PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SEISMIC TEStiNG OF A FULL-SCALE SIX-STORY STEEL BUILDING

10 ' 1
I29A
527
coPy /
UILU-ENG-86-2009
ENGiNEERiNG STUDiES
I
RAL RESEARCH SERIES NO. 527
ISSN: 0069-4274
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SEISMIC
TEStiNG OF A FULL-SCALE
SIX-STORY STEEL BUILDING
By
, DOUGLAS A. FOUTCH
SUBHASH C. GOEl
CHARLES W. ROEDER
A Report on Research Projects
Sponsored by
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
U.S./ Japan Cooperative Earthquake Research
Program Utilizing large Size Testing Facilities
Research Grants CEE 83-12656, CEE 82-06200,
ECE 85-11315, CEE 82-07521, ECE 84-15419, and
CEE 83-00684
UNIVERSITY OF 'ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
URBANA, ILLINOIS
NOVEMBER 1986
RECEIVED
j U i ~ 4 1987
MHZ REFERENCE ROOM
University of IllinoIs
Metz Reference Room
BI06 NCEL
208 N. Romine street
Urbana, Illinois 61801
j
J
"1
1
I
I
1
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
"' J
I
j
J
l
j
i University of Illinois
Metz Reference Roum
BIOS FC]i:1
208 N. Romine
Urbana, 62.801
Preliminary Report on Seismic Testing of a
Full-Scale Six-Story Steel Building
by
Douglas A. Foutch
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Charles W. Roeder
University of Washington at Seattle
Su bhash C. Goel
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
November, 1986
I:
t
..
J
T
;
1
50272, 01
ii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION j.L ... RUORT NO.
PAGE
4. TItle and Subtitle
Preliminary Report on Seismic Testing of a Full-Scale
Six-Story Steel Building
7. AutMl'{a)
L Report 0.-.
November 1986
L Perfonftlnc Orwanlzatlon Rept. No.
D. A. FDUtdl, C. U. Roeftr", S. C. Soel
9. Performlnc Orpnlzation Harne and Add,....
Univ. of Illinois
2t8 M. RHine st.
IL 61811
Univ. of
233-B Itore Hall FIll
SNttle, 98195
IliatiOnil ScieftCt! FHwUtilR
15. Supplementary NotH
11. Abatract (Umlt 200 wonts)
Uftiv. of
Ann Arbor, "1 \8115
10. PrDjed/Tnll/Worit UI\It Ho.
11. COfWtr.ct(O Of' GrantCO'I No.
(0 CEE-82I62II, CU-8312656
ECE-BS11315, CU-8217S12
(Q)
13 .. at Report & ... riod c--.d
14.
A full-scale six-story steel building was constructed and tested as part of the
U.S./Japan Cooperative Earthquake Research Program Utilizing Large Size Testing Facilities.
The program was jointly funded by the Ministry of Construction of Japan and the United
States National Science Foundation. The overall objective of the program is to improve
seismic safety in practice and to determine the relationships among full-scale tests,
small-scale tests, component tests and analytical studies.
The full-scale building was 15m square in plan and measured 22.38m from the test
floor to the top of the roof girders. It was tested as a concentric braced frame;
repaired and tested as an eccentric braced frame; tested as a moment frame; and finally,
tested with cladding and other nonstructural elements installed. The tests were conducted
using the pseudodynamic testing technique which simulated actual seismic loadings. This
preliminary report describes the full-scale building and the testing program and presents
preliminary results and conclusions.
17. Doc;um.m a. Oe1Icripto,..
Natural Hazards, Steel Buildings: Earthquake Response, Full-Scale Test, Inelastic
Behavior, Seismic Design
b. IdentlfieMl/()pen-Ended Terms
c. COSATI neld/Group
lL Availability Statement
(S .. ANSI-Z39.18)
19. Security Cia .. (This Report) 21. No. of
UNCLASSIFIED 181

20. s.curlty CI ... (Thl.
UNCLASSIFIED
S.e Instructions on Rev.,...
%%. Price
OP'TIOHAL fORM 272 (4-7n
(Formerly HTIS-35)
Department of Comm.rce
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research program was funded by the United States National
Science Foundation and the Japanese Government Ministry of Construction
under the auspi ces of the Uni ted States Cooperati ve Program on Nat ural
Resources. A number of separate grants to U.S. investigators were
provi ded by NSF under the gui dance of Dr. S. C. Li u and Dr. John B.
Scalzi and the authors gratefully acknowledge this support. The authors
served in Japan as U.S. observers for this test program and they are
participating in a coordinated effort to analyze the results of the full-
scale tests. This work is funded under grants CEE 82-06200, CEE 83-12656
and ECE 85-11315 to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
CEE 82-07521 and ECE 84-15419 to the Uni versi ty Washington and CEE 83-
I
00684 to the Uni versi ty of Michigan. The conclusions and opinions
expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
I
represent those of the sponsors.
I
The authors spent a combined total of nearly two years in Tsukuba,
Japan at the Building Research Institute (BRr). The success of the
project and the enjoyment that the authors experienced while in Japan is
due primarily to the energetic leadership provided by Dr. H. Yamanouchi
of BRI and to the openness and generosity of him and his co-workers, Dr.
M. Midorikawa and Dr. Y. Nishiyama. The authors also wish to greatly
acknowledge the assistance, support and friendship of Professor M. Watabe
'1
of Tokyo Metropolitan University (formerly at BRr).
Assi stance was pr'ovi ded by Mr. C. Chang and Mre S. Adeel in
preparing the figures for this report. Preparation of the manuscript was
done by Ms. M. Kadenko. These efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
!
I
f
1
1
--l
r
i
J
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................ .
2 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING ................. . 4
2.1 Design of the Six-Story Building .................... 4
2.2 Construction of the Building ........................ 8
2.3 Material Properties ....................... .......... 12
3
TEST PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTATION ...................... . 14
3.1 Test Facility and Instrumentation................... 14
3.2 Pseudodynamic Test Method ............. .............. 16
4 PHASE I - SIESMIC TESTING OF THE CONCENTRIC BRACED
5
6
7
BUlL DING ................................................ 1 9
4. ,
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Overview of Phase I ................................ .
Preliminary Studi es ................................ .
Elas ti c Tes ts ...................................... .
Moderate Test ...................................... .
Final Test ......................................... .
Practical Observations
PHASE II - SEISMIC TESTING OF THE ECCENTRIC BRACED
BUILDING
5.1 Overview of Phase II ............................... .
5.2 Structural Modifications for Phase II and
Preliminary Studies ................................ .
5.3 Elastic Test ....................................... .
5 . 4 In e 1 as tic T es t ................................. . . ..
5.5 Sinusoidal Tests ................................... .
5.6 Practical Observations ............................. .
PHASE III AND PHASE IV - MOMENT FRAME TEST AND
NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT TEST ............................ .
6.1 Phase III - Moment Frame Test ...................... .
6.2 Phase IV - Nonstructural Component Tests ........... .
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS .................................. .
19
, 9
21
22
24
28
30
30
30
32
33
34
37
39
39
40
44
v
CHAPTER Page
REFERENCES ... 47
TABLES .... 48
FI GURES . 59
;
..
r
1
L ..
[
I
I
I
I
r-
t
t
r
L
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
2. 1 Column Schedule 48
2.2 Girder Schedule 48
2.3 Miscellaneous Member Schedule .............................. 49
2.4 Slab Thicknesses in mm Measured from Bottom
of Deck to Top of Slab ....................... ............ 50
2.5 Mechanical Properties of W Shapes
(Average values from three flange specimens) 51
2.6 Mechanical Properties of Square Tubes
(Average val ues from three coupons) ....................... 53
2.7 Mechanical Properties of Concrete
(Average of 2 cylinders) ................................... 54
[
3. 1 Dimensions for Load Cell in mm as shown in Fig. 3.7 .. ...... 55
l
4. 1
5. 1
Dynamic Properties of Phase 1 Structure 56
Dynamic Properties of the Test Structure ................... 57
I
6. 1 Nonstruct ural Test Specimens ............................... 58
I
i
l

1
1
:-z
1
..i
.
j
f
r:
L
I
f
..
I
.,..
r
\
l
f
t:
r
FIGURE
2. 1
2.2a
2.2b
2.2c
2.2d
2.3
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
General floor plan of the full-scale test structure
Elevation view of Frame B for the concentric
braced test structure of Phase I - full frame
braced test structure of Phase I - story 1
and story 2 of 1-2 bay ................................... .
and story 4 of 1-2 bay ................................... .
and story 6 of 1-2 bay ................................... .
Elevation view of Frame A and Frame C for the
concentric braced test structure of Phase I .............. .
Page
59
60
61
62
64
2.4 Elevation view of Frame 1 and Frame 3 for the
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2. 11
2.12
2.13
concentric braced test structure of Phase I ............... 65
Typical connection details ...............................
Plan view of the foundation .............................. .
Elevation view of Frame B for the eccentric
braced test structure of Phase II ........................
Layout and splicing of one two-story unit
of the braced 1-2 bay of Frame B ......................... .
Beam splice detail for the braced 1-2 bay of Frame B
(a) before welding; (b) after welding .................... .
Erection of a two story section of the braced 1-2 bay of
Frame B: (a) aligning the brace ends for temporary
connection; (b) temporary connection detail .............
Erection of the test building ............................
Final tightening of the high strength bolts .............
(a) temporary column splice; (b) final column splice with
full penetr a ti on groove weI ds ...........................
66
67
68
70
71
72
73
74
75
viii
FIGURE Page <.
2. 14 Departures from vertical for the columns
at the Z2 and Z3 levels .................................. . 76
2.15 Departures from vertical for the columns
at the Z4 and Z5 levels .................................. .
77
2.16 Departures from vertical for the columns
at the z6 and ZF levels ~ ................................. . 78
r
2. 17 Departures from a straight line for the
concentric braces of Frame B ............................. .
79
2.18 Installation of metal deck and steel shear studs ......... . 80
2.19 Metal floor deck and studs after
installation was completed ............................... . 81
2.20 Typical stress vs. strain curves for material
from W shapes used in the test structure ................. . 82
2.21 Typical stress vs. strain curves for material from
W shapes used in the test structure .... : .. 0.' 83
I
2.22 Typical stress vs. strain for material from the concentric
braces used in Frame B of the test structure ............. . 84
I
3. 1 Schematic of test speCimen standing next to reaction wall
(fr om Ref. 1 2) ........................................... . 85
I
3.2 Detail of load cell mounted within each brace in the
Phase I structure--dimensions given in Table 3.1 ......... . 86
3.3
Control room of Large Size Structure
Laboratory of BRI ........................................ . 87
Actuators in place with temporary scaffolding
on the rig h t an dIe ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 88
.,..
4. 1 Analytical resul ts from preliminary studies
f
l
(from Ref. 7) ........................ 89
4.2 Analyti cal
(from Ref.
res ul ts from prel imi nary stud i es
7) ............... 90
l
4.3 Analyti cal
(from Ref.
res ul ts from prel i mi nar y stud i es
7 ) ..... 91
r
4.4 Analyti cal
(from Ref.
results from preliminary studies
7) ........ 92
f
L
\
L
t.:
t
I
t,
r
I
J
1
-.
t
1
1
1
.J
.J
FIGURE
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4. 11
4.12
4.13
4.14
ix
(a) Miyagi-ken Oki accelerograrn used in Phase I
(b) Taft accelerogram used in Phase II
(c) El Centro accelerograrn used in Phase III ............. .
Floor displacements vs. time for the
Phase I Elastic test ..................................... .
Story shear vs. story displacement for the first and
second stories for the Phase I Elastic test .............. .
Phase I Moderate test .................................... .
Page
93
94
96
97
second stories for the Phase I Moderate test .............. 99
Story shear vs. story displacement for the third and
fourth stories for the Phase I Moderate test .............. 100
Story shear vs. story displacement for the fifth and
sixth stories for the Phase I Moderate test ............... 101
Summary of damage observed after the
Phase I Moderate test ..................................... 102
Tearing of the connection splice link at the center
of the concentric braced bay during the Phase I
Moderate test ..... 0......................................... 103
Phase I Final test ...................................... 104
4.15 Story shear vs. story displacement for the first and
second stories for the Phase I Final test ................. 106
4.16 Story shear vs. story displacement for the third and
fourth stories for the Phase I Final test ................ 107
4.17 Story shear vs. story d{splacement for the fifth and
sixth stories for the Phase I Final test .................. 108
4. 18 Schematic of damage observed after the
Phase I Final test (from Ref. 7) .......................... 109
4.19 Typical local tears in the braces of the B Frame
that occurred during the Phase I Final test .............. 110
4.20 Fracture of the north brace of the third
story during the Phase I Final test ....................... 110
x
FIGURE Page
4.21 In-plane buckling of brace during the
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
Phas e I Final tes t ........................................ 11 1
Tears initiating in the corners at the bottom
of a brace during the Phase I Final test .................. 112
of cracks following the Phase I Final test
for the floor at the Z2 level ............................. 113
Pattern of cracks following the Phase I Final test
for the floor at the Z3 level ............................. 114
Warping of the splice plate at the center beam
splice in the 1Z bay of Frame B at the Z3 level
as a result of twisting prying action during
the Phase I Final test .................................... 115
Force-deflection relationship for the braces of the
first story for the Phase I Final test .................... 116
Force-deflection relationship for the braces of the
second story for the Phase I Final test .................. 117
Moment-rotation relationship for the top and bottom
of the B1 column of the first story during the
Phase I Final test ........................................ 118
Phas elF i nal tes t ........................................ 11 9
of the Al column of the first story during the
Phase I Final test........................................ 120
Moment-rotation r el i Oflshi p for the top and bottom
of the A2 column of the first story during the
Phase I Final test ........ _ 121
Panel zone response for the B1 column at the
Z2 and Z3 level s duri ng the Phase I Final test e 122
.Panel zone response for the B2 column at the
22 and Z3 levels duri ng the Phase I Final test .......... ., 123
Panel zone response for the A1 column at the
Z2 and Z3 levels duri ng the Phase I Final test ........... 124
Panel zone response for the A2 column at the
Z2 and Z3 levels during the Phase I Final test e 125
, .
.
}
-
r--
i
!

I
I
I
f
l
l
r
\
L
r
f
t
i
I
.J
J
I
..J
xi
FIGURE
Page
4.36 Ratio of shear carried by the braces to the total shear
for the third story during the Phase I Final test ......... 126
5.1 Residual floor displacements after the
Phase I Final test ........................................ 127
5.2 Locations on each floor where epoxy injection was used
to repair cracks resulting from the Phase I tests ......... 128
5.3 Typical cracks prior to repair ............................ 129
5.4 Floor displacement vs. time for the
Phase II El asti c test ..................................... 130
5.5 Measured and computed displacements for the ZR level
during the Phase II Elasti c test (from Ref. 9) ............ 132
5.6 Floor displacements vs. time for the
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5. 11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
Phase II Inelastic test ................................... 133
second stories for the Phase II Inelastic test ............ 135
Story shear vs. story displacement for the third and
fourth stories for the Phase II Inelastic test ............ 136
sixth stories for the Phase II Inelastic test ............. 137
Shear link res ponse at the Z2 and Z3 levels
during the Phase II Inelasti c test ........................ 138
Shear :ink response at the Z4 and Z5 levels
d u;.:. r.g the Phase II Inelasti c test ........................ 139
-;otation relationshi ps for the top and bottom
: h' 81 column of tne first story during the
:: Inelastic test................................... 140
relationships for the top and bottom
B.? column of the first story during the
:: Inelastic test................................... 141
relationships for the top and bottom
or the A1 column of the first story during the
Phase II Inelastic test ................................... 142
Moment-rotation relationships for the top and bottom
Phase II Inelasti c test ................................... 143
xii
FIGURE Page
5.16 Panel zone response for the 81 and 82 columns at the
22 level for the Phase II Inelastic test .................. 144
5. 17 Panel zone response for the Al and A2 o l l l i ~ n s at the
22 level for the Phase II Inelastic test.................. 145
5. 18 Floor displacements vs. time for the
Phase II Sinusoidal tests................................. 146
5. 19 Story shear vs. story displacement for the first and
second stories for the Phase II Sinusoidal tests .......... 148
5.20 Story shear vs. story displacement for the third and
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
5.29
5.30
fourth stories for the Phase II Sinusoidal tests .......... 149
sixth stories for the Phase II Sinusoidal tests ........... 150
Maximum deformation in the shear link at the 23 level
d ur i ng the Phas e II Inel as ti c tes t and dur i ng the
first cycle of the Sinusoidal test ........................ 151
Yielding and tearing of the gusset plate at the 22
level during the second cycle of the Sinusoidal test
Ratio of story shear carried by the braces to the total
story shear for the first, second and third stories
152
during the Phase II Inelastic tests ....................... 153
Ratio of story shear carried by the braces to the total
duri ng the Phase II Sinusoi dal tests ...................... 154
Damage to the brace-to-girder connection for the braces
in the first story during the Phase II
Sin u s 0 i da 1 t est s ........................................... 1 5 5
Story shear vs. story displacements as carried (a) by the
braces and (b) by the moment frames of the first
story during the Phase II Sinusoidal tests ............... 157
Shear link res ponse at the 22 and 23 levels during
the Phase II Sinusoidal tests ............................ 158
Shear link res ponse at the 24 and 25 levels duri ng
the Phase II Sinusoi dal tests ............................ 159
Shear link response at the 26 and 2R levels duri ng
the Phase II Sinusoidal tests 0 1 60
r
f
-
I
l
l
i
[
I
I
I
I
r
l
r
1
r
L
I
,
t
xiii
FIGURE Page
5.31 Yielding at the bottom of the B2 column
during the Sinusoidal tests .............................. 161
5.32 Moment-rotation relationships for the top and bottom
Phase II Sinusoidal tests .................................. 162
of the B1 column of the second story during the
Phase II Sinusoidal tests ................................. 163
Phase II Sinusoi dal tests ................................. 165
of the A1 column of the second story during the
5.39
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.43
5.44
Phase II Sinusoidal tests ................................ 168
Moment-rotation relationships for the top and bottom
Panel zone response for the B1 column at the Z2 and Z3
1 evels duri ng the Phase II Sinusoidal tests .............. 170
Panel zone response for the B2 column at the Z2 and Z3
levels during the Phase II Sinusoi dal tests .............. 171
Panel zone response for the A1 column at the Z2 and Z3
1 evel s duri ng the Phase II Sinusoidal tests .............. 172
Panel zone response for the A2 column at the Z2 and Z3
levels during the Phase II Sinusoidal tests .............. 173
Envelope of maximum story displacements for the
Phase II tests ............................................ 174
xiv
FIGURE Page
5.45 Envelope of maximum story drifts for the
Phase II tests ............................................ 175
6.1 Floor displacements vs. time for the Phase III tests 176
6.2 Story shear vs. story displacement for the first and
second stories during the Phase III test ................. . 178
6.3 General attachment details for exterior wall panels 179
6.4 General attachment details for exterior wall panels
( from Ref. 1 2) ............................................ 1 80
6.5 Story drift record imposed during the Phase IV test ....... 181

