------ 1
------------------1------------------
/
-200 ___________I__________ i ■
-2 O 2 -2 2 -2

299
U| -dsia >i ‘' l o os y
CM

CM
Z
D
QL

\
<N
O
I
m
U)
Ld
»-
«o Fig. C.5
o o o o o O O
ZH “bojj •;oy Ul— >1 O O O I *kN 0/'=°V ®0Dg
TEST B -0 2 / RUN 2
200 -------- 1-----------
0 —2 sec. 2 —4 eoc. 4 —6 sac.
/
c
T
a
3
c ■
•
E
o
■U
2
-200 1 1
300
200
8 —10 aac. 10— 12 aac.
-2 0 0
-4 O 4 - O 4 - 0 4
Rotation, percent Rotation, percent R o ta tio n , p e rc e n t

TEST B -0 3 / RUN 1
r
1 0 . 0
N ’o
X aP
CD O
tT ®«4
0
L.
“o
o
ox^°0^ a ) V ^ 0 o o ^ c o c o o O,
b_
0.0
2.0 r
0.8
DIsp
I
k
React.,
o
o
o
2 _
-4.0
O
\
d
u
< o.o
oB
0
m
■1.0 L
i_ I _L J
0.0 4 .0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.

302
u[ *-doia "poey
a) o ® o o q
^ o' r o ?
<\l
Measured Response of Speciiren B-03 During Run

2
D
a:

\
to
0
1
m
V)
iii
H
Fig. C.7
o o O O N o o o O
ZH ■bojî •;oa Uj—>1 OOO L 'IN Q/'OOV oeog
r
10.0 r-
N
X
- 8
IT Oo
e
>. ^30 Oo O O Q o ' j> ^ u o * o O
U. °°000° °°0000° O 00°00 °° 00 O OoOOOoo® 00 °00000 oo 00°0000 OOOo oo OOOOOOOOOOOOO ooo
0 .0
4 .0
2.0
K
: 0 .0
Dlop
0
K
- 2.0
-4 .0
r 0 .2
ii
k
X
React.,
o 0 .0 A \l\lik r^ I A A_l A l a a A / ' a A A A a a / V A A A a a a a a a . - lA / \ a a a a ^ ^ a j 0.0
o ' A \ V v v V v v w v\]Y v ^ V y l / V v v ^ V v v ' ^ v V V V v v v v v
o
T“
J* mi V v v ^ i
ft
2 -0 .2 3.0
1 .0
0
\
u
0
< 0 .0
•
a
0
m
-1 .0
I I
0.0 4 .0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.

200
L
o
C
2-4 see.
■
•
1
M
. 1
\
c ------------------
N
T
a
5
1
c
•
Eo
3
U
-2 0 0 i ...... 1
304
200 - - - - - - - - ,-----
6— 8 sec. S — 10 sec. 10— 12 ooc,
c
T
a
5
. .... h \ ) ■
c
• /
E
o
2
i
-2 0 0 i ... - - -
-4 4 -4 4 - O 4
Ro t a t i o n , p e r c e n t R o t at io n, p e r c e n t R o ta tio n , p e r c e n t

305
U( ••doja ^ -pD8y
CM

CM
Z
D
Q:

\
■M-
O
I
m
i—
</)
LlI
Fig. C.9
o o o o O c4 o o o o
o c4
zh “ bojjj **oy uj—>i oooi ©/*»=>v m o b
TEST B—0 4 / RUN 2

200
4— 6 aac.
-2 0 0
306
■f 1 ---- I i
6—8 sac. 8—10 aac. 10-12 sec.
v
j
. (j (
f
1
---------------- ------ - ..... . i . . i i
-4 O 4 - 4 O 4 - 4 0 4
Rotation, p e r c e n t Rot at io n, p e r c e n t Rot at io n, p e r c e n t

307
ui -doia >1 "isDoy
o
IN
O
o
M

o
<d
Z
D
cc

oc
\ <>o
o "
m N C
0 - E
1 P
m
H~
W
U
I-
o
ai
Fig. C.10
o
O O o
zh “ bajjj ut— OOOl O / ’o o v aaog
400
2— 4 ate
400
308
400 -------------------- 1--------------------
10—12 sec.
.
(0
CO
0
•
0
1
-------- 1--------------------
C
T
a
3
c
•
^
E
o
2
1
------------------- 1--------------------
.
-400
-2 2 -2 2 -2

r
10.0 i-
N
X o
o
cr o oo
O
o Oo
o o%
l.
u_ o0o°oo°°°°<fi 00°0000° OCXKP °00000000000000000 000 OO°0ooo“ °” ° °o,
oo c
0.0
4.0
2.0
0.0 ^ W \A A A a a /N./\y v 0.0
Disp.
0
K
-2.0
6.0
k
React.,
o.o 'cr" -v w -v — V V W ^ ■V o.o
-6.0
2 -0 .4
2.0
0
\
(j
o
< 0.0
0«l
0
ffl
-2.0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 1 6.0 20.0 24.0
Time, sec.
Fig. C.ll Measured Response of Specimen B-05 During Run 2

400 — 1------
'
0-2 2 —4 sac.
- -------i—
. ------- 1--------------
/ /
N
-4 0 0 1 1
310
400 -------------- 1 ■ -------------- 1--------------
8 —10 see. 10—12 sec.
-4 0 0 ..... i - - ..... ............. « ............

