5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan

Earthquake Simulation Tests on

a 1:15 Scale 25-Story RC Flat-Plate Core-Wall Building Model

H.S. Lee1, S.H. Choi2, K.R. Hwang2, Y.H. Kim3, S.H. Lee4
1 Professor, School of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, Korea, E-mail: hslee@korea.ac.kr
2 Graduate student, School of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, Korea University, Republic of Korea
3 Engineer, Daebang construction Co. Ltd, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4 Professor, Dept. of. Architechral Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of earthquake simulation tests on a 1:15 scale 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall
building model satisfying the detailing requirement of the special shear wall system. The following conclusions
are drawn based on the test results: (1) The fundamental period of the test model simulates well that of the
prototype obtained using the elastic mode analysis at the design phase, and the base shear coefficient of the test
model shows much larger values than that estimated in accordance with KBC2009, or IBC2006. (2) In the test,
the vertical distribution of acceleration under the shake table excitations reveals the effect of the higher modes
with the free vibration after the termination of shake table excitations being governed by the first mode. (3) The
maximum inter-story drift ratio of the test model, 0.43%, under the design earthquake in Korea was much
smaller than the design limit, 1.5%. And, (4) the modes of cracks appear to be the combination of flexure and
shear in the slab around the peripheral columns and in the coupling beam.
KEYWORDS: reinforced concrete; flat plate; special shear wall; earthquake simulation test

1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, the number of high-rise buildings (higher than 30 stories) has been increasing, for the efficient use of
available housing site. For these high-rise buildings, a combined system of core shear walls: a lateral load
resistance structural system, and flat-plates: a gravity load resistance structural system, has been widely used.
These structural types in current seismic provisions, KBC2009 [1] and IBC2006 [2], are classified as dual frame
or building frame system. For the shear walls in the building frame system, special shear walls, for which special
seismic detailing requirements are imposed, or ordinary shear walls, which have a height restriction, have been
generally used. However, in the case of the RC flat-plate structure, seismic detailing requirements for the
connection with columns are given only as part of intermediate moment frames in ACI 318-05 [3]. Furthermore,
in the dual frame or building frame systems, two vertical shear walls generally include regular openings, and are
connected each other with coupling beams, which have a great effect on the lateral resistance behavior. Although
a number of experimental and analytical studies [4-6] have been done on the high-rise structure, the information
is still not sufficient for design. This study investigated the seismic characteristics of this type of building
structure through a shaking table tests on 1:15 scale 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall building mode.

2. DESIGN OF THE MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Among the RC flat-plate core-wall building structures constructed in Korea, the most typical type was chosen as
a prototype: This was originally a 35-story flat-plate building, where each floor has four dwelling units, and each
dwelling unit has the size of 188m2, as shown in Fig. 2.1 (a). However, due to limitation in the capacity of the
shake table at the earthquake simulation test center of Pusan National University (size 5m x 5m, payload 600 kN)
and for the convenience of construction of the model, the number of the stories of the prototype for the shaking
table test was reduced to 25 (height: 79.5m), and staircases and slabs inside the core walls were all omitted as
shown in Fig. 2.1 (b). The height of the first story is 5.1m, with those of the other stories being 3.1m. In the
prototype building, core walls take most of resistance to the lateral load, and peripheral frames are designed to
resist only the gravity load, in accordance with the definition of the building frame system. The result of elastic
analysis of the prototype building shows that the core walls resisted 87% of the total lateral load. The size of all
the peripheral columns is 900900mm, and the thickness of the core walls is 600mm, with that of the slab being

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
300mm, all along the height of the structure. The design concrete strength (fc), 40 MPa, and the yield strength of
reinforcement, 400MPa, are applied to the whole building structure. The dead load of the prototype is 12,257kN
for the second floor, 10,340kN for the typical floors (third to twenty fifth floors), 10,960kN for the roof, and
261,000kN in total. The effective seismic weight is set as the dead load, and live load is not included.
27000

