You are on page 1of 10

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


Seismic Design and Behavior of Steel Frames with Controlled Rocking Part II: Large Scale Shake Table Testing and System Collapse Analysis Xiang Ma1, Matthew Eatherton2, Jerome Hajjar2, Helmut Krawinkler1 and Greg Deierlein1
1 2

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. ABSTRACT This is the second of two companion papers that investigate the design and behavior of steel braced frames that resist earthquake effects through controlled rocking. By employing vertical post-tensioning and energy dissipating fuses, the controlled rocking systems can sustain large earthquake ground motions with minimal damage and without residual drift. This paper describes a series of large (two-thirds) scale dynamic shaking table tests, conducted at the E-Defense facility in Japan, to validate the system behavior for ground motions with intensities up to and beyond those of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level. The tests investigate response with alternative fuse designs and variable post-tensioning. Results of nonlinear dynamic analyses are shown to compare well with the shake table tests, which can be extended to assess the collapse performance of the controlled rocking frames, using procedures outlined in the FEMA P695 methodology to evaluate provisions for seismic design. INTRODUCTION The work presented here is part of a research effort to develop a controlled rocking steel braced frame system. This system allows columns to uplift at their bases under strong earthquake excitations, and thus reduce force demand in the frame members that are sized to remain elastic. Meanwhile, post-tensioning strands and steel shear fuses are employed to provide overturning resistance, energy dissipation and self-centering capability. More details about the concept are summarized in the companion Part I of this paper series (Eatherton et. al, 2010). Two configurations of the rocking system were developed as shown in Figure 1. In the single frame configuration, shear fuses are placed at the ground floor, and can be connected to the frame at the base of the first-story columns, or in the case of Figure 1a, through an attachment at the center of the frame. The fuses are attached so as to permit the center spine of the fuse to move vertically when the frame rocks, thus incurring shear

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


deformation. In the dual frame configuration, shear fuses are placed between two rocking frames. When the frames rock, the two inner columns are displaced relative to each other and therefore impose shear deformation in the fuses. The single frame system has the advantage of simplicity in design, while the dual frame system can extend its applicability to taller buildings for which more fuses can be installed along the height of the structure.

(a) (b) Figure 1. Rocking frame configurations: (a) single frame, and (b) dual frame. Quasi-static cyclic tests of both configurations and hybrid simulation tests of the dual frame configuration have been conducted at the University of Illinois (Eatherton et al., 2010). The quasi-static cyclic tests confirmed our understanding of the overall system behavior as well as the integrity of the framing details. Hybrid simulation tests, using the 1995 JMA Kobe ground motion, evaluated how the rocking frame interacts with the overall building, including the gravity load framing. To further assess the systems dynamic response, the large-scale shake table tests, described herein, were conducted on the single frame configuration (Figure 1a) at the E-Defense facility in Miki, Japan. Single Frame Design Alternatives In planning for the E-Defense test, the alternative single frame configurations shown in Figures 1a and 2 were considered. These alternatives primarily differ in the locations of the post-tensioning strands and shear fuses. Option 1 (Figure 2a) has the fuses located at the center of the first-story bay and the post-tensioning strands running down the two columns. Option 2 (Figure 2b) reverses the locations of the fuses and post-tensioning strands, and option 3 (Figure 1a) has both at the center. Such different arrangements have several implications which are best exemplified by comparing the two options shown in Figure 2. In the case of option 1, only half of the strands are stretched depending on which side of the frame uplifts, whereas in option

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


2, all strands are stretched in each rocking direction. For the same uplift ratio, strands located along the column experience twice as much elongation as those located in the center, which results in higher deformation and force demands in each strand. In terms of overturning resistance, for the same total number of strands, the overturning resistances of the two frames are equal. While the center strand location is seemingly less effective (due to the smaller moment arm), the center location mobilizes all of the strands in each rocking direction, whereas option 1 only mobilizes one-half of the strands. Similar comparisons can be made to understand the influence of location on fuse behavior. Other implications relate to architectural and construction concerns, such as space occupation (fuses extending beyond the frame base) and convenience of installation. A summary comparison of the issues is provided in Table 1.

(a) (b) Figure 2. Single frame alternatives: (a) option 1, and (b) option 2. Table 1. Summary of Single Frame Design Alternatives.
Factors Amount of PT and fuse PT deformation demand Fuse deformation demand Space occupation PT/fuse installation *PT: Post-tensioning Option 1 Center Fuse Side PT* Same Higher Lower Less Cumbersome for PT Option 2 Side Fuse Center PT Same Lower Higher Side fuses occupy more space Cumbersome for fuses Option 3 All at Center Same Lower Lower Less Crowded at the center

Option 3, shown in Figure 1a, was chosen for the E-Defense shake table test based on concerns about post-tensioning deformation demands and space usage. Since the specimen is two-thirds scale of a three-story frame, the total length of post-tensioning strands is limited to about 8 m which allows only about 70 mm elongation before the strands yield. Positioning the strands in the center has the