-4 O 4 4 O
Fig. C.ll (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-05 During Run 2

r
1 0 .0
N
X
O'
0
o °°oooo00°°o 0o0° ° 00 000000 00°°<> 0 0 0 < > » 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OoooocoooOoo ° 6 0 0 000t. ° 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0
4.0
- 2.0
: o.o vMVI
Aa \m\Al\AM j
^ vm av aV a \juA \J
A Va va \J
a \J
A \T
A Va VA 1/A Vv
vA u
/ VV a a a va va 'V^ '^ /W w \V va va va “.a a ^ w^. - m
/\.^
-v 0.0
DIsp
w y v v v v v \
m
-2.0
- 6.0
k
React.,
o.o
6.0
_L_ _L J
8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 2 4 .0
Time, sec.

400 ------ “T-----------

.......... -~l----------------
0—2 sac. 4—6 aac,
c
T
a
3
c
•
E
o
2
&
- 4 0 0 ----------------1-------- i
312
400 1
6—8 aec. 1 0 -1 2 sec.
c
T
a
3
V
j f l '
..........
C
\ \ 1
•
oE
2
\------------
-4 0 0 «
-4 4 O 4 O 4

313
U[ '-dSIQ “p D e y
q o o o o q
r- o 7 10 o 10
o
N
O
oo o
N
oo

00
o
Oo
co
Z
D
01

oo oo
\ n
o
(D d o
O •E
I F
CD
I—
(/)
LU
o
03
„°0
Fig. C.13
o
■T
o
o o o o o
I
z h ••bojj ss ‘o o y Ul— >i o o o I 0/'°°V OSDQ
314
2
a
oco

a
o
£
(cont.)
c
c
Fig. C.13
2c
a
o
a:
<N
o o O o
o
N §'
N
u |—d p i *>u « u j o h •u |— d|>) ‘) u * u i o n
I
315
uj ‘•ds «3
O O 9
^ o y o
III
N
'oo
o
o’
CM
CM

«»
O
(0
<N
Z
D
a:

0o
\ o
o
CD C
M®
O ^ E
I F
CD
(/)
LiJ
I-
o
oo
Fig. C.14
o
O o o o o o
z h "bojj •>oa U!— >1 O O O U O/'OOV OSDQ
i
TEST B -0 6 / RUN 2
200
0— 2 aee.
-200
316
200
8 — 10 sec. 10—12 aac.
200
-2 0 2
2 -2 2 -2
Rotation, p e r c e n t Rotation, p e r c e n t R o ta tio n , p e r c e n t

317

Fig. C.15
u i—>1 OOOL "VH 0 / ‘ ==>V 8»oa
200
TEST B -0 6 / RUN 3
0 —2 sao. 4 —6 see.
-2 0 0
318
------------1------------ i
6 —8 see. 8 —10 aac. 1 0 - 1 2 aac.
i ... A.
Rotation, paroant Rotation, parcant Rotation, porcant

319
ui •dsiQ >1 ";aDBy

o o 9 o o o
ci o PI H o d
o
N
O
N

o
cd
Z
D
a:

o
\ o
n
0
to 01 o'
0 E
1 F
m
i—
(A
LI
o
oo
Fig. C.16
o
't
o
o o o 01 o o o o
ZH " b a jj ss " i o y U l— >1 OOOL ‘n 0 / ' = =V osoa
TEST B -0 6 RUN
200
0—2 sec, 2—4 sec.
-2 0 0
320
200
6—8 sec, 8—10 sec. 10—12 sec.
-2 0 0
—4 0 4

321
•deja
o
C
M
o
o
C
M
During Run
o
<o
B-07
Measured Response of Specimen
Z
D
a:

o«
\
o a
i'" cm£
0 - E
1 F
CD
\—
if)
Ld
I-
o
ai
C.17
Fig.
00
J J
O O
zh "bajj •ioy ui— >1 O O O l Q/-OOV esos
400
400
322
400
8 —1 0 aac. 1 0 -1 2 aac.
-4 0 0
2 O 2 O 2
2 -2

323
ui ••d«ia >j 'ÔDay

o o o o o o
pi o tji id o ®
o
■+
N
o
o
M
IN

o
id
CM
Z
D
a.