8100
750

1038

360

1100

590

265 150 265

540

8100
750

1100

3700
5700
2000

28500

Column : 900 900mm

Slab thickness : 300mm
Wall thickness : 600mm
fc = 40MPa
Y
fy = 400MPa

2075

1037

3875

1900
620

760

2450
3875

590

540

8700

5400 5400

9600

360

750
8700

1900

750

28500

(a) Plan of the prototype building

(b) Plan of the 1:15 scale model
Figure 2.1 Plan of the prototype building and specimen
The size and payload of a shaking table in the Earthquake Test Center of Pusan National University are 5m5m
and 600kN, respectively, and the model was scaled down to 1/15, taking availability of model reinforcement and
constructability into consideration. Corresponding to the prototype reinforcement (D29, D16, D13) of the
prototype, the scale model (1:15) used steel wires, 2 and 1 for model reinforcement. (Fig. 2.2 (a)) The
average compressive strength of the model concrete is 46.9MPa, which is larger than design compressive
strength, 40MPa. The average split tensile strength is 4.21MPa, about 1/10 of the compressive strength. Fig. 2.2
(b) shows that the stress-strain relations of the model concrete simulate well that of the full-scale concrete.
60

Before annealing

1.5
1

Fy, min = 1.14kN

After
annealing

0.5
0
0

10
15
20
Displacement(mm)

Full-scale

50

Fy, max = 1.48kN

25

Stress (MPa)

Force(kN)

40
Test piece 1
Test piece 2
Test piece 3
Test piece 4
Test piece 5
Test piece 6
Secant modulus, Ec
Todeschini, 1964

30
20
10
1

0
0

Ec = 21,800MPa
0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Strain (mm/mm)

(a) Force versus strain relation of 2 (D29)

(b) Stress-strain curve of model concrete
Figure 2.2 Material test results of model reinforcement and concrete
Even with a high reduction factor of 15, the required self-weight of the model is 1,160kN, which still exceeds the
capacity of the shaking table, 600kN, if the true replica model were used (Table 2.1). Therefore, the models
weight should be reduced further, by using a distorted model. The relationship of scale factors in physical
quantities is given in Eq. 2.1. In Fig. 2.2 (b), shape and strength in the stress-strain curves in the model concrete
appear to be similar to those in the full-scale concrete. Thereby, the similitude scale factor for modulus of the
elasticity of concrete, SE, is assumed to be 1. [7]

SE
=1
S S a Sl

(2.1)

Taking into account the length similitude factor, Sl of 1/15, and the weight of available steel plates for added
artificial mass, the density similitude factor, S, was chosen to be 4.18. Therefore, the acceleration similitude factor,
Sa, was determined as 3.59 to satisfy Equation (1). The similitude law applied to the test model is summarized in
Table 2.1. The total effective seismic weight of the prototype was 261,000kN (self-weight: 205,100kN, additional
dead load: 55,900kN). According to the similitude law in Table 2.1, the total effective seismic weight of the true
replica model is 1,160kN (self-weight: 60.8kN, added load: 1,099kN), and the total weight of the test model, as for
a distorted model, is 323kN, (self-weight: 60.8kN, added weight: 262.2kN) 1/3.59 of the total seismic weight of the
true replica model.
Fig. 2.3 shows an overview of the model. Displacement transducers and accelerometers were installed at the

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
floors of the 6th, 10th, 14th, 18th, and 22nd stories, and at the roof, to measure the overall behavior of the model
as shown in Fig. 2.5. Furthermore, displacement transducers were deployed to measure the local behaviors of the
walls and foundations. Steel blocks as shown in Fig. 2.4, were attached to the model, to compensate for the
difference between the weight of model itself and that required as per similitude law in Table 2.1.

Scale Factor
Sl
SE
S
Sa= SE / (S Sl)
SE Sl 2

Frequency

S a / Sl

Time

Table 2.1 Similitude law

True replica model
1/15
1
15 (total weight = 1,160kN)
1
1 (1/15)2

Distorted model
1/15
1
4.18 (total weight = 323.3kN)
1 / (4.18 1/15) = 3.59
1 (1/15)2
3.59 /(1 / 15) = 3.59 15

15

1 / S a / Sl

1 / 15

1 / 3.59 15

Displacement meter
(6, 10, 14, 18, 22F)
Accelerometer
(6, 10, 14, 18, 22F)

300

11 97

A view

Y
X

(a)
7

Figure 2.3 Overview of the model

B view

LVDTs
D13,D14 A1

A2

Accelerometer
A13 A14

D1,D2

D15,D16 A3

A4

A15 A16

D3,D4

D17,D18 A5

A6

A17 A18

D5,D6

D19,D20 A7

A8

A19 A20

D7,D8

D21,D22 A9

A10

A21 A22

D9,D10

A23 A24
D23,D24 A11 A12
Load Cell

D11,D12

30

30

Quantities
Length
Elastic modulus
Density
Acceleration
Force

30

Reference
Frame
shaking table

Figure 2.4 Steel block (Added

mass)

shaking table

A VIEW
B VIEW
(b)
Figure 2.5 Instrumentation of the 1:15 scale model (D: disp., A: accel.):
(a) Plan and (b) Elevation

