Shake Table

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

Published online 2 August 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.612
Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure

containing masonry infill wall
Alidad Hashemi and Khalid M. Mosalam,,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
A hypothetical 5-storey prototype structure with reinforced concrete (RC) frame and unreinforced masonry
(URM) wall is considered. The paper focuses on a shake-table experiment conducted on a substructure
of this prototype consisting of the middle bays of its first storey. A test structure is constructed to
represent the selected substructure and the relationship between demand parameters of the test structure
and those of the prototype structure is established using computational modelling. The dynamic properties
of the test structure are determined using a number of preliminary tests before performing the shake-table
experiments. Based on these tests and results obtained from computational modelling of the test structure,
the test ground motions and the sequence of shakings are determined. The results of the shake-table
tests in terms of the global and local responses and the effects of the URM infill wall on the structural
behaviour and the dynamic properties of the RC test structure are presented. Finally, the test results are
compared to analytical ones obtained from further computational modelling of the test structure subjected
to the measured shake-table accelerations. Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 22 April 2006; Revised 13 June 2006; Accepted 13 June 2006
KEY WORDS:
earthquakes; infilled frame; modelling; reinforced concrete; shake-table; URM wall
INTRODUCTION
Complex structures with multiple dissimilar components (hybrid systems) are frequently built
in seismically active regions. Examples include reinforced concrete (RC) building frames with
unreinforced masonry (URM) infill walls or steel bridge decks supported on RC piers. In order
Correspondence
to: Khalid M. Mosalam, 721 Davis Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, U.S.A.
E-mail: mosalam@ce.berkeley.edu
Ph.D. Candidate.
Associate Professor.
Contract/grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract/grant number: CMS0116005
Copyright q
2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1828
A. HASHEMI AND K. M. MOSALAM
to develop new modelling techniques and study the behaviour of RC buildings with URM infill
walls, a two-phase experimental and analytical study is conducted.
Masonry infilled frames have been experimentally investigated for both in-plane and out-of-plane
forces by many researchers. Most of these studies are focused on the behaviour of single-frame
single-bay URM infilled frames under monotonic or cyclic lateral loading. Earlier studies can be
found in Reference [1] among others. Some exceptions where multiple-bays and multiple-stories are
tested can also be found in literature [2, 3]. These studies provide evaluations of the importance of
infill confinement from bounding frames, the types of failure that can be observed in the infill or the
bounding frame, the stiffness and strength of the infilled frames, and the degradation of strength
upon load reversals. Since these tests are performed using monotonic, quasi-static, or pseudodynamic loading, it is not clear how well they represent the dynamic properties, e.g. damping
characteristics, of a structure with masonry infilled frames subjected to earthquake loading.
Limited data are available on dynamic properties of masonry infilled frames since very few
shake-table experiments are performed on such structures. Fardis et al. [4] report on a shaketable test performed on single-bay two-storey RC frames with eccentric (non-symmetric in plan)
masonry infills subjected to bi-directional ground acceleration. The study focused on the effects
of the eccentricity on displacement demands on the corner columns. Zarnic et al. [5] report on
two shake-table tests performed on 14 -scale one and two-storey RC frames with strong-block
weak-mortar masonry infill walls subjected to one-directional sinusoidal motion at the base of the
1
structure. Dolce et al. [6] report on shake-table tests performed on two-dimensional 3.3
-scale threestorey two-bay RC frames designed for low seismicity regions without infill, with masonry infill
and with two different types of energy dissipating and re-centring braces. The study compared
the overall response and the dynamic properties of the three frames subjected to a sequence
of artificially generated accelerograms with increasing intensity. The mentioned experiments and
others are generally performed on small-scale models due to the size limitations of the shake-tables
and are focused on different aspects of the problem, e.g. torsional effects due to eccentric infill
walls. The current experiment is conducted to study the dynamic performance of a seismically
designed symmetric large-scale URM-infilled RC frame subjected to real ground motions. The
study focuses on evaluating the effects of the URM infill wall on the surrounding structural
elements, namely the RC slab and the RC columns. Moreover, since the structure consists of two
frames without infills and an infilled frame, comparing the frame responses and quantifying the
distribution of lateral forces between the tested frames before and after infill damage is an important
and novel objective of the study. The current study is unique in the aspect of testing a structure
with dissimilar frames. Accordingly, the presented shake-table experiment can be viewed as a
benchmark for experimentation using mixed-variables (force and displacement) pseudo-dynamic
technique with substructuring [7] and for analytical modelling of URM infilled frames.
The shake-table experiment is carried out on a reduced-scale one-storey RC moment-resisting
frame structure with URM infill wall on the seismic simulator test facility of the University
of California, Berkeley. The 34 -scale test structure represents the first storey middle bays of a
5-storey RC prototype structure designed based on the requirements of ACI318-02 [8] and NEHRP
recommendations [9] in seismic regions. URM walls are assumed in the interior frames, Figure 1.
The experimental study serves the purpose of calibrating analytical models being developed
using Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) [10]. The objectives of
the modelling effort are to enable accurate representation of the in-plane behaviour of URM infill
walls, and to refine the modelling techniques of hysteretic strength and stiffness degradation in
RC elements and joints of RC moment frames interacting with URM infill walls.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
SHAKE-TABLE EXPERIMENT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE
C2
A0
A1
B0
B1 B2
A2
A3
C3
B3
(a)
1829
N
(b)
Figure 1. Development of the shake-table test structure: (a) prototype structure;

and (b) test structure on the shake-table.
PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE
The 5-storey prototype moment-resisting frame structure is designed with its exterior columns
(A0, A3, B0, B3, C0, and C3), as the primary lateral load resisting system. Although it is common
to have masonry walls on the perimeter of buildings, the URM walls are assumed in the middle
frames for two practical reasons. First, having two walls on the perimeter for the test structure
would have required about twice as much shear force to damage the walls, thus exceeding the
capacity of the shake-table. Second, the failure of the two URM walls would not have been
simultaneous due to inherent material and construction variability and that would have caused a
significant shift in the centre of rigidity of the test structure compared to its centre of mass and
produced large torsional demands with loading patterns out of scope of the study. Due to the
limited size of the available shake-table, the prototype structure is scaled to 75% of its original
design size. A typical floor plan of the 34 -scaled prototype building is shown in Figure 2. Uniformly
distributed superimposed dead and live loads on the scaled prototype structure (DL and LL) are
independent of the length scale factor. For each floor, the DL and LL are 160 Pa (110 psf) and 74 Pa
(50 psf), respectively, and for the roof, they are 130 Pa (90 psf) and 15 Pa (10 psf), respectively. In
the following text, the scaled prototype structure is referred to as the prototype structure.
The prototype substructure is selected as the middle bays of the first storey of the prototype
building as shown in Figure 2. Although these bays are typically not a part of the primary lateral load
resisting system, they are detailed as such because they would have to endure the same displacement
demands in an earthquake event and maintain their axial load carrying capacity. The test structure
is designed to represent the prototype substructure as described before with the exception that the
transverse span is reduced to 12 its prototype length due to the size limitation of the shake-table.
In order to determine the boundary conditions and necessary adjustments for this representation,
an analytical model of the prototype building is constructed using OpenSees, Figure 3. Beams
and columns are modelled using nonlinearBeamColumn element in OpenSees, which is based on
force formulation, and considers the spread of plasticity along the length of the element. Sections
are defined using fibre discretization with distinct fibres for longitudinal reinforcement. Concrete
material is modelled using Concrete01, which is a uniaxial concrete material object with degraded
linear unloading/reloading stiffness in compression and no tensile strength. Confining effect due
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1830
340x265
340x265
TYP.
TYP.
TYP .
230x305
TYP.
340x265
230x305
TYP .
4110
3660
4110
3660
1
4110
C530x530
B
URM
INFILL
Transverse
direction
A
C305x305
Experiment
substructure
Longitudinal direction
Figure 2. Floor plan of the 34 -scaled prototype structure (dimensions in mm).
Figure 3. Computational model.