o«
\
o a
N d
O *- E
I F
OQ
(/)
U
H
o
co
Fig. C.18
O
o o o ■* o o
z h ‘•bojj ui— >t O O O L 0/*==>V ®oog
400
O- -2 aec. 2—4 aec. 4—6 aec.
-4 0 0
324
400 1 ...........' " 1
■ ---------------- 1-------- i
6—8 aec. 8—10 aec. 10 — 12 aec.
-4 0 0 i ___________l___________ • -........ i 1
________________ ____________
-4 O 4

325
U( - d o t a >i '- p o n y
o o o o o o
n o N aj o ®
o
TTT ITT
N
o
o
N

o
d
to
Z
D
IT
o
(a ) Response Histories
\ «m
o
n e
0 -E
1 F
CD
H
in
ui
H
o
oo
Fig. C.19
oo o
%
%
o°o
oo
°o
o
I 1 I I U o
o O o o o o o o o
oT“ o
2H 3£ “ »oa ui—>1 OOO I O / ’ooy esog
1 ---------------- ,----------------
0 —2 sec. 4 —6 aac.
J
r
. i t
326
i“" i 1
------- ---------------- -- .. ,
T” -- 1- - - -
6 —8 sec. 8 —10 aec. 10— 12 sec.
i i i .1_ . i
—4 O 4 —4 O 4 - 4 0 4

327

RUN

/
B—08
TEST
Fig. C.20
328
c
o0
k.
0
a
co
0
<K

c
oi0.
0
a
o c
.
0
a0
(cont.)
c
Fig. C.20
0
0u
0
a
Ko
CM
Oo O
OCM
O
O 8'
CM N pj
•U|— d|>i *)u » u j o w *u(— d|>| ‘ûouuow
329
u| -d o ia ‘•}OD©y
o o o o O O
ci o n 10 o i?
i O
•+
C
M
<
O
<N CM

o
<0
N
Z
D
m

00
\ n
o
oo ci e
0 - E
1 P
CD
H
U)
Ld
I-
o
C
O
Fig. C.21
o
'i
J j _
o o O C
M o
z h “ bojj S£ u j—>) OOOl ‘ I'M 0 /-3 3 V oooa
TEST B -0 8 RUN
I . . ------- 1
0 —2 aec. 2 —4 sac.
• »
330
200 .................... 1------------------ ------------------1------------------
6 —8 sec. 8 —10 aec. 1 0 —12 sec,
-200 * i
4 O 4
R otation, percen t Rotation, percent Rotation, percent

331
u| "daja "p o sy
O O O o q q
ci O N 10 o d
't
N
O
o
w
n

o
d
to
z
D
CH

\
o
oo d «
0 ^ E
1 F
00
H
if)
Id
I-
o
oo
Fig. C.22
O O O O O O
zh ,-bojj as "»oy u j—>( OOOl 0 /-3 3 V ®a°S
TEST B—0 8 RUN

200
0 —2 sec. 2 —4- aec.
-2 0 0
332
200
6 —8 sec. 8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
-200
-4 0 4 -4 4 -4
Fig.. C.22 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-08 During Run 3

333
ui "dsja >1 "joooy

O O O O O o
r-‘ o V d o n
O
o

o
d
Z
D
O'

\
o
05 N «
0 - E
1 F
CD
I-
[f)
Ld
H
o
CO
Fig. C.23
90
o
o O o o o o o o o
o *-
I
zh "bojj 24 "5oa «-<!— >1 O O O L "VH 0/'°°V osdq
200 ---------------- J----------------
i
4 —6 sec.
-200 i
334
200 I ------------------1------
8 —10 aee. 1 0 —12 sec.
-200 .. i ___________l________
-2 O 2
R otation, percen t Rotation, percent Rotation, percent

335
U! ••dsja >t "po o a

o o q o o o
cm 6 Y ro o q
o
CM
O
CM
CM

o
to
OJ
z
D
a:

\
o
CD 00 CM C
O E
I F
m
U)
u
t—
o
CO
Fig. C.24
o
't
o
O O o O O o CM o O O o
zh “bajj % 'ôy ui— >) O O O I 'kN o/"°°V osog
TEST B—0 9 RUN

200
0 —2 sec, 2 —4 sec.
-200
336
200
8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
-200
-4 O 4 O 4 -4
R otation, percent R otation, percent Rotation, percent

337
Uj "dsia >) " p D o y

o o o o o o
*- o *7 to o
0
't
01
O
0
01

q
u>
D
0£

\
o
O 04 d
- E
T
m
F
H
(/)
LJ
o
ai
Fig. C.25
o
o O o o o ■<4- O O O o
04 o O!
I
zh '-bojj % '•*oy U I — >1 O O O l ‘ KN o / ‘ =>=>V 9 8 0 0
338
C
•
u.
i
•
a

o
x

c
o
V.
a
c
0
0
IE
CJ
(cont.)
Fig. C.25
0
IE
-jcs
o o o o o1
o o
■*
*u|— d|>( *}u»uiOp| ‘ui—di>< ';u »luo^
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
339
u( -deja >( ''pDoy

o o 9 O O 9
pj o n «j o
o
N
O
o
CM

o
<6
CM
Z
D
Cd

\
O
m
T
i—
(/)
Ld
I-
o
cri
Fig. C.26
o
o o o o o o o o
ZH •bojj 34 ••>oy uj— >t OOOl ‘W 0/'»°V ®*D0
TEST B -1 0 RUN
400
4 —6 sec,
-4 0 0
340
400
8 —10 see. 1 0 —12 sec.
-4 0 0
-4 O 4 O 4 -4
R otation, percent Rotation, percen t Rotation, percent
Fig.. C.26 (cont-) Measured Response of Specimen B-10 During Run 2