The program of earthquake simulation tests is summarized in Table 2.2. The target or input accelerogram of the
table was based on the recorded 1952 Taft N21E (X direction) and Taft S69E (Y-direction) components, and was
formulated by compressing the time axis with the scale factor of, 1 / 15 3.59 , and by amplifying the
acceleration with the scale factor, 3.59, according to the similitude law in Table 2.1. X, Y, and XY in designation
of each test mean that the excitations were implemented in the X direction only, in the Y direction only, and in
the X and Y directions simultaneously, respectively.
Table 2.2 Test Program (X-dir.: Taft N21E, Y-dir.: Taft S69E)
Test
Designation

Measured PGA(g) /
3.59
Y-dir.
X-dir.
Y-dir.
White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.0243
0.040
0.034
0.040
0.0243
0.034
White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.052
0.080
0.065
0.080
0.052
0.065
White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.127
0.176
0.140
0.176
0.127
0.140

Intended PGA(g)
X-dir.

0.035X
0.035Y
0.035XY

0.035

0.07X
0.07Y
0.07XY

0.070

0.154X
0.154Y
0.154XY

0.154

0.035

0.070

0.154

Return
Test
period
Designation
in Korea

X-dir.

Elastic
Behavior

0.187X
0.187Y
0.187XY

0.187

0.3X
0.3Y
0.3XY

0.300

50 years

0.4X
0.4Y
0.4XY

0.400

500 years

Measured PGA(g) /
Return
3.59
period
in Korea
Y-dir.
X-dir.
Y-dir.
White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.137
Design
0.216
0.167 Earthquake
(DE)
0.216
0.137
0.167
White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.226
MCE
0.345
0.253
2400 years
0.345
0.226
0.253
White Noise (0.025 X, Y)
0.300
DE in San
0.460
0.354
Francisco
USA
0.460
0.300
0.354

Intended PGA(g)

0.187

0.300

0.400

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan

3. TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

3.1. Global Responses

0.8

Elastic, Sd (KBC2009)
Inelastic, Sd (KBC2009)
Output (0.187g X-dir)
Output (0.187g Y-dir)
Output (0.3g X-dir)
Output (0.3g Y-dir)

Sa

0.6
0.4

MCE
DE(R=1.0, I=1.0)
DE(R=6.0, I=1.2)

0.2
0.0
0

0.1

0.2
0.3
Period (sec)

0.4

0.5

Figure 3.1 KBC 2009 design spectra and output

response spectra

Base shear coefficient, Cs

Fig. 3.1 compares the elastic design spectrum of KBC2009 and acceleration response spectra of the shaking table
output, showing that the table excitation simulated well the elastic design spectrum of the design earthquake
(0.187XY) and the maximum considered earthquake (0.3XY).
0.15

Exp. X-dir.
Exp. Y-dir.

DE(I=1.0, R=1.0)
Ty(anal.)=0.277sec

0.1

Tx(anal.)=0.357sec

0.05

0
0.15

0.3
0.3
0.187
Cs,(design)=0.0253
0.154 0.154
0.187
0.07
0.07
DE(I=1.2, R=6.0)
0.035 0.035

0.25

0.35
0.45
Period (sec)