Table I. Concrete model properties.
Property
Foundation
Beam
Column
cover
Column
core
Peak compressive
stress (MPa (ksi))
Strain at peak
compressive stress
Ultimate strain
Stress at ultimate
strain (MPa (ksi))
34.4 (4.98)
37.2 (5.39)
38.4 (5.56)
45.3 (6.57)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.006
0
0.006
0
0.006
0
0.020
6.90 (1.00)
to the prescribed transverse reinforcement is accounted for using confined concrete properties for
column core concrete material [11, 12]. Steel reinforcing bars are modelled using Steel01, which
is a uniaxial bilinear material object with kinematic hardening. The material properties used for
the elements of the model are defined in Tables I and II. The columnfooting joints are modelled
using the recommendations of FEMA 356 [13] by a tri-linear moment-rotation relationship as
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1831
Table II. Steel model properties.

Property
Parameter
Yield stress (MPa (ksi))

Yield strain (rad)
Modulus of elasticity (GPa (ksi))
Kinematic hardening ratio
458 (66.5)
0.0023
200 (29 000)
0.01
M
MP
MY
Mcr
cr
Figure 4. Columnfooting joint model.
Table III. Columnfooting joint model properties (refer to Figure 4).

Mcr (kN m (kip in))
29.9 (265)
0.002
130 (1150)
0.015
158 (1400)
0.030
cr (rad)
MY (kN m (kip in))
Y (rad)
M P (kN m (kip in))
P (rad)
Strut
f mo
Parabola
Straight line
f mu
mu
mo
Tension
Compression
Figure 5. URM infill strut model.
shown in Figure 4 and Table III. The masonry infill wall is modelled using equivalent diagonal
compression-only struts as shown in Figure 5 and Table IV. For the 102 mm (4 ) thick URM
wall, the cross-sectional area of the equivalent strut is estimated using FEMA 356 guidelines as
462 cm2 (71.6 in2 ). This value proved inconsistent with the test results and later modified based
on the estimated stiffness and strength of the infill panel during snap-back and shake-table tests
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1832
Table IV. Masonry strut properties (refer to Figure 5).

mo
f mo (MPa (ksi))
17.0 (2.46)
0.0028
f mu (MPa (ksi))
1.99 (0.29)
0.0041
mu
900
50
[kN-m]
100
150
200
4000
750
3000
450
Prototype
substructure
300
2000
Test
structure
1000
[kN]
Axial load [kip]
600
150
0
0
-150
-1000
-300
500
1000
Moment [kip-in]
1500
Figure 6. Range of change in axial load of the middle columns.
to 223 cm2 (34.6 in2 ). The concrete slab is modelled using horizontal elastic truss members. The
material properties and the area of these truss members are determined such that they have the
same stiffness as the concrete slab, which is expected to remain elastic during the test.
Using the OpenSees model, a non-linear time history analysis of the prototype structure subjected to different levels of selected ground motion is performed. These levels are discussed in
subsequent sections. Analysing the results, the axial load and base shear affecting the prototype
substructure are determined for each level of input ground motion. With the same assumptions
as the prototype structure, an OpenSees model of the test structure is analysed and the required
amount of additional mass is determined for the test structure. This determination is based on
matching the computationally determined base shear of the test structure to that of the prototype
substructure when subjected to the design-level ground motion.
In order to explore the effects of the column axial loads due to the weight of the upper stories in
the prototype structure, the range of change in the axial force during each level of ground motion
is superposed on the momentaxial interaction diagram for the middle columns. An example
of such results for the design-level ground motion is shown in Figure 6. The static axial force
on the column due to upper storey dead and live loads is 386 kN (86.8 kips) corresponding to
160 kN m (1420 k in) moment capacity for the column section. During the design level ground
motion, the axial load ranges from 220 (49.5 kips) to 429 kN (96.5 kips) and the corresponding
moment capacity of the section ranges from 144 (1270 k in) to 164 kN m (1450 k in). Comparing
this variation with the moment capacity of the section at zero axial force, 120 kN m (1060 k in),
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1833
15
20
250
600
500
100
400
300
50
200
Prototype substructure 100

Test structure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Corresponding displacement [in]
(a)
200
25
20
150
15
100
10
50
0
(b)
Prototype substructure
Test structure
[kN-m]
[mm]
10
Hysteretic energy [kip-in]
[kN]
Maximum base shear [kips]
150
5
0
20
40
60
80
Time [sec]
100
0
120
Figure 7. Comparison between prototype substructure and test structure: (a) max. base shear versus
corresponding displacement; and (b) cumulative hysteretic energy.
it is concluded that the axial load on the column has significant effect on its flexural capacity
(up to 37% increase) of the section. To accommodate this observation for the test structure, the
static column axial load due to weight of the upper stories is applied to the columns in the form of
unbonded concentric prestressing. The resulting range of change in the axial load in the columns
corresponding to the design level ground motion for the test structure with the axial prestressing
is also obtained using OpenSees model and shown to be very close to that of the prototype as
shown in Figure 6.
Comparison between the response of the prototype substructure and the test structure when subjected to different levels of selected input ground motion is performed using non-linear time history
analyses. The plots for maximum base shear versus its corresponding first storey displacement
for both the prototype substructure and the test structure for different levels of the input ground
motion are shown in Figure 7(a). The cumulative hysteretic energy plots for these consecutive runs
are compared for the two structures in Figure 7(b). These results show reasonable agreements,
e.g. less than 13% mismatch for the cumulative hysteretic energy at the end of all runs, between
the response of the prototype substructure and the test structure.
As mentioned earlier, by providing additional mass and prestressing in the test structure, an
acceptable match between the responses of the two structures is achieved. However, the shortcomings are due to the effects of the overturning moment and higher modes in the prototype structure.
In general, the overturning moments have considerable impact on the axial force of the columns
on the perimeter of the structure. These effects are less significant when one considers the middle
columns. Preliminary analysis of the prototype structure shows that the variation of axial load
in the first storey columns due to the overturning moments is about 175% for perimeter column
(e.g. column A0) and only about 15% for middle columns (e.g. column A1). To explore the effects
of higher modes on the prototype structure, a modal response spectrum analysis [14] for the prototype structure subjected to the NEHRP design spectra is performed. The resulting modal base
shears and first storey displacements are compared and it is concluded that the effects of higher
modes is limited to about 10% of the first mode effects. Accordingly, the effects of overturning
moments and higher modes are neglected when relating the test structure to the prototype.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1834
CONFIGURATION AND INSTRUMENTATION OF THE TEST STRUCTURE