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


advantage of reducing strand deformation demand, for a given drift ratio, and increasing safety margin again strands yielding and fracturing. With the strands at the center, the two-thirds scale specimen has a strand yield drift ratio of about 3.4%. The center fuse placement avoids intruding into space outside the frame. In practice, since full-scale buildings are taller, constraint on post-tensioning deformation demand is more relaxed. Space usage requirement also varies. Therefore a decision in practice may lead to other choices among the options depending on the actual situation. TEST SETUP Prototype Building and Similitude Rules The prototype building for the shake table specimen is based on the steel frame building configuration used in the SAC Joint Venture Project and referenced in Gupta et al. (1999). Figure 3 shows the floor plan and the elevation of the building. It is a three-story four bay by six bay structure with typical floor and roof framing, assumed to be located near Los Angeles in California. Lateral resistance is provided by the controlled rocking system, while the rest of the structure carries gravity load. Four rocking units are located on the perimeter in each direction, with each unit comprising a single frame rocking system. The total weight of a typical story is 958 ton, and each rocking frame stabilizes a mass of 958/4=240 ton.

6@30' = 180'-0"

Figure 3. Prototype building plan and elevation views.

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


The similitude relationships for the scaled specimen are summarized in Table 2. The dimensional scale is determined by the 2.7 m story height of the testbed mass device, further details of which are given in the next section. With the story height of the prototype building of 4 m, the resulting dimensional scale is 2.7/4 0.68. A number of similitude rules have been examined by Moncarz and Krawinkler (1981). The set of rules adopted here are chosen to (a) avoid altering material property such as Youngs modulus and yield stress, (b) reduce tonnage of required mass, and (c) minimize distorting acceleration and time scales. According to the mass scale mr, the required weight at each floor for a rocking specimen is 240 ton x 0.46 = 110 ton. Table 2. Similitude Rules. Quantities Length lr Youngs modulus Er Acceleration ar Mass mr Time tr Strain r Stress r Force Fr Moment Mr

Derivation decided by test design decided by test design decided by test design = Erlr2/ ar = lr2 = [mr/(Erlr)]0.5 dimensionless = Er = rlr2 = lr2 = Frlr2 = lr3

Ratios 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.31

(a) (b) Figure 4. Specimen drawing: (a) braced frame and (b) fuse assembly.

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


Test Specimen Design Details of the specimen frame are shown in Figure 4. The specimen is a relatively stiff three-story braced steel frame. Wide flange members are oriented with their flanges in the plane of the frame to facilitate detailing the welded connections at the braced frame work points. Bolted field connections are provided away from the work points to facilitate shipping and erection. The member sizes are calculated using capacity design principles (based on the expected forces induced by the fuses and post-tensioning) and confirmed by dynamic time-history analyses to ensure that the frame remain elastic throughout the motion. Testbed: Additional Lateral Mass Device A mass testbed system was developed by Takeuchi et al. (2008) to provide the inertial mass for the shake table test. As shown in Figure 5a, the three-story testbed consists of multiple mass units stacked on top of each other with linear sliders between each story. The mass comprises a concrete block and steel plates, which can provide up to 50 tons mass for each unit. The linear sliders allow each story to slide horizontally relative to each other with a dynamic coefficient of friction on the order of 0.5%. Two sets of the three-story testbeds are placed side by side, with the rocking frame positioned in between (Figure 5b). Such an arrangement provides symmetric mass on both sides of the frame as well as out-of-plane bracing. At each story, the added mass is the sum of the weights of two testbed units, or around 101 tosn which is slightly less than the target of 110 tons based on similitude scaling of the prototype building.

(a) (b) Figure 5. Testbed and frame connection: (a) elevation and (b) plan view.

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


Figure 5b also shows the load path between the rocking frame (specimen) and the testbed units. Inertia force from the testbed mass is transferred to load cells through the connection beam that ties the two testbed units on the right side (in the plan view). The force then travels through loading beams and reaches the connection block that is attached to the left side of the specimen frame. It is then balanced by lateral resistance of the rocking frame. The loading beam and load cell are rigidly connected to each other and pinned to the connection block on the left side and the connection beam on the right side. Therefore they act as one truss member that allows free rotation at both ends to accommodate uplifting of the frame. Ground Motions Ground motions recorded in the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe earthquakes are used as input for the shake table tests. Original acceleration spectra are shown in Figure 6a. To scale the record to various intensity levels, a pushover analysis of the rocking frame was performed to generate a load-deflection response curve. Then, the initial stiffness and secant stiffness at the expected maximum roof drift were used to determine effective vibration periods of the system, which range between 0.3 and 2.0 sec. Finally, as shown in Figure 6b, the least square error method was used to match the spectra with design spectrum between the aforementioned period range. The resulting scale factors for MCE level is 0.69 for the JMA Kobe record and 1.4 for the Northridge record.
3 Acceleration(g) JMA KOBE NS NR94 CNP

2.4 Acceleration (g) 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0 0.5 1

Design Spectrum Scaled JMA Kobe NS Natural Period Range Scaled NR94 cnp

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Period (sec)