0.55

0.65

Figure 3.2 Relation of the natural period and base

shear coefficient (Cs) with the design spectra

Mode shapes and natural periods were shown in Fig. 3.3 from the frequency response function (FRF) analysis, by
using the data of accelerations obtained through white noise tests. The vibration amplitudes in the second and third
vibration modes in the X- and Y-directions are considerably large, compared to those in the first vibration mode. It
can be found that the vibration amplitude of the second mode was larger than that of the first mode in the X
direction. Table 3.1 shows the natural periods and damping ratios obtained from the FRF analysis. The virgin first
mode natural period appears to be 0.413 sec in the X direction and 0.341 sec in the Y direction. The natural periods
of the prototype from the elastic mode analysis at the design phase were 2.62 sec and 2.03 sec in the X- and Ydirections, respectively. The corresponding natural periods in the 1:15 scale model according to the similitude law
in Table 2.1 are 0.357 sec in the X direction and 0.277 sec in the Y direction. The virgin natural periods from the
test are relatively close to these analytical results. The damping ratio in the first mode is 5.53% in the X direction,
and 4.39% in the Y direction with the damping ratio in the second and third modes being approximately 1.5% in
both X and Y directions. In Table 3.1, the larger the seismic intensity, the longer natural periods the specimen had,
and the damping ratios were around 5% to 7% in the X direction and 4% to 7% in the Y direction.
Table 3.1 Natural periods and damping ratios obtained from the white noise test
X-direction
Y-direction
Seismic intensity
Period (sec)
Damping ratio (%)
Period (sec)
Damping ratio (%)
Before test
0.413
5.53
0.341
4.39
After 0.35XY
0.419
7.26
0.346
4.50
After 0.07XY
0.423
6.14
0.357
4.65
After 0.154XY
0.467
6.43
0.391
4.14
After 0.187XY
0.483
6.28
0.408
5.58
After 0.3XY
0.550
7.57
0.442
5.74
After 0.4XY
0.688
6.03
0.510
7.07
X-dir.

Roof

22

22

18

18

Floor

Floor

Roof

14
10
6

-30

Y-dir.

14
10

1st (0.413s)
2nd (0.0945s)
3rd (0.0486s)
-15
0
15
Vibration Amplitude

30

-30

1st (0.341s)
2nd (0.0696s)
3rd (0.0285s)
-15
0
15
Vibration Amplitude

30

(a) X-direction
(b) Y-direction
Figure 3.3 The first, second, and third vibration modes before the earthquake simulation test

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan

0.1

XY
X

0.08

Base shear coefficient, Cs

Base shear coefficient, Cs

Fig. 3.2 shows the relation between the natural period and maximum base shear coefficient (Cs = V/W) for each
level of tests with the design spectra (Fig. 3.1). In computing the value of Cs, 1,160kN of the true replica model was
used as the seismic weight, W, of the test model. The prototype was designed with the response modification factor
R = 6 and importance factor IE = 1.2. Fig. 3.4 shows the point given by the maximum base shear coefficient (Cs =
V/W) and the corresponding maximum roof drift in each test, and comparison with the design base shear coefficient
Cs,design = 0.0253. It can be noted that the base shear coefficient was 0.0361 in the X direction and 0.0518 in the Y
direction in the maximum considered earthquake (0.30XY), which were 1.5 times and 2 times larger than the
design values, respectively. The strength increased further under MCE (0.30XY), and exceeded the elastic design
spectrum with the elongated period (approximately 1.5 times the virgin period) in Fig. 3.2.
X-dir.
0.40g
0.30g

0.06
0.154g

0.04

= 1.51

0.187g
0.02

CS ,(design) = 0.0253

0.070g
0.035g

0
0

20

40

60

0.1

XY
Y

0.08

Y-dir.
0.40g
0.30g

0.06
0.187g
0.154g

0.04
0.02

0.070g
0.035g

80

= 2.05

CS ,(design) = 0.0253

20

Roof drift (mm)

40

60

80

Roof drift (mm)

Figure 3.4 Correlation between maximum roof drift and base shear coefficient
Fig. 3.5 shows the time histories of the base shear and roof drift at the levels of design and maximum considered
earthquakes. The time history can be divided into the duration of table excitation, and that of no table excitation.
No table excitation means the duration when free vibration occurs, after the shake table excitation was
terminated. It can be noted that the maximum response of the base shear and roof drift during the free vibration
period reveals a level of the maximum response similar to that during table excitation. In particular, except for
the Y direction of 0.3XY, all the maximum roof drifts occurred during no excitation rather than during table
excitation. (Fig. 3.5(b)). This phenomenon is also observed in the vertical distribution of drift at time instant
when the roof drift was maximum, as shown in Fig. 3.6. Under 0.4XY, which is assumed to represent the design
earthquake in a high seismicity region, such as San Francisco, USA, the maximum drift during no excitation was
about 2 and 1.5 times larger in the X- and Y-directions, than those during table excitation, respectively.
No Excitation

-46.57

-60.17
8

10

11

(a)

12 13 14
Time(sec)

Table Excitation
Displacement() Displacement()

0.187XY

Base shear in Y-dir.