341
<-*i ••dsja >) " p D B y

q o o O q 9
cm o CM d o ®
. o
M-
CM
O
o
<n

o
d
ro
Z
D
m

o
\ o
a
o
0 cm ®
Y— - E
1 F
m
h-
(0
LU
o
CO
Fig. C.27
J L O
o O o o o o o o
o o
ZH •bojj as '•;<>« U J — >1 O O O l *k M 0/'=>=>V O SD Q
342
-------1------- -------,-------
2
0
o.
N
0 CO
0 o
0 <r

"«
1
-
1
o
..... i..

c
•
0.
k
0
a
c
o
o
K
— — — 7— — —
(cont.)
-------1---------- -----
c
Fig. C.27
0
o
I.
0
a
o
6
0
K
“ «
_______________ 1 ■ ■■ ... . i_
■J*
o O o o 91
0
§ *
1
•u |—di>i ' ) u * ujo^ •uj—dj>i ' ; u 9 luo ^
343
ui -deia
o o o
ci o n
o
r T T T
N
o
o
CN
Measured Response of Specimen B-10 During Run 4

o
<d
Z
D
an

\
o
T
DQ
t—
(/)
U
1-
o
od
Fig. C.28
J I I L J I o
o o o o O O o
I
zh ‘•bejj •»oy ui— >t O G O I 0 / '3 3 V ssog
TEST B -1 0 / RUN 4
400
0 —2 aec. 2 —4 aec. 4 —6 aec.
-4 0 0
344
400
1 0 —12 aec.
-4 0 0
-4 0 4 0 4 -4
Fig- C.28 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-10 During Run 4

I---------------- 1---------------- 1---------------- 1---------------- 1---------------- 1----------------1

10.0
N
X OOq o °0
oo O c ft1
ff
cu
u.
0.0
2.0
0.8
In
0.0 0.0
D ls p ..
+*
0
AC
- 0.8
-2 .0 I-
C 0.2 p 4.0
k
R e a c t.,
0.0
r~
2 - 0.2 4.0
1 .0
0.0
- 1•
.U
0 —
I______________ I______________ I______________ I______________ I______________ I-------------- 1
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0
Time, sec.
Fig. C.29 Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run 1

TEST B—11 / RUN 1

200 " I ----------------------
0 —2 aec. 4 —6 aec.
/
/
-200 -i....... _ i ...
346
------------------1------------------ i ...... — i------------------ "" ........... "1 T "“ i
6 —8 aec. 8 —10 aec. 10—12 aec.
/ / t
/ / i
i ■ . . . i ........ »
—2 O 2-2 O 2-2 O 2
R otation, perc en t Rotation, percent Rotation, percent
Fig. C.29 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run 1

347
■jODBy
o
m n ■+'
CM
o
o'
CM
CM
Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run

o
to
CM
D
tt:

o
•
\ a
o• •
CM «
- E
P
m
h
U)
Ixl
H
o
CO
Fig. C.30
J J o
o o o 0 o
o'
1
zh “bojj ‘•lOM ui— >1 O O O l g / ’o o v esog
TEST B—11 / RUN 2

200 ------------------ 1---------
0 —2 see. 4 —6 sac.
i
c
T
a
5
c V
•
E
o
2
-200 _L ______ i___________
348
200
8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sac.
-200
-2 O 2 -2 2 -2
Rotation, percen t Rotation, percent R otation, percent

349
Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run

Fig. C.31
«■»!— > t O O O l 'I N 0 / ‘3 S V ® O D Q
-1
0
— -e
2«. TEST
2 -4
B—1 1
aec.
/ RUN 3
0
/
7
-i...
•■
-1
350
200
8 —10 aeo, 1 0 -1 2 aec.
-2 0 0
2 ■j 2 2 0 2 2 0 2
Rotation, percent Rotation, percent R otation, percent

Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run 4
RUN

/
B - 11
TEST
Fig. C.32
u j — >1 o o o I ‘W o / -o o v aaog
352
1 -------- 1
c
2
> •
a
o c
.
0
0
0 0
0 £
(cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-ll During Run

- N -
O
T"
--- L- t

c
0
20
a
c
o
0
£
c
32
2 u
0
a
c C7>
o •rt
Cu
0
£
O O o O
O 0
N N
au|~dpf *>u»kUOft
1 u|— di>t *;u »ujoh
353
u| ••data >1 “p D o y
00 O O O O O
0 0 9 ( D O ®
o
oo N
O
O
CJ