The overall dimensions of the test structure are 4.88 m 4.42 m (16 -0 14 -6 ) in plan and
3.43 m (11 -3 ) in height, Figure 2. Member sizes and reinforcement details for different elements of the test structure are summarized in Table V. The reinforcement is specified as ASTM
A615 [15] Grade 60. The yield stress of the 19 mm diameter (#6) bars is 458 MPa (66.5 ksi) per
mill certification. The specified 28-day compressive strength of the standard concrete cylinder per
ASTM C 837-99 [16] is 31 MPa (4.5 ksi). The masonry wall is made of clay bricks with modular

size of 102 mm 203 mm 68 mm (4 8 2 23 ) and ASTM C270 [17] Type N mortar. The
measured average 28-day compressive strength of the standard masonry prism according to ASTM
C 1314 [18] is 17 MPa (2.46 ksi). The average shear strength for 102 mm (4 ) thick masonry panels
constructed and measured in accordance with ASTM E519 [19] is 1.81 MPa (263 psi).
Uniformly distributed mass is added to the slab in the form of stacked lead ingots bolted to

the slab using 10 mm ( 38 ) diameter high strength rods. Static tests confirmed that the friction
forces between the slab and the lead ingots are large enough to accommodate up to 4.0g lateral
acceleration at the slab level.
To measure the floor acceleration in three directions, 11 accelerometers are installed on the floor
level (Figure 8) as follows: in the longitudinal direction, one at each of the six columns and one
at the middle of the beam in frame B; in the transverse direction, three on the diagonal of the
slab on opposite corners and at the centre; and in the vertical direction, one at the middle of the
Table V. Member sized and reinforcement details for the test structure.
Structural
element
Dimensions
Main
reinforcement
Transverse
reinforcement
Concrete slab
95 mm (3 34 ) thick
M10 (#3) top and

bottom @ 305 mm
(12 ) o.c. each way
None
Columns
305 mm 305 mm
(12 12 )
819 mm
diam.
(#6), 32 mm diam.

(1 14 ) prestressing
rod
M10@95 mm (#3@3 34 ) over 610 mm

(24 ) from the face of the joints and
M10@152 mm (#3@6 ) elsewhere
Longitudinal beams
(single span)
267 mm 343 mm

(10 12 13 12 )
319 mm diameter
(#6) top and bottom
M10@70 mm (#3@2 34 ) over the

711 mm (28 ) from the face of the
beam-column joint and M10@203 mm
(#3@8 ) elsewhere
Short direction beams 305 mm 229 mm

(double span)
(12 9 )
219 mm diameter
(#6) top and bottom
M10@305 mm (#3@12 )
Footing
356 mm 457 mm
(14 18 )
422 mm diameter
(#7) top and bottom
M10@102 mm (#3@4 )
Masonry wall
102 mm (4 ) thick
None
None
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1835
Shake-table
outline
B
6'-0" [1829mm]
C
6'-0" [1829 mm]
A12
A10
A11
D08
A02
A03
13'-6" [4115 mm]
19'-0" [5791 mm]
A01
D03
20'-0" [6096 mm] Square
A14
Accelerometer
A04
Displacement
transducer
A06
A05
A13
D07
A08
A07
A09
D04
D02
D05
D06
D01
FOUNDATION PLAN
FLOOR PLAN
Figure 8. Global instrumentation plan for the test structure.
beam in frame B. Moreover, three accelerometers at the base of the URM wall on the footing (one
in each direction) and eight accelerometers built-in the actuators beneath the shake-table (one per
horizontal and vertical actuator) are monitored.
To measure global displacements of the shake-table and the test structure with respect to the
stationary ground, eight displacement transducers (Figure 8) are used. Five of them measure the
displacement of the first floor (three in the longitudinal direction and two in the transverse direction)
and the remaining three measure the displacements of the shake-table itself (two in the longitudinal
direction and one in the transverse direction).
To measure local displacements and rotations, 75 displacement transducers are used: nine are
installed in the plane of the slab, 14 are installed in the plane of the URM wall measuring the
diagonal deformations, wall sliding and opening with respect to the bounding frame, four are
measuring the diagonal displacements of the frames and the rest are installed on four of the
columns (12 per column) to measure the rotations and average curvatures along the length of the
column. Finally, 78 strain gauges out of more than 150 strain gauges installed on the reinforcing
bars throughout the test structure are used during each run of the shake-table. As some of the strain
gauges are damaged during the different test runs, alternative gauges are selected and monitored.
The prestressing rods are also gauged and monitored during all test runs. The layouts of these
local measurements, e.g. Figures 10, 17, and 20, are presented with results in the relevant sections.
SYSTEM PROPERTIES
Pull (snap-back) tests are performed on the test structure before and after the wall construction to determine the stiffness, natural frequency and damping ratio of the structural system
before starting the shake-table experiment. These tests are conducted for both in-plane and
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1836
Table VI. Snap-back test results (refer to Figure 1(c) for orientation of the North (N) direction).
In-plane (NorthSouth direction)
Conditions of the test
structure at time of the
pull (snap-back) test
Before building the wall
columns not prestressed
no additional mass
After building the wall
columns prestressed no
additional mass
After building the wall
columns prestressed
with additional mass
Out-of-plane (EastWest direction)
Natural
period (s)
Damping
ratio (%)
Stiffness
(kN/mm
(kips/in))
Natural
period (s)
Damping
ratio (%)
Stiffness
(kN/mm
(kips/in))
0.135
4.30
19.8 (113.3)
0.134
4.40
23.5 (134.0)
0.055
5.70
74.5 (425.5)
0.122
4.30
29.3 (167.1)
0.134
6.85
75.5 (431.0)
0.232
4.25
29.4 (168.0)
Table VII. Ground motion specifications.

Ground motion
Station
Direction
PGA (g)
PGV (mm/s (in/s))
PGD (mm (in))
Northridge, CA, 1994

Duzce, Turkey, 1999
Tarzana
Lamont
090
N
1.570
0.762
920 (36.23)
329 (12.97)
130 (5.13)
19 (0.75)
Table VIII. Scale factors for different levels of input ground motions.
Level
Northridge, CA, 1994 (TAR)
Duzce, Turkey, 1999 (DUZ)
0.05
0.17
0.23
0.39
0.59
1.50
2.00
out-of-plane directions of the test structure, separately. The results of these tests are summarized in
Table VI.
GROUND MOTIONS
Two different ground motions as described in Table VII are used in the experiment. In this table,
PGA, PGV, and PGD refer to peak ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement, respectively.
These ground motions are intended to be unidirectional in the direction parallel to the URM
infill wall of the test structure (longitudinal direction). Each ground motion is scaled to generate
different levels of intensity as listed in Table VIII. The scaling is based on the average spectral
acceleration of selected ground motions and the NEHRP design spectrum for a site with mapped
spectral response acceleration at 1 s, S1 = 0.65g and at short periods, Ss = 1.60g and site class
D with 5% damping over the range that the period of structure is expected to vary during the
experiment. For Northridge Tarzana and Duzce ground motions, this range is estimated from the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1837
2.5
Begining of the test (TAR 1)