20

0.187XY
16

17

18

13.24

0
right

middle

left

12

0.187XY
13

14

15

16

17

18

0
-10
right

-20
7

middle

10

11

left

14.70

12 13 14
Time (sec)

15

0.187XY
16

No Excitation
Base shear in X-dir.

57.14

-58.76

-53.68
7

17

18

45
30
15
0
-15
-30
-45
45
30
15
0
-15
-30
-45

0.30XY

Base shear in Y-dir.

76.19

10

11

12 13 14
Time (sec)

Table Excitations

-10
-20
20 7
10 11
Roof8drift9in Y-dir.
10
12.26

90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90

No Excitation

Roof drift in X-dir.

9.20

10

15

Base shear(kN) Base shear(kN)

-35.02

-41.91

(b)

Table Excitation

Base shear in X-dir.

Displacement() Displacement()

Base shear(kN) Base shear(kN)

Table Excitation
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90
90
60
30
0
-30
-60
-90

15

0.30XY
16

17

18

No Excitation
right

Roof drift in X-dir.

middle

left

-15.30
0.30XY

-34.35
Roof drift in Y-dir.

right

middle

10

24.24

left

11

12 13 14
Time(sec)

Figure 3.5 Time histories of the (a) base shear and (b) roof drift

-18.82
15

0.30XY
16

17

18

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
Drift/height(%)
0.7 0.4 0 0.4 0.7 1.1

1.1

1.1

Drift/height(%)
0.7 0.4 0 0.4 0.7 1.1

1.1

Max. Roof drift in X-dir. Table Excitation

Drift/height(%)
0.7 0.4 0 0.4 0.7 1.1

Max. Roof drift in X-dir.

Max. Roof drift in Y-dir. Table Excitation

Max. Roof drift Y-dir.

18
14

18
14
10
6

18
14
10
6

18
14

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

15.30mm, 0.29%

-60 -40 -20 0 20

Drift ()

40

60

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

40

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

34.35mm, 0.65%

24.24mm, 0.46%

-60 -40 -20 0 20

Drift (mm)

Floor

Roof
22

Floor

Roof
22

Floor

Roof
22

Floor

Roof
22

10
6

-60 -40 -20 0 20

Drift ()

60

(a) Table excitation

40

Drift/height(%)
0.7 0.4 0 0.4 0.7 1.1

1.1

No Excitation

No Excitation

10
6

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

18.82mm, 0.36%

60

-60 -40 -20 0

20
Drift (mm)

40

60

(b) No excitation

Figure 3.6 Distribution of the drift at the maximum response of roof drift
Fig. 3.7 shows the vertical distribution of acceleration at instant of the maximum base shear, and roof
acceleration during table excitation, and during no excitation. In this test, the weight of 1/15 scale test model was
reduced to 1/3.59 of the true replica model, as mentioned before. Thus, the input earthquake table acceleration
was increased by the factor of 3.59 according to the similitude law (Table 2.1). During table excitation, the
acceleration distribution reveals higher modes at time instant of the maximum base shear response. In particular,
the distribution at time of the maximum roof acceleration reveals clearly that the second mode governs in both of
X and Y directions: the roof acceleration at the maximum considered earthquake was 0.73g in the X direction
and 1.06g in the Y direction. This distribution is similar to the vibration mode obtained through the white noise
test (Fig. 3.3). On the contrary, the acceleration distributions under the free vibration, during no excitation, were
governed by the first mode.
Max. Baseshear X-dir Table Excitation

Roof
22

18
14

18
14

Floor

Roof
22

10
6

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

-1

Max. Baseshear X-dir

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

No Excitation

0.42g
0.45g

10
6

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

1 -1

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

Max Baseshear. Y-dir

Roof
22
18
14

10
6

0.54g

Max Baseshear. Y-dir Table Excitation

No Excitation

0.33g

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

1 -1

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

-1

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

(a) Maximum base shear

Max. Roof accel X-dir Table Excitation

Floor

Roof
22

0.73g

18
14
10
6

Max. Roof accel X-dir

Roof
22

Max. Roof accel Y-dir Table Excitation

0.4XY
0.3XY

10
6

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

1 -1

Max. Roof accel Y-dir

No Excitation

Roof
0.39g

Max: 1.06g

18
14

0.187XY

-1

No Excitation

0.47g

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

1 -1

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

0.4XY
0.3XY
0.187XY

-1

-0.5
0
0.5
Acceleration (g)