l
I "
t
f
t

I
r
l."
1
l
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
On May 18, 1982, the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United
States and the Ministry of Construction (MOC) of Japan under the auspices
of the United States-Japan Cooperati ve Program on Natural Resources
(UJNR) entered into an agreement to cooperate in research on the seismic
behavior of steel buildings. The program was called the U. S. /Japan
Cooperati ve Earthquake Research Program Utilizing Large-Size Testing
Facil i ti es. The overall obj ecti ve of the program is to improve sei smic
safety in practice through studies to determine the relationships among
full-scale tests, small-scale tests, component tests and analyti cal
studi es. The program consists of experimental and analytical studies
carried out by investigators in the U.S. and Japan. The centerpiece of
the program is a full-scale six-story steel test structure that was
constructed and tested in the Large Size Structures Laboratory of the
t
Building Research Institute (BRI) operated by the MOe in Tsukuba, Japan.
j
The purpose of this preliminary report is to descri be the test
program for the full-scale structure and to present a summary of the
preliminary experimental and analytical resul ts from the four phases of
;.
the test program. More detailed studies of the data collected during
these tests and addi tional analytical studies are currently underway and
will be reported in future publications.
The program is managed by the Joint Technical Coordinating Committee
(JTCC). The Technical Coordinator is R. D. Hanson (University of
Michigan) who serves as chairman of the JTCC and who has managed the
1
2
program through a grant from the National Science Foundation to the
University of Michigan. The JTCC is composed of principal investigators
of supporting research proj ects and of special consul tants. The members
are V. V. Bertero (UC Berkeley), H. J. Degenkolb (Henry J. Degenkolb and
Associates), D. A. Foutch (Uni versi ty of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign),
S. C. Gael (University of Michigan), R. G. Johnston (Brandow Johnston and
Associates), H. Krawinkler (Stanford University), L. W. Lu (Lehigh
University), S. A. Mahin (UC Berkeley), E. P. Popov (UC Berkeley),
C. W. Roeder (University of Washington at Seattle), R. L. Sharpe (EDAC),
and M. L. Wang (UC Berkeley). A similar group was formed in Japan with
M. Watabe (Tokyo Metropolitan University, formerly BRI) as the Technical
Coordinator. The Japanese JTCC was composed of researchers from
government and private research institutes and from universities. The
construction and testing of the full-scale test specimen was conducted
under the supervision of H. Yamanouchi with the help of M. Midorikawa and
Y. Nishi yama of BRI. Each of the authors of this report parti cfpated in
the test program in Tsukuba, Japan for an extended period of time. The
cumulative total of time spent was about 18 months and covered the period
from just prior to the beginning of construction to the completion of
Phase II.
The test program for the full-scale building was di vided into four
phases. The test building was desi gned, constructed and tested as a
concentri c braced frame for Phase I. After completion of Phase I, the
concentric braces were removed, the building was repaired and eccentric
braces were installed for the Phase II tests. At the end of Phase II,
the eccentric braces were removed and the moment frames were tested for
r
i
i
f
1.
I
I
I
I
r
L
l
r
l
l.
l
f"
t
t
1
1
)
J
I
1
'f
1
.i
)
I
1
I
i
_ 7
i
!
J
3
li ..

13_ 06 1: 81.;
208 N. RcsiJ8 Street
Phase III. For Phase IV nonstructural walls and cladding were installed
on the building and an additional series of tests were performed.
This report includes a description of the design and construction of
the test structure. The test program and instrumentation are summarized,
and the preliminary analytical and experimental results are presented
wi th preliminary conclusions for Phase I and Phase II. Resul ts from
Phases III and IV are descri bed in less detail.
4
CHAPTER 2
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING
2.1 Design of the Six Story Building
The design of the test structure was a major accomplishment of the
JTCC since seismic design practice is quite different in the United
States and Japan. Every effort was made to obtain a structure which was
consistent with both the U.S. [1 J and Japanese [2J design codes and
professional practice, but some compromises were necessary. The goal of
the test was to generate displacements large enough to ascertain the
strength, ductility and failure mechanisms of the alternate structural
systems. Interstory drifts of approximately 2% were thought to be
adequate to this purpose, but capacity limitations of the test apparatus
applied further constraints upon the design.
The building was designed as a six-story structure with a general
floor plan as shown in Fig. 2.1. It was 1Sm (49.2 ft) square in plan
wi th two 7. Sm (24.6 ft) bays in each direction. It measured 22.38m
(73.4 ft) from the test floor to the top of the roof girders. The
structure consisted of three frames (A, B, C) parallel to the direction
of loading and three frames (1, 2, 3) perpendicular to the loading
direction. The di mens ions shown are column centerline dimensions.
However, the slab overhung the Frames A and C centerlines by O.Sm
(1.64 ft). Member sizes are given in Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. The beams
and columns used A36 steel, but ASOO Grade B was used in the braces.
Frame B was the primary lateral load carrying element for the Phase
I and Phase II tests J since it contained the brace elements, and it
r
\
i
f
t
f
r
I
I
I
I
r
t
r
L
l
[
\
l
[
[
I
"1
j
I
)
'1
i
1
{
,.J,.
5
provided the bulk of the strength and stiffness of the structure.
Figure 2.2a shows an elevation view of the B Frame for the Phase I tests
and Figs. 2.2b-2.2d show details of the braced bay of this frame. The
verti cal dimensions are to the top of the steel gir der at any floor
level. The floor level notation and the story are also
shown. Note that the top of the foundation (21) is. 0.88m (2. 89ft) above
the test floor (20). Concentric K-bracing was provided in the south
(1-2) bay at every story of the Phase I specimen. In addition, a moment
connection was provided at every girder-to-colurnn connection in this
frame. It is not typical practice in the U.S. to provide
girder-to-column moment connections in braced frames although it is
,.
common practice in Japan. An elevation of Frames A and C is shown in
Fig. 2.3, and the elevation of Frames and 3 is shown in Fig. 2.4.
Ri gi d moment resisting connections were used throughout Frames A and C
and typical connection details are shown in Fig. 2.5. Frames 1, 2 and 3
employed simple beam to column connections, and cross bracing was
provi ded in all bays of the outside frames (Frames 1 and 3). The cross
bracing provided lateral stability for the building in the transverse
direction and greatly increased the structure's torsional stiffness.
This insured that accidental twisting deformation of the floor would be
minimized. Frames 1, 2 and 3 had Simple girder-to-column connections at
all locations.
The beams and girders were designed for composite action under
gravity loads. The concrete slab was lightweight concrete a 165mm
(6.5 inch) maximum thickness, and it was placed over a 75rrun (3 inch) deep
ri bbed metal deck. The ri bs of the metal deck were oriented in the
6
east-west direction. Reinforcing bars, 6rnrn (.25 inch) in diameter and
100mm (4 inches) on center were placed in both directions. Shear
connectors, which were 19mm or 22mm (.75 inch or .875 inch) in diameter
and 130mm (5.75 inch) in length, were attached with the size and spacings
shown in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. Addi tional shear connectors were placed
midway between these on the segment of the G2 girder of the B frame that
would later serve as the shear link of the Phase II structure.
The foundation consisted of built-up steel column footings under
each col umn. These were bol ted to the floor using high strength
prestressing rods. In addition, bUilt-up steel grade beams were provided
for the B frame. These were bol ted to the floor and wel ded to the col umn
footings. A plan view of the foundation is shown.in Fig. 2.6.
The members were selected using the usual allowable stress design
procedures [3J.
(75 psf), and 1. 4KN 1m2 (30 psf) were used for the floor, roof and
exterior wall areas, respecti vely. The dead load for the floor and roof
areas included were 2.8
KN
lm
2
(60 psf) for slabs and beams and 108
KN
lm
2
(37 psf) for girders. The seismic design resulted in a total base shear
capacity of .197 W where W was the weight of the building considered for
the seismic design. The total weight, W, excluded the live load, since
it is not commonly considered in seismic design, and the weight of walls
and partitions since they were not present during the test. The
inclusion of this additional dead weight in the seismic design would have
resulted in a structure too strong to be suitably damaged with the
actuators available at the test facility. The total base shear was
equi val ent to UBC desi gn base shear of . 11 3 W where the braced bay was
~ ...
f
l
t ..
I
~
I
f
}
,
l
r
7
designed for 125% of the design shear and the moment frames were designed
for an additional 50% of the UBC value. This is larger than required by
UBC for the building to be considered as a dual system. This was done to
help reconcile the difference in the design requirements in the U.S. and
Japan. The sei smi c desi gn codes are very different for the U. S. and
Japan. Japanese practice generally results in larger base shears than
used in the U.S., and so the seismic design loads would be consistent
with design loads required for the test structure on firm ground in the
U.S. or soft soil in Japan. The distri bution of load between frames is
also different in the U.S. and Japan as reflected in the above
description.
Typical connection details for the test structure are illustrated in
Fig. 2.5. Several of these details are different from those currently
used in the U.S. The square-tube braces of Phase I structure were welded
directly to the girders using full penetration welds as shown in
Figs. 2.5b and 2. 5e. Column splices were made using full penetration
groove welds for the flanges, and web plates that were temporarily bolted
and then welded to the web as shown in Fig. 2.5a. Shear connectors were
not always welded through the metal deck as commonly done in this
country. Instead a special gap or trough in the deck was employed as
shown in Fig. 2.5c. Finally, an unusual beam splice was employed at the
junction of the beam to the Phase I braces as shown in Fig. 2.5e.
After completion of the Phase I testing, the concentric K-braces
were removed from the south bay of Frame B, and for Phase II testing
eccentric K-braces [4J were installed in the north bay of this frame.
The elevation view for Frame B for Phase II is shown in Fig. 2.7 and a
1
i
j
8
typical detail of a shear link shown in Fig. 2. 5f. The beam and column
sizes were unchanged for this phase of the research, al though the brace
sizes were designed as shown in Table 2.3. The braces were again tubular
members; but the brace connections 'employed gusset pI ates whi ch are more
typical of U.S. practices as shown in Fig. 2.5f, and web stiffeners were
required as illustrated in the sketch.
Since the beam and column sizes were chosen for the Phase I testing,
the total design base shear is different for the Phase II test. The
desi gn base shear should be the same (approx .056 W) for the moment
frames, and it should be approximately .066 W for the eccentrically
braced frame. This suggests that the total seismi c desi gn load for
Phase II is approximately 62% of that used for Phase I. Lateral support
details for Phase II were similar to those used for Phase I, and
additional web stiffeners were required as shown in Figs. 2.7 and 2.5f.
2.2 Construction of the Building
The construction of the test building began on December 1, 1982,
with the placement of the first column footing on the test floor of the
Lar ge Si ze Struct ure Laboratory and ended on February 5, 1983, when the
last floor slab was cast. The construction was completed in 51 work
days. The construction of the building was done by the Shimizu
Construction Company and fabrication was done in the shop of Tomoe Gumi
Fabrication Company.
Each steel column footing on the A and C line was square in plan and
was bolted to the test floor using eight threaded high strength steel
rods. Each footing on the B line was rectangular in plan and was bol ted
( .
i
i.
r
I
I
I
I
r
",.
\
l
r
f
I
{
l
\
L
9
to the test floor using fourteen rods. Steel base girders were also
provi ded on the B line as an added precaution since the B frame was
expected to carry much hi gher shear dur i ng the tes ts than the A and C
frames. Each of the two girders was first bolted to the test floor using
10 threaded rods and then was welded to the col umn footi ngs. The top
flange and web welds were full penetration groove welds. The bottom
flange welds were partial penetration groove welds because of the
difficulty of placing backing plates at these locations.
The steel framework was erected in three uni ts each consisting of
two stories. The general sequence for erecting each 2-story unit was the
same. The two hal yes of the braced b.ay. (1-2 bay) of the B Frame were
spliced together in the horizontal position. This was done on the
parking lot just outside of the laboratory door as shown in Fig. 2.8.
The splice line was at the penterline of the bay. This resulted in the
unusual spl ice details shown in Figs. 4e and 2.9. Thi s bay was then
lifted and bolted into position using temporary erection bolts and then
gu ye d f s tab iIi t Y Fig; 2e 1 Oa shows workers using a chain-pull to
align the ends for temporary connection. The temporary connection
is ShOW;l ! r. F 1 g. 2. 1 Ob . The remaining members of the uni t were then
erected (Fig. 2.11), but tightening of the bolts was only done
1
usi ng a 5 r...;c w:-ench. When the steel framework for all si x stori es was in
place, ::--.a: ghtening of the high strength bol ts using long-handled
wrenches ri:,wn in Fig. 2.12) began at the bottom and proceeded upward
at apprcx:r,.;:t: y O;le floor per day. The field welding generally followed
the bolt at each level by one or two days. A temporary and
final column splice are shown in Fig. 2.13. All field welds were
10
inspected using the ultrasonic testing method, and all welds were
acceptable by Japanese welding society standards.
Special care was taken to determine the "as built" dimensions of the
building. The departures from a vertical line of the column centerlines
at each floor level are shown in Figs. 2.14-2.16. These were determined
by hanging a plumb line from the top story and using the center point of
the column at the footing level as the reference point. The departures
were measured from the plumb line. The departures from a straight line
for each brace are shown in Fig. 2.17. The x departures are out of the
plane of the frame and y departures are in-plane. The departures were
measured perpendicular to the brace centerline.
The floors were made of reinforced lightweight concrete on formed
metal deck. The decking is Kawatsu-Kenzai QL 99-1.6 which is equivalent
to H. H. Robertson's QL-99. The thi ckness of the deck was 1. 6mm (0.063
in). The nominal slab thickness was 90mm (3.54 in) and 165mm (6.50 in)
at the ri bs. The ribs ran parallel to the 1, 2 and 3 frames. The
reinforcing was deformed bar mats of 6mm (0.24 in) diameter bars on a
100mm (3.94 in) grid with a nominal minimum cover of 29mm (1.14 in).
Each mat me as ured 2m x 4m (6.56 ft x 1 3. 12ft) . In the region of the
edge loading beams 10mm (0.39 in) diameter bars were used in the mats.
This region is marked "S2" on Fig. 2.1. Steel studs, 22rnm (0.87 in)
diameter by 130mm (5.12 in) length, were welded to each girder in the A
and C frames in a double row with a 300rnm (11.81 in) pitch; to each
girder in the B frame in a single row wi th a 150mm (5.91 in) pi tch; and
to each floor beam and subbeam, in a single row with a 300mm (11.81 in)
pitch. A typical section through the floor is shown in Fig. 2.5c.
I
,
f
;
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
r
l
t
l
I
r
-01
1
j
11
BlOS HeEL
208 N. Romine Street
The placement of the formed metal deck began at the second floor
level (Z2) and proceeded upward. The metal deck was placed in position
and secured using puddle welds. Steel studs (22mm diameter) were then
arc welded through the deck to the floor beams and to the girders of the
A and C Frames. Construction photographs of the deck placement are shown
in Figs. 2 . 1 8 and 2. 1 9. They were weI ded directly to the girders on
lines B, 1, 2 and 3. Mats of reinforcing steel were placed on chairs to
ensure a cover of 29mm (0.24 in). The lightweight concrete slabs at the
Z2, Z4, and Z6 were placed on the first day of casting and those at the
Z3, Z5, and ZR levels were placed on the second day.
The actual slab thickness was measured at several points along the
edge and at three interior pOints for each floor. The interior points
were measured where holes in the floor were provided for the
instrumentation to pass through. One of these was at the center (B2)
column and the other two were located on the centerline of the braced bay
and 400mm (15.75 in) on either side of the B frameline. The edge
measurements were all within 1mm (0.04 in) of the design values so these
are not reported. The measured val ues at the interior points are gi ven
in Table 2.4. Where two values are given it was possible to measure at a
ri b and at the mi nimum de pth. The wire mesh reinforcing was not
perfectly flat, so the actual posi tion of the reinforcing could not be
measured precisely. Each mat was bowed in the middle and was placed with
the bow up. The elevation of the reinforcing varied by about 10rnm (0.39
in). This departure from the correct posi tion probably was reduced
somewhat when the concrete was cast.
12
2.3 Material Properties
The material specified for the W shapes used in the structure was
/
U.S. grade This is equivalent to the Japanese grade SS41 which has
a nominal yield stress of 234 N/mm2 (34.1 ksi). Three coupons were taken
from the flange and three from the web of each different si ze of W
shape. A 50mm (1.97 in) gage length was used for all coupon tests except
for those from the flange of the W 12x136 where a 100mrn (3.94 in) gage
length was used. The elongation at fracture was measured between punch
points on a 200mm (7.87 in) gage. The average strain rate during testing
was about 5% per minute. The average values of material properties for
the flange coupons for each member size are given in Table 2.5. Typical
stress-strain curves are shown in Figs. 2.20 and 2.21.
The average yield stress of all of the flange specimens was
282 N/mm2 (40.9 ksi) wi th a coefficient of variation 'of 0.06. The
average yield stress of the web specimens was 318 N/mm2 (46.07 ksi) with
a coefficient of variation of 0.31. For the individual for each
member size, ':he variation in yield stress for the three flange coupons
was very small. usually less then 2%.
The b:a:f> r;:embers cold formed square-shape tubes of ASTM A500 B
steel with a s?clfied minimum yield stress of 317 N/mm2 (46 ksi). One
coupon frx-. P3:""', the three sides that were not welded for each tube
size was The averages from the three coupon tests for each tube
size are g:ve-; lTi Table 2.6. The average yield stress of all brace
coupons was :.:' N/mm2 (58.2 ksi) with a coefficient of variation of
0.05. A typical stress-strain curves is shown in Fig. 2.22.
I
r
I
I
I
i: .
f; ..
)
I...
r
l
I
I
i
l
[
l
f
1 3
The specified compressi ve strength of the lightweight concrete was
21 N I mm 2 (3000 psi). Two 10cm x 10cm x 20cm (3.94 in x 3.94 in x
7 .87 in) c yl inders wer e t es ted fr om those cast as each fl oor- sla b was
cast. These were field cured and tested approximately 28 days after
casting. The average for the two cylinders tested for each floor are
given in Table 2.7.
Three samples from the D6 wire mesh and three from the D10 wire mesh
were tested. The following average properties were determined for the D6
rei nf or ci ng: a ,
y
398 N/rrun
2
(57.7 ksi); a, 544 N/mm2 (78.95 ksi);
u
, , .4% .
The following values were determined for the D10 reinforcing:
244 N/mm2 (35.4 ksi); 508 N/mm2 (73.7 ksi); 17.5%.
a ,
y
1 4
CHAPTER 3
TEST PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTATION
3.1 Test Facility and Instrumentation
The tests were conducted in the Large Size Structures Laboratory of
BRI. This is perhaps the largest and most advanced structural testing
laboratory in the world. The central reaction wall is 6.6m (21.7 ft) by
20m (65.6 ft) in plan and stands 25m (82 ft) high. Simultaneous testing
on both sides of the reaction wall is possible. A schematic of a test
specimen and the reaction wall on the strong floor is shown in Fig. 3.1.
The 6 story test building was built on the strong floor south of the
reaction wall. Eight servo-controlled actuators attached to the reaction
wall were used to load the structure. The loads were applied through
rigid loading beams installed at the edge of each floor. The pOints of
application of the force were at the midpoint of the 1-2 and the 2-3
bays. The roof 1 evel had two act uators wi th a capaci ty of + lOa metri c
ton (220 kips) and ~ 1m ~ 3 9 . 4 in) displacement. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and
5th floors were loaded with a single actuator with 100 metric ton (220
ki ps) load capaci ty and.!. 500mrn ~ 19. 7 in) di spl acemen t capaci ty, and
the 6th floor level had 2 of these shorter stroke actuators.
Two types of data were measured and stored. The first type was that
used for conducting the pseudo-dynamic tests which included the measured
actuator forces and the floor displacements and the computed veloci ties
and accel erations. The test procedure is descri bed below. These data
will be used to study the gross load-deflection relationships of the
building. They will also be used to study the performance of the
;
f
i
t
I
I
I
..
j
L
l
r
l.
15
pseudo-dynamic testing method. The second type was the member strain and
displacement data that were measured with strain gages and linear voltage
displacement transducers (LVDT's). These data will be used to st udy
I
moment-rotation relationships for beams, load-deflection relationships
for' braces, panel zone behavior and many other phenomena incl uding the
determination of the distribution of the total story shear between the
col urnn and bracing members at diff erent levels of damage. About 1000
channels of this second type of data were collected for each test. This
,1
data incl uded:
}
1. Groups of 4 strain gages were attached near the mid-height (two
above mid-height on opposite flanges and two below) of each
J
column in each story in Frames A and B. This data was used to
determine axial force, bending moments, and shears in the
I
columns. Addi tional strain gages were placed at the top and
bottom of each of these columns to detect inelastic behavior in
,
1.
potential hinging regions.
1
2. Similar strain gage patterns were attached to the girders in
Frames A and B and transverse girders in Frame 2.
3. Load cells and elongation potentiometers were attached to the
braces in Frame B. This permitted determination of the force-
deflection behavior of each brace. A drawing of the load cell
that was fabricated and installed in each brace of the Phase I
structure is shown in Fig. 3.2 with the specific dimensions
given in Table 3.1.
1 6
4. Displacement transducers were attached in parallel and criss-
c r 0 s s gr 0 ups to de t e r min e p I a s tic rot a t ion s n ear the
connections and shear deformation of panel zones.
5. Strain gages were attached to the cross bracing in Frames 1 and
2 so that the forces in these members could be estimated.
6. Strain gages were attached to deck reinforcement and the metal
decking at the Z3 level to evaluate the deck strains and
composite action.
7 Applied loads and deflections were measured at each floor
level, and additional deflections were measured at critical
locations such as the center of the girder in the Phase I
braced bay or the ends of the eccentric link in the Phase II
test.
8. Addi tional strain gages were attached to study local effects
such as buckling of braces or forces developed in lateral
bracing elements.
3.2 Pseudo-dynamic Test Method
The seismic tests of the building were conducted using the computer
\_/
on-line actuator (COLA) test facility of BRI. This type of testing has
been most commonly referred to in the literature as pseudodynamic
testing. For the COLA test method, the structure is interfaced with the
computer through the actuators and the displacement transducers in such a
way that the response of the building to a given earthquake can be
closely simulated [4,5J.
f
\
l
l
I
I
I
I
-l
1
[
r
l
l
f
J
l
'1
1
j
17
Consider the equations of motion of the test building:
ma + cv + r(x) mbag
( 1 )
where m andc the mass and damping matrices
rex) structure restoring force vector
a and v acceleration and velocity vectors
-
~
ground accel erati on vector
b ground accel erati on transformation matri x.
In a standard nonlinear analysis the restoring force vector, rex), would
be computed using a finite element or structural analysis program. Thus,
the validity of the results is highly dependent on ability of the program
to model--material and structural behavior. This is the most difficult
and unreliable element to estimate in Eq. 1 because most analytical
structural models are highly idealized and can't be expected to correctly
model the complex joint behavior, construction flaws, unknown material
properti es and geometri c irregul ari ti es that would be characteristi c in a
real building. Indeed, this is why we must conduct experiments in the
first place.
During a pseudodynamic test, the restoring force vector is measured
as feed back from the struct ure. Actually, the test is conducted in a
step-by-step fashion in the same manner as a nonlinear analysis would be
done. At each step in the process the restoring force vector is measured
and the next ground acceleration is input. Equation 1 is solved for the
next val ues of ;., ~ and x. The act ua tors then push or pull on the
structure to conform to the calculated values of x. The process is
repeated until the end of the earthquake is reached or until the
18
structure collapses. Thus, the COLA procedure is actually an
experimental analysis.
The advantages of pseudodynamic testing are as follows: ( 1) much
1 ar ger specimens may be t es ted than can be acccmmo dated on c urr entl y
available shake tables; (2) since the inertial effects are partially
included, the correct failure mechanism may be obtained for complex
structures which is not necessarily the case for normal static testing;
(3) the test is conducted slowly so that the damage patterns may be
visually inspected. One disadvantage of the method is that, since the
test is conducted slowly, strain rate effects are not present as they
woul d be for a shake tabl e tes t. This is particularly important for
bri ttle structures, but it could also affect the behavior of structures
that are ductile. Thus, it is possible that the failure mechanism is
different under slowly applied loads. Another drawback is that errors in
measurements propagate through the test and can sometimes grow with
time. This was encountered during the early stages of this test program
and will be discussed later. Some good references are available on the
pseudodynamic test method [5,6J. A pi ct ure of the control room and one
of the actuators in 'place is shown in Fig. 3.3 and Fig. 3.4,
res pecti vely .
,
t
I
I
1
r
L
[
L
1 9
CHAPTER 4
PHASE I - SEISMIC TESTING OF THE CONCENTRIC BRACED BUILDING
4.1 Overview of Phase I
The concentri c braced buil ding was des cri bed in detail in Chapter 2
an d was shown i n Figs. 2. 1- 2. 5. The primary objecti ves of the test
program were to determine the strength, ductility, energy absorbing
capacity and failure mechanism for the structure. Correlation studies
are also of interest to determine the accuracy of analytical predictions
of the building's behavior. To achieve these objecti ves, some
preliminary studies and three levels of seismic testing were undertaken
and compl eted.
4.2 Preliminary Studies
Linear and nonl inear analyses of very detailed models of the
concentric braced building were conducted using several combinations of
input ground motion and damping levels. The analyses were done to ensure
that the parameters used for the pseudo-dynamic tests would result in
actuator forces and story displacements that would cause the desired
level of damage in the structure (approximately 2% story drift) but that
would not exceed the force or displacement capaci ty of any actuator.
Several different earthquakes scaled to 400 gal (a::0.4g), 450 gal or
500 gal peak accel eration were consi dered in conj unction wi th different
levels of damping. In addition, several different analytical structural
models were used. These ranged from simple "stick" models where
centerl ine dimensi ons and nominal materi al properti es were used to ones
20
that included panel zone deformation, P-ll effects and measured material
properties. A great deal of effort was spent on this by the Japanese
researchers. This is understandable since a very small safety margin was
used. A maximum force of 85 tons and a maximum displacement of 425mm
were all that would be allowed based on the analysis. One can imagine
the technical and political difficulties that would have arisen had the
test needed to be stopped in mid-course because an actuator capacity had
been exceeded.
The analytical results also indicated where damage would be
concentrated so that the instrumentation could be placed at locations
where the most damage was expected. Figures 4.1-4.4 show some typical
resul ts for the various models for the Miyagi-ken .Oki accelerogram scaled
to 500 gal
2
(500 cm/sec == 0.5g) acceleration. These figures from
Ref. [7J indicate that the inclusion of panel zone deformations into the
analysis had a very significant effect on the results. The an al ys i s
indicated that the story displacements (and therefore the
be greatest at the third story and that significant damage would also
occur in the lower two stories as well. Therefore, the instrumentation
was concentrated in the lowest three stories. It is interesting to note
that some preliminary studies done in the U.S. indicated that the fifth
story would suffer the greatest damage. Consequently, the initial
instrumentation plans called for a heavy concentration of instruments at
this level which was relatively undamaged during the tests.
Vi bration tests were performed on the structure before and after
each major test of the research program and after any repair or
modification. These results indicated the damping of the structure and
f
i
f
Ii..
I
I
I
I
I
f
L
l
r
1
l
21
the frequenci es or periods of the first several modes. In addi tion,
comparison of these values showed how damage or repair affected the
structural properti es. Table 4.1 summarizes some of these measured
values. Static uni t load tests were also performed before each major
test. This data was used to estimate the ini tial stiffness for the
structure prior to the next pseudodynamic test.
Based on the preliminary studies the earthquake record chosen as
input for COLA tests was the Miyagi-ken Oki accelerogram shown in
I
Fig. 4.5 with the peak acceleration scaled to an appropriate value. Also
r
shown in Fig. 4.5 are the accelerograms used in Phase II and Phase III.
Three pseudodynamic tests were conducted: the "Elastic" tests with
I
65 gal (about 6.5% g) peak acceleration, the "Moderate" test with 250 gal
peak acceleration and the "Final" test with 500 gal peak acceleration.
I
The multiple test levels were chosen because they provide a wide range of
information concerning the structural behavior, and they are consistent
I with the usual multi-level seismic design approach. Mathematical damping
J
values of 0.5'%, 0.5% and 2.0% of critical were used for the first three
modes of Vibration, respectively, for each test. These correspond
roughly to those measured during forced vibration tests of the building.
j 4.3 Elastic Tests
Two preliminary earthquake tests were conducted at the 65 gal level
to check out and evaluate the loading ___ $y;:;J,em, __the ___ins_trumentation system