O
(0
z
D
QL

\
o
C
M ci e
T— ^ E
I F
C
D
H
(/)
U
I-
o
00
Fig.. C.33
o
't
O O o o «■ O o o o
*H ‘ - b a jj as -}©a u j—>i OOOI. £ > /*3 ° V B #o a
, . .... 1----------------
■■1
T" ---- 1------
---- i .......“ 1-------------------
X.
0 —2 sec. 2— 4 sec. 4 —6 sec.
/
/
• i i i
354
.................~1— 1 T--------- ■ ”f ” i T" “
6 —8 sec. 8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
/ ✓ /
/ /
/
» i ___________I________ i
-2 O 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 2

355

Fig. C.34
«jj—>
1 OOOl ©/•=>»* esog
TEST B -1 2 / RUN 2
400 "t i
0 —2 sec 2 —4 see. 4 —6 sec.
/
/
-4 0 0 i •
356
400 ------1------------------ ................ “ 1--------- :—
6 —8 see, 8 —10 sec, 1 0 —12 sec.
/
z '
-4 0 0 • »
-2 O 2 -2 O 2
R otation, percent Rotation, percent Rotation, porcent

357
ui -dsia >1 " p D o y

oo o oo O O
o o’ o o ®
o
't
N
oo
00
o
o
CM
ro

oo
o
d
ro
Z
D
Of

\
o
(N CM »
- E
I F
CQ
H
V)
UJ
o
oo
Oo
Fig. C.35
o
O o O O O O o o o o'
O N O
I
zh si “loy ui— >| O O O l o/'ooy ssog
TEST B— 12 / RUN 3
-------- -1 -■ " 1 .. 1 ......... r-
0 —2 sec. 2 —4 aec, 4 —6 sec.
i
• i i_ ______
358
400 ■ ---------1— :----- 1
6 —8 sec, 8 —10 sec. 1 0 —12 sec.
-4 0 0 i i
-2 O 2
Rotation, porcerit Rotation, percent Rotation, percent
Pig. C.35 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-12 During Run 3

359
uj "dsia
( D O ®
o o ' o
m 1
So

a>
z
D
m

\
ro CM ®
I
m
U)
1x1
Fig. C.36
OO
CP
O
CM O
ZH ‘-bojj 24 ••}<=« Ml— >t OOOl 0/-OOV esog
TEST B — 13 RUN
400 ---------------- ,----------------
I
0— 2 soc. 2— 4 sec. 4— 6 sec.
/
/
-400 i i .........
360
400 i ..... . ....... I- - - - - - - - - 1
6-8 8— 1O sec. 10— 12 soc.
-400 • • i •
-2 O 2
R ot at io n, p e r c e n t R ot ation, p e r c e n t R ot ation, percent

TE ST B—13 / RUN 2
------------ i r i - i ................................... 1
------------------------------- 1
10.0
N _ ° ° o o O °
X o Oo o 0 „
• 0 o o
IT - ° 0Oc ^ ^ J (fio J o 0^ Dvam k2 V aS ^V ^Jo
0
L.
L. 0 <P
0.0 1
2.0
0.8
K
y 0.0 //LA/U^/yillMJlAJliVMflALAAAAMllAAAA/>7\ÂAA/w\AAAÂJ\AAA/v/\AAAAA~vy\Av\AAAAAAA./ÂAAA7 0.0
DIsp
0
a.
- 0.8
-2.0
c 0.4 8.0
1
k
X
React.,
o 0.0 : ............................ 1 1 a fth aAiIaA aaIaaaHÎI A iaa M M M / vA .nAIU/WtAA. J U M aAAMIU-.-.AAÂ a AAIUA / v a AAAAi*
o vVVv y p p y v p V||VV||VV| ' U P V V r ^ v w 0.0
v » ^ ^ ^ v v v» "WvV * ^vvvvv'/^ /vvvv
0
T“
2 -0.4 - 8.0
2.0
0
\
d
0
< 0.0
0
0
0
m
-2.0
i i i i i i i
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 1 6.0 20.0 24.0
Time, sac.