(b) Maximum roof acceleration

Figure 3.7 Distribution of acceleration at instants of maximum base shear and roof acceleration
Fig. 3.8 shows the hysteretic relation between base shear and roof drift in each test, with the thick line and thin
line denoting the response during table excitation, and during no excitation, respectively. The hysteretic curves
during table excitation show sharp peaks and valleys, due to the higher mode effect, whereas those during no
excitation reveal relatively smooth curves, having a large amount of energy dissipation through inelastic
deformation. Elastic behavior was observed under test 0.070XY, with the initial stiffness in the X direction, kx =
4.71kN/mm and in the Y direction, ky = 5.26kN/mm, respectively. Under 0.187XY, design earthquake, some
small amount of energy dissipation occurred, and under the maximum considered earthquake, 0.3XY, larger
inelastic behaviors were observed. Under 0.4XY, the stiffness is kx = 0.97kN/mm in the X direction and ky =
1.79kN/mm in the Y direction. Whereas the stiffness was reduced significantly, and the amount of energy
dissipation increased greatly, the strength degradation was not observed. The behavior in the X direction where
the core wall contains openings, reveals lower values of initial stiffness and strength, and larger energy
dissipation through inelastic behavior than those in the Y direction, where there is no opening in the wall.

Base shear (kN)

Base shear (kN)

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan
100
50

X-dir.

0.070XY
Vmax=24kN

0.187XY
Vmax=42kN

X-dir.

0.3XY
Vmax=59kN

X-dir.

0.4XY
Vmax=71kN

X-dir.

0
Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

-50
-100
100
50

k = 4.71kN/mm

k = 2.36kN/mm

Y-dir.

0.070XY
Vmax=26kN

0.187XY
Vmax=60kN

Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

k = 1.61kN/mm

Y-dir.

0.3XY
Vmax=76kN

Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

k = 0.97kN/mm

Y-dir.

0.4XY
Vmax=83kN

Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

Y-dir.

0
Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

-50
-100

k = 5.26kN/mm

k = 3.67kN/mm

Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

k = 2.55kN/mm

-50 -25
0
25
50 -50 -25
0
25
50
Roof displacement (mm) Roof displacement (mm)

Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

k = 1.79kN/mm

Table
Excitation
No
Excitation

-50 -25
0
25
50 -50 -25
0
25
50
Roof displacement (mm)
Roof displacement (mm)

Fig. 3.8 Hysteretic relation of the base shear and roof displacement under 0.070XY, 0.187XY, 0.3XY, and 0.4XY

3.2 Inter-story drift

Fig. 3.9 shows the vertical distribution of inter-story drift ratios at the time instant when the roof drift reached
maximum. KBC2009 specifies that the inter-story drift ratio (IDR) for buildings of importance group I shall be
within 1.5% of the story height. The test result shows that IDR (0.29%) in the 10th to 13th stories in the X
direction and IDR (0.43%) in the 1st to 5th stories in the Y direction, are the highest under design earthquake,
0.187XY. Under 0.4XY, IDRs are still all within 1.5%, while the maximum inter-story drifts during no
excitation are larger, than those during table excitation.
Roof
22

18
14
10
6

-0.02 -0.01
0
0.01 0.02
Interstory drift ratio (mm/mm)

0.187XY
0.3XY
0.4XY

Y-dir.

18
14
10
6

Roof
22

-0.02 -0.01
0
0.01 0.02
Interstory drift ratio (mm/mm)

0.187XY
0.3XY
0.4XY

X-dir.

Roof
22

18
14

Story

X-dir.

Story

0.187XY
0.3XY
0.4XY

Story

Story

Roof
22

10
6

-0.02 -0.01
0
0.01 0.02
Interstory drift ratio (mm/mm)

(a) Table Excitation

0.187XY
0.3XY
0.4XY

Y-dir.

18
14
10
6

-0.02 -0.01
0
0.01 0.02
Interstory drift ratio (mm/mm)

(b) No Excitation
Figure 3.9 Interstory drift ratio

3.3 Failure mode

Fig. 3.10 shows the crack patterns in the 12th and 18th stories where major cracks were observed in the slab and
coupling beams. After the DE (0.187XY), many flexural cracks were observed near the connection between column
and slab, and minor cracks also occurred in the joint area between slab and core wall, as well as in coupling beams.
After MCE (0.3XY), cracks were expanded, so that the column-slab connection area experienced most of intensive
cracks. Flexural cracks in the slab were also observed due to lateral behavior in the Y direction, and in the core
walls, cracks occurred near the opening area, with flexural and shear cracks in the coupling beams. However, the
columns had no crack at all. The wall cracks were concentrated in the 7th to 16th stories intensively, and the largest
wall cracks were observed in the 11th and 12th stories, where intensive slab cracks were found. In addition, no
crack was found in the short wall in the first story in the X direction having special boundary elements, but a few
shear cracks were observed in the long wall.