and the various parameters used in the test algorithms.
These revealed that an instability was present in the COLA system.
)
j This resulted from the algorithm that was used in the BRI facility. The
J
22
calculated displacements were only approached but not reached for each
time step. This systematic error generated something like negative
damping in the system that caused spurious response in the highest mode.
As a result the mathematical damping was increased to 90% in the highest
three modes and a small "overshoot" was added to the calculated
displacements. This latter adjustment had the effect of adding about
1 .6% damping to the first two modes. Therefore, the effecti ve damping
during the Elastic test was about the lowest three modes and 90% in
the hi ghest three. The Elastic test was then run. Thi s gen er at e d
approximately design level forces in the building. All of the members
remained elastic as The maximum roof displacement was 4.0cm.
The floor displacement generated during the test are shown in Fig. 4.6
and the story shear vs. story di\splacement for the first two stori es are
shown in Fig. 4.7.
4.4 Moderate Test
The Moderate test was conducted next. The objecti ve of this test
was to generate a large enough response that brace buckling would be
i ni ti ated at some locations. Further, this test should simulate the
behavior of the structure during a moderate level earthquake which could
occur at infrequent intervals during the life of the structure. The
moderate test also provides important information concerning the
relationship between the observed damage to the structure and its gross
load deformation behavior. Plots of the displacement response of the
floors are shown in Fig. 4.8. The shear force-displacement relationships
I
I
I
I
[
r
t
l
t
are shown in Fig. 4.9-4.11. r
1
L
23
At the end of the Moderate test, a small amount of structural damage
was observable. Figure 4.12 is a graphical summary of this observed
damage after completion of the Moderate tests. Limi ted brace buckling
and plastic deformation was noted on the 2nd and 3rd floor levels and
some concrete cracking was observed, but the structure appeared to be in
good condi tion. Observation of the force-deflection hysteretic curves
indicated that the structure remained essentially linear elastic in the
4th, 5th, and 6th stories, although buckling was initiated in the north
brace of the fifth story. Limited energy dissipation was noted during
the later cycles of response for the 2nd and 3rd levels, because of
yielding and buckling of the braces. However, the first level dissipated
a large amount of energy (see Fig. 4.9) wi thout apparent brace buckling
or yielding. The hysteresis loops showed significant deterioration in
I
the stiffness and load capacity of this level during the last few cycles
of vibration response. Further, Table 4.1 shows that there was
f
si gnifi cant reduction in stiffness and increase in nat ural period after
I
this test.
Because of this anomaly in the energy dissipation, a more careful
inspection of the structure was made, and it was discovered that the beam
panel zone between the first level K-braces failed during this test. A
very unusual connection detail, by U.S. standards (see Fig. 2.2b and
Fig. 2.5e), was used in this zone because of the unusual erection method
described earlier. First the beam splice was placed in this region of
potentially large bending moment. A bolted gusset plate was used to join
the beam webs and the flanges and webs were later weI ded wi th canpl ete
penetration welds. Finally, the geometry of the connection resul ted in
j
J
24
an effecti ve eccentri ci ty whi ch caused the panel to a ct as a short
eccentric shear link. The result was a very unusual 3-piece tear pattern
as shown in Fig. 4.13. The complete cause of this failure has not been
precisely determined. However, it is probable that the large shear load
on the panel combined with the tWisting action of the beam combined to
produce yielding and tearing of the connection. The tear was induced by
the axial loads and end rotation of the ends of the brace and the
eccentricity in the connection. These caused serious compatibility
problems between the panel and gusset plate. This caused a prying action
between the bol ts and the welds, and led to a" tear which probably
ini tiated at the large copes provided for flange welding. This failure
did not occur on any other level although significant prying and panel
distortion was observed at this splice on other levels.
This damage was repaired by cutting out the panel and grinding the
web down to the flanges and existing panel stiffeners. A 12rnm (0.5 in)
plate was then welded into place with full penetration welds. This plate
was approximat.ely 50% thicker than the original beam web. Stiffness
measurerne!1ts 3.I1d vibration tests were then performed on the repaired
structure t.o its elastic properties. Table 4.1 shows that
dynamic of the structure after the repair are comparable
to the of the building. The Final test for Phase I was
then per f c
r
:;:.::..::
4.5 Final :es:
Figure 4.'4 shows the measured floor displacements as function of-
time for the Final test. The story shear force vs. displacement
I
I
I
I
f
i
l
[
f
1