TAR 4
TAR 6
Northridge, Tarzana
After removal
of the wall
1.57g
1.5
Acceleration [g]
Spectral acceleration [g]
Duzce
Northridge
Design Spectrum
-1
0
10
15
Duzce
1
0
0.5
DUZ 8
-1
0
DUZ 7
0.2
0.4
0.6
Period [sec]
0.8
10
Time [sec]
15
Figure 9. Response spectra (5% damping) for the selected ground motions.
period of the undamaged infilled structure to the period of the structure after removal of the infill
(between 0.15 and 0.28 s). The scaled spectra of the two selected ground motions and the design
spectrum are shown in Figure 9. In this figure the natural period of the test structure corresponding
to important milestones of the experiment are marked. The test structure is subjected to a sequence
of ground motions starting with Northridge Tarzana level 16 (denoted by TAR 1 through TAR 6)
and Duzce levels 7, 8 and finally 7 again (denoted by DUZ 7, DUZ 8 and DUZ 7-2). Level TAR 1
is selected as a small amplitude motion to check the performance of the shake-table and data
acquisition system. Levels TAR 2 and TAR 3 are selected as intermediate intensity levels and
levels TAR 4 and TAR 6 correspond to 10/50 (design) and 2/50 (MCE) spectra, respectively.
Note that, e.g. 10/50 means 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. Levels DUZ 7 and DUZ
8 are selected to achieve higher demands on the test structure
up to the limits of the shake-table.
The ground motion records are compressed in time by 3/4 factor to account for the reduced
length scale of the test structure. In this way the frequency content of the compressed record at
the natural frequency of the undamaged reduced-scale test structure is the same as that of the
un-compressed record at the natural frequency of the test structure without scaling.
SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
Figure 10 shows the methodology used to find the average damping coefficient and average stiffness
of the test structure during each run and the distribution of forces in different elements of the test
structure. For this purpose, the test structure is idealized as a single degree of freedom (SDOF)
system represented by the average floor displacement. The total floor acceleration u t is calculated
by taking the weighted average of the measured accelerations on the floor. Dividing the floor
During
the last stages of planning for the sequence of ground motion, level TAR 5 with PGA of 0.49g is deemed
redundant and is not used for the actual experiment.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1838
F
I
ut
mu t
m
mu
mu
mu
FS
c u
FI
System Identification:
u ut ug
u
F
I
u dt 2
(k u c u) Re gression k, c
u dt , u
Fwall
d1
top
1
FS
Vcol
M top
i 1
top
top
Vtop
, M top
Vcol Vtop
Vcol
bot
1
M top
M bot
Fwall
Vtop Fwall
M bot
bot
2
bot
h
2
, M bot
Measurements for column i
Figure 10. System identification and member shear force calculation in the test structure.
into three strips consistent with the tributary area of each frame and designating the mass and
the measured acceleration associated with the ith strip as m i and u it , respectively, the total floor
acceleration u t and the total inertia force acting on the structure FI are determined as follows:
3
= m i u it
i=1
FI =
3
m i u it
3
mi
(1)
i=1
(2)
i=1
The acceleration of the floor relative to the shake-table u is calculated by subtracting the ground
acceleration from u t . The corresponding relative velocity and displacements are determined by
integrating the relative acceleration in time. The dynamic equilibrium equation for the idealized
SDOF system can be written as FI + FD + FS = 0 at each instant of time. With the assumption of
viscous damping, FD = cu is the damping force and FS is the restoring force of the test structure.
Assuming a constant damping coefficient c, and a constant average stiffness over the duration of
each run, the least-square estimates of damping coefficient c and average stiffness k are obtained
using regression function FI = (ku + cu)
in vector space of (u, u)
considering all the data points
in the duration of each run. Using the estimated value of the damping coefficient, the restoring
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1839
force in the structure is calculated from the dynamic equilibrium, i.e. FS = FI cu referred to
as the total restoring force of the test structure.
The portion of the total restoring force carried by each column can be calculated using the data
from the strain gauges located at the top and bottom of each column. By making the Bernoulli
assumption of plane section remains plane after bending at those locations and knowing the
geometric dimensions, section curvature is calculated as in Equation (3), where d1 is the distance
between the two strain-gauges in the section. Using strains, curvature and constitutive relationships
for the reinforcing bars and concrete, the bending moments at each end of the column segment
between the two pairs of strain-gauges (top and bottom) are determined by section analysis. From
equilibrium, column shear is determined from Equation (4):
= (1 2 )/d1
Vcol = (Mtop + Mbot )/ h
(3)
(4)
where Mtop , Mbot , and h are defined in Figure 10.

For the middle frame columns where there is contact between the URM wall and the column,
the equation for column shear force above the contact length is rewritten as in Equation (5), where
h is the contact length between the URM infill and the RC column segment bounded by the

two instrumented sections and FWall
is the horizontal component of the portion of the force in
the URM infill wall that is transferred to the column within the portion of contact length H
namely h as shown in Figure 10. Since the strain-gauges are located at a section well above the

columnfooting joint, the values of both and FWall
are relatively small and the second term of
Equation (5) is neglected in the calculations of the middle column shear force.

Vcol = (Mtop + Mbot )/ h FWall
( /2)
(5)
Finally, the shear force in the URM infill wall is calculated as the total restoring force minus the
sum of shear forces in all six columns comprising the test structure RC framing, Figure 10.
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The intact test structure with the URM wall is subjected to the sequence of ground motions as
described before. The global response of the structure in terms of the overall drift, stiffness and
damping ratio as well as the local response of the different elements of the test structure are
quantified and discussed.
Global response
The total base shear versus displacement plots for selected test levels are presented in Figure 11.
Total base shear is defined in the following as the sum of restoring and damping forces in the
structure, which from dynamic equilibrium is the inertial forces FI as described before. In the
discussion of the results presented in Figure 11, the stiffness is estimated by the tangent stiffness
of the loading branch evaluated at different times during the experiments. During levels TAR 1
and TAR 2, there is no considerable change in the stiffness of the structure. The plot for level
TAR 3 (Figure 11(a)) shows slight reduction in stiffness (about 9% from 75.5 kN/mm (431 kips/in)
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1840
[mm]
0
[mm]
20
40
60
150
400
K=391 kips/in
50
200
-50
-200
-100
-400
Base shear [kips]
100
-600
-150
-2
-1
(a)
-20
200
40
60
200
-50
-200
-100
-400
-600
-800
-2
-1
150
-50 Final stiffness
-200
K=289 kips/in
-100
-400
[kN]
200
Base shear [kips]
600
50
-600
-150
-1
-40
-20
40
60
400
200
-50
-200
-100
-400
Final stiffness
K=63 kips/in
(e)
-600
-1
60
600
400
200
0
K=62 kips/in
-50
-200
-400
-100
-600
K=159 kips/in
-2
-1
-800
2
Displacement [in.]
Displacement [in.]
-60
-40
-20
100
50
20
40
60
800
Final stiffness
K=51 kips/in
600
Static friction
K=177 kips/in
400
200
-50
-200
-100
-400
-600
-150
-800
-2
40
K=160 kips/in
150
600
Static friction
K=281 kips/in
-200
-3
20
200
800
-150
[mm]
20
Base shear [kips]
Base shear [kips]
50
Initial stiffness
K=116 kips/in
150
100
-20
50
(d)
[kN]
200
-40
800
[mm]
-60
Initial stiffness
K=278 kips/in
-200
-3
Displacement [in.]
(c)
100
-60
-150
-800
-2
Displacement [in.]
200
400
-200
-3
400
50
[mm]
20
Initial stiffness
K=364 kips/in
100
60
K=365 kips/in
(b)
800
150
Base shear [kips]
-20
40
600
100
[mm]
-40
20
800
-200
-3
Displacement [in.]
-60
-150
-800
-200
-3
-40
150
600
[kN]
Base shear [kips]
200
800
-60
[kN]
-20
[kN]
200
-40
-200
-3
(f)
[kN]
-60
-800
-2
-1
Displacement [in.]
Figure 11. Total base shear versus lateral displacement for different test levels: (a) TAR 3; (b) TAR 4;
(c) TAR 6; (d) DUZ 7; (e) DUZ 8; and ( f ) DUZ 7-2.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1841
of the pull test results) to 68.4 kN/mm (391 kips/in) but there is no visible sign of damage in
the test structure. The response of the test structure in level TAR 4 (design level) as depicted in
Figure 11(b) shows some drop in the stiffness (about 15% reduction), but the overall behaviour
remains almost linear. Close observation of the wall after the completion of TAR 4 reveals small
visible cracks at the wallcolumn interfaces.
Figure 11(c), corresponding to level TAR 6, shows the first significant signs of damage. The
stiffness of 63.7 kN/mm (364 kips/in) in the initial motion shifts to 50.6 kN/mm (289 kips/in) at
the peak of the ground motion (21% shift). Observations after the test suggests that some cracks
are developing especially along the column-wall interface and some small vertical splitting cracks
are observed in the mortar head joints at the wall corners. The maximum total base shear reached
in this stage is 605 kN (136 kips) corresponding to 144% of the total gravity load.
The response of the test structure during level DUZ 7, Figure 11(d), shows the most significant
change in the structural behaviour of the system. The stiffness at the beginning of this level is
48.7 kN/mm (278 kips/in). Significant wall cracks with clear pattern and load path definition are
formed during this test level. The forcedisplacement behaviour of the assembly at this point can