TEST B —13 / RUN 2

400 1 1
0— 2 aoc. 2— 4 sec, 4— 6 sec.
C
T
Q.
3
4/
c
«
E
0
5
-400 I •
362
400
6— 8 sec, 8 — 10 sec, 10— 12 sec,
-400
-2 O 2 O 2 -2
R ot at io n, p e r c e n t R ot at io n, p e r c e n t Rotation, percent

363
uj -d o ja >1 • • p o s y
00 O ® 9 9 °
o' o o oo o ®
O
*
CM
O
CM
CO
Run
Measured Response of Specimen B-13 During
o
d
to
Z
D
Ol.
(a ) Response Histories
o
\ o
m
o
to CM O
E
I P
CD
I—
V)
UJ
o
oo
Fig. C.38
o
o o o o o o O O O o
O CM CM O
zh '*bojj 5£ 'ooy ui— >1 O O O U £>/‘=>=V »o d q
TE ST B —13 / RUN 3
400 — 1-------- --- 1-----
0— 2 aec. 2— 4 sec. 4— 6 aec.
-400 i •
364
i 1 ...... I I ■ ■■ — r T -------
6— 8 aec. 8 — 10 aec. 10-12 aec.
/ /
/
. / . / . /
» i ......i i •
-2 0 2 —2 O 2-2 O 2
R o t at io n, p e r c e n t R o t at io n, pe. c e n t R ot ation, percent

365
uj *-d o ia >1 ‘ ’lo o o y

oo o ® o o o
o o o ■* o +
I o
oo ~\— r
IN
oo
O
o
CN

o
cd
Z
D
£

o
o
to
o
■tf N P
- E
T
£D
F
H
V)
LlI
I-
o
to
Fig. C.39
Oo
0 oo.
o
J L J JJ
o o o o o o O O
2H '-bBJj Si "loy u|— >1 OOOl ‘tN 0/'®3V OBDg
1
■
0—2s
e
c. -- TEST
r
2—4sec.
— ,
B—14
1
/ RUN
i 1
!----
4—6sec.
---------------- 1----------------
1
/ '
i i « i i •
I I
-
366
6—8s
ec. 8 — 10 sec. 10— 12 see
.i
R o t at io n, p e r c e n t
J_ -2 0
R ot ation, p e r c e n t
2 -2 0
Rot at io n, p e r c e n t
2
Fig• C .39 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-14 During Run 1

Fig. C.40
uj— >1 OOOI ‘KN o/'°3V oooa
"■ .. " T ‘ ... T . .. . . . . . 1- - - - - - .... 1""' 1 '1 i
0— 2 sec. 2— 4 aec. 4— 6 sec.
9 / '
>
i
- t
i i 1 1 *
360
------1 — 1--------------
6—8 eiec. 8 — 10 aec. 10— 12 aec.
/
/ '
V
i_______ ■
-2 O 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 2
Rot at io n, p e r c e n t Rot at io n, p e r c e n t R ot ation, p e r c e n t

369
r m
CO

to
Z
D
a:

\
i
i
m
(/)
UJ
H
Fig. C.41
o o O CM CM O
CM O O CM
ZH ‘*bejj S£ Ul— >1 O O O I ©/•say ©8DQ

200 .............. I “ ................ 1 ' “
0 —2 sec. 2— 4 soc,
c
T
a
3
A
c
/
•
E
o
2
1 1
-200 ...... -
370
200 ' 1 ....... ... ■r
6 —8 sec. 8 —10 sec, 10— 12 soc,
c
1
a
3
A
c
«
E
o
2
J __ i
-200
-2 2 -2 2 0 2
R ot at io n, p o r c o n t Rotation, p e r c e n t Rotation, percent

i
371
ui "dsja
o o o o
CD
- d T o
(N
O
(N

o
cd
Z
D
a:

o
\ 0
a
o
in <n e
T~ - E
I F
ffi
I-
U)
UJ
I-
o
a
Fig. C..42
o
oo
J J o
o o o o -+ o o o o d
o oi pi o
ZH *bojj •*oy ui—>i OOOI ‘ IN 0 / ‘=>°V ®*O0
TE ST B—15 / RUN 1
400 1 r1
0— 2 aec. 2— 4 aec. 4— 6 sec*
-400 ______ l ...... ______ i_____
372
-- - - - -- - r ------- , ------ 1------ ...... i ■
6— 8 sec. 8 —10 sec. 10— 12 aec.
/ /
/ /
i i * i
-2 O 2 -2 0 2 -2 0 2
R o t at io n, p e r c e n t Rot at io n, p e r c e n t Rot at io n, p e r c e n t
Pig. C.42 (cont.) Measured Response of Specimen B-15 During Run 1

373
u( *-d o ia '•lODBy
o
't
CM
O
o
CM
CM

O
(0
z
D
a:

o
\ 0
a
o
in CM 0
T™ E
I P
QQ
P-
(/)
u
o
CO
Fig. C.43
o o
O
o o o o o
zh "bojj ui— >1 OOOI. 0 /-OOV esog
374
c
©
o
L.
o
a
c
0
CM
0
QC

c
©
o
L.
©
a
c
o
o
CL
1 ■ -—I---- N
(cont.)
C
Fig. C.43
©
0
u
0
a
\
X
o
6© CL
©
w
1
o
1 1
O O O
O O 0
M*
•uj— dj>j * ; u 9 a i o ^
1
•u|— dpi 'ûeuuow
375
Run
During
B-15
Measured Response of Specimen
Fig. C.44
uj— >1 OOOl ‘KN o/-oov oooa
376
c
©
o
u
©
a
o n
x
Run
During
Measured Response of Specimen B-15
c
©
g
©
a
c
o
0
x
(cont.)
c
o
Fig. C.44
0
u
0
a
o
X
O 0 O
O O O
*
S1
*
•uj— d p i ûouio^
1 •uj— d(>t <; U 0 UJO)^|
i
377
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Algan, B. B., "Drift and Damage Considerations in Earthquake-Resistant

Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings," Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to
the Graduate College of the University of Illinois, March 1982.
2. American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced

Concrete, ACI 318-83, Detroit, Michigan, November 1983.
3. Applied Technology Council, "Tentative Provisions for the Development of

Seismic Regulations for Buildings," ATC 3-06, Special Publication No. 510,
U. S. National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C., June 1978.
4. California Institute of Technology Earthquake Engineering Research

Laboratory, "Strong Motion Earthquake Accelerograms, Digitized and Plotted
Data," Vol. II, Part A, EERL 71-50, Pasadena, California, September 1971.
5. California Institute of Technology Earthquake Engineering Research

Laboratory, "Strong Motion Earthquake Accelerograms, Digitized and Plotted
Data," Vol. II, Part D, EERL 72-52, Pasadena, California, March 1973.
6 . Gulkan, P., and M. A. Sozen, "Response and Energy Dissipation of Reinforced

Concrete Frames Subjected to Strong Base Motions," Structural Research
Series No. 377, Dept, of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana,
May 1971.
7. Gulkan, P., and M. A. Sozen, "Inelastic Responses of Reinforced Concrete

Structures to Earthquake Motions, ACI Journal, Vol. 71, No. 12, December
1974, pp. 604-610.
8 . Hilburn, J. L., and D. E. Johnson, Manual of Active Filter Design, McGraw-

Hill Book Company, New York, 1973, 189 pp.
9. Hognestad. E.. "A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced
Concrete Members," University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
Bulletin Series No. 399, Vol. 49, No. 22, Urbana, November 1951.
10. Housner, G. W., and P. C. Jennings, Earthquake Design Criteria. Earthquake

Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, 1982.
11. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code,

Whittier, California, 1985.
12. Jacobsen, L. S., "Steady Forced Vibration as Influenced by Damping,"

Transactions of the ASME, paper APM-52-15, pp. 169-181.
13. Jennings, P. C., "Equivalent Viscous Damping for Yielding Structures,"

Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division. ASCE, Vol. 94, No. EMI,
February 1968, pp. 103-116.
378
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT.)
14. Langhaar, H. L., Dimensional Analysis and Theory of Models. J. Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 1951, 166 pp.
15. Lopez, R. R., "A Numerical Model for Nonlinear Response of R/C Frame-Wall
Structures," Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois, Urbana, 1988.
16. Morrison, D. G., and M. A. Sozen, "Response of Reinforced Column Plate-

Column Connections to Dynamic and Static Horizontal Loading," Structural
Research Series No. 490, Dept, of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois,
Urbana, April 1981.
17. Newmark, N. M., and W. J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, 1982.
18. Olesen, S. 0., Sozen, M. A., and C. P. Siess, "Investigation of Prestressed

Reinforced Concrete for Highway Bridges, Part IV: Strength of Beams With
Web Reinforcement," University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station,
Bulletin Series No. 493, Vol. 64, No. 134, Urbana, July 1967.
19. Otani, S., "Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response
Analysis," Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo, Vol.
36, No. 2, May 1981, pp. 407-441.
20. Schultz, A. E., "An Experimental and Analytical Study of R/C Frames with
Yielding Columns," Ph.D. Dissertation submitted to the Graduate College of
the University of Illinois, Urbana, 1985.
21. Shibata, A., and M. A. Sozen, "The Substitute-Structure Method for

Earthquake-Resistant Design of Reinforced Concrete Frames," Structural
Research Series No. 412, Dept, of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois,
Urbana, October 1974.
22. Shimazaki, K., and M. A. Sozen, "Seismic Drift of Reinforced Concrete

Structures," Technical Research Report of Hazama-Gumi, Ltd., Tokyo, 1984,
pp. 145-166.
23. Sozen, M. A., "A Frame of Reference," paper submitted at Ralph B. Peck
Symposium, Urbana, Illinois, April 1987.
24. Takeda, T., M. A. Sozen, and N. N. Nielsen, "Reinforced Concrete Response to

Simulated Earthquakes," Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 96,
No. ST12, December 1970, pp. 2557-2573.
25. Timoshenko, S., and J. N. Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill Book

Co., Inc., New York, 1951, p. 96.
26. Veletsos, A. S., and N. M. Newmark, "Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the

Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions," Proceedings 2nd World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, pp. 895-912, Japan, 1960.
379
LIST OF REFERENCES (CONT.)
27. Veletsos, A. S., N. M. Newmark and C. V. Chelapati, "Deformation Spectra for