25
relationships for all six levels are shown in Figs. 4.15-4.17 and a
graphical summary of the damage is given in Fig. 4.18. Maximum
deflections were approximately 3 times as large as those observed in the
I
Moderate Test. Further, Fig. 4.14 shows that deflections were
I
consi derably larger to the north direction. Severe brace buckling was
noted on the 2nd and 3rd levels during the first few seconds of the
j
acceleration record because of the high energy input of the Miyagi-ken
Oki acceleration records and because of the imperfections induced by
i
J
previous testing. The braces of story 2 buckled out of plane and those
f
of story 3 buckled in the plane of bracing. The braces were square
tu bes. Local tears i ni ti ated at the corners (see Fig. 4.19) because of
high concentration of strains induced by plastic hinging of the brace and
due to the reduced ductility from the forming process. This mode of
I
fail ure appears to be consistent wi th observations from other research
[8J. The tears and large lateral deflections of the brace reduced the
stiffness of the 2nd and 3rd levels. This increased the deflection and
]
story drift for these levels and caused further concentration of damage.
A severely buckled brace is shown in Fig. 4.21 and local tearing at the
bottom of a brace is shown in Fig. 4.22. The north brace of the 3rd
level completely ruptured (Fig. 4.20) at 11.37 sec into the seismic
record. The test ::It. t.hi s nni nt. _ pvpn t.hnllCTh RNTIP c:trY'ol"'lCTrh
.r
J
......
26
Table 4.1 clearly illustrates that the stiffness of the structure was
dramatically reduced by the brace failure.
Addi tional structural damage was noted during this Final Test of
Phase I. In-plane brace buckling occurred on the north brace of the 4th
level and to a lesser extent the north brace of the 1st level. Very
I imi ted out of plane buckl ing was noted on the north brace of the 5th
level. Slab cracking was most severe on the 2nd and 3rd floors and
decreased for the upper floors. Slab cracking generally initiated at or
near the K-brace connection and center column line. Cracking was much
smaller and less widely distributed on the north and west sides of the
structure. The crack patterns for the Z2 and Z3 floor slabs are shown in
Figs. 4.23 and 4.24. The 2nd level composite floor slab also exhibited
signs of separation from the steel beam because of the large cyclic
reversals induced by the bracing. Measurements indicated that the
concrete slab and metal deck were separated by several centimeters (i.e.,
in or der of 1 inch) on the Z2 I evel at the end of thi s tes t . The beam
splice connections for the 2nd and 3rd level (i.e., Z3 and Z4 girders)
experienced the same twisting prying action noted for the Z2 girder in
the moderate test but fracture did not occur (see Fig. 4.25).
The maximum relati ve story drift of 1.9% occurred in the 2nd story.
The 3rd story had similar maximum drift because of the severe brace
buckling noted at this level, but all other stories had a relative story
drift of 1 ess than 1 %. The base shear reached a maximum val ue of
approximately 3.2 MN (720 kips) which corresponds to 0.49 W. This ratio
of the lateral strength to the' dead weight seems quite large, but it
should be noted that the structure was not tested with live loads or dead
L-
r
f
L
I
I
I
f
1;--
f
[
l
r
f
I
f
\
\
i....
loads due to walls and parti tions. These loads were included in the
ini tial gravi ty load design, and their absence resul ts in a substantial
increase in the reserve strength of the beams and columns. Figure 4.15
shows that considerable energy was dissipated in the lower levels and
some deterioration in strength and stiffness occurred. Limited yielding
could be observed in the center columns and in the beam column panel
zones. This could be observed by the cracking of the paint coating on
the steel surfaces. The summary of damage is shown in Fig. 4.18.
However, this paint appeared to be very tough and ductile, so additional
yielding most likely occurred at other locations. Inspections of the
strain gage data will clarify this.
A rough idea of the energy dissipation mechanism for the building
can be obtained by observing the of the indi members of
each story level. The force-deflection response of each brace for the
first story are shown in Fig. 4.26 and for the second story in
Fig. 4.27. The moment-rotation response for the top and bottom of
columns B1, B2, A1 and A2 are shown in Figs. 4.28-4.31, respectively and
the panel zone response of each of these columns is shown in Figs. 4.32-
4.35. These [1 gures indicate that for the first story, the energy was
dissipated by the braces, by hinging at the bottom of the columns and
through panel zone deformation. In the second story, nonlinear brace and
panel zone behavior accounted for the majori ty of the energy that was
dissipated. The deterioration of strength and stiffness for each story
may be attributed primarily to the brace behavior.
J
28
4.6 Practical Observations
Analysis of the test results are not yet complete. A tremendous
volume of data is available and considerable time is needed to fully
analyze the test resul ts. This detailed analysis will be performed and
reported in later publications. However, preliminary res ul ts can be
noted.
First, the test illustrated the importance of the redundancy offered
by dual systems in s ~ i s m i design. Figure 4.36 shows the ratio of the
total story shear force carried by the braces in the lowest three stories
to that carried by the moment frames. Note that initially the braces
carr i ed about 80% of the total shear to 20% for all three moment frames.
-
-
However, later in the tests the braces in the second and third stories
were severely buckled and the moment frames carried about 60% of the
lateral load. This is an example of a dual system working perfectly.
Without the moment frames as a backup, the building could have been in
serious trouble after the fracture of the brace.
Second, the test illustrates the importance of design details for
satisfactory seismic performance. The Moderate test caused a failure at
a very unusual connection detail. Failure of a single connection
significantly reduced the strength and stiffness of the building, and the
full consequences of the connection behavior must be considered.
Finally, the general resul t again clearly shows the importance of
providing a reliable energy dissipation mechanism within the structure.
The concentri cally braced frame di ssi pated energy through panel zone
deformation, flexural yielding, and buckling and yielding of the braces.
These dissipation mechanisms are reasonably well understood. However the
r
i
r
t
(
1
f
..
r
i
[
I
I
I
I
[
r
I
[
l
I
I
I
J
1
i
J
l
i
29
braces in the second and third story failed early in the Final test.
This created a soft story with considerably reduced strength. Thus, had
the test continued, the amount of shear transferred down to the 1 st and
2nd stories would have been greatly reduced and the energy dissipated by
these lower stories would also have been reduced, increasing the danger
of collapse. This brace failure was probably predictable [8J, and it
could have caused serious problems in a real structure wi th the gi ven
acceleration record, since the earthquake could not be stopped early as
was done in the test. It is important that engineers consider where the
dissipation will occur and design the elements so that the dissipation
can be achieved. This failure could be particularly serious with the
design practice used in the United States, since concentrically braced
frames are commonly desi gne d wi thout the addi tional s t iffnes sand
redundancy of moment resisting beam-column connections.
30
CHAPTER 5
PHASE II - SEISMIC TESTING OF THE ECCENTRIC BRACED BUILDING
5.1 Overview of Phase II
After the Phase I tests were complete, the concentric braces were
removed, the structure was repaired and eccentri c K-braces were
installed. As for the Phase I structure, the objectives of the test were
to determine the strength, ductility, energy absorbing capacity and
failure mechanism. Correlation studies were also of interest to
determine the accuracy of analyti cal predi ctions of the buil ding's
beha vi or . To achi eve these objecti ves, preliminary studies and two
levels of seismic testing were undertaken. In addi tion to these, three
sinusoidal tests were also conducted.
Structural Modifications for Phase II ~ d Preliminary Studies
After completion of the Phase I test, the structure was repaired.
The resi dual floor displacements were all qui te small, less than 7mm
(.3 in) at the end of this test as shown in Fig. 5.1. The maximum
residual story drift was -+/501 in the 6th story_ This was approximately
the same misalignment as existed in the structure prior to Phase I
testi ng. The concrete floor slab was extensi vely cracked in the lower
floors. Most of the cracking occurred near the major frames and the
largest cracks occurred over the brace connection in the center of the
south bay of Frame B. All cracks larger than O.2mm were repaired by
epoxy injection. Cracks smaller than O.2mm could not be repaired,
because the pressured epoxy could not penetrate these small cracks. The
r
!
.
!
1
I
I
I
I
,.
I
I.
r
l
(
r
!
L
[
{
L
If
r-
.;
t
31
area where epoxy injection was used is shown in Fig. 5.2 and some typical
cr ac ks ar e shown in Fig. 5. 3. The concrete was recast at several
locations where it had cracked excessively or where the slab was cut for
other structural modifications such as the brace to beam connections for
the Phase II structure.
The- eccentric bracing was installed in the north bay (2-3) of
Frame B. Lateral support was provi ded at both ends of the eccentri c
link, and shear stiffeners were attached. Details of these modifications
were provided with the general description of the test structure in
Chapter 2 of this report and details of the braced bay are shown in
Fig. 2.7. Modifications were also made to the instrumentation. A number
of potentiometers and LVDT' s were removed from the south bay concentri c
bracing system of Phase I and used to measure deflections and
deformations of the eccentric link and bracing system.
Preliminary analytical studies were conducted to determine the level
of damping to use in each mode and to decide which earthquake
r
accel ero gr am to use. The 1 952 Taft record (see Fi g. 4.5) was chos en as
the input excitation and the same damping values as used for Phase I were
1
I
\
employed for earthquake simulation testing. Only two seismic tests were
planned. Thes e woul d us e the Taf t accel er ogram seal ed to 65 gals
(=0.065g) peak acceleration for the Elastic test and to 500 gals (=0.5g)
,
f
for the Inelastic test.
i
Vibration tests and static unit load tests were performed at
J
critical points of the test. Table 5.1 summarizes the dynamic properties
of the structure as measured at different times during the test program.
This table clearly shows that the Phase II structure had a shorter period
32
and was somewhat stiffer than the Phase I structure. The eccentric shear
links added flexibility to the structure, but the braces were larger than
those used for Phase I. The net effect was a slight increase in stiff-
ness. However, the Phase II structure had reduced lateral resistance.
This occurred because the beam and column sizes were selected for the
Phase I structure and were not changed for Phase II. An ideal eccentri-
cally braced frame would require a different distribution of member size
and stiffness, but this was not practical for this multi-phase test
program. It was believed that the structure would provide a good test of
this type of system even though the design was less than optimum.
l-
t
5 . 3 El as tic T es t
The Elastic Test was conducted wi th the Taft acceleration record
scaled to 65 gal (about 6.5%g). It was designed to examine the elastic I
behavior, to evaluate the parameters used in the COLA test system, and to
check the instrumentation system. Figure 5.4 shows the displacement as a
function of earthquake time for each floor. These displacements are
quite small. They were only one-half of those predi cted in the
linear-elastic dynamiC analysis, and maximum deflections and story drifts I
were only about 1/3 of that observed in the Phase I Elastic test. At the
f
time, it was thought that the damping had been underestimated for the
t
analysis. However, later studi es revealed that the discrepancy was the
l
result of a small difference between the analytical and actual
fundamental period [9J. The analytical model had a period of 0.595 sec
f
I
compared to the measured value of 0.565 sec. Even though this was only a
5% difference, it resulted in a difference of about a factor of 2 between
r
\
L.
33
the measured and computed responses as shown in Fig. 5.5. Thus, elastic
response to the Taft accelerogram is very sensi ti ve to small changes in
period in this frequency range.
5.4 Inelastic Test
The Inelastic test was then performed to determine the strength,
ductility and failure mechanism for the Phase II building. The Taft
acceleration record was scaled to a peak acceleration of 500 gal (about
50%g) for this purpose. Figure 5.6 shows the displacement response of
each floor. Figures 5.7-5.9 shows the story shear vs. story drift for
all the si x stori es. Examination of Fig. 5.7 shows that considerable
energy.was dissipated in the first two levels, but relatively little
inelastic behavior occurred in the upper four stories.
The Phase II Inelastic test resulted in a much larger number of
inelastic cycles than the Phase I testing, but Phase I produced larger
displacements and story drifts and caused considerably more damage. The
maximum story drift noted in the Phase II Inelastic test was 1/200 in the
first story and an average of 1/250 over the entire structure.
Most of the energy dissipation occurred in the eccentric links. The
shear link response for the first two stories and for the second two
stories are shown in Figs. 5.10 and 5.11, respectively, where the shear
force is approximated as the verti cal component of the meas ured brace
force. Examination of the curves in Figs. 5.10 and 5.11 shows that no
deterioration in the structure had occurred and the building appeared to
have considerable strength and ductility remaining. This is also evident
in Figs. 5.12-5.17 which show various member responses.
34
5.5 Sinusoidal Tests
As a resul t of the minimal damage and relati vely small story drifts
and displacements noted with the Phase II Inelastic test, the members of
the JTCC recommended that three addi tional tes ts be conducted. These
tests were to be performed so that the strength, ductili ty and final
failure mechanism could be determined since none of these were revealed
by the Inelastic test. Each test was to be conducted using the pseudo-
dynami c tes ti ng t echni que wi th a si nusoi dal ground accel erati on. The
ini tial condi tions at each level were to be selected to approximate a
steady-state response in the "first mode," and up to two complete cycles
of response were to be obtained, time permi tting, for each test. The
target interstory drifts of the first story were about 1/200, 1/100 and
1/50 for the first, second and third tests, respectively. However, a
maximum interstory drift of 1/40 was not to be exceeded at any level.
Also, the tests were to be stopped if the damage became so great that it
would cause great delays in conducting future phases of the joint
program. A further constraint was that the tests should be complete in
only four days of testing. This time constraint limited the testing to
one complete cycle at each response level.
The story displacements vs. time for the three Sinusoi dal tests are
shown in Fig. 5.18. These curves are not smooth sine waves because, for
the second cycle, the pseudodynamic method was used only for the loading
portions of the test. Unloading was accomplished by manually releasing
the pressure on the actuators in 5 or 6 steps to speed up the test. The
story shear vs. interstory displacement for the si x stori es for the
Sinusoidal tests are shown in Figs. 5.19-5.21. The structure developed
J:
l
I
r
I
I
I
I
f
..
l
[
r
t
35
story drifts which were larger than those developed in the Phase I test.
The maximum base shear was approximately 3.3 MN (750 kips) which
I
corresponds to O. 51W. This is greater strength than would be expected in
most real building structures because portions of the dead load and all
I
of the live load were not supported during the test. Fig. 5.22 shows the
amount of deformation that was typical for the shear links at the first
and second levels during the first cycle of the Sinusoidal test and at
the maximum displacements for the Inelastic test. Duri ng the second
cycle, tears and severe yielding in the brace gusset plates ini tiated in
one corner and at the end of the brace is shown in Fig. 5.23.
Figure 5.19 reveals that unexpected strength degradation occurred in
I
the response of the first two stories. Figures 5.24 and 5.25 show plots
I
of the ratio of the first story shear carried in the braces to the total
story shear for the first three stories for the Inelastic and Sinusoidal
I
tests, respectively. These curves indicate that there was deterioration
in the ability of the braces to carry their portion of the lateral loads
for the lowest two stories. For the Inelastic test the braces carried
about of the total shear initially. This percentage dropped to about
55% for ttl' flrst story at about 14 to 15 seconds when the link was
undergo: ilg : arge inelastic deformations and then increased to about 60%
near the of test. This was not unexpected. For the Sinusoidal
I
tests. h:."v("'''. the braces in the first story carried about 60% of the
i
total the initial cycle, but this dropped to less than 40%
of the to:a: as the story displacement increased. This ratio went
from 80S to for the second story.
"
36
t
The source of the problem was the brace-to-girder connection at the
Z2 level. The gusset plate yielded and then buckled near the end of the
second cycle of the Sinusoidal t ~ s t When this occurred, the end of the
brace moved out-of-plane and caused a large torque to develop in the
girder adjacent to the shear link. The girder suffered large inelastic
;
L
torsional deformation, but the transverse braces held the shear link
nearly in plane. This inelastic action created a soft spot at the end of
the brace. Thus, even with large story drifts, the brace was unable to
develop and maintain large axial force. Although the link was in
excellent condition, the brace was no longer able to transfer force into
it and, therefore, its strength and energy absorbing capaci ty were not
fully utilized. The damage to the brClce-to-girder connection for the
I
braces in the first story are shown in Fig. 5.26. This behavior occurred
I
to some extent for both the north and south braces in the first two
stori es .
1-
The effects of the buckled gusset plates can be seen in Fig. 5.27
which shows the shear vs. story displacement relationships for the braces
and for the frames of the first story. The solid line for the braces
[
represents the measured values and the dashed line represents the
expected behavior wi thout buckling of the gusset plates. The strength
r
and energy absorbing capacity of the first story was significantly
reduced because of the detail failure. Similar behavior was observed for
l
the second story but to a smaller degree. The deterioration in
l
performance of the structure would have been greater if lateral bracing
had not been provided at each end of the link.
[
37
Considerable yielding also occurred throughout the members of the
first three stori es. As should be expected, a lar ge percentage of the
ener gy dissipation occurred wi thin the shear links. The shear force
vs. shear deformation for the shear links at the six floors are shown in
Figs. 5.28-5.30. The deterioration in the response of the links implied
by Fig. 5.28 was the result of the gusset plate failure rather than a
deterioration of the link. The yielding zones for the first story
columns extended upward over one meter from the base as shown in
Fig. 5.31. The B2 column in the first story may have been near collapse,
but further investigation is needed to verify this. All of the panel
zones in the A, B, and C Frames in the first three stories experienced
considerable inelastic deformations. Selected member responses are shown
in Figs. 5.32-5.43.
5.6 Practical Observations
The maximum story displacements and the maximum story drifts for the
~