Front view at the 12th story (0.187g)

Front view at the 12th story (0.30g)

The right side at the 12th story (0.187g)

The right side at the 12th story (0.30g)
Figure 3.10 Crack patterns in the slab and exterior core wall

5th International Conference on Advances in Experimental Structural Engineering

November 8-9, 2013, Taipei, Taiwan

Front view at the 18th story (0.187g)

Front view at the 18th story (0.30g)

The right side at the 18th story (0.187g)

The right side at the 18th story (0.30g)
Figure 3.10 Crack patterns in the slab and exterior core wall (continued)

4. CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the seismic responses of a high-rise RC flat-plate core-wall building structure, namely
global force-drift relations, higher-mode effect, and failure modes based on the results of the shaking table tests
of a 1:15 scale 25-story RC flat-plate core-wall building model. The conclusions reached are as follows:
(1) The initial first-mode natural periods of the model obtained by using the white nose test were 0.413 sec and
0.341 sec in the X- and Y-directions, which are similar to the 0.357 sec and 0.277 sec in the X- and
Y-directions, respectively, obtained through modal analysis for the design of the prototype.
(2) Under the design earthquake, 0.187XY, the base shear coefficients were 0.0361 in the X direction, and
0.0518 in the Y direction, which are 1.5 times and 2 times larger than the design base shear coefficient of
0.0253. The hysteretic curves between base shear and roof drift show elastic behavior under 0.070XY,
representing the earthquake with a 50 year return period in Korea, whereas inelastic behavior increased
under the design earthquake (0.187XY) and the MCE (0.3XY), with increasing energy dissipation. Under
the design earthquake (0.187XY), the maximum inter-story drift ratio was 0.29% at the 10th to 13th story in
the X direction, and 0.43% at the 1st to 5th story in the Y direction, all of which satisfy the allowable
inter-story drift ratio (1.5%), imposed by KBC 2009 (IBC 2006).
(3) The higher modes were observed in both X and Y directions in the vertical distribution of acceleration. In
particular, when the roof acceleration reached the maximum, the second and third modes effect governed,
and the largest story shear was apparent in the 14th to 21st stories, instead of the first story. The middle
stories experienced intensive cracks in the slabs around the columns, the coupling beams, and walls.
Therefore, for the design of high-rise buildings (about above 70m), where the higher mode effect dominates,
responses when the roof acceleration reaches the maximum could be more critical to the middle stories,
than responses when the base shear or roof drift reaches the maximum.
(4) The model behaved in the first mode during free vibration after termination of excitation, and the maximum
values of base shear and roof drift in this duration can be either similar, or sometimes larger than the values
of the maximum responses during the table excitation. However, the design approach proposed in the
current seismic design codes accounts for the seismic behavior in the time duration of ground excitations,
and does not take into account the free-vibration behavior after excitation. A study on a design approach
that takes this into consideration is required in the future.
AKCNOWLEDGEMENT
The research presented herein was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea, through the
contracts No. 2009-0078771. The writers are grateful for this support.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Architectural Institute of Korea (2009), Korean Building Code (KBC2009), Seoul, Korea. (in Korean)
International Code Council (2006), International Building Code, Country Club Hills, IL.
ACI Committee 318 (2005), Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary (ACI
318-05), American Concrete Institute, Detroit.
Li, C. S., Lam, S. S., Zhang, M. Z., & Wong, Y. L. (2006). Shaking table test of a 1: 20 scale high-rise
building with a transfer plate system. Journal of structural engineering, 132(11), 1732-1744.
Lu, X., Zhou, Y. and Lu, W. (2007). Shaking table model test and numerical analysis of a complex high-rise
building, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 16, 131-164.
Zhou, X., and Li, G. (2010). Shaking table model test of a steel-concrete composite high-rise building.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14(4), 601-625.
Harris, H. G. (1999). Structural modeling and experimental techniques. CRC Press LLC.