be described as a bi-linear relationship. For small displacements (less than about 6 mm ( 14 )), the
cracks on the wall open and close without engaging the URM infill wall resulting in an observed
lateral stiffness of about 10.9 kN/mm (62 kips/in). This stiffness can be interpreted as the stiffness
of the cracked RC frame before full contact with the URM wall is reached. Once the cracks close,
the URM infill wall picks up the load causing further damage in the wall and stiffness increase
to 28.0 kN/mm (160 kips/in). The peak total base shear observed during all stages of the test,
namely 756 kN (170 kips) corresponding to 180% of total gravity load, at floor displacement of
19.1 mm (0.75 ) is produced at this stage of the experiment and right before a major horizontal
crack in the URM infill wall is developed.
Figure 11(e) shows the gradual disintegration of the URM infill wall as the test structure is
cycled back and forth in level DUZ 8. The measured stiffness of the test structure at the beginning
of DUZ 8 is 49.2 kN/mm (281 kips/in) for small displacements. Comparison between this stiffness
and that of the previous run suggests that at small force demands, the force transferred through
the wall is not enough to overcome the static friction between the cracked surfaces. Accordingly,
at such small forces, the wall, although cracked, acts as a whole increasing the apparent stiffness
of the structural system. Once the force demands at the crack surfaces exceed the static friction (at
about 110 kN (25 kips) corresponding to 27% of total gravity load), the cracked portions start to
move with respect to each other and the stiffness reduces to that of RC frames including cracked
URM infill wall, i.e. 20.3 kN/mm (116 kips/in) as shown in Figure 11(e). Note that the stiffness
of the test structure before building the wall (Table VI) is 19.8 kN/mm (113 kips/in). From this
point on, the URM infill wall is considered as structurally insignificant. As the test structure goes
through large displacements, the RC frame starts to accumulate damage mostly concentrated at
the bases of the columns. The stiffness of the test structure at the end of this level is reduced to
11.0 kN/mm (63 kips/in) suggesting significant damage in the RC frame in addition to the URM
infill wall collapse.
Finally, Figure 11(f ) shows the results obtained from the repeat run of level DUZ 7, i.e.
DUZ 7-2. Beyond the static friction at the beginning of the motion where the stiffness is high at a
value of 31.0 kN/mm (177 kips/in), the stiffness of the test structure is 8.9 kN/mm (51 kips/in),
i.e. about 20% reduction from that at the end of DUZ 8.
Figure 12(a) shows the change in the effective stiffness of the test structure for all levels of
testing plotted along with the measured initial stiffness of the test structure with and without the
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1842
350
60
300
50
250
40
200
150
Test results
Initial stiffness with wall
Initial stifness without wall
10
50
(a)
DUZ 8
0.3
Cracking of the wall
0.2
20
100
0
TAR 1
30
Results using ground motion signals