Elastic, Inelastic and Sinusoidal tests are shown in Figs. 5.44 and 5.45,
respecti vely. These figures indicate that, even wi th the gusset plate
failures, the structure demonstrated excellent ductility. The fi gures
also reveal that the structure was not an optimum design. Most of the
energy dissipation occurred in the first three stories. For an optimum
eccentric braced frame, the maximum story drifts would be nearly equal at
all levels and all stories would partiCipate equally in the energy
dis s i pa t ion.
The failure of the gusset plates had considerable impact upon the
structural behavior. It reduced the shear force which could be carried
38
by the braces as noted earli er. Further, the post-test nat ural period
increased by 19% over that measured prior to testing. This increase in
nat ural period woul d suggest that gusset pl ate fail ures on the braces of
r
,
the lower two floors resulted in about a 30% reduction in the overall i
stiffness of the building. This indicates the importance of connection
design. If the members are to dissipate energy through inelastic action,
it is imperative that connection failures be avoided. The strength
f
required of mas t connecti ons of members that are expected to di ssi pat e
energy must be substanti ally greater than the nominal strengths of the
members.
\J Although much energy diSSipation occurred in the shear links as
expected, the member responses shown above indicate that other areas of
I
the structure also provided significant energy dissipation. Thi s is
particularly true of the column panel zones. These elements performed I
exceedingly well even though they were underdesigned by U.S. standards.
I
[
r
f
1
l
~
i
I
39
CHAPTER 6
PHASE III AND PHASE IV - MOMENT FRAME TEST AND
NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENT TEST
6.1 Phase III - Moment Frame Test
Upon completion of Phase II, the braces were removed from the north
bay of the Frame B and an addi tional test was conducted on the moment
frames. Table 5.1 indicates that the natural period of the Phase III
moment frame was 1.28 sec. This suggests that the elaStic stiffness of
the moment frame was 20 to 25% of that measured in the concentrically and
eccentrically braces frames of Phase I and II. This is consistent with
the elastic level responses of the Phase I and Phase II structures where
the frames carried about 20% of the total shear. Further, Chapter 3 of
this report has indicated that the predicted lateral resistance of the
moment frame was 30 to 40% of that predicted for the Phase I and II
structures.
The building was subjected to the 1940 El Centro Earthquake with
350 gal peak acceleration. The time dependent floor displacements are
shown in Fig. 6.1. The story shear vs. story displacement for the first
two stories are shown in Fig. 6.2. These plots show that the structure
was more flexi ble and somewhat weaker as expected, but the inelasti c
behavior was stable. It is quite remarkable that after being subjected
to several major earthquakes, the frames were still performing well. The
maximum base shear was approximately 1.23 MN (278 ki ps) whi ch was
approximately 19% of the total weight of the structure. This percentage
40
is agai n moderately large because the test struct ure di d not incl ude the
full dead load or any live load.
6.2 Phase IV - Nonstructural Component Tests
After completion of the Phase II test, nonstructural elements were
attached to the building and additional cyclic testing was conducted.
The nonstructural elements included precast concrete and glass fiber
reinforced concrete panels, lightweight concrete walls, concrete block
parti tions, suspended ceilings, plastered and gypsum board parti tions,
and walls with steel doors attached and openings for large glass panels.
Original plans called for inclusion of glass panels in the test, but they
were eliminated due to cost. The design of these elements is frequently
regarded as a responsibility of the architect, but details for the
attachment of these elements to the structure are usually designed by the
struct ural engineer. These el ements contri bute a great deal of mass and
stiffness to the vibrating structure, and so engineers must be concerned
with their seismic performance.
There are wi de variations in practi ce on the design, construction
and installatiC'n cf t;lt-.;;nlE:nt:.:: both Within tIlE": U.S. and bel,ween the
u.s. and Japan. This variation severely complicated the Phase IV
research. It was possib18 to test only a small of details and
var i at ions in des i gn, and so the JTCC formed a s ubcommi t tee of
researchers and practicing engineers to select typical elements from both
the U.S. and Japanese practice. The full variation of the elements
tested in this phase is des cri bed in other publications [10,11J, but
Tahlp F..1
.....
..- vi..1. C.L .;:, wl!llldr' y or some of these elements and their
!
I
i'
f'
l
f
L
I
I
I
I
l
I
r
\
l
t
I
1
!
1
J
J
J
41
locations in the test structure. Panels located in Frames A, B or C were
essentially subjected to in-plane deformation. Panels in Frames 1, 2 and
3 were subjected to out-of-plane deformation. Some corner element
details were tested to check the interface of these elements. The
nonstructural elements were manufactured and installed in the structure
at locations noted in Table 6.1.
In seismic design, it is recognized that large lateral deflections
will occur during maj or earthquakes, and attachment details must have
adequate strength and ductility to prevent failure and subsequent loss of
life. Two general attachment concepts for wall panels were used during
this test and they are illustrated in Fig. 6.3. The sway type connection
is frequently used in the U.S. It employs a rigid bolted attachment at
the floor with slotted holes at the top. This presumably allows story
drift through bolt slip at the slotted holes. A rocking mechanism is
often used in Japan. This mechanism permits 3-dimensional movement at
all attachment points. There were also several methods for permi tting
structural movement required by these two concepts and some of these can
be seen in some of the attachment details shown in Fig. 6.4. Some of the
details assumed movements were accommodated wi th short bol ts or anchors
and oversi ze or slot ted hoI es. Others permi t ted movement wi th long,
flexible rods which yielded to permit large i n e l ~ t i deformations.
The Phase IV testing did not use seismic acceleration simulation as
employed in the first 3 phases. Instead, each floor was subjected to a
cyclic story drift as shown in Fig. 6.5. The story drift levels can then
be corr e1 at ed wi th dr i f t 1 evel s not ed in the Phase I, II aDd III
results. For example, story drifts of 1/400, 1/150 and 1/50 are typical
42
of the maximum story drifts that were observed in the Elastic, Moderate,
and Final' Tests of Phase I. It must be noted that there are severe
limi tations wi th this test method. It does not consi der the mass and
veloci ty and acceleration of the nonstructural panel, since a true
dynami c test is re quired to incl ude these dynami c componen ts of the
response. However, the test does provide a reasonable indication of the
behavior of the elements under large story drifts, and the effects of the
elements on the strength and stiffness of the structure. Extensi ve
instrumentation was attached to the nonstructural elements and their
connections. Electroni c strai n gages and LVDT' s were used, and
mechanical and manual measurements were combined wi th fre quent
observations of the structure and the test elements.
Because of the wide range of instrumentation, a full evaluation of
the test results will not be available until a later date, and it will be
published in another paper. However, some tentati ve observations may be
made. Joint slip was first observed at story drifts in the order of
1/700. Initiation of cracking in joint sealants was first noted at story
drifts in the order of 1/500. Damage to the nonstructural elements
increase dramatically with increasing story drift, and it was sensitive
to the type of installation detail and errors in installation. The
constr uction personnel appeared to be very conscientious by U.S.
standards, but a number of errors in the installation of nonstructural
e1 ements were noted. Several premat ure fail ures could be at tri buted to
these errors in installation. The long ductile rod attachment detail
generally performed much better than the short bolt-slotted hole
concept. It permi tted larger movements and transferred smaller forces
r-
!
(
I
I
r
l
I
r
r
I
I
I
I
1
f
j
I
J
j
43
than the slot hoI e el em en t . As a result, nonstructural elements
generally suffered less damage with these attachments. The corner
elements appeared to be a source of major problem, and more study is
needed in this area.
Ceiling tile elements suffered no damage until the story drifts
reached 1/150, and the damage was significant only after the story drift
exceeded 1/125. Several attachment details were regarded as being in a
dangerous condi tion after the story drift exceeded 1/60. Two types of
door and door jamb assemblies were tested. Both were built by Japanese
manufacturers, but one was designed for seismic applications in that it
was desi gned to accommodate larger movements. The ordinary doors became
impossible to operate at story drifts greater than approximately 1/500,
and the seismic designed doors were impossible to open at displacements
great er than 1 /125.
Finally, it should be noted that the nonstructural elements had
considerable impact on thestructural properties. Table 5.1 illustrates
that nonstructural elements reduced the natural period by 30%, and this
would suggest that the overall structural stiffness was increased by more
than 100%. The stiffness decreased with damage to these elements. After
8 cycl es (maximum story drift 1 /350) however, most of this addi tional
stiffness had been lost.
I
,1
'I
44
CHAPTER 7
..
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
!
This report is the initial report on the results of a major research
r
!
program into the seismic behavior of steel structures. An enormous body
T
L
of data is available from these tests and considerable time will be
needed to fully evaluate the test results. However, some important
f
practical observations for building designers were made in Chapters 4, 5
and 6. These are summarized below.
1 The Phase I test illustrated the importance of the redundancy
offered by dual systems. After severe buckling and fracture of
several braces, the moment frames carried the majority of the total
I
shear and, thus, demonstrated a dual system wor king to perfection.
I Without the moment frames as a backup the building could have been
in serious trouble after the fracture of the brace.
I
2. The Phase I and Phase II tests showed the importance of providing
reliable energy dissipating mechanisms within the structure. The
I
concentrically braced frame dissipated energy through buckling and
yielding of the braces and the eccentrically braced frame dissipated I
energy through shear link deformation. In addi ti on, both frames r
r
dissipated considerable energy through panel zone deformation and
flexural yielding. These dissipation mechanisms are reasonably well
L
understood. However, the braces in the second and third stories of
the Phase I structure failed early in the Final test. This created
r
a soft story with considerably reduced strength. Thus, had the test
r
continued, the amount of shear transferred down to the first and
L
f
t
i
}
J
J
i
J
J
I
J
I
1
J
--.
I
j
J
!
.J
3.
4.
45
second stories would have been greatly reduced, increasing the
danger of collapse. This type of premature fracture of braces must
be avoi ded. It is important that engineers consider where the
dissipation will occur and design the elements so that dissipation
can be achi eved. Thi s fail ur e coul d be parti cuI arly ser i ous wi th
the design practice used in the United States, since concentrically
braced frames are commonly designed without the additional stiffness
and redundancy of moment reSisting beam-column connections.
Both the Moderate test of Phase I and the Sinusoidal Tests of
Phase II clearly illustrated the importance of connection design on
the seismiC performance of the structure. Both tests resulted in a
connection failure which significantly reduced the strength,
stiffness and ductility of the structure. Structural engineers must
recognize that seismic design for extreme earthquakes requires
inelastic energy dissipation in the members, and connections must be
desi gned to remain functional at loads and deformations well. above
service conditions.
Many nonstructural elements failed or were severely damaged at
deformations well below those expected during a severe earthquake.
This damage represents an economic loss and in some cases a serious
safety issue. Much of this damage was related to the attachment
details used in the structure and accuracy with which they were
erected. Attachment details must be capable of permitting large
movements with minimal resistance, and if movements are restricted
the attachment and the nonstructural element must be capabl e of
developing the strength and ductility required to prevent failure.
46
5. It is not possible to directly compare the concentrically braced
frame of Phase I wi th the eccentrically braced frame of Phase II,
because they had different strength levels and they were tested
under different seismic excitations. However, it is apparent that
the eccentri cally braced frame behaved qui te well. It had good
strength and stiffness and a stable energy dissipation mechanism as
predicted in small scale tests. The brittle nature of the braces in
the Phase I structure indicates that caution must be exercised in
the deSign of braced frames without the backup of a moment resisting
frame.
6. The mom en t f ram e a 1 soh a d ve [. y s tab 1 e en erg y dis s i pa t ion
characteristics but it was a relatively flexible structure.
7. Finally, the test frame showed a remarkable level of strength,
stiffness and ductility even though it was tested under several
m aj 0 rea r t h qua k e s i rn ul at ion s . It illustrates that a properly
designed and detailed steel building would have considerable
ductility and should perform well during a major earthquake.
f
f
t
l
l
r
f
l
r"
f
L
I
I
I
t
~
r.
L
I
r
I
,
f
j
I
j
f
i
J
""
1
i
J
\j
J
47
REFERENCES
1. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Offi-
cials, Pasadena, CA 1979.
2. Watabe, M. and Ishiyama, K., "Earthquake Resistant Regulations for
Building Structures in Japan, tt Earthquake Resistant Regulations A
Wor 1 d Lis t, 1 980 .
3. Askan, 6, Lee, S. J., and Lu, Le-Wu. "Desi gn Studi es of the Six
4.
5.
Story Steel Test Building," Fritz Engineering Laboratory, Lehigh
University, Report No. 467.3, June 1983.
Roeder, C. W., and Popov, E. P., "Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames
for Earthquakes," ASCE, Journal of Structural Division, ST 3, Vol.
1 04, Mar ch 1 978.
Okamoto, S., Kaminosono, T., Nakoshima, M., and Kato, H.,
"Techniques for Large Scale Testing at BRI Large Scale Structure
Test Laboratory," BRI Research Paper 101, Mini stry of Construction,
Japan 1983. (ISSN 0453-4972).
Mahin, S. A., and Shing, P.
Per f ormance Tes ti ng," ASCE,
III, No. ST 7, July 1985.
B., "Pseudodynamic Method for Seismic /
//
Journal of Structural Division, Vol.
-'-
7.
8.
b
Midorikawa, M., personal communication.
Gugerl i, H., and Goel, S. C., "Inelasti c Cyclic Behavior of Steel
Bracing Members," Report UMEE 82Rl, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI 1 982.
Boutros, K. and Goel, S. C. "Analytical Modeling of Braced Steel
Struc:.ures," Report UMCE 85-7, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI,
10. ltc, Po- "Progress Report - Nonstructural Element Test Phase,"
S:xth Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting, Royal Lahaina,
Maul. ... a: 1, June 1985.
11. Wa;-Ig. "Preliminary Results - Nonstructural Element Test
Joint Technical Corrdinating Committee Meeting, Royal
vaui, Hawaii, June 1985.
12. Wa;-.g. -:... "Nonstructural Element Test Phase," U. S. Side Final
Grant CEE 82-08012, Center for Environmental Desi gn,
Univers:ty of California, Berkeley, CA, October 17, 1986.
48
Table 2.1 Column Schedule
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
6 - 5 W10x49 W10x33 Wl0x33 Wl Ox 33 W12x40
4 - 3 W12x65 W12x53 Wl0x39 w10x60 W12x72
2 W12x79 W12x65 W12x50 W12x79 Wl 2x 103
1 W12x87 W12x87 W12x65 W12x106 W12x136
Table 2.2 Girder Schedule
G1 G2 G3 G4
R - 6F W1 6x 31 Wl 6x 31 W18x35 W21 x50
wi 2-19mm
1
wi 1-19mm wi 1-19mm wi 1-19mm
@ 200 mm @ 150 mm @ 300 mm @ 300 mm
5F W 1 6x 31 W18x35 Wl 8x3 5 W21x50
wi 2-19mm wi 1-19mm wi 1-19mm wi 1-19mm
@ 200 mm @ 150 mm @ 300 mm @ 300 mm
4F w18x35 W18x35 w18x35 W21x50
wi 2-19mm wi 1-19mm wi 1-19mm wi 1-19mm
@ 200 mm @ 1 50 mm @ 300 mm @ 300 mm
3F W18x35 W18x40 W18x35 W21 x50
wi 2-22mm wi 1 -19mm wi 1-19mm wi 1 - 1 9mm
@ 200 mm @ 150 mm @ 300 mm @ 300 mm
, Indicates size and spacing of shear studs in composite floor system
(typi cal)
f
r
{
I
I
I
1
1.
r
l
[
[
r
J
I
i

:
J
..1
1
I
\
;
Table 2.3 Miscellaneous Member Schedule
Floor Beam Phase I Phase II
b1 Brace Brace
6 - 5 W16x31 ST 4x4x3/16 ST 8x6x5/16
wi 19mm @ 300mm 1
4 W16x31 ST 5x5x1/4 ST 8x6x3/8
wi 19mm @ 300mm
3 - 2 w16x31 ST 6x6x1/4 ST 8x6x3/8
wi 1 9mrn @ 300mm
1 W16x31 ST 6x6x1/4 ST 8x6x3/8
wi 19mm @ 300mm
1 Indicates size and spacing of shear studs in composite floor system
(typi cal)
Floor
level
2F
3F
4F
SF
6F
RF
50
Table 2.4 Slab Thicknesses in rnm Measured
from Bottom of Deck to Top of Slab
I
B 1-2 B 1-2
B 3 Column
0.4 m west 0.4 m east
185 185 185
110 105
170 170 170
100 95
175 170 170
100 100
185 165 165
95 95
180 165 170
95 95
165 165
90 90
r
I

l
r
.,
t
I
I
I
I
I
l
,.
It:
r
{
}
L..
l .. ___ _
~ ........
1. --- ... _.--..J ---...J \oeooo-_
Member
u
Size
ton/cm
2
(ksi)
w 10X33 4.60
(65.3)
W 10x39 4.54
(64.5)
W 10x49 4.75
(67.5)
W 10
X
60 4.69
(66.6)
W 12x40 4.59
(65.2)
W 12x50 4.51
(64.04)
W 12x53 4.38
(62.2)
W 12x65 4.56
(64.75)
W 12x72 4.59
(65.18)
"--"'"
......, .......
--- ,,--.-
-
-.,.
Table 2.5 Mechanical Properties of W Shapes.
(Average values from three flange specimens)
0y Guy Est Eu
ton/cm
2
ton/cm
2
ton/cm
2
%
(ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
3.07 3.21 47 19.25
(43.6) (45.6) 667
2.94 3.08 52 21.16
41.7 43.7 738
3.24 3.42 37 18.84
(46.01') (48.6) 525
3.00 3.19 51 19.20
(42.6) (45.3) (724)
2.87 3.01 54 19.82
(40.75) (42.74) ( 767)
2.70 2.79 51 19.77
(38.34) (39.62) ( 724)
2.59 2.86 41 19.48
(36.78) (40.61) ( 582)
.2.85 3.02 45 19.33
(40.47) (42.88) ( 639)
2.94 3.00 43 18.85
(41.75) (42.60) ( 611)
Est
%
2.50
2.27
2.15
1.73
2.00
1.83
1.53
2.03
1.86
Emax
%
31.2
32.0
32.01
32.3
32.2
33.7
32.0
32.8
32.3
---
\..Jl
I-'
Member
au a
y
Size
tan/cm
2
tan/cm
2
(ksi) (ksi)
w 12
X
79 4.59 2.87
(65.18) (40.75)
W 12x87 4.70 2.91
(66.74) (41.32)
W 1:2x106 4.54 2.59
(64.47) (36.78)
W 1.2x136 4.56 2.61
(64.75) (37.06)
W 16x31 4.43 2.84
(62.91) (40.33)
W lax35 4.63 3.07
(65.75) (43.59)
W JLax40 4.79 3.03
(6a.02) (43.03)
W 21x50 4.49 2.77
(63.76) (39.33)
Table 2.5 Cant.
auy
ton/cm
2
Est
ton/crn
2
(ksi) (ksi)
3.04 44
(43.17) ( 625)
3.10 58
(44.02) (824)
2.75 57
(39.05) (809)
2.65 62
(37.63) (880)
2.92 50
(41.46) (710)
3.19 46
(45.30) ( 653)
3.20 43
(45.44) ( 610)
2.93 52
(41.61) ( 738)
Eu
%
19.05
17.98
20.23
21.05
19 f 83
20.5
1a.a7
19.98
Est
%
1.89
2.00
1.38
1.52
1.81
2.57
1.a7
1.77
Ernax
%
32.4
32.8
32.6
33.5
32.0
32.0
30.6
31.0
---
1Il
N
1"--- '---, ....... ... ..... .... ... " .. , ......,. .... _, ....... ;'--' ... _,
l-._ .. _
1. .. - .
"'t1 ...........,
Tube
au
Size ton/an
2
( in) (ksi)
6x6xO.25 4.73
(67.17)
5x5xO.25 4.71
(66.88)
5x5xO.18 4.68
(66.46)
6
x
6
x
O.50 4.88
(69.29)
4x4xO.18 5.06
(71.85)
6x6xO.25 4.63
(65.75)
6X6xO.25 4.72
(67.02)
6x6xO.25 4.79
(68.02)
.--.- -...
Table 2.6 Mechanical Properties of Square TUbes.
(Average values from three coupons)
a a
uy ESt Eu
tonlan
2
ton/cm
2
ton/cm
2
%
(ksi) (ksi) (ksi)
3.95 4.00 34 10.71
(56.09) ( 56.80) (483)
4.10 4.10 30 8.93
(58.22) (58.22) (426)
3.88 3.87 34 11.85
(55.10) (54.95) ( 483)
4.38 7.35
(62.20)
4.33 4.37 26
(61.49) (62.10) (369)
3.89 3.89 34 10.71
(55.24) (55.24) ( 483)
4.34 6.36
(61.63)
3.96 3.96 38 11.25
(56.23) (56.23) ( 540)
Est
%
1.11
1.15
1.65
0.97
1.23
Emax
%
32.9
33.2
35.2
34.9
29.4
33.9
35.8
34.3
I
:
l..I1
W
54
Table 2.7 Mechanical Properties of Concrete.
(Average of 2 cylinders)
Floor Day of au Ec
Level Test
ton/cm
2
ton/cm
2
(ksi) (ksi)
2F 29
0.280 144
( 3.98) (2045)
26
0.290 169
3F
(4.12) (2400)
4F 29
0.278 143
(3.95) (2031)
5F 26
0.306 160
(4.35) (2272)
6F 29
0.300 148
(4.26). (2102)
26
0.305 151
RF
(4.33) ( 2144)
r
J
f
>
L
i
I
~
f
t
i
i.
l
I
f
t
i
.
l-
l. _ :.'-:.: ..
1 ___ .
1-