Elastic and Elastoplastic Systems Subjected to Ground Shock and Earthquake
Motions," Proceedings 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
II, pp. 663-682, New Zealand, 1965.
28. Wight, J. K., and M. A. Sozen, "Shear Strength Decay of Reinforced Concrete
Columns Subjected to Large Deflection Reversals," Structural Research Series
No. 409, Dept, of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, 'Jrbana, August
1973.
29. Wood, S. L., and M. A. Sozen, "Experiments to Study the Earthquake Response
of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Setbacks," Structural Research Series No.
544, Dept, of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, December
1988.
380
VITA
John Francis Bonacci was born in Joliet, Illinois in 1959. He graduated
from the University of Illinois, Urbana, obtaining Bachelor's and Master's of
Science degrees in Civil Engineering in 1981 and 1982.
He worked as a structural designer with The Datum-Moore Partnership in
Irving, Texas for three years until 1985, when he returned to Urbana to resume
graduate studies in Civil Engineering.
Upon completion of his Ph.D., Mr. Bonacci joined the Faculty of Applied
Science and Engineering at University of Toronto as an Assistant Professor of
Civil Engineering in January 1989.
Mr. Bonacci is active in a number of technical societies including the
American Concrete Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Experiments To Study Seismic D

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experiments To Study Seismic D

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­

University Microfilms International

Experiments to study seismic drift o f reinforced concrete

Bonacci, John Francis, Ph.D.

JOHN FRANCIS BONACCI

B.S., University of Illinois, 1981

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

____________________________JOHN- FRANCIS BONACCI_________________________________

E N T IT L E D EXPERIMENTS TO STUDY SEISMIC DRIFT OF REINFORCED______________

T H E D E G R E E O F__________________ DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY_______________________

t Required for doctor’s degree but not for master’s.

EXPERIMENTS TO STUDY SEISMIC DRIFT

John Francis Bonacci, Ph.D.

Earthquake-simulation tests of fifteen reinforced concrete single-degree-of-

specimen, and frequency content and intensity of simulated earthquake motions.

Analysis of measured response identified three tools for estimating seismic

drift of structures. An idealized linear response spectrum for a damping ratio

of 0.02 can be used to provide a quick check of overall drift or to compare

structural alternatives. The substitute-structure method provides member

VAX 11/750 computer, which was acquired under grantCEE-8402176.

The author is infinitely grateful to his advisor, Professor M. A. Sozen,

completion of this thesis.

Professors D. P. Abrams, W. J. Hall, K. D. Hjelmstad, and S. L. Wood are

thanked for their insightful criticism and valuable suggestions.

of many, including A. E. Schultz, S. L. Wood, R. R. Lopez, M. 0. Eberhard, A.

Johnson, K. Kleemeyer, and C. Bartholomew.

D. Bever is thanked for preparing the manuscript, and H. P. Waltherforhis

timely contributions to automated production of graphics.

My wife Jill, to whom this work is dedicated, provided continuous

encouragement, support, patience, and an oasis of relaxation when it was most

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ...................................... 3

2.1 Experimental Objectives ............................... 3

3. MEASURED RESPONSE OF TEST SPECIMENS.......................... 15

4. ANALYSIS OF MEASURED DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE .................. 38

4.1 Naming of Variables.................................... 39

5. GENERALIZING THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS INRELATION TO .......... 53

5.1 Idealized Linear Response ............................ 53

6. CALIBRATION OF TWO NUMERICAL TECHNIQUES...................... 60

6.1 Response History Calculations ......................... 60

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................... 79

A. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL W O R K ............................224

B. SYNCHRONIZATION OF RECORDED SIGNALS ........................ 279

C. MEASURED RESPONSE OF TEST SPECIMENS......................... 290

LIST OF REFERENCES................................................. 377

2.1 Assumed Properties of Test Specimens .......................... 91

2.2 Parametric Make-up of Test Specimens .......................... 93

2.3 Experimental P l a n ........................................... 94

3.1 Comparison of Measured Spectral Quantities with Experimental

3.2 Summary of Response Maxima - Earthquake Simulation Tests ........ 96

3.3 Parametric Key to Figures of Specimen Response ................. 100

3.4 Summary of Dynamic Moment-Rotation Envelopes ................... 101

3.5 Summary of Free-Vibration Tests .............................. 105

4.1 Numerical Values of Variables for Analysis of Drift Response . . . 106

5.1 Ground Motion Parameters for Idealized Spectra ................. 107

5.2 Normalization of Test Results for Comparison with Idealized

5.3 Dimensionless Ratios for Response Classification ............... Ill

6.1 Assumed Transformed Section Properties ........................ 112

6.2 Tally of Parametric Values for Ten Best Calculations..............113

6.3 Organization of Bond Stress Parameter with Respect to

6.4 Organization of Post-Yield Slope Parameter with Respect to

The most advanced technology has been used to photo

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re

JOHN- FRANCIS BONACCI_____

T H E D E G R E E O F DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY_____