Results using white-noise signals
Wall removal
0.4
Period [sec]
70
[kN/mm]
Effective stiffness [kips/in]
0.5
400
0.1
0
TAR 2
TAR 3
TAR 4
TAR 6
DUZ 7 DUZ 8 DUZ 7-2
Test progress
(b)
TAR 1
TAR3
TAR 6 DUZ 7
Test level
DUZ 7-2
Figure 12. Variation of dynamic properties of the test structure: (a) effective
stiffness; and (b) natural period.
URM infill wall. This effective stiffness denotes the average tangent stiffness of the test structure
after the demand force exceeds the initial static friction. It can be observed that the existence of
the URM wall considerably increases the stiffness of the structural system. As the wall undergoes
damage, the stiffness reduces with most rapid reduction taking place during levels TAR 6, DUZ 7
and DUZ 8 suggesting significant disintegration of the wall in these levels. Note that the stiffness
of the test structure reduces to a level less than the stiffness of the elastic structure without the
wall, which is due to the damage at columnfooting and beamcolumn joints in the RC frame
structure.
Corresponding to the change in the stiffness of the structure, there is significant change in the
natural period of the test structure. In order to identify this change throughout the test runs, a low
amplitude white noise signal with approximately constant small amplitude of 0.07g over frequency
range of 1-10 Hz is applied before each run and the resulting acceleration of the floor is analysed
in frequency domain. The period corresponding to the peak amplitude of the frequency response is
taken as the natural period of the test structure before each run. Alternatively, the transfer function
of the test structure obtained from the ratio of the Fourier transform of the measured floor and base
accelerations is examined. The effective natural frequency of the structure during each level of the
test is defined as the frequency corresponding to the peak in this transfer function. Figure 12(b)
demonstrates the variations in natural period of the test structure as the shake-table experiment
progressed, which are determined using both the white noise and ground motion signals. Because
the white noise tests are performed with very low amplitudes, existing cracks in the structure
remain closed and the structure appears stiffer. Thus, the resulting natural periods from whitenoise tests represent a lower bound for the natural period of the test structure during the actual
ground motion. Significant elongation in the natural period of the test structure is observed, i.e.
from 0.147 s during TAR 1 to 0.392 s during DUZ 7-2 with 167% elongation.
Another indication of the change in the dynamic properties of the test structure due to the induced
damage during the shake-table experiment is the change in the damping ratio. The average damping
coefficient c during each shake-table run is obtained with the procedure described earlier, Figure 10.
The damping ratio is subsequently obtained as = c/ccr where ccr = 2mn is the critical damping
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1843
14
Damping ratio [%]
12
Regression
Energy equivalent
10
8
6
4
2
0
TAR 1 TAR 2 TAR 3 TAR 4 TAR 6 DUZ 7 DUZ 8 DUZ 7-2
Test levels
Figure 13. Variation of the equivalent damping ratio.
of the test structure where m and n are the total mass and natural frequency, respectively, of the
test structure. Alternatively, the equivalent damping ratio can be estimated as 1/4 times the ratio
of the dissipated energy to the maximum strain energy in each cycle [14]. The resulting variation
of the damping ratio for different levels of shaking calculated using both methods is shown
in Figure 13. It should be emphasized that while the regression method, assuming an average
linear response, only limits the damping to the velocity related term in the equation of motion,
the equivalent energy method includes both the viscous damping and the inelastic deformations as
sources of dissipating energy. Both methods indicate smaller damping ratios (46% on average)
for the intact structure (levels TAR 1TAR 4) and large damping ratios (1113%) where significant
damage occurs in the test structure (levels TAR 6DUZ 7-2).
Local response
URM infill. The main failure mode of the URM infill wall takes place in level DUZ 7 and is
characterized by large cracks at 60 from the horizontal axis starting from the top corners of
the wall and connecting with a long horizontal crack at the lower third of the wall to a series
of 45 cracks propagating into the opposite bottom corners along each of the wall diagonals. At
the same time early signs of corner crushing are observed at the top corners. The markings in
Figure 14(a) show the observed crack pattern in the wall after DUZ 7. The sharp angle of cracking
at the top corner is attributed to the weaker bond between the upper most mortar bed joint and the
RC beam relative to the bond between the side vertical mortar joints and the RC columns. Partial
collapse of the top corners and sides of the wall follows the formation of the crack pattern in level
DUZ 8. The markings in Figure 14(b) show the final crack pattern on the wall at the end of level
DUZ 8. Finally, in level DUZ 7-2 the loose portions of the wall collapsed leading to the damage
state shown in Figure 14(c).
The shear forces carried by the URM infill wall and by each RC column are calculated as
described earlier, Figure 10. The shear force carried by the RC frame is the sum of all the shear
forces of the six columns. Figure 15 shows the portion of the total base shear which is carried
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1844
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 14. Observed damage of the test structure: (a) cracking after Duzce 7; (b) partial collapse after
Duzce 8; and (c) final state after Duzce 7-2.
160
RC Frame
140
180
700
160
500
100
400
80
300
60
TAR 1
(a)
TAR 2
TAR 3
TAR 4
TAR 6
DUZ 7
DUZ 8 DUZ 7-2
Test Levels
600
500
100
400
80
300
60
200
40
100
20
700
RC Frame
120
200
40
Base shear [kips]
600
120
800
URM wall
140
[kN]
Base shear [kips]
800
URM wall
100
20
(b)
[kN]
180
TAR 1
TAR 2
TAR 3
TAR 4
TAR 6
DUZ 7
DUZ 8 DUZ 7-2
Test Levels
Figure 15. Effect of progression of damage on load sharing between URM infill and RC frames:
(a) at peak base shear; and (b) at peak floor displacement.
by the URM infill wall compared to that carried by the three RC frames: at the peak of the
total base shear (Figure 15(a)) and at the peak of the lateral floor displacement for all testing
levels (Figure 15(b)). The plots confirm that (before level TAR6) the undamaged URM infill wall
governs the behaviour of the test structure. As the wall experiences damage, the RC frames pick
up a larger portion of the load. At level DUZ 7-2, the wall is completely disintegrated and can be
considered structurally insignificant as the load is carried almost entirely by the three RC frames.
The distinction between the force distributions for peak base shear and peak floor displacement is
made to emphasize the different state of the test structure at these different peak points particularly
for levels DUZ 7 and DUZ 8. In these levels, the point of peak base shear takes place at the time
where the wall is still resisting large portion of the load at its incipient failure. However, the peak
floor displacement takes place after the damage in the wall has occurred. As an example, the time
histories of the shear forces in the wall and that carried by the RC frames and the corresponding
floor displacements are presented in Figure 16. From this figure, the maximum base shear takes
place at 8.8 s while the maximum floor displacement occurs at 17.3 s following wall cracking
at 15.4 s.
An important aspect of the response of the URM infill wall is the shear force versus shear
deformation in the plane of the wall. The shear deformation is determined using the diagonal
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1845
URM Wall
RC Frames
-250
8
10
11
25
15
0.5
-15
-25
7
(a)
10
Time [sec]
11
12
[kN]
250
0
0
-50
-100
-130
14
-250
15
16
17
18
Wall cracking
Maximum
base shear
Displacement [in]
-500
12
500
1.25
1
0.5
-500
19
Maximum floor
displacement
25
15
0
0
-0.5
-1
-1.25
14
[mm]
1.25
1
-0.5
-1
-1.25
[kN]
250
130
100
50
Shear force [kips]
500
[mm]
Displacement [in]
Shear force [kips]
130
100
50
0
-50
-100
-130
URM Wall
RC Frames
-15
-25
15
(b)
16
17
Time [sec]
18
19
Figure 16. Time histories of shear forces and displacements for level DUZ 7: (a) partial time history from
7 to 12 s; and (b) partial time history from 14 to 19 s.
2 1
2
L2 + H 2
LH
Figure 17. Shear deformation of the URM infill wall.
measurements in the plane of the wall as illustrated in Figure 17. The shear force in the wall, FW ,
is estimated as discussed earlier, Figure 10. The shear force versus shear deformation plot for the
URM infill wall for levels TAR 6 and DUZ 7 are shown in Figure 18. Before cracking, i.e. level
TAR 6, a linear shear force versus shear deformation relationship is obtained. After cracking, i.e.
level DUZ 7, there is a rapid degradation of the shear stiffness of the URM infill wall due to
significant increase in the shear deformation.
RC slab. The 95 mm (3 34 ) thick RC slab is supported on boundary beams from all sides and spans
between the bare and infilled frames. In its plane, the RC slab acts as a diaphragm distributing the
inertia force to the lateral resisting elements of the test structure by both deforming in shear and
in-plane bending. The inertia force is generated by the acceleration of the mass at the slab level in
the test structure consisting of the tributary mass of the test structure and the added mass of the
lead ingots.
In the out-of-plane direction, the slab spans between the three frames. Since the aspect ratio of
the slab is 2.25, the out-of-plane behaviour of the slab can be characterized as one-way action.
This is confirmed by observing the gravity induced crack patterns on the slab after loading the
lead ingots. These cracks run more or less parallel to the long edges of the slab.
While the vertical forces on the slab hardly change during the shake-table test, the lateral inertia
forces acting on the slab and the resisting reactions from the frames beneath change dramatically
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1846
0
-50
-100
-125
-8.5 -7
(a)
-5
-3
-1 0 1
x10-3
125
100
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
50
FW [kip]
FW [kip]
50
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
7 8.5
[kN]
125
100
0
-50
-100
-125
-8.5 -7
(b)
-5
-3
-1 0 1
[kN]
7 8.5
x10-3
Figure 18. Shear force versus shear deformation of the URM infill wall (thickness = 102 mm (4 )):
(a) level TAR 6; and (b) level DUZ 7.
as the test structure is subjected to different levels of shaking. Assuming uniform distributions of
the inertia forces along the slab width, i.e. normal to the shaking direction, the maximum shear
in the slab, VS,max , can be estimated as stated in Equation (6), where Vb denotes the total inertia
force at each instant of time and VA and VC are the total shear forces resisted by the two bare
frames on axes A and C, Figure 1, respectively.
VS,max = max{VA , (Vb /2) VA , VC , (Vb /2) VC }
(6)
In order to investigate the change in the demand force in the slab, we consider two extreme
cases. (1) Assuming that the infilled frame (frame B) is infinitely stiff compared to the two bare
frames (frames A and C), then frame B attracts all the inertia forces in the slab. It is implicit in
this assumption that the slab is rigid in its plane relative to the frames. In this case, VB = Vb and
VA = VC = 0, and the maximum shear in the slab is Vb /2. (2) Assuming that the URM infill wall
is completely disintegrated and the three frames, A, B and C, have the same lateral stiffness. In
this case it is reasonable to assume that Vb is evenly distributed between the three frames and the
shear force in each frame would be Vb /3. In this case, the maximum shear in the slab is Vb /3.
Examining the above two extreme cases suggests that the URM infill wall increases the shear
demands on the diaphragm. Figure 19(a) shows the ratio of the maximum shear in the slab to
the maximum total base shear in the test structure for different levels of shaking. As expected,
this ratio reduces as the infill wall is damaged during high levels of shaking. The time history
results from the experiment confirm this as well. Figure 19(b) shows the time history plot of the
maximum shear in the slab (absolute value) as well as the two limits of Vb /2 and Vb /3 for level
DUZ 7. As discussed previously, severe damage in the URM infill wall occurred during this level
at t = 15.4 s. Comparing the slab shear forces for intervals of time at the beginning (t = 7.0 s) and
at the end (t = 17.0 s) of the motion shows that the shear demand in the slab changes from close to
Vb /2 before the URM infill wall damage to being close to Vb /3 after the URM infill wall damage.
In order to measure the slab deformations, a set of displacement transducers are installed as
shown in Figure 20(a). The displacement transducers are mounted on aluminium plates secured
to the top of the prestressing bars extending from the centre of each column. The transducers
are arranged to form an imaginary statically determinate truss. In order to find the displacement
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1847
110
100
0.45
TAR 4
TAR 6
0.4
VS
VC
VS
VB
VA
Vb
B
DUZ 7
DUZ 8
0.35
80
Test level
300
60
200
40
0
(a)
Wall
cracking
100
20
Case: VA=VB=VC VS=Vb/3
0.3
Slab shear envelope