1.5 2 2.5 Period (sec)


(a) (b) Figure 6. Response spectra: (a) original records and (b) scaled records. NUMERICAL MODELING A 2D numerical model was built using the program OpenSees (Mazzoni et al., 2009) to perform FEM analysis of the system. As shown in Figure 7, the frame members were modeled using co-rotational beam-column elements. Compression

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


only springs were used at the base to model free uplifting of the columns. The butterfly shaped fuse links are modeled by truss and rotational spring elements with equivalent axial and bending capacities. The testbed is represented by lumped masses on three nodes that are constrained to move horizontally. Springs are placed between the mass nodes to simulate friction in the linear sliders. Rayleigh damping of 0.5% is assumed based a comparable test conducted by Midorikawa et al. (2006).
1.7 ton 0.9 ton

100.7 ton
= 0.36% Friction = 3.5 kN

1.7 ton

0.9 ton

100.8 ton
= 0.43% Friction = 8.4 kN

1.7 ton

0.9 ton

100.8 ton
= 0.50% Friction = 14.6 kN

Figure 7. Numerical model created using OpenSees.

(a) (b) Figure 8. Comparison of analysis and test result from A1: (a) time-history of uplift ratio, (b) restoring moment and uplift ratio hysteresis. PRELIMINARY TEST RESULTS Test results from one of the shakings are shown in Figure 8, together with the numerical prediction performed prior to the test. The ground motion input was 65% of JMA Kobe record which approximately corresponds to the MCE level. The uplift

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


ratio is defined as the ratio of column uplift to frame bay width. The uplift ratio roughly coincides with roof drift ratio since the frame was primarily undergoing rigid rotation. It can be seen from Figure 8a that the maximum uplift at the MCE is about 2%. It was confirmed from strain gauge readings that all the frame members and post-tensioning strands remained elastic, which was the intent. Inelastic deformation only occurred in the shear fuses, which dissipated energy through hysteretic behavior as evidenced in Figure 8b. The loops return to the origin, thus demonstrating the self-centering response. No residual deflection existed after the MCE level excitation. Referring again to Figure 8, the agreement with numerical analysis is reasonably good. Difference in maximum response is less than 10%, with the analysis generally under-predicting the result. Notable differences can be observed in uplift ratio time-history response after 10 sec, where the measured response quickly damps out, whereas the calculated response requires a few more cycles of rocking before the frame completely settles down. The difference may be attributed to damping effects that are not captured in the model such as pounding at the column bases, other collisions in the load path, and friction at the pin connections. CONCLUSIONS Overall, the large-scale shaking table tests confirmed the behavior and reliability of the controlled rocking frame system. In particular, the tests demonstrated: (1) the successful self-centering and damage control capabilities of the frame; (2) validity of criteria and guidelines for capacity design of the braced frame components that are intended to remain elastic, including the effects of pounding impact on the columns and base plate details; (3) reliability of the steel post-tensioning tendons and the influence of modest levels of tendons on the response; (4) the influence on fuse degradation and energy dissipation capacity on the rocking response; (5) that the simplified OpenSees numerical model is effective in predicting the systems seismic response. Finally, the successful design, fabrication, erection and testing of the large-scale specimen demonstrated the viability of overall controlled rocking frame concept and its practical implementation through the steel braced-frame system.

2010 Structures Congress 2010 ASCE


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMMI-0530756), NIED in Japan, the American Institute of Steel Construction, Stanford University, and the University of Illinois. Additional support and materials for the test frame were provided by the Japanese Iron and Steel Federation and the Nippon Steel Corporation. The authors acknowledge contributions of our Japanese collaborators (T. Takeuchi, M. Midorikawa, T. Hikino, K. Kasai, M. Nakashima) and their students, our industry collaborators from the US (David Mar and Gregory Luth), other Stanford and University of Illinois students who have contributed to the project, the NIED E-Defense staff, and the Japanese construction and instrumentation team (Tomoe Corporation, Tomoe Giken, Maekawa Construction Co., Ltd., Kanden Plant Corp., Seitech, Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd). REFERENCES Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel moment resisting frame structures. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report, No. 132, Stanford University. Eatherton, M., Hajjar, J. F., Ma, X., Krawinkler, H., and Deierlein, G. G. (2010). Seismic design and behavior of steel frames with controlled rocking: part I concepts and quasi-static subassembly testing. Structures Congress/North American Steel Construction Conference (NASCC). Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2009). Open system for earthquake engineering simulation user command-language manual, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. Midorikawa, M., Azuhata, T., Ishihara,T., and Wada, A. (2006). Shaking table tests on seismic response of steel braced frames with column uplift. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 35, pp. 17671785. Moncarz, P. D., and Krawinkler H. (1981), Theory and application of experimental model analysis in earthquake engineering, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report, No. 50, Stanford University. Takeuchi, T., Kasai, K., Midorikawa, M., Matsuoka, Y., Asakawa, T., Kubodera, I., Kurokawa, Y., Kishiki, S., and Ando, H. (2008). Shaking table test using multipurpose test bed, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.