...
....... ..... ....... ....-. --...
Table 3.1 Dimensions for Load Cell in mm as shown in Fig. 3.7.
Story
(SM50A) 1.-16 (SM50A)
Level
A A" H t1 t2 t3 t4 B B" R C C" R
165.
1
165.
1
202.
4
25.
4
25.
4
25.
11
25.
5
127 127
1 165.
1
165.
1
202.
3
25.
4
25.
5
, 25.
4
25.
4
114.
3
114.
3
6 ..
35
12.7
165.
1
165.
1
202.
3
25.
6
25.
6
25.
4
25.
5
0152.
4x
152.
4
X12.
7
I
159 159 202.
4
12.
9
12.
8
12. 7 12.
8
158.
9
158.
9
202.2 12.
6
12.
8
12.7 12.
9
139.
7
139.
7
2-3 158.
8
158.
8
202.
4
12.
9
12.9 12.
9
12.
9
133.
35
133.
35
5 6.
35
158.
8
158.
9
202.
3
12.
9
12.
9
12.7 12.
8
0152.
4
x152.
4
x6.
35
158. 9 159 202.
4
12.
9
12. 7 12.7 13.
0
133.
4
(3) 133. 3 (4)
177 12.7 12.7<.8)
12.
8
12.8 114.
3
114,3
4 107.
95
107.
95
5
6 35
,
133.
4
Ln.3 177 13.
0
12.9 12.9 12.9 o 127x127x6. 35
131.
7
131.
7
177 9.
2
' 9.,2
9.
2
9.
2
117.
86
117.
86
5 131. 7 131.
7
177 9.
2
9. 1 9. 1 9.
2
113,29
113.
29
5 4.
57
131.
7
131.
6
177 9.2. 9.
2
9.
2
9.
2
o 127x127x4. 57
106.
1
106.
1
151. 3 9.
2 9. '3
9.
2
9.
2
92.
46
92.
46
6 106.
1
106.
1
151.
3
9.
3
9.
2
9.
2
9.
2
87.
89
87.
89
5 4.
57
106.
2
106.
2
151. 6 9.
2-
9.
2
9.
3
9.
3
0101.
6
X101.
6
x4.
57
--
......--
i. -25 (SM50B)
0 0" R
182.
4
182.4 40.
4
182.
4
182.
4
27.7
I
I
I
157 157 27,7
1
157 157 24.14
131.
6
131. 6 24.14
VI
VI
56
Table 4.1 Dynamic Properties of Phase 1 Structure
Natural Period (Sees)
1st Mode 2nd Mode 3rd Mode
Initial Condition .61 .227 .133
After Moderate Test .707 -- --
After Repair .620 .225 .133
After Final Test .840 .253 .160
.
,
~ .
r
;
i
l
J
t
1..
t'
t'
L
I
I
I
r
r
l
1
f
t
l
1
1
L
1
i
(
J
57
Table 5.1 Dynami-c Properties of the Test Structure
Natural Period (Sees)
1st Mode 2nd Mode 3rd Mode
Phase I Initial Condo .61 .227 .133
Phase II Initial Condo .57 .201 --
Phase II Final Condo .68 .230 --
Phase III Initial Condo .68 .441 .255
Phase IV Initial Condo . 87 .270 .130
Phase IV After 8 Cycles 1 .13 .389 .207
-----
Specimen
Type
Precast
Concrete
Panels
Precast
Panels
GRC
Panels
GRC
Panels
Lath &
Plaster
Walls
Suspended
Ceiling
Steel Door
in
Partition
58
Table 6.1 Nonstructural Test Specimens
Design
US
Design
Japan
Design
US
Design
Japan
Design
Japan
Design
Japan
Design
Japan
Design
Location
on Structure
South Bay of Frames
A & B on 2F & 4F
& Frame 1 @ 2F & 4F
North Bay of Frames
C on 2F, 3F, & 4F
Frame 1 on 2F
North Bay of Frame
A on 2F, 3F & 4F
South Bay of Frames
A & C on 5F & 6F
2F, 3F, 4F & SF
Frame B on 3F & 6F
Remarks
Normal Weight Concrete
Sway Type
Light Weight Concrete
Rocking Type
Sway Type
Fiberglass Reinforcement
Rocking Type
Fiberglass Reinforcement
Light Gage Steel Frame
Supported by Light Gage
Steel Frame - 3 Types
Ordinary Type and
Seismic Type - Installed
in Concrete Block
Parti tions
..
\
I
I
t
i
l
l
f
{
\
L
L. ... __
1..-_.
..,.-.. .J 0----;>
...... ..".,. .........
...
---
Q)

--!:
7.500 7.500
___ ___ -G

== == == = :c:r 1::2 = == == :::t
========rr;y:======
1\ \I
II II
J

8
1
@ ____
C4 II 1\ Cs U.
II II
If "

II

s,
(!)
@ oJ ___ ____ ___ ____ JCl
TVPICAL FLOOR PLAN

Fig. 2.1 General floor plan of the full-scale test
structure

....I
-'

z
o
.-4
t-
U

lJJ
a.:
V1
\C
60
~ Cs
ZR
8
~
,.;
Z6
v JOINT
Zs
8
~
M
Z,.
yJOINT
b
Z l ~ ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~
Z O ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~
7500 7500
ELEVATION FRAA S
Fig. 2.2a Elevation view of Frame B for the concentric
braced test structure of Phase I - full frame
l
I
I
I
I
(
r
l
r
r
L
1
'---
_SLJ)
L..-..
-J
M
..... ---.,.
- -

!!?
,
-.

t I
......... ...... --
(H - J..5t.. 7 .152.h6.ooxlJ.l4
18W: 1,0
<D
S'

1/1
U
lew- 1,0 I
-
, Sl
I
I
1L1l1 l'tJrWh v II' 1'-'f\Jl1\ )7'--
Ji' ==--
;;;
_v_ZJ
o
1/1
-.f
I
I .,.

>(

>(
...
I
>( -
;

I
:I: -.f

\.
It -'2

Q
2
>(
o
101/1
M-

....

I
1/1:1:
Uv
1t-9
,r-t-12
.I .
,-It -12
f-12
__ \1 II III II II II I I I I II II J I II II II II I I I I III I I I ,
Fig. 2.2b Elevation view of Frame B for the concentric
and story 2 of 1-2 bay
0\
I-'
v z,
g 24

, ... ..,....-
----,
.,..""
2
... _______ ---15O<L-._. ..
r----- ____ ____ ..___ 75
/
t,
r
. V )()INL __ _
(. "'--
.. . r.1t-
I

M
..,
I
I

::.l
:-'

<D
f
....
..
Q
'-I

.0

,
xU

(H- 449hI52.4X7.61xIO.1 ) 18W' 35
. __4.V.i;3.L.q (c x 127.0X6.JS.-l ____

III ,
Ux
It - 9 --\ 141 '15J1 It - 12
3-10416--..\ fll r-
It
-
12
4G2 18W- 35 .\) / r-1t-12 4G2 II\YF 35
_.,j!
5! IT \ _ -7 ';s.. I'. / '..; \ .. 5." "
\"'-1t-9 .... '-.1t-9
o
<D
.. - _ .J
r
-

5?

U
C
. - ._ .....1
o
g 3-10416-
21ts-9
Fig. 2.2c
,...- .---.,

3VB, c-6x6xO.X (o-1524 xI52. 4 x6. n )
, 2 - 10416
, -- .. -- ........ .
.-2Its -6

...... ...
-
...

"". ,." ..

N
u
. f\-
I

4- M 16
\
"

.-, ......... ' .. ';-".'-"" .. ,
(J\
N
-'1
t" ... .. : .. ...
L-___
Xl _Z.R.
8

5l. .Z.L_

8

8

o
o
o
.....,."..,"""
\ti...:-,,,.

>(
;(.
r-
>( M
M

-><
r.:.
-t
N -t
'u
I ID
......- . ....,l ........ ...... -...-
_______ _______ ._
___________ J750. _. ___ ._ J7!l
-(-H - '0].> ,140> II!' J
RG2 16YF Jl
------- - ---_.

6VB, 0 - 1,1\1,)(0. 18 (D-l0}:6 x.101h1,Y )
2
7500 '>

!
>(
s::;

.....

U'
wI
.. - -
;J. H _ ". " ._, I .' __ ,.""
L .
9
.
6G2 16VF J1
M
M
,
2
-r
U
III

!::!
III
o U
v. __J.QlN_T __
Fig. 2.2d Elevation view of Frame B for the concentric
---
f
"-. -
" "
d

?J ..z:
d
..
<D '.q
c+ (1;,
N I-!
0'
W
b:l e
ro. d-

r-' 0 CY' (i)
r-' \J 1-\ 0
\_J. \-"
tJ 0 ,j
o (i) to-.1 0 H
rlo t-l (0
Wt:.
O'lH o\j
(1) 0
CD (\)
oct t:Il

Z6
Zs
64
,
,.

f"'i
I 1
I'

~ ~
~ O l N T
f' :
S
~
"
:
Q
I!
g
M
-
sz JQIt:fI
~ {
,.

ri
I
~
~
~ r 1 r 1 r 1
7.500 7.500
,
@
ELEVATION, FRAME@.
Fig. 2.3 Elevation view of Frame A and Frame C for the
concentric braced test structure of Phase I
f
i
r
1
t
f
t
I
I
I
I
f
,t,
t.,
r
r
J
\
l
1
j
1
]
J
]
1
.J
,
i
-..
J
1
j
;.
-
o
o
-.z
M
o
o
-.z
M
65
Zl ~ ' - I r ' T '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ' - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~
7 Soo 7.500

@

ELEVATION FRAMECD.@
Fig. 2.4 Elevation view of Frame 1 and Frame 3 for the
concentric braced test structure of Phase I
66
a) TYPICAL COLUMN SPLICE
c) TYPICAL SHERR CONNECTOR DETRIL
FOR COMPOSITE BEAMS
b) TYPICAL BEAM-COLUMN-BRRCE
CONNECTION FRAME B
d) BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTION
e) TYPICRL BRACE-BERM CONNECTION f) TYPICRL BRRCE-BERM CONNECTION
PHRSE 1 PHASE 2
Fig. 2.5 Typical connection details
L.
r
{
f
I
r
>
!.

I
I
I
I
{
r
l
[
r
l
!
,
i
I
I
I
1
.J
.
1
67
FJ
,
-E3 ~ 'G,
I F .. s
I
~ L ~ _______ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~ __ __
F3
I " " I
Plan view of the foundation
r--------,
l [8]-- II
! I I
I I I I
I -- I
I I
I [\--11 I
I IV, \
I ~ I
I I
I ~ I
I I : I
I I I I
I I
I I
I ~ : 7 1 I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I
L _____ ..J
~ :
i
____ 1 :: ~
t-----
~ 1 J -
68
!
- - - - ~ . - - - -
____ .:...;7500==-__ . __________ ...
~
~
>C
"
<D
52
ij
~

52
>C
~
C
I
::t:
'8
A,
Fig. 2.7 Elevation view of Frame B for the eccentric
braced test structure of Phase II
@ SEC
KEY - PLAN
-2-
".
lr
r
.-
't
~
~
T
:
f
1
i-
f
't.
I
I
I
I
r
{
l
f
L
i
L
t
,
l
1
!
j
I
.
i
J
I
J

69

N'
N

x'
-!

, jJ
1 -
,
I
'---:E--+-I-+-1l---..--- - -- .. - .. -.-f----.pj..I-
/
c- ____
4- -----.- .. --.----. ____ -::1...500---

---.-------- - -- ----- -
Fig. 2.7 (continued)
C
-'8
-A.
DU ____ rn
@ SEC
KEY - PLAN
-2-
.,.
lr
-3-
I
70
Fig. 2.8 Layout and splicing of one two-story unit
of the braced 1-2 bay of Frame B
f
l
t
-
.
I
J
j
)
i
...I
j
71
:.
. .
'. 'l :.
. 1"-;.':" ..:.
Ca) I
(b)
Fig. 2.9 Beam splice detail for the braced 1-2 bay of Frame B
(a) before welding; (b) after welding
72
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.10 Erection of a two story section of the b ~ a c e d
1-2 bay of Frame B: (a) aligning the brace
ends for temporary connection; (b) temporary
connection detail
r
,
t.
ro
r
I
,
,
~
t.
f
I
~
[
(
I
(
I
[
r
l
[
L
73
1
1
I
1
Fig. 2.11
Erection of the test building
J
74
Fig. 2.12 Final tightening of the high strength bolts
r-
1
J
f
I
l
I
r
I:
F
t
l
r
f
~
L
I
I
1
1
!
J
J
!
.J
75
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.13 (3) temporary column spl ice
(b) final column splice with full
penetration groove welds
Fig. 2.15 . Departures from vertical for the columns
at the Z4 and Z5 levels
78
0 2
0
-Q)
2
2 2
o

,4
5 1
41 1---__ --=+2 -+--___ 3"""t-1 -CD
13 11 li
@@ 6F
'! 2 0 _Q)
1 2 3
3r __ -t-----
4
t-1 -c1)
043
-----=2+-tt--------"'-5fr--t" i -CD
13 13 13
@ RF
Fig. 2.16 Departures from vertical for the columns
at the Z6 and ZF levels
>
!
[.
t..
r
i
[
I
I
I
I
f
i'
i
l
(
l
I
[
j
J
X direction
CD
(2)
TA +4 +4
ZR - Z6
TB 0 0
TA .2 +3
Z6 - Z5
T8
-6 -6
TA -1 -1
Z5 - Z4
T8 1 0
TA .2
+2
Z4 - Z3
T8 0 0
TA -1 -4
Z3 - Z2
T8 0 + 1
TA 0 -1
Z2 - Zl
-2
T8 -1
79
Q)
+3
0
+2
-5
-3
.2
+2
+'
-6
+2
-2
-2
x direction, out of plane of
B frame, positive towards
A frame.
Y direction, in plane of B
frame, positive upward
Y direction
CD
(2) Q)
0 0 -1
-1 -3 -2
0 0 -1
-2 0 0
+ 1 .3 +4
0 0 0
+2 +2 0
-8 -3
+'
+ 1 +2 +3
-1 0 -1
+2 .2 +2
+7 .9 +7
Fig. 2.17 Departures from a straight line for the
concentric braces of Frame B
80
2. i (3 InstallatLon of metal deck and steel shear studs
r
l.
r
1
r
'-
l
r
r
i
i
(
I
I
I
I
(
r
l
(
r
1
L
I
I
I
1
J
J
\
1
I
..J
1
J
81
::'j:;;. 2. is floOt' deck arld '-::)ll ...lljS at'ter
was completed
-....
c:::
0
+-
a...
~
,..-.
r-1 ~ r--
30.0
I
20.0
14.2
13.2
10
00
10 W 33 F I
P
max
I
/ ~
5.0 10.0 15.0
E max = 18.4 20.0
Est = 2.35
E (OJo)
Fig. 2.20 Typical stress vs. strain curves for material
from W shapes used in the test structure
,--.., ~ ,... ..... ..... ..-1 ~ ro" ....,
- ,:,.,
~ r-..... ~ 1 ...- .........,
(Xl
N
---1
. '.,.. . Jo_l.h"W l.. ""',"
L""-4
16.0
12.0
9.8
904
';.
t:
8.0
0
-
I
a..
4.0
0
0
..., ......... J \-t ..... .
~ ~
......,. ......
"""""tJ;I! ~ . , .>-t,otlli 1...,-- ,0 ....... ....,...l .................. L...-_ ...
lOW 33 W4
I I
E"st = 1.95
P
mox
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
E" max = 17.65
E ~ o )
Fig. 2.21 Typical stress vs. strain curves for material from
W shapes used in the test structure
25.0
___ ..J
~ .. "" ........
ex>
LV
8.00
6,58
6.36
-
6.00
II-
'";:. 4.00
c:
o
+-
a..
2.00
)
o
,.....
0
RX 1010 C2
P
max
,
I
I
JL,,7

I I J I
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Est = 1.20 Emax= 7.78
E ('70)
Fig. 2.22 Typical stress vs. strain for material from the concentric
braces used in Frame B of the test structure
I
10.00
OJ
+:--
r-- --- r- '----, .... .... ... ... "'.v" ... --. t-r"", ... ., ".
f
I
I
]

f
j
1
j
1
j
j
J
J
E
\,
\
i
!
I
I
I
" ,
85
E
'0
I,{)
N
Fig. 3. 1 of test specimen standing next to reaction wall
( f; om Ref. 1 2)
T
I
i
I
1
If\
N
...0
CD
tL-
o / \0;; 7
0
/
----
/
/