1/2 Base shear
400
1/3 Base shear
[kN]
Case: VA=VC=0 VS=Vb/2

0.5
B
TAR 1 TAR 2
TAR 3
Shear force [kips]
Slab shear to base shear ratio
0.55
10
(b)
0
20
15
Time [sec]
Figure 19. Variation of shear demand in the slab due to damage in the URM infill wall: (a) slab-shear
demand variation at peak base shear; and (b) partial time histories for DUZ 7.
80
DUZ7
(c)
78
6.
00
67
DUZ 8
30
TAR 3
150
20
[kN]
200
0)
TAR 4
40
0
(b)
250
50
100
TAR 2
50
10
(a)
TAR 6
300
(1
60
S =
P 1
350
DUZ 8
DUZ 7
70
u q T V
Maximum slab shear [kips]
TAR 1
TAR 2
x10-4
Figure 20. Shear deformation of the RC slab: (a) displacement transducers; (b) nodes and virtual force
system in equilibrium; and (c) slab shear stiffness.
of a specific node, we invoke the principle of virtual force (PVF) by applying a virtual force
P in the direction of the required displacement u and solve the determinate truss to find the
corresponding virtual internal forces satisfying equilibrium, Figure 20(b). Arranging the measured
respectively, u is
deformations and the corresponding virtual internal forces into vectors V and q,
determined from P T u = q T V with P = 1. Once the relative node displacements u are determined,
the shear deformation, , of the slab can be calculated as the differential displacement along the
opposite edges of the slab divided by the distance between the two measurements. It should be
noted that using PVF yields more accurate results than the approximate method used for the shear
deformation of the URM wall, Figure 17. The approximation is suitable for the URM infill wall
but not for the RC slab where the shear deformation is an order of magnitude smaller than that of
the URM wall.
Figure 20(c) shows a plot of the maximum shear in the slab versus its corresponding shear
deformation. Although it is observed during the experiment that with increase in the intensity of
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1848
C2
C1
B2
B1
A1
Denotes long. reinf. yielding

Denotes trans. reinf. yielding
A2
Figure 21. Damage in the RC frames after level DUZ 7.
shaking, the gravity-induced cracks become more visible, Figure 20(c) suggests that there is no
significant drop in the shear stiffness of the slab. The slope of the fitted line through the data points is
about one-eighth of the elastic shear rigidity of the uncracked section of the slab (GA = 5783 MN
(1.3 106 kips)) indicating that although the shear rigidity of the slab remains more or less
unchanged, its value is significantly reduced due to initial gravity cracks. The deformed shapes
(amplification factor = 250) plotted on the graph are obtained using PVF at times corresponding
to the maximum slab shear deformations at levels TAR 2, DUZ 7 and DUZ 8. These deformations
include the effects of both shear forces and bending moments in the plane of the RC slab.
RC frames. As mentioned earlier, up to level TAR 6 and the initial part of DUZ 7, the stiff URM
infill wall carries most of the base shear protecting the three RC frames. At incipient failure of
the wall and after the major cracking occurs, there are large shear demands at the bases of the
columns where there are contacts with the wall as well as large bending moment demands on
the frames as the test structure undergoes larger displacements. Figure 21 shows the locations
in the test structure where reinforcing bar yielding is recorded by the strain gauges during level
DUZ 7 after partial failure of the wall. It can be observed that all the yielding occurred in the
middle infilled frame and the bare frames are practically undamaged. Figure 21 also includes a
photograph of the columnfooting joint taken after level DUZ 7 and indicating the onset of damage
at this joint location.
As discussed before, during level DUZ 8 and the repeat of level DUZ 7, i.e. DUZ 7-2, the
effect of the URM infill wall on the behaviour of the test structure diminishes and the RC frames
take the significant portion of the earthquake-induced forces. The high demands on the RC frames
during these levels cause some damage in the form of local spalling and cracking in the beam
column and columnfooting joints. Figure 22 shows photographs of the RC frame joints taken after
DUZ 7-2.
MODEL VALIDATION
The results of the experiment are compared with the simulated results of the OpenSees model
of the test structure to validate the prototype modelling and the established relationship between
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1849
(b)
C1
(a)
C2
(d)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
B2
B1
A2
A1
Denotes long. reinf. yielding

Denotes trans. reinf. yielding
TAR 2
0
10
TAR 3
20
30
40
50
Experiment
base shear [kips]
Simulation
base shear [kips]
(a)
180
125
75
0
-75
-125
-180
180
125
75
0
-75
-125
-180
TAR 6
TAR 4
60
Time [sec]
70
80
DUZ 7
90
10 0
110 115
600
300
0
-300
-600
0
10
20
30
TAR 2
40
50
TAR 3
60
70
TAR 4
80
90
TAR 6
100
110 115
DUZ 7
600
300
0
-300
-600
10
20
30
40
(b)
50
60
Time [sec]
70
80
[kN]
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
-0.25
-0.5
-0.75
-1
-1.25
90
100
[kN]
Ground acceleration [g]
Figure 22. Damage in the RC frames at the completion of level DUZ 7-2: (a) bare frame,
column base; (b) bare frame, beamcolumn joint; (c) infilled frame, column base; and
(d) infilled frame, beamcolumn joint.
110 115
Figure 23. Comparison between the experimental and simulated results: (a) concatenated input ground
(shake-table) motion for the simulation; and (b) time histories of base shear.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
98
100
102
104
600
300
0
-300
-600
96
98
100
102
Time [sec]
(a)
10
[mm]
20
30
800
150
600
100
400
50
[kN]
96
30
15
0
-15
-30
Base shear [kips]
Simulation
Experiment
[mm]
180
125
75
0
-75
-125
-180
[kN ]
Roof disp.[in]
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Base shear [kips]
1850
200
Experiment
Simulation
0
0
104
(b)
0.25 0.5 0.75