-P.v
A
t I
CD
-----LI

t3 I CE)
t4

A
I
, !
,
.' .
12.
G)
SM50A
/

I I
ft -/5 SMSOA
fe.- 25 SM SOB
/
@-@
Fig. 3.2 Detail of load cell mounted within each brace in the
Phase I structure--d1mensions g1 yen in Table 3.1
ex>

rr-- ""'-1 __ .... .... --1 r
h
.. : ..... '---1 "'''."''11 -"-'1
1
f
I
J
1
1
87
~ i g 3.3 Control room of Large Size Structure
Laboratory of SRI
88
'0;;. 3. [n Old"" c<i tn scaft'o'''ing
on the right and left
{
!
t
,
j
r
l
f
I
f
I
f
I
r-
j'
l
J
L
I
r-
L
f
t
r
I-
t-
1 ....... __ _.: ..... !t.- \.., ... _-_
6
5
4
>-3
a::
o
t-
V1
'2
........ .... ...
-

'l\
'\.
, .
'I
{"
. "
.4" -
\. 8"" .
\
"
'.......
, , "
0- 5Y=-2,64 PANEL 'bl

\
II
MILL PANEL V7
, \ I
l!r- - 5 Y = 2,6 <1 NO PAM [ L \ /
A--- 5 Y 2.64 PAIlEL P-DELTA ,::
..
,
200
- I
'2 3
I
1
100
MAX STORY DISP.
4
\.
/"E(/ \
1
75
5
6
1
50
7 lC.MJ
Fig. 4.1 Analytical results fr'am preliminary studies
(fr om Ref. 7)
OJ
\.0
....
>-
0:
a
r-
if)
..
6. Ii Ii
51
4
!
3:
21
1 ,.
I
()
100 200
-- SY=2.G4 PANEL
------ 'SY=NILL PANEL
S y= 2.64 NO PANEL
Sy= 2,64 PAH EL P-OELTA
oE51 GN
LATERAL LOAD
CARY\NG CAPACITY
11
I'
:\
JI
Ll
300
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
400
(TON F)
0:
a
o
-l
LL.
R
6
5
4
3
2
I
.
I
,
/
I
I
/
/
/
I 0--- SY=2.64 pANEL
0- ---- s Y = NIL L PAN E L
I
El
..
\ \\
\ '\.
"il
I "
I 1\
f
1/
/jll
I f
{, I
X
" \
/ \
}r-.- 5 Y= 2.64 NO PANEL
A.-- 5 Y=2.G4 PANEl P-D[L TA
-.- DESIGN
20 40 60
80
MAX. STORY SHEAR MAX, HORIZ, FORCE
:-..,

,..---
_ ... - ..,
Fig. 4.2 Analytical results from preliminary studies
(from Ref. 7)
.... .....
......

...... -"'II ... 1 M '{((,vi
''''-'''{'o
1"',
...... "
\0
o
100
( TONn
'''-1
, .... _ .....
.. _.,.,....;.. 1." ....--.
I
'--
......_ i . ~ _ ...
~ --
...... ......
-- -
Ml YAGI 500GAL P DELTA PANEL= SY.264 (CASE15-1)
C4
@
0-. ...
: : ~
...
.. ....
-
..
....
J.
->-- -'-
G2 C5 G3 c ~
C
, G, C
2
G,
CD CD
B Line Ate Lines
(from Ref. 7)
-
-
.II
.
..
.
111
C3
CD
kP
1..0
.......
I f ~
r-
r-"
__ 1 1 Y AG 1 500GAL P-DELTA PANEL SY=2 1 64 _ (CASE 15-1)
- ~ I 7'" ~ .. r-----r----"------
.

. l
..
"
.-1.- --a.-
C4 G2 C5 G3 C4 C1 Gt C2 Gt C3
0)
CD CD CD
B .Line Ate L'ines
. (from Ref. 1)
.... ...., r--
. ~
p ~ ~ .. .......
__ ~ '-"'-'1 . . . ~
,....,. +1' .-----,
..... . r., r. .. -....
\0
N
.. ... ,
r
f
r
1
i
j
I
0.5
o
-0.5
0.5
o
-0.5
0.5
o
1 -0.5
...,
I
i
J

J
o
93
10 20
Fig. 4.5 (a) Miyagi-ken Oki acce1erogram used in Phase I
(b) Taft acce1erogram used in Phase II
(c) E1 Centro accelerogram used in Phase III
30
;
I
,
94
1.25
\
,
i.'
Z
~
r
~
r--
!
Z
I
l
W
L
W
0.00
r
u
a: l
-1
D-
en
l

0
L
(\J
N
f
-1.25
I
\
I
1.25,
L
z
~
E
I-
Z
W
L
I
w
0.00
u
a:
-1
D-
en
I

0
en
N
I
-1.2S
1. 25
I
z
[

r--
z
w
L
r
w
0.0 u
a:
-1
D-
l
en
..-
0
-1. 251

r
N
I I I I
o. 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0
TIME
(SEC)
[
Fig. 4.6 Floor displacements vs. time for the
t
Phase I Elastic test L.
f
~
95
1. 25
z
...-

z
W
L
W
0.00 U
cr:
-1
CL
en

0
Ln
N
-1.25
z
1.25,

I--
Z
W
r
L
w
0.00 U
0:
-1
CL
f
c.n

0
CD
I
N
-1.25
I 1. 25
z
'1

r
t-
z:
W

;
w
u 0.0
IT
-1

CL

UJ
..&
0
1
cr
N
\
-1.25
o. 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0
TIME (SEC)
-..i
. 1
Fig . 4.6 (continued) . :
j
-4
96
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 1ST ST(jRr
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 2ND STDRr
Fig. 4.7 Story shear vs. story displacement for the first and
second stories for the Phase I Elastic test
f
1
I
I
1
t
I
r
t
f
f.
f
I
1
1
J
j
:z
-

:z
w
L
W
U
a:
---I
CL
en

0
ru
N
z
-
I-
Z
W
L:
W
U
a:
---I
CL
en
-
0
(Y')
N
z
......-4

Z
W

W
U
IT
-l
CL
rJ)
0
::1"
N
4.0
0.0
-4.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
o.
97
4:.5 9.0 13.5
T I ME (SEC)
Phase I Moderate test
1\
18.0
z:
~
z:
w
~
w
U
IT
---1
D-
en
I---l
o
Ln
N
~
z:
w
~
w
U
IT
---1
D-
en
I---l
o
C.D
N
~
z:
W
L
W
U
a:
---1
0....
(f1
o
a:
N
98
4.0
-4.0+1-----------+1-----------r1 - - - - - - - - - ~ I - - - - - - - - - - ~ I
O. 4:.5 9.0 13.5 18.0
T I ME (SEC)
r-
j
f
l
t
t
f'"
t
I
I
I ~
I
r
f
l
f
r
L
I
1
"J
]
1
1
"t
i
J
j
I
I
I
]
J
1
J
1
I
J
i.
-
99
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 1ST STORr
800
t KIPS
-4 INCHES
-800 2ND STORr
second stories for the Phase I Moderate test
100
800 KIPS
-IJ INCHES
-800 3RD STORr
800 KIPS
-4 INCHES
-800 4TH ST(jRY
Fig. 4.10 Story shear vs. story displacement for the third and
fourth stories for the Phase I Moderate test
f
r
f
I
I
1
t
l
f
I
<
l
t
l
J
J
j
-BOO 6TH ST(jR,(
Fig. 4.11 Story shear vs. story displacement for the fifth and
sixth stories for the Phase I Moderate test
...
-_.. -
RFL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
. .
rl
[
CD CD 0CD o
A. C FRAME
5 ( ) N B FRAME

r-
t ----,
Fig. 4.12 Summary of damage observed after the
Phase I Moderate test
....... __ r-1
o
......... .." ...
(AFTER MODERATE TEST)
COLUMN and GI RDER

web
PANEL ZONE

column or girder flange
X rupture
BRACE
......
o
N
in-plane
buckli ng
out-of-plane
buckling

[ 0 - 7 em ]

[ 7-14 cm]

[14
c
",- ]

u: Lip 0: down
E: east W: west
5: south N: north
,...,
"-"'''1'\
---,
l
I
[
I
1
J
I
I
r
I
I
I
1
,
j
1
.J
J
103
Fig. 4.13 Tearing of the connection splice link at the
center of the concentric braced bay during
the Phase I Moderate test
10.0
z:
I---t
l-
z:
W
::L
W
0.0
U
IT
---1
~
en
~
0
(\J
N
-10.0
10.0
z:
I---t
I-
Z
W
L
W
0.0 U
IT
---1
CL
en
~
0
(Y)
N
-10.0
10.0
z
I--!
I-
Z
W
L
W
0.0 U
IT
---1
CL.
<.n
I--!
0
:::r
N
-10=0
o.
104
~ n
-.I.u
TIME
I
c: n
u.u
(SEC)
n n
~ U
Phase I Final test
12.0
i
""
,
I
-
i
l
,
\
L
I
".
t
I
I
I
I
r

r
l
,-
--
r
1
L
[
105
10.0
z

f-
Z
W
:L
W
0.0 U
IT
--1
0.-
(j)

0
Ln
N
-10.0
10.0
z

f-
Z
W
:L
W
0.0 U
a:
--1
D-
en

0
lO
N
r
-10.0
r
10.0 T
z
I

I-
Z
W
L
W
0.0
.}
U
IT
--1
CL
(j)

0
a:
N
-10.0
o. 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0
TIME
(SEC)
!
.i
oj
i
I
..i
106
800 KIPS
4
-4 INCHES
-4:
V 1-800
1ST STORr
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 2ND STOR,(
second stories for the Phase I Final test
r
i
i
k
f"

"i'
r
t
t

\
t
f
..
t:
{{
I
I
I
J
[
r
l
(
r
t
\
'L

I
J
,
;.
1
J
i
[
,..I
I
!
j
107
800 KIPS
-IJ INCHES
-4
-800 3RD ST(JRi
800 KIPS
INCHES
1 -800 4TH ST(JRi
fourth stories for the Phase I Final test
108
800 + KIPS
-ij
INCHES
t -800 5TH STLJRr
800 KIPS
-4 INCHES
-800 6TH STDRr
sixth stories for the Phase I Final test
r
r
L
f
t
f
t
I
I
I
I
I
r
'i
i-
t
r
r
[
L
t
1_- It"...,..,.,..,,,, ..,..-...... _.----..,.' ............ ..........
FtFL

,.,., .... _:rUL!ltl!:
EiFL
CD CD
A,e FRAME
CD CD CD
5 +--+ N B FRAME
Fig. 4.18 Schematic of damage observed after the
Phase I Final test (from Ref. 7)
(AFTER FINAL TEST)
COLUMN and GIRDER
---?-- yield
web
PANEL ZONE

cOlumn or girder flange
BRACE
in-plane
buckling
out-of-plane b
buckling \0
[O-7
cm
J
[7-14
cm
]
e
[14 cm_ -]
X rupture

u: up D: down
E: east W: west
5: south N: north
l.B: local buckling
crack
110
:..>; ~ ~ ~ TYPLCdl Local tears in the br'aces of the 3 frar.1e
that occurred during the Phase I final test
Fig. 4.20 fracture of the north brace of the third
story during the Phase I final test
r
I
i
\
l; ..
r
I
I
I
I
,
l
r
l
[
f
I
,
1
J
f
J
1
1
,j
J
III
F : ~ ~ 2 1 In-plane buckling of brace during the
Phase I Final test
112
~ e a r s initiating in the corners at the bottom
~ : a brace during the Phase I final test
r
l
I
i
~ :
r
,
!
t

L
{:
f
1
I
l
[
f
1_--
I
\,---- 4..- .........
- ..... -
--
... t
- .L -,'
B
\\ > '\
\'
"1
\
(\ i
"': !"

!
A '1: {
. l'-; )
cb
! )
(
;
!
I
... 111.
../:1 ,.(',
I \ ,;;; , ",;')
. (1I1 II '; \
.....
1 "',
Fig. 4.23 Pattern of cracks following the Phase I Final test
for the floor at the Z2 level
r)'

6
I--'
I--'
W

-
n :'
.. ,
:,(. J """(
1
. \ I

'\
;(' \ ,
/ \.\ \' i
\ . .,
r" -,.,r- .,\ J,. \\

- - ('d 1
'\\' I
cb
,---.
Fig. 4.24

)

"
Pattern of cracks following the Phase I Final test
for the floor at the Z3 level
.. J.,
'ti: . .........

"'I """,,;-.1, /"" .. -

f,
;
1 (t
II
6
.1 . , ..., ." ..
I-'
I-'
+:--

I
I
I
I
-t

..J
It

1
t
J
J
;

..I
j

...; /-
115
of the splice plate at the center beam
splice in the 12 bay of Frame B at th2 23 level
cs a result of twisting prying during
: lie Phase I Final test
116
500 KIP
2.5
-2.5 IN
-500 SOUTH BRRCE
2.5
-2.5 IN
-500 NORTH BRRCE
Fig. 4.26 Force-deflection relationship for the braces of the
first story for the Phase I Final test
i
,
[
1
I
I
I
f
l
I
r
I
f
!
t:
,
I
I
I
.,.
)
t
\
j
1
1
\
.. l
~
I
. \
:,
~
117
500 KIP
-500 SLJUTH BRRCE
500 KIP
-500 NLJRTH BRRCE
Fig. 4.27 Force-deflection relationship for the braces of the
second story for the Phase I Final test
118
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TOP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 BOTTOM
Fig. 4.28 Moment-rotation relationship for the top and bottom
of the 81 column of the first story during the
Phase I Final test
(.
r
t
i
L
i
L.
f ~
[
I
I
I
I
{"
t
l
f
f
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
[
1
.-J
1
j
1
J
j
119
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TOP
10.000 K-IN
-0.02
-10,000 B(jTTlJM
Phase I Final test
120
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TOP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 BOTTOM
Phase I Final test
r
.,
L.
f.::
l
I
I
I
I
I
f
t
l
(
f
I
I
I
I
1
t
"
I
1
j
I
j
121
10.000 K-IN
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 T(JP
10,000 K-IN
-0.02
1 -10.000 ~ T T ~ M
Phase I Final test
122
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRO
-500 81 ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRO
1-500
81 ~ L U M N Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 4.32 Panel zone response for the B1 column at the
Z2 and Z3 levels during the Phase I Final test
r
t
.
~
L
f
f
\ .
.;:-
l
1
1
I
I
f
i
r
t.
l
I
r
i
l
I
1
J
I
I
1
r
i
f
I
I
I
.]
J
j
1
J
J
f
j
:1
\
J
123
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRO
1-500 82 ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
-0.025
-500 82 ~ L U M N Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 4.33 Panel zone response for the B2 col umn at the
124
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 RI ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
1 -500 Rl ~ L U M N Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 4.34 Panel zone response for the A1 column at the
r
r
l
..
I
..
[
1
I
I
I
r
t
(
L

l
r
L
1
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
J
f

I
J
J
125
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 R2 ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
Fig. 4.35 Panel zone response for the A2 column at the
22 and 23 levels during the Phase I Final test
I
126
i .
I.
1.0 L .
0
l-
cc
a:
a:
cc
w
:c
(f1
0.0
0 4 8 TIME - SEC. 12
PHRSE FINRL 1ST STORI'
1.0
0
t-
[
a:
a:
a:
cc
I
w
I
(f1
0.0
[
0 4 8 TIME - 5EC. 12
PHRSE 1 FINRL 2ND STORI'
1.
1.0
!
0 I
I-
a:
r
a:
i;.
co .
a:
IT
w
:r:
c.n
0.0
l
0 4 8 TIME - SEC. 12
PHRSE FINRL 3RD STORI'
BY BRRCES BY FRAMES
r
I
!
Fig. 4.36 Ratio
of shear carried by the braces
,
to the total
shear
for the third story during the Phase I
l
Final test
r
i

![

r
r

1
l

1

1
J
r
,..
127
-
Q)
>
Q)
--l
t..
0
0
-
u...
=10 -5 0 5 10
(mmj
Fig. 5.1 Residual floor displacements after the Phase I Final test
1 5
128
t----7 . 5 7.5 . 5
7.5
7.5
Fig. 5.2 Locations on each floor where epoxy injection was used
to repair cracks resulting from the Phase I tests
\
l
r
I
I"
!
,
t
[
I
[
I
I
r
l
1
r
\
L
129
. "
~
!
--:J;
I
~
. . '-
,.
.. "
..
: .....
I
I
r
1
1
i
~
Fig. 5.3 Typical cracks prior to repair
j
l
i
1
J
J
130
i.O
z:
r

I-
z:
W
L:
W
0.0 U
IT
---1
r
I
en
t

CJ
(\J f
N
t
-1.0
r-
1.0
z:
t
-,

I-
z:
...
w
t
L:
W
U 0.0
IT
---1
I

en

CJ
(Y)
I
N
-1.0
!
1 .0

z !
t.
I-
Z
r"
w
::.L
W
0.0 U
IT
l
---1

en

0
I
:::r
N
-1.0
o. 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0
l TIME
(SEC)
Fig. 5.4 Floor displacement time for the
L
vs.
Phase I lEI as tic t es t
t
I
J
1
I
I
1
j
I
I
I
I
I
]
r
J
1
J
1
J
j
z
....-
z
W
:L:
W
U
a::
.-l
CL
(f)

o
LJ")
N
z
....-
z
W
:L:
131
1.0
W
U
a::
-1
CL
(f)

o
CD
N
z
r-
z:
W
:L
W
U
a::
-1
0..-
m
o
-1.0
1.0
a: I
N -1.0 __________
O. L.L5 9.0 13.5 18.0
T I ME (SEC)
0
l()
C\,I
E
u
~ . I
Z 0
w 0
~
d
w
0
<!
r
..J
0..
(/)
0
0 I.{)
C'l
10.00
~
,-- r--j
.....
t.
~ . f\. '\ '\ ~ I' . I I - I I - I' "
' fI" (I I 1\ '\ 'I ~ ~ 'I II 'I ,\ ,I II 1\ 1\ '\
t, I I 'I J, ~ I I \ I I I I I I '\
,,\ !rt ~ ~ I A J fl 1/\ ,\ If, ~ I "I A I ~ I \ . '. ii' I ~ ~ ~ !A ~ A, ~ ~ I '. I, 1\
\i
v
v .. , " - I II 'I . I . I I' \ I ..
IJ
V 1.1 \1 \, ,I I I ! I !! ~ J I! v
II
TIME (sec)
2.% DAMPING
Fig. 5.5 Measured and computed displacements for the ZR level
during the Phase II Elastic test (from Ref. 9)
,.,.---- ~ .. ,... ..... ~ ~ ~
--,
--,
r-
'---'l
I-'
Lv
N
--,
J
j
1
i
1
..J
,
~
j
~
\
:z
I-
:z
w
2:
W
U
a:
---1
0..-
(f)
.........
o
(\j
N
z
!---I
~
Z
W
:L .
W
U
IT
---1
0..-
(f)
.........
0
en
N
z
!---I
~
:z
w
:L
W
U
IT
---1
D-
en
.........
0
::::r
N
4.0
-4.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
4.0
University of Illinois
Metz Reference Room
BI06 nCEL
208 N. Romine Street
-4.0 I - - - - - - - - - - ~ I - - - - - - - - - - - - r l - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - ~ I
O. 4.375 8.75 13.125 17.5
T I ME (SEC)
Phase II Inelastic test
:z

I-
:z
W
L
W
U
IT

(l-
en

0
lJJ
N
:z
-
I-
:z
w
L
W
U
cr:

(l-
en

0
c.D
N
a::
N
134
I
0.0
-4.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
4.0
. II

v V V
O. 4.375 8.75 13.125 17.5
T I ME (SEC)
r
i.
r
r

t
I
I
I
I
r-
I
l
i -4:
J
j
f
!
I
I
I
I
1
.j
-4
f
i
135
800 KIPS
4
INCHES
-800 1ST ST(jRY
800 KIPS
4
INCHES
-800 2ND S T ~ Y
second stories for the Phase II Inelastic test
136
800 KIPS
4
-4 INCHES
-800 3RD STClRY
800 KIPS
-4 INCHES
-800 4TH S T ~ R ,
Fig. 5.8 Story shear vs. story displacement for the third. and
fourth stories for the Phase II Inelastic test .
r
I
l
"..
t
f
1
I
I
I
I
[
r
l
r
[
l
r
j
J
f
i
l'
t
j
J
!
l
!
.f
r
1
..
-lJ
-4
137
800 KIPS
INCHES
1 -800 5TH ST(jRi
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 6TH ST(jRi
sixth stories for the Phase II Inelastic test
138
KIP
o. 10
-0. 10 RRD
-0. 10
-500 Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
-500 Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 5.10 Shear link response at the Z2 and Z3 levels
during the Phase II Inelastic test
r
i
i
I
L
r
I
1.
l
[
I
I
I
I
r
r
l
[
[
l

I
I
1
r
t
1
j
I
f
I
I
I
]
1
)
j
j
......,
J
,
j
f
J
139
500 KIP
o. 10
.. -0. 10
RRO
-0.10
1 -500 Zl! LEVEL
500 KIP
-500 Z5 LEVEL
Fig. 5.11 Shear link response at the Z4 and Z5 levels
during the Phase II Inelastic test
140
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRO
-10,000 TrJP
10.000 + K- IN
0.02
-0.02 RRO
-10.000 BrJTTrJM
Fig. 5.12 Moment-rotation relationships for the top and bottom
r-
\
i
L
I
I
I
I
l
I
f
!
l
!
f
I
1
r
j
1
j
1
t
J
.. "l
r
j
7
j
141
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TOP
10,000 K-IN
-0.02
1- -10,000 BClTTClM
142
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 T(jP
10,000 K-IN
-0.02
-10,000
r
r
I
I
I
I
1
r
L
L
1
.!
I
I
I
I
]
r
\
J
--1
i
I
_J
-..
1
143
10.000 K-IN
0.02
RRD
-10,000 T(jP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RAD
-10,000 B[jTT(jM
144
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 81 COLUMN Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 82 COLUMN Z2 LEVEL
Fig. 5.16 Panel zone response for the 81 and 82 columns at the
Z2 level for the Phase II Inelastic test
~
....
i
L.
!
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
l
r
r
l
7--
f
..
[
I
,
J
j
r
!
j
1
.J
J
1
j
145
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 Rl ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
sao KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 R2 ~ L U M N l2 LEVEL
, Fig. 5.17 Panel zone response for the A1 and A2 columns at the
Z2 level for the Phase II Inelastic test
r
I
146
10.0
z:
~
I-
z:
W
::E:
W
0.0 U
r
a:
---1
CL
m
~
0
;.
(\J
t
N
-10.0 ,

1
10.0 r
:z
l
~
l-
I
:z
w
L
W
0.0 u
I
cr::
---1
CL
en
~
I
0
('I)
N
-10.0
I
10.0
I
z
...-..
I-
[.
z
W
L
W
0.0
r
u
IT
(
--.J
CL
en
L
...-..
0
:::tt
N
-10.0
r
o. 01J375 .875 1.3125 1. 75
TIME
(SEC)
r-
l
Fig. 5.18 Floor di spl acemen ts vs. time for the
Phase II Sin usoi dal tests
L
t
.
147
10.0
,......
z

J

z:
W
::L
W
0.0
r
u
a:
...J
0-
m

0
Ul
N
-10.0
I
I
1
I
10.0
f
..
Z
t--1
I

z
W
:L:
W
0.0
I
u
IT
.....J
(L
(J)
I

0
lO
-10.0 1
N
1
J
10.0
z
t--1
I-
Z
w
L
w
0.0
u
_l a:
.....J
c...
t
(f)
1
0
a::
N
-10.0 I I I I
o. .4:375 .875 1.3125 1. 75
TIME
(SEC)
I
,;
: t
Fig. 5.18 (con tinued)
r
l
-i
148
800 KIPS
4
-lJ INCHES
-800 1ST ST(JR'I
800 KIPS
-4 INCHES
.1 -800 2ND ST(JRY
second stories for the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
[
I
I
I
I
f
...
t.
f
(
;
t.
.,
,
1
I
I
j
!
J
....
INCHES
I -800 4TH STDRI'
fourth stories for the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
-4
150
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 5TH STOR,(
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 6TH STOR,(
sixth stories for the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
r
t
l
f
ir
;
1.
I
I
I
I
[
l
r
1:.:
r
I
i
r
I
I
(
1
i
J
1
j
{
.J
j
151
deformation in the shear link the
23 during the Phase II Inelastic test
and during the first cycle of the Sinusoidal
t
152
Fig. 5.23 Yielding and t ~ r i n g of the gusset plate at the
Z2 level during the second cycle of the
Si:lusoid3.l test
r
I
I
i .
r-
l
I
I
I
i
r
,
1
L
r

153
I
1.0
f
0
1'--4
I-
a:
a:
r
a:
a:
w
::r:
r
tn
0.0
0 5 10 15 TIME - SEC. 20
PHRSE 2 INELRSTIC 1ST ST[JRY
r
1.0
D
,
I-
a:
a:
I
cc
a:
w
I
tn
I
0.0
0 5 10 15 TIME - SEC. 20
,
PHRSE 2 INELRSTIC 2ND ST[JRY
t
I
1.0
D
-1 l-
I
IT
a:
a::
IT
j
W
I
(f')
1
l-
0.0
i
0 5 10 15 TIME - SEC. 20
\
PHRSE 2 INELRSTIC 3RD ST[JRY
.J
~ BT BRRCES ~ BY FRRMES
i
;
-Z
Fig. 5.24 Ratio of story shear carried by the braces to the total
. ~
during the Phase II Inelastic tests
i
~
...

154
r
1.
1.0
.-
EJ
....
I-
cr:
cc
:
:
:
r
a:
l
a:
w
:c
(J1
r
r
l
0.0
0 1 2 TIME - SEC. 3
r:

PHRSE 2 SINUSeJIDRL 1ST STLJRY
1.0
f'
t
0
f
r-
a:
a:
a:
I
a:
w
:r:
(J1
I
0.0
0 2 TIME - SEC. 3
PHRSE 2 SINUSeJIDRL 2ND STLJRY I-
1.0
I
D

() W ____

[>[)
r-
l
a:
a:
a:
a:
f
w
:r:
(J1

00
00
1_
0
0
0
0.0
l 1
':J
TIME - SEC. 3 0 1
PHRSE 2 SINUSeJIDRL 3RD STLJRY
l-
BY BRRCES BY FRRMES
f
j
L
Fig. 5.25 Ratio of story shear carried by the braces to the total
l
during the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
,
).
t
f
1
.!
T
i
,
1
I
!

i:
155
West side of shear link of 2F girder at maximum negative floor
displacemen t
West side of north-brace gusset plate at 2F girder
Fig. 5.2,") Damage to the brace-to-girder connection for the braces
in the first story during the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
156
Looking up at 2F girder shear link at maximum negative
displacemen t
Looking up at 2F girder shear link at maximum negative
displacement for
f

i
i
t.
I
I
I
I
l
[
r-
L.
l
(
r
1
J
!
-
-5.0
1--.-'
-5.0
....,.,
.-'
157
750 KIP
-750
750 KIP
-750
__ --7
BY BRRCE
5.0
IN
BY FRRME
Fig. 5.27 Story shear vs. story displacements as carried (a) by the
braces and (b) by the moment frames of the first
story during the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
-0.10
-0.10
Fig. 5.28
158
500 KIP
RRD
I -500 Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
1 -500 Z3 LEVEL
Shear link response at the Z2 and Z3 levels during
the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
f
I
I
1-
I
(
t
[
l
l
r
Ie
'(
I
159
I
500
1
KIP
r
r
I
0.10
I -0.10 RRD
J
I
I
I
-500 Z4: LEVEL
I
I
sao KIP
I
]
')
I
\
-0.10
)
t
1
1
J -500 ZS LEVEL

Fig. 5.29 Shear link response at the Z4 and Z5 levels during
t
....
160
500 KIP
o. 10
-0. 10 RRD
-500 Z6 LEVEL
500 KIP
o. 10
-0. 10 RRD
-500 ZR LEVEL
Fig. 5.30 Shear link response at the z6 and ZR levels during
po
4
,
I
r
t- .
f"
..
r-
!
t
t
~
i..
:T
t
:1
r
t ~ :
f'
L
I
I
I
I
I
i:
L
[
[
\
l
I
I
I
r
I
r
(
j
]
J
<
i
,
,
.J
-'o!
I
161
5.31 Yielding at the bottom of the B2 column
the Sinusoidal tests
162
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TOP
10.000 K-IN
-10,000 BOTTOM
Phase II Sinusoidal tests
I
t
r
!
(
)
!
f
I
I
I
I
I
(
i.
t
'l
i
]
J
J
1
I
I
J
1
]
1

..
!
,
..J
163
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 Tap
10,000 K-IN
T
0.02
-0.02 RRO
-10,000 B(jTT(jM
of the 81 column of the second story during the
164
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRO
1 -10,000 TClP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
v
t -10,000 BClTT(jM
.
,.
\
{
..
,
;
r:
l
I
I
I
i
l
f
t .
{
l
j
f
j
,
i
t
I
I
r
r
1
r
j
1
l
. !
I
-
165
10.,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRO
-10,000 TrJP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RAO
-10,000 B(jTTDM
166
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TCJP
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRO
-10,000 B ~ T T j M
r
f
t
r
t
[
I
I
I
I
l
r
[
l
)
j
r
r
J
'- i
,
r
I
f
I
1
f
j
f
,"
'"
"1
J
i
-
167
10.000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 T(jP
10,000 K-IN
-0.02 RRD
1 -10,000 ~ T T ~ M
168
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 TOP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
. I -10.000
BOTTOM
r
I
!
.
r
t
l
f
i
f
I
i
I
I
r
{
l
[
f
L
I
j
J
f
j
f
...
169
10.,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
! -10.000 T(jP
10,000 K-IN
0.02
-0.02 RRD
-10,000 B(jTT(jM
170
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 81 ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
500 T KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 B1 ~ L U M N Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 5.40 Panel zone response for the 81 column at the 22 and 23
levels during the Phase II Sinusoidal tests
L
!.. .
[
i
I
I
I
\
L
r
f
f
,
l
1
r
I
]
r
I.
I
I
I
I
j
1
j
1
j
j
-1
j
171
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 62 CDLUMN Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
-500 B2 CDLUMN Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 5.41 Panel zone response for the B2 column at the Z2 and Z3
172
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRD
! -500 Rl ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
500 KIP
0.025
-0.025 RRO
-500 Rl ~ L U M N Z3 LEVEL
Fig. 5.42 Panel zone response for the A1 column at the 22 and 23
! .
L
r
,
f
I:
I
I
I
I
f
l
[
r
L
'. I
!
173
..
!
i
500 KIP
1
j
I
~
j
-0.025 RRO
I
r
1 -500 R2 ~ L U M N Z2 LEVEL
I
I
500 KIP
I
)
0.025
J
.J
-0.025 RRD
..,
t
!
'1
~
j
I
t
~
---
Fig. 5.43 Panel zone response for
the A2 col urnn
at the
Z2 and Z3
1 levels during the Phase
II Sinusoidal
tests I
J
J
a:
o
o

1..L
ZA
Z6
Z5
ZLJ
Z3
Z2
-9.0
a
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
,
I
\
\
\

\
\
\
\
\

174
iii
I
I

i
j
i

i
i
!
.
r :
\ I
tt
\ !
it
I
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rj
I
I
,
I

,
I
I
I
I
I
I

,
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
DISPLRCEMENT (I N)
a
,
I
I
I
13---------8
& - - --C!
Fig. ) . .:...:. Envelope of maximum story displacements
for the Phase II tests
ELRSTIC
[NELRSTI C
SINUSOIDRL
9.0
r
r
i
L
f
I
I
I
I
r
l
r
I
f
L
t
I
>-
a:
0
I
t-
en
,
,
J
I
-
I
j
-.
1

?

J
1
I
j
ZR
Z6
Z5
Z4
Z3
t
I
Z2
-.025
I
I

I
I
I
6
I
,
I
I
I
I
175
DRIFT
\
\
$
I
a--------8 ELRST I C
G-----G INELRSTIC
SINUSOIDRL
.025
Fig. 5.45 Envelope of maximum story drifts
for the Phase II tests
176
6.0
L
z:
I----i
l-
f
z:
t
W
:L
W
0.00
r
u
0:
-l
CL
(f)
~
0
~
(\J
N
f
-6.0
. ~
J
6.0
i.
z:
I----i
[ I-
z:
W
2:
I
w
0.00 U
0:
-l
CL
f
en
~
0
en
N
I
-6.0
6.0 I
z
r
I----i
I-
2t..
Z
W
L
r
w
0.0
!
u
a:
-l
CL
l
(f)
1--1
0
::j'I
r
N
-6.0
o. 8.0 16.0 2lJ.0 32.0
TIME
(SEC)
f
[

Fig. 6. 1 Floor di splacements vs. time for the Phase III tests
!
*--
i
J
~
177
6.0
z

I-
Z
W
:L
W
0.00 U
a:
--1
Q...
en
.........
0
UJ
N
-6.0
6.0
z
1--1
I-
z:
W
:L
W
0.00 U
a:
--1
I
0.....
c..n
.........
0
,
CD
N
-6.0
1
]
6.0
J
z
1--1
I-
z:
,
W
!o
L
l:
J
w
0.0 U
IT
1
--1
0.....
(fl
iii ...-.
0
i a::::
i
N
...J
-6eO I
o. 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0
TIME
(SEC)
.J
...
t
Fig. 6. 1 (continued)
i
!
...
-4
-4
178
800 KIPS
INCHES
-800 1ST ST(JRY
800
I
KIPS
INCHES
-800 2ND ST(jR,(
second stories during the Phase III test
r
,

t...
.-

.
!
i
t
r
I
I
I
I
[
t
L
r
IT
i
I
L
l
r
1
~ i. __ ., ... _ ........ L . . . _ ~ I,",,,... ...._.... .1......_.-4 ~ - _
C) G)
o 0
C) C)
o 0
SWAYMECHANISM
o
____ --f
,
0
.-
0
,Q
o
0.-
1
___ _
)
0
I--'
-.....I
1..0
ROCKINGMECHRNISM
Fig. 6.3 General attachment details for exterior wall panels
E
E
LO
r<>
r<>
E
E
LO
C\I
180
PANEL
TOP OF SLAB
LEVEL 3
.........
..... , .. ' :
:::.
: ..... '
... , .'"
1_ 450mm
CLIP
,
.1
40mm
DUCTILE ROD
LATERAL CONNECTION
450mm
CLIP ANGLE
TOP OF SLAB
LEVEL 2
GIRDER
BEARING CONNECTION
E
E
LO
W
r<>
260mm
450mm
TOP OF SLAB
LEVEL 5
GIRDER
'- BENT PLATE
WITH SLOT
,'-5/
8
11
DIA. ROD
SLOTTED HOLE
LATERAL CONNECTION
. "0',
TOP Of SLAB
LEVEL 4
.0 : :::.,:
: :.: ., -:: 1-_-_-_-_-_- __ : .. .. :','
.:. ::... Co
:";a, ::.:
'"' " .... o. .. : ,.;,..-._. '_-.;...:' .....,;'_. '.!-oj'
/GIRDER
TUBE
BEARING CONNECTION
Fig. 6.4 General attachment details for exterior wall panels
(from Ref. 12)
r
j
t -
,-'
i
\
i..
f
..
I:
1-
I
I
I
[;
f
L
L
[
r
L_
l

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SEISMIC TEStiNG OF A FULL-SCALE SIX-STORY STEEL BUILDING

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

PRELIMINARY REPORT ON SEISMIC TEStiNG OF A FULL-SCALE SIX-STORY STEEL BUILDING

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 ' 1

You might also like