1
1.25
Maximum displacement [in]
0
1.5
Figure 24. Comparison between the experimental and simulated results: (a) partial time
histories for DUZ 7; and (b) peak response.
the prototype substructure and the test structure as described at the beginning of the paper. The
measured accelerations at the base of the test structure during levels TAR 2 thru DUZ 7 are
concatenated as a single input ground motion for the simulation, Figure 23(a). For this ground
shaking, the simulated results are compared with the experimental results. Time history plots of
total base shears are shown in Figure 23(b) with detailed partial plots for total base shears and
floor displacements (level DUZ 7) in Figure 24(a).
For levels TAR 1 through DUZ 7, the relationships of peak floor displacement versus the corresponding total base shear for the experimental and simulated results are compared in
Figure 24(b). Considering the simple model used with a single strut for the URM infill wall,
the OpenSees simulation results are in good agreement with the experimental results. However, the computational model overestimates the peak floor displacement by 21% and underestimates the corresponding total base shear by 16% at level DUZ 7 leaving the door open for
future refinement of the computational model to obtain closer agreement with the experimental
results.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The URM infill wall has a significant role in the strength and ductility of the test structure and
should be considered in both analysis and design. Globally, it makes the test structure stiffer by
a factor of 3.8, shortens the natural period of the test structure by 50%, increases the damping
coefficient depending on the level of shaking from about 4 to 512% and increases the dissipated
energy in the system. Such changes significantly affect the level of demand forces on the structure
and generally reduce the displacement demands. Locally, the URM infill wall changes the load
path and the distribution of forces between different elements of the test structure by increasing
the demand forces on its adjacent elements, e.g. the top and bottom of the RC columns and the
RC slab. Quantitatively, the URM infill wall causes about 30% increase in the demand forces on
the diaphragm and collector elements in the test structure.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1851
The benefits and limitations of the analytical model of the test structure is discussed and
verified by comparing the simulation results with the shake-table test results. Using this model, the
relationship between the prototype structure and the test structure is established. The test results
also serve as a basis for future modelling efforts to capture the behaviour of the infilled frame more
accurately especially after initial cracking and through the transition phase. Efforts are underway
to introduce models that represent the cyclic behaviour of the masonry infills both for the in-plane
and the out-of-plane directions. Such models can be used to analyse the behaviour of the prototype
building more reliably.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the National Science Foundation
under NSF Contract No. CMS0116005. The reinforcing bars for the project were generously donated by
Mr T. Tietz, Western Regional Manager of the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI). The help of
Mr T. Elkhoraibi during the experiment is greatly appreciated. Special thanks are due to EERC laboratory
personnel especially Mr W. Neighbour for his assistance.
REFERENCES
1. Moghaddam HA, Dowling PJ. The state of the art in infilled frames. ESEE Research Report No. 87-2, Civil
Engineering Department, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, 1987.
2. Mosalam KM, White RN, Gergely P. Static response of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation. Journal
of Structural Engineering (ASCE) 1997; 123(11):14621469.
3. Mosalam KM, White RN, Ayala G. Response of infilled frames using pseudo-dynamic experimentation. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998; 27(6):589608.
4. Fardis MN, Bousias SN, Franchioni G, Panagiotakos TB. Seismic response and design of RC structures with
plan-eccentric masonry infills. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999; 28(2):173191.
5. Zarnic R, Gosti S, Crewe AJ, Taylor CA. Shaking table tests of 1:4 reduced-scale models of masonry infilled
reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001; 30(6):819834.
6. Dolce M, Cardone D, Ponzo FC, Valente C. Shaking table tests on reinforced concrete frames without and with
passive control systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(14):16871717.
7. Elkhoraibi T, Mosalam KM. Pseudo-dynamic experiment on one-storey RC structure with and without masonry
infill. Proceedings of the 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference Commemorating the 1906 San Francisco
Earthquake, 1822 April 2006.
8. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-02). American Concrete Institute, 2002.
9. Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
and Other Structures, Part 1: Provisions (FEMA368) and Part 2: Commentary (FEMA369). Washington, DC,
2000.
10. McKenna F, Fenves GL. OpenSees Manual. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 2001, http://
opensees.berkeley.edu
11. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain behaviour of confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1988; 114(8):18041826.
12. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Observed stressstrain behaviour of confined concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering (ASCE) 1988; 114(8):18271849.
13. American Society of Civil Engineers. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,
(FEMA 356). Reston, Virginia, 2000.
14. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (2nd edn). Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.
15. ASTM A 615/A 615M. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, 2001.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1852
16. ASTM C 873-99. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinders Cast-in-Place in
Cylindrical Molds. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
17. ASTM C 270. Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
18. ASTM C 1314. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms. ASTM: West Conshohocken,
PA, 2003.
19. ASTM E519. Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear) in Masonry Assemblages. ASTM: West
Conshohocken, PA, 2002.
Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/eqe

Shake Table

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Shake Table

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure

earthquakes; infilled frame; modelling; reinforced concrete; shake-table; URM wall

Contract/grant sponsor: National Science Foundation; contract/grant number: CMS0116005

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. HASHEMI AND K. M. MOSALAM

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

SHAKE-TABLE EXPERIMENT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE

Figure 1. Development of the shake-table test structure: (a) prototype structure;

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

A. HASHEMI AND K. M. MOSALAM

Figure 2. Floor plan of the 34 -scaled prototype structure (dimensions in mm).

Figure 3. Computational model.

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

SHAKE-TABLE EXPERIMENT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE

Table II. Steel model properties.

Yield stress (MPa (ksi))

Figure 4. Columnfooting joint model.

Table III. Columnfooting joint model properties (refer to Figure 4).

MY (kN m (kip in))

M P (kN m (kip in))

Figure 5. URM infill strut model.

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

A. HASHEMI AND K. M. MOSALAM

Table IV. Masonry strut properties (refer to Figure 5).

Axial load [kip]

Figure 6. Range of change in axial load of the middle columns.

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

SHAKE-TABLE EXPERIMENT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE

Prototype substructure 100

Hysteretic energy [kip-in]

Maximum base shear [kips]

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

A. HASHEMI AND K. M. MOSALAM

CONFIGURATION AND INSTRUMENTATION OF THE TEST STRUCTURE

M10 (#3) top and

M10@95 mm (#3@3 34 ) over 610 mm

M10@70 mm (#3@2 34 ) over the

Short direction beams 305 mm 229 mm

102 mm (4 ) thick

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

SHAKE-TABLE EXPERIMENT ON REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE

13'-6" [4115 mm]

19'-0" [5791 mm]

20'-0" [6096 mm] Square

Figure 8. Global instrumentation plan for the test structure.

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2006; 35:18271852

A. HASHEMI AND K. M. MOSALAM

Out-of-plane (EastWest direction)

Table VII. Ground motion specifications.

PGV (mm/s (in/s))

PGD (mm (in))

Northridge, CA, 1994

2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.